Okay class, let’s try an experiment. Please read these questions and send me your comments. Trust me, I’m a professional, I know what I’m doing. I anxiously await your responses.
back the F*CK OFF barack, this would not be an issue if he was white. So many people still hate to see a black man on top. It’s 2012 Dammit!
Louis Vuitton Outlet
Store is the one or two line descriptor that often comes after a product logo or company
name. It is one of those things that looks simple but isn’t. Large companies pay advertising
agencies a lot of money to develop tag lines for their companies and brands.Many companies,
however, do not have a large enough budget to hire an advertising agency. If you belong to one
of these small budget businesses, do not despair. With some creativity and persistence, you can
develop your own tag line.
Uw huis is valueble voor mij. Bedankt! …
of course like your website however you have to check the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very troublesome to tell the reality however I will certainly come again again.
I am really inspired together with your writing abilities as smartly as with the structure in your weblog. Is that this a paid subject or did you modify it yourself? Either way stay up the excellent quality writing, it’s rare to look a great blog like this one today..
Thanks for another great article. The place else may just anyone get that type of information in such an ideal manner of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the search for such info.
hello there and thanks for your info ? I’ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did alternatively experience a few technical issues the usage of this web site, since I skilled to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I were thinking about in case your hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, however sluggish loading cases times will often affect your placement in google and could harm your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I am including this RSS to my email and could glance out for much more of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you update this once more soon..
I simply could not leave your web site before suggesting that I really enjoyed the standard info an individual supply in your visitors? Is going to be back incessantly to investigate cross-check new posts
Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to say that I get actually loved account your weblog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing on your augment and even I success you get entry to consistently quickly.
Thank you for every other informative site. Where else may just I get that type of information written in such a perfect manner? I have a venture that I am just now operating on, and I’ve been at the look out for such info.
Wonderful website. A lot of helpful info here. I am sending it to a few friends ans additionally sharing in delicious. And obviously, thank you for your sweat!
Somebody necessarily lend a hand to make significantly posts I might state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and to this point? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual post extraordinary. Magnificent task!
Hello there, simply turned into alert to your blog thru Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful should you proceed this in future. Numerous folks can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Why does mentioning Joseph Newcomer make the anti-birthers so upset? Is his name taboo or something?
Well, as my long post(s) below I believe illustrate, Joseph Newcomer threatens them, and that threat frightens them which in turn enrages them. Newcomer’s most notable success – exposing the Killian Documents which got Dan Rather fired from CBS News – is way too close for comfort considering he has declared the Obama birth certificate put forth by Obama himself as a cheap and amateurish forgery.
Obama’s birth certificate has been declared a fake by the best in the business, thousands of professionals like me and tens of thousand of hobbyists (if you check some of the photoshop blogs, some were alive with the discussion of it); the forgery is SUCH a fake that even non-experts can see the blatant construction of the forgery, and the experts all the way to the top agree.
The only so-called expert who is reputed to have defended it was Jean Claude Tramblay on Fox News and on his blog he said Fox deliberately misquoted him, that he’s only a teacher and he never said the birth certificate was real – and he is a Canadian Obama supporter.
It’s a fake, Mr. Goldberg. It-is-a-fake. You have mocked the birthers from the beginning. Now it seems that if they aren’t right, at the very least it’s time to talk about Obama’s connection to an apparent felony – the forgery of the birth certificate. You have talked down enough to the “class”. Now it’s time to address the facts. Enough stalling, Sir. It’s time to put up.
There are obviously more important things to talk about. Like, why liberals are bad and conservatives are good! Oh, and we gotta talk about media bias too! Now, there’s no media bias against the “birthers,” so that’s not worth mentioning. What’s that about charges of racism with no evidence? Nah, that doesn’t happen against the “birthers,” just the REAL Republicans! I hear Rubio may be a VP candidate! We need several articles here supporting his candidacy! Maybe while we’re at it Berny should make an article where he uses wikipedia as his source so he can insult all those “crazy conspiracy theorists.” Two birds with one stone! Berny is obviously a very brave man. After all, no one else has the stones to make fun of the “birthers” without doing research for himself! Good going Berny!
It may just be that Bernie does not know because he hasn’t done his homework. That’s no excuse for his mockery but I don’t think he is a fundamentally bad person per se. Apparently, his big failing is that Bernie can not understand that even if Hawaii confirms the document the white house posted – they didn’t – that actual conspiracies do happen without the word “theorists” tagged on for entertainment value. I guess he has forgotten terms like “All The President’s Men”, a title fashioned when it was a little hipper to not fall on your sword for some half-assed government office’s authority when the biggest names in graphics and document analysis have staked their careers on pronouncing the forgery a fake. Bernie needs to get back into the real world. The document is a fake, and before any more mockery or declarative silence is issued from his being, he should help to discover what the original says, find out who committed the felony and put this to rest so we can move on as a country.
Bernie is losing credibility faster than water down a drain because of this one issue. It hasn’t been put to rest and never will until we get to the bottom of this. The cat’s out of the bag: the birth certificate is a fake. As difficult and troubling as it may prove to be, Bernie is going to have to deal with this, or give up his lucrative career bashing the mainstream media, because he will have enjoined himself to their protection of Obama whether he admits it to himself or not, and that makes his credibility to judge them at absolute zero.
Let’s go, Bernie. You were going to follow up that birther post. So follow it up, man. Let’s go.
Newcomer stressed that he was relying on published charges that the Obama birth certificate was fraudulent, including the analysis by scanner expert Doug Vogt and by typography expert Paul Irey.
Newcomer told WND that health issues would not permit him to undertake the type of rigorous analysis of the Obama birth certificate that he attempted in 2004 with the Killian documents.
God you are a liar, Bob. Simply unbelievable.
Here is a two hour audio at Obamafake where Newcomer, Zebest and others lay into the birth certificate no holds barred. You’re full of sh*t, Bob.
bob isn’t a liar; he just doesn’t tell the truth.
Okay, “class”, let me correct a few things, including the otherwise astute anti-birther Mr. Goldberg, who, with respect, is hopelessly out of his depth on this issue. He may be a “professional” journalist (I assume he means journalist when he says he is a professional, since that’s his profession), but he is not a professional graphics and document expert. Period.
This goes out also to “Dave”, who is making the rounds including his own blog doing a very nice thing, intentional or not, for a certain Mr.Woodman’s book by selling it.
Here’s how it shakes out in a nutshell, and it will all be very distressing to anti-birthers like mr. Goldberg, so you have fair warning in advance:
1. Probable Cause:
Obama has spent 3 years and very large sums of money keeping his citizenship records hidden. This not only includes his birth certificate, but virtually anything else that could identify his citizenship status. This is perhaps to be expected from a guy from Hawaii who has a proven social security number form Connecticut whose political career began virtually on the lap of a domestic terrorist (Bill Ayres) who bragged about creating false identities for his past groups’ operatives by using stolen social security numbers, usually otherwise assigned to dead people.
2. IMO “Dave” and a very enthusiastic lamestream media is embracing this anti-birther book which supposedly debunks claims of experts whose credentials leave that fellow in the dust: Joesph Newcomer says it is almost certainly a fake and this is the man who exposed the fake Killian documents that got Dan Rather ousted after 24 years at CBS News. Mara Zebest has co-authored several hardcover photoshop books that sit on the shelves of every respected professional graphics house in the English-speaking world. These are not “computer guys” like Mr. Woodman’s folksy self-assessment. These are powerfully accomplished, high-level professionals.
I have not read Mr. Woodman’s book, but I strongly suspect he does not have an explanation for, in my mind, as a graphic professional myself and one of tens of thousands of graphics professionals who have also examined the document, one of the most glaring aspects of the forgery: the fact that part of the program commands used to create it are embedded in the layers of the forgery itself. In other words, when Adobe graphics software is used in the creation of a document, it keeps a log of the actions in each layer, such as rotate and scale, and these are import for the artist should he or she wish to duplicate a past effect or know where he went wrong. This log is extremely important. More to the point, it cannot write itself; if the software was that sloppy that non-existent logs would be created by scans, it would essentially be worthless.
Just ask true and proven experts Newcomer and Zebest. And about one hundred thousand other graphics professionals.
With respect, I must assume given the status of those with whom he disagrees that Mr. Woodman is of the same caliber as the forger who knew enough to do the job wrong, in the AKA-vernacular, “Jimmy Down The Hall”. I submit that those who don’t believe Zebest, Newcomer, 50-year-typography expert Paul Irey and others don’t know what they are talking about, and should perhaps stick to the expertise of their chosen professions and listen to the expert testimony of those properly-placed to give it.
The evidence is in and damningly conclusive despite the anxious hand-wringing of those who wish the issue would go away: Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. Deal with it. Of ocurse, Obama could put this to rest by allowing a forensic examiniation of the original, since it has been his probable cause that has created such suspicion before the forgery was released, but naturally he has refused, and in the course of avoiding the issue, created a much bigger problem: who committed the felony by creating a forgery – something else that will eventually force Obama to release the original, at some point.
Know it: That birth certificate forgery is perfectly aligned in incredulous-inducing reaction to be to Obama what Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress with Bill Clinton’s sperm on it was to that president: the evidence that cannot be explained away.
It occurs to me to be a good guest and answer your questions as asked (the larger answer is posted, below)
1. Do you still think that Barack Obama was not born in the United States?
Not all birthers believe that, so don’t make generalized assumptions – it’s bad journalism.
2. If so, where do you think he was born?
I have no idea, but it would be nice to know.
3. Do you think the long form birth certificate released a few months ago is legitimate or do you think it’s a fraud. If you think it’s fake, why do you think that?
I know it’s a fake because I have looked at it as a professional, determined that it is, and the best experts for whom I might otherwise turn to advice on the issue came to the same conclusion before I got the chance to ask them.
4. How would you characterize people who believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that his birth certificate is 100 percent real.
Simple. I could characteristic them as mistaken. If you want to bait me into insulting them personally I won’t do it, and you should be ashamed for the seeming attempt.
5.How would you characterize people who don’t believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and think his birth certificate is a fake?
Accurate and correct on the second, I have no opinion on the first. Lumping the two together is awful and seemingly designed to denigrate the birther movement. IMO you should re-apply for a job at CBS News – if this is your current journalistic standard, I’m guessing that they’d be happy to take you back.
6.Do you think Barack Obama is a kind of Manchurian candidate? That is, do you think he’s a front man for some devious un-American force that is calling the shots and pulling the strings?
What does this have to do with a fake birth certificate? Horrible journalism at its worst, Mr. Goldberg. Stick yo your own subject, please.
7.Bonus question: Do you think there is a real devil who is the anti-Christ and who now lives among uso you still think that Barack Obama was not born in the United States?
I’m glad this is a bonus since it has nothing to do with the question of Obama’s birth certificate. If you are saying birthers all think that you are mistaken. Not everyone who like pastrami likes roast beef. Get with the program.
Some of us would appreciate you asking the questions without the glaring sarcasm. When the day comes that you have the document and graphic expertise of Zebest or the cred of Newcomer whose analysis got Dan Rather ousted from CBS News, then you can be sarcastic, and they both believe it’s a fake.
“5.How would you characterize people who don’t believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and think his birth certificate is a fake?
Accurate and correct on the second, I have no opinion on the first. Lumping the two together is awful and seemingly designed to denigrate the birther movement.”
I must applaud you for this answer.
However, I personally consider only people who say Obama was not born in Hawaii to be “birthers.” Lumping the two issues together is a tactic the left started and the right began to follow suit sometime after. Its purpose is to do exactly what you say, to “denigrate the birther movement.” It also, however, denigrates the “skeptic movement.” I can’t even question anything about Obama without being called a “birther.” I personally believe he was born in Hawaii, but that doesn’t mean his birth certificates aren’t fraudulent or that Obama hasn’t been committing crimes. And I don’t condemn and ridicule people who say he could have been born in Kenya either, it’s certainly possible.
Interesting answer. I fall somewhere midway between the two opposites you draw. I am more inclined, quite frankly, to believe that his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii but attributes Barack’s citizenship to be the same as his British father.
That being said, for Obama to NOT be born in Kenya suggests that his Grandmother was lying, and that Michelle Obama was speaking figuratively when she said repeatedly that Obama was “a Kenyan” and that (they) “visited Barack’s home country of Kenya” and Barack Obama was speaking figuratively when he said in Kenya, “It’s good to be home.” Also, the Prime Minister must have gotten his facts wrong when he said Obama was born there, as did the Kenyan ambassador, as did various newspapers that reported that Obama was Kenyan when he was running for state senate. All this is 100% documented in print and tape, no “mysterious conspiracy sources.” So when a guy refuses to let any see his original birth certificate, every graphics person from the very finest experts to the first year student recognize the forgery as such in 5 seconds upon examination of the white house document (I got mine right off the WH site and the document is a fake, for sure), and THEN you add up all the Kenyan references, you need to either be in serious, serious denial, positioning for some larger political objective or simply utterly out of touch with everyday reality to say “There is nothing suspicious here, let’s move on.”
Doubtless Mr. Goldberg and O’Reilly et al have their little thin-as-a-hair explanation to get them off the hook for their mockery, but IMO they have damaged themselves professionally permanently, with at the very least a little shine off the armor. Two things happened that ensure it: Trump made the issue legit and Obama released a proven fake (don’t be cute, people, it is according to every top expert to voice an opinion on the subject). Eventually this must break and a year is too long to realistically hope to wait that Obama will be defeated and this will go quietly away. Every journalist will have to answer to the people whom they need to stay interested in them to provide their livelihood. As Glenn Beck proved when he tanked after mocking the ‘BIRTHERS”, THERE IS GOING TO BE A POUND OF CAREER FLESH – SO TO SPEAK – DEMANDED BY A VERY ANGRY ELECTORATE.
Please learn this lesson, Mr. Goldberg, because while you are lecturing the class with rhetorical questions, the reality is you’re sitting in the corner wearing a dunce cap. This situation is bad, now.
Cone to our website, Chester, and get involved. There are people who think Obamas born in Kenya, and others who don;t and others who fall in between, but we all know one thing: that birth certificate is an absurd fake,and that comes from the top experts, too, and that’s enough to warrant this being a cause.
For an elected president to ruin an nation’s economy is one thing. To have one do it who isn’t legally qualified to serve is a different matter altogether, and if the birth certificate is a forgery, then a crime has been committed, so Obama is out of office before 2012 either way.
I, uh, may have been to your site and I might have already, uh, participated…I’ll leave it at that ;D
As for the “birth certificate” definitely being a “fake,” I have to respectfully disagree. I believe it may very well be an “unauthentic” document, but I will not call it an obvious fake. I’m more prone to believe someone at the White House intentionally wanted to screw with people. If there was an adoption, the information that is written on both the short form and long form may be “correct,” but there still should be an amended birth certificate.
Also, I should also mention I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest the short form is a forgery. I mean, it was “made” in 2008 when the date stamp says 2007.
In that case, the 2007 date stamp controls, and folks were mistaken about a trivial event. Not everyone is perfect.
I wonder where you guys get the authority to say you don’t think it’s a forgery when top experts like Newcomer whose analysis of the Killian documents got Dan Rather fired from CBS News DO say it’s a forgery? Where are you guys getting your first-person experience to make these all-knowing pronouncements? As a graphics professional I have checked Newcomer’s, Zebest’s and others findings and find them to be not 99% but 100% accurate and conclusive. And if I did not, they outrank most of us professionally, so we would look to where we went wrong, not assume that people with such unimpeachable industry credentials had put their reputations on the line for nothing. What is YOUR expertise? What do YOU know about it?
The layers of the birth certificate contain *the operational history of the creation of the forgery embedded in them*. Do you understand what that means? It means the document is self-condemning.
Leave expert testimony to experts, kids. You guys don’t qualify, and you don’t qualify in a big way, and neither does Mr. Goldberg.
The White House claimed 2008, Obama claimed 2008, and Okubo claimed 2008. Yes, they could have all been mistakes, but all three said 2008. Now, there is the possibility that either all 3 lied, or all 3 told the truth…
I just don’t like using the particular word “forgery.” It implies implications that I don’t feel anyone but people who have seen the original document and then stated it was “definitely a forgery” should be making. It could very well be a forgery, I just don’t know.
As for Newcomer, has he actually said it was a forgery? I thought he took a similar stance to some other experts and claimed something like “it has many things about it that suggest a forgery?” I don’t recall him saying it was an outright forgery, but he might have. If he has, please provide a link so I can relay Newcomer’s statement in the future.
I don’t think we should ever take the stance any of Obama’s documents are “definitely” forgeries or “definitely” real. You can, however, state they are more than likely real or fake. I just think it’s still possible somebody from the White House screwed with the long form (which doesn’t mean the information contained in the document is “incorrect”).
In written interviews Newcomer has said it is extremely suspicious but in a roundtable audio discussion with Zebest and others, they got him to admit it’s a forgery.
It is a fake. It must be, regardless of the original – it is a fake. Not only is the graphic evidence overwhelming, but for God’s sake, the history of the last step of the creation of the thing was left (presumably accidentally) left embedded in the layers (normally the layers are purged of their clipboard and history and flattened down, or simply re-saved after the purging). That history embedded in the layers is really the absolute killer. There is plenty to conclude a forgery easily without it, but the damn thing admits its own guilt in the layers, and the top experts agree. It’s a fake.
I’ll have to look up the link. or better yet you go to ObamaFake and in the archives there is a post about the roundtable discussion. Click on the link and listen. It’s an hour but as fascinating an hour as you can spend.
Mr. Goldberg, with respect, it’s time to demonstrate your journalistic integrity and deal with the facts. You have advanced your career rightfully exposing the bias on the left. If you do not address this issue on the facts – and please do your frigging homework this time, “class” – then IMO you are just as guilty of journalistic breech of ethics as they are – and then your books, with respect, aren’t worth a plug nickle. For you, my friend, it seems this is where the tire meets the highway. What will it be – journalistic integrity or journalistic integrity only when its convenient?
I don’t recall Okubo claiming 2008.
Regardless, it is trivial mistake. The State of Hawaii has certified President Obama was born in Hawaii, which is sufficient legal proof of natural-born citizenship.
“Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get the record in April 2008, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.”
Now, all three statements COULD be mistakes like you claim bob; however, it’s far from “trivial.” Why do you think Okubo wouldn’t specify who requested the “BC” for example? Why are there THREE statements claiming a 2008 date? Do you have blinders on bob? These are legitimate questions, even though they might just be “mistakes.”
Questioning the circumstances of President Obama’s birth (including the documents proving his Hawaiian birth and how it affects his natural-born citizenship) –questions based based not on facts but rather speculation and opinion — makes you a birther.
Well, you’re comment does prove one thing-
Dave was right on about the denigration of the “birther movement.” Yes bob, I already know how you love generalizations and like many anti-birthers want to give people a label.
You just gotta know who the “bad guys” are right?
A belief system based on nothing but lies is worthy of denigration.
I’m glad we agree anti-birthers are worthy of denigration.
Except the “anti-birthers” beliefs aren’t based in lies, but rather obvious facts.
Obvious facts? Lies are facts now?
Yes, obvious facts like President Obama was born in Hawaii, and judges, professors, and experts agree that is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
Where’s the lie in that?
That’s different from what you’ve been saying all along; quote:
“Judges, professors, and experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.”
I see what you did here. Nice try though.
Judges, professors, and experts do all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
That is a lie. But of course, with your liberal semantics, you’ll claim it’s not a lie. I hope you do realize though you’re not fooling anyone.
Just a moment, Bob,
“questions based based not on facts but rather speculation and opinion — makes you a birther.”
The birther movement is based ENTIRELY on fact, not speculation: it’s based on the FACT that Obama has chosen to pro-actively hide all his records that pertain to his citizenship; the FACT that he has paid lawyers millions to keep those records from public view; the FACT that he and his wife and the prime minister of Kenya and his grandmother and the ambassador and newspapers when he was running for senate said Kenya was his “home” (it’s one thing for all the newspapers to get it wrong and that’s unlikely enough, but when that same guy’s WIFE doesn’t get it straight, please, what more do you want for God’s sake?); it’s based on the FACT that he almost certainly cannot be eligible to be president because his father was not a US citizen, and that according to the legislation that allowed McCain to run against Obama (being McCain’s eligibility was based on both parents being citizens) WHICH OBAMA HIMSELF SIGNED ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE SENATE, SO HE COULDN’T POSSIBLY BE DUMB ON THE ISSUE), and now according to every high-level expert with the street cred to make a reliable assessment, Obama released a FAKE birth certificate,a nd further, 18-year private investigator Susan daniels now has a statement from the social security administration that Obama could not possibly have been assigned the social security number he is using, and it just so happens that his terrorist pal Bill Ayres has stated that in the Weather Underground they used to use the SS numbers of the dead to establish new identities for their covert operatives; these, too, are facts.
Learn the lessons ranging from Stalin and socialist Nazi Germany all the way down to President Clinton losing his law license forever for perjury because his young-ish illicit lover kept his dried sperm unwashed on her dress as a seemingly bizarre and obsessive keepsake: just because something is unthinkable does not make it impossible.
Back in 2009 when far less was known, even the Huffington post blasted the anti-birthers, calling them even weirder than the birthers (leaving only those unaware of the issue unscathed).
Obama and the lamestream media are making absolute unmitigated fools of you and Goldberg and all the other anti-birthers, including Obama’s own supporters to whom his is clearly lying blatantly now with that fake birth certificate (it is fake, once again; the experts like Newcomer who got Dan Rather fired from CBS News, agree) and you anti-birthers are wearing the clown suit Obama and his people are dressing you up in very well. The uniform fits, because you have each tailored your own to yourselves impeccably. But it’s a clown suit just the same, and you don’t appear to have the courage to glance in the mirror, instead just making the clown suit colors brighter by sheer force of will when challenged on it.
To recap: Obama’s wife and Obama himself and Kenyan officials called Obama’s home country “Kenya”, as did newspapers. Obama is lying because he cannot be unaware of what constitutes eligibility according the congress because as a senator he signed that very resolution about McCain, and he himself does not meet the requirements of that same resolution – both parents being US citizens. He has opened up probable cause like a whirling dervish with his lawyerly actions to hide his past and the document he chose to release to supposedly prove his eligibility is an absurd and amateurish fake.
When are you people going to come down to earth, seriously, and get with the program? Clinton was a thousand times more credible on the Lewinski scandal and it happened that the “conspiracy theorists” were right and he was lying. To turn a blind eye to this issue with all the probably cause and manifest evidence and statements is nothing less than absolutely insane. It appears you have created your own perception of reality and constructed a vast nuthouse within it as far as the eye can, and if you don’t challenge Obama on this issue and he wins in 2012, you may find yourselves living in it for the rest of your lives.
Newcomer, Zebest, Irey, Voit – every expert, from the most modest to the most astute agree: Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. How many times do you need to be told this undeniable and increasingly more documented fact as they themselves write more and more and give more and more interviews? Please grow up and get that fact into your apparently rock-hard wooden heads before you make every fellow American look like an idiot by association.
I understand. Well said.
The birther movement is not based on fact, but rather speculation and false conclusions:
President Obama has not “actively” hid anything; his records are subject to the same privacy laws as any other person’s. And President Obama’s voluntary disclosure of his past is on par or exceeds that of other candidates or presidents.
President Obama has not paid “millions” in legal fees. (Where is your evidence of these “millions”?) Candidate Obama was a defendant is exactly three lawsuits, all of which were quickly disposed of. All other eligibility suits either did not name President Obama, or President Obama was defended by the government. But if the cost of lawsuits concerns you, the solution is for birthers to stop filing frivolous lawsuits.
That various people have made statements about Kenya being President Obama’s “homeland,” etc. is not proof of birth in Kenya. President Kennedy often referred to Ireland as his home (he also famously said he was a Berliner), yet he was born in Massachusetts. On the other hand, the State of Hawaii (through its duly appointed officials) has repeatedly and expressly stated that President Obama was born in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii has duly issued documents that would be accepted as sufficient, legal evidence in any state and in any court.
Judges, professors, and experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship (regardless of the citizenship of President Obama’s father). Senate Bill 511 was non-binding, and specifically referenced only McCain and the circumstances of his birth.
No actual expert has said that President Obama’s birth certificate(s) are fake. Rather the opinions of self-anointed (not “high-level”) “experts” are touted, but those opinions will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom.
Susan Daniels has no idea what she is talking about. The Social Security Administration’s site plainly says that its numbers are not reliable geographic indicators, and should not be relied on as such; it never said that “could not possibly have been assigned the social security number he is using.”
Keep up the propaganda, Bob. This is the same blather that has slowly eroded Obama’s media-silence protection on this issue. He fights lawsuits for his original records – the last time someone did that it was Nixon over the tapes, and as for the rest of it, IMO you’re just some angry, Obama defending voice on the internet with no qualification to speak to any of this; I feel confident that you don’t have Newcomer’s cred as the guy who brought down Dan Rather at CBS News, I assume you aren’t a well-respected top-level graphics expert and author like Zebest, a typesetting expert like Irey, a private investigator with the records only obtainable to people like a licensed investigator like Susan Daniels who has a document from the social security administration that Obama was not issued the number he’s using or countless other people who have come out against the forgery. You aren’t even in the majority of Americans anymore, as the majority has doubts about Obama’s nativity story, and the 2012 election is a long time away. So, putting it in the common vernacular: go soak your head. Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. This isn’t speculation – where he was born is speculation. The forgery is a fact.
President Obama has not defended a lawsuit over his original records; they have been defended by the agencies holding those records, which have asserted the totally unsurprising defense that the requester has no right to someone else’s records. And from your lack of evidence regarding President Obama spending “millions,” I conclude that claim is a lie.
Newcomer hasn’t examined anything; he’s relying on what others are telling him. Which is hearsay, a fancy legal word for gossip. Zebest and Irey are not “well-respected top-level” experts; they’re self-anointed, and have no training or experience in questioned document analysis or digital forensics. Which is why their opinions will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom.
Susan Daniels doesn’t know what she’s talking about. There is no evidence President Obama has ever obtained or used a social security number in a fraudulent manner.
You are clearly defending Obama for the sake of defending him. Once again, I must correct you, and thanks for the opportunity, because the more I and others do, the more yet others still understand it.
1. They are Obama’s lawyers, not the lawyers of those holding the records. A lie or stupid mistake.
2.There is no hearsay in Newcomer’s analysis; he knows better than that. He examined the only long form anyone has seen publicly – the one Obama put on the white house website for all the world to see, and Newcomer says it’s a fake. Period.
3. Mara Zebest is one of the most well-respected graphics authors and consultants in the world, you dolt; she has co-authored 12 books and edited about a hundred. She consults and trains people at Fortune 500 companies; if you know anything about the graphics business you’d realize what a pathetic and incomprehensibly stupid remark you made about her.
4. Irey knows more about typesetting than almost anyone. And more than you.
5. The evidence of Obama’s fake social security number is mind-blowing, smart-aleck: it begins with 042 and that is only given and only ever has been given to Connecticut residents, a place he never lived. It also cross-indexes with a guy who died 30 or 40 years ago. Coincidentally Obama’s terrorist friend Bill Ayres is on record as saying that using the social security numbers of the dead is how he used to establish false identities for Weather Underground members when he and his wife Bernadine Dorn, who is heard on tape on the CBS News in Oct of 1970 declaring war on the United States, were running it.
You Bob, even as an Obama defender, are an epic fail. Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. Look it up and learn something for a change.
Candidate Obama’s personal lawyers have defended exactly three suits, all of which were quickly disposed of. All cases filed since President Obama has been inaugurated have been defended by the government. Three frivolous cases do not cost “millions” to defend.
Newcomer never inspected anything. Cite where he said he did.
Zebest and Irey birthers; that’s called confirmation bias in the real world. They have no training or experience in digital forensics or questioned document analysis. The only people who consider them to be experts is other birthers. Their opinions will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom.
The Social Security Administration has expressly stated that its numbering system is not reliable geographic data, and should not be relied on for such. President Obama’s social security number does not “cross-index with a guy who died 30 or 40 years ago.” Cite your evidence that it does. There’s no evidence Ayers forged anything for President Obama, just speculation.
