1 Did everybody get fired ?

2

I wonder how Drew will come down on this?

3 I'm no conspiracy theorist but BO's birthplace has yet to be settled from my perspective.

4 Mr. Hollister: NO SOUP FOR YOU!

5

I'm no conspiracy theorist  - Iowavette

 

Yes you are.

6 >> I'm no conspiracy theorist but BO's birthplace has yet to be settled from my perspective.

I agree, his birthplace was overlooked.  It should have been looked into more seriously by the press when Obama first became relevant in his campaign for the President. 

That said, this ship has sailed.  We need to stop putting effort into this cause.  Obama is leading our country towards socialism right now.  I think we have plenty of ammunition with which to attack him.

7 There is still plenty of mystery surrounding where he comes from...I don't think it's frivolous.  Let me guess, the judge is a liberal?

8 Many news articles say the state of Hawaii has said Obama was born in Hawaii.  But this is not true, no state of Hawaii official has ever said this.  They have said he has a birth certificate.  Birth certificates were given retroactively to many many children born outside of the USA in Hawaii. 
None of the hospitals in Hawaii have a "certificate of live birth" for Obama that would indicate he was born here.

This issue has never been settled, and Obama has done nothing to help settle it.  His behavior indicates he has something to hide.  I don't understand the scorn heaped on people who are trying to answer a consitutional question about his eligibility.

9 If there's nothing illegal, why the obfuscation? Why not just order it be handed over, and put an end to this bull!

10

Diminished capacity is used to negate mens rea.

(I don't know if that's relevant, but it's all I know about jurisprudence.)

11 Pardon me, is there any evidence at all to suggest he wasn't born in Hawaii?

The argument is made from a negative standpoint -- you dont think there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate he was born in Hawaii.

But do you have any positive evidence suggesting otherwise?

12 I think the birthers should make a 20 minute youtube video named Loose Hope

13 OT  What happened to Ace's post @ the Marine One toys Bitchelle gave Mrs. Brown?  It is (half) on live feed, yet goes to comment box when clicked, and it isn't on site at all.

14 Sorry Ace, I know you feel this ship has sailed and you would rather we not devolve into "truther" like hand self insistance, but the facts are pretty simple.  Obama has intentionally NOT provided proof of birth in the US.  The court has demured from allowing any true and final resolution of the question.  The courts have effectively said, no one can force proof of compliance with this constitutional requirment.

15 "The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Funny, I don't seem to remember much being made of it.  And it sure as hell wasn't resolved.  It was an AP photo of Barry's school enrollment form that listed his birthplace as Honolulu.  It also listed his religion as muslim and his citizenship as Indonesian.  No dual citizenship at the time, to be enrolled in public school there you had to be a citizen.

Obama's father was Kenyan and a British subject, making Barry a dual citizen at birth of America and Britain.  At the time the Constitution was written, "natural born citizen" meant born to parents (as in both) who are citizens.  Ace should not be mocking this issue.

16 So i guess it's news worthy when a suit is dismissed, but not when one is filed?  Am I reading that right?  Ok MSNBC   Ace O spades.  

17 But do you have any positive evidence suggesting otherwise?

As I understand it, there might be something to do with an Indonesian passport or a Kenyan relative purportedly talking about his birthplace there, but all of them are such liars otherwise that it's not taken seriously.

The best evidence is the failure or inability to settle the issue in his favor, and the second best evidence is the circumstances that allow for the Hawaii situation (birth notices in the paper for the purpose of extended family were common, etc).

Of course, if being raised and "mentored" (buggered, I'd guess, in Ayers' case, based on his literature) by Muslims and Communists and rising to power in the Chicago machine isn't a bad thing, why should anyone even research some stupid Constitutional issue?

18 Suspicious birth certificates aside, wouldn't this energy be better spent looking into all of those donations he received during the campaign?  I realize mum is the word once someone wins, but the fact that his campaign finance was so dirty and everyone just gave up once he was elected is bullshit.  I want to know who paid for this monstrosity to happen.

19 I do agree that SOMEONE should have standing to enforce a constitutional requirement, so to that extent I agree.

However, most of those pushing this are not simply contending that jurisprudential, procedural point.

They are contending that he was in fact born in Kenya. Or someplace other than Hawaii.

So I ask again: Is there any positive evidence for this, apart from your belief that Obama hasn't sufficiently documented it?

20

Ace - Pardon me, is there any evidence at all to suggest he wasn't born in Hawaii?

The argument is made from a negative standpoint -- you dont think there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate he was born in Hawaii.

But do you have any positive evidence suggesting otherwise?

Actually yes there is.  Obama's other grandmother swore an affidavit that she was present at Obama's birth in Africa.  There are others who also have supported that assertion, who's names escape me.

 

21 But do you have any positive evidence suggesting otherwise?

During our last go round on this somebody claimed that Berg had a Kenyan birth certificate but he wouldn't release it until a court accepted the case.

I was less than impressed with that, 'evidence', to say the least.

Get ready to hear a bunch about his grandmother. You can hear the tape here (scroll down for the link). I think it's fair to less again, less than impressive.

22 The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

Bullshit. I call shenanigans.

23

The judge and Gabriel can mock this effort all he wants, but this issue will not go away until people are convinced they know the truth. Right now millions do not believe they have been told the truth. Bith certificates posted by Daily Kos and Factcheck.org won't satisfy them. Why should conservatives believe anything Obama says? He lies about everything, so why should we believe him on this?

While I have seen nothing that convinces me Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, I am not going to make fun of those who care enough about the constitution to see that it is followed. Obama's response to all this makes me think he has something to hide. For $20 he could make it go away. Instead he's paying top-notch law firms to fight it. Why?

24 >>> At the time the Constitution was written, "natural born citizen" meant born to parents (as in both) who are citizens. Ace should not be mocking this issue.

Cite?

The theories of why he is not a NBC proliferate. I have heard seven or eight theories. They all have the same conclusion, but even those pushing this issue cannot seem to agree on why is he is not a NBC.

25 Pardon me, is there any evidence at all to suggest he wasn't born in Hawaii?

The Kenyan ambassador did admit on a radio show that Obama's birthplace was well known in Kenya.

26 Obama's other grandmother swore an affidavit that she was present at Obama's birth in Africa.
Posted by: Bill Ciz at March 06, 2009 01:30 PM (ymwj3)

You have a link to that?

27 i think it would be kind of surprising to a lot of people -- say, the children of Vietnam vets who had married Vietnamese women before they were citizens -- that they are not "natural born citizens."

If I marry a British girl and have a child, my kid's not a natural born citizen?

28 How do you feel about the Quo Warranto Statute?   Seems to be the best way to resolve this issue.  How would you all feel, that in 4 yrs, clown runs for reelection and has to produce a BC and cant?  Get it done so we can move on already.

29 >>>Obama's other grandmother swore an affidavit that she was present at Obama's birth in Africa.

Nope. She didn't understand the question and quickly corrected herself when she did.

30 why don't they go to boston and ask aunt toefuti?

she still living in the housing development as an illegal immigrant?
or has O stepped up to  the plate and sponsored the woman who he wrote about in his book?

She should get some $$ for her part in that story. If she had a decent lawyer, she could sue her nephew for enough to buy a Barney Frank home.

31

But do you have any positive evidence suggesting otherwise?

Try that line of reasoning at your next job interview when they ask for proof of citizenship...

Seriously, no birth certificate, no college transcripts, no client list.  You can't get a job driving a garbage truck with this little documentation - how do you get to the highest job in the land with it...

32 Also, the API tape issue disappeared as suddenly as it appeared. Was there anything to that? Their site's back up, oddly claiming the information is behind a password available from their editor...

33 @25
I was just listening to that NiceDeb.  He's just an ambassador though...don't listen to him.

34 The theories of why he is not a NBC proliferate. I have heard seven or eight theories. They all have the same conclusion, but even those pushing this issue cannot seem to agree on why is he is not a NBC.

I think this is because there is a lot of info out there and different cases stating different things, all seem to have some merit to it imho, i was always under the impression that to be a NBC, both parents had to be citizens, otherwise, why would the constitution make the distinction by using the words citizen and natural born citizen in it

35 At the time the Constitution was written, "natural born citizen" meant born to parents (as in both) who are citizens. Ace should not be mocking this issue.
Posted by: ccruse456 at March 06, 2009 01:29 PM (GHJ3w)

Awesome, another person who has never read US v. Wong Kim Ark

36 Between the Truthers, the Birthers, and Reich - just to scratch the surface - there seems to be a lot of  the "Devil in your woodpile" / Salem witch hysteria going on lately.

Before, it all amused me as a kind of devolved JFK kook thing, now I'm not so sure. Luckily, this one could be solved with a piece of paper [easily forged, as some of the Birthers would then no doubt argue].

It isn't that I regard the question as unimportant, just that I think there may be more pressing concerns.

37 >>>"I don't understand the scorn heaped on people who are trying to answer a consitutional (sic) question about his eligibility."<<<

I do. It's called 'intimidation', and Judge Robinson's statement "...The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere.." is way out of line and worty of sanction.

But he represents the system, and I understand that's how the system works nowadays.

What I don't understand is the whole 'that ship has sailed' bullshit.

The man has never proved that he's eligible to be President of the United States, and until he does, he's not my President.

Period. (Dip your balls in THAT, Malor).

38 During our last go round on this somebody claimed that Berg had a Kenyan birth certificate but he wouldn't release it until a court accepted the case.

Admittedly, that there sounds like the Bigfoot costume in the freezer.  But there is anecdotal evidence, as mentioned, that the brights lights of the operating room that greeted the Baby Barry might have been running off the battery of a '43 Land Rover.

39 Too many lawyers on this board.  The difference is between a legal issue and a democratic one.

Certainly as a legal issue, there is no hope of forcing a resolution as there is simply no enforcing mechanism in the Constitution.

I'm sure the framers assumed that even with a popular figure that the press would go out of its way to find out that information.

Bwahahahahahahaha.

Whew, sorry....deep breath...OK,

Now, as a matter of democracy, it's outrageous that a public servant thinks so little of the electorate that he can just avoid a simple question like this.  In particular to go through the elaborate machinations with the COLB, releasing it to KOS, releasing it on his own website later, but not bothering with the original form -- which exists in Hawaii archives -- is insulting to me as a citizen.  The very fact that he released a COLB indicates his lack of interest in privacy on this matter.

I think the lawyers should tell the judge ('94 Clinton appointee, resigned from FISA in 2005 or so, most believe to embarrass the President) that they should pay the lawyers the $12.50 that it would cost to release the BC that would have resolved the issue in its entirety.

FYI, this isn't a right-wing thing.  The first such suit was brought by Phil Berg, former Pennsylvania statewide officeholder and Democrat in good standing.

40 ...that's "worthy" of sanction...

41 Damn Kenyan sockpuppets

42

"For $20 he could make it go away. Instead he's paying top-notch law firms to fight it. Why?"

It's all about his legacy. At least one of the reasons he's keeping it from being released is because it says he's white.

From what I've heard, children born back then were automatically listed as the same race as the mother.

Makes sense. The doctor that delivered him would know, without a doubt, who his mother is. It would be much harder to prove, whithout a doubt, who his father is.

He doesn't want his presidency asterisked in the history books something like:

 "Barak Obama, The 2nd black president*"

_{*Birth certificate records show him as white. Bill Clinton was the 1st black president.}

43

Ace hits the nail on the head.

It doesn't matter where he was born. He could have been born on the moon, and he would still be a US citizen from the second he was born. The 14th amendment states that the children of American citizens are automatically citizens, regardless of their place of birth.

"Natural Born Citizen" = "citizen at birth"

He had an American mother. He is a citizen from birth. He is qualified (constitutionally at least).

44 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I dont see the term Natural Born Citizen,  oddly enough, there is only one time it appears in the constitution and that for the President of the united states.  If O was born in Hawaii, he is not doubt a CITIZEN, but does that make in a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?   That is the question of the NBC cases

45 I think he's hiding the birth certificate because it lists Frank Marshall Davis as the father. That's based on the fact that he looks like Davis, Davis took an interest in him while he was growing up, Davis wrote a semi-autobiographical book where he talks about nailing young white chicks in Hawaii, he looks nothing like Obama Sr, and he shows no signs of being bright enough to be the kid of a black guy smart enough to get into a Harvard grad program in the early 60s.

But he could just be a coke snorting communist who cheated his way into the presidency and is now busily destroying America.

46 No legitimate birth certificate was ever presented. Even the people here in Hawaii knew that the "birth certificate" shown on a web site did not match the birth certificates normally issued in the state of Hawaii.


Show a legitimate birth certificate and force this crap to stop.

47

35 At the time the Constitution was written, "natural born citizen" meant born to parents (as in both) who are citizens. Ace should not be mocking this issue.

Awesome, another person who has never read US v. Wong Kim Ark

DrewM,

I've read Wong Kim Ark and it dealt with citizenship. The court did not define  NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

48

You have a link to that? - Posted by: DrewM.

I had links to that.  But I haven't kept them.  I'm sort of with Ace that there is a negative return on pressing this issue while Obama hold the high ground on popularity.  I personally believe he was born in Hawaii, and that the reason he refuses to put the issue to bed is two fold.  One, the facts of his birth will probably reveal that Obama father is NOT Obama.  There is other circumstances that suggest that a family friend and prominant civil rights activist who was married actually fathered Barry, and Obama was simply tapped as a stand in to avoid the scandal.  If Obama let that be known, it would really undermine the who "Dreams of my Father" angle.

Additinally, why would Obam settle the issue since it provides a "truther" like scandal that he and his followers can use to ridicule Obama's detractors.  As I said, as long as Obama holds the high ground in public opinion polls, this is a losing issue.

But that don't make it settled.

49 Sorry got to disagree with you on this one.  Still think he is native born, but I wouldn't call it frivolous when the matter hasn't been proven.  I contend that every person running for president must produce the required documentation to prove he or she meets the 3 constitutional requirements for the office.

50 Here's the article that convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

51 30 why don't they go to boston and ask aunt toefuti?
She's in Cleveland now. OR in the White House attic.

52 I am not real big on this issue but the way I have understood it is that if Obama was born in Hawaii there would be a live birth certificate (a "vault" certificate?)

Hawaii apparently issues birth certificates for citizens born out of the country.

If this is true I don't understand why a citizen doesn't have the right demand proof of qualification.

You have to prove your 21 to order a drink, for Christ's sake, you don't tell the bartender he has to prove you're under 21 before he can refuse you.

What I don't understand why these things are being blocked in the courts instead of the "vault" certificate being produced.

I can't say I care too much about this, I assume he was born in Hawaii, but the whole thing seems rather strange to me.

53

At present there is no process for enforcing the constitutional provision that candidates for president be natural born citizens. McCain also had serious issues on this front. This issue is NOT frivilous, even if, as Ace has noted before, it may not be politic for conservatives to press this. This NEEDS to be addressed by the courts. The citizenry may have blogged, twittered and massaged the issue, but none of this did anthing to compell proof of Obama's natural born status. Only a legal process can compell proof, which is why a legal process needs to be established for the enforcement of this constitutional provision.

In Obama's case, we have a newspaper notice from the time of his birth, and we have a certificate from Hawaii that can be issued to foreign born children. The newspaper notice makes it very unlikely that Obama was foreign born, but it is not proof. The people who are demanding proof have a right to it. No matter how impolitic you may find their effort, THEY are the ones who are in the right. This is just another example of conservatives finding lazy excuses to rip on other excuses, like Jimbo's dishonest rip on Zombie the other day, and Charles Johnson's moronic jihad against heroes like Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellar.

I'm not saying never criticize conservatives. I criticize the people who are pressing the natural-born suits for framing their case in terms of actually not believing that Obama is eligible, instead of a need for there to be a legal process for enforcing an important constitutional provision. But whatever criticisms of fellow conservatives are made, they ought to acknowledge what is right in what these fellow conservatives are doing. This is not too hard in the present case, where it is obvious to anyone with a brain that we are at present lacking any legal process for enforcing an important constitutional provision. I'm sorry, but the stupid one today is Gabriel.

If you want to see where these kinds of petty attacks on fellow conservatives lead, just look at Charles Johnson, whose blog is falling by the wayside. He finds little "2 degrees of separation" associations to tar people like Spencer with, while turning oblivious to everything right that Spencer is doing.

If McCain had one, we would be 100% behind getting him kicked out in favor of Sarah Palin on what was actually pretty clear proof that he is NOT a natural born citizen under current law. To set aside the legitimate importance of this issue because you don't think it is politic today is crap. Criticize them for being impolitic, yes, but don't pretend this is a non-issue.

54 I think he needs to produce the BC.  I had to when joining little league baseball I don't think it is too much to ask that the leader of the free world allow us to see his.

55 FYI, this isn't a right-wing thing.  The first such suit was brought by Phil Berg, former Pennsylvania statewide officeholder and Democrat in good standing.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 06, 2009 01:41 PM (T0NGe)

He's also a 9/11 Truther who wants Bush and Cheney arrested. Don't forget that part.

You guys are really cool rolling with him?

56

Ace hits the nail on the head.

It doesn't matter where he was born. He could have been born on the moon, and he would still be a US citizen from the second he was born. The 14th amendment states that the children of American citizens are automatically citizens, regardless of their place of birth.

"Natural Born Citizen" = "citizen at birth"

He had an American mother. He is a citizen from birth. He is qualified (constitutionally at least).

Then why did they make McCain supply his BC, long form and pass a resolution saying he was elig. in that case?  He was born of two citizen parents......???

57 "You guys are really cool rolling with him?"

I'm cool with forcing all presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of the office.  Nice straw argument there Drew.  You know better than that.

58 8 Many news articles say the state of Hawaii has said Obama was born in Hawaii.  But this is not true, no state of Hawaii official has ever said this.  They have said he has a birth certificate.  Birth certificates were given retroactively to many many children born outside of the USA in Hawaii. 
None of the hospitals in Hawaii have a "certificate of live birth" for Obama that would indicate he was born here.

This issue has never been settled, and Obama has done nothing to help settle it.  His behavior indicates he has something to hide.  I don't understand the scorn heaped on people who are trying to answer a consitutional question about his eligibility.

Posted by: Village Idiot at March 06, 2009 01:21 PM (E6zbw)


The irony here is that people on the right to exactly the same as those on the left do when there's an issue that's controversial...isolate those who ask questions as being the fringe nutty elements.

The thing is, I too thought this was a bunch of nothing until I watched Team Obama hire 3 lawfirms to fight the release of any documentation and define the argument so that the perception was that this is only the cause of right wing lunatics.

He's gone out of his way to keep all of his records sealed and he sent his surrogates out to demonize and isolate anyone who suggests there's something off about his behavior. 

His actions are those of someone with something to hide.

It would be nice if those on our side of the aisle would stop serving as useful idiots for the left and consider the possibility that he actually does have something to hide...whether or not it's his place of birth is unknown, but it's something big or he wouldn't have bothered with the campaign of obfuscation and demonization.

Dip your balls in that, Gabriel.

59

"Loser's Guide to Politics"

rule #1

if you want ppl to vote for your political party, never miss an opportunity to rub their faces in how stupid you think they are, do this repeatedly until you have driven away all the ppl who support you.

60 It's not just that. It's that you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Nice Deb's clip is, um, silly. Again it's someone slipping in a question without highlighting what he means when speaking with someone whose fluency with English is limited.

"Birthplace?" Guy seems to have taken it to mean his paternal grandmother's home. Ancestral homeland.

Slipping in cutesy questions rather than asking them directly is not compelling evidence.

61 You guys are really cool rolling with him?

Taitz, Apuzzo, Pigeon, Keyes,  103 members of the military and growing.... Berg is not the only one, so, dont accuse just because there is one weird attorney.

62 I'll tell ya one thing: his golf swing sure as fuck ain't Presidential.

63 Um, I have considered it, Mary Beth. The facts as they are known are against you.

The fact that I have come to a different conclusion than you does not make me a coward or a carrier of the media's water.

You want me to consider that you might be right, while failing to consider that those who disagree with you might also be right.

64
222..Please remember everyone, the birth certificate, may be legitimate. He may produce one saying he was born in Hawaii. Remember HIS father was not a US citizen and BO was a British Citizen under British Nationality Act of 1948. And this is the issue. Once BO produces a good birth certificate, everyone will think it is over. Non American Father is the issue.

65 If I'm being honest, I do think that this issue is, um, fringey and kooky.

I avoid saying so to be nice.

But every time I disagree with you guys -- as pleasantly as I can -- I get the attacks on my motivations. I'm carrying Obama's water, I'm a coward, I'm fine with the constitution being shredded, etc.

Those insisting on respect for their position should really try offering it in return to those who don't share it.

66 I've read Wong Kim Ark and it dealt with citizenship. The court did not define  NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 01:44 PM (iN46a)

You are simply wrong on this. Throughout the opinion the court disucsses natural born citizenship and concludes...

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Nice try though.

67 Sorry, the issue hasn't been settled to my satisfaction, but I agree it's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. Even if he came out and admitted he was born in Kenya, it would take a civil war to remove him from office. My lack of problem with that is probably a matter of AoS legend at this point.

What bugs me is the "no status" grounds all these lawsuits are usually dismissed under. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers intended a system where you COULDN'T get a redress of grievances through the court system. It seems like no matter what Constitutional issue is ever raised, the judges say "No standing, begone, peasant!"

68 Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but there's no getting away from two facts:
1) Obama STILL hasn't released the original vault copy of his birth certificate
2) Obama's spent nearly a million dollars so far (over $800,000 as of December, so it's bound to be higher now) in his effort to PREVENT that original certificate from coming to light.

Sure, perhaps politically the effort to get that certificate out to the public may be wasted effort. And we should spend our energy fighting O on the issues, which are truly drastic.

But it bugs the ever-lovin' SHIT out of me that this bastard is getting away with this. It has not been conclusively proven (and it would be SO EASY to prove it--just release the damned certificate already!!!!) that Hussein Obama Soetero is indeed a natural-born U.S. citizen. If he's not---and he refuses to prove that he is---then what the livin' hell is he doing in the Oval Office, collaborating with radical Islamists all over the world to bring this country to its knees so that Soros, Ayers and all his other communist buddies can remake this country in their image, with their buddy Obama as President-for-life?

69 Somehow I feel like the "pick your battles" maxim applies here. 

70 This is what turns an oddball theory into a fullblown conspiracy theory -- those who believe in it begin to get emotional and angry about those who haven't had the benefit of their epiphany, and begin defining themselves as the brave and enlightened while everyone else is cowardly or ignorant, etc.

A purely intellectual question hardens into an emotional one, an Us against Them mentality.

71 I had links to that.  But I haven't kept them.
Posted by: Bill Ciz at March 06, 2009 01:44 PM (ymwj3)

So you had links to an affidavit by Obama's grandmother but you didn't keep them? And we're just supposed to take your word for it? No offense but shouldn't you be able to whip them up via Google fairly quickly? It seems a lot of people might be interested in this little bit of information you offer up.

72 I think the whole thing should be settled out of court.  All plaintiffs claiming the president is not a natural born citizen shall be awarded one (1) Marine One Toy Helicopter.

73 ok.  Ace.
Naturalized Citizen = ?
Citizen = ?
Natural Born citizen = ?

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

where is that quote posted at?  so if O was under the governance of the UK, him being Obama Sr Child......... is he still a nbc?

74 Posted by: David at March 06, 2009 01:48 PM (NgoAe)

The fact that Berg is a 9/11 nutter is a strawman? How so exactly?

75 There's a bit of magical thinking going on here too -- if only each of these things is true, and things break our way in court, and etc., then we can turn back the clock and undo the election of Barack Obama.

Well, we can't. The resolution sought will not happen. Wishing this assclown away will not make it so.

76 It is laughable that people are still trying to convince the bloggers here the the Kenyan/Indonesian illegal alien communist is indeed illegal. They have as much as stated outright they won't be moved, sort of like atheists, with similar "logic" and further effort is wasted. They are determined to be polite, and will still be so when they are in one of the many concentration camps set up for those who need re-education to love Our Glorious Leader from the Muslims schools of Indonesia.
Hitler has to have his citizenship changed to run, democratically, for office in Germany, too...

77

I don't dog in this fight, but couldn't this be settled by in a diff. way?  Everyone says that you need the BC to get a liscense, get a job, etc.  Could you not use these in court?  Sue a business because they want a copy of your BC; sue the DMV because they want a copy of your BC; sue a university because they want a copy of your past records; etc...

If the courts declare that a person must show their BC in all of these instances, then you win your arg., don't you?

78 DrewM, it's there, i'll find it for you if you really wanna see it?

79 Well, we can't. The resolution sought will not happen. Wishing this assclown away will not make it so.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 01:58 PM (gEsIJ)

A bit like clawing at dirt while being buried alive...

80 Even if he came out and admitted he was born in Kenya, it would take a civil war to remove him from office.

Or an ambitious Democrat and a compliant media.  If the Dems and MSM want Obama out of office, they can beat this drum enough to make it happen.

ace, your opinion is fine on this, but you're too focused on the legalities.  Look at the recent article from the Politico on this.  There was a so-called journalist arguing against a politician releasing documents.

81 And Hitler was subsequently freely elected by about 95% of the population of what was one of the most *enlightened* intellectual countries in Europe. What happened there can happen here.

82 Posted by: slizzle at March 06, 2009 02:00 PM (zG+3k)

Sure.

83 "Birthplace?" Guy seems to have taken it to mean his paternal grandmother's home. Ancestral homeland.

Maybe, maybe not... but interestingly, he later said that his words were “misquoted and edited”  rather than just saying that there had been a misunderstanding. That show ran live. Nothing was misquoted or edited.

84 And Hitler was subsequently freely elected by about 95% of the population of what was one of the most *enlightened* intellectual countries in Europe. What happened there can happen here.

Posted by: J David at March 06, 2009 02:02 PM (sgVnR)

Thread Winner!!  Dr. Godwin, call your office.

85

To me the birth certificate isn't the issue. Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say he was born in Hawaiti, that does not answer the natural born citizen question.

Article 2 Section 1 says in part:  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.

I put that part in bold for a reason. Thing long and hard about why the Framers put that exception into the document and the implications of their exception.

They gave their own generation an exception because those alive at the time of the "Adoption of this Constitution" had previously been citizens of Great Britain. In other words, the Framers did not believe see themselves as meeting the definition of natural born citizen.

And Obama's case is much the same as the Framers. He too possessed by British and US citizenship. But Obama since he was not alive at the adoption of the constitution, he doesn't fall under the Framer's exception.

Moreover, I have not even gotten into the question of whether or not Obongo was adopted and lost his citizenship. That's possible, but we don't know enough to draw that conclusion.

86 >>>It is laughable that people are still trying to convince the bloggers here the the Kenyan/Indonesian illegal alien communist is indeed illegal. They have as much as stated outright they won't be moved, sort of like atheists, with similar "logic" and further effort is wasted.

And you're open to persuasion yourself, eh?

Drew keeps citing hundred year old SC precedent and no one so much as acknowledges it.

87 I consider it Ace...but I'm tired of being demonized as a fringe loon who deserves to get spanked by the right, left and media for saying that Obama is behaving like someone who has something to hide.

I've seen enough to convince me there's something there because his behavior indicates this to be the case.  It's that whole, "where there's smoke..." thing.

I have no problem with people not agreeing with me or seeing things differently than I do.  As a conservative,  I expect it.  I lost count of how many times I was called a racist (and worse) for disagreeing with Obama's positions and policies during the campaign.  So like I said, I expect it...coming from the left.

It's a bit disconcerting seeing that same isolation tactic coming from the right.  I expect more from our side.

But I'd like the hypocrisy to stop please.  We can't call out the left for demonizing the right when we do it to our own selves so eagerly.  And don't say that this is not the case since the very purpose for this thread is to put a spotlight on and mock those who still have questions on this issue.

This is one of my favorite forums to visit...I come here nearly every day even though I don't post all that often post election.  I respect and admire you and all those who stand up and speak out against the leftist policies of this administration and the hypocrisy of republicans who fail to recognize that they are the servants of the people. 

And I am in no way calling you or anyone else a coward or are suggesting that anyone is carrying the media's water, so to speak.  I am saying that it would be nice if our side would refuse to participate in the same tactics we castigate the left for.

88

i agree with SGT Dan, BHO will not be removed from office over this issue, and i also agree that our Courts are trashing the Constitution on this, the lawyers amoung us can argue the technicalities until they are blue in the face, the Constitution is no longer the Law of the Land, it is routinely ignored.

just show the fucking Birth Cert. if there's nothing to hide, what's the problem? 

 

89 obamacrimes.info/103008Affidavit%20of%20Bishop%20Ron%20McRae.pdf

the part about the call starts at "Exhibit 5" on page 5. 

90

While it is clear there are several important issues requiring our attention,  systematic vetting of presidential candidates seems important as well.

Uncle Ralph, you absolute party pooper.  I will continue to harbor suspicions since Hawaiian government workers can hardly be considered non-partisan in all of this.  However, further doubts will be kept under wraps.

Finally, Spade, climb into your foreign flamer mobile and vacate the premises post-haste.

 

91

A purely intellectual question hardens into an emotional one, an Us against Them mentality.

Ace, you have to admit part of that might be reaction from the indecent glee I get from kicking this particular antpile. I'll probably write a substantive post about this at some point addressing your standing argument.

92

You want me to consider that you might be right, while failing to consider that those who disagree with you might also be right. - Posted by: ace

The point isn't who probably is, or probably isn't right.  The point is that the questions has NOT been settled.

So you had links to an affidavit by Obama's grandmother but you didn't keep them? And we're just supposed to take your word for it? No offense but shouldn't you be able to whip them up via Google fairly quickly? It seems a lot of people might be interested in this little bit of information you offer up. - Posted by: DrewM

Perhaps you should revist my stated position on the matter.  And you are just qas capable of using Goggle or Ask or what ever search you choose.  If you are interested in persuing the issue, go at it.  I've clearly stated I don't care to kick up the dust on the issue while he has the high ground in the polls.  So what if it were proven any one of the three possible way, 1) he was Obama's son born in Hawaii.  2) He was Davis's son born in Hawaii 3) he was either Obama's son or Davis's son born in Kenya.

Big deal, if his popularity holds high, then it'll be forgiven or codified or justified.  It's a useless effort until he losses ground in popularity.

It's not that I don't care.  It's that I would choose my battles for fields where the results will net the results I want.  And diminishing the import of this constitutional requirment by attacking a super popular president, is not the result I want.

93 Since the position is rather high and the requirements for filling it rather low, I'd think it important to be sure that the candidate have damn concrete evidence of qualifying -- not some substitute form if an original, easily verifiable one exists.

Here are the things that stick in my craw. A) The degree to which Obama has gone to thwart the production of an original that could be shown to the masses, and B) the observation that no one seems to have standing.

It would seem every legal voter in the country should have standing to bring the case to court. Also, it would seem Obama could make all of this conjecture go away so very easily and effortlessly. If better documentation than has been presented doesn't exist, come out and declare that it doesn't and be done with it. This legal stonewalling just escalates suspicion.

In my mind, the Birthers are nowhere near Truthers. They have a legitimate beef even if nothing is overturned and even if they continue with their cause, however fruitless.

94 The only thing more bizarre than barack's citizenship status is why so many people think it shouldn't be an issue.  I simply can't understand why people want to put this to bed while it remains completely undecided. Rather than attacking the people who simply want proof, everyone else should be demanding it as well.
Every case dismissed so far was dismissed on dubious technicalities. (such as American Citizens have no standing to sue in court for the enforcement of constitutional provisions, and other crap.)

If the Vault birth certificate comes out and proves to be legitimate, THEN you can say the case is over, and at THAT point people wishing to pursue it further should earn the tittle of  "nutjobs."


David

95 Drew keeps citing hundred year old SC precedent and no one so much as acknowledges it.

where, i must have missed it?

96 Obama's spent nearly a million dollars so far

Yeah, but not of his own money. He's willing to spend literally hundreds of thousands of times that amount on stuff he doesn't care about at all. Like defending America.

97

I'd be interested in what happens if it turns out, irrefutably, that he really is not eligible.

I expect those heaping scorn on the nirthers, insisting he is eligible, will then heap scorn on the requirement that he be eligible.

I really don't see where they could go, after all this sneering, if proven wrong.

98 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 02:05 PM (iN46a)

Was Michael Dukakis ineligible to be President? How about Mario Cuomo? How about Wendell Willkie? Each of them had parents who were not born in the US yet know one thought that made them less than natural born citizens.

You are adding a qualification that doesn't actucally exist in the Constitution or constitutional case law.

99

But every time I disagree with you guys -- as pleasantly as I can -- I get the attacks on my motivations. I'm carrying Obama's water, I'm a coward, I'm fine with the constitution being shredded, etc.

Man I didn't peg you as a whining victim making shit up. 

Signed

Birther, kook, fringe conspirtatist polynikes

100

Global warming is a consensus of theories about the fact of some issue.

Natural born citizenship is a consensus of theories about the fact of this issue.

To me, because of the appearance of innocence the likelihood of gult is like the jetwash from an F-16 in A/B from 20 feet. Something that smells this fishy can't be but fish. The last thing I want done, as a constitutional conservative is for the wording of the consitution to be brushed over with white-out simply because it is inconvenient for the one who won to prove there is no missconduct. If we shade our eyes because the truth may be difficult to deal with we are no better than the perpetrators of the deed. Let him show adequate proof and let the issue be dead, otherwise please God someone keep the fire of freedom well stoked under his feet.

Until the proof is revealed he will be nothing more than a userper to the throne, and the king is a FINK.

101 Mary Beth,

Well, from my point of view, here's how it starts:

I say you guys are wrong.

You guys (not you, but people on your side) begin insulting me and questioning my motivations.

At that point I begin thinking you're not just cranks but nasty cranks. And begin dismissing you as not even worthy of consideration.

It's not everyone on your side. But the moment this issue gets brought up some of the more excitable people in your camp decide it's a good time to flame me.

102

@85

The reason that they put that in the constitution is that a person cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen" of a country that does not exist at the time of his birth!

The fact of the matter is that it would not matter if his father was a Martian, he was born to a mother who was a US citizen, he is automatically a citizen from birth.

103 Posted by: Bill Ciz at March 06, 2009 02:10 PM (ymwj3)

Fail.

You made the claim, you back it up. It's not up to me to research every half assed assertion made about this.

If you have the goods, produce them.

104 polynikes,

Eh, you call it whining.

I call it your side's collective inability to discuss this coolly without resorting to the name calling and motivation-questioning.

If the facts and law are on your side, what need is there for that?

105

What pisses me off about this, besides the fact that Obama could (ostensibly) clear all of this up if he'd just produce the full birth certificate. (Oh, and thanks to the judge who seems to think that part of the Constitution is a fucking joke from what Gabe so-approvingly quoted.)

But what really pisses me off about this is equating this to the 9/11 Truthers who think something truly vile--that the Jooos and/or the Bush administration and the military carried out the terrorist attacks--but that the "Birthers" who just want to maintain the constitution are on that same level. Well, fuck that.

106

Jeff (43) claims that: "He could have been born on the moon, and he would still be a US citizen from the second he was born. The 14th amendment states that the children of American citizens are automatically citizens, regardless of their place of birth."

Here is what the 14th actually says on the matter:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

107

Why don't O'Dumbo release his records as demanded of GWB by every crazy (100% of them) democrat in the country, including O'Dumbo. Na, he's a democrat and his legal/illegel actions must be protected at all cost.

Release the records or be forever thought of as an illegal president by millions (number increasing daily) of American citizens who have to show a birth record, a utility bill and a feces stained piece of toilet paper, to get a Freakin drivers license.

Only criminals have things to hide and only other criminals assist them in hiding them.

108

Drew keeps citing hundred year old SC precedent and no one so much as acknowledges it.

 

Because it doesn't stand for the proposition that he says it stands for. I clerked for a federal judge and have practiced law for twenty-two years and four months. I know how to read fucking case law. I think Drew's flat wrong. The Court ruled he was a citizen from birth. It did not rule that he was a natural born citizen.

109

We should get Ron Paul to push a bill that would require all leaders to show their BC and their SScard before they run for anything.  The bonus, it creates a job (papers  checker)

That, is an ant hill I would love to see kicked!

110

Re. Ace at #104 posted before I page refreshed: So "Birther" isn't a peronal attack on those who don't, oddly enough, believe Obama and the MSM on this?

111 Fuck you Ace! I guess living in NYC was turned you into a liberal scumbag. So many unanswered questions about "the One's" birth. Why has he spent millions trying to hide it? Oh yea, your blog sucks now. You have been deleted. And again FUCK YOU.

112

@106

Yes, I was mistaken on the text of the amendment. However the case law makes it abundantly clear that childern born of citizens abroad are citizens themselves.

113 WND.com has been documenting this stuff long before the election source-by-source. So the angle for the polite Republicans is simple to broad-brush declare one of the top daily papers in the world, and very conservative, is just a bunch of birther(and etc.) conspiracy kooks. There is an archive full of documented sources, including the statement of his grandma(dead conveniently a week or so before the election) pointing toward a cover-up, including by the Kenyan gov't, some whose own officvials have stated they know his actual birthplace there.

114

The Court ruled he was a citizen from birth. It did not rule that he was a natural born citizen.

Please explain the difference.  And since you are a law-talking guy (or gal), cite sources to back up your explanation.

115 Where's the name calling against you in the comments ace? Seriously, have I overlooked them? I know people get blinders sometimes but all I see are posts that ridicule and name call with birthers, nutjobs , kooks , etc and those people responding.  Sorry if I missed the barage against you.

116 A citizen is either natural born or naturalized; the case stating he was a citizen from the moment of his birth makes him natural-born.

Eh, this is why I don't post on this. I now retire from the thread.

117

The point isn't who probably is, or probably isn't right.  The point is that the questions has NOT been settled.

Not exactly true. It has been settled by those who accept a COLB from Hawaii which lists Obama's birthplace as Hawaii. Several have mentioned that folks born outside of Hawaii can get COLBs. What they fail to mention is that those COLBs do not erroneously go on to list the place of birth as in Hawaii. Rather, they list them wherever the person is born.

I will continue to harbor suspicions since Hawaiian government workers can hardly be considered non-partisan in all of this.

And that is why this will never end. Whatever proof is provided will never be considered enough because it will, of necessity, always have passed through others' hands before it is presented to the Birthers. For example, we have Birthers suggesting that the folks who first created Obama's birth certificate knew it was erroneous, but did it anyway.

What can you say to that, except, DIE CONSPIRACY THEORIST SCUM?  /innocent voice

118 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 02:18 PM (iN46a)

So when the court says that a person born to subjects of another country but in the US are natural born citizens you don't think that means they are natural born citizens.

Um, ok.

119

Posted by: Gman at March 06, 2009 02:19 PM (hUBSE)

ace this moby don't count.

120 Gabe you're really flaming. Enough baiting on this, please. Send it over to your blog.

121 We have a separate Sharia legal code for Muslim Americans, like England, and there will still be polite *Republicans* insisting we'd be further ahead just to play nice with the party that has no rules...'cause, hey, it the "right thing to do!"

122 @ 106, i agree, they say in there "citizen"  so what is the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen, they made the distiction between those two terms for a reason.

@ 112, the opertative word you used there is citizen(s)   plural   it even states on the fight the smears and factcheck.org that O was under the UK governance at the time of his birth

123 Sorry..."We will have..."

124 >>>So "Birther" isn't a peronal attack on those who don't, oddly enough, believe Obama and the MSM on this?

"Birther" I guess is baiting. If you're bothered by it. Like it or not it's a convenient shorthand, though.

125 This is my answer to this thread.

126

why is it so hard to get any firm detail's on this guy's background? a person can go find an incredible amount of highly detailed info on other modern presidents from birth to death, why not this guy, why can't we know who he is?

maybe if this had been done properly before the election?

i'm just saying...

127

The Court ruled he was a citizen from birth. It did not rule that he was a natural born citizen.

Please explain the difference.  And since you are a law-talking guy (or gal), cite sources to back up your explanation.

 

 

It was in the language of the holding. The Court explicitly ruled he was a "citizen." It did not say natural born citizen. And to believe there isn't a difference is wrong. There are many citizens who were not natural born...Arnold S. for example. Why did the Framers use the words "natural born" if they did not mean anything.

 

And someone made a good point above, if this is an irrelevant exercise, why did the Senate bother with a resolution on McCain? A point about McCain, many claim he was born on a US base, but I've read that is a lie that he has let stand, that he was actually born in a Panamanian hospital. Whether that would make a legal difference I am unwilling to say. All I know is this question isn't as cut and dried as many claim. At best it's murky. It's murky for McCain, but especially for Obongo.

128 I continue to believe the basic principle that when facts and law are lacking in a case you want to win, emotion fills the void.

There simply is no evidence to support your case and a fair amount undermining it. To make up for those gaps, a lot of anger at the Turncoats Who Suck MSNBC's Dick sweeps in.

129

The burden of proof rests with Obama.  There are a number of requirements the Constitution sets out to be eligible for the office, and he must necessarily answer them. 

To date the issue has not been resolved.  To wit...who verifies the requirements?  The Constitution is silent on the issue, so presumably it would fall to Congress to provide for the certification authority.

Contrary to the opinion of the Court that Gabe cites, the issue has not been vetted to death.  It has, however, been swept under the rug and our government has done its best to ignore the issue altogether...which is not the same thing as a frivolous issue.  Frivolous is an argument saying the income tax is invalid.  However, there is no clear body of fact to resolve the Obama eligibility issue.

Lastly, writing off people wondering about this as kooks and conspiracy nuts doesn't really further the argument that this is a non-issue.  Rather it betrays that argument as one based upon assumption, not on fact.

Obama could put this all to rest tomorrow, definitively.  He chooses not to, which is unfortunate.

130 >>>There are many citizens who were not natural born...Arnold S. for example. Why did the Framers use the words "natural born" if they did not mean anything

Dude... he's a naturalIZED citizen.

There are two categories I know of -- natural born and natural-ized.

If you can name a third I'm all ears.

Someone born a citizen is, get this, natural born. Unless you posit he was "naturalized while in the womb."

You are free to posit that if you like. I am aware of no ruling even hinting at such an amniotic procedure for naturalization.

131 Gabe you're really flaming. Enough baiting on this, please. Send it over to your blog.

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 02:23 PM (gEsIJ)

Aight.

132

118 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 02:18 PM (iN46a)

So when the court says that a person born to subjects of another country but in the US are natural born citizens you don't think that means they are natural born citizens.

Um, ok.

 

Believe what you will, but the Court did not say what you just said it did. Look at your own post of the holding.

"...becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The  Court  say, "at the time of his birth a natural born citizen"...The words natural born aren't there. You are reading natural born into it, and that cannot be done.

133

It was in the language of the holding. The Court explicitly ruled he was a "citizen." It did not say natural born citizen. And to believe there isn't a difference is wrong. There are many citizens who were not natural born...Arnold S. for example. Why did the Framers use the words "natural born" if they did not mean anything.

As Ace stated, you're either a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen.  Arnold is a naturalized citzen.

You seem to think there is a third category.  What is that category?

134 wait, the only evidence that i see people use is snopes, factcheck, and fight the smears

funny how snopes points to factcheck and fightthesmears, and factcheck points to fightthesmears and everyone who says it's been settled points to all three as if all three had indepentant confirmation.  Bullshit, they all point to the COLB which is not a BC, sorry to break it to you. 

135

Jeff (112) wrote: "the case law makes it abundantly clear that childern born of citizens abroad are citizens themselves."

But there are technicalities to go into. My understanding is that McCain clearly fell OUTSIDE of a law that was passed just to confer natural born status on people in his position. (He was born to early to be covered.)

Obama could also be caught by a technicality and there ought to be a process by which citizens can demand proof that this constitutional requirement has been satisfied.

 

136

Fail.
You made the claim, you back it up. It's not up to me to research every half assed assertion made about this.
If you have the goods, produce them. - Posted by: DrewM

Drew, how handy of you to self lable your argument.  Yes it is a fail.

My stated position does not stand on the validity of the affidavit, therefore, I do not accept your attempt to misdirect.  If you truly cared about that side issue, that information has been provided by another poster.  But it doesn't make or break my argument in any way.

 

137 To make up for those gaps, a lot of anger at the Turncoats Who Suck MSNBC's Dick sweeps in.

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 02:28 PM (gEsIJ)

I'm really confused now. Who said that?

138 Another reason to establish a proper procedure for insuring that the natural-born requirement has been met: So that we can keep McCain from being the Republican nominee in 2012.

139 @ 133, so if obama, as claimed by fact check and by you, had dual citizenship at his birth      do you think the framers would allow a person, with dual allegences to be POTUS?

140 I said nothing to indicate I believe there is any third category of citizenship. I know of no such category and did not mean to imply I do. I believe there is an arguable case Obama is a naturalized citizen even if born in Hawaii and has a video tape to prove it.

141 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 02:27 PM (iN46a)

That's simply wrong. A good part of the opinion is dedicated to the idea there is no difference between 'natural born' and 'citizen from birth'. You either are misreading it or misstating the obvious.

How about this, show me where in this or any other Supreme Court opinion anyone makes the distinction you are trying to make.

142 I love truthers--

You seem to have three or four fall-back positions. Even if a couple claims fail, you have more.

Do you think maybe you've selected the outcome you want in advance of evaluating the evidence?

143 135, agreed, there needs to be a process to where it's settled when you are nominated at the primary level.

144 Riddle me this:

How comes Obama has spent nearly 1 million dollars, not including attorney's fees for these court cases, shutting up the state of Hawaii and Harvard University? There are a fuckload of documents that we have not seen, that even Bill Clinton revealed in the 90s.

Besides, there are other military people who are joined with separate lawsuits on this. And if things are not done to the proper specifications, we could be talking about a military coup d'etat against ol B.O. Stinkbait.

145 50 Here's the article that convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org

Now, from yahoo answers:

"It (factcheck.org) is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation."

"Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation.

You might as well say that you got your info from the DNC.

146 Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at March 06, 2009 01:55 PM (Bi/c5)

I agree. He may or may not be a nbc, but if he IS (and yeah, he probably is) what the fuck is he hiding and why won't any judge say, "hey, Barry... cough up the RIGHT certificate"

And it's done. He could smirk at us some more, which I'm sure he'd love.

You have to produce your birth certificate many, many times for various things throughout your life. Why can't he? It'd be so easy. Argh.

147 Then why did they make McCain supply his BC, long form and pass a resolution saying he was elig. in that case?  He was born of two citizen parents......???

I think that issue first raised its head in 1968 with George Romney, Mitt's father.  The former was born in a LDS colony in Mexico to American parents.  It became an issue when Romney ran in the Democratic presidential primary 1968.  The issue was that Romney was not born in the United States.

Congress "fixed" this issue for McCain by voting him as such.  Probably using Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to back themselves up.

148 Drew,

Then why was McCain's Panama birth an issue that required an Act of Congress prior to the campaign.  No one has ever argued McCain wasn't a citizen, just that he wasn't eligible to be President.

Doubt exists, and it could easily be remedied by providing one of these judges a limited POA to review the records in camera.  Why spend so much to fight it?

149 My stated position does not stand on the validity of the affidavit, therefore, I do not accept your attempt to misdirect.  If you truly cared about that side issue, that information has been provided by another poster.
Posted by: Bill Ciz at March 06, 2009 02:36 PM (ymwj3)
Come on now.

Ace asked: "But do you have any positive evidence suggesting otherwise?"

And you chimed in with: "Actually yes there is.  Obama's other grandmother swore an affidavit that she was present at Obama's birth in Africa."

Now it's 'a side issue'? Funny how it went from 'positive evidence' to 'a side issue'.

How is asking you to verify your assertion that there was an affidavit an 'attempt to misdirect'? Is asking for a link to back up your assertion really unfair somehow?

150 144 Riddle me this:

How comes Obama has spent nearly 1 million dollars, not including attorney's fees for these court cases, shutting up the state of Hawaii and Harvard University? There are a fuckload of documents that we have not seen, that even Bill Clinton revealed in the 90s.

Besides, there are other military people who are joined with separate lawsuits on this. And if things are not done to the proper specifications, we could be talking about a military coup d'etat against ol B.O. Stinkbait.

Good points. Obama can make this easily go away. Why isn't he? What does he have to lose by keeping this under wraps? What does he have to gain?

Perhaps the Supreme Court is saving this for our upcoming civil war, and plan on removing him using this, rather than waiting for him to be impeached, which won't happen in our lifetime, no matter what he does.

151 "just that he wasn't eligible to be President."
Posted by: Jean at March 06, 2009 02:44 PM (L64A6)

As far as I know the only person to make that claim about McCain was Leo Donofrio and he was rightly laughed out of court.

152

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

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

Via factcheck.org  S

So if he had dual allegiances at the time of his birth.  Us/UK, does that still make him a Natural BORN citizen?  I mean, come on, to think the framers would want a POTUS to have dual allegiances is retarded.

153 There is a third category; men and women, in circumstances similar to John McCain, who do not have a specific Act of Congress denoting them eligible to be POTUS.

154 You essentially have two categories: (1) natural born citizen, and (2) naturalized citizen.  Since he wasn't ever naturalized, [gone through a naturalization ceremony, applied for and received citizenship, etc.] he then falls under the other category.

155

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 02:39 PM (gEsIJ)

 

I said it's arguable. I did not say it's a foregone conclusion. Many conservatives scoff as if the law is settled and it's not. There are a lot of pieces to this and few conservative pundits have really given it a fair shake. I don't know what the eventual outcome would be if it played out in a court, but I am unwilling to pretend as if all of the legal issues here are settled law as so many others are doing. I have no idea where the man was born, who his daddy was, or if he lost his citizenship at some point. The fact that we don't know those things with certainty tells me we may have a problem. I am not a conspiracy buff. I am a constitutionalist. I think the American people deserve certainty with regard to our President's eligibility. Uncertainty is a recipe for disaster. Frankly, I hope he IS eligible. I don't like the bastard, but removing him would be awful for the nation. Even so, allowing an ineligible man to hold the office would be worse.

156 Posted by: John Tant at March 06, 2009 02:29 PM (PFy0L)

He chooses not to.  He chooses to spend millions and hire lawfirms to keep from providing simple documentation.  And he lets his surrogates on the left and unwitting helpers on the right keep this exactly where he wants it to be... in the fringe.

I'm disappointed that recognizing that his behavior suggests strongly that he is trying to hide something makes me "conspiracy theorist scum" on par with 9/11 truthers.  I really expected more from our side than this kind of isolating/dismissive treatment.  It's insulting and extremely discouraging.

157 @ 151, DrewM    If leo was the only one, then why the resolution in congress?

158 He was laughed out of court because McCain had the foresight to address the issue in advance.

159 >>>He may or may not be a nbc, but if he IS (and yeah, he probably is) what the fuck is he hiding and why won't any judge say, "hey, Barry... cough up the RIGHT certificate"

The thing is, the *Republican* Governor of Hawaii keeps insisting that a COLB IS a Birth Certificate, and that's what's given to people when they ask for it.

This distinction being drawn between a COLB and BC is another element of the case for which there is simply not a lot of evidence supporting you and some undermining you. It is always asserted there is some difference between them. The governor and her secretary of state keep saying there's not.

Now, I don't know myself. I am not an expert on such matters and neither -- if I can be so bold to say -- are any on the other side of this issue.

But again, I keep hearing this assertion made that a COLB is somehow not legally the same as a BC and I see no evidence for that, and evidence (at least by way of appeal to authority) against that.

This is what I mean by emotion filling the gaps where fact and law are lacking. I would, I assure you, be DELIGHTED to learn that Barry Obama is ineligble for the presidency. Emotionally -- I want you to be right.

But i look at the case being made and it's... weak to nonexistent.

And when I ask you for your evidence, I just get more assertions. And when contrary evidence is offered, it's dismissed as meaningless.

The point is that the deficiencies in your case aren't *my* fault -- or the fault of anyone who doesn't agree with you. They're -- well, if not your FAULT, your PROBLEM, and if you're going to argue this, get your case straight and sourced for all the little details.

You guys keep making unsubstantiated assertions and get angry when other people aren't willing to make the leap of faith with you, and seek substantiation.

160

133, so if obama, as claimed by fact check and by you, had dual citizenship at his birth  do you think the framers would allow a person, with dual allegences to be POTUS?

So now the battle has switched to dual citizenship?  I don't think you could have picked a more thorny or vague battlefield.

 

161

Posted by: DrewM. at March 06, 2009 02:47 PM

 

The Court refused to look at the question. They didn't laugh him out of court. That's bullshit. I don't know if his argument holds up or not, but it's not laughable.

162 #145, that's what I was just about to say. fightthesmears and factcheck were both funded by organizations that funded the Obama campaign to begin with.

I might as well call the American Nazi Party for info on the Holocaust.

163 He chooses to spend millions and hire lawfirms to keep from providing simple documentation.

I see this a lot. Where exactly is the proof for this statement about the money he has supposedly spent?

I apologize if asking for some citation of this is inconvenient or an attempt to change the subject, I'm honestly curious.

164 >>>There is a third category; men and women, in circumstances similar to John McCain, who do not have a specific Act of Congress denoting them eligible to be POTUS.

No, that act clarified that McCain was natural born.

I mean, right here, you can see the problem on the horizon even if you find some technical deficiency in Obama's NBC status, right? "Natural born" is in the constitution, but its specific terms are defined by Congress -- even retroactively.

Even if you find some legal nit that makes Barry Obama not an NBC, Congress can just pass a law stating that anyone born in those specific conditions IS an NBC.

So, even if you win, you lose, and I do not for the life of me get the fascination with this pointless, futile rathole of an issue.

165 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 02:53 PM (iN46a)

You're right, it's not laughable, it's sad.


Posted by: slizzle at March 06, 2009 02:51 PM (zG+3k)

I don't know why. It was a pr stunt more than anything since no one actually thought he was anything but a natural born US citizen.

166

Gabe (117) wrote:  "Several have mentioned that folks born outside of Hawaii can get COLBs. What they fail to mention is that those COLBs do not erroneously go on to list the place of birth as in Hawaii. Rather, they list them wherever the person is born."

If details like this actually put the Obama case to rest, Gabe should have put this information front and center. What Gabe quoted--an idiot judge declaring "twittering" and "massaging" to be a substitue for legal process on a constitutional question--suggested exactly the opposite: that we are not supposed to be concerned about the actual facts.

Gabe approves of this insane statement by an obviously malicious judge, and then he rips on OTHER people when they don't know crucial details that have never appeared on this blog.

Dude, I READ this blog. When did you address this detail before? I've never seen it.

167 Slicing like a hammer:     DJIA  6492.17  -102.27  -1.55%

168 >>>So now the battle has switched to dual citizenship? I don't think you could have picked a more thorny or vague battlefield.

This is the classic sign of a losing argument -- the terms keep changing constantly. You can't pin the thing down; it's like an oiled pig, always slipping out of your grasp.

It's stuff like this that makes me not bother arguing it. What's the point? It will just change to something else even if I knock down the starting assertions.

169 The Governor is bound by strict privacy laws and can't say anything more and for most routine purposes the COLB is sufficient. 

I personally have had to get long form data for people when acting as an FSO to support a birth circumstances investigation and it is not easy.

I believe I read that she had the entire BHO file put under seal to keep anyone from getting frisky with it, which I wish Sect. Rice would have done to keep Brennan's guys off of the passport file.

170 >>>Dude, I READ this blog. When did you address this detail before? I've never seen it.

Me neither. I'd like the cite because it is crucial.

171

Now it's 'a side issue'? Funny how it went from 'positive evidence' to 'a side issue'.

How is asking you to verify your assertion that there was an affidavit an 'attempt to misdirect'? Is asking for a link to back up your assertion really unfair somehow? - Posted by: DrewM.

Yes it is a side issue.  And that was exactly my and the point of my following post, or do you not get that.  I made the comment you cite as a warning off to Ace that it was a rabbit hole, and people would have that, and they did, and so several others have answered the question, if you really cared, which you clearly do not. 

I've been pretty damn clear, I don't think it's a fight we should be initiating at this time, so in that light, I am arguing in support of Ace and even you that we shouldn't press the issue because it will just hurt us.   -  - If you were cogent enough to get that.  - -

Tell me how does eating your own work out for you generally?

172

169 The Governor is bound by strict privacy laws and can't say anything more and for most routine purposes the COLB is sufficient. 

 

Jean, I'll grant you that.  However, is running for the Presidency a routine purpose?

173 Gabe said "

And that is why this will never end. Whatever proof is provided will never be considered enough because it will, of necessity, always have passed through others' hands before it is presented to the Birthers. For example, we have Birthers suggesting that the folks who first created Obama's birth certificate knew it was erroneous, but did it anyway.

What can you say to that, except, DIE CONSPIRACY THEORIST SCUM?  /innocent voice"

Had the Vault certificate been released immediately, no one would think to question the trustworthiness of Hawaii officials, (Mostly Democrats) but after the degree of effort which has been put into this stonewalling by them and Barack,
(Including the FAKE campaign birth certificate) it is now reasonable to wonder if they will lie with a (better) forgery. 

I believe that the vault copy contains something either very embarrassing, or outright disqualifying.  I would be satisfied if someone whose integrity I trusted, (George Will Perhaps) would look at the vault certificate and assure me that it does not disqualify him.

David

174 A COLB is a registration of birth. There is no factual verification of the contents of the document. Someone on another cite likened it to registering a deed at the court house and I think that's correct. They don't check the facts stated in a  deed. There is a presumption of accuracy, but the court house doesn't check it for accuracy; they just record it. Likewise Hawaii merely recorded a COLB. They did not verify the claims made in the document. Again, I think the birth certificate is a waste of time and I wouldn't fool with a lawsuit to get it, but I understand the distinction between the COLB and an actual birth certificate.