They are not trained in “digital forensics”? Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? IMO you’re nothing more than a low level Obama defender partisan, Bob. How much does Soros pay you? What do YOU know about these things? I’m a graphics expert professional and have been for over 25 years. I am telling you that Newcomer, Zebest and the rest are right when they say it’s fake. I am saying it’s fake, too. What to debate the technical specifics? Roll up your sleeves big mouth and let’s go at it.
It should have been come clear by now that bob is mostly just a partisan hack. He does bring some interesting facts to the table (very little though), but he disregards any “evidence” that goes against his preconceived bias. And if things get hard for bob, he relies on liberal semantics to claim evidence isn’t “credible” or wouldn’t be “acceptable in a court of law.” bob, like many anti-birthers, use many catch 22′s just to make themselves feel good inside. They use the law when it’s convenient for them, but disregard it when it “gets in their way” or when they “want to have fun.”
Very astute and well-stated analysis of Bob and his ilk.
Okay, “class”, let me correct a few things, including the otherwise astute anti-birther Mr. Goldberg, who, with respect, is hopelessly out of his depth on this issue. He may be a “professional” journalist (I assume he means journalist when he says he is a professional, since that’s his profession), but he is not a professional graphics and document expert. Period.
This goes out also to “Dave”, who is making the rounds including his own blog doing a very nice thing for a certain Mr.Woodman’s book by selling it.
2. IMO pathetically, “Dave” and a very enthusiastic lamestream media is embracing this anti-birther book which supposedly debunks claims of experts whose credentials leave that fellow in the dust: Joesph Newcomer says it is almost certainly a fake and this is the man who exposed the fake Killian documents that got Dan Rather ousted after 24 years at CBS News. Mara Zebest has co-authored several hardcover photoshop books that sit on the shelves of every respected professional graphics house in the English-speaking world. These are not “computer guys” like Mr. Woodman’s folksy self-assessment. These are powerfully accomplished, high-level professionals.
Bernie, et al,
In my initial letter to you, and frequently elsewhere hereabouts, I have asserted that the PDF of Obama’s BC posted on Apr. 27th was an “obvious forgery.” I wish to retract that. In light of data new to me, I now find my judgement to have been in error. My explanation is available here:
This does not mean that the BC wasn’t copied from an inauthentic original that has somehow found its way into the HDOH vault, which Hawaii continues to go to extraordinary effort to avoid being examined by forensic experts, and it certainly does not detract from the basic definition of NBC (Born a Brit – Not Legit); but I am no longer persuaded that the PDF itself was created in a graphics program, and I will immediately stop asserting that it is an “obvious forgery.”
Of course, it means I must now modify my knee-jerk negative opinion of politicians, candidates, and even Donald Trump, for not speaking out over such an “obvious forgery.” If the PDF is not a ‘smoking gun,’ and I now reckon it is not, we are back to debatable issues over the definition of NBC; because if there is a BC smoking gun, it is locked up in the HDOH vault, and the courts are disinclined to force them to allow anyone to see it. ◄Dave►
It sounds like you’re starting to come around my way more and more every day ;D
I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but was adopted. The “birth certificate” we have been shown may have “correct” information, but not updated information. The “birth certificate” we saw should be sealed.
If I was shown Stanley Ann Dunham’s patient records, that would close off the possibility (at least for me) that he was adopted by Dunham. However, it really does look like to me Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. We have been shown the name “Barry Soetoro” and “Soebarkah” (Literal translation: Who is this but the son of Soetoro?)
But, I must admit, this is still all circumstantial evidence. Surely it isn’t good enough for people like bob. But, whatever. I can’t “prove” he was adopted but anti-birthers can’t prove he wasn’t. If we were able to see more of his records, I might finally be able to come to a more definite conclusion.
Also, a little off-topic, but, where is Obama Sr. and Stanley Dunham’s marriage certificate?
There is no competent evidence — circumstantial or otherwise — that President Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Your speculation is not evidence.
Regardless, President Obama was born in Hawaii, which all judges, professors, and other experts agree is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
“There is no competent evidence — circumstantial or otherwise — that President Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Your speculation is not evidence.”
Actually, this is my circumstantial evidence:
Barry Soetoro written on Indonesian school record-
Soebarkah written on Dunham’s passport-
I believe this is “competent” evidence.
“Regardless, President Obama was born in Hawaii, which all judges, professors, and other experts agree is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.”
First off, this is a lie. Second, I already stated that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. Third, I believe Obama has been committing crimes that are impeachable. People like you and the “birthers” can argue about the “natural born citizen” debate all you like. I personally believe until the Supreme Court makes another decision one way or another, it’s pointless to argue.
Opinions are not fact. Get over yourself bob.
“Opinions are not fact.”
Oh, the irony.
Neither of those documents are properly authenticated. Hence not competent.
And neither of prove the claimed assertion. An Indonesian school record is not proof of adoption. Adoption papers are proof of adoption.
And something *crossed-out* on a passport application is not proof of anything.
If it is a lie to state, “President Obama was born in Hawaii, which all judges, professors, and other experts agree is sufficient for natural-born citizenship,” please specify which part is a lie, and substantiate your accusations.
There is no evidence that President Obama has committed any crimes. Speculation is not evidence.
I forgot to mention another piece of evidence, the divorce records. Barry Soetoro was Lolo’s son.
How does that work?
Obama’s aunt has an SSN issued in Indiana, a state she’s never been to.
More unsubstantiated rumors.
*Breaking*: Summary judgment granted against Taitz in her D.C. FOIA SSA suit.
Zeituni Onyango received her SS card from Indiana in 2001 according to public databases.
Please stop with the lies bob.
lol bob is a prick!
Hi guys. Missed you! Chesty, here is something you need to get busy on:
The link to his website doesn’t resolve from here, so I can’t investigate. Maybe Bob can help. He probably knows him personally. ◄Dave►
Woodman’s book is on Amazon:
Knock yourself out.
I’ve been following that guy for a while now. He’s an anti-birther who poses as a skeptic so he can sell his book. This has already been discussed on birtherreport.com. He is far from a professional (which is really ironic when you consider what anti-birthers have been saying forever now).
If you bother to watch his youtube videos, all his conclusions are basically “this and this is possible.” For him to conclude anything beyond that proves he has an agenda.
Also, the anti-birthers have been posing as “birthers” on various sites on the internet promoting Wood’s book. People like bob here make me sick.
lol bob is a prick.
Sorry you are so easily offended by the truth. Or reality.
lol bob is a hypocritical prick.
At least you admit your a prick.
Well, this is going to shock a few of you. I just finished reading Woodman’s book, and he makes a persuasive case that none of the supposed irrefutable proofs that the long form BC is a forgery are unexplainable. Yes, he sounds like an Obot; but a rather reasonable one.
This does not mean that the BC wasn’t copied from a forged original, and it certainly does not detract from the basic definition of NBC (Born a Brit – Not Legit), but I am no longer convinced that the PDF itself was created in a graphics program, and I will stop asserting that it is an “obvious forgery.”
The Kindle version is $5 on Amazon, and it is worth the read, if one is not afraid of needing to rearrange one’s prejudices. ◄Dave►
There’s no evidence the original was forged. And judges, professors, and other experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
I might go one step further. I doubt the certificate is even forged. It is, however, obviously unauthentic. It really bothers me when I hear “birthers” try to claim the “BC” is an “obvious forgery” when most of the time they’re only talking about the pdf.
Also, I did not like Wood’s book or youtube videos because he conveniently left out some of the best evidence I’ve seen “birthers” bring up against the long form. He also used cheap computer programs and sometimes didn’t even know what he was talking about. He is far from a professional.
The State of Hawaii certified it. It’s authentic.
Nice try bob. Fuddy and Onaka do not make up the entire state of Hawaii.
Fuddy (and her predecessor, Fukino) and Onaka are the duly appointed state officials whose job duties include certifying birth records. They literally speak for the State of Hawaii in this regard.
Authenticated; would be accepted by any other state, and legal proof in any court.
Obama’s uncle, Omar, was arrested for driving under the influence in Massachusetts. He is now awaiting his day in court because he is an illegal alien from Kenya. ICE has requested he be put in jail and be deported back to Kenya. Omar called white house when the cops asked him who he wanted to call. Omar’s defense attorney will be the same defense attorney who prevented Barack’s aunt from being deported.
It has been revealed Omar has a “valid” SSN and driver’s license. How could an illegal get this documentation?
You can’t make this stuff up.
Someone legally in the country on a visa could obtain a social security number, and then overstay the visa. And that person would be in the country illegally with a validly obtained social security number.
“Someone legally in the country on a visa could obtain a social security number”
What’s your point? Are you trying to claim Omar was legally in the country with a visa?
What’s *your* point? That a person presently in the country illegally has a validly obtained social security number is quite possible.
Thanks for starting out by demeaning anyone who responds, “class”
1. I never thought President Obama was not born in HI.
3. At first I was satisfied that the President posted his long form. Then I watched this video
and his updates.
Then I watched this video and updates:
I now believe the birth certificate is fraudulent.
4. I would characterize people who think the President was born in HI as trusting.
I would characterize people who think the birth certificate is real as uneducated.
5. I would characterize people who dont believe President Obama was born in HI as suspicious and exhausted from being lied to by all the news networks, ie Bill O’Reilly lying about the ssn and then scrubbing the lie off the internet.
I would characterize people who dont believe the birth certificate is real as someone who has studied the evidence, listened to all the interviews, read the reports and has some computer knowledge.
6. I think question 6 is condescending and meant to ridicule people. It has been the typical attack strategy of the msm since the beginning. It clearly shows how in the tank you are. Real journalism died along time ago.
7. Screw you Bernie.
Obviously you dont have the intellect to have an honest discussion on the issue. If Dick Durbin has his way, a future President will be an illegal alien and we can thank people like you who ask how high when your boss says jump. Or perhaps a guy like Anwar al-Awlaki who has dual allegiances at birth.
There is a reason why the founders wanted only a NBC to be the President. Now that the masses have done the research that the media would never do, we will continue to educate those that come after us and maybe you will lose your job.
P.S. Calling every white a racist for disagreeing with a black man is GETTING PRETTY OLD! Those that have nothing intelligent to say other than “you are a racist” should just go ahead and swallow a bottle of sleeping pills and do us a favor. Really. Its obvious what the real enemy is. Shame you people are too deceived with the racism card that you cant see it.. Wake up! Bush era is gone, the 1960s is gone as well.. Stop bitchin the race card you jesse jackson hybrids !!
This just in!
The Department of Justice,
and the Associated Press,
have been viewing the exclusive e-mail correspondence between SSGT Daryn Moran and birtherreport.com !
Wow. The military and the press visited a web site.
It’s called “research.”
That airman threw down the public challenge: “Arrest Obama or arrest me!”
They did neither. He reports he has been give an honorable discharge and sent home.
Curious the armed forces separated someone unfit to serve.
Didja like how Adams’ supervisor totally blew Adams out of the water?
Well, well, well… welcome to my world. How many remember the name Tim Adams? The election clerk from Hawaii, who revealed that it is an open secret among Hawaii election officials that there is no record of Obama being born in a hospital there? It turns out he is bent libertarian, is as cynical of the system as I am, is an English major working on his Masters, and his initial revelation was made during an undercover experiment in ‘gonzo journalism,’ to investigate what he considered to be a racist organization. LMAO
Here is his Master’s theses, which I reckon is a must read for anyone seriously interested in this controversy:
Adams, Timothy Lee, “Discourse and Conflict: The President Barak H. Obama Birth Certificate Controversy and the New Media” (2011). Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1071.
Follow the link, and one will find a PDF of his thesis, which I awarded a grade of A+, for both style and content. What follows here, is the beginning and conclusion. The 88 (double spaced) pages in between, is a delightful read that is bound to give (deserved) heartburn to diehard partisans on both sides of this controversy.
*Special note to Obots: I don’t expect you to admit it here; but if you can read this without asking yourself what the hell you are doing, or at least if your karma should be absorbing what you do to innocent people for your cause, you need professional help. Seriously.
ABSTRACT OF THESIS
A creative exploration of the consequences of public speech in the era of freely accessible, social media, as the author, a former elections official, records and explores the consequences of public dissent in the case of President Barack Obama’s eligibility controversy. This non-fiction narrative culminates with the author’s analysis and observations on both his personal experiences and the state of public speech and political power in contemporary America.
This thesis is definitely the product of serendipity. I originally didn’t wish to write about this subject now, it is too close to the actual events, and that has made the analysisinnocent and synthesis difficult. Encouraged by Dr. Dale Rigby, the creative nonfiction professor at WKU, I determined to tackle this timely and controversial subject.
This work is both a personal narrative and a study of the events and forces surrounding the people, prejudices, and acts described within. What initially began as an investigation into a political group on the extremist right, became a first-person account of the conflicts surrounding speech and public discourse, and the barriers to and consequences for unpopular speech. When a question is particularly unpopular, attacking the questioner’s motives in an attempt to discredit him becomes a means to prevent having to answer the question in the first place. I was someone who happened to be at the convergence of a heavily charged political question. My answer to that question led to all sorts of attacks on both my motives and my character, but as I will show, my answer was not really attacked for its content, but for the implications others attempted to attach to it.
When I started this story, I told you the controversy surrounding President Barack
Obama’s birth certificate had nothing to do with Mr. Obama. It has everything to with the
real divisions in the American body politic, the F.B.A.L., the Media Shell Game,
Corporate Citizenship, and the One-Sided Win. Please consider my closing words;
President Obama is not the problem, after all, he doesn’t even run the country.
And neither my friends do we.
Feeling suckered yet?
I have been there for years, Tim. Welcome to my world. ◄Dave►
What is more shocking: Adams’s whoppers, or that this is considered university-level writing.
So now you’re touting this fallacious POS from a known liar with ties to racists? You know, the length to which birthers will go to misunderstand law, make up or lie about facts and misrepresent the Constitution in order to serve their irrational hate for President Obama is truly contemptible. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Your ignorance would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic. I suppose I shouldn’t expect any of you Kool-Aid quaffers to actually read his thesis; because it might cause you to have to rearrange your prejudices. Had you read it, you would know that he is anything but a racist or even a partisan, and he was attending that conference as an undercover reporter with the intention of discrediting them.
However, just because he is not a white racist, doesn’t make him an apologist for black racists and Chicago style thuggery. He appears to be one of those rare individuals, who is unafraid to speak truth to power, no matter whose ox is gored. If you read his thesis, you would find that he has far more negative things to say about the Right, Bush, et al, than the Left. He just happens to have been a supervisor in the elections department in Hawaii during the 2008 election, knows what everyone else in the Hawaii bureaucracy (including the governor) knows, regarding the lack of documentation there backing up the lies in Obama’s nativity fable, and is singularly unafraid to publicly say so.
It sure would be refreshing if you Obots would arrange a news conferences, for his supervisors in that department to actually refute his assertions, as to what they told him was common knowledge; or for the hospital to actually publicly claim he was in fact born in their facility, rather than just blindly attacking his character with lame guilt by association ploys. Of course you can’t, because they won’t lie for you. Shame on you. ◄Dave►
I checked with Glen Takahashi, the administrator of the Honolulu City Clerk’s office, and while he verified that Adams worked there, he explained – gently making it clear he did not want to “call anyone a liar” — that Adams never actually had access to information about Barack Obama.
“Our office does not have access to birth records,” Takahashi said. “That’s handled by the state of Hawaii Department of Health. Where he’s getting that, I don’t know. Put it this way: Barack Obama was not trying to register to vote in Hawaii. He is, as far as I know, not a registered voter here. So no one was looking that up.”
Takahashi explained that the “senior elections clerk” job that Adams held was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots — Adams was one of dozens of temporary employees who staffed the pre-election rush. And he contradicted Adams’s claims that Obama’s lack of a birth certificate was an “open secret” or that voters contacted the office to ask about it.
“To be honest, I fielded no questions about that,” Takahashi said. “Why would anyone ask us? We don’t have those records.”
Hmmm… does that meet your exacting standards for ‘evidence,’ Bob? Adams never claimed to have access to the actual records in the HDOH, only every database available to a government entity to investigate identity fraud. Their office would have had the chops and contacts at the two hospitals, to ask for verification of their birth records. They certainly would have been authorized to inquire of the HDOH what records they might have regarding a potentially suspicious identity requesting an absentee ballot.
Adams never claimed to have done this himself regarding Obama, only that he was told by his supervisors that it had been thoroughly checked out, that no records of the birth of Obama in a Hawaii hospital existed, and that this was common knowledge among the bureaucracy. Remember, this was during the spring and summer of ’08, long before the Right latched onto the ‘birther’ movement. It was Hilary’s ‘PUMA’ opposition researchers, who were exposing his phony nativity story all over the blogosphere at that time. She had a lot of supporters in Hawaii.
It stretches credulity to suggest that among 50+ bureaucrats equipped with their tools and personal contacts, whose very job was to verify identities of Hawaiians all day, none would allow their curiosity to compel them to check for themselves whether the rumors from Hilary’s campaign were true. Having done so, the negative results would have spread rapidly in gossip among them; but since it arguably was wrong to have done so, none would be too anxious to go on the record publicly with the information.
Now, what would one expect the referenced administrator to say, to a reporter making the inquiry you cite? It looks to me like he handled it just right, from his perspective. He does not accuse Adams of lying, speaks of the limitations of the official capacity of his department, notes that Obama is not a registered voter in Hawaii, and says he personally never fielded an inquiry on the matter. All undoubtedly true; but if he were asked what he personally knew of the gossip in his department, completely unresponsive.
Evidence? Would you put him on the stand, Bob? Or, might his testimony be a bit risky under cross examination? Good grief, Bob, the Governor himself had to admit that no BC existed in their records, only a ‘notation’ of some sort. Had he been born in a hospital there, a valid BC would exist and the Governor, of all people, would have been able to view it. If somebody just registered his birth to a Hawaii resident parent, as having taken place off island or at home without an attending physician, which was perfectly legal and customary at the time, one might fairly call that record a “notation in the records,” from which a COLB could be issued, but not a BC.
This was the conjecture from the beginning, and now that Obama has published a provably fraudulent BC, it is even more so. One must assume that if a real BC actually existed, he wouldn’t have needed to forge one. Since a lawyer was dispatched for the charade anyway, she could have just as easily popped into HDOH and picked up a copy of the real thing, if one existed. Do you ever experience the slightest doubt, Bob? Or are you totally besotted with the Kool-Aid? ◄Dave►
Sorry Dave, but Mr. Takahashi said that they didn’t have access to the databases that Tim Adams said they did and NO ONE could contact hospitals or the DoH and obtain information about personal records – you’re an idiot if you think otherwise. And, assuming Mr. Adams isn’t a racist, he’s still a known liar with no credibility and no testimony which could be admitted in court. Tout his thesis all you want – the more crazy birther ravings there are, the more likely President Obama wins a second term…
Adams never said he checked the election databases, only that other people had. And Adams has yet to name anyone who actually did such checking.
What Adams is saying his hearsay, which is a fancy legal word for gossip. And other than Adams, there’s no indication anyone in the election department did this alleged snooping.
-Air Force Staff Sergeant Refusing Orders Until Obama’s Eligibility Dealt With-
“Basically, I’d rather follow Mr. Lakin, the ex-Army officer who went to Ft. Leavenworth, into war against our real enemies.
My family is in turmoil because I cannot change my heart to support Obama, or protect his criminality. I love America and the Constitution and stand against B. Obama. He should be arrested.
I will not be going to work Monday morning at Landstuhl. They haven’t even called my house yet, but they will come for me soon.”
Daryn J. Moran
Deserters: Birther heroes.
Don’t forget that they selfishly put their own moral cowardice ahead of the welfare of their fellow soldiers.
It seems very appropriate that a movement full of irrational hatriot bigots trying to usurp Constitutional rule chooses as its poster children selfish cowards who fail to live up to their word.
“Live up to their word?” That is rich. How many of his solemn campaign promises has your Obamessiah reneged on? If he had lived up to at least a few of his words, perhaps his approval rating wouldn’t now be in the 30s, and so many Americans wouldn’t suddenly be interested in his lack of NBC status, as a potential way to expedite getting rid of the clown. ◄Dave►
The credulous and/or mercenary so-called Obots, who take turns monitoring this forum 24/7, trying to defend their client with lawyerly obfuscation, try to dismiss the mountain of evidence condemning Obama as a total fraud as being inadmissible in court. One, calling himself “bob,” is so brainwashed in his myopic authoritarian and academic worldview, that he would deny us even the use of the word ‘evidence,’ unless referring to something that he would regard as irrefutable proof of an assertion in court. To him, it doesn’t matter how many years of real world experience one may have in a field of endeavor, unless one has a stack of credentials and academic honorifics behind one’s name, and is recognized by his vaunted ‘authorities’ as competent to testify as an ‘expert’ witness in a court of law, one’s opinions are of no consequence, and may be dismissed out of hand as undoubtedly partisan lies.
I think it is safe to say that after three years, and dozens of attempts dismissed on procedural grounds, at all levels of our judicial system, the merits of the question of Obama’s ineligibility on the grounds that he is not a NBC, will never be addressed in a court of law. Out of fear and/or partisan bias, our judges have refused to honor their oaths to support and defend our Constitution, declaring it a political issue rather than a legal one. Yet, out of fear and/or partisan bias, our politicians likewise refuse to honor their own oaths to defend our Constitution.
This leaves the onus on us, we the people (WTP), to do everything in our power to discredit this fraudulent, anti-American, usurper, who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama, as the utterly corrupt, phony, lying, bastard that he is. Given the reported fear those whom WTP have hired to defend our Constitution have, of the riots it would cause among what Attorney General Eric Holder calls “my people,” we may never see him deservedly frog-marched to prison for his crime spree. For the sake of the future,
WTP cannot allow that to stop us from continuing to discredit his legitimacy in every way possible.
As embarrassing as it is, it is important for our posterity that history records what fools we were, for ever allowing this affirmative-action wannabe to usurp the office to begin with, so that such a mistake never happens again. The more evidence WTP amass for historians to review, the more likely that this sorry episode in our history is not forgotten, and the phony little con man gets the legacy he so richly deserves. Let’s redouble our efforts and not shirk our own duty, by refusing to pay Obama the slightest respect one might normally afford one seated in our Oval Office, and continuing to inform our fellow citizens of just how phony he is.
The beauty is that we do not need lawyers, judges, or politicians for this task, and feckless lawyerly obfuscation cannot stop us from doing so. To hell with case law, precedents, and restrictive rules of evidence; they are utterly meaningless in the court of public opinion. WTP already have all the circumstantial evidence needed, to declare loudly and publicly to the entire world, that this usurper is a total fraud and consummate lier, who cannot be trusted, does not have our confidence, does not speak for us, does not act in our behalf, and we refuse to even acknowledge him as our President.
All of the evidence dug up so far regarding his phony nativity narrative, is fascinating and will be useful to historians. The obviously forged BCs have been very useful in finally getting some citizens to pay attention to what others have been trying to say, as they bravely withstood the charges of racist and conspiracy nuts to do so. Yet, the effort to fit the pieces into a preconceived theory of where he was actually born, working from assumptions gleaned from his own phony memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” have caused the so-called ‘Birther’ movement to make tactical errors, easily exploited by the Obots and their fellow propagandists, to discredit anyone even remotely associated with their efforts.
Using my own experience as a guide, since I was never much concerned with the place of his birth (because I knew anyone born a subject of the British Empire could not be a NBC, by definition), the conjectured solo trip by a pregnant teenaged girl to Africa, leaving her husband in Hawaii, simply defied common sense to me. I assumed he was hiding his BC to avoid embarrassment for some other reason, which he probably could be forgiven his vanity for. I could even understand his trying to skate on the definition of NBC, and blamed the media and white-guilt impaired politicians on both sides for allowing him to do so.
Not so, the discovery that his memoir (upon which his entire reputation as a brilliant intellectual was based, because he arrogantly claims to have written it by himself, without the assistance of a ghost writer), is almost entirely a fable written by his good friend, the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (who he also claims was just a casual acquaintance living in his neighborhood). Combined with the the revelations that his mother never lived with Obama Sr. as husband and wife, etc. caused me to find this deliberate premeditated deceit, to be an outrageous and unforgivable fraud on our political process.
It has been my experience, that folks without much interest in the BC issues, get very interested when informed of the actual pedigree of Obama’s memoir, and exhibit total disgust when convinced of it. Thus, I would suggest that those wishing to actually influence other’s opinion of the resident Prevaricator in Chief, start with that factoid, before trying to convince them of the more debatable BC issues. As I have demonstrated, the only defense the Obots have to the evidence Jack Cashill has amassed in his book, “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President,” is to sputter at the audacity of it, call the author names and paint him with the same “conspiracy nutter” brush.
Those charges are easily dismissed with the video of a delightful talk he gave, recorded by C-Span at:
…where he comes across as a very likable, scholarly, professorial type, who has written several books, and ghost written others. He explains how he stumbled upon the project, buying a copy of Dreams in an airport, and noticed upon reading it that most of it had been written in an unusual postmodern style, with quite some skill; yet other sections were more pedestrian. It was obvious to him that more than one person worked on the book, because of this pronounced change in voice.
He was thus surprised to learn that Obama claimed to be the sole author, and went looking for other examples of his writings. What little he found published, was so pitiful in its sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation that a grade schooler could have done better. He knew then that Obama could not have written it, but had no idea who had, and penned articles for The American Thinker and WND back in 2007 explaining why not.
Then, in a fluke, for a completely separate project, he read Bill Ayers book, “Fugitive Days,” and found the mystery ghost writer. The similarities in the postmodern writing style, with very unique sentence structure, were unmistakable, and the prolific use of maritime terms and metaphors in both, were a dead giveaway (Ayers was once a merchant seaman – Obama has no such background that might prompt him to use maritime laced language, much less obscure words like bilge and ballast).
As I have often said, it is impossible for anyone to read Cashill’s book, with a fair and open mind, and then honestly say they did not themselves conclude that the real author was, in fact, Bill Ayers. I recommend it highly. Most, in fact, will be persuaded by the logic and details revealed by Cashill, in the above video alone. Enjoy it, pass it on to your acquaintances, keep up the good fight to discredit this fraud, and take note of all the politicians, who neglected their oath to our Constitution during the next election, if the wannabe dictator ever again allows us to have one. ◄Dave►
You hate President Obama so much you will gladly toss the Constitution and rule of law, while citing a bunch of lies, to justify your desire to remove of the duly elected president of the United States.
Hate is such a mild term, Bob. My enmity for your phony Obamessiah is unbounded. I detest and loath this miscreant Chicago street thug, who has conned his way into the White House, by inveigling naive sheeple like you into voting for amorphous hope and undefined change. But, what you miss, is that it isn’t just who he is or isn’t, but what he is doing to our country that has awakened and animated we Liberty loving Patriots. We utterly reject your Progressive vision of utopia, which you think this wannabe tyrant is ushering in. Not on our watch, Bobby.
There is no such thing as the rule of law. If there was, the Justice Department, headed by inveterate racist “my people” Eric Holder, couldn’t choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, now could he? Even plea bargains, the prime lubricant of our lawyerly criminal justice system, subvert the rule of law. It has become the rule of lawyers, who make these arbitrary decisions not to enforce the laws as written and intended, by the legislative representatives of we the people (WTP).
Your Progressive forefathers destroyed our Constitution over a hundred years ago. If it were ever to become the law of the land again, DC would become a ghost town. 95% of the activities of the Federal government, which you “living document” proponents have deliberately misinterpreted the Commerce Clause to achieve, would have to be shut down. And, of course, that miserable, ever-lying, low-life, SOB you fools call “The One,” wouldn’t be jet setting all over the world, with an entourage of sycophants like a rap star, apologizing for America’s successful and exceptional culture, and bowing servilely to Muslim potentates. ◄Dave►
And yet: President Obama is the duly elected president. Enjoy!