175 >>>The Governor is bound by strict privacy laws and can't say anything more and for most routine purposes the COLB is sufficient.

Untrue. Privacy laws do not require her to lie about the legal operation of a COLB as compared to a BC.

Privacy laws may require her not to offer details from the BC, but they do not require her to affirmatively lie about what a COLB is.

176

It may just boil down to Cocktail Parties.  Former "Conservative Blogger of the Year" and all.

177 So, even if you win, you lose, and I do not for the life of me get the fascination with this pointless, futile rathole of an issue.

Because mud sticks and his actions indicate there is something being hidden.  The long, slow escalation of fear, uncertainty, and doubt will gnaw at his numbers.  AS his numbers go down, his ability to cause further damage is weakened and solid challengers for 2012 won't walk away.

The absolute best case scenario is for him to a hidden technicality that is resolved by Pelosi/Reid slamming through a corrective piece of legislation by a party line vote.  That would guarantee a Republican sweep.

178 I made the comment you cite as a warning off to Ace that it was a rabbit hole, and people would have that, and they did, and so several others have answered the question, if you really cared, which you clearly do not. 
Posted by: Bill Ciz at March 06, 2009 03:00 PM (ymwj3)

Below is the comment you refer to in full...

Actually yes there is.  Obama's other grandmother swore an affidavit that she was present at Obama's birth in Africa.  There are others who also have supported that assertion, who's names escape me.

I'm sorry but I didn't read "WARNING! DANGER! Don't go there, stay away" from that paragraph. Perhaps it's a level of nuance I'm not capable of.

Now, I'm willing to accept that you don't think this supposed (dare I say nonexistent) affidavit is a big deal but I was only going by what you wrote at the time.

179 There you go, the "cocktail parties" i'm supposedly attending.

Which just never gets old.

"cocktail parties" are becoming the grassroots rights version of left-wing blacks' cries of "Racism." Any time you're in trouble, bring up those tony "cocktail parties." *End of argument.*

180 @ 160   I was asking you a question dumbass!!!!!!!!!  the battle field hasnt changed, i took what was posted on a website that some claim solved the issue.  Answer the fucking question.....  Do you think the framers would allow a person with dual allegiances be POTUS?

181 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 03:01 PM (iN46a)

A COLB is not some sort of stand alone document, it's based on the information on the birth certificate. Go to the Hawaii Department of Health site and follow the links to requesting a 'birth certificate'. They tell you that you will get a COLB. They don't ask what information you'd like on it, they create the COLB from the birth certificate.

Pleaee explain to me how it's even remotely possible that the COLB could have one set of birth information on it while the 'vault' long form orginial has something completely different.

182 Late the party as always, but from where I sit...evidently this question HASN'T been answered to the country's satisfaction, judging by the amount of posts to this thread. Personally, I like to see Mr. Obama produce a LEGIT copy like everyone else running had to so this madness can end.

183 170 Me too, Gabe.

My understanding is the PLACE OF BIRTH on a COLB is actually the place of registration - you never see BORN AT SEA or AT RESIDENCE on a COLB - you do see those terms occasionally on long forms.

184 The props are knocked out, the last hour could be tough:

DJIA  6475.85  -118.59  -1.8


I want to quit watching but I can't look away.

185 Answer the fucking question.....  Do you think the framers would allow a person with dual allegiances be POTUS?

Posted by: slizzle at March 06, 2009 03:08 PM (zG+3k)

 

You weren't addressing that at me, but isn't the answer to that obvious? Anyone who does not believe the Framers were concerned with dual allegiances has not studied enough American history.

 

 

186

OT  Make a post about this: http://tinyurl.com/cmpmd4

Clinton gave Lavrov a button that was suppose to say reset, instead it said overcharge.

I've never, in my adult life, been so embarrassed for my Country.

187 "The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

And yet, none of these informal media has the power of issuing subpoenas, or compelling witnesses to submit to depositions and questioning under oath.  Funny that! 

That is the lamest, most self-serving, circular, bullshit line of pseudo-reasoning I have ever seen a court give for not wanting to hear a case. 

"Lots of people have been talking about this topic for a while, so I'm not interested in allowing you to litigate your lawsuit."

Even if you don't like the Obama-birthplace issue, or want it to go away for political reasons, or just find it to be more tiresome than the Special Edition Margaret Cho DVD Pack, one thing is certain -- this judge is a total fucking waste of life. 

188 The issue of whether Bill Ayers wrote the President's book, babysat his children or even ever met him was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry and MSM during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency. It would be frivolous to even raise such matters in a lawsuit in which such matters were material. Just like it's irrelevant to ask for the production of the original, contemporaneously-created 1961 long form BC in a suit challenging his citizenship.

I'll accept that the COLB and the BC are somehow legally equivalent. Of course a state official can decree what particular, alternate forms of ID are acceptable. But the BC has a very different evidentiary value, especially when it's on paper made in 1961 and for some undisclosed reason has never been authorized for release by Obama. Obama's evasiveness on the issue, like his evasiveness on the questions surrounding his relationship with Ayes, provides sufficient cause for further investigation.

189 Posted by: Jean at March 06, 2009 03:12 PM (L64A6)

So now Place of Birth, Island of Birth and County of Birth (the three spots location of "Birth" is referred to) now actually may mean 'registration'?

The amount of stuff you have to believe on faith without anything more than suspicion and 'questions' is fairly overwhelming.

Meanwhile on the other hand there's actual, you know, evidence.

Do you see why some of us think this is lunacy?

190 @168 i never changed it at all, scroll up, i posted the dual citizenship way back when,

a real sign of losing an argument, is when you get hit with a question, that you dont konw the fucking answer to and try to pass you not knowing as someone else losing an argument, thats fucking childish......   still waiting for that answer btw ACE, anyone.....

191

May, I typed May.

The main point would be you have tasted the Nectar of Respectability, and found you liked it. 

The question then for me becomes:  Respected by Whom?

 

192

Reading my comment it is clear I come from the YODA School of Communication.

 

193

Meanwhile on the other hand there's actual, you know, evidence.

 

What actual, you know, evidence? 

194

If this was Truther conspiracy talk I would be on Drew's side.

People can beleive the evidence or not.

 

However this issue can easily and quickly be put to bed.

Produce the damn Birth Certificate and lets move on.

Else, it just looks like he is hiding something.

 

 

 

 

195

 I was asking you a question dumbass!!!!!!!!! ...Answer the fucking question.....  Do you think the framers would allow a person with dual allegiances be POTUS?

Name calling and "fucking" - I must have hit a sore spot.

Back to your "argument": now it's not dual citizenship, but dual allegiances.

Bravo. I didn't know you could get any thornier, but you did.

 

196 Drew,

I'm simply going on experience that the long form data, esp. for those not born in normal circumstances (foreign hospitals, in transit, at home, even adopted) is not accurately reflected on COLB's.  They are a summation of the record and usually do not reflect to full detail of the long form.

If he were presenting his information; simply that information from his book and that COLB, to me as an FSO during an initial interview I would not have filed a clearance request for him without at a minimum his long form certificate (properly certified) and his passport records (esp. his Indonesian records, with proper apostille).  It would have been his responsibility to provide those materials.

197 @195, for the retarded here

dual citizenship therefor naturally = dual allegiances....  still waiting for that answer, dumbass

198 and so you're not confussed, yes i called you retarded and a dumbass....retarded = dumbass but dumbass dont always = retarded.....

199 All joking aside, is there a good explanation/reason/facts why the BC was not produced and why his grandma claimed he was born in Africa?

(this is the point of contention, as IF he was born in Africa, he doesn't even have  American citizenship, IF he was born in Hawaii , he's a natural born)

200 Something just doesn't add up.

1. Is there such thing as a "vault" certificate?

2. Does (or did) Hawaii really issue certificates for foreign born babies that would be noted on the vault certificate but not the copy?

3. Does it matter if Obama was born in Kenya?

If all of these answers are yes than it seems its a legitimate line of inquiry and I think the attack on these people as kooks is unfair.

If the answers are no, then it would seem a waste of time.

It would be better if Obama wasn't acting as if he was hiding something though. If a vault certificate is an actual thing, what is preventing it from being released?

The only thing I can think of is that by fighting these people it extends their illegitimacy and the Obam camp is able to lump enemies into a "kook and truthers" grouping, much like the Clintons were actually able to use Foster's suicide controversy as a means to paint their critics as "crazy" and "clinton haters".

201 What actual, you know, evidence?

Exactly.  No lawsuit = no evidence.

Apparently, this fuckwit judge seems to think resolving this issue via Twitter is plenty good. 

Christ. 

One thing is obvious -- 70 year-old judges don't know fuck-all about fucking Twitter.  This "opinion" was written by some millenial Gen-Y law clerk with too many opinions and not enough experience in life. 

And this judge and his Twittering law clerk are supposed to be among the best legal minds we can produce.  Damn, this world is just shit. 

202 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 03:20 PM (iN46a)

On the question of his being 'natural born' there's the COLB (you may not like it but that doesn't mean it's not evidence), the contemporaneous birth announcement.

On the question of so-called 'dual citizenship' there's the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark. Btw- you still haven't provided any citation showing any court or law recognizing your novel thrid category of cizizenship (born a citizen but not a natural born citizen. How's that coming?)

As for the over all issue that his eligibility hasn't been adjuciated I submit to youy the fact that the Electoral College and the Congress of the United States of America (the only two bodies who actually elect the President) elected and confirmed him as President. Presumably they were satisfied he met the qualifications.

What do you have again?

203

Back to your "argument": now it's not dual citizenship, but dual allegiances.

Bravo. I didn't know you could get any thornier, but you did.

 

 

Isn't dual allegiances key? Absent the dual allegiances concern, there would be no reason for the natural born citizen requirement would there?

204 so i'll ask the question this way

do you think the framers would allow for a person with dual citizenship thus obviously having dual allegiances, be POTUS?

205

I love tough talkers like slizzle.  Name-calling from behind the computer is always a sign of a real man.

Since when does dual citizenship automatically mean dual allegiances, especially when the foreign citizenship might be conferred without the person's consent?

Case in point: my neighbor's sone is a dual U.S./German citizen.  Why?  The kid was born in a German hospital while his father (US Army) was stationed in Germany, and lived off-base.  Germany gave him citizenship, even though the kid never asked for it, moved from Germany when he was 1 1/2 years old and has never returned.  Is this kid now a kraut-loving Hitler disciple?

What about an American Jew who is seen as an Israeli citizen under the Laws of Return?  Does he have dual allegiances as well?

 

206 204-No.  Damn that was easy.  Next.

207

do you think the framers would allow for a person with dual citizenship thus obviously having dual allegiances, be POTUS?

Since they didn't address this in the Constitution, I think you have your answer.

208 source INS website, form M-476: A Guide to
Naturalization

Page 5 near bottom:  
<(3) If you were born abroad to ONE U.S. citizen:  
In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:  
• One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born;  
• Your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before you  
were born; and  
• At least 2 of those 5 years in the United States were after your citizen  
parent’s 14th birthday.*2  
 
*2 If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the  
United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the United States were after your citizen  
parent’s 14th birthday.>

his mother was born November 29, 1942 
he was born August 4, 1961, roughly when she was 18 years and 8 months old..., thus unable to fulfill the requirement IF she did indeed give birth abroad.

Therefore it is not a matter of DUAL citizenship or NATURAL born, but if he's a citizen at all.

209 >>>The main point would be you have tasted the Nectar of Respectability, and found you liked it.

>>>The question then for me becomes: Respected by Whom?

Tasted? Um, no, I've always been pretty down on fringy, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories which are immune to all contrary evidence.

I didn't need a cocktail party to inform me of my antipathy to such theories.

I got news for ya -- hated Bill Clinton, was down with impeachment, never bought into the Mena Airport or Vince Foster murder or Ron Brown murder stuff, either.

Because, I guess, I was at all the right (left?) cocktail parties.

210

Drew, I don't have time to answer you because I am headed into a deposition. We will have to agree to disagree. You are misstating what I believe. Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps you are so locked-in you cannot look at it from another angle. I won't swear I know the truth on this, but I will claim that you Ace don't either. The law as well as the facts are murky my friend.

One quick point, that birth annaouncement is just another thing to consider. When I was born, the year after Barry, a birth announcement ran in Missouri and New York. The thing is I born in Wichita, Kansas. My mother was from New York and my father was from Missouri, so they put my birth announcement in their hometown papers. Using the logic of some, including Ed Morrisey, I can prove I was born in Kansas, New York, and Missouri. I call bullshit on that.

211 Answer the fucking question.....  Do you think the framers would allow a person with dual allegiances be POTUS?

slizzle,

I know you were asking Ace but he's gone on to better things I guess. Here's my answer fwiw...

I'm sure they were. That's not what they wrote in the Constitution however, nor is how the Supreme Court or Congress have ever interpreted that language.

Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Anyone born to US parents is a natural born citizen. Now you can say Obama only had one US citizen as a parent and that's true but it doesn't matter since he was born in the US and thus under Ark, a natural born citizen.

So what's your point?

Let me ask you two questions...

This I asked before...were Dukakis, Cuomo and Willkie ineligable to be President because their parents weren't US citizens?

And secondly imagine this scenario... a child is born in Topeka, KS (as American a place as possible) to two parents who trace their liniage back to the Mayflower. Now when the child is 6 months old, they move to China and the child never sets foot on US soil until he is 18 and going to college. after living in the US continually for 35 years (at the age of 53) he runs for President and wins. Is he constitutionally eligible?

212 What do you have again?

You don't need anything to bring a lawsuit.  You only need cognizable allegations.  The judge is supposed to assume for purposes of the initial review that all of the allegations are true.  The gathering of evidence comes later. 

If it is later determined that there was an insufficient basis to bring the suit, then you can talk about sanctions.  Not at the beginning. 

That's procedure.  That's the law.  That's how it's supposed to work. 

The judge and his Gen-Y law clerk just gave us the equivalent of "It's old.  Move along. Nothing to see here." 

Can you not see how allowing judges to sweep aside politically-sensitive lawsuits because the issue is annoying is wrong?  How easily that can be abused? 

213 I like dipshits like Blogluddite, you try and get them to answer a question but like a lil pussy, just wants to bring other peoples stories into it.  I guess i was right when i pegged you as retarded?  It dont matter what they want at birth, they cant choose where they are born, sorry, it's the law of the lands. I didnt write the law, take it up with whomever did.

Um, you still didnt answer the question......

214 Show me a theory for which there's evidence, such as Clinton's obstruction of justice and perjury, and i'm your guy.

This stuff? Not so much. The onus is on those putting forth a theory to supply the evidence. You, personally, feel that's too great a burden and wish to make your case by insult.

Cocktail parties? Okay, if we're being insulting: How about your opinion is not respectable because it's ignorant, crazy, and stupid?

How ya like them apples?

Isn't rational argument fun?

215

What evidence?  The COLB, which is what the state of Hawaii gives you.

That's the evidence, a document created by the state of Hawaii from information that it keeps according to its laws.  The COLB would be accepted in any federal court under the Records of Vital statistics exception to Hearsay  803(9):

"The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:...(9)  Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law."

216 "Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Anyone born to US parents is a natural born citizen. Now you can say Obama only had one US citizen as a parent and that's true but it doesn't matter since he was born in the US and thus under Ark, a natural born citizen"
by Drew M

Drew you are wrong on that, see my post above. It is not a matter of my opinion, it is the matter of law.

217

I answered it.  You just didn't like it. 

Personally, I love the name calling.  Keep it coming!

 

218 What evidence?  The COLB, which is what the state of Hawaii gives you.  That's the evidence, a document created by the state of Hawaii from information that it keeps according to its laws.

But it's not the best evidence on this issue.  The original, paper, long-form documents are the best evidence.  They've been withheld. 

219 On the question of his being 'natural born' there's the COLB (you may not like it but that doesn't mean it's not evidence), the contemporaneous birth announcement.

I first brought up the possibility of a birth announcement back when this stuff surfaced (delavalette on LGF) - but the papers data source is the office of vital statistics - so it is actually an announcement of the birth registration, not an independent data point.

As for the over all issue that his eligibility hasn't been adjuciated I submit to youy the fact that the Electoral College and the Congress of the United States of America (the only two bodies who actually elect the President) elected and confirmed him as President. Presumably they were satisfied he met the qualifications.

We aren't in the court system and the standing issue is a significant problem, we are in the court of public opinion.  Right now, we have the unfortunate circumstance of allies calling each other names when it is uncalled for.  At worst we are persistent nags and BHO is a secretive twit.  The President's behavior, with respect to his past, encourages doubt and doubt is a powerful PR weapon.  As long as he is going to hid his past, we should feel free to increase the uncertainty and doubt associated with it.

220 Evidently the "conservatives" that run this site don't care at all that we have a Constitution.
The Forefathers warned us about this kind of shit.

221

The goverment makes a mockery of ALL our laws! Why should Barry be any different. We are fucked, lets just face it, and bury our nuts, for now.

222

It doesn't matter if it is the best evidence on this issue, it is evidence of him being born in the US.  Hawaii apparently does not drag their vault copies out and lug them around anywhere.  They give you that COLB instead.  That seems to be their law on their own vital statistics records.  They could call it a Natal Affirmation Form and it wouldn't change the fact one bit, and it would be accepted.

Shoot, all I have is a crappy half-page xerox of the certificate held by the City of Dearborn and that was enough for the State Department to issue me a passport.

That's it.

223 I see this a lot. Where exactly is the proof for this statement about the money he has supposedly spent?

I apologize if asking for some citation of this is inconvenient or an attempt to change the subject, I'm honestly curious.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 06, 2009 02:55 PM (hlYel)

No.  Asking relevant questions in a respectful tone is neither inconvenient nor is it perceived (at least by me) as an attempt to change the subject.  I will say though that it is a nice change from being labeled as a quack from people in my own party for considering the possibility that our beloved leader is acting as though he has something to hide because he actually does (whether or not it's his place of birth or something equally as devastating, I do not know) so I'll accept and appreciate the question at face value.

My answer to your inquiry is I don't remember where I read it originally.  I believe it was a report done on AmericasRight.com but I can't be certain.  Hopefully someone else can provide the requested link.

224

Saddest thing: This will get brought up again if he runs for re-election 2012.

Some states are considering upping the anty about proving eligibility. If that occurs, I forsee a repeat of all this again. If there is any truth to all the muckracking, then it will come out then.

Until then, the issue (or non-issue) is in the closet. With.Any.Other.Skeletons. That.May.Exist.

There are more attempts in the judicial pipeline out there to drag this skeleton or phantom out. I give them that the chance of finding Casper the Ghost's Father is higher than anything coming out of this through the court system. 

We would be better served by finding those other skeletons in  the closet, as well as whatever new skeletons exist, and preventing a re-election.

Focus people.

225 Drew, I don't have time to answer you because I am headed into a deposition. We will have to agree to disagree. You are misstating what I believe.

Ah yes. Misstating. You said you don't think Ark settles the natural born citizenship question* and in all the time we've been going back and forth you haven't offered one citation that shows there's any difference between 'natural born' and your novel theory of born as a citizen but not natural born.

It's real easy to post any shit that comes to mind without any supporting documentation.

I wish your client good luck, I think they are really going to need it.

*Here's you at #108 lest you try the whole "you are misrepresenting me" bullshit.

"The Court ruled he was a citizen from birth. It did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. "

How's the legal or legislative cite supporting this mysterious 3rd category coming?

226 It doesn't matter if it is the best evidence on this issue, it is evidence of him being born in the US.

Yes, it does matter.  Courts are required to allow the parties to obtain the best evidence.  They are required to admit the best evidence, when it exists. 

Here's the bigger issue, Mikey -- courts don't get to prejudge the evidence in deciding which lawsuits to take. 

227

In Re:  The Best Evidence Rule, you are going to find that courts aren't going to request vault copies of documents unless some proof can be shown that the evidence being profferred (such as the birth certificate copy most of us have - like Hawaii's COLB) is wrong.  The person moving for that vault copy to be brought out is going to have to bring proof that a particular COLB is wrong and not offer vague suspicions.

Otherwise, the COLB is sufficient evidence for a case; it is the best evidence necessary to produce because the vault copy is not in the hands of any party to the suit, but a third party, the State of Hawaii.

228 Mikey NTH your point stands but it simply means there is a loophole

check this out this is from the Hawaii Department of Health website


Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.

COLB does not certify the citizenship

229 @ 212, 

First, thanks for answering in a roundabout sort of way. 

This is kinda where we part ways.  There is only one place the natural born citizen is used and thats for the elig. for POTUS.  It's never really truely defined what a NBC is.  It's vague, but one can come to the conclusion that it must have a special meaning or intent.  What is that meaning and the intent?  That sparked this debate and the what the meaning of the term NBC is. 
To be a senator, you have to be a  citizen of the US,  So why use the term NBC for POTUS?  Like I said, must have a special meaning.....why did Chester Aurthor lie about his being born here of two citizen parents if woulda been elig. under your def. ?    i dont know Cuomo's Dukkais parents status so, i dont konw.  I would like for the SCOTUS to define what NBC truely is, Taking the intent of the framers into consideration.  And i think that they would not allow a person with dual citizenship/allegiances to be POTUS.

the second question, he meets all the conditions for potus so, why not?  as long as his parents are both citizens.

230 >>>Evidently the "conservatives" that run this site don't care at all that we have a Constitution.

Another one.

Hint: Stop telling me it's a character flaw because I don't BELIEEEEEVE like you do.

Has passionate belief in an unproven allegation become a core conservative principle when I wasn't looking?

Those who knock the conservative doubters are saying precisely this -- "Gee, we haven't really offered any evidence, but if you don't suspend your skepticism and BEEEELIEEEVE with us, you're a bad conservative or a RINO or a coward."

I don't believe any goddamn thing until there's good proof for it. Proving any of this nonsense is your problem, not mine.

231 Yes, all

He is President and all of this is not going to magically uncrown him, nor would Pelosi ever let a Article of Impeachment on the floor.  However, it can still hurt him.

Ponder:  Do you think evidence that he illicitly used affirmative action programs or dollars for college would decrease the enthusiasm for him African-American community and depress turnout?  Every little bit helps.  Can you imagine Jesse Jackson going off on that?  Is going to get him impeached no, does it reduce his "power" and diminish his chance in 2012 - yes.  Should we pursue it - yes.

232 Honestly. Do you guys not get you've taken certain leaps of faith -- assuming evidence not in the record, assuming court precedent you are unable to produce?

It's fine if you want to do that. I mean, I'd advise against it, but it doesn't make you a bad person.

But, having taken these leaps of faith and skipping blithely over contrary evidence, please do not take the next step of insulting those who refuse to take these leaps of faith along with you.

233 Blogluddite   I'd say they did answer it by making the distinction between the words, naturalized citizen, citizen and natural born citizen.  so if the definition of a citizen is the same as a natural born citizen, why make that distinction?

234

Courts don't prejudge based on evidence available, but party's sure do.  I don't see any evidence that the COLB is wrong, all I get are vague suspicions and 'I have questions'.  That isn't enough for a sane person to go into court with.

The Best Evidence Rule is FRE 1002.  Here is FRE 1005:

FRE 1005 Public Records:

The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by a copy, certified as correct according to Rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the orifginal.  If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.

 

The COLB would be considered the best evidence.

235 I'm wrong to say that it's the conspiracy theory nature of this i don't like.

What I don't like is the quasi-religious passion with which it is pushed. Assertions are offered without backing evidence, and when a nonbeliever expressed doubt and demands evidence, there's this twitchy reflex to brand that person somehow of bad character or morality -- "unworthy" of salvation.

Again, it's your problem as regards proof. I understand if you're frustrated that you don't have as much as it if you like. But stop beating up on people whose sin is to not join you in deciding a very, very low bar of evidence will suffice.

236 Posted by: Mongol at March 06, 2009 03:42 PM (gtZwa) I hate to break it to you* but a constitutional right (which for the eight or nine hundredth time was settled in Ark) trumps a regulatory ruling. Besides, that INS stuff only comes into play if he was born outside the US. You may have noticed but I don't buy that 'born in Kenya' crap. *That's not true, I enjoy pointing out when people are off by a mile.

237 Honestly. Do you guys not get you've taken certain leaps of faith -- assuming evidence not in the record, assuming court precedent you are unable to produce?

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't have to.  I can easily reach the conclusion that the dismissal of this lawsuit was flat-out, 100% fucking irretrievably wrong by the mere fact that the judge had to rely on the newfound Twitter rule to justify his not wanting to hear it. 

It goes something like this: "Shit that gets talked about on Twitter is a dead issue.  Next!"

The plaintiff is allowed to assert his allegations of fact, and the court is required to assume those allegations are true when deciding if the case is legally cognizable. 

That's the deal. 

The issue of whether there is sufficient evidence isn't even on the table yet. 

238 Ace you stated "skipping blithely over contrary evidence"

could you please tell me what is that contrary evidence you refer to? I am not mocking you, I am genuinely asking

239

#29 Ace, listen to that tape of Obama's grandmother again. When the Grandmna is "correcting" herself, is there any interpretation from English to Swahili? If there's no translation time in the tape, then Grandma doesn't even know what is being said. Her grandson translated her as saying that she was there when Obama was born. Later, without even consulting Grandma, the grandson denies that she ever said it.

The man who was doing the interpreting signed an affidavit explaining that the grandson corrected Grandma -Grandma never changed her story.

240 Drew M said :

"As for the over all issue that his eligibility hasn't been adjuciated I submit to youy the fact that the Electoral College and the Congress of the United States of America (the only two bodies who actually elect the President) elected and confirmed him as President. Presumably they were satisfied he met the qualifications."


This proves only that they didn't question what they were told. It doesn't establish that they did due diligence.  Considering the competence or our system of Government lately, the idea that they screwed this up is entirely believable.


David

241 The COLB would be considered the best evidence.

Wrong.  It would not be the best evidence, not when there is an allegation that the COLB does not contain all of the relevant information, or that it can be created under criteria (such as being born outside the US) that, if true, would support the plaintiff's allegations. 

242 Do you guys not get you've taken certain leaps of faith -- assuming evidence not in the record, assuming court precedent you are unable to produce?

This is compounded by taking the leap of faith that Obama is an honest person, if the colb was produced in 2007, what did he use prior to that?  what documentation did he use for his senate run.  Compounded on top of that compound is the medias complacency in letting things that obama does and has done, slip by the wayside.

243 Ace, isn't this whole thread about beating up on "Nirther's" ? 

244 Well I have one guy, sizzle, arguing that SC precedent stating that someone born of an American parent is "a citizen from the moment of his birth" is not the same as a "natural born citizen," for one thing, postulating a yet-to-be-revealed third category of citizen apart from natural-born and natural-ized.

A lot of people keep claiming the COLB is somehow deficient despite the assertions of the republican governor of hawaii and her sec of state, and also ignore the fact a COLB is drawn up from info on the BC.

As to that last part-- what you're really arguing, ultimately, is that the COLB is a forgery. Fine, whatever. But if they can forge that they can forge the BC so face it, you're not looking for proof. You already have all proof you need, and any contrary evidence, like the BC demanded, will just be dismissed as a forgery.

So honestly this is not an argument about evidence. You have your conclusions and that, as they say, is that.

245 DrewM,
If he was born in US, I agree complitely, there is no question. But (yes I noticed that you don't buy that 'born in Kenya' crap) may I point out to you that both his grandma and Kenyan ambassador both admitted to that crap. It's on tape, search on youtube and it'll come up. Is it conclusive? No. But it does raise the question. COLB does not establish that he was born in Hawaii, (as i demonstrated by referring to Hawaii state website). Birth Certificate was not produced.
Neither side can conclusive claim anything, until it is so. If you choose to relinquish your curisiousity in this case, it's your choise, but poopooing those who don't is silly.

246 "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."

True, but then (under 2), the COLB won't list Honolulu as the person's birth place, which Obama's does (unless, of course, that was a forgery, in which case, why not forge the "real deal"?)

As to the birth announcement, etc, there is this . From this you can also see that if someone was not born in a hospital, and they wanted the Vital Records office to list Hawaii as their place of birth, they'd need affidavits from attending medical personnel (midwife, etc.), stating where and when they were born.

This argument reminds me a lot of the scene from Spinal Tap:

Interviewer: "Why does it have to go to 11? Why don't you just make the amps more powerful and still have 10 as the top?"

Band Member (I forget which): [long pause] "Ours goes to 11."

247 Well I have one guy, sizzle, arguing that SC precedent stating that someone born of an American parent is "a citizen from the moment of his birth" is not the same as a "natural born citizen," for one thing, postulating a yet-to-be-revealed third category of citizen apart from natural-born and natural-ized.

NO i'm making that there is only one place in the const. that the term NBC is used, and we all know what place that is.  Question is, why make that disticntion if NBC is the same as a Citizen ?