Let’s all take a look back at the media’s slobbering love affair with Barack Obama:
Three videos in five days? Someone surely has a mancrush on President Obama.
There’s a line, apparently!
An Obot/Fogbower named bob?
Sorry; made zero youtube videos this week.
Who said I was talking about you?
Thanks for the confession though.
I confess: Unlike Polland, I didn’t make three videos about President Obama this week.
Bob becomes totally disarmed when one posts something he can’t lawyer; but when he is on duty, he thinks he needs to offer something, so he goes straight to the ad hominem. Pretty lame, really. ◄Dave►
It’s ad hominem to note that Polland is a weeeeee bit obsessed?
“It’s ad hominem to note that Polland is a weeeeee bit obsessed?”
LOL. Ain’t this the pot calling the kettle black?
what makes you think the kettle was black? your such a racist.
Wow ! Really Obama4Life? An old saying reffering to a black kettle offended you? You are pathetic and weak my friend!!! I guess kettle manufactures are racist because they made kettles black. Poor poor black you !! Guess you get offended when you play pool too , How that white ball knocks all the color balls in. Guess that man was a racist when he came up with the game. Grow up you weak minded child..
That is an excellent collage; but I would recommend that the good doc dwell a bit longer on his captions before jumping to the next segment to let them sink in for impact. These were at least short. Some of his earlier offerings went by so fast, I couldn’t even read all of the longer passages before they went away, and I am not exactly a slow reader. ◄Dave►
Alan Keyes does have a way with words, doesn’t he?
Do you think Keyes will receive more than 0.04% of the popular vote in 2012? Maybe double his results, and get up to 0.08%?
You are a racist!
For noting Keyes’s abysmal results at the polls?
You attack this honorable man simply because of the color of his skin! You ma’am are a racist!
Good point! Normally Bob is over the moon for people with lots of credentials and honorifics by their names. It could only be racism motivating him to gratuitously expound on the poor man’s failures. Shame on you, Bob.
Harvard called, and wants Corsi’s Ph.D. back.
This woman bob is a racist! She tries to divert the issue with her liberal tactics, but the truth has already been made known! Preach it Brother Dave! HaLlElUiAh!
The only reason Bernie keeps this open is to show these racist conservatives for what they really are. If you bigots dont believe Obama should be president go live in a other country.
I highly resent your hateful remarks. Just because some of us believe that Barry is a complete and utter fraud, doesn’t mean we are racists. I take those comments very personally and people like you need to go jump off a cliff. Even if he was born here, there’s still plenty of reasons not to like this guy or his policies. I believe he is the most devisive president in history and his complete and utter incompetence is are reasons enough alone to complain about. You and your ilk should stop using race as a pathetic, sorry excuse for this mans incompetence, and very, very questionable past.
There is nothing questionable about our presidents past. You crazy crackers just don’t get it. If he did something wrong, the media would have been all over it!
The media? Really? What world to you live in? Are you sure your from this planet?
Why dont u ask Bernie. He sure dont give a flip bout all you crackers and this slander. just a nother case of the white man tryin to bring a brother down! He becomes president, and yous ask him for his papers! shame on all of u!@
Read my posts, I have been asking Bernie why he won’t go after Obamer. Look, I’m not going to sit here and argue with an obvious racists, clown such as yourself. You can take your racism BS and shove where the sun don’t shine.
Read Bernies posts. oh, thats right he hasnt written anything. he thinks people like you need to be put in a mental institution and rightfully so.
You birfers need to stop with the slander. No court is going to listen to you, so shutuop and accept a black man is your president.
I wouldv’e gladly voted for Alan Keyes if he got the nomination. It isn’t about race, moron. It’s about policy and where the person stands on the issues. Am I suppossed to go from not believing in abortion, to thinking it’s ok, just because some idiot named Barack Obama, whom just happens to be black, is on the ticket? Yeah, murdering unborn babies is all the sudden ok, just because we have an African American running for president. Your an idiot.
our president has done nothing wrong. He gave out his birth cert and all the crackers tried sayin it wasn’t real. u guys are jus tryin ta bring a brother down. no one asked for bushs papers cuz he wasnt black!
Your president has done nothing right. Speak for yourself; Obama is not my President. Since you suggest that you are black, may I ask a question? What is your affinity for a man who, circumstantial evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, denies that he has a drop of ex-slave blood? When it was fashionable among American blacks to adopt a Muslim name in the ’70s, he already had one; but it was Indonesian and didn’t sound cool enough for the street.
So, he chose to claim roots in a stronger tribe than those who allowed themselves to be captured as slaves and sold to white slave traders. Now, he hobnobs with the blue bloods in Europe, bragging about his common ancestry with them through his white mama’s family tree, and downplays his African roots, except when campaigning in the ‘hood. Why are you taken in by this arrogant fool, who only claims to be your brother for your vote? What exactly has he done to improve your life since taking office, unless you are one of the fat cats in his circle? ◄Dave►
obama has this countries best interests at hart. all those lousy conservatives are racist and are the real ones ruining this country. What other president was asked to show his papers?
Not your president? So you are a foreigner trying to remove the duly elected American president. Say hi to Kim Jong-il!
Unlike your Obamessiah, Bob, I can document my status as a NBC of America. That does not mean that I live in your authoritarian worldview. As a sovereign citizen, sworn to support and defend our Constitution, I suffer not the slightest requirement to regard the usurper occupying the White House with anything other than profound contempt. As I said, the despicable bastard may be your President, but he sure as hell isn’t mine. ◄Dave►
President Obama was born in Hawaii, which is in the United States, and birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
I have no doubt you are a “NBC of America.” South America. Viva Chavez!
Since you hate America, her lawful president, and her Constitution so much, why don’t you just leave? And take all of your hatriot birther friends with you when you do…
How does it make you feel that you and all the other birthers are incompetent and completely impotent to stop the biggest crime in history or you are the biggest fools ever?
As Bob loves to say,
Oh the irony…
I suspect you are only pretending to be black, but I just listened to an interview of Dr. Keyes, where he not only makes the same point I did, regarding Obama’s lack of common heritage with Americans of African descent, he says Obama’s Muslimized African tribe is notorious as one of the tribes who got rich off the slave trade! You gotta listen to this:
It might not have occurred to you that President Obama has a common heritage with ALL African-Americans, his shared heritage just doesn’t include slavery. My guess is that someone with a proud black heritage that was never touched by slavery scares you and your birther friends…
You said it best with your first five words Obama4Life.. “our president has done nothing”… You are absolutely correct.
You gotta be kidding me! What birth certificate? The one on the White House web page? Take a second look. download a trial copy of Adobe Illustrator and open that piece of s**t document. It’s not even a good forgery. It has been put together from a number of different sources. It is in pieces! I’d explain the typographical problems but I think it would be beyond your intelligence level to understand! If you will believe what you just said you are beyond hope!
Sarah Obama said Obama was born in Kenya according to a 2009 internal NSIS report:
“In a second interview done much later, she says that she is sure Barack Obama was born in Mombasa because she was visiting her family there when he was born, and they were called to the CPGH (Coast Provincial General Hospital) where she met Barack Obama’s mother for the first time.”
In the very next paragraph, she contradicts herself.
And this alleged statement is hearsay in a document of unknown provenance.
“In the very next paragraph, she contradicts herself.”
Yes, after turning hostile.
“And this alleged statement is hearsay in a document of unknown provenance.”
You’re a liar bob. This document is from a 2009 NSIS report. The original story can be found here:
Anti-birthers from your “organization” have confirmed the legitimacy of the documents (through e-mail correspondence). Are you going to say they’re liars too? I mean, I would agree with you that they are liars in the general sense of the word.
Regardless of Sarah Obama’s mood, she contradicted herself. And she had previously stated President Obama was born in Hawaii. She is readily impeached by her inconsistency.
No; WND *claims* they are from a 2009 NSIS report. Where did WND get them? Has the Kenyan government acknowledged them as genuine?
I have no idea who you think confirmed the legitimacy of the documents.
And still hearsay.
“No; WND *claims* they are from a 2009 NSIS report. Where did WND get them? Has the Kenyan government acknowledged them as genuine?”
bob, you sound like one of those “conspiracy nuts” you like to make fun of.
“Has the Kenyan government acknowledged them as genuine?”
Yes, they have. And you more than likely already know this.
In the real world, WND is not considered a credible source. Again: Where did WND get these documents?
Regardless, these documents will never see the inside of a courtroom until they are certified by the Kenyan government.
There is no evidence that the Kenyan government has acknowledged these documents, your attempts at mindreading notwithstanding. If you have such evidence, please bring it forward.
“In the real world”
Please, explain to the class what the “fake world” is.
“Again: Where did WND get these documents?”
Kenya, the same place “birthers” claim Obama was born.
“Regardless, these documents will never see the inside of a courtroom until they are certified by the Kenyan government.”
Inside a courtroom? I could care less.
“There is no evidence that the Kenyan government has acknowledged these documents, your attempts at mindreading notwithstanding. If you have such evidence, please bring it forward.”
Like I said, members of your “organization” confirmed the NSIS made the report. No “mindreading” required.
“And still hearsay.”
Well, I’m sorry I wasn’t personally there when she said it. Shame on me.
The fake world is where people make funny accusations, like the State of Hawaii (or President Obama) forges birth certificates.
HOW did WND obtain these documents? WHO in Kenya allegedly gave these documents to WND? Basic questions.
Again: I have NO IDEA who in what organization confirmed by what means the provenance of these documents.
You weren’t there; you don’t know if Sarah Obama made these statements at all. But if WND tells you it obtained some documents from some unknown source that claimed to have interviewed her….
…then people like you will claim WND just made up their own documents or will find any way possible to discredit a real organization or individual? Yes, I agree bob. People like you are delusional.
Please have a nice, long chat with Frank Arduini. You seem to be out of the loop on some things.
From your evasiveness I conclude you have no idea where WND obtained these documents. Yet I am somehow delusional for asking a basic question, i.e., what is the provenance of these documents.
And Frank said he never confirmed the provenance of these documents.
gorefan – didn’t have the option to reply to your comment.
I find it strange you bring Reagan up as a defense for Obama as you have no idea what my position is on his policies. You must be a betting man, lol.
Simply based on Obama’s performance (primarily measured by results), it is clear he is not pro-business and does not act in the interest of economic growth within a capitalist system.
Reagan, on the other hand, reaped positive results for our economy.
Intention and purpose are apparent in the results. Given this perspective, Reagan was definitely not a Marxist. Obama is.
Please delete the comments in this article and make it so people cant post. It has caused birfers to spew nothing but lies and insults. Obama already has to put up with enough slander without all this crap.
Dont you birfers get it yet? Bernie thinks you should be put into a mental institution. The only reason he keeps this opwn is to make fun of you. Obama will be a two term president. or may be a 4 term.
Anybody who says Jack Cashill isn’t brilliant doesn’t know Jack Cashill.
Was Cashill “brilliant” when he concluded Clinton ordered the downing of TWA 800?
Agreed, Ron. Bobby boy has no idea what he is talking about, much less who he is talking about. Here is a short article that was written about Dr. Cashill years before anybody ever heard of Bobby’s Obmessiah:
by Dan Margolies
May 22, 1998
Published in the Kansas City Business Journal
Jack Cashill, polyglot, Ph.D. and multiple media threat, is off to Moscow this summer to shoot a video on the Napoleon/Alexander exhibit that’s scheduled to come to Kansas City in March 1999. Cashill claims to have read “War and Peace” in its entirety (this from a guy who’s never read “Moby Dick”) and now he says he knows why.
The peripatetic producer and marketing maven also recently finished writing a history of the Burns & McDonnell engineering firm, which he says is more or less the history of American engineering in the 20th century.
“It’s a great story. Far more interesting than most people would think.”
Cashill has been doing independent production for the last seven years, drawing on his polymath education — seven years of Latin and three years of Greek, not to mention a doctorate in American Studies from Purdue University — to come up with videos ranging from “Tradition: The Latin Mass” (co-produced with Mike Wunsch of Video Post) to “The Royal Years,” a history of Kansas City from 1950 onward that ran on KCPT-TV and was nominated for an Emmy.
You can have a Ph.D. from Harvard and still be a conspiracy nutter.
Pingback: WTP-03 Deconstructing Obama
i ran out of reply room so i guess i’ll have to start at the tops again
Chester, i take it we have danced the boards before? i will plead guilty to at least part of your description of me….
bob, i did not say this:”Perhaps Rider can actually specify what section of Hawaiian law somehow proves that President Obama’s COLB isn’t valid, legal proof of his Hawaiian birth.”
what i said was that the law at that time (link posted) made the certification of live birth worthless as proof of birth place. that leave the question of the certificate of live birth. they are different forms, if you have taken the time to look at them.
my main questions about the 2nd are 1. why didn’t he pull that out in the first place. and 2. when he did, why didn’t he present a certified copy for all to see?
on the second, i think most of us have had to get and present our BC at one time in our lives. its’ easy to get.
having someone take a picture of something and post it is not the same as presenting the doc. i don’t think my former employer would have been happy to have had me point to an on line photo copy of my BC as proof that i had one.
proof was required for my job. proof is required for his job.
what he did left more questions than answers…again.
There is a big difference between you going to your employer and showing him your BC and what the President would need to do.
Do you think that he should order a copy for everyone? The only purpose of the PDF was to allow everyone who was interested to see a copy of the BC, that’s it. It was never meant to be a certified copy of anything, just an image of a certified copy.
The State of Hawaii is the only authority who can verify if the document is genuine.
And they have posted a link to the White House website for anyone who wants to see a copy of the certification.
So here is what I would suggest, contact your Congressman or Senator ask them to go to the White House and request to see the LFBC and report back to you.
i’m not sure why there should be a difference. he works for us. but…fair enough. we don’t all need to put our hands on it. who has? those who early claimed to have seen it, in fact saw the certification of life birth.
who has seen the birth certificate?
put that aside. what about hospital records, church records, any witness, etc. i used to work in a hospital. records are kept forever. they might be in a dusty storage unit somewhere, but they are kept.
why did the governor of Hawaii not cough something up? it was his goal to set the “birther” question to rest. he, if anyone, should have been able to do it.
simple question. easy answer. BTW, the only certification of his eligibility was by nancy pelosi and the secretary of the DNC. what did they base this on since the question was already out there and he’d already been called “first Kenyan born senator”?
NBC news woman Savanh Gunthrie, she took two photos with her cell phone. On one you can see the raised seal. So she saw the certified copy. On that photo the information is identical to what is on the PDF.
I do not know if she saw it alone or with others. But remember Senator McCain only showed his BC to one reporter and he could not make any copies.
Hawaii statutes require that hospitals keep records for 7 years after the last encounter. My guess would be that there is a birth registry at the hospital but little else. Since you worked in medical records, you know that the HIPAA privacy law would probably prevent them from releasing the info.
The Governor of Hawaii is no different then the governor of your state.
Neither has the legal right to show your BC to anybody.
The COLB would have been one possiblity, but I suspect they took his word for it. Just as the political parties have been doing for the past 200 years.
if Savannah saw it, i’ll take her word. i do not think she would knowingly lie and risk her creditability in spite of her political leanings.
was there any doubt about where McCain was born? how hard was it to get him to show his?
i did not work in medical records. i worked in a hospital. we often had to access old records. i do not recall ever having a problem finding info from our hospital or docs, no matter how old.
a birth registry would have been nice.
i am intimately familiar with HIPAA. it might keep me from getting my hands on his info, but it should not keep him from it. even if a hospital were reluctant, and they can be, a court could easily require that his info be released to him. this is done routinely in malpractice cases, etc.
i did not expect the gov of Hawaii to show obamas BC. perhaps to verify it’s existence?
But Gov. Lingle and the Director of the DOH had already acknowledged it existed. Why would one more person saying it existed make a difference?
Gov. Lingle was a Republican who actively campaigned for Senator McCain,
Director Fukino was appointed by her and also has donated money to the Republican Party.
Gov. Abercrombie was a personal friend to the President’s mother and father.
Who would you trust a personl friend of the President when you didn’t trust Gov. Lingle?
Yes, I suppose the President could have gone to court and gotten an order releasing whatever info may exist at Kapiolani. But if people didn’t accept his certified COLB, didn’t accept the word of the Director of the DOH, didn’t accept the word of the Republican Governor of Hawaii, why would he assume they’d accept the documents that might be released from the hospital?
Read the comments on this blog, people don’t accept the certifed LFBC that he relesed in April.
As to Senator McCain there was a question as to whether he was born in the city hospital or the base hospital.
You ask superb questions, mam; please don’t be too quick to swallow the answers without chewing first. The White House is so desperately reckless on this subject that they were likely to do anything. They even linked to a known forgery of his supposed COLB, rather than post their own copy, at the same time they posted the new long-form version:
They were passing out b/w printouts of the PDF to the press that day, instead of simple copies of the supposed certificate, which would have been just as easy and more believable. They could easily have printed the phony PDF of the new BC on a color printer, crimped it with any handy notary seal, and allowed the MSNBC reporter to see, touch, and photograph it. She didn’t examine the seal, only reports having felt it.
They may have even had the debossed seal used to forge the first COLB, or, since that error has been exposed, they may have simply procured a new raised one. I document further down this page how easily I obtained a replacement seal, for my training institute’s diplomas, online in just two days, a few weeks ago. I had to select whether I wanted an embossed or debossed version of my artwork.
Since the original document purportedly procured from HDOH would have been a laser printout of a scan in HI, a color copy of it would be indistinguishable from the original, to a reporter in a cursory look at it, if the seal were accurately placed. Of course, we all know how easily a rubber stamp can be duplicated. Ergo, a color printout of the PDF, with a seal affixed and the attesting signature stamp on the back, would have looked mighty proper and official to the reporter. ◄Dave►
dave, i was chewing the tongue that was in my cheek. i did not intend to swallow.
there comes a point where you have to call arguments with true believers, whatever they truly believe in.
and you have to consider that they might not be showing up by accident. that would mean that they have more at stake in this argument than i.
I like you, lady. I’m going to miss you when we become bored with this. Thank you for your service and I’d be pleased if you dropped by my place with a comment now and then. ◄Dave►
“there comes a point where you have to call arguments with true believers, whatever they truly believe in.”
“and you have to consider that they might not be showing up by accident. that would mean that they have more at stake in this argument than i.”
This is absolutely true. It’s the main reason almost all the Birther websites have paypal buttons.
And you know this because…
Oh, that’s right! You visit all those “birther” sites!
I can’t imagine why…
How’s the e-book sales?
I liked these comments at Freerepublic.
“To: rxsid; Polarik
“computer expert Ron Polland, Ph.D.,”
I thought Polarik was found not to have all the credentials he claimed. What evidence that he is a “computer expert”? I thought his degree was in instructional media/design.
9 posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:30:36 PM by sometime lurker
My theory is they’re both trying to sell unsellable books, so they got together and concocted this bizarre scenario knowing some people will fall for it. But even this may be a bit too much for some of the freeper/birthers.
21 posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:52:14 PM by Tex-Con-Man
There are even comments that Polarik works for the Obots and is deliberately posting nonsensical theories just to get all birthers discredited as loons.
What do you think about that?
People are certainly entitled to their own opinions. You can attack the messenger all you like, but the message itself is what truly matters.
Why do you visit all those “birther” sites you despise?
I never said I despised them.
In fact, I enjoy reading all points of view.
How else can you make an informed decision?
BTW, over a Freerepublic, they are pointing out that there are errors in the Polarik COLB that are not in the one linked by the White House. Interesting.
“what i said was that the law at that time (link posted) made the certification of live birth worthless as proof of birth place.”
Again, what law? Please be specific.
the law that you can read at the link that i posted.
So you can’t be specific, and specify a specific code section.
I’ve read that entire page, and there’s nothing there to suggest that President Obama’s COLB is “worthless as proof of birth place.”
then you didn’t read very carefuly.
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
and section 3100.11 which i do not have in a format that allows copy, but which is on that page.
I read; I wasn’t going to play “guess what you are thinking.”
338-6 says that, in the case of an unattended birth in which neither parent is able to prepare a birth certificate, then the local agency shall secure the necessary information. And?
Not only is there no evidence this contingency applied to President Obama’s birth, the long form certificate plainly states President Obama was deliveried by a doctor in a hospital in Hawaii.
i’m guessing you read but didn’t understand. you need to be fed.
the long form does as you say. however, it was the other that was presented in the first place as proof.
what that law did was allow an adult, not the parent, to get a certification which basically said “this kid is alive and lives in Hawaii”. they could do this with no proof of parentage or birth place.
ok, so someone got that form for him. big deal, right? it’s good enough for anything that requires proof of residency. why, then, do we have also a certificate of live birth? why would anyone go to the trouble to get the first if the second was issued?
even if the long from had been lost, getting a replacement would have been easier than getting the certification would have been.
“why, then, do we have also a certificate of live birth? why would anyone go to the trouble to get the first if the second was issued? ”
Because you could not get a LFBC (Certifcate of Live Birth).
Ask LtC Lakin, he tried to get one for his daughter and couldn’t. Ask Miki Booth, she tried to get one for her son and couldn’t.
If you contacted the Hawaii DOH and asked for a BC, you got a COLB. That’s the way it has been since about 2001. Birthers have been trying to get a LFBC since 2008 and all they got were COLBs. Then in 2011, a birther was able to get a LFBC around March 15th. Did the DOH change their rules because of all the requests? Who knows, but before 2011 no certified Long Form Birth Certificates were being produced.
I understand what the law actually says; just not your fantastical inferences.
Again, in the rare cases of an unattended birth where the parents could not provide the birth information, the local agency would compile it. So?
There’s no evidence that is what occurred with President Obama.
As the State of Hawaii has repeatedly explained the so-called “long form” is generated at birth. The COLB is derived from the long form, and the only certification available from the State of Hawaii (unless you are President Obama).
The COLB is a valid birth certificate – it’s what everyone in Hawai’i gets these days when they ask for a birth certificate. It is prima facie proof of natural born citizenship. The LFBC is ALSO a valid birth certificate, but no one but President Obama has one – as it is unique, it cannot be compared to other documents… instead we must look to the issuing agency, which, in this case, confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Since the COLB is now confirmed by the Hawai’i DoH and the LFBC (although the document is sufficient on its own in any US court of law) everyone but birthers who can’t let go of their fallacies and those of us who like to laugh at you has moved on… Keep squawking about this – it makes it easier for ordinary people to see the crazy…
the certification of live birth, issued in the year that obama was born, is not proof of birth place.
what do you mean only the president has a long form birth certificate? you mean they made one up for him?
The COLB is most certainly proof of birth in Hawai’i in any US court including the SCOTUS. It is prima facie evidence and has additionally been repeatedly confirmed by the issuing agency. The LFBC issued in April is also proof of birth in Hawai’i in any US court. It must really suck that most people have been inoculated against your lies. The inescapable conclusion is that you are either completely wrong on the matter or you are completely impotent to do anything about it (or both). Your statutes are not in any way evidence of fraud – in fact, Hawai’i DoH officials have said that President Obama’s birth certificate is on file according to laws and procedures and that it is valid. Sorry, but the only thing you’ll get in court with your argument is a reprimand (probably sanctions, if you’re a lawyer…).
reading in fundamental!
i did not say that the law was evidence of fraud. i said that the law, as it existed at the time, made the certification of live birth worthless as proof of birth place. and it does.
i have no real opinion about the certificate of live birth that obama finaly produced. i have only seen an internet picture of it, and apparently the only person to attest to seeing the hard copy is one liberal reporter. i can not form an opinion based on what i know now.
So you believe that a child could be born in Lima, Peru and get a birth certifcate from Hawaii that said place of birth “Honolulu, Hawaii”. Which they could then use to get a Hawaiian driver license, US Passport, register to vote. Hahahaha
“i have only seen an internet picture of it, and apparently the only person to attest to seeing the hard copy is one liberal reporter.”
So true. My opinion, however, is that either the long form is a fraud or was intentionally tampered with (judging from the reports I’ve read from both “birthers” and anti-birthers”).
Unlike the long form, we were provided with 9 pictures of the short form from factcheck. The short form is a proven forgery. So, we have to ask ourselves, if the short form is fraudulent, why wouldn’t the long form also be fraudulent?
The Constitution says that all 50 states have to respect the official acts of other states and Hawai’ian officials say that President Obama was born in Hawai’i and is therefore an natural born citizen. The COLB is prima facie evidence (of birth in Hawai’i) and will be accepted at face value barring evidence of fraud (which doesn’t exist). Why do you want to violate the US Constitution? Do you hate President Obama that much?
i have no doubt that this is true slarti, and since the law has since been change, it is currently proof of birth place as far a i know.
that’s not the point. the point is, that this document, issued under the existing law, does not prove place of birth. if it were challenged in court, it could not prove place of birth. it was submitted to us as proof of birth place. it is not.
The law that says the State of Hawai’i gets to determine who it says was born there and every other state has to accept it is the US Constitution (specifically the “full faith and credit” clause). Your statute is irrelevant and has been since Dr. Fukino verified the COLB for the first time. Sorry, you lose (in any court). Birf all you want – your entire incompetent movement is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
you guys do understand that i am making comment on BOTH documents, not just the last one released? i think you might be a little confused…..
gorfan, that is correct if you are referring to a certification of live birth issued at the same time as obamas.
this would not hold true of the certificate of live birth, or what is now being called the birth certificate…lately released.
anyone doing a bit of research knew that the original “proof” was worthless. this is why many insisted that real proof of birthplace be produced.
Both documents are legal proof of birth in the US in any US court of law.
Really, you really believe that. That the DOH just willy nilly handed out BCs to anyone who walked in and asked for one. WOW
And you work in a hospital? But not with patients, right. LOL
“As for the theory that Obama’s original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama’s does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.”
“Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. This time we mean it!” July 1st, 2009, Politifact.com
no gorfan, the state of Hawaii, in 1961, would give out certifications of live birth to anyone in Hawaii with custody of a child. that child could have had an unattended birth, been a foundling, etc. the purpose of the certification was to give the child a document showing residency in Hawaii, not proof of birth place.
not sure if it’s your reading, or your comprehension that’s at fault, but i have done all that i can do with you.
I think that the State of Hawai’i (backed by the US Constitin would disagree, but it’s a moot point regarding President Obama as he was born at Kapioloani (sp?) Hospital. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no evidence of your claims – such as an example of a person born in another country (or even another state) in the early 60s who obtained a Hawai’ian BC which stated that they were born IN HAWAI’I. No one has ever gotten a BC from the State of Hawai’i which lists their place of birth as Hawai’i when they were actually born elsewhere (at least neither you nor any other birther has evidence of such an occurrence).
google is your friend. there are other examples of long forms from 1961. i enjoy the sparing, but only when you can hold up your end of the research.
Sorry, but I wouldn’t call your febrile, fallacious factoids “research” by any stretch of the imagination. Stig W. (born the same day as President Obama – his mother recalls seeing a half-black child [a minor oddity] in the nursery with her son) obtained a document which was identical to the COLB (save the personal info) in response to his request for a birth certificate. This COLB is the ONLY valid proof of Hawai’ian birth that ANY Hawai’ian can obtain (unless they happen to be the POTUS and make a special request…). Are you saying that no one from Hawai’i can prove that they were born there (at least if they were born in the early 60s)?
You do realize the Nordyke BCs were issued in 1966.
Hawaii has changed their format several times. So what?
Google is also your friend.
Try googling “Danae COLB” or “Alan Booth COLB”
You will see the Hawaiian COLBs of
1) Danae, a birther, who was born in Hawaii.
2) Alan Booth, the son of Birther Miki Booth, also born in Hawaii.
Danae’s is a dead ringer for President Obama’s. And you will notice that it is a Certification of Live Birth, while Alan’s is a Certificate of Live Birth. See Hawaii made a change. The COLB is the Hawaiian Birth Certificate.
And here is a screenshot of Sig Waidelich’s COLB, he was born the day after President Obama. This COLB was issued just this year.
This is what the state of Hawaii issues as their BC. Sorry, if it doesn’t satisfy your requirements but it does satisfy the passport requirements of the US State Department.
So, I have been having quite the interesting conversation with a Mr. Paul Courtney. He has this to say:
“Since you missed it, here it is again- so it’s forged, and he was born in Kenya, but he’s not resigning. You and your friends have no answer to this.”
I’d like to ask all the “birthers” here what you all make of this statement. Do you think it’s pointless to try and “out” Obama? Is this a fools errand? Do you all agree we should let Obama get away with his crimes? Hey, maybe we should wait until AFTER he’s out of office then charge him with fraud.
I’m really curious as to what the “birthers” have to say about this issue.
My stance is that public sentiment could get investigative journalist to investigate. A public figure such as Donald Trump can help create this sentiment. A Congressional investigation would be a great plus as well.
What do you think of Courtney saying “you and your friends?” Sounds like his mind is already made up.
Chester – don’t mean to highjack your thread but I listened to Susan Daniels and then went to the wayback machine site. Here is what the SSA said in 2001
“Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.”
“Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.”
Sounds exactly the same.
“Chester – don’t mean to highjack your thread but I listened to Susan Daniels and then went to the wayback machine site.”
Eh, I don’t really mind. The post was mostly rhetorical.
Interesting find there. I’ve been comparing the captures of the site and have had interesting findings. I’m going to have to look more into this.
As for the whole SSN issue, I think Dave’s response to bob earlier in this thread describes it best:
///bob said: Social security numbers may be accurate geographic indicators, but not always. Which is why the Social Security Administration says that social security numbers cannot be relied upon for geographic data.///
Yeah, but mine does, and so does yours. Isn’t it remarkable how often common sense laws of probability are thought to break in your messiah’s favor. Your Faith is unshakable; perhaps The One is in fact Devine? ◄Dave►
Here is President Eisenhower’s ss-5.
Note the Pennsylvania return address and the California SSN
From his biography President Eisenhower was stationed in California in 1940 (IIRC). He definitely was living in PA after he retired from public life.
BTW, I believe I know the answer to this anomaly.
I haven’t done any research on Eisenhower’s SSN, but, I think I have a pretty good guess to help explain the “anomaly.”
More than likely, Eisenhower visited an SS office in California.
Now, I have a question for you:
Did Barack Obama go to Connecticut and request an SSN?
Unknown, but I would guess not.
More likely, he went to the local Honolulu office, turned in the ss-5, which was sent to Baltimore for processing. There a clerk/typist entered a 0 instead of a 9 for the zip code and he was issued a Connecticut ssn. The first three digits of the zip code indicate the state, they probably had a list similar to this but with the zip codes listed first in numerical order.
President Eisenhower was vacationing in CA.
Of course, this means that PI John Sampson was wrong in his affidavit, “It is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”
I was looking at Susan Daniels’ Affidavit and noticed on the second to the last page there is a listing for the President with the xxx-xx-4425 ssn and an address in Sommerville, Massachusetts. One entire lists a DOB as 1890 and another for the same address lists a DOB as 1990.
Is that why Susan Daniels cannot find someone with the SSN born in 1890? Should she should be looking for someone born in 1990?
Or is that just a mistake in the database?
Okay, I just did some investigating on Eisenhower. It turns out he lived in Palm Springs California. Mystery Solved.
My Source? PJ Foggy.
No, he and Mamie were on vacation.
“One man’s cottage is another man’s castle, and the one they call the “Presidential Cottage” at Eldorado Country Club is as snug a castle as any you’ll find this side of the Rhine. Located on the eleventh fairway of the country club’s golf course, it’s the place that former President and Mrs. Dwight Eisenhower are calling home through their winter vacation in the desert.”
“(The Eisenhowers are leasing it—for an unannounced sum—until spring; the home is owned by Eldorado Properties, Incorporated, and will be available to other distinguished lessees when the Eisenhowers move out.)”
From the February, 1962, Palms Springs Life Magazine.
I tries to post the link, but it got sent to moderation.
heck no we shouldn’t just let him serve his term out. When it’s exposed, I expect United States Marshal’s to enter the White House and place handcuffs on Mr Obama, along with Axlerod and anybody else that is in on it.
“ANY! DAY! NOW!”
BTW…great choice of names for the argument. don’t know if anyone else has made note
Agreed. I referred to him once as the “original usurper.” ◄Dave►
Remind me who Paul Courtney is; sounds familiar, but I can’t place him… ◄Dave►
Dave: Thanks for asking, I’m the guy attacking birthers and NBC folks from a conservative position, hoping to persuade fellow conservatives to focus on Obama’s diselection and give up his arrest as a goal. I am concerned that people willing to call Bernie a traitor for promoting Rubio for VP will not vote in ’12 if Romney (or Perry, or Bachman, or whoever) refuse to call for Obama’s arrest. I am also concerned with a bigger constitutional issue- if you grant that Pres. can be removed via “arrest”, can’t dems use that to remove future conservative Pres? YOu don’t think community organized grass-roots SEIU types wouldn’t have staged a Bush arrest if they’d had enough imagination (they wanted him assassinated, not very original). Impeachment is the only remedy, and I grant that if you had something really juicy, something that would cause enough senators to vote for it, you could do that. So far, you’re not even close, we were supposed to get something explosive 10 days ago, nothing. Most of your evidence was there for Hillary 3 yrs ago, public is still responding with yawns or, worse, think you share convention halls with truthers. You have your committed believers, but you don’t have any prospect of removing him. And when these committed believers finally realize this, some may stay home in ’12, disgusted that for all your evidence and talk of arrest, it was “all sound and fury, signifying nothing.” No need to attribute that, I hope.
for the most part, i agree with you. however, i wouldn’t forgo the argument, mostly because it’s fun. i also wouldn’t go for removal from office absent absolute proof that obama had lied.
the risk is to great.
most of the public is to uninformed to understand the argument or the implications…although i think if they had proof that he’d lied they might wake up.
don’t think we’ll have proof or an awakened public any time soon.
gee…does that make me a “birther”?
Ah, thanks, Paul. Now I remember.
You assume me to be a conservative; I am not. I am an enigma much closer to an anarchist, than either extreme wing of the Incumbrepublocrat Party:
I am a nonpartisan independent thinker, who comes closest to being a small (L) libertarian or objectivist in my philosophy. I am a card carrying redneck, yet an unchurched heathen; so I disdain the agenda of Politically Correct altruists on the Left and Piously Correct altruists on the Right. I insist that both leave me be, to live my life as I choose to live it, unmolested by do-gooders and busybodies. I could be considered a laissez faire capitalist, but that concept has never been tried, and I abhor corporatism. I am very much an original intent Constitutionalist and fire-breathing Patriot, who will never give up my Liberty for the security of serfdom.
Bernie is no traitor, just undereducated and uninformed. Attempting to rectify that, is what initially brought me here. Together with the obvious sport of poking at Obots, hoping to educate and inform others is what keeps me here. Endeavoring to minimize the effect of the information, which I and others are sharing with the readers here, is what keeps the Obots here. It is theater, and for the most part the actors have no idea whether the audience considers their team the heroes or the villains, or as in your case, both villains.
If the next Republican president does one tenth the mayhem to our Constitution,economy, and American culture that this Obomination has, I would hope the Dems would try to oust him, and I would be right there beside them in the trenches; but that sure wouldn’t make me a Progressive.
No, unfortunately, impeachment is not only not a remedy, it is not even possible, if it is agreed that he is a usurper. Impeachment is only for removing legitimate office holders. The only legal remedy for a usurper acting under the color of law, is a writ of Quo Warranto. That only requires a Federal prosecutor, a Federal judge, and a Federal marshall… no voting required.
Ultimately, it is still a political issue, but by no means an insurmountable one. If someone like Bernie would start the ball rolling, perhaps using the phony BCs as the catalyst, we could soon have the building crescendo of demands that forced Nixon to make a deal with Ford for a pardon. Biden would offer the deal in a heartbeat for that fancy oval shaped office. Obama would be a fool not to take it.
Sure, the Republican establishment wishes we would pipe down and not rock the boat, now that WTP (we the people) have given them back the House, and things are looking real swell for ’12. The problem is, we weren’t voting for the R’s agenda, we were voting against the D’s, and so far the Rs still haven’t gotten the message we were sending. We are not interested in Progressive Lite ‘democracy’ as usual, we want our Constitutional Republic back, and we aim to get it.
If the Rs don’t wake up soon, they will be going the way of the Whigs they replaced. Either we take over the Republican Party, which is our present course, or we start a new one, which could attract enough moderate D’s to win, and collapse the charade of the Incumbrepublocrat’s duopoly.
Meanwhile, for the sake of our posterity, we need to stop this madman’s borrowing and spending in its tracks, and the damned Rs just blew the only political chance they had, simply because they didn’t want to do so. They want to get back to the good old pandering days of yore, shoveling pork, and competing over where best to spend it for votes, while every last one of them feathers their own nest first.
We the producers, who are the only ones who really pay ‘taxes,’ are sick of being the fat lamb, arguing with two voracious wolves, over what to have for breakfast. Enough already; and again for the sake of the integrity of our Constitution, this utterly corrupt, anti-American, fabulist in the White House, needs to leave it totally discredited and jailed if necessary; not allowed to simply be defeated to retire on our dime, with secret service protection for life. ◄Dave►
Mr. Dead President: May I call you “Chet”? Chet, my mind is made up, Obama was a mystery from start, dems wanted it that way. But he was nominated and elected in spite of these unsolved mysteries. Only remedy is impeachment, and even tea party isn’t going there. You mock the idea of waiting until he’s out of office, but no one presents a realistic alternative method of removal, and if you want strict construction, then tell me where the text even hints at something other than impeachment. Look at yourself, your research leads you into blind alleys about Dwight and Mamie’s travels! Folks like Gorefan (I hope he means Tipper, saying you’re a fan of Al Gore is like saying you’re a fan of a really dense tree, Chinese Elm maybe) are getting the better of you, whether you see it or not.
I stated it several times…but you ignore me every time! I’ll state it again!
My stance is that public sentiment could get investigative journalists to investigate. Another public figure such as Donald Trump can help create this sentiment. A Congressional investigation would be a great plus as well.
Why did Obama release the long form? Should the President just get away with crimes because us regular folk can’t do anything about it? The short form birth certificate is a fraud. The long form is more than likely a fraud as well.
And once again, I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii! But he still has committed fraud!
1. Based on the information and documents available to me – Yes, I still think he was not born in the United States.
2. Given the evidence and statements I have seen – Kenya.
3. Given my profession and experience, I would be considered an expert in graphics. After examining the PDF file posted on the White House website that the Administration claimed as a scan of his Hawaiian long form birth certificate, it is my opinion that the file is not a direct scan but a created forgery.
4. I would describe these people as either:
· unconcerned, uninterested;
· uninformed on imaging technology & graphics; and/or
· biased by their own political perspective.
5. While I am sure there are those that would look for any reason to oppose Obama, I think that people who have taken the time to look at the evidence, and believe what the facts show, are active citizens who value the truth, are interested in the welfare of our political process and system of government.
6. Given the stated aims of select communist and socialist governments during the Cold War to infiltrate American society and spread their political values, I do believe that Obama may be an indirect “Manchurian Candidate” as many of his political values reflect those of our Cold War enemies.
I have not, however, seen sufficient evidence to support the idea he is a literal and direct “Manchurian Candidate,” no. I would not rule out this possibility if credible evidence were presented.
Bonus question: I do not believe in an anti-Christ as I am not Christian.
“I do believe that Obama may be an indirect “Manchurian Candidate” as many of his political values reflect those of our Cold War enemies.”
I find that an interesting statement which of “his political values” are you talking about?
You’ll never learn.
Primarily, the socialist, Marxist ideals and undertones found in many of his speeches and policies.
“found in many of his speeches and policies.”
I was hoping you could give me some specifics.
I suppose I could… but they are so common it is kinda a waste of my time, no offense
If you are familiar with the differences between the various political and economic philosophies, you should be able to pick them out on your own in almost any of his public addresses, for instance.
Common themes of class warfare and redistribution of wealth should be an initial tip-off.
Was it redistribution of wealth when President Reagan raised taxes (7 times in 8 years)?
How about when he granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants? Was that based on Marxist/socialist ideals?
When the Reagan Administration assume 80% of the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co because it was “too big to fail”, was that act of Marxism?
Was the 1993 Republican Healthcare reform bill (Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993) based on Marxist ideals?
Which would you rather have a politician who claimed to be a conservative but practices Marxist/Socialist ideals, or one who tells you up front what his plans are?
Here is the James Kent quote that Timmy provided you in its entirety.
“The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome. The age of the President is sufficient to have formed his public and private character; and his previous domestic residence is intended to afford to his fellow-citizens the opportunity to attain a correct knowledge of his principles and capacity, and to have enabled him to acquire habits of attachment and obedience to the laws, and of devotion to the public welfare.”
He starts by listing the three requirements for the office of President natural born, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident.
He then goes on to explain each of these qualifications.
1) native born prevents a foreigner from being President,
2) 35 years is enough time to see his character.
3) 14 years residence allows him to appreciate our laws and develop a devotion to public welfare.
For the Founders, allegiance was determined by place of birth (this was know as natural allegiance, in their minds this was the main criteria for allegiance. See James Madison’s and William Rawle’s statements that I posted below.
As to the claim that the Framers used Vattel to define “natural born”, Vattel never used the term. English translations of his text available to the Framers used the term “natives”. If the Framers had used this text, then they would have written “native born Citizens”, obviously they did not. Yes, they read French but as can be seen from the English translations of Vattel’s book, the English translation is not “natural born”, it is “natives”. Or are you saying that native = natural born?
Pingback: WTP-01 Devilish Questions
OMG you guys are giving me a headache. first, i can’t believe that people are clinging to the certificate of live birth argument.
here is the law that was in place at the time of obamas birth.
it’s worthless as proof of birth place. it’s for residency in Hawaii and about anyone could get one for just about anyone that they had custody of. it’s good for proving there was a live birth…somewhere…which seems redundant if you have a warm and breathing person before you.
the question of where he was born was made legitimate by news reports of his being Kenyan. most of the news reports came out when he was elected as senator and he was repeatedly referred to as “the first Kenyan born senator”.
there was also first person testimony from his grandmother and others in his family of his having been born in Kenya. an ambassador also claimed he was born in Kenya.
enough about the question. it deserved to be answered.
has it been? i’m not so sure. why did it take so long to release a photo copy of what is supposed to be his BC? why not send for a certified copy and wave it in our faces. i had to send for mine a couple of times. i know it’s not that hard to get. it’s not that expensive.
lacking an acceptable birth certificate, a witness would do. a close friend of the mother, a neighbor who was there when she brought the baby home…anything. they can’t all be dead, can they?
i have to say i have never considered myself a birther. i figure the truth will come out someday and there are other things on our plate far more important. in good conscience, i can’t fall into the other camp and say that the question is answered. the “answers” brought up more questions.
the weight of the evidence (or lack of it) suggests that we were deceived….but didn’t we already know that?
“the weight of the evidence (or lack of it) suggests that we were deceived….but didn’t we already know that?”
The Obots sure know it. Why do you think they (the ones posting in this thread) spend HOURS going around the internet trying to find “birther” related articles and ridicule others on the threads? They’ve done more research on this topic than most “birthers” have, and they know Obama has committed crime, after crime, after crime.
Have fun arguing with a comment-spam bot!
? Arguing? I somewhat respect rider’s position. It appears he has at least done some research unlike some other people.
I’d like him to be aware, however, of the fact that the White House, Obama, and Okubo all said that the COLB was requested in 2008. The date stamp of the COLB says 2007. The stamp is identical to the one on Okubo’s COLB. The border of the COLB is that of a 2008 COLB and not a 2007 COLB. The seal is debossed. The White House is linking to a fake COLB made online.
Says Polland, who has been caught in so many lies already.
my fist point was that the original certification of live birth was worthless even it if was the original. with the law that was in place at that time, it can’t be used to prove birth place.
my other point about the later released certificate of live birth (note the difference in title) is that the method of release was a poor one. a photocopy posted on the ‘net was guaranteed to bring up more questions..such as: why not present a certified hard copy???
Your reading of Hawaiian law is incorrect. President Obama’s COLB and long form birth certificate both say he was born in Hawaii, which is legal, sufficient proof that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii.
In addition to the digital images, President Obama did present certified hard copies. We know at a minumum two staffers from factcheck inspected a hard copy of President Obama’s COLB, and a MSNBC reporter inspected a hard copy of his long form birth certificate.
You may disregard Bob, Rider. There was nothing wrong with your reading of Hawaii law, and he knows it. I don’t think he is as dense as he appears to be. The testimony he just cited came from people at least as partisan as he is. MSNBC? Factcheck is the outfit that created the first phony BC. And if the partisans in the HDOH were reliable, they would have not refused to comply with the subpoena to produce the only actual authoritative documents that may exist regarding his potential birth in their State.
Actually, the first phony BC was manufactured using one of the HDOH staffer’s personal BC as a template, which implies that an original isn’t available. If Obama had nothing to hide, he would be begging them to release his records, to get this folderol behind him. The conclusion is pretty obvious… except of course, to Bob and his mates… ◄Dave►
rider237= hot female, x military, military mom and wife, and a great conservative patriot! (I wonder if this is the same rider237? )
I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii like he claims. However, what I also believe is that the Obama campaign and the Hawaii HDOH have committed fraud against the United States.
Thank-you rider237 for your viewpoints and insights.
Perhaps Rider can actually specify what section of Hawaiian law somehow proves that President Obama’s COLB isn’t valid, legal proof of his Hawaiian birth.
Factcheck partisan is widely respected as being non-partisan. Specious allegations of bias do not undermine that digital images of the hard copy versions exist. And the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly stated that President Obama was born there. But, please, continue to push this conspiracy theory, and you will see President Obama out of office. In 2017.
The State of Hawaii did not comply with Taitz’s “subpoena” because it was not valid. Absent a valid court order, the State of Hawaii cannot disclose President Obama’s records to Taitz. Regardless of your personal opinion about the State of Hawaii, if the State of Hawaii says President Obama was born in Hawaii, any court in the land would accept that as sufficient evidence.
There is no competent evidence that President Obama’s COLB “was manufactured using one of the HDOH staffer’s personal BC as a template.”
Many of your questions (which you already know the answers to) are answered in this video:
////rider237 said: i have to say i have never considered myself a birther. i figure the truth will come out someday and there are other things on our plate far more important. in good conscience, i can’t fall into the other camp and say that the question is answered. the “answers” brought up more questions.///
That is an admirable position, mam. I have not considered myself a birther either, in the traditional sense; but I have considered the Obamunist ineligible by definition, from the first moment I heard he was born a subject of the British Empire. “Born a Brit – Not Legit.” The question of where he was born has always been an irrelevant distraction to me; by definition, a natural born citizen may not be born with divided loyalties.
You suggest there are more important matters at hand, and it would certainly seem so; however they are what brings me here to sport with these Obots, while trying to get Bernie’s attention. How many of those matters might be alleviated considerably by getting this usurping pretender out of our White House now, without needing wait for an election, and at the same time erasing much of the damage he has already done? This is within our power, if WTP (we the people) just focus our attention on it, and ignore the attempts at lawyerly obfuscation. For your consideration:
i’m not sure that getting him out now would accomplish much. the process would be nasty and the replacement not much of an improvement. in addition, it would leave us with a dem senate and perhaps poison the voters into keeping them.
maybe better to sit to the end of this play. be prepared to support replacing the lot of them, including many of the republicans.
we will have to put our time and money into it. it will not be enough just to vote. this will be a war of machines and ours will have to be bigger and badder.
“I’m not sure that getting him out now would accomplish much. the process would be nasty and the replacement not much of an improvement. in addition, it would leave us with a dem senate and perhaps poison the voters into keeping them.”
Some of the leaders of the “birther” movement share this viewpoint. Personally, I don’t really care what it would “accomplish.” What I know for a fact is that the Obama administration has committed crimes and they should be punished for it.
And, just for the record, I’m not a “birther.” I believe Obama was more than likely born in Hawaii but has committed crimes against the United States of America and its people.
I doubt that we survive until the election, or that he will allow us to even have one if we do; but that is OK with me. The sooner we crash, the sooner we can start over, and try to rebuild our country on our founding principles. I have had quite enough of altruism and statism. ◄Dave►
Then why present to the public a forged document online? Honestly, I didn’t give the birther movement much credit or attention until the White House posted that file.
Also, witness statements available state he was born in Kenya.
There’s no competent evidence that what President Obama posted online was a forgery.
And no witnesses have stated President Obama was born in Kenya.
Well, here’s what I consider the most important evidence to suggest the “BC’s” are fraudulent:
The White House claimed the short form was requested in 2008 when the date stamp on the
short form says 2007:
Obama claimed the short form was released two and a half years ago when the date stamp on the short form says 2007: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GvnpGruS6k)
Janice Okubo (whose COLB was used to create the forgery) claimed the short form was requested in 2008 even though the date stamp says 2007:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc5JE0JAqlk ; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/)
The White House linking to a fake birth certificate claiming it was authentic:
Long Form has layers and wasn’t flattened:
The Short Form can be seen behind the long form: (http://imageshack.us/f/88/110520colorfilter2.jpg/ ; http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5047/110520colorfilter.jpg)
Fox News Contributor Major General Paul Vallely: I’ve had retired CIA Agents and Investigators look at Obama’s birth certificate and 10 out of 10 say it is fraudulent:
The White House claimed the short form was requested in 2008 when the date stamp on the
short form says 2007.
Obama claimed the short form was released two and a half years ago when the date stamp on the short form says 2007.
Janice Okubo (whose COLB was used to create the forgery) claimed the short form was requested in 2008 even though the date stamp says 2007.
The White House linking to a fake birth certificate claiming it was authentic.
Long Form has layers and wasn’t flattened.
The Short Form can be seen behind the long form.
Fox News Contributor Major General Paul Vallely: I’ve had retired CIA Agents and Investigators look at Obama’s birth certificate and 10 out of 10 say it is fraudulent.
Believe you me, there’s a whole lot more. This evidence is just what I consider the most important.
So, his short form was requested only recently? So…… according to Obama, he didn’t have a copy of his birth certificate all this time? How could a person get by without one?
Ok… here is how we sort all of this out. We need to get him out of office, formally investigate the truth and adjust our election policies to safeguard against a similar situation in the future.
A mistake in remembering when the COLB was ordered does not demonstrate that it is fake.
There is no evidenc Okubo’s COLB was used to forge another COLB.
There is no evidence that the White House linked to a fake birth certificate, unless you want to believe Polland, who has told repeated lies. Even assuming what Polland says is true, that does not demonstrate that either the COLB or the long are forgeries.
The “layers” argument was debunked by actual digital forensic experts.
Even assuming the COLB can be seen in digitally enhanced versions of the long form, that does not demonstrate that either the COLB or the long are forgeries. (There are at least two easy explanations there.)
Who are Vallely’s anonymous experts? Any evidence they exist anywhere other than in Vallely’s mind?
///bob said: Who are Vallely’s anonymous experts? Any evidence they exist anywhere other than in Vallely’s mind?///
You are skating on damn thin ice here you sniveling snot-noised brat. I would venture to guess that 90+ % of the readers here have logged many hours listening to Gen. Vallely analyze military matters, in an entirely nonpartisan manner, on Fox News. Unlike you, he is a consummate gentleman, much respected by American Patriots for his service to our country. The esteem with which he is regarded hereabouts is unimpeachable by the likes of you, and you demonstrate your utter ignorance by attempting such an outrage. Grow up. ◄Dave►
Again: Who are General Vallely’s anonymous experts? Where is the evidence they exist anywhere beyond Vallely’s mind?
Are you implying that Vallely is a liar? Or, are you trying to say that the ex-CIA agents weren’t “expert” enough for your approval? Either way, you and your Obot buddies truly are the scum of the earth.
There is no evidence that Vallely’s “experts” actualy exist. If they don’t acutally exist, then, yes, Vallely is lying. But Vallely has told many whoppers about President Obama, so this is nothing new.
It is impossible to gauge the credentials of these alleged “experts” because there is absolutely no information about their education, experience, etc.
“Experts?” They’re ex-CIA. You’re the one who keeps bringing up the “expert” card. And hey, I couldn’t help but notice when an “expert” sides with the anti-birthers arguments, then all of a sudden, he becomes much more qualified then all the other “experts.”
I’m definitely with Dave on this one. You need to grow up and stop acting like a child.
They’re ex-CIA? Says who? Vallely? Again: Where is the evidence to support this claim of expertise?
And previous employment by the CIA does not automatically make one an expert in questioned-document analysis, or digital forensics.
What would be “competent evidence” in your opinion?
From a whole new angle: Short form certificates were written for those born either outside of a hospital or out of country. A long form was given when born in a hospital.
So… if you had a long form, there would be no need to request a short form. So why would he “have” both?
Statements: According to the recorded statements of his grandmother, and half siblings, he was born in Kenya.
This would definitely explain why he has a short form certificate.
Competent evidence is what would be accepted by a court of law. Do you really think President Obama is going to be legally removed from office with evidence a court couldn’t consider?
The “long form was given when born in a hospital” is pure birther speculation. Please cite Hawaiian law that supports this proposition.
None of President Obama’s relatives have ever stated that he was born in Kenya.
“None of President Obama’s relatives have ever stated that he was born in Kenya.”
2009 internal NSIS report:
We have also investigated Mama Sarah to find out if she is speaking the truth but she had come out as vague and incongruent.
In one interview with Mama Sarah Obama our officers recorded that Mama Sarah says she cannot remember if she attended the birth of Barack Obama or visited his parents at the Coast Provincial General Hospital around the official birthday of Barack Obama. But she confessed to have had part of her family there at around the same time. Some of her brothers were already working in Mombasa.
In a second interview done much later, she says that she is sure Barack Obama was born in Mombasa because she was visiting her family there when he was born, and they were called to the CPGH (Coast Provincial General Hospital) where she met Barack Obama’s mother for the first time.
Yet in another interview Mama Sarah turned hostile and gave a conflicting testimony that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and the family only got to hear or learn of the birth through a letter that Barack Obama’s father sent later.
All these conflicting testimonies point to the fact that the Obama family is trying to hide something but are not doing a very good job of it.
This means that we’re dealing with a situation that calls for caution and only a joint investigation would do.”
1. Says WND. Any evidence demonstrating the provenance of these documents?
3. The money quote:
Do you see that quote in any of these alleged NSIS documents? Neither do I.
I take it this is the point where you cover your ears and say it’s all a lie?
It is still hearsay in a document of unknown provenance. And directly contradicted by the very next paragraph.
So, that means that a professional opinion would be “competent” in this context. That is good, as that is what I am giving.
Based on my extensive professional knowledge and experience with imaging and graphics (15+ years), I have determined that this document is a forgery. This is my professional opinion.
Of course you can find professionals that will support your own ideas. That is your right. But I have formed my own opinion with the evidence and have chosen not to rely on others in this area.
That being said – you can rely on what you wish to form your own opinion. But my opinion in this area is not up for debate
HAWAII VITAL RECORDS
The circumstances around what form of certificate was issued in what situation is not speculation. It was governed by the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955.
Here is a direct copy of the Act: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/1955-territorial-public-health-statistics-act/
Have at it!
Actually, what his family has stated is very much in debate right now, and for good cause. Initial translations of Sara certainly made it sound like she indicated witnessing his birth in Kenya.
When I first looked up transcripts, there were few counter-interpretations. I see now there are even multiple versions of the same conversation.
I think Chester has much more information in this area than I do, so I will have to defer.
[Wow, Chester! You are passionate and detailed!]
REMOVAL OF OBAMA
Uh, no. I never stated or even advocated trying to remove Obama with this whole issue. I am advocating that we vote him out of office, then investigate the (potential) fraud and update our policies to prevent this type of situation in the future.
Interesting article, very detailed discussions, and impressive diversity here! I have enjoyed it!
What, exactly, is your “extensive professional knowledge and experience with imaging and graphics”? Please describe, with specificity, your education, work experience, or similar relevant qualifications. Have you ever testified as an expert before in court?