248 Posted by: David at March 06, 2009 04:08 PM (EOnG1)

So it's all about the sanctity of the Constitution except of course when the outcome provided by the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution isn't to some people's liking. Then it's about....what again exactly?

249

170 >>>Dude, I READ this blog. When did you address this detail before? I've never seen it.

Me neither. I'd like the cite because it is crucial.

The Department of Health website describes how COLBs are created. As I said earlier, you can get a COLB for a birth outside of Hawaii. However, where it says "City, Town, or Location of Birth", they put the City, Town, or Location of Birth. Not the location where the COLB was registered.

The conjecture that when Obama's COLB says, "City, Town, or Location of Birth: Honolulu", it really means "Kenya" or "In transit." is just that. Conjecture. Based on...suspision?

Obama's COLB says "City, Town, or Location of Birth: Honolulu." Now, you can say that you think the COLB we've seen is a fake. Good for you. But that document would be accepted as proof of citizenship for purposes of obtaining a passport, getting an FBI background check, getting a reprint SSA card, and hundreds of other statuses or benefits. The Hawaii officials say they've seen the

Gabe approves of this insane statement by an obviously malicious judge, and then he rips on OTHER people when they don't know crucial details that have never appeared on this blog.

You obviously didn't click to read the actual memo which explained why the plaintiff's claim that he might maybe have to make a hypothetical choice about whether to do his sworn duty doesn't raise a claim under the interpleader statute. In other words, the plaintiffs forgot to make an allege an actual cause of action. Hence, the suit was dismissed.

You think I provide the links just for shits and giggles? The "obviously malicious judge" did exactly the right thing. “Interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in one proceeding.” Here, there were no obligations or property to which a party was making any claims. IOW, no lawsuit.

Why didn't I include that in the post? Nobody wants to hear legal mumbo jumbo about interpleader. If you wanted that, you coulda just clicked on the link.

250 A lot of people keep claiming the COLB is somehow deficient despite the assertions of the republican governor of hawaii and her sec of state, and also ignore the fact a COLB is drawn up from info on the BC.

I can't past two points:

1. The only thing that constitutes true evidence on this issue is what the records custodian would say in a deposition (which would cover a lot of detail about how information is gathered, how such records are kept, etc.), not informal media comments by politicians.

2.  "It's old, so get your justice from Twitter" is not a basis for dismissing a lawsuit. 

Show me where either of these points is wrong.  I'm open to contrary argument.

251 Ace,

Your last point, comment 159, was the only reasonable argument you have made so far. To mock and criticize people who are concerned with this issue like you did in this post is not constructive. I consider myself a reasonable person, and former Democrat, who has recently discovered your blog and now follow it daily. I do not believe this case to be resolved one bit and believe Obama needs to come clean with this issue sooner or later. It's a constitutional requirement to be born in this country and not have dual citizenship to become President. Obama has done everything in his power to avoid this question including spending almost 1 million dollars. To me that tells me there is something to hide. As for the COLB, there are many questions regarding that. First, Hawaii allowed the registration of foreign births in their state and they issued COLB for foreign births. The COLB does not state where he was born. A Long Form Birth Certificate from Hawaii would state that, and that is what he is preventing from being shown. He is also hiding all of his school records. Why? Perhaps he applied for foreign aid. These are valid questions. To mock these questions and the people who want answers only makes you look small as far as I'm concerned.

One of these days we will get the answer to this question, and if he was indeed born in Kenya it will create a crisis in this country no matter what you believe. Many people will ask how did this happen and will demand answers? Others will demand that he be removed from office. His supporters will argue that it does not matter, but the fact remains that it is our constitution that we are talking about. It is the highest law of the land, and if Obama is not eligible to be President he will be a man that mocked and spit on our most precious document. All those people who tried to ridicule people who have been concerned with this issue for a long time, and aided in this very fraudulent act of preventing the truth from surfacing will be questioned.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates stated that one of the most important factors in the survival of the Republic is for its' citizens to uphold the laws of the land. If the citizens begin to break laws and they are not penalized by the powers that be then the society will deteriorate. If we do not uphold our Constitution to the highest standards then we will fall like other great societies have. The fact that Congress and the Judicial System do not consider this question valid tells me that we are at the beginning of the end.

Mock all you want Ace. Regardless of what you say this question of his eligibility is incredibly important. It was nice reading your blog for a while but your crediblity has now been lost with me.

252 Hey slizzle,

Did you see my questions at 211?

I know you think that not answering a direct question means you don't have the answer. I wouldn't want people to think you were avoiding me when you may have just not seen something.

Looking forward to your reply!

253

Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.

Is there any proof of an amended certificate?  Is there any proof that the COLB is inaccurate?  Does an Hawaiian COLB list place of birth?  Mine does.

I don't see any evidence contradicting the COLB other than the (1) statement of the Kenyan ambassador, and (2) the statement of the grandmother.  Now which evidence do I think is more credible?  The document provided by the State of Hawaii in the normal course of its business or these two statements?

I'm going with the document.  I want proof, not suspicion.

254 Whether it is true or not isn't the real point.  It is a good stick to beat him with, when this one is used up, move on to his Indonesian passport, then his college records, then on to Zombie's correlation of his and the Weathermen in NYC, then ...

The Huffington Post parleyed 8 years of ridiculous crap and insinuations against Bush into a seat in the White House Press corp.  Obama has allowed these doubts to persist and they make a good point for mud to start sticking.  The meme the Barack is hiding something supports all of the Chicago political scandal to come, any future misdeeds, etc.

255 i answered it somewhere in there

256 I want proof, not suspicion.

Without a lawsuit, you won't get proof, one way or the other. 

257 sizzle, you grow tedious in asking the same fucking question which is answered repeatedly but which you never acknowledge.

A natural born citizen can be president. The other kind of citizen -- a natural-IZED citizen -- cannot be.

There are precisely two fucking categories and despite your howling you have been unable thusfar to suggest a third.

You are either a citizen by birth (natural born) or a citizen through positive action and affirmation (natural-IZED). That's it. That's all there is in the store. There are two products. Two. No more.

258

The fact that Obama posted a fraudulent document on his Fight The Smears website says that #1, he should be charged with document fraud, and #2 we should see what the real document says, since he has never documented his place of birth.

The 20th Amendment says that a president-elect (already has the electoral votes) still has to "qualify". What does that mean, Ace?

Shortly after 9-11 Hawaii decided to fool-proof their birth documents records by changing the border every year - to make it harder for people to get fraudulent records. They knew that once a person has established their identity using false birth records, they have a free pass to do whatever. Everybody says that Obama's been vetted because of the offices he’s held, but all it takes is one fraudulent document and the whole rest of the process takes that as gospel.

Anyway, Hawaii has different borders every year. Between 2007 and 2008 they switched their seal as well. The Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted didn’t have a seal or any validating marks. But FActCheck posted what they said was photos of the COLB Obama let them see. The seal on that document was a 2008 seal, and the border was a 2007 border. Plus, even with edge detection the COLB Obama posted just barely shows one fold line and the hint of a seal showing through from the back side. But the photos at FactCheck show the seal showing on the front side so much that the paper was actually raised. There is no way what they photographed was the same thing as Obama posted.

In addition, the seal on FactCheck is right where a fold is. The photo shows the document with the bottom third folded towards the camera. But the seal itself has no distortion based on the fold. It is a perfect circle even though the page is sideways with half of the seal bent toward the camera. There is no way that seal was even ON the paper that FActCheck photographed. It was pasted in electronically afterwards.

There is definitely something fishy with what he posted and SOMEBODY should get to the bottom of it.

 

 

259

Phinn - you would have to move the Court to require the state of Hawaii to bring out the vault copy because the COLB is wrong.  To do that you would have to argue something, produce some fact that shows the COLB is wrong.  I doubt the testimony of the grandmother and the ambassador is going to carry much weight.

There isn't any proof that the COLB is inaccurate and you need to provide that before you get to the vault copy.  Allegations and suspicions aren't enough.

260

2.  "It's old, so get your justice from Twitter" is not a basis for dismissing a lawsuit. 

Phinn, see my last post. It wasn't dismissed because it was old. It was dismissed because the idiot (yes, I namecall) attorneys didn't allege a cause of action. The lawsuit was, therefore, frivolous. Consequently, the judge issued orders to show cause.

261 Posted by: Mongol at March 06, 2009 04:12 PM (gtZwa)

I've been through the grandmother thing earlier. As for the ambassador, as you note, it's not conclusive. Personally, I don't find an interview held on a morning zoo all that interesting, a lot of people say a lot of things. Hell, Philip Berg says Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11.

Am I being too dismissive of what I think is a language issue? Maybe so. I'd be more open to 'asking questions' if there wasn't more than compelling evidence on the other side.

262 I believe there should be SOMEONE with standing to vindicate a constitutional requirement, too, and the constant no-you-don't-have-standing crap from the courts gets old -- someone has it. Or else part of the constitution is a nullity.

However, again, this is a process point. Most of you buy into the substance -- that is, that Obama, despite the COLB and very fortuitous contemporaneous announcement in a Honolulu newspaper of his American birth, was born in Kenya.

You simply have no evidence for this.

The complaint is that we treat you like cranks. Fine -- that slips in I guess and Gabe was too bating.

However, you -- the guys with no evidence -- are treating us doubters -- the guys with the evidence -- as cranks. Or bad Americans. Or media shills. Or Obama bootlickers.

Again, kettle, meet pot. I am tired of being beaten up on for daring to ask for a minimum threshold of actual evidence before I swear allegiance to some theory.

And some of you are looking at me like I'm a weirdo for that.

263 Posted by: slizzle at March 06, 2009 04:21 PM (zG+3k)

Do you mind pointing out where?

What is it with so many of your birthers that providing links is so damn difficult? 

264 lol notropis
your link is really answers your question. "True, but then (under 2), the COLB won't list Honolulu as the person's birth place, which Obama's does (unless, of course, that was a forgery, in which case, why not forge the "real deal"?)"

from your link:

"hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement."

so if she said that he was born in Honolul, that's what would be noted in COLB, until they

"At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate."

could this be the reason why the BC was never produced?

Please don't get me wrong, but none of what was presented so far conclusively proves his citizenship. Forgive me for remaining sceptical

265

Two issues no addressed here, but as far as I know not cleared up (but I have been out of the country & not following this closely) ...

 

Apparantly there are school records from Indonesia listing him as a citizen of that country

Apparantly he traveled to one of the 'stans when it was closed to US citizens.

 

Were these resolved, proven / dispoven ?

 

266 >>> The fact that Obama posted a fraudulent document on his Fight The Smears website...

Fact?

This is some novel use of the word "fact" I was not previously aware of.

Some of you guys seem to know a lot of "facts" that the rest of us don't.

267 DrewM,
please educate ignorant Mongol on how to embed links here

268 you would have to move the Court to require the state of Hawaii to bring out the vault copy because the COLB is wrong

No, you wouldn't.  That is not the standard.  The Hawaii Dep't of Records exists to provide such records.  It is not an undue burden for them to produce the records that they exist for the purpose of maintaining. 

I get court authorization to obtain government records all the time.  My opponents get the same authorization about my clients all the time.  Usually it's tax records, but no one has to first prove that the copies in the parties' possession are forgeries, or wrong, etc.  Just that the government's records are (a) available, and (b) relevant and (c) not protected by privacy concerns.

The vault copies are available, they are relevant, and Obama waived privacy concerns over his birth records by running for President, which has one Constitutional requirement.

269 You need to use tinyurl(dot)com and then use the link button on the comment tool bar here.

270
Ace,
please stop repeating "You simply have no evidence for this.". All I am saying is that his grandma and Kenyan ambassadors statements deserve to be checked and cast a doubt on his citizenship, especially in view that theoretically there is a possibility of forgery.

271 @ 257, and your denial that the words citizen, naturalized citizen, and natural born are ALL THREE used in the constitution, is getn fucking annoying as well

272 269 You need to use tinyurl(dot)com and then use the link button on the comment tool bar here.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 06, 2009 04:31 PM (hlYel)

thank you

273 Gabe, 

I have handled several COLB's (inc. one from Hawaii) from children of military parents born overseas that list the place of birth as the state capitol, where the registar was located.  The actual birth certificate file includes the old Customs and Naturalization Form for the report of an Overseas birth (FS204) - which is then registered as a US birth at the home state.  I have seen others that do list the foreign location. 

And, please don't bring up an FBI background check - with his backstory it would take years and it would certainly include a look at the source records in Hawaii.

274

Without a lawsuit, you won't get proof, one way or the other. 

You cannot file a lawsuit on a suspicion that something is wrong.  You have to plead specific facts alleging the wrong.  a complaint that is basically 'I don't know if I was wronged until I go through his records and find something' is going to get tossed out and the attorney will be lucky if he doesn't get sanctioned.

275

The COLB does not state where he was born.

bluesky, Obama's COLB says he was born in Honolulu. Try again.

Also, Ace did not write this post. I did, so blame me.

276 >>>Mock all you want Ace. Regardless of what you say this question of his eligibility is incredibly important. It was nice reading your blog for a while but your crediblity has now been lost with me.

It's a religion, as I said. I'm not merely denying a curious and unsubstantiated theory; I'm denying a religious article of faith.

Your offense and emotional outrage at being contradicted should sort of tip you off that you're not exactly dealing with this dispassionately as an intellectual exercise.

Again:

You should believe X.

--- I don't. Can you provide evidence for X?

No, you should believe it just because it's right to believe in it. In fact, the very lack of evidence is all the more reason to believe in it, and thus demonstrate you're a good, patriotic American.

-- Well, I don't.

Well fuck you then, sell-out!

277 Gabe sure loves those Clinton appointees.

278 Mongol:

"hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement"

Read again, that's referring to documentation OF MARRIAGE. The HOSPITAL wouldn't need documentation of where the kid was born, because the kid was born IN THE HOSPITAL.

If the kid wasn't born in the hospital, the hospital wouldn't be involved at all, and then it would go to the State to determine place and date of birth, which, if it were in Hawaii, would have required affidavits of support.

The COLB lists Obama's birth place as "Honolulu, Hawaii." A COLB for someone born elsewhere would list the elsewhere as the birth place.

If a kid was not born in a Hawaii hospital, sworn affidavits would be required for the State to accept that the kid was, in fact, born in Hawaii.

279 @ Alec Rawls at March 06, 2009 02:58 PM (c+6of)

*sigh*

It used to be entertaining to read these exchanges. But these days I keep seeing the same rerun. Nothing new. Well, almost nothing.

On one hand we have people like Johnson and Gabe, dutifully following Saul Alinsky's Rule #5 and ridiculing ("Nirther", "Birther", "silly", etc.) rather than engaging those of us who simply remain unconvinced of BHO's NBC. Drew continues to cite a case that does not confer Article II NBC onto BHO (i.e., Article II NBC is not a facet of that case) while attempting to paint those suspicious of BHO with the wholly irrelevant 9/11 Truther brush simply because Berg is confused on that issue. Ace, rather than spending some time putting together a real Preview function for comments here, mocks 'fallbacks' while failing to see same in, for instance, his second-guessing of what the Kenyan Ambassador said/understood and assertions that HI officials have testified to the details of the vault COLB when they have not so testified, they've simply stated that it exists. And Gabe wants to dip his balls in a shameful mockery of the law and the facts in evidence. Ok.

On the other hand we have folks like Alec Rawls, Nice Deb and Mary Beth, et al., who understand the breadth and depth of the issue from a practical - i.e., non-anally-retentive-legalese - standpoint.

Alec, Gabe's #116 is in error. Having examined in depth the HI laws controlling original vault COLB vs. the so-called 'short-form' documents that can be used to represent them, I can tell you that a short-form - the only thing we've seen 'proving' BHO's NBC - can legally look nothing like the original COLB. Per the statutes, its owner can effectively make any modifications to the short-form document s/he sees fit. The original vault copy can not be so modified. There is no verbage in the statute either way stating whether or not Place of Birth may or may not be changed on a modified COLB.

Ace raises the ostensibly valid question of "what evidence exists that they're different"? The answer to that irrelevant (per Diogenes' #31) question is simple: BHO's behavior, i.e., the monumental efforts to which he's gone to prevent the public from comparing the two documents. Ace's 'fallback' is likely that this isn't "evidence". I might agree, but would add that it is cause for justifiable, considerable doubt - enough that serious people have mounted numerous efforts to settle the question legally. None of those efforts has been decided on the merits, they've simply been dismissed through procedural bullshit. In this case Robinson is wrong: BHO's NBC was never fully vetted - that can only ever be done by examining the original vault COLB, which has not been done - and dismissing the case on those grounds is not justice by any measure.

Ace, I'm not sure how many people actually entertain the notion that BHO would ever be removed from office based on anything shown in his original vault COLB. I completely expect that BHO was born in Kenya but, as stated, Congress can 'fix' any oopsie that slipped by through the simple passage of a new law. This is no longer the issue. BHO's behavior indicates that revealing the facts here will continue to expose him for the fraud he is - whether it's something to do with his place of birth or some other irregularity. And right now, nothing could be healthier for the Republic he's attempting to destroy.

Having said all that, we've come to a point where this question can never be answered. As the most powerful individual on the face of the earth, BHO now has the ability to forge whatever document is needed to fit the facts he wants the world to know. If some folks had taken this question a little more seriously back when there was still time to make it an election issue, we might never have come to this point. But now, it's effectively moot.

280 Drew, i dont know the status of his parents, so i dont know

question two,   i'm failing to understand why tracing back to the mayflower is relav.  i said,   if he meets all the const. requirements to be Potus, then sure.  I still dont know what the status of his/her parents were either?

281 #257 Ace, the definition of "natural born" from the English Common Law, which was the basis for the Constitution's terminology, says the issue hinges on divided loyalties. So it is different than just "citizen by birth".

282

Apparantly there are school records from Indonesia listing him as a citizen of that country

Apparantly he traveled to one of the 'stans when it was closed to US citizens.

What credibility does a school record from Indonesia have when compared to the documents issued by the state of Hawaii from information they keep in their records pursuant to statute?

Traveling to one of the 'stans?  Ask State and/or Justice if they thought the matter was worth pursuing - or if they even knew he did so within the appropriate statute of limitations.

 

283 slizzle ,  I found it. My question was in 211 so I didn't realize you were responding to me (you wrote @212, an innocent mistake).

You write...
This is kinda where we part ways.  There is only one place the natural born citizen is used and thats for the elig. for POTUS.  It's never really truely defined what a NBC is.  It's vague, but one can come to the conclusion that it must have a special meaning or intent.  What is that meaning and the intent?  That sparked this debate and the what the meaning of the term NBC is. 

Again see Ark. Despite what the other guy repeatedly says, that case did define 'natural born citizen'. Saying it doesn't repeatedly doesn't change the reality.

  i dont know Cuomo's Dukkais parents status so, i dont konw. 

Both of their parents were born in Greece and Italy respectively.

I would like for the SCOTUS to define what NBC truely is, Taking the intent of the framers into consideration. 

Again, they did. Ignoring the case that is on point about this doesn't change that inconvenient fact.

the second question, he meets all the conditions for potus so, why not?  as long as his parents are both citizens.

Fine but you do realize that you saying 'as long as his parents are both citizens' is something you added and not actually in the Constitution, right?

284 #266 Ace, since the COLB Obama posted has a seal from 2008 and a border from 2007, I would consider it fact that it has been falsified. What more would it take to convince you?

285 Gabriel Malor,

"The COLB does not state where he was born.

bluesky, Obama's COLB says he was born in Honolulu. Try again.

Also, Ace did not write this post. I did, so blame me."

if what notropis linked is true then they would have placed on COLB what his mother said. Quote from notropis link:
"hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement."

and then this

"At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate."

later she would have been required to produce notarized statement from the mid-wife in order to get BC (which would result in a "different kind of birth certificate.") I haven't heard of either notarized statement nor BC being ever produced, correct me if I am wrong.

286

No, you wouldn't.  That is not the standard.  The Hawaii Dep't of Records exists to provide such records.  It is not an undue burden for them to produce the records that they exist for the purpose of maintaining. 

I provided you Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) and FRE 1005.  The vault copy does not have to be produced and if you want it to be produced you have to move the court to do so and you better provide some proof - factual evidence - to the court supporting your request to go past those to evidentiary rules.

 

287 I don't get the part where you defenders of BHO's sanctity in his birth records get terribly offended by the merest whiff of an accusation that you're arguing in bad faith ("cocktail parties!" "sell outs!"), but have no trouble tossing accusations of bad faith in the skeptics' direction ("quasi-religious zealots!"). 

I don't understand that.

288 I think the same person (Lori), in a subsequent comment, summarizes the facts pretty well here, assuming you're in the least amenable to logic.

289 notropi,
would you mind providing a link or source for "If a kid was not born in a Hawaii hospital, sworn affidavits would be required for the State to accept that the kid was, in fact, born in Hawaii."
Thanks

290 P.S.: specifically that it was the case in 1961

291 DrewM  which brings me back to intent.  there are a lot of things that arent clearly defined in the const. which is the basis of a lot of Dem double speak and reframing what the meanings are in the const.  I know it's not mentioned in the cont. i'm going by intent.  There is no roadmap for what a nbc is. 

292 i'm failing to understand why tracing back to the mayflower is relav

I was exaggerating to demonstrate that there were no issues surrounding his parent's citizenship in my hypothetical.

The overall point was to prove that the idea of 'dual allegiances' was not something written into the Constitution.  I think a kid who was clearly a US citizen but grew up in a foreign country would be a far greater candidate for that problem than someone born and raised here but to one or more parents without US citizenship.

As you say, the person in my hypothetical would be qualified by the Constitution even though there would undoubtedly be questions about allegiances. You are simply trying to slip in a qualification that isn't in the Constitution simply because it can't be qualified. The question of sufficient 'allegiance' is a political, not legal one.

293 check the kerning

294

We can debate here forever, but are we the ones who should be in charge of finding out where the POTUS was born, given that what he posted, himself, included none of the verifying marks, and the alleged photo of the document doesn’t even vaguely resemble the document it claims to be? What he posted would not be accepted as proof of anything, anywhere, because it doesn’t have the verification. The alleged photos of what he posted have a 2007 border and a 2008 seal. There is no way this document proves anything, except that something fishy is going on that should be checked out.

295 I provided you Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) and FRE 1005.

Yeah, and what you fail to understand is that these rules only provide that the COLB would not be ruled inadmissible as hearsay.  Fine.  They're not hearsay.  But they're still not the best evidence.  These rules would not prevent or bar or forestall or be a good reason to resist a third-party subpoena to the Hawaii Dept. of Records. 

Neither of these rules prevents third-party discovery requests to a fucking records office where the sufficiency of  documents (which, admittedly would otherwise be sufficient) is questioned, particularly where that question is at the heart of the whole fucking lawsuit. 

296 292, thats why the statue of living here at least 14 yrs.

297 Undoubtedly people have said this, but I'll repeat this since "Posted by: Jeff_McAwesome at March 06, 2009 01:42 PM" missed it:

If O! was born in Kenya, then he is (or was) legally a British citizen alone. US law at the time stated that the American parent had to be 19 years old for their child to be considered a citizen; Ann Dunham was 18. Ergo, unless he was born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the US, he could not be a natural born citizen.

That law was changed several years later, but it was not the law in effect at the time of O!'s birth, and it was the contemporary law which mattered.

298 There is no roadmap for what a nbc is.
Posted by: slizzle at March 06, 2009 04:44 PM (zG+3k)

Yes there is. You simply don't chose to accept it.

I posted my 292 before I saw this but I think it fits well. You can't add a qualification to the list of things in the Constitution because you think the intent was there. That's a very slippery slope (and one liberals usually use).

The Constitution lays out a very clear set of qualifications, over 100 years ago the Supreme Court has defined the one most in question  That's that. The rest, things like sufficient allegiance, is up to voters and they have spoken. Now they and the rest of us will be punished.

299 Mongol, you included it in your above quote from my first link, although you clipped off the first part (the part that alleges that this was the case "at the time":

"At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife."

300 What credibility does a school record from Indonesia have when compared to the documents issued by the state of Hawaii from information they keep in their records pursuant to statute?

That's a fact issue.  It's therefore subject to being weighed along with all the other evidence (which would include all of the records from Hawaii, and any depositions of the Hawaiian records officials about how records are kept and what procedures are used to obtain such information, how documents are created, how information is gathered, how those procedures have changed over time, etc.).

But, yes, please, continue to do your part to see that this kind of thorough examination of all of the evidence never happens. 

301 If the kid wasn't born in the hospital, the hospital wouldn't be involved at all, and then it would go to the State to determine place and date of birth, which, if it were in Hawaii, would have required affidavits of support.

And these documents are what would be in the file with the long form certificate - not however noted on the COLB.  How do you weigh the evidence if it consists of a signed letter from one Grandmother saying he born in Hawaii, another saying on tape it was Kenya, and a Kenyan ambassador saying Kenya?  The only other contemporaneous record is the newspaper announcement - but that is generated by the filing at the State VSO.

I will attest, that even when the FS204 form (Record of Foreign Birth) is in the file, the COLB will sometimes reflect the place of registration.  I have been given reasons, like "our system doesn't have a Country field" and the person who entered the data 20 years ago didn't even try to understand the records in Thai, etc.

302 Ace Said :

"266 >>> The fact that Obama posted a fraudulent document on his Fight The Smears website...

Fact?

This is some novel use of the word "fact" I was not previously aware of.

Some of you guys seem to know a lot of "facts" that the rest of us don't. "


Forgive me if i'm wrong, but I coulda swore I saw a bang up proof of forgery concerning the posted birth certificate at Atlas Shrugs.

Have you not seen this ? or is there some information that disputes it ?

David

303 notropis,
I admit I was a bit confused by the her statement, nonetheless I am repeating my question could you please prove a link or source for "If a kid was not born in a Hawaii hospital, sworn affidavits would be required for the State to accept that the kid was, in fact, born in Hawaii." I am asking for a state or government websource. What lori wrote is as conclusive as O's grandma's statement - that is individual's statement. I want to see the official requirement for the notarized documents at the time.

304 and here is Jean's statement

"I will attest, that even when the FS204 form (Record of Foreign Birth) is in the file, the COLB will sometimes reflect the place of registration.  I have been given reasons, like "our system doesn't have a Country field" and the person who entered the data 20 years ago didn't even try to understand the records in Thai, etc."

all we have here ladies and gentlemen is he said she said. I remain unconvinced of either's side absolute rightness on the issue, with the personal bias distrusting O. As mentioned millions time before, all these can be put to rest by producing BC.

305

Just for shins and grits, guys.  What would you do if it turned out that O really is not eligible?

 

 

306

I had a junior high American History teacher in 1965 who was a Bircher, and a damn good one. He said then that our definitions of citzenship were so vague that someday we'd be "had" by them. So I guess this makes this just another kooky Bircher case, except I haven't seen yet where he was wrong.

The only thing I have learned from the non-enquiry is what a big obstacle "standing" is in a constitutional case. IANAL and thought any citizen could raise a constitutional issue, and if in research it was shown it had never been settled, might go ahead with suits of law. Now I know better. I need permission.

If you really want to sit up nights pondering, imagine how this would proceed as impeachment. Is there any force of congressional fact-finding or prosecutorial authority that could get to the bottom of it? Looks like not.

We're being made monkeys of by our own justice system. Not the first time, but the inability to deal with so simple a question was couched by some party a-purpose, just to make us look fat and lucky. That in itself should call out for an answer, truther, birther, or what ever.

Furthermore Carthage must be destroyed.

 

307

David, I was sent to a site called “Bad Science” that argues that the problems with the posted COLB were jus side effects from the scanning process. But the site ignores the control group that the COLB was compared with. They also said that Politifact had verified the authenticity of the COLB, but the Politifact site actually quoted the HI authority as saying it is impossible for them to say what the posted COLB represents.

 

I’ll be honest and say that I didn’t read beyond that point on the “Bad Science” site because they ignored the whole issue of a control group, which is the very personification of scientific method. I doubt that they addressed the mismatched seal and border or the seal that showed no bend in it when the page was folded forward.

 

308

Just for shins and grits, guys.  What would you do if it turned out that O really is not eligible?

It would be grounds for impeachment as a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

309 "Just for shins and grits, guys.  What would you do if it turned out that O really is not eligible?"

Personally? No clue, but I am afraid there would be a second civil war. In which case that Russian dude predicting US breakdown might turn out right.

310 I've gotta go dive into traffic, but there is smoke around our dear leader's background. We don't have find the fire, we just need to keep yelling fire until the theater goers stampede.

311 Just for shins and grits, guys.  What would you do if it turned out that O really is not eligible
Get the guns ready for some shananigins

312 >>>Forgive me if i'm wrong, but I coulda swore I saw a bang up proof of forgery concerning the posted birth certificate at Atlas Shrugs.

There have been ten iterations of the "proof" for why the COLB is fake. Whenever one version gets debunked, the same guys come up with a new theory.