Even assuming President Obama’s birth was governed by the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955, what, exactly, in this act demonstrates that President Obama was not, in fact, born in Hawaii?
The statements of Sarah Obama, President Obama’s step-grandmother, are, at best conflicting. They also not competent evidence; hearsay is not competent evidence.
Hey, Bob – this reply format is very limited, so… sorry this is out of order!
QUALIFICATIONS & CONCLUSION ON THE FILE
“What, exactly, is your “extensive professional knowledge and experience with imaging and graphics”? Please describe, with specificity, your education, work experience, or similar relevant qualifications.”
While I am not going to post my resume here, I will tell you… I went to one of the best design schools in NYC and have worked with imaging and graphics for the duration of my career… from scanning, processing and proofing to photography and photo editing for commercial ads and celebrity branding. This includes photo manipulation to create “illusions,” if you will, that pass human scrutiny.
I not only chose this area as a career, but I grew up surrounded by this side of technology. One of my parents works the IT side of digital imaging and has helped develop and implement imaging systems, like for the banking industry.
So, unlike many people on either side of this file debate, I am actually qualified enough to have an opinion on this part of the issue
To indulge you further…. What this comes down to is that the file posted by the Administration was NOT a straight, unaltered scan. It was a constructed document. Why?
1. The raster quality and hues varied from element to element, and was not consistent throughout, and
2. The background (color) was not scanned with the document used (grayscale) but was added after the fact. No attempt was made to merge these two major elements as the background bleeds outside the bounds of the scanned elements and doesn’t wrap.
While there are other questionable parts of this file, these two simple facts alone prove – beyond a shadow of doubt – that the document was not what the Administration claimed.
If his staff members wanted to post a more convincing product, they should have distorted the background pattern to better to match the curl of the scanned elements, merged the layers, converted it all to grayscale, cropped within the bounds of the scanned portions and re-sampled the image to obscure the remaining raster disparities. I could do it in a couple of minutes. Not hard.
As I stated in my first post in response to this article, I sincerely gave little credit to the birther theories until this file was posted. The posting of this file did much more damage to his cause than otherwise.
“Have you ever testified as an expert before in court?”
No I have never been asked to testify in court as I do not offer my services to the public sector or law enforcement. You normally have to offer your services for this purpose in order to be considered. Would I if asked? If my expertise is relevant to a case, sure.
“Even assuming President Obama’s birth was governed by the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955, what, exactly, in this act demonstrates that President Obama was not, in fact, born in Hawaii?”
This defines the circumstances on which documents are issued in which situation. You asked for me to show you the governing laws on long and short form certificates, so there it is. I would prefer you take the facts and make up your own mind!
“The statements of Sarah Obama, President Obama’s step-grandmother, are, at best conflicting. They also not competent evidence; hearsay is not competent evidence.”
A statement from a witness to his birth would not be considered here-say in court. Anyway, again – I will let you argue this with Chester. Unlike the imaging aspect, I am not really qualified to make a determination here.
I am assuming your are referring to Pratt. Where you majored in film animation — a subject that has nothing to do digital forensics. And am I correct that you graduated from high school in 1997? Which would mean several years of your “15+ years” experience includes while you were in high school and college.
Without an actual accounting of education and experience, it is impossible to determine whether someone is a bona-fide expert, or someone who passing off buzzwords as expertise. Or is relying on the actual work of their parents, like Polland. But nothing so far indicates that you are an actual expert, sorry.
Your text dump Territorial Public Health Statistics Act is not helpful. What, exactly, in this act is determinative about President Obama’s birth?
Sarah Obama has never testified in court. She has never signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury. As such, reports of what she is alleged to have said is hearsay. And the claim that she said President Obama was born in Keyna is of an unknown provenance.
Legal question for you, is it normal for affidavits from two different witnesses to be word for word the same?
In the Berg case, there were two affidavits one from Bishop McRae and the other from Rev. Kweli Shuhubia.
Bishop McRea’s and Rev. Kweli Shuhubia’s affidavids are word for word the same.
McRae, “When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, ‘No, No, No, He was born in the United States!’ But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”
Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, “When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”
McCrae says in his affidavit that he asked questions in English which were translated into Swahili then the answers were translated back to English. So how does he swear to what Mrs. Obama said? He wasn’t in the room, couldn’t see her and doesn’t even know if she answered the questions. And he doesn’t apparently speak Swahili.
It strikes me as odd.
The reality is that an affidavit is usually drafted by an attorney, and then reviewed and signed by the declarant. But you make a good point: two declarants shouldn’t be declaring the same thing; rather, they should each be declaring what they, personally, perceived.
The problems you pointed out with McCrae’s affidavit are a good example: suddenly he making declarations about things he didn’t perceive and appear to beyond his personal knowledge. So it all comes off as unbelievable (and easily dismantled through objections).
And note well who didn’t sign an affidavit: Sarah Obama.
Bob – Yes, 15+ as I have been working with imaging and graphics (for pay) before I graduated high school. And if you were familiar with the required courses and training of film/animation, you would know it has plenty to do with the subject.
So, you can dismiss my knowledge and experience all you want. That isn’t going to change *my* mind. Only objective facts and arguments have sway with me, and you haven’t presented any so far, only discounting facts others present.
And while my purpose in posting here was to express my views in response to this article, and not to persuade anyone to agree with me, I am fairly certain that regardless of what anyone says or what information is presented you aren’t going to change your mind either.
Good luck with your dismissive approach to debate. You are going to need it.
I “dismiss” your “knowledge and experience” because there’s no actual indication of any relevant knowledge or experience.
You may think you are an expert in your own mind, but there’s no objective evidence of that. Certainly no evidence that anyone else considers you an expert.
Looks like Hawaii.gov visited http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/ today:
Please see the moderator’s comment:
Now, what interest could the Hawaii government have in visiting that url? Strike me curious.
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” -Voltaire
Bless Voltaire… and damn lawyers! We have here a baby step of progress, toward effective communication. When asked to explain his odd mantra of the day, “There is no evidence…,” Bobby seems to equate ‘evidence’ with ‘fact’ and ‘proof.’
///bob said: Evidence is a fact that proves an assertion.
Cashill’s speculation is not evidence.///
You may wish to grow up to be a lawyer, Bobby; but most of us aren’t and don’t. Regular folk tend to connote the word ‘evidence’ as ‘tending to indicate’ something. It may or may not be valid, true, or conclusive. By your connotation, one could not amass any evidence on either side of a debate over an unprovable hypothesis.You try to make a legal issue out of everything, so adverse charges can be dismissed on a legal technicality.
It is not illegal to hire a ghost writer to write a fable for one to put one’s name on. It is a bit disingenuous to allow others to surmise that you were the sole author, and it is a baldfaced lie to come right out and assert it; but not illegal, so we need no lawyers to evaluate Jack Cashill’s contribution toward uncovering the mysterious past of the Obamessiah, only a fair, open, functioning mind. When someone offered you a dictionary, you chose to quote the judicial usages:
///bob said: “data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.”
Cashill’s speculation is none of those.///
Yes, these data are forms of evidence; but are you suggesting that there are no such things as false testimony, unreliable witnesses, phony records, forged documents, or irrelevant objects ever submitted into evidence in court? Are not the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers on both sides of a criminal case, precisely their speculation, supported by their evidence, as to the actions, motive, and guilt or innocence of the defendant?
Can conflicting evidence all be facts? The prosecutor puts an eyewitness on the stand. The defense puts an alibi on the stand, who swears the defendant was elsewhere. Their sworn testimonies are both considered evidence; but are both factual? The cool thing about our system of justice, is that neither the lawyers or the judge get to decide which one is lying. That is up to the jury, who are thankfully not crippled with a legal beagle mindset, and can apply their wisdom and common sense to the task.
Since you prefer to think in legalese, let’s try an apt analogy. Cashill is the prosecutor in a case challenging Obama’s assertion that he alone wrote his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” and that the contents therein is a true narrative about his past. You have accepted the assignment of being the defense lawyer. We The People (WTP) – the readers of such books – are the jury, with one minor difference; it only takes a simple majority to convict your client of an outrageous fraud. The punishment, of course, would be serious damage to his reputation, and an ever-growing propensity for the public to mistrust anything else Obama has, does, or ever will say, and/or be claimed to be true about him. You have a crucial, if daunting, role, Bob; are you up to it?
Cashill has done a prodigious amount of diligent research, to amass the compelling evidence supporting his theory, regarding the veracity of Obama’s assertions in this matter. He has compiled his case into a book of his own, which he has presented to the WTP jury and rested his case. It is now your turn at bat, and so far all I have seen is a silly denial that the prosecutor has any evidence at all, and some cheap ad hominem shots at his competence, and perhaps his bias against the anti-American philosophy animating your defendant.
That is pretty thin gruel, Bobby. Lazy too. You don’t seem diligent enough to even do discovery. You have ready access to his whole case, from opening remarks all the way through summation. You could have it on your Kindle in two minutes, and you won’t even bother to read it. Meanwhile, the jury has and they are not sequestered. They are talking and revealing the substance of the prosecutor’s case to the world; most with glee, just like I am.
To whit, I’ll repeat: I have read Jack Cashill’s, “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President.” A ghost writer himself of some repute, Cashill makes an irrefutable case that Bill Ayers wrote it.
I would love to see you, or anyone else, honestly critique the book and refute the evidence, with anything beyond ad hominem for the author. It simply can’t be done.
Here is the description of the book from Amazon:
///Did Obama write his own books and is the story they tell true?
“I’ve written two books,” Barack Obama told a crowd of teachers in July of 2008. “I actually wrote them myself.” The teachers exploded in laughter. They got the joke: lesser politicians were not bright enough to do the same. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama supporters pointed to the first of those two books, the 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, as proof of Obama’s superior intellect. Time magazine called Dreams “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.” The Obama campaign machine traded on the candidate’s literary reputation, encouraging volunteers to “get out the vote and keep talking to others about the genius of Barack Obama.”
There was just one small flaw, as writer and literary detective Jack Cashill discovered months before the November 2008 election: nothing in Obama’s history suggested he was capable of writing either Dreams or his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope. In fact, as Cashill continued his research, he came to the shocking conclusion that the real craftsman behind Dreams was terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers.
“This was a charge,” David Remnick admits in his definitive Obama biography, The Bridge, “that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy.
Deconstructing Obama tells the story of what happens when a citizen journalist discovers a game-changing reality that the media refuse to acknowledge. Despite their rejection, Cashill expanded his research into Obama’s literary canon. As he came to see, if Dreams serves as sacred text, the poem “Pop” is the Rosetta stone, the key to deciphering Obama’s shrouded past, his fragile psyche, and his uniquely cryptic political life. In unlocking that past, Cashill discovered that the story that Obama has been telling all his life varies from the true story in ways big and small. In fact, much of Obama’s life story appears to be a wholly constructed fabrication, one that Jack Cashill “deconstructs” to show the world just who Barack Obama really is.///
You should read it, Bob… although you might learn some things about your messiah you most likely really don’t want to know. ◄Dave►
Your fantasy trial would never happen; it would be dismissed before it ever got to a jury BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
Where are the statements by President Obama admitting that Ayers wrote “Dreams”? Where are the documents between Ayers and President Obama that indicate Ayers wrote “Dreams”? There are none.
All that is left is Cashill reading both books and then speculating the same person wrote both of them. Again: Cashill’s speculation IS NOT EVIDENCE.
If somehow this fantasy trial did get to a jury, President Obama’s statements that he wrote “Dreams” *is* evidence that he did, in fact, write “Dreams.”
And there’s the Oxford professor who wrote a computer program to detect plagiarism, who looked into the allegations and concluded, “I have found no evidence for Cashill’s ghostwriting hypothesis, and rather strong (albeit limited) evidence against.”
You are delusional, Bob, and starting to make a fool out of yourself; because you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. You failed to draw a partisan judge, and the case was not dismissed. Now you are going to have to answer to the bar for your dereliction and incompetence. Your client should sue you for every nickel you have.
Not only did you skip discovery; but after your opening remarks, where you only tried to tell WTP on the jury that the prosecutor had no evidence, you promptly went to sleep while he presented reams of statistical evidence compiled independently by several computer-assisted plagiarism experts. The very credible testimony of these experts affirmed the theory of the prosecutor, and iced his cake beautifully; but you seem to have slept right through it.
When the clerk awoke you, still pitifully unaware of the depth and breath of the prosecutors case, you trot out the only partisan expert witness you could find, making a feeble attempt to impeach the prosecutor’s theory. Of course, WTP on the jury had already heard the testimony of several similar experts, and they came off more competent and less biased than yours.
Then, you offer your summation, and all you have is more cries of “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE,” upon which you rest your case. Sorry, Bob, but WTP on the jury have deliberated, and we are back with our verdict. Ready for it? That is right, we find your client to be a total fraud, and his defense council not much better. Here are some notes from our deliberations, which are published in the review section of the prosecutor’s case file on Amazon.com. My favorites, of course, address your assertion that there was no evidence:
///”The reason I gave the book four stars instead of five is that Cashill presents so much detail in support of his thesis that at times I had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. I’d heard an interview by Cashill (which is why I bought the book), and if I hadn’t heard him recite the bones of this story very clearly and concisely, I think I’d have had something of a struggle to keep my eye on the main thread of the argument. I should point out also, that he did not start out to prove that Ayers was the author, in fact Cashill hadn’t even considered that. It came to him slowly as the evidence added up.”///
///”The evidence that Bill Ayers wrote the Obama biography is overwhelming. There are many provable falsehoods in the narrative, prominent among them that Ann Dunham and Obama Sr lived together as a family with baby Barry. The cumulative effect of the many provable falsehoods leads to an overwhelming impression of Obama as a calculating phony. Though he is nowhere near the intellectual that he is made out to be, neither is he the Manchurian candidate that others have suggested. He has cynically exploited the system and many people in his climb. The press has suffered from an unusually aggressive narrative bias in enforcing a willful ignorance to all things not adhering to the Obama party line. This web of lies will come undone. Any Obamabot that reads this book with an open mind will come away with unbearable cognitive dissonance.”///
Then, there was this one. It ventures beyond the facts of the case into personal opinion; but it does describe your Obamessiah as well as I have seen it done anywhere:
///”This book was not only a fun read but it also might be of historical importance. First, it was a fun read because the author wrote it like a detective novel and added lots of ironic humor. Its potential historical importance, however, is that it could well be the beginning of the unveiling of the real Obama. Obama is not the Manchurian Candidate or the Radical-Chief. He is not even a liberal in conscience — our President is nothing more than a complete counterfeit who has made a career out of the self-loathing of white liberals and the mortal fear of everyone else of being labeled a bigot for vetting a black man.
During the 2008 campaign, I watched a video of Obama talking about the constitution being a barrier to wealth redistribution. As a law school graduate, I was not alarmed by the candidate’s will to subvert the constitution (all liberals want to do this), but rather, I was alarmed by his complete lack of sophistication with constitutional law. Obama’s command of constitutional law was that of a freshman political science student — not that of a graduate from an accredited law school. His command of the law was what could be expected of someone who played the diversity card to the fullest and found it as an alternative to doing real scholarship. Any real liberal law student will tell you that the constitution is a “living document” that says whatever you want to say.
During a primary debate he complained about an employer paying less taxes than his secretary. This reflected his failure to understand profit and loss and the fact that an employer only pays taxes on the company’s profits. In the best of times, many good companies experience profits that are little or nothing. When this happens, they pay less taxes than their secretaries because they have less income than those secretaries.
Throughout the campaign, Obama appeared intelligent as long as he was following a teleprompter or a speech writer. A Capella, Obama always demonstrated that there really was nothing on the inside of the Armani. I do not believe that Obama is a writer, a lawyer, a Keynesian economist, or even a loving husband and father. He is just a pretend Wizard of Oz and this book is doing the job of Toto, opening the veil to show that it is all just a console of wheels and levers.”///
See what you missed, Bob? Next time, if the Bar permits you a next time, do your discovery and stay awake in court. Meanwhile, it is not too late to learn the truth. Twelve Bucks on Amazon. Then, you should find there is still plenty of room for you over here, among the productive members of society. Most of us are ex-Lefties, who finally outgrew our Robin Hood fantasies. ◄Dave►
“partisan expert witness”
It must be fun when you make yourself the judge, jury, and overwrought narrator in your fantasy world.
But back in the real world, only a tiny few bought what Cashill was selling.
Again, because the concept seems to be evading you: Cashill is just spitballing. His conclusion is based entirely on what is in his mind, and not any objective evidence.
Bob, if you had read the book yourself, you would know about the previous history Cashill had with your computer forensics expert.
You will recall, my court trial analogy was merely an attempt to get through to your legalese beclouded mind.
Thanks to the the media blackout, few have ever heard of the book. With your continued help, I’m working on that. Let’s try this, since I cannot convince you to invest the time in reading his book. Go spend just one hour, watching him discuss the book on C-Span, as 17,000 other WTP jurists have on the website alone:
Then, come back and try to tell us he is making the whole thing up, has no basis for his conjecture, or any “objective evidence.” Then, you can tell us why O’bama is a naturally gifted writer, who needed no practice whatever beforehand, to crank out 50 pages a week of world-class literature in his spare time in the evenings, after working full time, raising a family, and keeping an extravagant social calendar. Tell us again how you think he is just a partisan idiot, how you are so much smarter than he is, and how “all experts” would would certainly agree with you.
Go ahead, I dare you to risk infecting your myopic mind with a severe case of cognitive dissonance. We can’t wait to hear about your experience, if you are man enough to take the challenge, and return with an honest response. I won’t be holding my breath. Close-minded fear of exposure to truth is quite debilitating. ◄Dave►
“myopic mind with a severe case of cognitive dissonance”
There are numerous articles about this computer expert, many of which document how he insisted that the results of his study be published regardless of the results, but the republicans making the offer balked, because they feared (correctly) the results would demonstrate that there was no ghostwriting. But telling the truth makes him biased and partisan, eh?
17,000 views? That’s .0005% of the U.S. population! We the People have spoken; you aren’t listening.
Cashill’s book is, in your words, conjecture. There is no actual, real evidence — no witnesses, no documents, nothing. Just what is in Cashill’s head.
And the “big announcement” from the Birther Summit?: It offered Colin Powell $15,000 to listen to a three-hour lecture on President Obama’s eligibility.
There’s an offer going straight to the circular file.
Where is JR Jordan?
As expected, the Hawaii Department of Health did not comply with Taitz’s “subpoena.” Instead, it gave her a letter explaining its denial, and she left.
Hey Bob, As expected, Fuddy refused to comply with the subpoena, claiming “privacy”. Of course there most likely isn’t any document in the vault to produce, unless the original is a forgery. If that’s the case, it can quickly be determined upon inspection. Orly did get a judge to agree to a show-cause hearing to be held on Sept 14. Fuddy will have to explain why she didn’t release the document and there is a chance the judge will order her to release it to Orly at that point. I’m really hoping the judge grants Orly’s request. Then, the world will know for sure. Bob, i’m surprised you are supporting Orly on this (not really). I mean if your so confident, why not support this so you will have the oppurtunity to rub it in all the birthers faces?
I had to explain to you that Hawaii was not going to comply with Taitz’s “subpoena”; it is what I expected to happen. But rewrite history if it makes you feel better.
Taitz DID NOT get a show-cause hearing on September 14. (Read the actual order again.) There will be a routine hearing on Taitz’s motion to compel, which the court will deny. Taitz will end up with nothing, and Hawaii will have not suffered any consequences for its actions.
The State of Hawaii is acting as it is because Hawaiian law requires it to do so. I support the rule of law; why don’t you?
There is no such thing as the “Rule of Law,” and that we have a complete fraud in the White House, who has committed multiple felonies, and our justice system will not even address the issue, is prima facie evidence of that fact. See:
Every court decision regarding President Obama’s eligibility has correctly stated the applicable law. And there has been no dissent to these rulings in the legal community.
We are a nation of laws, and applicable laws have been complied with.
The Founders used both “native born” and “natural born” to describe the requirements for President.
For example St. James Tucker wrote:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” (View of the Constitution, 1803).
Before you say he is wrong, remember that St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the battle of Yorktown. He was a lawyer, professor of law at the College of William and Mary, and judge of Virginia’s highest court. In 1813, upon the nomination of President James Madison, he became the United States district judge for Virginia.
And then there is James Iredell, “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” (North Carolina debates on the Constitution, July 30, 1788).
James Iredell was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Washington.
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States” (Commentaries on American Law, 1826).
James Kent was appointed by John Jay to the New York Chancery. Kent’s Commentaries have been frequently cited in SCOTUS cases.
Uh, I don’t think Dave has disagreed with the notion that in order to become President you need to be a native-born citizen. Plus, there is no indication from the quotes you provided to suggest that natural born citizenship is synonymous with native born citizenship; they are not one in the same.
Obama is not natural born according to the binding precedent of Minor and Happersett.
///timmy said: For example St. James Tucker wrote:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” (View of the Constitution, 1803).///
Instead of disputing legal semantics, Timmy, examine carefully what he was saying regarding the intent of the Founders’ NBC requirement – avoiding the plague of foreign influence. Is this not the very plague we are suffering today, with this usurper at the helm of our ship of state? Have you read Dinesh D’Souza’s, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage?” It is a scholarly work describing Obama’s Marxist, anti-colonial mindset, which he carefully cultivated in his youth, in an effort to fulfill his father’s dreams (recall his memoir’s title references “dreams FROM my father.”
I found it very illuminating and recommend it highly. An excellent preview of the topic is available in D’Souza’s Forbes Magazine article, “How Obama Thinks” located at:
“Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.
“But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.”
///timmy said: And then there is James Iredell, “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” (North Carolina debates on the Constitution, July 30, 1788).
James Iredell was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Washington.///
Hmmm… In a debate, the term ‘native’ would probably suffice to communicate the intent of his remark; but if you have quoted him accurately, he misspoke rather seriously, and I would hope his opponent called him on it. It is not ‘OR’ 14 years, it is ‘AND’ 14 years.
///timmy said: “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States” (Commentaries on American Law, 1826).
James Kent was appointed by John Jay to the New York Chancery. Kent’s Commentaries have been frequently cited in SCOTUS cases.///
Since that is not even a complete sentence, one wonders at the context of the remark, which you have omitted. It is certainly a true statement, and forty some years down the road from our founding, the term NBC may well have morphed into ‘native citizen’ among the commentators on our law; but this does not, and could not, change the intent of our Founders.
Lawyerly obfuscation will not persuade me, Timmy. John Jay’s intent is clear to any reader of the English language. What lawyers wish to twist it into, is unimportant to those of us who revere our Constitution, as written and intended. ◄Dave►
John Jay didn’t write the U.S. Constitution, as he wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention.
The courts agree “native born” and “natural born” are synonymous. You, of course, are free to disagree with the courts, but this is the United States of America and not the United States of Dave. Lawyers — as well as the rest of the law-abiding citizenry — will abide to the courts’ ruling.
Go to my blog: http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/ and find out for yourself.
Question for you, Al:
How did you come across this information about Bounel? Were you investigating the social security number of a non-debtor?
If you have poked around here at all, you know that I am not a BHO supporter. A link to your site was offered earlier, and I perused it extensively. Unfortunately perhaps, I think I have come up with the only explanation that makes any sense at all, for the results of your 50 state search on his name. Under Question # 4 below, you will find the following remark:
August 7, 2011 | 7:58 am
Well, damn… I couldn’t shut my mind up…
I shouldn’t be doing the Obots job for them, but I bet I know what is going on with all the SS#s. Remember all the Acorn kids that were busted for padding their voter registration drives, because they were being paid by the number of voters they registered? Those forms undoubtedly get entered into a local voter database, to check addresses against names for verification purposes.
These would then become public records accessible for mining by other databases. I suspect that if you ran the 50 state search again, with slight variations on his name, a surprising number of them would pop up too. Better yet, I’ll bet if you ran it with Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, you would find more of them than Obama! Any takers? Somebody tell Soros he owes me a paycheck. ◄Dave►
May I suggest you try my experiment. Try again without the “C” in ‘Barack’ and see how many you find. Then try Hilary Clinton, Mickey Mouse, or Donald Duck. I’d love to see the results. ◄Dave►
There have been times when I’ve needed an ‘original’ in my hand to prove something. It had to have the original ink, the original signature, or the raised paper from the stamp.
To those defending Obama, has anybody touched any of the papers he’s released. Is there a name on an affidavit by somebody that’s actually handled the COLB or the long form? Who is that guy? Did anyone take an oath saying he held the real thing?
Or is it that everybody in the world sees it online and that’s it?
Is that it?
Because if that’s it, that’s not right.
Two factcheck staffers (Jess Henig and Joe Miller) have “seen, touched, examined and photographed” President Obama’s COLB.
A MSNBC reporter (Savannah Guthrie) “felt the raised seal” on President Obama’s long form birth certificate.
Yeah, some liberals got to feel some…things. Here’s a video that might blow your mind:
“Hail to the Cheats!”
As you can see, there is no reason not to trust these people (sarcasm).
If you have enough time, I strongly suggest you view the other videos on that youtube channel.
So MSNBC and factcheck are also in on the conspiracy, along with President Obama and the State of Hawaii.
MSNBC= more than likely, just ignorant
Factcheck-the female out of the duo is more than likely in on the “conspiracy,” not sure about the male.
President Obama- Well, DUH!
State of Hawaii-Some employees of Hawaii.
This is NOT a “massive conspiracy.” Your liberal usage of “the state of Hawaii” is getting quite annoying. A few people have vouched for the President, and the state of Hawaii has taken their word for it.
How would you describe the conspiracy? Mid-sized?
The birther conspiracy theory would require (in addition to President Obama and numerous White House and DNC staffers) two governors, two cabinet-level officers, the registrar, and a public-information officer from Hawaii to be on it. (And that’s not even going into the hospital staff, some who surely would have to know that President Obama wasn’t born there.) And, of course, absolutely no one in the rest of Hawaiian government has spoken up, or have even investigated these matters.
But good to know the male factcheck staffer might pass your sniff test.
“How would you describe the conspiracy? Mid-sized?”
I would describe it as a conspiracy involving around 6-10 people (~3 from the WH including Obama and some employees from Hawaii)…is that “Mid-sized?”
As for the rest of your comment, like I already stated:
“A few people have vouched for the President, and the state of Hawaii has taken their word for it.”
How many people have seen Obama’s original long form in the vault?
No, this is not a “massive conspiracy.” A couple people said Obama was born in Hawaii and everyone else took their word for it.
So this conspiracy that only you can see has 6-10 people in it? Including republicans who campagined for President Obama’s opponent? And everyone around them just takes their word for it? No one asks for verification, or goes snooping? (Think of the fame and money that could be had!) And what about Kapi’olani? Surely its employees know that President Obama wasn’t born there.
“A couple people said Obama was born in Hawaii and everyone else took their word for it.”
That’s how the real world works. When duly appointed officials certify a document is genuine, it is. Which is why every time you go to the DMV, the clerk doesn’t need to go to the vital statistic’s vault with a questioned documents examiner.
Nice disinformation tactics there. You even contradicted yourself, lol.
I’ll ask again:
How many people have seen Obama’s original long form in the vault?
Again with the unfounded “disinformation” whine.
At least three (Fuddy, Fukino, Onaka) people have seen the “vault” version, all of whom are duly appointed officials; if they certify President Obama was born in Hawaii, then every state and any court will accept that as sufficient, valid evidence of President Obama’s Hawaiian birth.
I have yet to ask an embarrassing question? I see my error in trying to reason with you. It seems that your mission here is to make sure no post, deleterious to Obama, goes unanswered. I make the mistake of including too many points in one post, which allows you to cherry pick the one you wish to refute and ignore the others. Let’s do embarrassing details about your messiah one at a time.
Most of what the world thinks they know about this consummate fraud, who calls himself Barak Hussein Obama, is taken from a phony memoir written for him by unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers entitled, “Dreams From My Father.” Being very well written, it is the underpinning of this affirmative action recipients reputation as an erudite intellectual. It is almost pure fable; but the biggest lie of all, which he keeps repeating, is that he wrote it all by himself.
Question # 1 – Why does he continue to repeat this lie, and what does that tell us about believing or trusting anything else he says? ◄Dave►
Why does President Obama continue to claim that he wrote “Dreams From My Father”?
Because President Obama wrote “Dreams From My Father.”
I am afraid you are quite wrong, Bob. I have read Jack Cashill’s, “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President.” A ghost writer himself or some repute, Cashill makes an irrefutable case that Bill Ayers wrote it.
So basically we have to take Cashill’s word for it?
Ho! I detect a shift change! Bob is getting Saturday night off, and Timmy is assuming the duty.
No, Timmy, you don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, and you cannot dismiss the outrage so easily. Read the book and ask yourself if the evidence he presents is compelling or not. If not to you, I think you will be the first. Please do come back and explain to us why you don’t think so. I am still waiting for the masterful spin… ◄Dave►
You can remember the book, when it gets to be inexpensive enough on amazon, you can buy it and judge for yourself. You probably won’t. But it’s an option to taking someone’s word for it.
If you go to American Thinker, Archives, Jack Cahshill you’ll see articles he wrote and judge if he seems to be reliable.
Cashill has no evidence that Ayers wrote “Dreams.” His “evidence” is noting similarities in a few passages, and calling that proof.
As for Cashill’s reliability, in his book he posits President Obama’s real father was either Malcolm X or Jimi Hendrix.
And in a previous book, Cashill theorized Clinton shot down TWA 800 to ensure his re-election.
That Cashill is dismissed a right-wing kook is easily understandable.
///bob said: Cashill has no evidence that Ayers wrote “Dreams.” His “evidence” is noting similarities in a few passages, and calling that proof.///
Voltaire wisely advised: If you wish to converse with me, define your terms. Since your mantra for the day seems to be ‘evidence,’ what qualifies as evidence to you? You do understand, I hope, that evidence and proof are two decidedly different concepts. Evidence can be valid or invalid, significant or inconsequential, truths or falsehoods, compelling or unconvincing; but it is all evidence and to say, “there is no evidence,” when there most definitely is, constitutes a deliberate falsehood, or an amateurish attempt at spin. Which is it, Bob?
A few passages? Obviously, you have not read the book, so you are not in the least qualified to pontificate on the quality of his evidence. Any fair-minded reader, regardless of personal agenda, would have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence Cashill submits that Bill Ayers wrote it, is overwhelming and rather compelling. They would also have to conclude that the narrative, for the most part, it is pure fable. Anything less would be spin or simple BS. Once again, I dare you to read it. ◄Dave►
Evidence is a fact that proves an assertion.
Cashill’s speculation is not evidence.
Bob’s game of semantics is quite theatrical…here, I’ll add to this entertainment spectacle:
“data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.”
Cashill’s speculation is none of those.
///Chester A. Arthur said: Bob’s game of semantics is quite theatrical…here, I’ll add to this entertainment spectacle:
This whole thing is theater, and I do hope there are lots of spectators. I suspect there are, which would explain why this comment section remains open. It is probably doing wonders for Bernie’s stats.
While the contrast, between the posts from the ‘crazy birthers’ and the reputedly paid ‘Obot’ BHO supporters, may be lost on closed minds like Bernie’s, others may be getting an education out of the entertainment. I hope so, as that is the only reason I am still here suffering fools. “Born a Brit – Not Legit.”
Thanks for the link. Recognizing that I was using my iPad, it offered me a free app. I downloaded it, and it has some cool features my other dictionaries don’t. I shall find it useful. ◄Dave►
And you know this because he says so.
Do you have proof of this or is it rumor?
See my reply above to bob… ◄Dave►
Question # 2 – Why does Obama lie about Stanley Dunham’s marriage to Barak Obama Sr.? He claims they had a loving family until he was two-years-old; and then Obama Sr. left them to go to Harvard. Yet, it has now been documented that a few weeks after he was born, Stanley was living in Seattle and attending college there, while Obama Sr. remained in Honolulu attending college there. Stanley never returned to HI until after he left for Harvard. Since he never gave up his tiny bachelor pad near the campus, there is no evidence that they ever did live together as man and wife. Do you think Obama was aware of this enormous lie before Corsi documented it? ◄Dave►
The obvious answer is that every child romanticizes their parents’ relationship.
And President Obama’s parents’ relationship has no bearing on the fact that he was born in Hawaii and thus a natural-born citizen.
OK, a child may certainly do that. Does that give them the license to repeat the fable in their memoirs as truth, and repeat it on the campaign stump as truth at the age of 50, when the real truth has been pointed out to them repeatedly? I submit that he is lying not romanticizing, and the subject has everything to do with his qualifications to be POTUS.
If he is lying to us about such inconsequential matters, to protect his fragile ego, we need to know that about his weak character when considering whether to allow him to be reelected. It is incumbent upon those who learn the truth, to broadcast it to others, for the sake of our country. I am just doing my duty, Bob… just like you are just doing your job. ◄Dave►
I am shocked — shocked — to learn that a politician might have embellished their past.
Regardless, the State of Hawaii has repeatedly said President Obama was born there. And the state of President Obama’s parents’ marriage is relevant to neither his eligibility nor qualifications to serve as president.
Question # 3 – Why is the incredibly unique name in America, of Barak Hussein Obama, associated with so many different SS#s in databases, while our laws only permit a citizen to have just one? ◄Dave►
This is based on public databases which are not reliable. They have disclaimers about how hey can be used.
They don’t have to be reliable, and their disclaimers do not make them worthless. The data bases exist; the records exist; why so many? ◄Dave►
I retract this question. See my comments under #4 below. I think I figured out the mystery… ◄Dave►
There is no evidence President Obama has ever obtained or used more than one social security number.
///bob said: There is no evidence President Obama has ever obtained or used more than one social security number.///
See, here is a perfect example of your naïveté or BS, I still haven’t concluded which. There is a mountain of evidence. Every single record in the commercial databases, associating BHO’s name with a different SS# than the one thought to be his, constitutes evidence. That says nothing about the reliability or quality of the evidence; but it has caused untold thousands of honest Americans to question the character of BHO.
Your job should be to refute the validity of the evidence; not to amateurishly deny its existence. We know it exists, we have seen it on the internet, and when you come here and assert that we are crazy, because “there is no evidence…,” you appear rather childish. Dispute the evidence, by all means at your disposal; but don’t insult our intelligence by denying it exists.
Now, it happens that I have done some of your job for you, and I expect the mystery regarding the sheer quantity of SS#s associated with BHO will go in the “solved” category, and subside. However, that took a little critical thinking, not droning on with foolish mantras. ◄Dave►
Again, there is no evidence President Obama has ever OBTAINED OR USED more than one social security number.
As you have acknowledged, a mere association in a database is not evidence of fraudulent acquisition or use.
Is Barack Obama still using the Connecticut SSN?
I have no idea if President Obama is currently using the social security number that begins with 042. I would not be surprised if Social Security Administration had issued him a new due to this number’s exposure.
Question # 4 – How did Obama he acquire the SS# he is currently using, when it was issued in Connecticut while he supposedly attending tenth grade in Honolulu, and there is nothing in his history to suggest he had ever even visited, much less lived there, at that point in his life? ◄Dave►
SSN are not issued in a particular state, since 1972 they have all been issued in Baltimore, Maryland. The SSA says don’t make too much of the geographic locator.
This is a common Obot half-truth. The first three digits are referred to as an “Area Number.” The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region:
While the SSA did not make SSN’s with the intent of using them for geographical information, they CAN be used for this purpose.
The SSA updated their page not long ago to include the sentence: “It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information.”
Please use waybackmachine.
The year 1890 is associated with the SSN.
Harrison Bounel alias related to Barack Obama’s SSN:
Harry Bounel was a “roomer” of the Robinsons (Michele Obama’s family). He was born in Connecticut in 1860:
Hey, Chesty. While I found your links utterly fascinating, I don’t get the video. The Harrison Bounel they were getting excited about was born in 1860. That would have made him 75 years old when FDR signed the SS Act… I thought Obama’s SS# was issued in circa 1977, by when he would have been 117.
That seems a bit late to be signing up, don’t you think? I had heard he had lived and died in the end in Hawaii and banked with Obama’s grandmother. This can’t be the same dude. Grandson, maybe. Robinson is a pretty common name. Are you sure this isn’t disinformation, designed to send the squirrels spinning up a tree?
Then, I notice all the phony SS#s being used for addresses all across the country, generally in battleground States. That smells like some sort of Acorn business, and often several people were using the same SS#. I also note that Michelle’s and BHO’s SS#s occasionally got crossed up in the data bases. I can see that happening easily enough during data entry.
Do we know for a fact that the SS Admin issued his SS# to one Harrison Bounel, or could it be that the initial researcher just found two different records using the number, knew it couldn’t be BHO’s because of the 042 location code, and assumed the other to be accurate? Color me confused… ◄Dave►
I shouldn’t be doing the Obots job for them, but I bet I know what is going on with all the SS#s. Remember all the Acorn kids that were busted for padding their voter registration drives, because they were being paid by the number of voters they registered? Those forms undoubtedly get entered into a local voter database, to check addresses against names for verification purposes.
These would then become public records accessible for mining by other databases. I suspect that if you ran the 50 state search again, with slight variations on his name, a surprising number of them would pop up too. Better yet, I’ll bet if you ran it with Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, you would find more of them than Obama! Any takers? Somebody tell Soros he owes me a paycheck. ◄Dave►
“This can’t be the same dude. Grandson, maybe.”
That’s the theory, yes.
“Are you sure this isn’t disinformation, designed to send the squirrels spinning up a tree?”
It’s certainly possible. At this point in time, however, I don’t believe there is a better guess as to the identity of the original SSN holder.
Is that a year or part of an address or somethin else? Is it a typo like the database that also includes his DOB as 04/08/1961?
Please listen to the Susan Daniels interview I’ve already posted.
The social security administration has expressly said that social security numbers are not necessarily indicative of geographic information.
Bounel’s name was “associated” with President Obama because Harrison Bounel was involved with the trust that owns the Obama’s property.
Please go to 44:20 in Susan Daniels interview:
To sum things up:
SSN’S CAN BE USED FOR GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION! STOP WITH THE LIES!
Barack Obama has a Connecticut SSN. He never lived in Connecticut, and he never went to Connecticut when he was assigned the SSN.
Obama is using a SSN that once belonged to someone else. You can twist words all you like but it won’t change this fact!
I would point out that the president’s zip code at the time could be converted to a Connecticut zip by exchanging a “9″ and a “0″. Not much mystery there…
Please listen to the Susan Daniels interview.
Social security numbers may be accurate geographic indicators, but not always. Which is why the Social Security Administration says that social security numbers cannot be relied upon for geographic data.
Daniels, who has no particular expertise with the Social Security Administration or its practices, also has said that it impossible to get a new social security number. Yet the Social Security Administration clearly details when and how a new social security number can be obtained. It is therefore easy to conclude Daniels has no idea what she is talking about.
///bob said: Social security numbers may be accurate geographic indicators, but not always. Which is why the Social Security Administration says that social security numbers cannot be relied upon for geographic data.///
Yeah, but mine does, and so does yours. Isn’t it remarkable how often common sense laws of probability are thought to break in your messiah’s favor. Your Faith is unshakable; perhaps The One is in fact Devine? ◄Dave►
///bob said: Daniels, who has no particular expertise with the Social Security Administration or its practices, also has said that it impossible to get a new social security number. Yet the Social Security Administration clearly details when and how a new social security number can be obtained. It is therefore easy to conclude Daniels has no idea what she is talking about.///
Yeah, I’ve concluded the same about you. Has it ever occurred to you that you have been so brainwashed to respect authority and “expertise” that it has rendered you virtually incapable of thinking independently for yourself, and routinely flummoxed by those who can and do? ◄Dave►
The Social Security Administration assigns social security numbers; it knows more about the process than any other agency or person. If the Social Security Administration says that social security numbers are not reliable indicators of geographic data, then they are not.
The word of the agency that issues the social security numbers is infinitely more reliable than a few anonymous nonexperts on the Internet who refuse to believe that President Obama was born in Hawaii, is a natural-born citizen, and has been issued only one social security number.
“Obama is using a SSN that once belonged to someone else. You can twist words all you like but it won’t change this fact!”
I thought it had been shown that it was never issued? Cannot have it both ways.
Good grief, Bob. What is the point of taking Saturday night off, if you are not going to get laid, and are going to come back to work Sunday morning in a foul mood? Wouldn’t it be civil to at least thank me for the work I did for you last night, unraveling the mystery of why the Obamunist has so many SS#s ?
Or, is ACORN one of your sacred cows too? If I were in your shoes, I would be asking for the address to send the paycheck. OK, I see how it is; I’ll get serious too. I have thought of a couple more embarrassing questions to get on the record to keep your nickers in a twist. ◄Dave►
///bob said: Bounel’s name was “associated” with President Obama because Harrison Bounel was involved with the trust that owns the Obama’s property.///
Do tell? I hadn’t heard that. Another amazing coincidence, to be sure. This character’s great-grandfather roomed with Michelle’s ancestors in CT, his father banked with BHO’s grandmother in HI, he somehow ends up with BHO’s SS#, and now he is one of the owners of their Chicago house? The serendipity is astounding. ◄Dave►
Go read the original “expose” on Harrison Bounel; Bounel’s name is on trust that own the Obama’s property.
And that video only demonstrated that someone with the last name of Bounel was once a roomer with some Robinson family; the rest is pure speculation.
“Go read the original “expose” on Harrison Bounel; Bounel’s name is on trust that own the Obama’s property.”
Wait, do you have proof there is a man currently living that is named Harrison Bounel? If you do, please share with the rest of the class. As of right now, it is believed Harrison Bounel is an alias used by Barack Obama (presumably, the original Bounel is dead and Obama is using his SSN).
“And that video only demonstrated that someone with the last name of Bounel was once a roomer with some Robinson family; the rest is pure speculation.”
Somewhat. But, there are far too many “clerical errors,” “coincidences,” and “mistakes,” for us to just throw such information under the rug. The key point in that video is that “Harry Bounel” was born in Connecticut.
The “belief” that Bounel is an alias of President Obama is based on the fact that Bounel’s name was found in a public database, which is full of errors.
There is no actual evidence linking this “Harry Bounel,” who lived in Connecticut over 100 years ago, to President Obama; just speculation.
“There is no actual evidence linking this “Harry Bounel,” who lived in Connecticut over 100 years ago, to President Obama; just speculation.”
You didn’t answer my question, and I disagree with your assertions.
No link between this 19th-century Bounel and President Obama has been established, your “disagreement” notwithstanding.
I, personally, don’t know anyone named Harrison J. Bounel; that this name appears in an imperfect public database is not meaningful.
Why did his name not appear before now?
According to the debt collector guy, it shows up as being linked to that address in 2009. After the President became the President. So if I understand this correctly, in 2009 the President used an alias for his property owned by his trust. Hahaha
Is that right?
Or somebody filled out an application for a credit card and wrote that name, address, SSN (all public knowledge in 2009). Would that show up in the public databases?
Just like all those other SSN’s reported as assigned to the President.
Question # 5 – Wouldn’t Obama have lost his American citizenship, whether or not it might be considered to have been NBC, when he was adopted, moved to Indonesia, and became an Indonesian citizen? ◄Dave►
Read Perkins v. Elg.
Only he can give up his NBC status, parents cannot, and he was too young to give it up.
Thanks for the pain, Timmy. How lawyers deal with tedious case law research every day, is beyond me. I had never taken note of that case before. I read a few articles about the ruling, and encountered enough sloppy writing to conclude that I needed to go read the whole thing for myself. Very interesting.
I will concede that it finds that if Obama was in fact born on our soil, he would not have lost his citizenship by the act of his parents, and I would agree that simply showing back up as an approximately ten-year-old child to resume life here, would not require any further affirmative act on his part. He would simply have been a rare triple citizen, then domiciled in one of his three countries (or perhaps four, if he were born in Canada, which I have often, for plausible reasons, speculated).
If, on the other hand, as has been often speculated, he was still traveling abroad as a young man using an Indonesian and/or Kenyon passport (both of which he could have easily obtained), rather than an American one; or attending college here as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia, it might arguably be incumbent upon him to pick a country and declare his choice upon attaining the age of majority.
In any case, I would still contend, of course, that those are side issues, as he never was a NBC; because his alleged father conferred the status of British Subject upon him at birth: “Born a Brit – Not Legit.” What I find most interesting about the ruling, is that the court actually gave examples of citizenship classes, and ruled Elg to be a NBC; BECAUSE of the citizenship status of her parents. The example of a jus soli child born to a foreign father they referred to as “birthright” and “native born”; but Elg was “birthright” and “natural born,” because her parents were naturalized before her birth. That seems really problematic for your team, doesn’t it? ◄Dave►
“The example of a jus soli child born to a foreign father they referred to as “birthright” and “native born”; but Elg was “birthright” and “natural born,” ”
Native born and natural born are the same thing. From the ruling,
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”
Ms. Elg was both native born and natrual born.
This is exactly what the Founders said. They used both terms interchangeable.
///timmy said: This is exactly what the Founders said. They used both terms interchangeable.///
I disagree, Timmy. Natural born subsumes native born. The court found her, by noting the recently acquired naturalization of her parents, to not only be native born, but ALSO natural born. While some of the founders in their colloquy may very well have interchanged the terms, John Jay, the preeminent legal scholar of the bunch (and first Chief Justice), did not. He made his intent very clear in his letter to Washington, and an anchor baby born a subject of the Crown, most certainly wouldn’t have worked for him.
Truth be told, I doubt that the circumstances of Elg, where she was raised as a foreign citizen outside our country, would have either. He just didn’t think ahead to such possibilities, or the eligibility clause might have been a bit more verbose. In any case, there is zero doubt that he would be apoplectic at the situation we currently find ourselves in, with a usurper possessing an oft demonstrated disdain for out culture, traditions, and Constitution. At the rate they must be spinning, if we could somehow attach flywheels and gears to the interred remains of our Founders, we could probably solve the energy crisis. ◄Dave►
The courts (and other experts) have repeatedly used “native born” and “natural born” interchangeably.
Before you say he is wrong, remember that St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the battle of Yorktown. He was appointed by President Madison to United States District Court judge.
James Kent was appointed by John Jay to the New York Chancery.
Are these guys wrong but you are right?
There is no evidence President Obama was ever adopted or became an Indonesian citizen.
Evidence and Fact: The AP interviewed officials at the school he attended in Indonesia, and published photographs of his school records, where he was registered as an Indonesian citizen, under the name Barry Soetoro (his step-father’s last name), as a Muslim student.
That document is evidence that someone registered President Obama for school as “Barry Soetoro” (and as a Muslim). That is not evidence that President Obama was, in fact, adopted. Competent evidence of adoption would be adoption papers.
That school document also lists President Obama as being born in Hawaii.
Question # 6 – When Obama emigrated from Indonesia back to America, do you think he we went through the required naturalization process to regain his citizenship? ◄Dave►
Not necessary per Perkins v. Elg
There is no evidence President Obama ever lost his U.S. citizenship.
Question # 7 – If he did obey the law, and reacquired citizenship by naturalization, aren’t naturalized citizens ineligible for the office of POTUS? ◄Dave►
If he was born on American soil (something I have seen no reliable evidence of as yet) I retract this. See my response under #5 above. ◄Dave►
There is no evidence President Obama lost his U.S. citizenship that was conferred to him by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.
Question # 8 – If he failed to obey the law requiring him to become naturalized, doesn’t that make him an illegal alien, and definitely ineligible for the office of POTUS? ◄Dave►
If he was born on American soil (something I have seen no reliable evidence of so far) I retract this. See my response under #5 above. ◄Dave►
There is no evidence President Obama ever lost his U.S. citizenship; he has been a U.S. citizen (and natural-born citizen) since his birth in Hawaii.
Evidence: Ohama has been a Subject of the British Empire since birth and therefore is not a natural born citizen of the U.S.A.
President Obama lost his CUKC status at age 2.
Judges, professors, and experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship; any potential dual citizenship is irrelevant.
Question # 9 – Why did Obama lie and perjure himself on his application to the Bar, by denying he had ever used another name, when he grew up with the legal name Barry Soetoro. He admits in his own fable, that he did not adopt the name Barack Hussein Obama until an undergrad in college, about the time so many blacks were changing their names to one befitting a Black Muslim. ◄Dave►
There is no evidence President Obama ever legally changed his name to anything else, and thus his application to the Illinois bar was correct.
Evidence and Fact: The AP has reported on interviewing officials at the school he attended in Indonesia, and published photographs of his school records, where he was registered under the name Barry Soeto, as a muslim student.
That document is evidence that someone registered President Obama as “Barry Soetoro” (and as a Muslim). It is not competent evidence that President Obama legally changed his name. Competent evidence would be, for example, a court order granting a petition for a name change.
That school document also indicates President Obama was born in Hawaii.
Question # 10 – Where, when, and by what process, did young Barry legally change his name to Barack Hussein Obama? ◄Dave►
President Obama’s name has remained the same since his birth; there is no evidence that he ever legally changed his name.
Evidence and Fact: The AP interviewed officials at the school he attended in Indonesia, and published photographs of his school records, where he was registered as an Indonesian citizen, under the name Barry Soeto, as a Muslim student.
BTW: The fact that the litter left here from the Islamofascist last night has been cleaned up, is evidence that the moderators are actually now monitoring this thread, even if Bernie isn’t. They are to be commended for leaving the playpen open, for what has evolved into a remarkably good-natued debate, considering the passion of the combatants. Thank you, and please advise Bernie that he at least owes his fans a followup post, regarding his conclusion about our sanity, after starting all of this with the implication that he would use the data for something… ◄Dave►
“They are to be commended for leaving the playpen open, for what has evolved into a remarkably good-natued debate, considering the passion of the combatants.”
I guess this makes Trial into a martyr? And he wasn’t even a birther!
Dave, that’s true about them cleaning up the litter but it took them a long time to get rid of it. I first noticed it at around 7am, I figured that crap would be deleted quickly. Then I went back to the site at noon and was astonished to see it was still there. I then emailed them and told them to please scrub the racists BS that’s been in the comments section all morning long. I asked them why that stuff was still there. I checked back a couple hours later and they finnally removed it. They never emailed me back or anything. I don’t know if I’m the one who brought it to their attention or not but they need to keep a closer eye on this. I think it’s BS that stuff was allowed to stay on as long as it did.
I emailed the administrator to alert him to the vile posts that littered the site. Kudos to the administrator who removed them.
I don’t agree that Bernie owes us anything. We owe him for this treasure trove of information.
The White House claiming the short form was requested in 2008 when the date stamp on the short form says 2007=Mistake
Obama claiming the short form was released two and a half years ago hen the date stamp on the short form says 2007=Mistake
The White House linking to a fake birth certificate claiming it was authentic=Mistake
Long Form has layers and wasn’t flattened=Mistake
SSN has a zipcode for a Connecticut mailing address=Mistake
Obama claims his birth date was weeks ago=Mistake
Obama claims he was born in Hawaii=Fact
I’m still guessing he was born in Canada, but it matters not where he was born… “Born a Brit – Not Legit”
Well, this has sure been an interesting excursion down the rabbit hole…
I caught the first version of Polland’s video last night, but then it almost immediately turned into a private video and I could not view it a second time, when I wanted to get the proper spelling of his name. I wasted a lot of time fussing with my iPad thinking it’s YouTube player was on the fritz. Finally, I googled what I guessed was the spelling and came up with the whole Polarik v Polland history.
I have not spent much time on Birther or Obot sites, except WND, so I had missed all of that. I read several articles and forum posts, including the one first ‘outing’ Polarik as Polland. I found it amusing how even though he had academic credentials up the wazoo, since they weren’t in the field of digital forensics, his prodigious efforts were dismissed as inconsequential; because the Obama supporters had a ‘real’ qualified Phd who challenged his findings.
Eventually, I found his website and came across this:
Let’s just say, that if he was an amateur sleuth when he started this adventure, he is a world class expert by now. The time and effort he put into the project is remarkable. Arguably, he could now claim a doctorate in digital forensics, simply by submitting that PDF as his thesis. Do read it, and don’t give up before you get to the last page – that judicial ruling on the merits, of the case against McCain’s eligibility to be on the ballot in CA, blew me away!
Then, if you Obots want to really get your knickers in a twist, do a YouTube search on the term ‘TheDrRJP’ for a stunning array of videos he has made on the whole issue of your messiah’s phony history. I am struggling with the decision to buy his book, which I am sure would be a fascinating read. It’s not the money; but do I want to invest the time? My issue is still, “Born a Brit – Not Legit” and I still consider all this other effort a diversion. Alas, since I have read Obama’s and Corsi’s and Cashill’s and D’Souza’s books, I guess I am hooked on the mystery of who this charlatan really is, so I probably will… ◄Dave►
As usual, Polland is wrong: Robinson v. Bowen was dismissed for lack of standing.
Not exactly, Bob. Did you read the whole thing?
All poland was doing was quoting an article in the Legal Times. I searched their website and found the article, headlined exactly as Polland captured it. I couldn’t open it; because either my iPad isn’t handling java right, or it si a subscrption site. I think the latter; but the article is there, and reading the order you provided, the judge did in fact state that McCain was “highly likely” to be considered a NBC. He based his dismissal on much more than just lack of standing.
I find it curious you would focus on that issue and skip all of the other interesting and provocative details in that PDF. Not so easy to brush them aside with a quip, huh? I suspect we will be hearing much more from Dr. Polland, and that you won’t appreciate his work one bit. ◄Dave►
You should be aware Polland is persona non grata at freerepublic.com and is generally dismissed by birthers like misstickly.
Thanks, Timmy. I appreciate the heads up. For the spectator, it is difficult to distinguish the heroes from the villains in this arena. I’ll be sure to chew thoroughly before swallowing; but I must say that his PDF above demonstrates more genuine effort at seeking credible explanations and dispelling myths, than most of what I have encountered among the spinners and Kool-aid quaffers from either side. His indictment against the so-called fact checking websites is pretty compelling. For Bob to read it and only choose to challenge his reference to an obscure court ruling, is telling indeed. ◄Dave►
I’ve read the ruling; the court very plainly stated it dismissed the suit because the plaintiff lacked standing. The court also said McCain was likely a natural-born citizen, which is unsurprising as most experts agree that two citizens parents is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. (All experts agree birth within the United States is also sufficient.)
But for Polland to suggest that McCain’s eligibility was decided “on the merits” is simply wrong. As for the other parts of Polland’s “analysis,” actual digital forensic experts have explained how Polland’s pseudoscience is junk.
You are being silly, Bob. All experts do not agree with either proposition. Polland was able to create a perfect match of Obama’s COLB from scratch, without using the one purportedly posted by the Obama campaign. It was so good in fact, that the White House downloaded it and made copies of it for the press, claiming it was a photocopy of Obama’s own COLB. That in and of itself must call in to question whether the original was scanned or manufactured.
By your definition, anyone who attained citizenship at birth is a NBC, and the only other class is Naturalized, which could not possibly been what our Founders intended. You are suggesting that a tourist, subject to a foreign jurisdiction, could have a child here by accident; take him back home a week later and raise him in a completely alien culture, speaking a different language, etc. Then, he could come back as a dual citizen at age 21, spend 14 years learning how to read a teleprompter in English, and then be eligible to run for President.
This is not what our Founders were thinking. They wished to restrict the eligibility to those culturally an American, with no divided loyalties, not open it up to foreign nationals with divided loyalties. Hell, a naturalized kid raised here as an american from infancy would be better than that. You make no sense, and there are plenty of “experts” who disagree with you. ◄Dave►
All legal experts agree that birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship, and most experts agree that birth to two U.S. citizen parents is also sufficient. You claim there are experts who disagree with this, but you cite none. Please name them, and provide their bona fides.