I actually linked the first iteration -- I bought into it. THen it got debunked, and they put up another one. I linked that too, I'm pretty sure.

And then the third. And the fourth. And the fifth.

And that was it for me. Fool me once, shame on you, and etc. Fool me ten times? No thanks.

I was talking with Totten in Beirut about the Iraq War. We were discussing how the liberals did not make a good case against the war -- they could have made a good case, but didn't, as they whined about Saddam's precious sovereignty and imperialism and so forth. They could have asked, "What happens if we get pinned down there and are therefore unable to threaten Iran in a believable way, and Iran has free license to develop a bomb?"

Which is what happened, alas. Now, it may be unfair to accuse them of lacking 100% prescience but that's just a fer-instance. What I mean is that the liberals failed to present the case against war in terms of what's best for America, as opposed to what's best for the "international coalition" or vague concepts like "internatlonal law."

At any rate, as we were talking, I hit upon a pithy little statement that I think is true: Good arguments don't change minds. BAD arguments change minds.

By which I mean it's often the paucity of an argument that changes your mind to run in the opposite direction. I myself have my mind changed more by bad arguments than good ones.

Relating that back to the instant dispute:

Having been a witness to the birth of Birtherism, and having seen the first theory come out, to be debunked, to be replaced by a new one, also debunked, to be replaced by still more theories, and then to see the original reason for suspecting the Kenyan birth (the supposedly forged COLB) now barely even mentioned while the conclusion that gave rise to (he must have been born in Kenya, that's why there's a false COLB!) live on, now without any underlying evidence to support it...

Well, I'm sorry. Bad arguments change minds. I was there at the beginning -- I linked it; you can check -- but I saw this claim mutate into new questions about dual citizenship and he like, always squirming away from the evidence to metamorph into something new.

And no, I'm not on board.

When I see the same conclusion remain utterly unchanged when the theories (Kenyan birth, Indonesian birth, Indonesian dual citizenship) and supposed facts are as malleable as Play-Doh, that, my friends, is a bad fucking argument, and I want no part of it.

Incidentally, if conservatives are supposed to buy into this, why doesn't Rush Limbaugh?

313 What I do ... come back here and act all smug.  But, I don't think Pelosi would let the impeachment articles get a floor vote.  They would pass a retro-active bill applying the citizenship rights under current immigration law to people that preceded it and then they would define "natural born citizen" explicitly in the same bill.

Who could sue?

314

Just for shins and grits, guys.  What would you do if it turned out that O really is not eligible?

It would be grounds for impeachment as a high crime or misdemeanor.

I disagree.  I submit that it would mean that his Presidency is void ab initio.  None of his official acts would be valid, back to Day 1.  No executive orders, no legislation, nothing.  All erased, and treated as though they never happened. 

Of course, as a reaction to this Constitutional crisis, President Biden would probably immediately execute or enact anything he could to reinstate the effectiveness of Obama's official acts to date.  Maybe.  

Whatever the case, I would laugh and laugh ...

315 Incidentally, if conservatives are supposed to buy into this, why doesn't Rush Limbaugh?

Rush obviously isn't a real conservative. He's probably in on it with Obama. Obama promised to pick a fight with him so that Rush would make a fortune and leave him alone on this issue.

See? There's nothing that can't be explained if you have enough Layers!

316

Mongol, I think the fear of riots and war is what has kept the courts from pursuing this issue.

Military officers take an oath to the Constitution. The code of military justice says that a soldier can't plead ignorance or that they were "just following orders". To obey a Commander-in-Chief who is not Constitutionally eligible is equivalent to letting Hugo Chavez take over our military. Our military people have not only a right but a responsibility to know the CIC is Constitutionally eligible - on pain of court-martial if they don't.

We owe it to these guys to take their oath as seriously as they do.

317

It so happens that I've been discussing this issue on another, non-gay site.  In response to my pestering them about Barky's motives for refusing to release the birth certificate, Oids reply in one of the following ways:

1)  He's already released it.  This reply is seen less often with time, as people become aware of the birth certificate/COLB distinction.

2)  No one's succeeded in making him release it.  This is where the legal eagles head for.  A possible motive for not releasing the birth certificate is not addressed.

3)  It's a set-up of more-than-Rovian brilliance.  Not entirely implausible, but less plausible as Obie wastes more government time and money and as people in general come to trust him less.  The time for the big Haha! has come and gone.

4)  It wouldn't accomplish anything, as some birthers will never be convinced.  Well, some birthers probably would respond by taking their theorizing to a new level, but most of us would drop the subject and get back to Vince Foster.  In any case, the question of why O didn't release the birth certificate earlier, before the theories spread, isn't answered.

5)  Shut up!  Shut up!  Shut up! 

318 If your underlying facts and theories are frequently changing but your conclusion remains constant, you, in the words of FARK, are doing it wrong.

And I've seen that with Birtherism. Every damn "fact" and "proof" and even the basic theory (born in Kenya vs. Dual Citizenship vs. born in America and yet STILL not a citizen!) has changed and mutated and metamorphed and yet that damn conclusion remains precisely the same: Barack Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States. For some reason-- not sure which, but we have several you can choose from.

319 You know, I think I'm just going to hope for a military coup d'etat of Obama and the restoration of order.

Or I'll go to Japan.

320 Bad arguments change minds.

Bad arguments leave open questions. 

321 Incidentally, on a related note, the cases keep coming up, the list grows longer, Obama keeps fighting the BC and now the Occidental college records under the FOIA.  All could be done away with with just producing this simple document.  As far as i'm concerned, If i was Obama, and I had a real Hawaii BC on record, I would release it at the same time giving the biggest SHUT THE FUCK UP thats ever been recorded in history.

322

Ace, I’ve asked you some specific questions about the mismatched seal and border, the grandmother hearing an interpretation and responding, and the photos at FactCheck that don’t match either reality or what Obama posted.

 

Nobody has debunked any of that.

 

I have no idea what to think of what a Certification of Live Birth means. The arguments do change, but that’s what I’d expect when we don’t have anybody liable to criminal prosecution explaining what is and isn’t true. And that’s all the “Birthers” want, is somebody checking this out who can be put in jail for negligence if they botch the facts.

 

It’s a frustrating situation, but without a legitimate investigation which has access to ALL the evidence, NOBODY knows what the truth is. And the issue is as significant as anything this country has ever faced because it’s about lawlessness versus the rule of law.

 

323 I would release it at the same time giving the biggest SHUT THE FUCK UP thats ever been recorded in history

Nah. First of all, the number of people who care about this is really, really small. Secondly, giving in would only invite more cranks to demand more and more things.

When you are President of the United States it's better to ignore the screamers (much like Bush ignored Code Pink). You don't want to elevate them for absolutely no gain.

Plus, there's a group that won't give up. They'll either claim it's a forgery or that it doesn't matter (the whole dual citizenship crap). Better not to engage at all.

324

FRE 105 is not the hearsay rules those are in the 800 section of the FRE.  The rules regarding best evidence are found in the 1000 section and FRE 1005 states that the original record is not required for these documents.  The reason is simple: the original documents have to be on file so the state can access them in the regular course of the state's business; having state employees lugging them off to court for every lawsuit is too disruptive to the state's business.  Hence, a copy provided by the state or a data compilation or a document that states the information is considered sufficient.  To get past FRE 1005 you are going to have to move the court to subpoena the original and the court is not going to do that unless you have proof the copy is incorrect.

I have seen copies of Articles of Incorporation printed off the state's website brought in as evidence of the filed articles of incorporation and accepted.  The originals were not required.  (This was under the Michigan Rules of Evidence which are similar to the FRE).  Allegations and suspicions are not going to get past the assumption that the state has provided an accurate copy of the information, etc. that is in its possession.

325

justincase said:

"David, I was sent to a site called “Bad Science” that argues that the problems with the posted COLB were jus side effects from the scanning process. But the site ignores the control group that the COLB was compared with. They also said that Politifact had verified the authenticity of the COLB, but the Politifact site actually quoted the HI authority as saying it is impossible for them to say what the posted COLB represents.

 

I’ll be honest and say that I didn’t read beyond that point on the “Bad Science” site because they ignored the whole issue of a control group, which is the very personification of scientific method. I doubt that they addressed the mismatched seal and border or the seal that showed no bend in it when the page was folded forward."

 

If you are responding to me, then I don't understand what you are talking about. The web site is "Atlas Shrugs"  with Pamela Geller as the web mistress. There is a very extensive analysis of the posted birth certificate by a document expert in which he demonstrates how the document is a forgery. If you can't find it, i'll see if I can find a link for you.

David

326

Obama has never posted a COLB that had the 3 marks of verification: seal, registrar's stamp, and (I forget what the other one is).

Why does anybody say he's posted a valid COLB?

327 If he can forge the COLB he can forge the BC.

He can't win, and because he can't win, you can't win either.

There is simply no way to falsify your theory.

328

You are correct it is a fact issue, Phinn; and the credibility of the document provided by Hawaii is going to be much more than an Indonesian school record, or the statement of the Ambassador, or the affidavit of the grandmother.

I don't see any evidence sufficient to impeach the credibility of the COLB.

329 Here's the proof of forgery on the posted birth certificate.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/68htqk


David

330 David, I've seen the site, or actually the final report of Ron Polarik. You had asked whether anybody had disputed it. I'm sayiing "Bad Science" disputed it but used really, really bad science to do it.

331 >>>Ace, I’ve asked you some specific questions about the mismatched seal and border, the grandmother hearing an interpretation and responding, and the photos at FactCheck that don’t match either reality or what Obama posted.

I'm not getting into that because those making the claims lost ALL CREDIBILITY with me.

CLAIM ONE: The seal does not exist. Ergo the COLB on Kos is a fraud!

Rebuttal: Yes it does. Look. It's right there.

CLAIM TWO: The seal is BACKWARDS!! It's a forgery!

Rebuttal: Here's my own Hawaiian COLB. The Seal is on the back, not the front. So when you see the embossing poking through on the front, it's backwards.

CLAIM THREE: Sophisticated software analyses reveal that the backwards seal must be fake because...

Enough. *Enough.*

I was there for this. Maybe you guys are new to this and didn't see this early bullshit, so you're now seeing the later, refined theories.

I saw these so-called experts make a lot of claims, none of which were true.

Am I supposed to keep on checking with them? Why? They have revealed themselves to be without credibility.

332 Again, it's not my fucking fault these dipshits made a series of easily-disproven claims and utterly turned me off to ANYTHING they might say.

That's their fault. And I don't have to keep up with their new crap. Three strikes and you're out.

333 Ace,

I've been pretty consistent.

When this first broke I noted that no electronic or altered (blacked out) COLB were valid for any purpose - so the whole forgery and posting pictures business is cute - but ultimately of no consequence.  In that first post I think I said, and still believe, that the only way this was going to get resolved was to have a State of electoral significance change their ballot eligibility rules.

The passport and college transcripts are separate topic, each to hammered in turn.

I would love to able to go back and get my first couple of posts on this at LGF as delavalette, but since I got banned I can't use the search feature. (BTW, I didn't get the hammer for Nitherism, I respected CJ wishes on this topic; I think it was guns.)  Once this thread dies, I would appreciate it someone could post it here.

334

If the custody of the original birth certificate has been sound, then what the vault brings forth should be accurate. He can’t forge that at this point.

 

And right now there’s substantial evidence of document fraud, which should be grounds for criminal charges.

 

The reason this is so big is because it shows me that the system is impotent at catching frauds. It is worth pursuing. If I could even vaguely trust the system to do what it says it does, I might not have to be so cynical. As it is, there is nothing that can stop anybody who’s already elected from doing whatever damage they can while they’re in office because nobody has standing to make them obey the law. That’s a serious, serious problem.

335 Ace said:


"I actually linked the first iteration -- I bought into it. THen it got debunked, and they put up another one. I linked that too, I'm pretty sure. "


I have seen no debunking of this. I have heard people allege to it being debunked, but I haven't seen a link to a debunking yet.

Where might such a link be ?

David

336 This is a sore point, I know, but the Truthers do the same thing.

And I tune them out for the same reason.

You cannot keep making false claims, revise and repackage them, then revise and repackage yet again when even more errors are pointed out, and think you're going to go anywhere with your claims.

337 search A.J. Strata for one.

338 I was there for this. Maybe you guys are new to this and didn't see this early bullshit, so you're now seeing the later, refined theories.


i was there for the whole thing from the beginning.  The trouble with some of this is that the details get twisted up and repeated and then, like whisper down the lane, gets jacked up.  The cases in the courts however, have all maintained their current position from the beginning and that is what those who wanna follow this, should turn to.  Their arguments have been maintained but the path to get there has changed, like trying to shoot buckshot at a target the size of an M&M, one may eventually stick. 

339

When you are President of the United States it's better to ignore the screamers (much like Bush ignored Code Pink). You don't want to elevate them for absolutely no gain.

Bingo, Drew.  You don't legitimize a critic like this by acknowledging them or their argument.  That was the mistake the Obama administration made going against Rush.  They legitimized him and his criticisms.  Now they have to answer him and get pulled into a never-ending argument with a man who doesn't have to prove that his policy prescriptions would work.

 

340 what does "Nirtherism" mean, by the way?

Birtherism I get. What the hell is Nirtherism?

341 To get past FRE 1005 you are going to have to move the court to subpoena the original and the court is not going to do that unless you have proof the copy is incorrect.

You keep saying that, but it's simply not true. 

Yes, you'd probably have to get court permission.  But no, it is not hte standard that you need extraneous pre-existing proof that the second-best document is false before you get access to the best document.  This is particularly true in cases where the legal significance, accuracy and reliability of the second-best document is the very center of the entire dispute. 

Think about it -- otherwise, you'd need to have proof before you could obtain proof.  

Also, the COLB is not a "copy."  It's a totally different document from the BC.  It is a print-out of electronic records, which were made at a completely different time than the original BC, and which are maintained entirely separately from the paper documents.  The two sets of records are supposed to match, but they don't always, and when the ENTIRE DISPUTE is over those discrepancies, you have grounds to obtain the paper records. 

342 i think Nirther came from a mispelled word

343 sizzle, one of their original arguments was that the stamp-seal was missing.

Now their argument is that its there, it's just fake, or something.

This is not "maintaining the same argument."

This is changing your argument while maintaining only the same conclusion.

344 Bingo, Drew.  You don't legitimize a critic like this by acknowledging them or their argument.  That was the mistake the Obama administration made going against Rush.  They legitimized him and his criticisms.  Now they have to answer him and get pulled into a never-ending argument with a man who doesn't have to prove that his policy prescriptions would work.

I agree, however, there is a dif. btween criticism and a plethora of lawsuits asking a nagging question. 

345 I don't see any evidence sufficient to impeach the credibility of the COLB.

Fair enough, but this statement doesn't mean much when no one has been allowed to obtain the most important pieces of evidence. 

346 Fine, Ace. Don't trust the people. But ad hominem doesn't explain away the evidence I mentioned. This isn't about the people. It's about facts. Don't give up on the facts. I mentioned three observations that deserve an explanation: Grandma got no interpretation so couldn't even answer for herself. The seal and the border are mismatched. The photo of the seal shows no distortion from the folded page.

347 279 ...Ace raises the ostensibly valid question of "what evidence exists that they're different"? The answer to that irrelevant (per Diogenes' #31) question is simple: BHO's behavior, i.e., the monumental efforts to which he's gone to prevent the public from comparing the two documents

Actually, if someone can come up with decent substantiation for the $800,000 figure, I think that that would be good evidence of one thing: Obama badly doesn't want those documents released. The leap of faith is the assumption that you know the reasons for his reluctance. I've heard two plausible hypotheses other than ineligibility: that his father is listed as "Arab," and that Obama is listed as "white." I'm sure that there are other possibilities no one has even thought of. And yes, I think Obama would go to the mats to prevent the release of a document that would expose him to ridicule. He really can't stand to be ridiculed.

If you stuck to the claim that there's something to hide in these documents, I think you'd be on much firmer ground.

348 Thats Polariks (i think) argument.  However there are other suits out there. only one,  Bergs that uses polariks findings as evidence.  But then again, i could also point to BO using a website as evidence that his COLB is real and we are suppose to take their word for it......so i guess thats just a nuance.

349 >>>ine, Ace. Don't trust the people. But ad hominem doesn't explain away the evidence I mentioned. This isn't about the people. It's about facts. Don't give up on the facts.

The "Facts" You speak of are not facts, but the supposedly expert testimony of "Techdude." As I am not an expert -- and neither are you -- we have to rely on Techdude's expert opinion. We cannot evaluate "the facts" are we're not expert.

And Techdude was the guy peddling this from the beginning, or one of them at least. And I saw his claims get refuted one by one.

If the original claim was that there was no seal, but there was... um, why should I give him any credence as an expert?

350

DrewM,

Thanks for your concern for my clients’ well-being. I’m a partner in a national law firm and my clients are doing just fine. I’m neither a crank nor a conspiracy buff. I’m not a stupid uneducated hick who’s just out to get Obama. I am indeed a conservative, but my concern here is not political, it’s constitutional. I want to ensure we have followed our constitution. Right now we don’t know whether we have or not.

 

I normally scan a few blogs when I get the chance just to keep up with what’s going on in the world. I don’t waste time posting and arguing. But this case both infuriates and intrigues me. I am infuriated because a lot of well-meaning people are put down and made fun of by conservative elites and bloggers who, truth be told, don’t know the truth about Obama any more than those they make fun of. I've seen the law misstated and bastardized repeatedly. I am intrigued because of the myriad of novel legal questions here. Despite your claims, the law here is unsettled.

 

I contend, as do other attorneys I know, that it is at least arguable that a man is not natural born if his citizenship status is sufficiently vague so as to require a goddamned Supreme Court ruling or a federal statute. Again, I claim that’s at least an arguable position. I also contend it's arguable that a man born with dual citizneship is not natural born. Unless and until the Supreme Court rules on the merits of these and other questions, we will never have an answer to the issue of Obama's status. I can make and defend the opposing arguments, so don’t bother. I understand both sides.

 

Oh, and I reject your interpretation of Ark. You have pushed the idea that the Court declared Ark natural born, when they did no such thing. They could have, but they didn’t. I understand why you read it that way, but I think you read more into than is there (perhaps because it favors Obama?). The Court focused on whether a man situated as Ark was situated is a citizen, and they said he was. Again, they did not rule Ark was natural born. You probably know I am not the only attorney who reads that case that way. Obviously you read it differently. We disagree. Hell, lawyers always disagree; that’s why we have trials and people keep us on retainer. 

 

Lawsuits based on Quo Warranto are being planned, so this issue is unlikely to go away anytime soon. Maybe one day we'll know how the Court comes down. For the good of the country, I hope the bastard is eligible because I cannot imagine the outrage from all parties if he's not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

351 Don't even get me started on the whole "The Kos COLB came from a blank COLB found on a photo-host website" embarrassment.

They claimed Obama's COLB was made from a blank one they found. Turns out -- no, the blank one was made from Obama's, so people could fill in funny names. To create parodies.

Again, this was another embarrassing error.

I am not putting any stock in the claims of "Techdude" and I strongly urge you not to either.

You can only be wrong so many times.

352 I agree, however, there is a dif. btween criticism and a plethora of lawsuits asking a nagging question.

Except most of the lawsuits are actually brought by either Donofrio or Berg in some way, shape or form. 

And they don't ask 'a nagging question' they posit goofier and goofier theories.

As Gabe pointed out, this version of the suit was tossed not because the judge is a stooge of the Obama machine but because the plaintiffs didn't list a cause of action in the suit. Doh!

If you read any of the filings they are usually poorly written and contain numerous grammatical mistakes. Now that may fly here at the HQ (and it damn well better or I'm screwed) but it's not exactly the work of first class legal minds.

353

The observations I mentioned can’t be explained away by AJ Strata or anybody else. Did AJ attempt to explain why the seal doesn’t bend with the page? Or how Grandma could answer a question that wasn’t translated for her? Or how a 2008 seal got on an official document with a 2007 border?

 

You see, I originally took AJ Strata’s word for it. I knew him from an old forum I had been on and liked what he had to say. But unless he claims that Ron Polarik didn’t use what FactCheck, Fight the Smears, and Daily Kos (which, BTW, was altered; the one who did it admitted it) actually posted, I don’t know how to get myself not to believe my stinkin’ eyes.

354 >>>They could have, but they didn’t. I understand why you read it that way, but I think you read more into than is there (perhaps because it favors Obama?).

Again, if you guys don't want to be called nutters and kooks and conspiracy theorists, you could help your cause by not insulting anyone who doesn't buy your farfetched theories as carrying Obama's water.

355 Bush released all of his National Guard records thus I guess giving in to the screamers.

356

Why should a court go past FRE 1005 and require the state of Hawaii produce the vault copy?

You better have a good argument other than 'I think the COLB is inaccurate'.  That isn't going to fly with a court.  And the Indonesian school record (Who made it?  Did they do it accurately? Is it forged?), the affidavit of the grandmother (Did she recall the events of years ago accurately?), and the statement of the ambassador are not going to be sufficient  (how the heck does he know?  His statement is real hearsay - out of court statement offered for proof of the matter asserted and probably hearsay upon hearsay.).  You, as complainant and as moving party, have to provide evidence to back up your claims and I do not see sufficient evidence for the court to ignore FRE 1005 and require the production of the vault copy.

I am a lawyer, and in my professional opinion I do not see sufficient evidence to question the accuracy and authenticity of the COLB.

357 What makes you appear kinda kooky is that a non-kook should realize how weak his case is here, and understand that the evidence offered will be insufficient for most.

It makes you sound unhinged when you suggest the ONLY reason someone could look at this stack of crap and not be convinced is because he's a secret Obama-Lover.

I mean -- for God's sakes, do you realize, at least, that your case is not exactly open and shut?

358 DrewM, not totally true,  Taitz, Apuzzo, Pigeon all are independent of each other, however, Apuzzo and Donofrio seem to be on the same page now pertaining to the Quo Warranto.

It's true however the were born or inspired by the same case

359 Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 05:42 PM (iN46a)

So in short, still no judicial or legislative cite validating your supposed 3rd class of citizenship? I'm getting the feeling I'll get my unicorn from Obama before I see any of thing of the sort from you.

Oh well.

BTW- :"I think you read more into than is there (perhaps because it favors Obama?)"?

I know I took a shot at you and get you want to take one at me but please.  Me pro-Obama? I think even the people who don't like me here wouldn't claim that.  You can do better.

360 I am really getting an "It's all so Obvious!" vibe off some of you.

And that is kooky.

Even if you're right somehow... If you cannot concede this is decidedly INobvious to almost everyone, then you're, um, kinda nuts.

Notice I'm not saying you're nuts if you believe this crap or have suspicions.

But if you not only believe it, but you can't comprehend anyone NOT believing it based on this weak evidence, then yeah, you're a kook.

361

Phinn - under FRE 1005 a copy does not have to be produced, a data compilation or another document with data from the original is sufficient.

Saying you think it is inaccurate and contains discrepancies isn't going to be sufficient - you have to offer some proof first.

362

What Obama posted has no seal. With edge detection there is a faint hint of a seal bleeding through from the back. FactCheck’s has a seal that definitely shows – so much so that they show the raised profile of the paper. How the heck did that happen?

 

You need to look up Ron Polarik’s final report.

363 Incidentally, if conservatives are supposed to buy into this, why doesn't Rush Limbaugh?

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 05:06 PM (gEsIJ)

Actually, Rush does (or at least has) questioned Obama's Constitutional elegibility.  He talked about it before the election and then made a point of saying that there was no way that it was going to be an issue in time for the election and that we had to focus on the other issues.

364 Yeah I said the same thing, Mary Beth.

I said that to duck the issue and avoid pissing off the believers. And then I avoided it since. (It's my cobloggers who keep brining it up.)

I would suggest Rush and I pretty much share the same motivation here.

365 One another related note.  the 9th state rep official becomes a plaintiff on the Keyes suit.  Cynthia Davis, 19 Dist. of MO.  But i guess it's just us Nirthers that are bat shit crazy.  sarc, heavy

366 But if you not only believe it, but you can't comprehend anyone NOT believing it based on this weak evidence, then yeah, you're a kook.

I'm not suggesting that that applies to anyone posting on this thread, but I must say that that is a good definition of a conspiracy kook.  I've dealt with many over the years.

367 dammit

368

#356 Because Obama never posted a document with the verifying marks, and what FactCheck says is a photo of Obama’s document has a 2007 border and a 2008 seal. Hawaii changes their borders every year to make it harder to forge documents. It seems like FactCheck has been caught forging, which begs the question of why they did it, if Obama showed them a COLB that was valid.

 

The FBI should be all over this. If they won’t, then why should we have any document fraud protections in place?

 

369 The ship has sailed...

Hahahahahahahaha!

And it's being manned by RINO's. "Get off the mizzen mast Drew, me hearty! Give Ace a chance to shiver Obama's timber!"

The idea that these two do not care a bit about Barry spending Gazzillions to HIDE HIS BC, speaks volumes about them...

370

Drew,

I don't who the hell you are. For all I know you work for the DNC. Should I know you? Maybe you are a regular, but I never pay attention to the comments here, so I have no way to know. But, if you say you are a conservative, I will assume you are a conservative. I agree with you in part, but I disagree with you on some of this is as well. I think you are right about the birth certificate. It's likely a nonstarter.  

I am not going to research this case. Who has time? I've wasted more than enough time on it. I did read a whole lot of cases on it last fall. And my lunch buddies (all attorneys) and I have tossed it around ad nasueum.  We've argued it from every angle. My bottom line is that the law on the natural born issue isn't settled. There isn't a citation for unsettled law.

Time for a martini.  

371

I am not at the office and can't access the cites, but there is a presumption that government agencies keep their records accurately and produce accurate copies of their documents.  That presumption can be overturned, but the party making that claim has to offer proof first.

I am not seeing proof to overturn that presumption.

372

#356 Also, is it customary for a scan of a COLB, without verifying marks, to be considered authoritative evidence in a court of law? Why or why not?

373 I am a lawyer, and in my professional opinion I do not see sufficient evidence to question the accuracy and authenticity of the COLB.

You keep putting the cart before the horse. 

1. I am a lawyer, and I know that you do not need "sufficient evidence to question the accuracy and authenticity of the COLB" before you can get access to the best evidence.  You need only show that the best evidence is available, relevant and not private. 

2.  The evidence you mistakenly think you need is in the Dept. of Hawaii's vault. 

3.  The Indonesian school record, the affidavit of the grandmother, and the statement of the ambassador (and the inconsistencies in the COLB, and the ambiguity of Hawaiian procedures about how COLB information is gathered, and the evidence of his having traveled under a foreign passport, etc), while inconclusive in and of themselves, together are grounds for raising a good faith QUESTION. 

374
Splunge said:


"347 279 ...Ace raises the ostensibly valid question of "what evidence exists that they're different"? The answer to that irrelevant (per Diogenes' #31) question is simple: BHO's behavior, i.e., the monumental efforts to which he's gone to prevent the public from comparing the two documents

Actually, if someone can come up with decent substantiation for the $800,000 figure, I think that that would be good evidence of one thing: Obama badly doesn't want those documents released. The leap of faith is the assumption that you know the reasons for his reluctance. I've heard two plausible hypotheses other than ineligibility: that his father is listed as "Arab," and that Obama is listed as "white." I'm sure that there are other possibilities no one has even thought of. And yes, I think Obama would go to the mats to prevent the release of a document that would expose him to ridicule. He really can't stand to be ridiculed.

If you stuck to the claim that there's something to hide in these documents, I think you'd be on much firmer ground."


The one I like is that the blood type won't match that of Barack senior therefore revealing him as an illegitimate bastard.

So far it looks plausible that Frank Marshall Davis could be his real father.
A communist's Bastard son as President ? How do you think the public would react to that ?

800K to keep that quite ? Sounds like money well spent to me.

David

375

Since this issue will never die, and can come up again, why doesn't someone petition/start up a petition to Congress to have a law passed requiring proof of natural born citizenship be provided by presidential and vice presidential candidates to a joint committe of the House and Senate?  And provide grounds for challenge?

That would be a useful.  This isn't.

376 I mean -- for God's sakes, do you realize, at least, that your case is not exactly open and shut?

Yes, I do.  I realize that what we have here is an open question. 

Why that means I am a "kook" is, as yet, unexplained. 

377

The one I like is that the blood type won't match that of Barack senior therefore revealing him as an illegitimate bastard.

So far it looks plausible that Frank Marshall Davis could be his real father.
A communist's Bastard son as President ? How do you think the public would react to that ?

 

Not arguing with you, but wasn't Barack Obama, Sr. a communist, too? At least Frank Marshall Davis was an American.

Looks to me like he's a communist's bastard any way we cut it.

378 I am saying it's kooky for people to start accusing others of coming to conclusions "just because that's in Obama's favor," as if there's NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON for reluctance to agree.