If Polland is half as skillful with digital manipulation software as he claims to be, his ability to replicate an image is unimpressive. And this replication does not logically demonstrate that the State of Hawaii did not provide President Obama with a COLB, or a long form birth certificate. Especially in light of the State of Hawaii repeatedly and expressly stating President Obama was born in Hawaii.
There you go with your mantra again, Bob. No, all experts do not agree. It is pointless to cite anyone with an opinion which differs with you and your ilk; I have tried that and it only invites ad hominem from you toward their character or credentials. You repeatedly ignore logical arguments and embarrassing questions, and return to your tedious mantras and the superiority of your team’s credentials over anyone offering a dissenting opinion. It is not the mark of incompetence to disagree with you, Bob. Quite the contrary.
I have repeatedly remarked that I used to live in Hawaii, the government there is in total control of the Democratic Party, and at least as corrupt as Chicago politics. I place about as much credence in the pronouncements of the bureaucrats in the HDOH, as you do in all the researchers who have repeatedly demonstrated how phony the online documents are. Here, I just came across this yesterday. I am not the only one questioning their veracity:
You failed to name a single expert that disagrees with the simple proposition that birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. I am more than willing to consider the opinion of a bona fide expert, but you have provided none. And noting the flaws of the credentials of a self-anointed “expert” is a common method to separate actual experts from the flim-flam artists.
Your opinion of the State of Hawaii’s government in no way affects how the courts would view the documents certified by the State of Hawaii; any court in the country would accept President Obama’s COLB as legal, valid, and sufficient proof of his Hawaiian birth. And nothing in Polland’s piece indicates any falsity by the State of Hawaii.
You have yet to make a logical argument, or ask an embarrassing question.
Thanks Dave. That video pointed out something I had forgotten:
“When asked about Obama’s birth certificate, Okubo told Hollyfield that ‘a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008,’ but she wouldn’t specify by whom.”
The White House, Obama, and Okubo all stated the COLB WAS REQUESTED IN 2008! THE WHITE HOUSE HAS PUT UP A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT ON THEIR SITE! The date stamp (marked 2007) irrefutably proves this point!
The people who requested it were more than likely from Obama’s communication team. I’m guessing it was Daniel Pfieffer (the one who wrote the April 27 white house release) and Robert Gibbs (the one who put up the COLB online).
Are you sure about this?
///bob said: You have yet to make a logical argument, or ask an embarrassing question.///
New rules, Bob. See my response in new post above. ◄Dave►
I am currently reading Dr. Polland’s new book, “Alias Barak Obama – A Lie is Born.” (available on Amazon as an e-book) He references that very Politifact article in an interesting discussion regarding their complicity in this whole fraud, and how the issue of a middle name of Muhammad was a false flag rumor, to give them something easy to refute and tie the veracity of the BC in with it. Although, I haven’t gotten to the details, he asserts that it was Okubo’s own COLB that was used as a template to fabricate the original forgery. ◄Dave►
“Last year, I spoke with the Hawaii State Registrar, himself, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, who provided me with the following bit of information, when I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 COLB, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it.
He said, “Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”
“Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.”
Sounds almost like a confession, lol.
**BREAKING** White House posts copy of birth certificate I forged!
Let’s (charitably) take Polland at his word that the White House did, in fact, take from snopes.com an image that Polland had created. So?
Polland replicated an image based on the original; if he’s half the “expert” he thinks he is, that should no problem.
But part two — where Polland explains why WND’s “experts” are all wrong — looks to be fun!
“The “scan” images that his Campaign and Administration posted online are forgeries that were sent to them. They never sent out any “scan image” of Obama’s COLB because Obama never had one to scan or photograph.
Over a year ago, I posted videos on my YouTube Channel that show, in real-time, how I forensically reconstructed the COLB scan and the COLB photos, in the ONLY way that they could have been made.
It took me two years, 2,000 hours, and 1,400+ image tests to confirm that
NO SCANNER ON THE PLANET CAN MAKE A SCAN IMAGE LIKE IT AND NO GENUINE HAWAIIAN COLB SCAN LOOKS ANYTHING LIKE IT.
A cut-and-paste response that does not refute the central problems with Polland’s “thesis”: President Obama’s campaign released images of the COLB in 2008, and the State of Hawaii repeatedly and expressly stated President Obama was born there.
“If Obama has his Certification of Live Birth and his Campaign had actually scanned it and posted it on their website, then WHY did the White House distribute an image that they never had and never made?”
President Obama obviously had a digital image of his COLB in 2008; it was on his campaign’s site.
As for why in 2011 the White House used an image from snopes.com, the most obvious answer is that it was easier to just jump online and grab an image.
And who is “Dr. Poland”?
Please explain why the short form can be seen behind the long form:
Images of an unknown provenance. How compelling.
“Obama Short-Form Certificate Visible Through Long-Form Certificate”
So says an anonymous poster on a conspiracy-theory site. How compelling.
Would you like more links?
If all you have is images of unknown provenances from birther sites, then no.
You’re free to try it for yourself. I just took one of the High Resolution images of the LFBC, put it in GIMP, and replicated the process. Others have used Photoshop and MS Paint.
“But part two — where Polland explains why WND’s “experts” are all wrong — looks to be fun!”
lol. You misinterpreted what Polarik wrote. What he’s saying is he’s going to reproduce the anomalies the “experts” can’t figure out. What he is proving is that the long form was man-made!
Expect the video today!
“What he is proving is that the long form was man-made!”
Was there ever any doubt that the long form was “man-made”?
“I made Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate”
Now, that was certainly interesting!
I can’t wait for the Obot explanation of that…
“This video has been removed by the user.”
*BREAKING* White House posts copy of birth certificate I forged!
it doesn’t matter what i believe. it matters that he has done a really poor job of answering the question. it’s a simple question that should have a simple answer. so….the real question is: why is the question to hard for him to answer?
i love a good mystery.
to my knowledge there is nothing in the bible that directly equates the Antichrist with Satan. the word “Antichrist” is only used once. other terms = with Antichrist are beast, false prophet, deceiver (also used to describe Satan), man of sin, etc.
the bible also warns of false christs and false prophets before the Antichrist appears.
it is interesting, if you like a good mystery, that the prophecies about the Antichrist are almost a mirror to the prophecies about the 12th Imam.
Well, now that THAT’S all settled…. I compliment both sides on research skills, but still conclude birthers are misspending their passion. Again, even if you’re right (BO born in Kenya, or in Asia, or in another galaxy), and a fed court agrees, likely outcome is dismissal because impeachment is exclusive remedy for forced removal of Pres. 12th Amendment is also a problem for you. But if you folks feel there is explosive revelation that will cook his goose, fine, it’s your dime.
Why isn’t Bernie posting responses? My guess is he was interested in the passion out there, but lost interest very early. Even those of us with some academic interest see this go round and round, endless source material, vitriol both ways, all leading nowhere. his final question is not mocking Christians, it’s mocking those who are taking hatred of Obama, or fealty to (one’s own view of) the Constitution, to fanatical levels.
Ron, I’m doing my part. 1800+.
Trial left this comment on my blog for you:
Can anyone fill me in as to how and why he got banned here? As such goes, I thought for the most part we were having a rather good natured and civil debate hereabouts. Did I miss something? ◄Dave►
Have I lumped the NCB folks in with birthers? Sorry, must be tired. Made the point over 1000 posts ago, where Dean Haskins says he wants BO arrested. Both theories run into the same brick wall-So he was born in HI to american “hippy dippy mother” (National Review’s phrase) and foreign dad, or not born here at all. How does this change anything? He’s still occupying the oval office, and you have no recourse to remove him except by voting him out in ’12. Period. I’m repeating myself, but find yourself a fed judge to rule he’s not an NCB (ask Ted Olsen to help choose the judge). I count 0 SCOTUS justices who’d try to remove him, leaving you… 5 votes short. Conservative wing will say this is political question, and Minor not binding. Moderate wing (NYTimes phrase) like Ginsburg will probably say NCB=citizen, they’ve never let that Original intent stuff stop a living constitution. Can’t really know the future, but you get a fed judge to agree and then we’ll see. Defeatist on what? On removing BO because he’s not an NCB? I never saw it as a prospect. On beating him in ’12? To the contrary, we will beat him the old fashioned way- the dem will lose by governing so badly, even the press can’t hide the pain. He’s on his way now. The irony is that Republicans would like to help the economy by shrinking gov’t, and he won’t let them. I believe you folks are harming rather than helping because you’re so hell bent on this stuff, it allows the MSM to show Rs as crazy. But it won’t matter if BO continues on his current path out.
/// Paul Courtney said: I count 0 SCOTUS justices who’d try to remove him, leaving you… 5 votes short. Conservative wing will say this is political question, and Minor not binding. Moderate wing (NYTimes phrase) like Ginsburg will probably say NCB=citizen, they’ve never let that Original intent stuff stop a living constitution. ///
You know, Paul… thinking about it, I suspect your are right. We are embarked on a fool’s errand, as this is a political question, not a judicial one. We need a clause in a founding document that is not subject to judicial interpretation. Such as:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
” …it is their duty…” yet, given the narcotic of ‘entitlement’ income redistribution, I am afraid the challenge is insurmountable by any normal political process. We are going to have to start thinking like John Galt. Shrug off the parasites, get out of the fools’ way to let the corrupt system crash ASAP, and then rebuild at least a portion of our Republic from the ground up, without the slightest regard to the desires of the whining altruists.
Live Free Or Die… because we who choose Liberty over security, aren’t going to feed you anymore. Those who have been crippled by altruistic hogwash, will just have to get over their expectation of a free lunch, and become productive members of a free society, or perish. C’est la vie… Here’s looking forward to the crash… bring it on… ◄Dave►
I read enough of Mark Steyn to know “the world’s been shaved by a drunken barber” (Walter Brennan, MEET JOHN DOE, 1940). And I believe him. But there is a difference between perceiving a coming apocolypse (from a half dozen angles, none of which relate to Obama’s NCB status) and rooting for it. I take little satisfaction in telling you that you’ve made my point about harming rather than helping.
Fox News reporter Jana Winter committed libel to make the BC look like a non-issue:
O’Reilly staked his professional reputation on Mr. Obama being constitutionally eligible to be president, then proceeded to lie. The segment was scrubbed:
C’mon Mr. Courtney. I anxiously await your reply.
Also, what do you think of Trial’s argument concerning Sarah Palin? The media went crazy for her e-mails which were obtained through a FOIA request. Why doesn’t any journalist want to know about Obama’s past? Why isn’t any investigative journalist willing to, ya know, investigate?
Awaiting my reply, Mr. Dead President? Let me get presentable…. So Barry Sotero took time from his important work in the 90′s to set this up? Or was it when Grandma asked for and got a HI birth cert (which would make it an authentic document obtained by fraud, meaning all this effort spent on proving it’s forged is wasted and… oh, spare me). My reply is that all this, ALL OF IT, leads nowhere, and your links do not change that. There must be something about conspiracy stuff that causes loss of perspective. Do you really think a journalist running full bore with this “story” makes a difference? You think Fox is in on the suppression game, did you miss their coverage of the Trump for Pres. campaign (mercifully over in just a few weeks). Why’d the story die then? Lou Dobbs tried, got fired (I know that just feeds the fire), but if this was a story, it would have got picked up. As I said about 1900 posts ago, you folks have nurtured a hate of Obama into a level approaching Bush derangement. You won’t get to the first step toward removing him by Nov. ’12, when he loses, and I hope for your full recovery thereafter. As for Sarah, the email fiasco was a symptom of Palin derangement, in the end the press looked foolish. How’s it working for you?
Poor Paul. I really do feel sorry for you. Either you haven’t been keeping up with the comments in this thread, or you’re purposely trying to obfuscate the truth. Are you saying that all the experts (including Fox News Contributor Major General Paul Vallely, who stated- I’ve had retired CIA Agents and Investigators look at Obama’s birth certificate and 10 out of 10 say it is fraudulent) that say the birth certificates are forgeries are just plain wrong? How much research have YOU done on this issue? It must be nice to live in a bubble.
“So Barry Sotero took time from his important work in the 90′s to set this up? Or was it when Grandma asked for and got a HI birth cert”
Ya know what? You’re just like those liberals who try to claim what “birthers” believe just to try and make them look silly. Please, do some research for yourself before making idiotic statements.
If you had been keeping up with the comments, you would know this. The short form has a date stamp on it of 2007 despite the White House, Obama, and Okubo claiming the short form was requested in 2008.
More than likely, the Obama campaign (specifically Dan Pfeiffer and Gibbs) “requested” the forged document and used Okubo’s as the original. Please compare the date stamps. Please compare the borders between 2007 and 2008 COLB’s. Please see the fake COLB the White House has linked to on their site. Please see the many expert analyses on the Long form proving that the LF has been edited.
But hey, you can ignore all the evidence in this thread and say it’s not important if that’s what helps you sleep at night.
Thank you for your sympathy, but trying to keep up with the comments on this thread have done wonders for my sleep. Obfuscation ? Isn’t that when someone says “ok, so it’s forged, now what?” and you say “but it’s forged, haven’t you done your research?” Since you missed it, here it is again- so it’s forged, and he was born in Kenya, but he’s not resigning. You and your friends have no answer to this. I have done the research necessary to demonstrate that you folks have no remedy, even if all you say is true. At least Dean Haskins (arrest) and Dave (crash) replied, you ducked (or obfuscated). None of you seem to see that you are going nowhere with this, and getting more shrill or derisive doesn’t impress anyone outside the choir. As I say, it’s your dime, but don’t delude yourself that you’re helping to defeat Obama in “12.
“and getting more shrill or derisive doesn’t impress anyone outside the choir.”
I wish you would practice what you preach.
“At least Dean Haskins (arrest) and Dave (crash) replied, you ducked (or obfuscated). ”
LOL. I answered your questions time and time again. All you do is cover your ears and say, “I don’t want to hear it!”
It’s simple- gain public sentiment and get an investigation going. So far, I’ve only seen Fox News reporter Paul E. Vallely take this step. Donald Trump proved that getting a public figure on your side helped “force” the President’s hands. And hey, a Congressional investigation would be great too.
You can disagree with what I write, but I really do wish you would stop with the lies (I didn’t duck, I answered then YOU ducked). And please, stop giving “us people” (“my friends” “NCB folks” “you people”) your patronizing labels. Your condensation only helps prove my points.
“LATER TODAY OR TOMORROW AT THE LATEST (OBAMA’S PHONY BIRTHDAY)…BE PREPARED FOR A MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE BIRTHER SUMMIT ORGANIZERS!..THIS STORY WILL BE EXPLOSIVE!…”
Interesting. I know they got themselves a hold of some FOIA documents they haven’t revealed to anyone yet. I wonder what they’re going to do.
ANY! DAY! NOW!
You bring up an excellent point bob! The media is covering for Obama!
“UPDATE: (11:45 A.M. PST) JUST RECEIVED WORD THAT THIS MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE MONDAY!
IT WILL MAKE MAJOR NEWS!”
All weekend plans have been canceled so the appropriate amount of bullets may be sweated.
No need to sweat, Bob; you guys are pros and there will always be work for you. They will just reassign you to Project Gunrunner or something. I should think you must be bored with this one by now anyway.
Speaking of weekends, I noticed you got Sunday off. Who has the duty this coming weekend?
Jesse Lee does not know Dave’s mom.
So much for the “PDF Optimization” defense. See link below in which Dr Corsi blows that theory out of the water.
What are the names of these “experts”?
Dunno, don’t care. If your going to scrutinize, then scrutinize their data. I don’t care who points it out, if it makes sense then it’s worth further investigation. What is stated in this article makes good sense to me and I believe it merrits further analysis and investigation from some kind of agency, say the FBI perhaps.
Please excuse bob. He still can’t get over the OCR dealio that the anti-birthers hanged onto like it was part of a supposed infallible belief system.
BTW, why do you think bob is posting on this site?
I dunno why Bob is posting to this site. I must admit, I do like arguing with liberals though. I like reminding them there are plenty of people in this country who don’t buy thier BS. It’s ammusing to see how serious these obots are in defending Obamer to the hilt. I mean, this guy can do no wrong and that’s what is kinda scarey, to have someone in power whom apparently can get away with anything and isn’t really held accountable. That can be a very dangerous thing, if you look back through history.
JR, the non-expert, thinks other anonymous non-experts make sense.
Bob, I’m no more of an expert than you are. However, I’m apparently way more open minded than you and your obot counterparts. Apparently the only person you will listen too is..well nobody. The fact of the matter is WND once again is offereing compelling evidence of forgery and all you want to do is critisize. Take WND out of your mind and seriously look at the analysis offered in the article, then come up with on obot excuse. I mean, yes, they say it’s “expert” anaylis but I don’t care if its by an official court approved, certified, member of blah blah blah society,etc. If someone points out and brings evidence of forgery to the worlds attention, that’s good news and it deserves to be looked at seriously.
Since you are open minded what do you think of this video.
LOL. The layers argument? You CAN’T be serious gorefan.
Missing the point again LOL, the video shows how optimizing without OCR or tampering creates all the layers.
Many more then the “expert” who wrote the WND report.
“If someone points out and brings evidence of forgery to the worlds attention, that’s good news and it deserves to be looked at seriously.”
Just like all the “experts” who bring “evidence” that the Holocaust never happened, we never landed on the moon, and planes didn’t take down the Twin Towers.
They’re calling the Obots from fogbow liars.
I missed no point. All you want to do is spread disinformation. Jesse Lee must be proud.
“They’re calling the Obots from fogbow liars”
Wow what a impartial group. Everyone one of these guys has been a birther for years, with maybe the exception of Albert Einstein Renshaw Ph.D. (BTW, did you know that is actually his name, he doesn’t have a Ph.D.. That’s his legal name, LOL). So it is not surprising that they know how to feed into your delusions.
Have you made any donations to Orly, WND, or ORYR? LOL
Uh-oh. Looks like gorefan couldn’t debate the facts so had to rely on character assassination.
Joseph M. Newcomer, the man who exposed the “Killian documents” in the Rathergate scandal, is not a “birther.”
Jesse Lee is very upset with you.
“Newcomer stressed that he was relying on published charges that the Obama birth certificate was fraudulent, including the analysis by scanner expert Doug Vogt and by typography expert Paul Irey.”
“Newcomer told WND that health issues would not permit him to undertake the type of rigorous analysis of the Obama birth certificate that he attempted in 2004 with the Killian documents.”
And of course there is Irey,
Irey: … I started to study it, knowing it had to be a forgery, and just looking for what I could find.
Foggy: You knew it was a forgery before you started studying it?…
Irey: Yes, yes. I knew it was a forgery.
Foggy: How’d you know that?
Irey: I had information from a government worker who had a friend at one of the agencies who come back to me after we had a big debate during the time Obama had been, uh, announced for office [inaudible] legitimacy, where’s the birth certificate? We were talking about that way back when, and he debated with me. Went down to his agency and advised me that, uh, that I was right basically. That there was no birth certificate in the records. But his agency was not going to, uh, do anything about it more or less. So I kind of went in with his background. It sort of converted his attitude. I could tell how his attitude changed after that, because he was no longer supporting Obama. I was supporting Colin Powell….
Foggy: I’m not asking you to identify the guy, but can you tell us like what agency? Was it an intelligency agency? I mean can you give us a hint?
Irey: Yes, I can. It was the Secret Service.
Irey: As you know, the Secret Service is, one of their responsibilities is to vet. …
Wow, he knew it was a forgery before he studied it. He doesn’t even try to hide his impartiality.
Hey, why are you guys changing the subject? I’m pretty sure the readers here are smart enough to figure out what you’re trying to do.
Jesse Lee is very upset with you two (especially bob).
Then there is Mara Zebest, aka mzebest
#503 mzebest on 07.25.08 at 6:26 pm
#489 Firebelle Puma
I am a contributing author and Technical Editor (mostly the latter) for many books that instruct on how to use Adobe programs and Microsoft Office programs. If you go to amazon.com and type in my name in the search (Mara Zebest) you will see most of the books I’ve worked on. Their search engine doesn’t show all of them though.
#462mzebest on 08.22.08 at 6:19 pm
In regards to the Berg case today
Just a thought — but what if there was a large public outcry in the form of many emails flooding the judge’s office in which we respectfully state our case that we’re tired of the judicial system overlooking the fact that this candidate does not meet the minimum qualifications of citizenship and we want the law to recognize this when appropriate to do so.
Would it be wise to consider such a prowl?
You actually changed the subject with this post.
August 3, 2011 | 3:34 pm
I missed no point. All you want to do is spread disinformation. Jesse Lee must be proud.
Looks like you know something about disinformation.
Just like they say in the video, when someone debunks the layer argument brought up by the anti-birthers, they resort to character assassination.
Gorefan, do you know anyone who has replicated the layering exactly as shown in Obama’s Long Form? No one is disputing that it’s possible to get layers.
Go back to fogbow and Jesse Lee. You sir have failed miserably.
“do you know anyone who has replicated the layering exactly as shown in Obama’s Long Form?”
Do you know anyone who used the same scanner software and who knows specifically which options were used by the Whitehouse?
It makes a difference as this real expert explained,
“There are an infinite number of ways to store an image in a PDF document, and the PDF encoding system used to create the PDF decided to use this method. This isn’t even odd or abnormal. It is strictly dependent on the encoding system and encoding parameters. Even choices like “apply color profile”, “optimize for printer”, “use this paper size”, and “export as PDF” vs “Save as PDF” can seriously tweak how the final PDF is generated; it usually isn’t as simple as scaling or recoloring.”
Even the model of scanner is important information as explained by one of WND’s computer experts, Vicky Nicks.
“If the White House were willing to release the model of scanner used to scan the birth certificate, it would be possible to debunk this claim with no doubt whatsoever. Without the exact model of scanner used, we can not specifically refute the claim as pertaining to the President’s birth certificate scan.”
Hey, you’re the one who stated:
“the video shows how optimizing without OCR or tampering creates all the layers.”
This is a lie; it’s disinformation. The video shows how layers CAN be created. That’s it.
Btw, how upset is Jesse Lee right now?
Jesse Lee is sweet as pie.
“This is a lie; it’s disinformation. The video shows how layers CAN be created. That’s it.”
From video – 2:40
“I’m going to use something I never use. This is called optimized scanned file. I’m just going to use all the defaults like some office guy might.”
See no OCR, just optimzed.
Well, at least we know that someone in the moderation department has finally visited the comment thread, although there is no way to know if it was Bernie. My original letter to him, which languished for over a week ‘awaiting moderation,’ was finally deleted from both threads on Sunday.
Just for drill, in case he never saw it, I have edited out the http header on the too many references I offered him, which is what hung it up in moderation, and will now resubmit it for his consideration:
No, I am not and would never wish to be a professional lawyer. I detest neckties and eschew those who adorn pencil necks with the infernal contraptions; but I could steer you to several who vehemently disagree with your opinion. They no doubt would be delighted and honored to be interviewed by an imminent professional journalist; another honorific I thankfully can’t claim. Nor am I a professional pundit; but I am a voracious reader, a consummate thinker, and a professional red-blooded American Patriot, which gives me every right to an informed opinion or two of my own.
We are the same age and ever since I read your first book, I have always appreciated your willingness to speak your truth to power, regardless of the social consequences. I reckon you to be a good guy; so I would like to believe that you do not intend to insult my intelligence with your knee-jerk dismissive attitude toward anyone still questioning Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS. For me, the place and/or documentation of his birth were never issues; but his manifest ineligibility was and still is.
Unlike many, I choose not to believe that you, of all people, are part of some media conspiracy to ignore and/or obscure the increasingly obvious fact that Obama is indeed ineligible; and that we are now facing a Constitutional crisis, which could have been easily avoided had, before his election, the Fourth Estate properly done their jobs. Concurring with your frequent observation that the myopic Left-leaning press is not a cabal, but simply creatures of their environs, I suspect a similar handicap; because you undoubtedly share my disdain for wild conspiracy theories, and grow weary of their fanatical proponents.
They appear to waste their time, and try to waste ours, with ever increasingly fantastical claims, which are easily refuted with only a modicum of research. E.g. I am so turned-off by the so-called ‘Truther’ crowd, that my mind immediately snaps shut every time I encounter one. I long ago looked into many of their claims, applied a little critical thinking, and dismissed the subject as silly. The risk, of course, is that there might be a kernel of truth being obscured by the overwhelming nonsense, which my prejudices may now never allow me to discover.
I could readily accept the idea of a coverup of foreknowledge of the plot; but to suggest that GWB et al planned the attack and had demolition charges awaiting it, stretches credulity beyond the limits of my imagination. Perhaps you share a similar prejudice toward some of the dimwits in the so-called ‘Birther’ movement (I shall hereinafter refer to it as the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) controversy), who have propagated some ridiculous and easily refutable nonsense. However, much of it may just be carelessly parroted disinformation, deliberately inserted into the fray to discredit more serious research (E.g. the phony Kenya birth certificate (BC) admittedly produced by an Obama supporter).
A natural born skeptic, I deploy an uncommonly open mind in the process of forming my own opinions, rather than accept uncritically the pronouncements of so-called experts. Once thus earned, I am quite prepared to defend them; but I still endeavor to remain open to the possibility of error, and changing an opinion when new data presents itself. Yet, I am not sure what it would take to get me to waste any further time revisiting the 9/11 Truth conspiracy; so I think I understand where you are coming from.
Still, I am at a loss to explain why your old news hound’s latent curiosity is failing to notice that the NBC controversy is growing exponentially with the latest release of an Obama BC, when it should have subsided. I would like to believe that you have not bothered to read any of the many evidence-laden charges posted at WND, by purported experts and amateur ‘Rather-gate’ type sleuths alike, rather conclusively proving to even the critical reader that it was a rank forgery, and not a very good one.
That, in and of itself, is a news item of epic proportions, for which even Fox News is losing credibility among once loyal and devoted viewers, for deliberately ignoring. Are there no honest and/or fearless investigative journalists left anywhere in the media? It is viral out here in the Patriot/TEA Party community, and those who once found the NBC controversy crowd embarrassing, can’t help asking themselves, “Why on Earth he would have taken such a risk, if a valid BC proving his nativity narrative actually existed?” Have you? Doesn’t it suggest that there just might be something to the NBC controversy?
This puts me at pains to think of what I could possibly offer to entice you into investing about an hour, with your mind pried open at least a crack; so that you have a fair opportunity to learn that your prejudices may need a little rearranging. The only thing I can think of, is the potential that you might could slide past O’Reilly, in fame if not fortune (although it could spawn your next bestseller), and earn the undying gratitude of the very folks most likely to buy and read your books. I have a plan that could make you a hero. All you have to lose by exploring it is an hour of time; the upside potential is enormous. Game?
You see, the eligibility issue has never represented a conspiracy to me. I have been irrepressibly fascinated by the subject since the moment I first heard that Obama’s father was a British subject, visiting America on a student visa. It happens that my younger sister is not a NBC, because she was born in a civilian hospital in Munich, Germany, while my father was stationed there during the occupation after WWII (1947).
Some 55 years ago, it was not thought necessary to have a Law degree and a library full of ‘case law’ books to be able to ‘interpret’ our Constitution. Written in rather plain English, it was generally thought at the time to mean exactly what it said; so, with a little help from a dictionary for the occasional archaic word, it was assumed to be easily taught (line by line as I recall) to any average junior high student. Thus, I can still remember clearly the day when my teacher revealed the startling detail that my sister and I had different classes of citizenship.
He specifically taught us that to be a NBC required BOTH one’s parents to have been American citizens, AND one’s birth must have taken place on sovereign American territory. Interestingly, I recall him explaining how an American embassy was considered our sovereign territory too. I even remember discussing my surprise at this information with my parents that night. They allowed as how it was unlikely that my sister would ever want to be President, and in every other respect her citizenship was the equal of mine. Thus, if I were to have forgotten every other detail of our Constitution, the proper definition of NBC would still be indelibly etched in my mind.