379

In answer to the idea that it’s better for Obama not to respond, the problem with that is that Obama DID respond. He posted what he says is his COLB – thereby showing he doesn’t object to the question or refuse to answer it. Only trouble is, his posted COLB had no marks of verification and was thus invalid. In principle, he should have no problem with scanning the back of the document. Why wouldn’t he? Especially when people were saying that he forged the thing?

 

It doesn’t make sense. All that’s being asked of him is to let us see that the evidence he offered was, in fact, what he said it was. How can a person disagree with that in principle?

380

Ever wonder why judges don't throw out lawsuits at are out of Alice in Wonderland but threaten to disbar a lawyer for this? 

 

Students of history have long wondered why the French government has sealed the archieves on why the French cabinet was in St Petersburg in the summer of 1914 prior to the expansion of the Serbian crisis into WWI?  Probably the same reason why Obama doesn't have to demonstrate he was born in the USA.

Its so much easier to bury the truth rather than examine it.

And we'll disbar anyone who questions this.

Any questions?

 

381 Such as:

>>>The ship has sailed...

>>>Hahahahahahahaha!

>>>And it's being manned by RINO's. "Get off the mizzen mast Drew, me hearty! Give Ace a chance to shiver Obama's timber!"

JS, our resident more-conservative-than-thou troll, who shows up regularly to berate people for not being racist enough for his liking.

382

 i've had enough of being called a kook by ace and the gaylord lawyer.

fuck you - deleted from favourites- have a nice life you useless liberal cunts posing as consevatives.

 

383 Looked at Hawaii HD website, here is some interesting stuff.
(once again this is not a definite proof of anything, but rather a confirmation on my theory of the POSSIBILITY of forgery, so don't all jump at me at once, in fact don't jump at me at all)

§338-5  Compulsory registration of births.  Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

     The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]

So THEORETICALLY you could say you gave birth at home and your spouse delievered the baby... they have your word and your word only that it was so. So in other words if no one else is present, or can be reached, the parent becomes the primary and final source of information. This kind of dispells the notion of the need for notorized evidence. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, without straw man agruements if possible)

384 JS was also whining about bad polls being posted before the election, stuff like that.

He's from the "Being a Conservative Means Believing Anything Which is Helpful to the Cause" school of politics.

Well, JS, enjoy your busy schedule of believing silly things. You ignorant troll-fuck.

385

In answer to the idea that it’s better for Obama not to respond, the problem with that is that Obama DID respond.

 

Yeah, he ignored discovery and responded with a Motion to Dismiss on the notion of standing. He gave the public a big fuck you.

386

However, again, this is a process point. Most of you buy into the substance -- that is, that Obama, despite the COLB and very fortuitous contemporaneous announcement in a Honolulu newspaper of his American birth, was born in Kenya. -ace

Not true. Many have stated in this very thread that they think he does have a real, legit BC but it contains embarassing information or information that would expose his lies.

I think most people are just upset that he has holes in his history. We don't know anything about him. He's a manufactured personality because he's hiding his BC - stuff like his father, race, location, etc. I think that's why people are upset, among many other things.

So just for clarification, are you saying that you 100% believe that he was born in Hawaii?

It looks like there are 3, maybe 4 posters who are on your side. The vast majority are not. It's not a lunatic fringe. I don't like being bullied as a reader.

387

#375 This IS useful, because it lets us know how our system would catch frauds. The 9-11 Commission was supposed to try to find the holes in the system that allowed terrorists to kill thousands of Americans on American soil. Well, we’ve found the holes. Forge a birth document, and anybody who asks you to verify its authenticity will be called crazy.

 

The social security number Obama uses is a number that identifies as one that would come out of Connecticut in the mid-seventies, when Obama was living in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro. How did he get a SS# out of Connecticut when he was living in Hawaii under a different name? And who in the political process would require other documentation that he wouldn’t be able to produce once he had that SS#?

388

Phinn - you haven't gotten past FRE 1005 which does not require the absolute best evidence (in this case, the vault copy) to be provided.  The COLB is considered 'best evidence' under the FRE.

FRE 1002 requires best evidence.  FRE 1005 states what is best evidence for a government record.  You, the movant, have to tell the court why it should ignore FRE 1005 and require the vault copy.  Just claiming best evidence will not do.  Under the Federal Rules of Evidence the COLB is considered best evidence; you have to impeach it.  Provide sufficient evidence that is going to cause the court to subpoena the original vault copy.

And no, a Wiki cite isn't sufficient when a federal rule speaks directly regarding government records.

389

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 05:50 PM (gEsIJ)

That's fair enough.

Here's my point.  We may disagree on where we each stand on this issue...I do believe there's enough reasonable doubt and questionable behavior and that it is an issue to be explored and investigated and I don't feel that it has been resolved in any way and never will be until Obama concedes to releasing his documentation...I also feel that this is merely one of many, many issues regarding the fraud in the White House.

I agree with Rush on this too.  I think there's something to this...but there are other really important issues that have to be addressed.  For example, I am offended by the arrogance of this man and his audacity to promise transparency and then seal all his records and convene endless close-door meetings and sessions and his broken promises.

He is, I think quite deliberately, destroying the private sector and is attacking us at our core...forcing banks to take money from the government then forbidding them to speak out against card check is a good example of his assault on freedom of speech.  It's all about the death of liberty and the rise of a strong, centralized government...or as Dr. Levin calls it...Tyranny.

So these are a few of the things I believe we should place the bulk of our focus on and fight for the very soul of our country.

That being said, I have no problem with people trying to get to the bottom of Obama's Constitutional elegibility and I think it's in poor taste to isolate and demonize those who question it as being religious zealots/conspiracy theorist scum/911 truthers.  There are a lot of extremely level-headed people on both sides of the aisle with a lot of questions on this and I think it's a mistake to group everyone into a single groupthink mentality.  That's an Alinsky tactic and I'd like to think our side is above such things.

390 I am not going to research this case. Who has time?
Posted by: I love truthers at March 06, 2009 05:57 PM (iN46a)

At least that doesn't stop you from opining on the subject. Well played.


I've wasted more than enough time on it. I did read a whole lot of cases on it last fall. And my lunch buddies (all attorneys) and I have tossed it around ad nasueum.  We've argued it from every angle. My bottom line is that the law on the natural born issue isn't settled. There isn't a citation for unsettled law.

I'm not a big time lawyer like you say you are (hell, I'm not even a lawyer) but I always thought 'unsettled law' meant there were disagreements between courts on interpretations and such. That after all is usually what gets the Supreme Court interested in something, a difference of opinion among circuits.

So you have any differing opinions? If you don't, it doesn't strike me so much as 'unsettled law' as 'a novel personal theory'. Me? I'll go with the over 100 year old Supreme Court precedent that's on point. But again, me no lawyer.

391 I don't like being bullied as a blogger, either.

I also wouldn't assume you're in the majority -- notice that many people who post frequently are NOT posting here. That, I would suggest, is because they don't believe this crap either, and figure they have better things to do.

This thread is self-selecting.

You may not like being "bullied." Again, I don't either, and I will tell you that where I begin to lose my politeness is when I am insulted as a coward or as someone cozying up to the MSM or Obama just because I don't believe a discredited claim for which there is no actual evidence.

You didn't do that -- but some of those on your side do this. What i think is that they're frustrated they don't have evidence, and they think if they bully people around then they can make it an issue, somehow. Like I start posting it, and that makes Allah post on it, and then Rush mentions it, and etc.

And then they'll get their evidence, they think.

Well, you usually need evidence before you move forward at trial, and honestly, if I wanted to traffic-whore I would be talking this nonsense up all the doo-dah day. I could make money by trumpeting this crap.

But I don't, because it's not true and I don't like peddling untruths, and because I do not want to see other conservatives wasting their time and energy on rathole nonsense like this just like some did in the 90s with Mena Airport, Vince Foster, and Ron Brown.

392

#383 And if a person was accidentally born outside the country, they could travel to HI within the specified time and claim to have been born at home.

That would explain their grandma from a different country saying she was there.

But to be truthful, there are too many signs of fraud for me to believe that the COLB he posted is authentic. What you’re saying just means that even if it IS authentic, it could still be false.

393

And now the argument goes to the provenance of his Social Security number, which was issued decades ago, before any thought that this kid was going to run for the White House and win.

Ask the SSA about that, I don't have any answers to their numbering decisions, but the conspiracy plot is getting sillier and sillier.

394

justincase at March 06, 2009 06:11 PM (zcxEs)

 

I've read that SS# claim elsewhere, but how do you know it? Debbie Schlussel had a post about his phony selective service registration, as well. A lot of people believe that, but how have those things become known? Just wondering.

395 >>>That being said, I have no problem with people trying to get to the bottom of Obama's Constitutional elegibility and I think it's in poor taste to isolate and demonize those who question it as being religious zealots/conspiracy theorist scum/911 truthers.

Well I am telling you that I usually see this as a harmless, if pointless, pursuit by some.

You don't like being demonized? I don't, either. And while most of you on the Birther side (allow me this shorthand) are civil and polite, there are a lot of jackasses who are 1 kinda nutty 2 kinda arrogant and 3 kinda insulting about trying to bully people into buying a frankly hard-to-believe theory.

I don't want to demonize anyone. Again, that's why I avoid this issue. I don't like the fights. And I'll mention to the cobloggers I'd like to keep avoiding fights by basically avoiding the issue.

But I, personally, can't help it. When I get insulted for NOT believing in a theory I think is pure bunk, then my ire gets up and I feel I have to start pointing out it's bunk.

And the thing is you never remember all the people who didn't insult you -- it's the people you did who stick in your mind.

396

DrewM. at March 06, 2009 06:16 PM (hlYel)

 

Go with what you like, but the law Court has never defined Natural born citizen. Ark does not define it. My theory is based on a lot of years in the legal system. But you are right, it's just a theory. As is yours. I develop legal theroes all the time. That what I do for a living.  

397 He gave the public a big fuck you.

Don't delude yourself, you guys are not 'the public'.

99+% have never heard of this or think this is crazy shit. They are not worried that Obama isn't eligible for the office.

Anyway, it's Friday and I actually have to go out into the big scary world. As always, it's been, um, fun.

398 FRE 1002 requires best evidence.  FRE 1005 states what is best evidence for a government record.  You, the movant, have to tell the court why it should ignore FRE 1005 and require the vault copy.  Just claiming best evidence will not do.  Under the Federal Rules of Evidence the COLB is considered best evidence; you have to impeach it.  Provide sufficient evidence that is going to cause the court to subpoena the original vault copy.

1. For the fifth fucking time, the COLB is not a copy of the paper BC.  It is a print-out of electronic records.  Those electronic records are an entirely different document than the paper, vault document.  They contain different information.  They are different documents.  Nothing says that Hawaii shall maintain one and only one set of birth records.  Hawaii maintains at least two.  One is the original paper.  Then, in the age of computers, they created some more electronic ones.  Two.  Different.  Documents.  The COLB is not a copy of the paper BC.  Comprende?

2. Nothing in FRE 1005 says one single thing about what is or isn't best evidence.  It says that copies of official documents are sufficient proof as though they were originals.  But here's the point you have missed against and again -- even if the COLB is SUFFICIENT evidence of BHO's place of birth, that does not mean that it is THE ONLY evidence of BHO's place of birth. 

3. You have the right to seek discovery beyond what is strictly admissible.  FRE 1005 doesn't even provide that the original paper BC is inadmissible, only that, in most cases, it may be unnecessary.  None of that prevents anyone from seeking other, better evidence, particularly where the discrepancy between the electronic records and the paper ones is the central issue. 

399 If you're a lawyer and make your living developing legal theories you ought to know that when a theory requires three or four oddball or novel interpretations all in row to prevail, your theory is doomed.

You get one. Two at most.

400

#390 Drew, I prefer the First Amendment, which alludes to the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

The electoral process was violated in at least NJ and CT. The DNC certified Obama’s eligibility without ever seeing documentation, and the SOS’s of most states have no authority to look in Hawaii’s vault so instead trust the DNC to be honest and fair. How does our system protect us against a DNC that is willing to sign that they verified something when they absolutely haven’t?

401 In response to 386, I think Barack was most likely born in Hawaii, (which according to stuff I've read doesn't necessarily make him a Natural born citizen) I think he could have been born aboard a ship in international waters that arrived in Hawaii, whereupon he was registered, and I think it's possible, though i've seen just a suggestion of evidence for it, that he might have been born in Kenya.

It has been reported that none of the hospitals have a record of his birth, or that Stanly Ann Dunham was even a patient.

I don't know what the truth is, and we shouldn't have to be wondering. But for the vehemenent interference of Barack inc. we would possibly know the truth.


In any case, I would love to discuss this further, but I have to go now. I think Ace and crew are good people, and I love the website, but I feel they have settled this question in their own minds prematurely, (or perhaps not. I haven't seen all that they have seen either) and are not granting those of us who have yet to make up our minds the courtesy of not being labeled as kooks.

 
Respect to all.


David

402 Seriously -- a vibe I get from some Birthers is "I'm not even going to try to convince you, I just want you to pretend you believe this so the media picks up on it."

I mean, some here aren't even *trying.* There's a lot of assertions and "You must be an Obama Lover" shit and little attempt at actual persuasion.

Anyway, I'd caution you guys to guard against getting "a little bit pregnant" with an idea and then being determined to see that child born and become an adult. People get emotionally attached to some propositions -- remember the liberals claiming Clinton didn't have sex with Monica? -- especially if they feel picked on or marginalized because of those beliefs, and then sometimes stick with them long past the point at which they should have abandoned them. It becomes an emotional thing instead of an intellectual one, and the need to be vindicated becomes the driving force, not the actual evidence or likelihoods.

403 >>>It has been reported that none of the hospitals have a record of his birth, or that Stanly Ann Dunham was even a patient.

Sigh. This is the same thing said about the birth of Trig Palin.

Hospitals do not publicly announce births or who their patients are. They do if the patient requests it. But not as a general thing.

Do you guys not see that you are making similar arguments to the ones Andrew Sullivan made about Sarah Palin?

Are there no red flags going up when you casually bring this stuff up?

404

If the SS# was truly issued decades ago, it was issued when Obama wasn’t even Obama. Do you really believe that SS# was given then, or do you think maybe it’s fraudulent? How would he have gotten a SS# under Barack Obama in the mid-70’s from CT when he was living in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro at the time? Exactly how would one get a SS# under a different name from a state they’ve never lived in? Is there a legitimate way to do that?

 

And if you’ve got a SS#, what other documentation is required for a person to run for office, or any of the other things Obama has done?

 

See, when people talk about this big conspiracy, they don’t consider that one false SS# can get you everywhere you want to go in this country. If you’re required to be a natural-born citizen you can post a forgery online where the public believes it and nobody has authority to check if it’s authentic.

 

Two instances of fraud – one at the beginning of a political career and the other when the Constitutional requirement for presidency becomes an issue. Surely that’s not unbelievable of a guy who chose to enter politics in Chicago.

 

But my point is this: How would our system ever catch someone who did this? That is my concern, and I think we should all agree that it’s a valid concern, whether or not we believe that Obama actually did it.

 

405 @80:
There was a so-called journalist arguing against a politician releasing documents.

Yeah, whatzup wit THAT shit!

We all know that if the MSM had the least bit of interest in getting those documents out, they'd be NYT front page faster than you can say "media self-censorship."

This is, after all, the same MSM that dug up everything down to the lint from his belly-button on Joe the Plumber, and didn't think twice about tormenting a pregnant 17-year-old with a 24/7 spotlight.

Nope, the MSM is in on this cover-up all the way. My own opinion:  You, me, they and everybody else knows that young libs and nearly all blacks in this country have built up this zero beyond any reasonable, realistic expectations with emotional, nearly religious fervor. If he goes down, the Rodney King riots will look like a kindergarten tea party.

I think this is the real reason everyone's tiptoeing around on eggshells.

406

#403 The people who claimed that say that they bribed people who work at each of the hospitals, to look in the medical records. Maybe they did, maybe not. No way of knowing, so believe at our own risk. But we have no way of knowing whether Obama was born in Hawaii either – but only because Obama stands in the way.

 

Ace, I think people get emotional about this when every court of law has refused to even look at the issue. The NJ and CT Secretaries of State admitted that they had not verified eligibility and thus printed illegal ballots. The SCOTUS yawned. Now a military officer who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution wants to know if Obama is any more eligible to be his Commander-in-Chief than Hugo Chavez. A judge laughs it off and Gabriel crows that this is just too good to pass up.

 

I’ve talked about how vulnerable our system is to any thug who can get either a fake SS# or a fake birth document. This is a valid concern. Identity fraud is HUGE. But we’re called crazy when we just want to make sure that his bona fides really ARE bona fides. Are all the warnings about document/identity fraud just a bunch of crap? Are military oaths just a bunch of crap? It seems like that’s what EVERYBODY is telling us. It makes absolute sense that we are both emotional and distrustful of people who seem to be saying none of this matters.

 

I think of Pilate saying, “What is truth?” I look at Blago, Burris, ACORN, etc, and then I see the response of almost everybody saying, “Who cares” about military oaths, Constitutional requirements, document fraud, etc. and I can’t help but become cynical. When the Bar threw out the guy who falsely charged the Duke lacrosse players, that was a strong step because they knew that if they winked at it their credibility would be shot even worse than it already is. If they failed to stand for truth, then the public would give up on justice. Well, that’s where we’re at now. If we wink at this, then why should I believe that ANYTHING in politics matters? Who cares what law gets passed, when nobody has to follow it anyway? See, this is foundational. If we kiss truth good-bye there’s nothing left but ashes.

 

And I saw enough American ashes on 9-11. I love this country. Or at least the country I knew. I don’t really recognize her any more.

407 slizzle at March 06, 2009 02:33 PM (zG+3k)

Just to add to your comment, I've also read that factcheck.org is in cahoots with the Obama machine. So I don't value their little declarations for shit.

408 Kathy, the photos that FactCheck printed contain a seal on the fold, but the seal itself is perfectly round, not bent with the folded page. The only way that could happen is if it was pasted on after the photo was made. FactCheck is absolutely implicated in document fraud on Obama's behalf.

409

Phinn - you have not gotten past FRE 1005.  It does not require an exact copy of a government document.  If it did, every government agency would produce an exact copy.  But they do not.  They provide the information in the form they do.

You have argued that the court rule does not say what it plainly says, and I provided you with the text of FRE 1005.  You are no longer worth arguing with.  Going round and round on this gets me nowhere, and every conspiracy theorist is the same.

410 So in short, still no judicial or legislative cite validating your supposed 3rd class of citizenship? I'm getting the feeling I'll get my unicorn from Obama before I see any of thing of the sort from you.

jus sanguinis?

411 Ace doesn't like to be bullied and insulted, so he starts by calling anyone even curious as to why Barry is keeping his BC locked up "birthers"

"JS was also whining about bad polls being posted before the election, stuff like that."

You tried this before, attributing things to me which I didn't post...

"He's from the "Being a Conservative Means Believing Anything Which is Helpful to the Cause" school of politics.
Well, JS, enjoy your busy schedule of believing silly things. You ignorant troll-fuck."

Troll-fuck. Ignorant. Racist. Believer of silly things. Ouch. Damn. That hurt.

I don't ever recall you calling Obama a racist, Ace. I do know that you couldn't give a crap why an actual racist, Marxist, anti-American, lying SOB like Barry won't show us his actual BC, and end this "birther" nonsense.

412 Not a single nurse, dula, ob, MD, nurse assistant, hospital file clerk is on record documenting that BHO was born in any Hawaiian hospital. 

The birth place of  the first black president of the United States would be a landmark.  Where is it?  Even the president and his sister don't agree which hospital to list as his place of birth.

His own campaign people put up a statement during the election about BHO's Kenyan citizenship lapsing when he became an adult. 

From Obama Fight the Smears website:

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

Question?
How could it expire, if he never had it?

413 I'm pretty sure I called Obama a racist, pallie.

I've called him everything in the book.

But I'm not forward leaning enough for you, and I don't drink the kool-aide deeply enough, so I'm a bad American.

414 You're a troglodyte and stupid, JS. I am so fucking sick of you acting as my own Conservatively Correct Hallway Monitor, making sure I don't deviate one iota from whatever the racist shithead JS thinks constitute's today's proper conservative thought.

415

It's never "I disagree with you." Which is fine. A lot of people disagree with me.

No, it's always these angry ball-sucking rants from you, how I'm selling out, being defeatist, etc.

You're an angry little man aren't you?

416 Ace - may be time to just close this thread.

417 First, Mikey, can you tell me if scans of documents, without verification marks, are legal for documenting citizenship? Why or why not?

418 Can't. I don't have that function.

I'm going to just ask the cobloggers to not post anything more on the BC suits unless it's really important or interesting.

419 Question?
How could it expire, if he never had it?

Posted by: rtheyserious at March 06, 2009 07:14 PM (8cwu2)

Clearly, there's a Birther/Conspiracy Theory Scumbag/Religious Zealot on staff at Team O.

420 rtheyserious, I think FactCheck said he was a Kenyan citizen because his father was Kenyan.

421

The eligibility question is the only thing that matters to me in the political world because if we ordinary people can’t even get legal verification of our president’s eligibility, then we are totally, completely, and in all other ways screwed. Nothing matters. We can’t do a dang thing when our politicians screw us because our bureaucrats, media, and courts screw us too. It’s hopeless. Obama wants us to be communist? No problem. Who could ever stop him? The SOS of Ohio is marking ballots with her own hand? No problem. Nobody’s business. The governor of IL is selling Senate seats? No problem. The Saudis bought the White House, after all, and the FEC says nobody actually investigates the WINNER of an election!

 

Etc. If this simple question of fact is too much transparency and accountability for this system of checks and balances to deliver to we, the people, then it’s all hopeless.

 

422 this is the thing, information is spun into positive evidence without checking.

What are Kenya's citizenship requirements? If they're like the US, someone with a Kenyan parent can be a Kenyan citizen from birth, even if he's born in a different country.

How is this evidence, at least without checking?

There's just no quality control on any of this. You guys toss it out there without any real back-up for it and expect others to just join you in the assumptions you've made. (Such as: "One can only get a Kenyan citizenship if born in Kenya, therefore, this proves Obama was born in Kenya.")

423 Ah.  Too bad, Ace.

424

Ace, you said, “this is the thing, information is spun into positive evidence without checking.”

 

All we want to do is to check. That’s the whole point. Obama posted an unvalidated COLB; we just want to check if it's valid. There's only one way to do that and Obama could do it in an instant. He won't. So who is anti-checking?

425 Ace, there is no evidence and a lot of the evidence is vague and contradictory. That's why there are multiple theories, some of which are contradictory.

#406 nails it for me. It's the fact that no one in the governmental apparatus gives a fuck, or even pretends that any of us have "standing" to ask the question that piss us off. We're supposed to stand back, chew and swallow whatever we're given, while this fatherless stranger of unknown land steals more of our money at the point of the IRS's gun and drives our economy into the ground for the furtherance of socialism. Cloward-Piven isn't so much a theory for me as "most likely course of enemy action". What role does George Soros' money and the Saudis play in all this?

#405. The "urban youth" and "progressive left" want to play riot and rampage? OK. I'll play that game. I'm a well-equipped professional who hangs with other well-equipped professionals and the current cease-fire protects them from us a fuckload more than it protects us from them.

Justin, hit me up on e-mail sometime, azrael556 at hotmail.

426

How is this (unvalidated posted COLB) evidence, at least without checking?

427 @156:
he lets his surrogates on the left and unwitting helpers on the right keep this exactly where he wants it to be... in the fringe.

Yes, he is very, very clever that way. Like any successful Chicago pol.

And it doesn't matter if he's a dipshit on economics, foreign policy, or anything else---as long as he's clever enough to play the media and the masses.

428

#421 justincase:

The likliest reason for there being no way of checking the citizenship of a presidential candidate is because it really hasn't come up before.  If you want a process, petition Congress to set up a process.  There really isn't any other answer.

Goldwater was born in Arizona territory, but to American citizens; Romney was born in Mexico, but to American citizens; McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but to American citizens.  Obama has one American parent.  Born in the state of Hawaii according to what Hawaii says.

Tell Congress to fix this and define the terms and state what evidence has to presented for review - that is Congress' job.  Until then, Congress has certified the electoral votes, the chief justice has sworn Obama in.  Flogging this dead horse does nothing to change that and the courts have already said there is no legal procedure to change it.  Anyone's druthers aside, Barack Obama is POTUS.  Fix the verification procedure for the future.  That is the only answer.

And 'shredding the Constitution'?  The Constitution does not provide a verification procedure, and no Congress has set one up.  Admitting that doesn't 'shred the Constitution'; it says no one thought this was important before.  Not Henry Clay.  Not Daniel Webster.  Not Sam Rayburn.  No one.

Our bad - petition Congress to fix this for the future, because you can't change the fact that it is President Obama today.

429 goy @ 279:
Having said all that, we've come to a point where this question can never be answered. As the most powerful individual on the face of the earth, BHO now has the ability to forge whatever document is needed to fit the facts he wants the world to know. If some folks had taken this question a little more seriously back when there was still time to make it an election issue, we might never have come to this point. But now, it's effectively moot.

Damn.

And by the way, goy, you're so brilliant, I copied your comment into my hard drive for future reference. Best-of-thread, IMO, and maybe best-of-anything-I've-seen-on-this-issue-since-before-the-election.

430

Posted by: ace at March 06, 2009 06:25 PM (gEsIJ)

 

Fuck off, Ace.  I wouldn't resort to ad hominems, but since you do so often I felt it was okay.

 

You don’t know nearly as much as you pretend to know. I like your site and you are usually right. Hell, you may be right about this, too. I don’t know, which is really the whole point I’m making--no one knows for sure because the law in question is unsettled. I’m not talking about the birth certificate bullshit (though I think he ought to release to shut all the speculation down). Until the Supreme Court defines natural born citizen, this won’t go away. It’s an open question. I find it rather hilarious you are relying on a nonattorney’s interpretation of a 100 year old decision that has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through, which just proves my point about your knowledge base here. If the case had been on point I would accept it, but it wasn’t, so the question remains undecided.

 

Have you ever tried a case? As an attorney I take whichever side of a case I am on and I develop legal theories that support my client’s position. Some are better than others and I may or may not use them all in court, but I better damn well consider my cases from every conceivable angle before I enter a courtroom. So to knock me based on positing two or three legal theories is sophistry of the highest order. It’s unmitigated bullshit.  

 

I said above the natural born argument would be unlikely to win. I think, however, if you removed the politics from the question, it is a closer call than most conservative pundits have led their audiences or readers to believe. But in fairness to them, most have not really studied it. I laughed at it initially myself. It wasn’t until I dug into a little that I decided it might have legs. I have talked about it at great length with a constitutional attorney I know who believes it just might work. Con law isn’t my area of expertise, so maybe he’s full of shit. I really don’t know. What I do know I trust his judgment over yours’ and fucking Ed Morrisey’s.

 

 

431 Rather then screw up another thread, x
does anyone know if a FOIA has been filed for the FBI records on his family? Their associations with Frank Davis and the Red Church would certainly put them on Hoover's radar.

432

Mikey, New Jersey and Connecticut have laws requiring their Secretaries of State to verify the eligibility of any candidate whose name is printed on their ballot. They didn’t do it. SCOTUS didn’t care.

 

We could change the laws all we want, but who would make sure that it was followed? We, the people, have been castrated by the courts, who say that we have no business holding our elected officials accountable to follow the law.

 

How are we any different than any other thugocracy this world has ever seen?

 

Is a scanned image of a document, without any validating marks, acceptable in the eyes of the law, for establishing citizenship? If that’s the standard we’ve just accepted and the precedent we’ve just set, welcome to Chicago all over America!!

433

Phinn - you have not gotten past FRE 1005.  It does not require an exact copy of a government document.  If it did, every government agency would produce an exact copy.  But they do not.  They provide the information in the form they do.

You have argued that the court rule does not say what it plainly says, and I provided you with the text of FRE 1005.  You are no longer worth arguing with.  Going round and round on this gets me nowhere, and every conspiracy theorist is the same.

You're really not getting it. I don't need to "get past" FRE 1005.  That rule only provides for what evidence is minimally sufficient to prove whatever it is that the document purports to prove. 

That rule has nothing to do with whether a party is going to be allowed to go out and look for other, additional evidence, beyond what is minimally sufficient. 

Get it? 

That's what discovery is for -- looking for things.  I don't know how many times I have to say this before you comprehend it -- litigants are allowed to obtain discovery to get evidence beyond what is minimally sufficient to prove any given point of fact.  Hell, you are allowed to obtain discovery to get evidence beyond what is even admissible!  

Maybe you can get barred if an opposing party shows that the discovery request is harassing or a total waste of time.  It's not harassing, because Hawaii is the one who'd have to go to the trouble of getting the records, not BHO.  Can you proooooooove, Mikey, that obtaining the actual, paper birth certificate from Hawaii is a total waste of time?  Huh?  Huh?

No, you can't.  Why?  Because you don't know what the paper BC says.  No one does.  That's the point.  There's no such thing as a rule of evidence that says that you have to prove what's behind Door No. 1 before you are given a chance to actually open Door No. 1.  My guess is that you have been a lawyer for about 5 minutes, or otherwise you'd know this already.  Or maybe, even better, you're a law student. 

Litigants are allowed latitude.  That basic idea has nothing to do with BHO or the Hawaii records.  It's just a fact of life for litigators.  They are allowed to seek discovery beyond what is strictly necessary, beyond what the minimum quantum of proof on a particular point may be, even if it might end up being duplicitive, or something less important than a TOTAL FUCKING BOMBSHELL piece of evidence.  You still get latitude, pretty much right up to the limits of it being a total waste of everyone's time.  But you can't show that requesting the paper BC is a total waste of everyone's time, because you don't know what's in it.  

QED.

Why you think you are suddenly (a) the court, or (b) BHO's personal lawyer is beyond me.  Maybe because you are on Ace's side on this issue, you suddenly have the balls to stake out this meaningless point, of which you clearly know next to nothing about. 

I'm not surprised you want to "shut the thread down."  You are afraid of being exposed for the amateur you are. 

434

Ilovetruthers, I also laughed at this when it first came up. When Obama got sued by Berg and chose to hire high-powered CAIR lawyers to fight rather than just sign a release form and be done with it, the thing took on a whole new dimension. You don’t use a cannon to kill a gnat.

435 Phinn, you are right. I'm not aguing law with rank amateurs anymore. Some just want to kiss Ace's ass, they don't know any law and they don't care about the law. These so-called conservatives are willing to give Barack the benefit of the doubt at every turn, both factually and legally. Amazing.

436

Ilovetruthers, I also laughed at this when it first came up. When Obama got sued by Berg and chose to hire high-powered CAIR lawyers to fight rather than just sign a release form and be done with it, the thing took on a whole new dimension. You don’t use a cannon to kill a gnat.

 

And when the only argument his powerful CAIR lawyers ever came up with was, “It’s none of your damned business, you little peon!” (slightly paraphrased), I REALLY started checking things out.

437

Ilovetruthers, concerning giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama – we’ve gone over every dot and tiddle in the MN ballots to choose a senator because the documents are so important. But we trust an unvalidated scan of a document on a website to put a man in the White House.

 

Why not just trust Al Franken to tell the truth about who won?

438

Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http:/ / www. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

439 Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives (March 9, 1866 )
http:// grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]"

440 @436: chose to hire high-powered CAIR lawyers to fight rather than just sign a release form and be done with it

Holy shit!  The lawyers were from CAIR?!?!
I missed that part!

It just keeps getting worse. Just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier.....

No fiction writer could dream up this shit.

441 “Law of Nations” Book One, Chapter 19, 212 (175
http :// www. constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

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

442

Kathy from KS, I don’t know which would be worse – if Obama paid lots of money to keep the document hidden, or if CAIR did the work pro bono for favors (to be) rendered…

443 Go to hell ace. I'm not a racist.

You try to be something of an elite-tough guy, but you are neither.

444

Woof.  Tried to read the whole thread, but gave up @251, when someone claimed Ace had made a reasonable argument.  Thoughts up to that point:

@24  I had thought all sides agreed that NBC'ship was not identical to "birth citizenship."  Not to get all originalist, but the two definitions of "natural born" most likely current at the Founding are Blackstone's and Vattel's.  Blackstone's "strong form" (common law) definition requires birth on national territory.  Vattel's requires, in addition, birth to parents who are themselves citizens.  Obama would definitely want to have been born in Hawaii.  <i>Not</i>, of course, defined explicitly in the Constitution, nor by the courts, and the history of immigration law suggests that Congress has tried to avoid defining it.

@35  Not clear what Drew M. is after with his citation.  Per the Wikipedia article, NBC'ship is discussed only in the dissent, where it is assumed that "birth citizenship," as defined by the majority, is equivalent to NBC'ship, since it is alleged to render a heathen Chinee eligible for the presidency.  But the article mentions no discussion of NBC'ship or eligibility in the majority opinion.

@39  Good practical point about excessive legalism.  Whether or not a plaintiff with the rare "standing" super-power is ever found, it seems to me that continued agitation re the birth certificate, and re El Obama Myterioso's general lack of objective personal history, is a good move politically.  And, if you have to have a civics course reason, then the current state-level proposals for a verification process deserve support.

@42  Very interesting.  Until recently, I had figured Obama's likeliest problem was some more or less embarrassing paternity issue.  Turns out, though, per some work by a PUMA activist who seems to have done her homework, that the birth announcements in the Honolulu papers in 1961 came from Health Department notices that the papers picked up weekly.  If Obama Sr was on the birth certificate in the first place, then a Frank Marshall Davis problem would not be the motive for Obama's shyness.  However, documentary evidence of <i>whiteness</i> ... now that could threaten the sacred narrative, no matter how silly the allegations about his being Arab, Venusian, whatever.

@43  Nope.  To repeat, with NBC'ship the Old Founding Guys appear to have had something specific in mind, and that something is almost certainly more restrictive than "birth citizenship," which has been defined and redefined by congresses and courts.

@45  Nope.  Barky does indeed look like FMD, but if the original BC info says otherwise, and the evidence is that it does, then I don't see much danger to Obama there.  Plus, if we pursued the issue, ace and Drew and Gabe could add "McCarthyite" to their name-calling. 

Btw, the fact that Obama daddy was a foreigner may well be a problem constitutionally, but it's been part of the deal the voters bought, all along.  The birth certificate, OTOH, could contain surprises.  Presumably does, since the fucker won't release it.

@67  Whether or not the BC issue is a paying proposition, civil war is not a risk.  I cannot imagine a constitutional inconvenience here that could not be given a congressional fix.  If O was born in Kenya, he's still a "birth citizen" by retroactive 1992 changes to immigration law, and Congress could simply declare that NBC'ship (ambiguous) is identical to birth citizenship (clear).  They could even mention the 14th Amendment.  The courts would give them a pass, and Obama would be legal as anything, though badly damaged politically.

@75  Don't know about birthers generally, but I certainly don't expect to undo the election.  I hope to discredit the Incarnation story and so reduce a threat to my country.

@91  TY!  The glee factor is real.

@98  Well, presumably Dukakis et al had parents who were naturalized citizens.  One thing the Framers couldn't do was hurl themselves back in time and confer American citizenship on their parents.

@117  <i>What they fail to mention is that those COLBs do not erroneously go on to list the place of birth as in Hawaii. Rather, they list them wherever the person is born.</i>

True, but check out "Hawaii Revised Statutes."  I think it's Section 338.  Altering a birth certificate doesn't seem to require much in the way of paperwork or lying, and the COLB will show only the latest info.  Note that no vast conspiracy is required to field a misinformative COLB, just an interested party -- perhaps a parent concerned about citizenship status -- following a simple Health Department drill, maybe swearing to things untrue.  If the BC info has been altered, the BC will reflect the fact of alteration.  The COLB won't.  The COLB is not an acceptable substitute in all things, even in Hawaii.  Want a deal on rural real estate?  The Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands wants to see the BC, not the COLB, presumably because the latter affords no history of any suspicious alterations. 

@164  Correct on Congress, wrong on futility.  This issue gets a big frikkin rise out of the leftosphere.  They, too, suspect a lie, and they also dislike having to discuss the great gaps in The Story of O.  The more the public understands the self-invention aspect of our president, the weirdness of what is known for sure, the weaker he is.  Bring it on.

@181  Drew continues to insist on himself, and to insist on beclowning himself.  The connection of COLB info and original BC info can be pretty tenuous.

@208  You sure this is fresh info?  I think the latest revision to immigration law has Ann Dunham covered, conferring-birth-citizenship-wise.

@210  That's what I thought, too.  Not so.  Check out "Texas Darlin,'" a deep birther site.  The birth announcements really do seem to come by way of the Health Dept. in 1961 Hawaii.

That is all.  Briefly

1)  NBC'ship is an ambiguous term, never defined adequately in law.  A case can be made that there are historically plausible definitions that Obama does not satisfy.

2)  We cannot be entirely sure of Obama's eligibility without original birth certificate information.

3)  Obama's behavior indicates that the original birth certificate contains damaging information.

4)  I like information that damages Obama.

What's it cost us, so long as Judge Robinson doesn't impose fines on us?  Christ, I've just spent more time arguing the birther case on this site than I've spent on leftie sites in the past month, and the lefties know more about the case than ace, Drew, and Gabe.  

445

Obama wouldn't spend so much time and effort on this if he was really born in Hawaii like he says he was.

There is therefore only logical conclusion; one that he should be required to disprove in court:

Obama was really born on an alien spaceship piloted by Elvis Presley that was half-way between Kenya and Hawaii.  They tried to make it back in time after visiting his father the Loch Ness Monster who really isn't a monster at all, but a failed experiment performed by the CIA to combine alien DNA recovered from Roswell with that from the agent that really killed JFK.

What we think is a teleprompter is actually a secret telepathy device controlled by the aliens from their Earth base located in the Egyptian pyramids, which of course they built and from which they launched the 9/11 attacks contracted by the Zionist Freemasons.

And if you think I'm wrong you're just an Obama-loving Obama lover- but go ahead, just TRY to PROVE me wrong.

446 This makes Mena look like the theory of gravity. This obsession will destroy you. Why not focus on building the party and preparing for 2010?

447 Obama could end this controversy by simply producing his birth certificate.  Assuming it doesn't contain some damaging information, why the resistance?

448 [by "this obsession will destroy you" I don't mean those who are interested in the more abstract issue of defining NBC - that's a neat con law point with important implications. I'm talking about the forgery, gramma, Frank Marshall Davis theories. Queeg and the strawberries.]

449 " why the resistance?"

- "From sheer delight to give you trouble it might be."
(A Man For All Seasons, Act II, Scene 5)

450 - "From sheer delight to give you trouble it might be."

That has crossed my mind.  Quickly followed by:  But it's another distraction from finding new and interesting ways to shit on the Constitution, destroying the economy, and in general, just being a douchebag.

451

1)  NBC'ship is an ambiguous term, never defined adequately in law.  A case can be made that there are historically plausible definitions that Obama does not satisfy.

The court has ruled on this in the past, even if all possible scenarios haven't been explored

2)  We cannot be entirely sure of Obama's eligibility without original birth certificate information.

But those darned liberals in Hawaii that FAKED the official copy could just fake an original!!!11!!!!

3)  Obama's behavior indicates that the original birth certificate contains damaging information.

4)  I like information that damages Obama.

And here we get to the crux of the matter.  Trying to force the release the original under the guise of eligibility to get dirt.  There is and will be plenty of substantive issues to use to damage Obama without this silly bullshit.

452 These so-called conservatives are willing to give Barack the benefit of the doubt at every turn, both factually and legally. Amazing.

Look, dude, I don't really know you, but I'm an official AoSHQ Moron.  I've spent a few years discussing things and joking around with Ace and the other regulars here.  I don't know what you mean by the whole "so-called conservatives" thing, but it's out of line. 

I argue with them on this point because I care what they think. My take on the whole thing is that there's a suspicion that there's nothing sinister at all underlying the Obama birth certificate, that the only surprise waiting for the dextrosphere at the end of all this is a big, fat, stinking pile of embarassment.  I get that.  It's a political/PR concern, not a strictly logical or legal one.  But it's still a legitimate concern. 

I think we'd all blow our collective wads (not in a gay way) if it turned out that The One was even remotely discredited by his birth certificate, if it ever came to light.  But even so, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to call people who persists in trying to get to the bottom of this issue a "Birther," or taking a juvenile glee in "smacking down" what in theory is a legitimate appeal to the courts to try to get some unambiguous evidence out of the nation's chief public servant.  But that was Gabriel Malor, not Ace. 

453 Dobie - yeah, but that's assuming he's putting any effort/time into this himself. Especially now, he has people who have people who have people who deal with this sort of thing.

454

Obama could end this controversy by simply producing his birth certificate.  Assuming it doesn't contain some damaging information, why the resistance?

Because perhaps it has some "damaging information" that has nothing to do with his eligibility?

I don't like Obama either, but neither do I care for using otherwise confidential, personal records to go on a fishing expedition.  Even the President has some privacy expectations.

455

by "this obsession will destroy you" I don't mean those who are interested in the more abstract issue of defining NBC - that's a neat con law point with important implications. I'm talking about the forgery, gramma, Frank Marshall Davis theories. Queeg and the strawberries.]

 

Count me as one interested in the con law issues. There are valid legal questions with less than certain answers.  

 

The other questions are highly entertaining and will be highlighted in an upcoming documentary marathon sandwiched between The Men Who Killed Kennedy and The Roswell Conspiracy.

I'm shocked no one has mentioned the "Malcom X is Obama's father" theory. I think it came from Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.  It's unsubstantiated conjecture, but the photo comparison is worth a look.

456 Oh God, I remember that. I'm showing my RINO/pussy stripes here, but that's some crazy shit from a not entirely un-crazy person.

(Note how Ace, who has indeed called Obama every name in the book, and isn't the most respectful or tactful of dudes just in general, nevertheless doesn't go in for much namecalling, beyond "Barry" or "Captain Bullshit." At Atlas Shrugs, though, it's "PRESIDENT HUSSEIN" or occasionally "OBAMA HUSSEIN." LAME. Fight on the level of ideas, not this playground stuff).

From his actual, you know, father, to Frank Davis, to Malcolm X - why not go all the way? Obama's father was actually one of the Boys from Brazil!

457 (I mean he's called him a liar, a marxist, etc., etc. - but he DOESN'T call him "Ogabe" or "Hussein." Is it because he's fallen for the siren song of the cocktail parties? Or it because he's not TWELVE?)

458 "Because perhaps it has some "damaging information" that has nothing to do with his eligibility?"

It's just a birth certificate.  It won't indicate that he does or doesn't like little boys, smokes weed, or chokes his chicken to gladiator movies.

459 @452 Hollowpoint, you mention a court ruling, either on NBC'ship or on Obama's satisfying the eligibility requirement.  What is that ruling, please?

460

I wanna see the birth certificate

His school records

His medical records

His damn Blackberry

 

Best Regards

461

Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2009 10:40 PM (X6sgq)

 

 

My “so-called conservatives” comment was not aimed at anyone specific. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. I don’t know. What I do know is that many prominent right-of-center bloggers take every chance they get to take shots at traditional conservatives, traditional values, and those who want to see the constitution upheld. Sometimes I wonder if they are actually conservatives or not, ergo the “so-called” reference.  I know some of them are dying to have their tickets punched by the conservative elites. They want to write for the big-name sites and would like to be asked to come to CPAC. So, they dare not engage in any unseemly lines of discussion. I assume any conservative who entertains the notion Obama isn’t eligible will be relegated to the Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson wing of the conservative movement.

 

I am also tired of people with absolutely no legal background arguing law with me. Any attorney who takes more than a cursory look at the legal issues surrounding Obama’s eligibility can only conclude the law is unsettled. I have no idea how the Court would ultimately rule in a non-politically charged environment, but there are solid legal and historical reasons to assert that Obama does not meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen.  I find it insulting to be compared to idiots who believe 9-11 was an inside job, particularly by nonlawyers who don’t dick from dicta.

462

I shoulda kept reading.  I see goy (what do you suppose his name was before he changed it) has made most of my @445 points @279.  Hear, hear!  

463

@452 Hollowpoint, you mention a court ruling, either on NBC'ship or on Obama's satisfying the eligibility requirement.  What is that ruling, please?

I believe this is the most relevant one; I could be wrong.  Not sure it explicitly defines "natural" born citizen, but gives Congress wide latitude to define who is a citizen and who isn't.

In any case, it's not worth debating- short of solid evidence that Obama both wasn't born in the US and his parents weren't citizens, they're not going to somehow invalidate the election result.

464

 I find it insulting to be compared to idiots who believe 9-11 was an inside job, particularly by nonlawyers who don’t dick from dicta.

Don't want to be compared to 9-11 truthers?  Then stop acting like 9-11 truthers.  Provide some evidence that Obama wasn't born in the US.  and no, screaming "coverup!" isn't evidence.

465

Hollowpoint, the Twentieth Amendment says that a president-elect (one who already has the electoral votes needed) is to be replaced if he/she fails to qualify. It is up to the one who wants to be president to qualify. Just getting the votes is the first requirement to become president. Obama did that. He failed to qualify, though.

 

Rather than show his qualification he posted an unvalidated COLB that shows signs of fraud  - especially in conjunction with FactCheck’s alleged photos that don’t match the scan Obama posted (not the same number of folds, etc) OR real life. For instance, FactCheck’s photos were supposed to provide the validating marks from the back of the COLB. What it showed was a seal from 2008 on a certificate with a 2007 border – an impossible combination unless it was forged. The seal shown is right where the fold is but the seal doesn’t “bend” with the folded page. It was obviously pasted on after the photo of the page was made.

 

And then instead of scanning the back of the document, OR letting somebody unaffiliated with himself view the document, OR releasing the long-form certificate, he hired a CAIR lawyer to argue that it’s nobody’s business whether he’s eligible or not.

 

What he posted was unvalidated and wouldn’t qualify for documentation in any legal sense, I suspect. Furthermore, the story surrounding that document suggest that he and FactCheck engaged in document fraud.

 

That’s a little bit of the evidence…

 

466

@464Hollowpoint.  Thanks for the citation, but don't see that it bears on either issue -- just what, exactly, is NBC'ship, and is the Kenyan Teen eligible to hold his present office.  Does mention that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer citizenship on individuals born overseas to American parents.  Does mention that NBC'ship was a term used in immigration law, but this was in 1790, and the term disappeared after revision in, I believe, 1795.  Interesting, though, that, had Obama been born between 1790 and 1795 in Kenya, or, as it was then known, "Wisconsin," he would have been a NBC per immigration law.  When I-love-truthers says this area of law is unsettled, he speaks a large truth.

 

467 he would NOT have been a NBC per immigration law.

FTFY



Those guys running the country back then were rather paternalistic. Both parents had to be citizens. Father had to have lived in the US. Mother? He is a bastard - need to prove paternity - back then (prior to genetic tests, even the 60's) marriage was the presumption of paternity. FAIL. Father was not a citizen. FAIL.  Who cares. (Go figure how you really knew who the father was....but then again, the whole fricking point of marriage is the presumption of paternity)

Sole point of the Constitution's NBC clause for el presidente was to ensure that he was second generation, both sides.

14th grants Native Born citizenship.

And, again, you also have jus sanguinis,
Even if the One had been born outside the US he would most likely be a citizen, but neither Native Born, nor NBC.

Then you got who had no choice - like Chamorro - born here between year x and year y, then you are a citizen.


So what is so hard hard about finding more types than naturalized and natural born citizens? Apparently a rhetorical question.

Nonetheless, all this crap about whether Obama is a NBC or not isn't a legal question, but a political philosophy question.

To close it I invoke Godwin's Law -- Hitler was not German, but he won.

468 Enjoyed the thread!
10 thoughts...

1.  Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration. Obama used the same Bible.
2.  Lincoln came from Illinois.  Obama comes from Illinois.
3.  Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.
4.  Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President. Obama had very little experience before becoming President.
5.  Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration. Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
6.  Lincoln was a skinny lawyer. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
7.  Lincoln was a Republican. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
8.  Lincoln was highly respected. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
9.  Lincoln was born in the United States. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
10.  Lincoln was called Honest Abe. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

469 sickinmass

Godwin's Law was invoked - thread closed - please go demean teleprompter Jesus skin bag of bones elsewhere.

470 please go demean teleprompter Jesus skin bag of bones and man boobs elsewhere.


Sorry - egregious omission corrected.

471 I've heard that calling a black man 'skinny' is racist.  How 'bout a mulatto?

472 @42  Nope.  Looking at a Hawaiian BC from 1963, online.  No separate block for child's race (which would be kind of silly, come to think of it).  By a process of elimination, we're getting down to a foreign birth as the likeliest explanation for the BC stonewalling.

473 473  By a process of elimination, we're getting down to a foreign birth as the likeliest explanation for the BC stonewalling.

Except that were he foreign born, the COLB he has shown would not say he was born in Honolulu.  The State of Hawaii will not show a phony birthplace on their long form birth certificates, even for an out-of-state or out-of-country birth.

The fact is that Obama is not stonewalling.  He has shown a valid birth certificate and so far, no one with a right to see the vault copy has asked to see it.

474 466  He failed to qualify, though.

Obama showed sufficient proof of citizenship to meet the requirements of all fifty state Departments of State.  That means he qualified.  There is no further constitutional requirement he shows more.  If you want to claim that he committed fraud, the onus is on you to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.  So far, none of the allegations to the contrary even meets a civil standard of preponderance of the evidence.
 
Rather than show his qualification he posted an unvalidated COLB that shows signs of fraud

Or does if you're an anonymous self-styled "expert" whose results are contradicted by other, non-anonymous real experts.

 letting somebody unaffiliated with himself view the document,

FactCheck is not affiliated with the Obama campaign.  They may not be entirely unbiased, but they did try to be reasonably fair during the campaign.

he hired a CAIR lawyer
 
Most people hire lawyers when they get sued, if they can afford it and they aren't stupid or naive.  Only an idiot would think that showing the vault copy would have stopped Truthers and other lunatic fringe dimwits from stopping their frivolous lawsuits

As for this NBC nonsense, Obama isn't the first president to have a parent who was not born in the USA.  Any court would consider that, the 14th Amendment, US citizenship law, and Common F***ing Sense and rule that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

475 Oh, and justincase, you still haven't explained why Obama would produce a forged document knowing that the documentation that would show it to be forged is easily available to Hawaii officials, officials who have in fact seen the vault copy and have not called the police

476 Dave AAA,

No.  COLB prints do not necessarily reflect the entirety of the base records.  I have handled COLBs that do not reflect the base document (a Record of Foreign Birth), but list the place of birth as point of registration.

Show me a contemporaneous Hawaiian COLB that reflects record modification, a foreign birth, or an attested birth.  I know those circumstances happened in the 1960s.  Hawaii allowed registration of foreign births, why doesn't the COLB have a country field?

Your last sentance is correct, the current process has a big loophole and the courts have not granted anyone standing to force discovery.

477

Dave aaa, you said, “He has shown a valid birth certificate”.

 

A birth certificate isn’t valid without the validating marks on it: seal and  registrar’s stamp or signature. Obama posted no such thing. What he posted is substandard for any legal documentation.

 

His friends at FactCheck posted photos of what they say was his document, but there are at least two concrete, telltale signs of forgery: the seal is from 2008 but the border is from 2007, and the seal on the fold doesn’t “bend” when the page is folded upwards.

478
477

No.  COLB prints do not necessarily reflect the entirety of the base records.  I have handled COLBs that do not reflect the base document (a Record of Foreign Birth), but list the place of birth as point of registration.

As far as I can tell, that would be be in violation of Hawaii law if you are speaking of a Hawaii birth certificate.  It would be a massive stroke of luck if a Hawaii COLB printed in 2007 just happened to erroneously list Obama  birthplace as hawaii.

why doesn't the COLB have a country field?

I don't know. It does have a field for town, island, and county however, and that says Honolulu, Oahu, Honolulu.   I'm gonna make a wild guess that bthere isn't a Honolulu Country or Oahu Island in Kenya.

479

Dave aaa, how do you know they haven’t called the police? I suspect that if they called the police, though, they would be the ones in hot water, just like Helen whatsherface in Ohio who looked at Joe the Plumber’s records without a warrant. What elected official or political appointee do you know who would be willing to illegally access the file of the first black president? Even with subpoenas for the information resulting from Bush's executive order before he left office there is no evidence that any authority has done or will do anything but fight the subpoena. That's with all the legal cover in the world. You need to hear about Donofrio's experience, undercover, trying to get his case to the SCOTUS...

 

And do you notice that Obama himself never even tried to post the validating marks? He had his friends at FactCheck do it. Why didn’t he scan it himself and post it on his site? Probably so that if the marks were found to be forged (as they have been) he wouldn’t necessarily be implicated in it. He could still say, “Well, they posted false information but what I posted was legit.” And he could continue to refuse to let anybody see the record which would show whether what he posted was legit.

 

Of course, he knows that without the validating marks, a posted document isn’t even legally a claim to be legitimate. So he posted a smokescreen that legally means nothing.

 

480 A birth certificate isn’t valid without the validating marks on it: seal and  registrar’s stamp or signature. Obama posted no such thing. What he posted is substandard for any legal documentation.

Then it's a good thing he wasn't trying to pass that posting as legal documentation in and of itself.
 
His friends at FactCheck posted photos of what they say was his document, but there are at least two concrete, telltale signs of forgery:

Sorry Justin, you're wrong about all that.

Still waiting for you to tell me why he'd forge a document that Hawaii Records would spot immediately as fake.

481 I suspect that if they called the police, though, they would be the ones in hot water,

They've already admitted that they've looked at it.  Releasing evidence of a crime to law enforcement authorities is not the same as leaking it to the media.

482

Dave aaa, FactCheck posted photos showing a seal  on the fold that doesn’t “bend” when the page is folded upwards. That could only have been pasted onto the page image because that doesn’t happen in real life. Someone in the Chicago office of FactCheck is guilty of document fraud on Obama’s behalf. I wouldn’t call that unbiased or fair.

 

And I had my own personal run-in with FactCheck when I e-mailed them 4 separate times to document why their “Born-Alive Baloney” article was 180 degrees in the wrong direction. They never corrected it.

 

483

They have not said they looked at it. They have said they observed that it was there. They also told Politifact that they can’t possibly say what the image Obama posted represents – which means either they haven’t even checked to see if the record matches their file, or that even if they had looked it it’s impossible for them to say what they saw .

484

Dave, you can say I’m wrong until the cows come home, but it doesn’t make it so. I gave you two concrete observations which indicate forgery. You haven’t addressed them at all. What this tells me is that I’m a fool if I continue to try to reason with a fool.

 

But I want to duly note the avoidance of the facts for the benefit of any watchers who might not have caught it.

485 Did Obama ever say specifically that the COLB he posted was genuine? For that matter, has he ever specifically said that he was born in Hawai?  What a person doesn't say is just as revealing as what they do say – especially if they’re from Chicago.

486

And Hawaii officials might immediately spot a document as fake if they look at the accurate record. So far Hawaii officials seem to have indicated that they have NOT done so.

487

Gabe,

Not to nitpick, but has anyone actually seen B.Hussein Obama's birth certificate?

488 I gave you two concrete observations which indicate forgery.

Sorry, I'm even less likely to accept you as an authority on forgery that the guy Berg the Truther used.  Indeed, your claim that the FactCheck seal doesn't bend with the paper is flat out wrong.  It does.

I am glad to see, though, that you now accept that the type of COLB Obama presented would be valid proof of US birth - else why would you care if it was forged?

489 For that matter, has he ever specifically said that he was born in Hawai?  
Yes he has.  He had to certify that he was born in the USA in all fifty states.

So far Hawaii officials seem to have indicated that they have NOT done so.

Hawaii officials did say that had confirmed it was physically in their records.  In order to do that, they would have had to look at it.

490 Not to nitpick, but has anyone actually seen B.Hussein Obama's birth certificate?

As I noted above, Hawaii state officials have seen the original.  Several people have seen the certified abstract.  If Obama has a driver's licence or a passport, he would have had to present  a birth certificate.  It's likely that he has had to show one on several occasions for many reasons - employment, health insurance, school, and so on.

Odd, then, that none of them has come forward to say, "He's lying".

491 I don't know where Obama was born. The only one who can answer that question is President Transparency, himself. The only fact that I know of with respect to this issue is that Article 2 of the Constitution requires the President to be of 'natural born' status. The Constitution doesn't say that vetting will be performed by the media, or by factcheck.org, in fact, it says nothing about enforcement. Since there is no enforcement mechanism defined per say, wouldn't all Americans have legal standing to demand that he provide the proof of eligibility? Does not the 10th amendment state that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people?
I wrote about this on my site a couple of days ago, how both left and right are attempting to silence, through labeling and stigmatizing, those who want to ensure that the Constitution is upheld. I can see this from the left, labeling and stigmatizing is their playing field, but some of the tin foil hat stuff that I'm hearing form so-called conservatives is disturbing.
I honestly hope that he is a natural born citizen, otherwise, this country could be ripped apart by a Constitutional crisis.

-OMB

492 wouldn't all Americans have legal standing to demand that he provide the proof of eligibility?

Actually, the job of demanding proof of eligability is the responsibility of the individual states.  Obama satisfied them already.   

I wrote about this on my site a couple of days ago, how both left and right are attempting to silence, through labeling and stigmatizing, those who want to ensure that the Constitution is upheld.

No, we're stigmatizing those people making serious allegations with out the evidence to back them up, and indeed, with evidence that is on the face of it false,misleading, or prrof of nothing but the guliobility of the peron repeatring it - just like the Truthers.

493 Dave,
Let's be clear, I'm not making any allegations, I've flatly said that I don't know what the truth is. You're stigmatizing people asking what I and many others consider to be a legitimate question out of fear that there may be a problem with his eligibility, and it's easier to stigmatize than to argue. When I joined the military, I had to provide a birth certificate. I don't think that's too much too ask of the Commander-In-Chief. All Americans have a right to see this man's proof of eligibility, and it is incumbent upon him to provide it.
I know that each state has ballot certification process and certification of electoral vote process. Are the requirements the same from state to state? Do you have first hand knowledge that all 50 states reviewed his long form birth certificate from Hawaii? Please provide a link.
The only accusations that I see are coming from people frustrated by attempts to get President Transparency to provide proof of eligibility. What other recourse do they have but the courts? I'm sure you'd prefer that they just sit down and shut up, but I don't think that's going to happen.
One more question, why are you so concerned if all the proof is available and at hand to put these 'Birthers' in their places?
-OMB

494 I'm not making any allegations, I've flatly said that I don't know what the truth is.

Then you aren't paying attention.

You're stigmatizing people asking what I and many others consider to be a legitimate question out of fear that there may be a problem with his eligibility

Yes, I am.  At one point last year, there may have been legitimate concerns, but enough information is now out there to show that Obama was born in Hawaii and that those claiming otherwise are frauds and loonies.

it's easier to stigmatize than to argue.

I've already done enough arguing, as have the rest of the sane people around here.

Do you have first hand knowledge that all 50 states reviewed his long form birth certificate from Hawaii?

No I don't.  Indeed, my understanding is that not only did most of them not look at the long form, but they didn't look at the perfectly sufficient short form either.  It seems that isn't a requirement in most, as in nearly all,  states.  Don't like that?  Lobby your state legislature.

What other recourse do they have but the courts?

I dunno.  How about logic, common sense, the fact that the evidence is on Obama's side and not only the side of those making the allegations?  Innuendo, conjecture, and hearsay aren't actually acceptable types of evidence.  Of course, they're free to try, and the courts are free to tell them to get lost.

495 465

 I find it insulting to be compared to idiots who believe 9-11 was an inside job, particularly by nonlawyers who don’t dick from dicta.

Don't want to be compared to 9-11 truthers?  Then stop acting like 9-11 truthers.  Provide some evidence that Obama wasn't born in the US.  and no, screaming "coverup!" isn't evidence.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 06, 2009 11:47 PM (zE8dV)

 

Hollowpoint,

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. No where did I ever allege Obama was born outside of the US. And I allege no coverup.  

 

If you read my posts I said there is an arguable legal case that Obama does not meet the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” based on known facts.  I question his eligibilityt based on HIS OWN ADMISSIONS about himself. I’m not the one who claimed his father was a Kenyan with British citizenship; Obama did. What I am talking about is a purely legal argument, not one based on conspiracies for which there is scant evidence. If you take the time to study the Framers intent and the common understanding of “natural born citizen” throughout our history, you will find that our ancestors were concerned with divided loyalties, which is why they inserted that phrase in the constitution.

 

I do not claim to know how the Court would ultimately come down on this issue, but it’s a much closer case than I first thought. When I took a cursory look at it I thought it was a laughable argument, but then an attorney in my office showed me some of John Adams’ notes. I read some of the Congressional debate over the 14^th Amendment. I read old treatises. I read enough case law to know the question has never been directly addressed. I don’t know the right way to get this case argued on the merits in front of the Court, but if it were argued and if original intent means anything anymore, a legitimate and good faith argument can be made that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen.

 

Next time you spout off over my posts, go back and read them first so you don’t look like a fool.

 

496

The practical results notwithstanding, and not knowing enough to make a table-pounding assertion either way, just for the fun of watching the anti-birthers, I'd hope to find O is not eligible.

The practical results, of course, would be horrendous. Which is one reason to think the anti-birthers suspect something they fear.

May not be the case.  Would certainly satisfy Occam, given the dual arguing.  Facts plus egregious sneering .  Drop the latter.  Won't look so much like you have someething to hide.

497

If anyone else is reading this and you don’t know whether to believe Dave aaa or me regarding the seal on FactCheck’s photos, go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts and look at the final image at the bottom of the report.

 

Notice that there are two folds – one at top and one at bottom, both running right through a circular emblem on the page. The top folds back and the bottom folds forward, but they have the same angle.

 

Look at the round letterhead emblem on the top fold. Cover up the context on both sides and look at the image. It’s elliptical because of the fold.

 

Now do the same with the seal on the bottom fold. It’s perfectly round. If it was real the seal would be elliptical like the letterhead emblem, only leaning the opposite direction because the fold is toward the camera rather than away from it.

 

I don’t have to be an expert on forgery to see what my stinkin’ eyes see, and neither do you. You can see what’s there and you can see how people try to say it’s not there. Why is that?

498 Why is that?

I don't want to speak for others but personally it's because of all the checks I get from Obama and the Kenyan government.  Hmmmm, maybe I'm not supposed to mention that.

Or perhaps it's because of all the machinations one must go through to accept any of your (and I use 'your' in the wider sense of any 'birther') theories.

Anyway, I think there's one thing we all can agree on...fire has never melted Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. You can Google it!

499

You can simulate what the seal on FactCheck’s page should look like by tracing a circle on a paper. Fold the paper about 1/3 of the way from the top. Now hold the paper so the fold is coming toward you at the same angle as in the FactCheck photo, with the left side of the paper slightly closer to you than the right.

 

Now take a picture with a cellphone or digital camera. Cover up the context on both sides and see what shape the circle is. That’s what the seal should look like, if it’s real.

 

I did this with my 9-year-old. She had no idea what I was getting at but I showed her the image on the website and had her compare the shapes. The top one was leaning and the bottom one wasn’t. I held pencils up to the screen to show the angle backward on the top and forward on the bottom and she saw that they were the same angle.

 

I drew the circle on a piece of paper and did what I described above. It leans to the left rather than to the right and the shape is a little different because the fold is higher up on the circle, but it’s the same elliptical kind of shape.

 

That is science. That’s using a control – comparing the 2 circles shown on the same page at the same angle (the variables are the same so the result should be the same), then simulating the same thing on a paper I can see in 3 dimensions myself. I’m comparing the 2 things I know to be real (the top seal and my circle on a real paper that is then folded) to the image in question. The 2 real things agree with each other; the one in question doesn’t match.

500

Drew, did you check out that image with your own eyes?

501

#500 should have said the RIGHT side of the paper as you’re looking at it closer to you

502

I should clarify, Drew. I have never said that anybody who denies the forgery must be pro-Obama. I know you’re not.

 

The bigger picture is made up of smaller details. All I’m asking right now is that you (meaning anybody who is reading this) check out this one detail and tell me what you see. An observation. That’s all it is. Dave said that the seal isn’t round. What do you see? Is it round, or is it elliptical?

503 Drew, did you check out that image with your own eyes?

No but I also didn't fling my own shit at random passerbys or run up and down the street yelling, 'the end is coming, buy chicken breast futures!'. Of course the night is still young, so keep hope alive.

Here's the thing, we've been down these paths before and they never pan out. The fact that you have come up with a more complex and rather difficult to follow version isn't all that exciting.

504 I know you’re not.

Thanks. I was actually just trying to bring some levity to a very dead debate.

505

If you won’t look at it there’s really nothing more for me to say to you about it. Hopefully others are willing to see with their own eyes.

 

Just to clarify though. It’s not complicated at all. Fake SS# at the beginning of his political career, which gives him a free pass until people begin to question his natural-born status. At that point forge a COLB, post it without ever showing the verification but imply that  what you’ve shown is good enough for legal documentation. When people won’t accept it without the validating marks, have friends at Chicago FactCheck take photos of a forged certificate , impose a seal onto the photos, and post it on the web – again, not a valid route for legal certification of anything, but enough to appease most people AND make a rift between conservatives who don’t want to pursue it and those who want documentation that’s up to legal standards.

 

It’s worked eerily well. And so many unexpected bonuses too. The SCOTUS willingly took away the people’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Secretaries of States all over the country have affirmed that they don’t check a darn thing and almost everybody is fine with it. Conservatives are afraid to be considered “truthers” about anything, thus making Obama’s media the only “credible” media there is. Those who don’t buy it have no voice to represent them in either party, are effectively isolated from the mainstream, and have been identified for future referral to Bill Ayers’ re-education camps.

 

And of course, nobody in their right mind would suggest that the Saudis and/or George Soros bought the election by making an electronic run on the bank to create a financial crisis so extreme that Bush said our entire civilization was in danger of collapsing, Bernanke and Paulson met secretly with Congress after which Congress declared martial law so they could pass “emergency legislation” to fix the crisis, and America has sat idly by during 3 months (and counting) of a liberal shopping spree that will make socialism a must when it’s done.

 

If we stood together and strong against the enemy, like Winston Churchill stood against the Axis powers, we could defeat the enemy. But Churchill was a fanatic and nobody wants to be a fanatic in this enlightened age.

 

506 I don't want to speak for others but personally it's because of all the checks I get from Obama and the Kenyan government. 

Fow goodness sake Drew!  Next you'll be telling them about our payoffs from he Mossad to hide the Truth about 9/11.

507 Ixnay on the jew gold

508 Dave aaa

why doesn't the COLB have a country field?

I don't know. It does have a field for town, island, and county however, and that says Honolulu, Oahu, Honolulu.   I'm gonna make a wild guess that bthere isn't a Honolulu Country or Oahu Island in Kenya.

So, if you were born overseas and submitted your record of foreign birth form to register your birth in Hawaii how would the COLB reflect that foreign address?  Those headers appear to be pre-printed on the form.

You would be surprised at how many place names are the same around the world, those damn Englishmen were everywhere naming places.  I bet there are several "COOK" somethings in both Hawaii and New Zealand.

509 via LGF

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-1 prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate."Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

The issue continually gets side tracked.  We know he has something on file in Hawaii.  The manner in which he has distributed the COLB is questionable and any no electronic image of a Hawaii COLB is valid for any purpose; so it's not forgery if somebody got cute with it.

From the statement above, something is missing.  They provided no analysis of the data.  They did not say - we have a birth certificate on file and it substantiates a Hawaiian birth.  Why not, they know his status as a natural born citizen is the issue.

The core question is what substantiating information is in the file.  If it is a physician's or nurse's witness statement, then he is a (at least a) US citizen.  If it is a parent's or other witness' (the Grandmother) statement attesting a home birth, then things get murky.  If it is based on Report of Foreign Birth (FS-204), then we have a problem.  If it was amended recently, then we have a problem.  It if originally states a different father, we may have a dark family secret.

I went in today (Saturday) and flipped thru some files, about 120 records.  I found several foriegn births to US citizens (7, because we hire a higher number of ex-military this number may be higher then the general population).  I had the equivilient of the Hawaii COLB (sadly not Hawaii COLBs) submitted for 4 of the 7.  In each case, despite the fact that I have other documentation supporting the foriegn birth, including the self admission duing the interview process and FS-204 forms, the COLB lists the respective state capitol as place of birth.  One of the four has a notation that additional information is available - but on three of them, nothing.  The four documents come from three different states for births between 1954 and 1974.  I found other actual birth certificates that annotated a home birth, but no COLBs that annotate that information. I did find a COLB (not from Hawaii) that was annotated that the file had been amended at a certain date.

It is frustrating to called insane by allies when they simply have never handled a volume of birth records, had to verify circumstances of birth, or acted in a consular capacity.  There are real issues with how individual states have handled birth records; it is a problem for the RealID program at DHS.  If the court system cannot provide an answer, then we have to a Red State change their ballot rules and find out in 2012.

510 Let's look at this another way, as a hypothetical: If, due to the circumstances of his birth, Obama were legally able to claim British citizenship, (due to Obama Sr.'s British citizenship at the time of Obama's birth), when he reached the age of majority, would that not be evidence of conflicting alliegiance? So the question is, would Obama have been able to declare British citizenship? Any takers?

511 Those headers appear to be pre-printed on the form.

It's a computer generated form.  Adding a header would be no problem.  Even if they do not, they still have a place for town and county.  Were he born in Mombasa as is claimed, that would appear as the town.

I had the equivilient of the Hawaii COLB (sadly not Hawaii COLBs) submitted for 4 of the 7.  In each case, despite the fact that I have other documentation supporting the foriegn birth, including the self admission duing the interview process and FS-204 forms, the COLB lists the respective state capitol as place of birth.

Hawaii law, though, requires the actual place of birth be listed for foreign births.  Other states may differ.

those damn Englishmen were everywhere naming places. 

And why would thwey give  a Plynesian name to place in Kenya rather than an English or lacal language one?  As it happens, ther eis no place called Honolulu in Kenya and Obama is  claimed to have been born in the city of Mombasa anyway.

The manner in which he has distributed the COLB is questionable

What's questionable about it?  It placed an image on his website and made th hardcopy accessible to a repuatable media outlet.  There's no official venue for publically presenting such things.  It was done only as a PR gesure as he had already made the certifications required by law.  The onus is really on those making the allegation to present credible evidence that he had lied on those cerifications.

so it's not forgery if somebody got cute with it.

Obama is alleged to have produced a phony state issued document and has presented it as genuine.  That does count as forgery.  He aslo allegedly falsely claimed to the State of Hawaii that was born there when he registered as a candidate for office.  That's fraud.

Why not, they know his status as a natural born citizen is the issue.

It is contrary to Hawaii law to release that information to the public.  So what they've done is they saw the document weeks before the election, and then did not call the appropriate law enforcement agency of Hawaii Secretary of State to tell them Obama was committing a crime.   The only reasonable explanation for not calling the cops is that there was no crime found.

512

Dave, you said, “What's questionable about it?  It placed an image on his website and made th hardcopy accessible to a repuatable media outlet.  There's no official venue for publically presenting such things.  It was done only as a PR gesure as he had already made the certifications required by law.  The onus is really on those making the allegation to present credible evidence that he had lied on those cerifications.”

 

Point #1: He placed a smaller than Daily Kos’, greatly compressed image of a front page when he could have placed a high definition image of front and back, with validating marks, as well as photos of the same document in 3D.

 

Point #2: I’d say a court of law – as he has been sued to do upwards of 20 times – would be a FANTASTIC opportunity to show us this document he so much wants us to see.

 

Point #3: The “reputable media outlet” forged a HI seal onto their photos. That’s not reputable. And even at that, he let that one (criminal) media source see  the document for a short time (the photo shoot took 14 minutes, I believe) and then nobody else could see it, even though it was supposedly there in Chicago. On its face that is about as open and above-board as Joseph Smith, who translated tablets supposedly in an ancient language he didn’t even know while not even looking at what was on the tablets, which he only allowed a few to see and always with a blanket covering it. You don’t find that a little bit fishy?

 

Point #4: Certifications required by state law, perhaps, but he’s supposedly a Constitutional scholar (though he can’t practice law now that it’s clear he lied on his Bar forms about never having had another identity, which is the same issue we’re dealing with here - his identity). He knows that the Constitution requires him to be a natural-born citizen. If he didn’t know it, all the lawsuits he’s fighting should have reminded him.

 

Again, we can go to a control group: John McCain also gave what was required by state laws, but provided long-form birth certificate so that the Constitutional issue (you know, the law that the President swears to uphold…) could be out in the open. Compare that with Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama.

 

Especially given that the only record he wasn’t able to seal from the public was a school registration form listing him as Barry Soetoro, Muslim Indonesian citizen – and how he had to spin and lie to explain that ONE (count ‘em, one) record away - I would think he has some explaining to do even signing his name  as “Barack Obama” on his “certifications”. Where are the legal documents proving he changed his name - either in Indonesia or USA?

 

Point #5: Those making the allegations have basically PROVEN that  FactCheck forged a seal. That begs the question of why they had to forge a seal if Obama gave them a document that was validated. If the document he gave FactCheck is not validated, then it didn’t come from Hawaii state records. Where did it come from? That’’s evidence that what he posted is not genuine, and just cause for investigation – which is all these lawsuits are asking for.

 

But it can’t be PROVEN that he posted a forgery (even though the tell-tale signs are there, such as white or gray pixels where every similarly-scanned real COLB has shown green pixels) unless and until we see the official record. He’s kicking and screaming to keep anyone from seeing it. Why? It would only show that  what he posted was genuine. Why won’t he prove the genuineness of what he posted? OR prove that it has the validating marks, since FactCheck forged at least one validating mark?

 

As it is, he’s shown us nothing but an image of an unvalidated page, with your “reputable media outlet” forging a Hawaiian seal onto it. Rather than answering the legitimate question, it raised additional red flags that magnify the Indonesian school record discrepancy that had already surfaced against Obama's will. I don’t understand how you can’t see that.

 

513 The “reputable media outlet” forged a HI seal onto their photos.

That's the opinion of you and your Turther's phony "expert".  The unmodified image shows no such evidence of forgery as you claim.  None.

I’d say a court of law – as he has been sued to do upwards of 20 times – would be a FANTASTIC opportunity to show us this document he so much wants us to see.

Assuming any of the frivolous cases ever got that far.  Itr's unlikely that they will and what he's dopnre has been sufficient to get him the job he has now.  Satisfying the idle curiosity of  the lunatic fringe and their dupes is not a good enopugh reason to let these idiots waste more of his time and money in court.  It isn't as if it would stop them.  I mean, I've shown you that your forgery claims are without merit, yet you still hold on to them.

But it can’t be PROVEN that he posted a forgery

Sure it could, as Hawaii public records officials have seen the original.  Unless, of course, he published a forgery that had no significant misinformation.  That would be a bit pointless, though.

I don’t understand how you can’t see that.

Probably because you're a wingnut.

514 Hawaii law, though, requires the actual place of birth be listed for foreign births.  Other states may differ.

On the Birth Certificate - every state has that requirement, but also on the COLB?  I just went thru the statutes and found no reference to requirements on the COLB for foreign births, amendments, or at home/attested births.  I could have missed it, do you have a reference.

Obama is alleged to have produced a phony state issued document and has presented it as genuine.  That does count as forgery. 

He has never presented that document in manner in which it would be forgery.  Electronic versions are invalid.  Eeriely similiar to how the Rathergate documents had a provenance of Col. Killians' "personal records", therefore fell out side of forgery statutes.

515 It's a computer generated form.  Adding a header would be no problem.  Even if they do not, they still have a place for town and county.  Were he born in Mombasa as is claimed, that would appear as the town.

My direct experience shows otherwise.  The template doesn't change.  At best they annotate the document.  Having a dynamic field structure for a database print job is not "no problem" - it is a significantly more sophisticated piece of code.  I have yet to see a Hawaii COLB with such dynamic features be presented.

516

What “unmodified image” are you talking about? Give me a link. Are you accusing Polarik of changing FactCheck’s seal to make it round instead of bending with the fold? If so, prove that he did so.

 

Dave, you implied that Obama had no OPPORTUNITY to produce his genuine documents for the public. At the first sign of a lawsuit he could have complied and saved a lot of people a lot of money in a hurting economy. Why didn’t he? Even before that, he could have provided the information for the DNC, as Berg originally asked. It was only after both Obama and the DNC told him to F off (rather than do due diligence so they could sign documents in good faith) that Berg took the legal route. And, like I said, he could have posted GOOD images of front and back, including  the relevant validating marks on the back, as well as photos of the document in real life, at ANY TIME.

 

The people asking for documentation right now are not nutcases. They are military men who have made an oath to protect this nation against people who would take over the country illegally – as, for instance, an impostor in the White House. This is not frivolous. This is DEAD SERIOUS. If you think not, I’d like you to give your best argument why their oaths don’t matter so I can forward it to all our fine military folks who are laying their lives on the line for this butt-wipe who mocks their earnestness.

 

Both Jean and I are making valid, foundational points to you but  they are apparently so far above your head that you can’t even grasp them. This conversation is pointless, as I’ve said before – except in the event that somebody who genuinely wants to sort this out is following along.

 

Just as a favor to me, so I can know whether it’s worth my time to post, if there are any of you who are genuinely considering the data presented, please post that you are. If nobody’s listening I may as well go build my daughter’s bed and hang a few doors today.

517

Okay, Dave. I’ll post my own link  (remove the spaces)  http://www.factcheck.org/

UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

 

Take the time to get off your duffer and look at the damn image. That seal is PERFECTLY ROUND. What the hell are you talking about? You're wasting all of our time, farting in our general direction. Why bother? If it ain't worth Obama's time to sign a stinkin' release form, then why is it worth YOUR time to cloud the air with what you know is either misinformation or just plain ignorant drivel?

 

LOOD AT THE DAMN IMAGE!!

518

BTW, the judge who issued this is James ROBERTSON, not Robinson.

Robertson was appointed by Clinton in 1994 (at the beginning of Clinton’s first term) and has consistently worked to make sure that investigations into Clinton’s alleged corruption would not advance. He was involved in secret meetings between US Judges in the DC Court. Definitely an insider comfortable in covering up corruption. Cover for Clinton… cover for Obama….

 

Nice guy there, Gabriel.

 

 

 

519

News excerpts regarding Judge Robertson found at http://www.alamo-girl.com/03151.htm  A Washington Times article regarding the impropriety of “The Magnificent Seven” – of which Judge Robertson was one – is found at http://www.mcsm.org/secretmeeting.html

 

It’s all about making sure that investigations/cases against Clinton were all appointed to be decided by Clinton-appointed judges. Pay to play, anyone?

 

Wonder if this guy would go to bat for Obama like he did for Clinton…

520

What’s sad is that Judge Robertson was an officer in the US Navy. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I suspect the bitter language is because he knows he’s a traitor and hates anybody in the military who isn’t.

521

For Judge Robertson to uphold the plaintiff in this case would be for him to admit that he should be making the same case.

 

Once again, this guy should never have been given this case. I wonder how he got it – if it was The Magnificent Seven (now eight, though) who gave it to him instead of using the standard protocols for appointing cases. In any event, Robertson should have recused himself because the issue pertains to his very own situation as well. He could be recalled to active duty and if he did he would be in the same dilemma as this plaintiff. Except he doesn’t take his oath seriously enough to even think of whether it would be treason to obey Obama’s orders…

522

According to Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, a local statute allows cases to be appointed to a specific judge deliberately if the case is complicated or, as she says, “high profile”, with much media scrutiny. The normal procedure is for cases to be assigned randomly by a computer. But if the case matters to big political people, they bypass that built-in protection and assign it to the judge they want to assign it to.

 

Who should get what case  may well be what the “Magnificent Eight” discuss in their private meetings. All eight are Clinton appointees and they have taken all of the “high-profile” cases. All havedone their utmost to obstruct the prosecution. Their rulings are frequently overturned on review.

 

These are political hacks making sure they get to decide all the important cases. Foxes guarding the henhouse. Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch have wanted them investigated for a while now.

 

Judge Robertson took the Web Hubbel case.  And now he took the case regarding Obama’s eligibility. Gave a theatrical decision that Gabriel would like to dip his balls in. Now everybody but the “Birthers” will say, “This issue has already been decided by a perfectly respectable judge who looked at all the information and called it nonsense.”

 

Folks, America is so screwed she’s not America any more. I have to wonder if there are ANY honest people in government at all. And most people just gobble it all up. As long as we’re going through the motions of following the Constitution and administering justice, it doesn’t matter that justice is a joke.

523 He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I suspect the bitter language is because he knows he’s a traitor and hates anybody in the military who isn’t.

I suspect if this thread goes on much longer we are going to start hearing about Obama's plans "to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids".

524 525

525 It's priobaly way late to reaspond but my computer was down for a few days.

Are you accusing Polarik of changing FactCheck’s seal to make it round instead of bending with the fold? If so, prove that he did so.

 No, I'm saying I've looked at it several times and it does bend with the paper.  
 
Dave, you implied that Obama had no OPPORTUNITY to produce his genuine documents for the public.
 
 No, I saying he doesn't have to show it as he has already already shown sufficient proof to get on the ballot in fifty states and satisfy the consensus of American opinion that he was born in Hawaii.  He has no further requirement to show anything else at this point.  Satisying the idle curiosity of a few people on conservative blogs is not reason enough.
 
 The American people, by which I mean the consensus of US public opinion, were satisfied with his answer.  They don't think he needs to show more.  Showing more won't stop the lawsuits, so there's no reason to try.  Fighting the suits at the earliest opportunity in the process is a standard and well tested legal strategy.   
 
 The people asking for documentation right now are not nutcases. They are military men who have made an oath to protect this nation against people who would take over the country illegally
 
A very small proportion of the military, or ex-military, are nuts, just as a very small proportion are stupid, or gullible, or criminal.  Of several million military and ex-military in the US, only about a hundred seem to be screwed up enough to support Berg the Truther.  There may be a few hundred, even a few thousand more who agree with them.  What's the percentage of ten thousand in ten million?

What’s sad is that Judge Robertson was an officer in the US Navy.

So you agree then that ex-military can be wrong.  I'm sure you can't see the disconnect there.

Look, this crap isn't going to turn the 2012 election anymore than "AWOLBush" or "Selected not Elected" got Kerry elected  in 2004.  What will is the economy and security.  Unfortunately, I think Obama will do a bad job on both.  I say "Unfortunately" because the implications of a bad economy or a major terror attack are far more serious than partisan wrangling.



 

526 MMORPG is now Runescape Gold got maturity chanel watches development Buy Runescape Gold day by Runescape Money day. Most of Runescape the game got similar Buy Runescape Money framework which is Runescape Gold For Sale from scenario design to Runescape Money For Salegame tableau. Nowedays, the designers pay Runescape Power Leveling much attention on chanel j12 watches the culture aspect. vgoldzone

527 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 货架

528 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

529 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

530 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

531 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

532 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

533 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

534 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

535 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

536 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

537 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

538 Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Omega | soccer jersey supplier | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Watches | Audemars Piguet Watches Replica | Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Wholesale Mont Blanc Watch | Zenith Fake | Girard Perregaux Replica Watch | Hublot Watch Replica | Replica Parmigiani Watches | Hermes Fake Watches | Blancpain Watch | Parmigiani Watch

539 Fake Cheap Rolex | soccer jersey supplier | Replica watches | soccer jersey wholesale | soccer jersey supplier | Chanel Replica | Hublot Watch | Replica Raymond Weil | Girard Perregaux Fake Watches | Replica Longines | Daniel Roth Watch | Bvlgari Replica | Hamilton Watches | Replica Corum Watches | Replica Rolex Ladies Watches

540 Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Rolex | Fake Watches | Longines Replica Watches | Bvlgari Fake Watches | Replica Hublot Watches | Blancpain Replica Watch | Replica Girard Watch | best replica watches | watches brand | Frank Muller Fake Watch | Fake Oris | Replica Bell & Ross

541 Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Omega | Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | replica soccer jersey | watches brand | Omega Watches Replica | replica wristwatch | Fake Jaeger Lecoutre | Replica Corum | Fake Hublot Watch | Tag Heuer Watch | Cheap Omega Fake Watch | Cheap Longines Fake Watch | Bell & Ross Fake Watch

542 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

543 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

544 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

545 discount ugg boots
ugg boots outlet
cheap ugg outlet
cheap ugg boots
ugg classic tall
ugg bailey button
ugg rainier
ugg classic cardy
ugg classic crochet
ugg classic mini
ugg classic short
ugg classic tall
ugg nightfall
ugg sundance
ugg ultra short
ugg ultra tall
ugg boots 5389

546 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

547 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

548 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

549 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn

550 Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Gucci Belt Replica Watches | Aigner Replica Watches | Christian Dior Fake Watches | Baume & Mercier Replica Watches | Replica Swiss Watches | Girard Perregaux Fake Watches | Watches Bulgari Fashion | Christian Dior Fake Watches | Watches Gucci Fashion | Richard Mille Replica Watches | Replica Mont Blanc Watches | Replica Oris Watches | Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Replica Juicy Couture Watches | Louis Vuitton Replica Watches | Technomarine Replica Watches | Jaeger LeCoultre Fake Watches | Watches Jaeger LeCoultre Fashion | IWC Fake Watches

551 Best Hublot bags | Luxury Jaeger Lecoultre handbags | Replica Fashion Audemars Piguet handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Best Cartier bags | Replica Fashion Audemars Piguet handbags | Luxury A Lange & Sohne handbags | Replica Porsche Design Handbags | Best Tissot bags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Luxury Bvlgari handbags | Audemars Piguet Fake Handbags | Panerai Replica bags | Replica Fashion Movado handbags | Best Aigner bags | Vacheron Constantin Replica bags | Zenith Fake Handbags | Replica Fashion Graham handbags | Hublot Replica bags | Luxury TAG Heuer handbags | Luxury Boxs handbags | Panerai Replica bags | Replica Technomarine Handbags | Luxury Maurice Lacroix handbags | Raymond Weil Fake Handbags

552 Hair Straightener
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Camo
Hair Straightener
GHI

553 UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots
Ugg classic cardy
UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots

554 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

555 徵信社|徵信|