From day one, when Larry Johnson (whom I had liked and respected from his past frequent appearances on Fox News) was leading Hillary’s PUMA opposition researchers in unraveling Obama’s phony nativity narrative, and started the NBC controversy; I have been ranting and blogging that, while what they were uncovering was stunning, it was irrelevant. It mattered not a whit where he was born, or that he lost his American citizenship upon becoming an Indonesian citizen as a child. By definition alone, he was not a NBC, because he was born a British subject. Period. Full stop. Fini.
You cite Wikipedia as your sole source, for flippantly dismissing the subject after reading an incomplete quote therein from Madison. The Wiki is a notoriously unreliable source, especially for topics such as this, because partisans are forever rewriting its articles to spin their side of a debatable issue. It is great for a quick overview of a new subject, and I do frequently use it as a starting point for research. It rather nicely aggregates links to reference material and alternative research sites; but I have learned never to regard it as authoritative, and I would regard doing so as a bit sloppy for a reporter.
Are you ready for your shot at Journalist of the Year? If nothing else, you may gain a better insight into the demographics of the purchasers and readers of your books, which being cloistered in NYC may hamper. Here is your assignment. First, read my recent essay at:
It won’t be a waste of time. One commenter recently remarked:
“That is the best synopsis and logical article I have read … gets to the heart of the matter and offers a practical recourse in the hands of the people themselves. I have turned the article into a PDF (& added a little artwork) that should be easy for everyone to send by email to as many people as they can. The PDF is available on my site at:
As a PDF it can also be easily printed and passed around that way too.”
When I went to his website, I found it featured on the front page introduced thusly:
“Editor :: This article is a MUST-READ. Dave Hunter hits the nails right on the head with a factual, logical and easily understood article explaining the history, mechanics and remedy concerning the usurpation of the Whitehouse (sic) and the overthrow of the American republic. Make sure you pass this on to everyone you can.”
When you get to the place where I suggest what Donald Trump or Sarah Palin et al could do to change the course of history, plug your own name in alongside theirs. Then, after finishing reading the downside in the “Aftermath” section, ponder long and hard as to whether, if you were to become convinced Obama was not a NBC, you have enough moxie to ask for the podium at the National Press Club, and cajole at least C-Span and Fox News into having their cameras rolling. If not, go back to sleep and peace be upon you. I am sorry to have disturbed you.
If so, you are on the hero’s path. You will now need to do the independent research necessary to become absolutely convinced that my junior high history teacher was teaching us the truth. Before embarking on your journey, permit me to offer an observation or two regarding the only obstacles you will encounter – slime drenched prevaricating lawyers. Fortunately, Obama’s fatal tactical error, of walking up to the microphone and personally vouching for the fraudulent birth certificate on April, 27th, will render them toothless in the end game; but we have to get you past their obfuscation in your own mind, before you can initiate it.
First, you will need to decide if you are an Originalist regarding the meaning of the plain language in our Constitution – that the words therein mean exactly what our Founders intended them to mean when they penned this contract. Or, do you buy the Progressive notion that it is somehow a ‘living document,’ which can be reinterpreted by arbitrary judicial fiat from time to time, to reflect evolving societal paradigms, without needing bother with the cumbersome Amendment process. If you agree with ‘Original Intent,’ you remain on the hero’s path.
Please understand that respect for common sense, truth, and real justice were discarded from the legal profession long ago. They have been replaced by an unholy reverence for procedure, plausible deniability, and precedent. Ignoring any latent sense of justice, the esteem a modern lawyer earns from his peers, is strictly based on how effective he is at employing every trick in their tool bag, to prevent a client from losing in court, regardless of the facts of a case.
A dismissal over some arcane procedural issue is celebrated equally with an acquittal. Coercing a defendant to settle a nuisance lawsuit out of court, because it is cheaper and far less time consuming than fighting it, is the equivalent of winning on the merits to these characters. Tying up the courts and righteous plaintiffs for years, with dilatory procedural tactics to run out the clock and run up their fees, rather than allow the merits of the case to be addressed in court, is reckoned just good lawyering.
Thus, Obama has spent a couple of million dollars, much of it probably ours, in legal fees over the past three years; and allowed a Constitutionally conscious military officer, merely upholding his own oath, to actually go to prison, just to prevent having to do what he subsequently casually did on April 27th. Honestly ask yourself why, while listening carefully to your intuitive gut, and you will remain on the hero’s path.
Then realize that this is no less than a SCOTUS issue. They have never found a need to rule on the actual definition of NBC; but they are still permitted to use common sense. Since the Constitution very definitely makes a distinction between a ‘citizen’ (required for legislative office), and a ‘NBC’ (required for CinC) doesn’t that in an of itself suggest that they are not meant to refer to one and the same thing thing as Obama’s defenders suggest? There is no way to legitimately mangle the 14th Amendment in a manner that would in any way modify the Founder’s obvious intent in the NBC clause. Thus, the SCOTUS’ primary resource for divining what they intended, would of necessity be a contemporary English dictionary.
Failing that, they would need to seek a written definition in other contemporary texts, especially legal texts. Enter Vattel’s, “The Law of Nations,” (1758) and first translated into English in 1760. It not only defines the term precisely; but while a newborn’s citizenship customarily followed the father’s back then, he actually used the plural ‘parents’ when defining NBC. You might appreciate the comments regarding our Founders familiarity and use of this legal scholar’s book at:
Dig deep enough, and you should come to the realization that had Vattel not conveniently provided a precise term for the concept John Jay was requesting be placed into the qualifications of CinC, they would undoubtedly have articulated their intent more verbosely. Then, note Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 or our Constitution; to wit:
“[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”
Now, pray tell, since they ‘neglected’ to define this term also (suggesting there was not the slightest dispute regarding its meaning among them); what do you suppose they meant by ‘Law of Nations?’ Would we need to go through a lot of contorted legal research and lawyerly review of a couple of hundred years of subsequent ‘case law,’ to reach and informed opinion as to their intent here? Or might we be permitted to use a little common sense and Occam’s razor, to conclude they were referring to the same subject matter as the book by that name, which they were using as a valued reference for their task at the time?
My point is, that once all the dilatory tactics have run their course, and some brave judge finally agrees to hear the merits of one of the dozens of cases that keep getting dismissed on various procedural grounds (chief among them that a mere American citizen lacks ‘standing’ to challenge the eligibility of one of our employees for high office), these clever legal eagles will immediately switch gears. Then will begin the obfuscating blizzard of legal briefs, trying to shoehorn obscure dicta within various obscure ‘case law’ lower court decisions, to suggest that some obscure partisan judge in the past, has effectively modified the plain meaning of the term NBC as used within their plastic Constitution.
One already encounter’s such arguments from young Obama friendly attorneys, who have been programed in modern law school not to think for themselves; but to seek answers to all legal questions within their ‘case law’ libraries. Don’t swallow their arguments without chewing first. I assure you that there are plenty of old guard Constitutional scholars and attorneys, who will vociferously disagree with them. Find them before reaching your own conclusions, and you shall remain on the hero’s path.
Since you are obligated to check out my quotes and assertions anyway, I will leave you now to your own due diligence. Here are a few good places to start:
I would appreciate a reply, if you can find the time, to let me know if you are interested; or why not? Else, I’ll need to expand my search for our savior. Remember, the first one to the podium wins the grand prize. I am also curious if you folks writing books for this genre ever bother to read each other’s work. Have you read any of the three I mentioned in my essay? Which; and what did you think of them?
I would think Cashill’s exposé in particular, would rub honest scribes the wrong way, no matter their politics. Obama must serve some powerfully potent Kool-Aid! I find it puzzling how little coverage any of them got in the media, yet all were seriously researched efforts, by well-credentialed and accomplished writers.
Thank you for posting this, and also the link to your essay. Both are very informative and you make some excellent points. We got plenty of evidence suggesting Obama is a usurper, we just need some mainstream media folks like Bernie to literally just spend an hour doing some serious and honest research, and maybe they will start to see the light. Although I do have my theory in which I don’t think Bernie and O’ are as dumb as they appear to be acting on this issue. I believe it’s possible they already know full well Obama’s life story is full of holes and there’s no way he’s eligible, they just choose to give him a pass because of the rammifications it could have on their careers and incomes,etc. But, as I said in my post yesterday, sometimes you just got to stand up and do what’s right. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence died penniless and broke. They gave up their fortunes for the cause of freedom. Oscar Schindler gave up millions of dollars,risked his life, and spent his entire fortune saving Jews from certain death. He certainly was an imperfect man, but his true colors were revealed when he decided to do what was right. He died broke. We need people to do what’s right for our country and our constitution, even if they suffer some negative consequences.
“note Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10″
Sorry, Dave, it is more likely the Framers used Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, to write this Section.
His Book 4, Chapter 5 is titled “Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations”. He defines three offenses:
1) Is violation of safe passage to subjects and citizens of other countries.
2) The rigths of a country’s ambassadors.
3) the crime of PIRACY.
And how does Blackstone define piracy, “THE offence of piracy, by common law, consists in committing those act of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there”
So we see in Blackstone’s Commentaries all of the elements of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 (Piracy, felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations).
Can you find those elements in Vattel?
Here is what Justice Scalia said about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 in SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN
“the Framers who included reference to “the Law of Nations” in Article I, §8, cl. 10, of the Constitution would be entirely content with the post-Erie system I have described, and quite terrified by the “discretion” endorsed by the Court. That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates). Those accepted practices have for the most part, if not in their entirety, been enacted into United States statutory law, so that insofar as they are concerned the demise of the general common law is inconsequential. The notion that a law of nations, redefined to mean the consensus of states on any subject, can be used by a private citizen to control a sovereign’s treatment of its own citizens within its own territory is a 20th-century invention of internationalist law professors and human-rights advocates.”
He’s paraphrasing Blackstone, not Vattel.
“Don’t swallow their arguments without chewing first. I assure you that there are plenty of old guard Constitutional scholars and attorneys, who will vociferously disagree with them. Find them before reaching your own conclusions, and you shall remain on the hero’s path.”
Here is what one of those old guard Constitutional scholar had to say,
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Chief Justice William Howard Taft in Ex Parte Grossman.
Chief Justice Taft wasn’t only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but he was also President of the United States.
So, do you think our history teachers were lying to us over 50 years ago? Surely, they learned what they were teaching us from what was taught to them, and so on. Who started the lie, and why ever for?
May be your histroy teacher had particular beliefs, I don’t know.
But here is something that one of those real old guard Constitutional scholars had to say.
Alexander Hamilton gave us a guide to determining the meaning of undefined Constitutional terms. In a brief on the Carriage Tax, Hamilton first laments the fact that the Constitution does not define the difference between direct tax and non-direct tax.
“What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.”
After a long discussion of excise taxes, Hamilton ends his brief with instructions on where we should look to define the terms.
“If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and liable to apportionment; consequently, not a direct tax.”
“Some argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”
“to conclude they were referring to the same subject matter as the book by that name, which they were using as a valued reference for their task at the time?”
What you do not understand is that under the Law of Nations each country gets to determine its own means of acquiring citizenship. For example, we know that in England, anyone born in the realm was a “natural born subject”, no matter the status of their parents. But England also incorporated the “Law of Nations”. In fact, here is an example of that,
“King William and Queen Mary’s Declaration of War against France, May 7, 1689″
“But that which must nearly touch us, is his unchristian prosecution of many of our English Protestant subjects in France, for matters of religion, contrary to the law of nations, and express treaties;”
Those English Protestant subjects would have become subjects of England by English laws, not by the Law of Nations. That didn’t mean that the Law of Nations wasn’t part of English law.
This idea was also described by Alexander Porter Morse in his 1881 thesis “A Thesis on Citizenship”
”In the law of nations, ”citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.
“This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state.
“In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″
And in footnote 2, Morse writes: ”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be "within the jurisdiction"].”
Morse also writes,
“The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
See, Dave, according to Morse there are only two types of citizens – “natural born” and “naturalized”.
“Since the Constitution very definitely makes a distinction between a ‘citizen’ (required for legislative office), and a ‘NBC’ (required for CinC) doesn’t that in an of itself suggest that they are not meant to refer to one and the same thing thing as Obama’s defenders suggest?”
The reference to citizen and natural born citizen for the offices of Congress and the President are not the same. A naturalized citizen can be a member of Congress, but not President. And a natural born citizen can be both a member of Congress and President.
“I assure you that there are plenty of old guard Constitutional scholars and attorneys”
I’m not sure if you consider these guys as old guard.
In his 2005 book “The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of American Founding”,
Dr. John R. Vile, Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department at Middle Tennessee State University, wrote,
“James R. Stoner, Jr. has identified four ways in which common law influenced the U.S. Constitution. Consistent with some of the discussions at the Convention examined above, he first observes that the common law provided some of the language of the document. He specifically cites the provisions related to habeas corpus, ex post facto laws, the provision that an individual be “natural born,” and the term “good behavior” (2003, 17). He believes that, unless otherwise stated, the presumption was that such words would continue to maintain their existing meaning.”
James R. Stoner, Jr., 2003, Common-Law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism.
Dr. James R. Stoner Jr. is a Professor of political Science at LSU.
But you should also know that Dr. Stoner is also on the facility at Glen Beck Unversity
Since we are look at old guard Constitutional scholars, I figured you might like to meet a few more.
“At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, American statesmen were conversant with the laws of England, and familiar with the prerogatives exercised by the Crown. Hence, when the words to grant pardons were used in the Constitution, they conveyed to the mind the authority as exercised by the English Crown or by its representatives in the colonies. At that time, both Englishmen and Americans attached the same meaning to the word “pardon.” In the convention which framed the Constitution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment.”
“We must then give the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found a place in the Constitution. This is in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in 30 U. S. 280, and in Flavell’s Case,@ 8 Watts & Sargent 197; Attorney General’s brief.”
Mr. Justice Wayne in ex parte Wells, 1855
Here is another of those old guard Constitutional scholars.
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.”
Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833
One last old guard Constitutional scholar.
“Of course, the foreign law I think is relevant is very old foreign law — very old English law. Because what is meant by the terms of the Federal constitution is dependent upon what Englishmen in 1791 considered to be due process of law, or what they considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. So I use foreign law all the time – but it is all very old English law.” Justice Antonin Scalia
This also from Justice Scalia,
“What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended”
(A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 1997)
And Justice Scalia gets those meanings from “very old English law”.
“You cite Wikipedia as your sole source, for flippantly dismissing the subject after reading an incomplete quote therein from Madison.”
What is interesting about Madison’s quote is that he says that place of birth is the primary criteria for allegiance. Compare what he said with what William Rawle wrote,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
See that first sentence, “whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen”. That’s just like the “very old English law” that is referred to by Justice Scalia.
See that last sentence, “no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
That is a restatement of what James Madison said in 1789.
I’ve been thinking about your history teacher and your sister.
Maybe you misunderstood him. Clearly your sister is not an NBC. And therefore not eligible for the Presidency. You just misremembered the part about needing two citizen parents. I say this because there don’t seem to be any 50 year old history textbooks that make that statement.
And BTW, Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen” in his book. It didn’t show up until 1797.
You might want to review this freerepublic discussion.
I’ve been thinking about your history teacher and your sister.”
Well, that’s disturbing.
LOL, I guess I should have phrased that differently.
A Historical Fiction*
And Now, The Rest Of The Story…
In a cushy office on the 27th floor of a shiny steel and glass building in Hawaii, the Executive Director of Life Documents for the State of Hawaii is lost in thought. His posh leather chair is turned facing the window overlooking the beautiful and vast Pacific Ocean. His feet are up on a bureau. The hardware on his Gucci loafers shine reflecting the beautiful Hawaiian sun. A phone rings outside his office door but he doesn’t hear it. He just turned 50 and he’s thinking about retiring soon on a state pension plan that will give him two hundred and fifty grand a year. He can visit the orient. He can visit the states. He can do anything he wants. His assistant knocks on the open door and the Director turns to face him.
Director:(scornfully) What do you want?
Assistant: (sheepishly) Barak Obama’s on the phone. He’s running for president.
Director: I know, dumb$#*&.
Assistant: He says he wants his long form birth certificate because somebody named Philip Berg has a video on youtube questioning his citizenship and it’s getting a million hits.
Director: Fax him a COLB and tell him to go #&@*himself.
The Director is in his office trying out a new putter and almost getting a feel for it. The phone rings again.
Assistant: Uhhh. Excuse me sir. It’s President Obama and he’s asking for the long form again. He says he’s getting some heat from the right.
Director:(now angry) Can’t you see I’m DOING something! Tell him we sent the COLB. That’s all he needs. I’m not jumping through any hoops for him. &#@% him.
Like sands through an hourglass, time goes on.
The director is having an argument on the phone with his Mercedes dealer. Outside, the phone rings.
Assistant: Excuse me sir, it’s President Obama again. He says he really needs the long form bad.
Director: I GAVE him the COLB! Doesn’t he understand anything? I don’t have to do everything he says. Our union has more senators and representatives in our pocket than he has in his wildest dreams. He doesn’t tell ME what to do. I tell HIM what to do. Tell him he can take that long form and stick it up his &*#.
The fundamental things apply as time goes by…
Assistant: (clearly shaken…knocks on the door of his boss) Sir? Somebody’s on the phone. He says he’s with the special op’s section of the secret service. He says he knows where your children go to school.
Director: Patch him through.
Voice on phone: Hi…we want the long form birth certificate now or we give your children a special tour of the Arizona. (Hangs up)
Director:(to assistant) send it.
* To those who think that the birth certificate our president has shown us is real, I feel it necessary to tell you that when I say this is fiction, I mean I made this story up by myself. It’s not real. It came solely from my imagination. I meant it for entertainment only and on top of that it supports your theory as an added bonus! Let’s get this puppy to 2,000.
Cool. I am working on it.:)
p.s. It was your other post about getting it up to 2000 that inspired me to go edit my letter and resubmit it. I hadn’t reloaded my browser, so I did not see this post until after I posted mine, or I might have waited another day to give yours top billing for a while.
Bernie, looks like the comments are finally starting to dwindle down. Before you close this thing out can you come on here and apologize to all of your own readers and audience for being a an elitist, condescending jerk? Can you take into consideration that most of us that follow you are “birthers”, some more hard core than others, and most of us think that you and O’Reilly and the rest of the conservative media have failed to do your jobs on this issue? Can you look at the polls which indicate a majority of Americans think there is something to this birth certificate issue? We know the liberal media could care less if his birth certficate is real or not, but they will protect him regardless. Can you take into consideration that sometimes in history, people have to stand up for what’s right, even if it causes them great financial losses, or loss of reputation (not that loss of reputation is a big issue with liberal media, your rep with average conservative Americans would soar). Research what some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence went through, they wound up penniless and broke. Look at Oscar Schindler for crying out loud. These folks did what was right, and you should too. I know that’s your reasoning for being like this. You are afraid of what O’Reilly might think about you and you don’t want to get in the cross hairs of the libs, but if that’s the case, why do you mock and ridicule your own audience? Yeah, we still stick with you for the most part, because we admire and trust your judgement on the other issues. We also don’t have a lot of other outlets to turn too. I mean, just about everybody is in the tank for Obamer on the birth certificate issue. If you choose to remain silent on this issue and do nothing, can you at least stop with the silly articles? We don’t need you telling us we are stupid and clueless. That’s basically what you are doing.
You could come on here and say something like, “OK people, I’ve read your comments and this issue won’t die so I’m going to go ahead and investigate this stuff. I believe Obama is completely legit, but I’m tired of all this so I’m going to get to the bottom of it and prove all you birthers wrong once and for all!”
How about it, Bernie? Prove us wrong. Use your professional journalism skills and PROVE US WRONG!!!!
“How about it, Bernie? Prove us wrong. Use your professional journalism skills and PROVE US WRONG!!!!”
What if he already has and came to the conclusion that you are wrong?
Would you accept his judgement and just admit that you were wrong? Or would you assume he is just doesn’t “want to get in the cross hairs of the libs”?
Well, gorefan, he very obviously has not proven us wrong. When he starts interviewing document experts, including the ones WND brought forth, and asking Chiyone Fukino why she stated Obamers birth doc was “half typed, half handwritten”, finds out that Pelosi certified him in 08 while the Hawaii state democratic party DID NOT certify him, even tho they certified Kerry in 04 and Gore in 00, and researches Obamers CT social security number, among many other things, I’ll consider him to be doing his job.
If he investigated this in a sincerely honest and open way, then yes I would accept his judgement because I know he will find out all kinds of information that he has chosen to ignore in the past.
“If he investigated this in a sincerely honest and open way, then yes I would accept his judgement because I know he will find out all kinds of information that he has chosen to ignore in the past.”
I couldn’t have stated it better myself.
“and asking Chiyone Fukino why she stated Obamers birth doc was “half typed, half handwritten”
Ok, this isn’t that hard to figure out, if you do some simple research.
WND had an article in which included a 1955 Hawaii Medical Journal article.
In that Journal it says the following,
“A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data
and affixes his signature. Finally, the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.”
See the steps:
1) Nurse/clerk fills out BC (typed?);
2) Mother signs BC;
3) Doctor fills out medical info on BC (handwritten?);
4) Doctor signs BC;
5) BC sent to DOH.
Here is the CDC 1962 Vital Statistics for 1962,
Go to Section 4 – Technical Appendix, then to page 4-4 and look at figure 4-A (1956 Revision of the Standard Certificate). This is the BC Standard used by most states, includng Hawaii in 1962. At the bottom of the form you will see a section,
FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH USE ONLY
(This section MUST be filled out)
There are three boxes – 22a Length of Pregnancy, 22b Weight at Birth, 23 Legimate.
These boxes do not appear on the BC given to the parents (look at the Nordyke’s). There is also a notation (SPACE FOR ADDITION OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH ITEMSBY INDIVIDUAL STATES).
This is what the CDC report says about the Standard Certificate of Live Birth,
“It has been modified in each State to the extent necessitated by the particular needs of the State or by special provisions of the State vital statistics law. However,the certificates of most States conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate.”
So there may be additional boxes on a Hawaiian original, vaulted BC. Things such as baby/mother vital signs. These items along with boxes 22a, 22b and 23 are considered private medical records and will not be revealed to anyone.
Even if the have a phony-baloney subpoena.
Well she made the statement to Isikoff, and I don’t think she made that statement expecting people to consider all kinds of technical data on birth certificate procedures originating from the 1950′s. She said, she saw the original document and it was half typed, and half handwritten. That would leave most normal people to believe that roughly 50% of the document was typed, and the other 50% was handwritten. So, say the top HALF of the page is one way and the bottom half is another. Or, it could be intermingled to net a 50% typed/50% handwritten total. I don’t know what the heck she was trying to do. Personally, I think it was just a little more lying on her part to create more credibility. She prolly didn’t know Obamer was going to release his LFBC a few weeks later.
“She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.”
When did she SAY that particular sentence? Isikoff is the one who WROTE it. Read the article carefully.
Do you trust Mike?
“I don’t think she made that statement expecting people to consider all kinds of technical data on birth certificate procedures originating from the 1950′s.”
Or she was just making a statement of fact. She wasn’t talking about a BC given to the parents, she was talking about going to the vault and seeing the actually BC filled out by the Hospital and sent to the DOH in August, 1961.
“She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama”.
She has probably seen more BC’s in her career then you or I will see in our lifetimes. How does that 50% statement add to her credibility?
I see what you are saying now. Somebody lied, be it her, him, or a combination of both. She is certianly a known liar whom has chosen her words very carefully in previous prepared statements, which when examined closely reveal something different than what she was projecting. She never came forth to disagree when Isikoff published this. Did he make it up out of thin air? Who knows, I wouldn’t trust either one of them. It does get messy sometimes when you lie, and then keep lying and then provide cover with more lies. It gets a bit confusing sometimes.
Well, I wouldn’t trust Isikoff. After all, he’s the one who forg…hey, who’s that knocking on my door?
I’ll be back…maybe.
“I see what you are saying now. Somebody lied, be it her, him, or a combination of both. She is certianly a known liar whom has chosen her words very carefully in previous prepared statements, which when examined closely reveal something different than what she was projecting. ”
“Well, I wouldn’t trust Isikoff. After all, he’s the one who forg…hey, who’s that knocking on my door?”
Do you have any idea how batsh!t crazy you two sound?
And you wonder why guys like Bernard Goldberg laugh at you.
“Do you have any idea how batsh!t crazy you two sound?”
…Coming from the person who goes around all the “birther” related sites and spreads disinformation. It looks like I struck a nerve.
BTW, hey gorefan, why are you posting on this site?
“why are you posting on this site?”
Someone has to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law. And it obviously isn’t going to be you.
Wait, spreading disinformation means “stand[ing] up for the Constitution and the rule of law”?
What disinformation? Anything that doesn’t confirm your preconceived ideas is disinformation to you.
List some of my disinformation.
That’s Trial’s M.O. She reads an HAR provision, gives it her own twist, and thenrepeatedly states to the world that no official, legal short-form COLB will issues without an embossed seal, as though repetition will validate her unfounded belief
In the meantime, she has examined no short-form COLB’s that she considers valid. In other words, she proceeds from a general crack-pot notion to a specific crack-pot notion. She does no verification of these notions.
And she talks about facts and truth?
Of course, she resents any correction or questioning of her thinking. Just like other crack-pots, she says that anyone who doubts or questions her is a liar, is brainwashed or is paid to oppose her.
Your post is one big lie.
BTW, whatever happened to those Hawaii COLBs you had lying around?
August 3, 2011 | 12:51 pm
BTW, whatever happened to those Hawaii COLBs you had lying around?”
Thanks for nicely illustrating my point. That all you can do: just call people liars and obots when theymake points you can’t intelligently address.
BTW, I referred to you as “she.” I just assumed you’re a chick. But, then again, maybe you really are a guy. It doesn’t really matter.
Poor Hadley. He was so upset he couldn’t even write properly. It’s okay bob. I doubt you even had any COLBs to begin with. Your track record in the “truth department” ain’t exactly stellar.
As i said before, if I were the liar you say I am, I would have already said that I re-checked my short-form and true enough if is an exact match, but for the info contained therein, to President Obama’s short-form posted on his website.
You still haven’t answred my question as to whether an official, legal Certificate of Marriage issued by the Hawaii DOH can just have a light seal and have the date of issue and the registrar’s blurb and signature stamped on the back of the COM.
You still haven’t answered my question as to whether official, legal short-form COLB’s issued by the Hawaii DOH has the date of issuance and the registrar’s blurb and signature stamed on the back of the COLB.
You don’t answer me because you know that any answer will further reveal your ignorance.
You have avoided all my questions, as with any and all penetrating and challenging questions on this website.
Everything you say just re-affirms my assessment of you above.
Why don’t you check your own COLBs and find out Bob. After all, you have them “on hand.”
Why don’t you just answer my very legitimate questions regarding the Hawaii DOH policie instead of making ad hominem attacks?
You’ve already made it very clear that if what i say about my short-form COLB’s (when I locate them) contradicts your own special interpretation of the HAR, you’ll simply call me a liar.
I’ve already told you several times about the Certificate of Marriage.
I know yuo’re afraid of answering because you don’t have an answer and because any answer you give will either contradict your dogma or reveal your ignorance.
You said that you’re more than willing to discuss (actually, you used the word “debate”) the Hawaii short-form COLB with me. Now you’re clammed up. Be true to your word for once.
“finds out that Pelosi certified him in 08 while the Hawaii state democratic party DID NOT certify him”
This is another non-controversy that hits a deadend. The only thing that mattered was “did the Democratic Party certify Barack Obama according to Hawaii State Election Laws?” And the answer is yes, they did.
Yeah, well, all these “non-controvery” things just keep adding up, as do the obot excuses. The fact is, there are many unusual and out of the ordinary events that seem to follow this guy around and while others couldn’t get away with it, Obamer seems to be able to do anything he wants and no red flags are raised with you guys. There is WAY more to this little “non-controversy” then you realize.
Also, I’ve gotten a lot of flack on here from obots telling me that WND doc experts such as Irey, M.Zebest, D.Vogt, and Harrison, would be “laughed out of court”,etc because they are suppossedly not court approved “real” document experts,etc. I would like to note that the computer generated short for COLB that Obama released in 2008, and the PFD long form birth certificate released on 4-27-11, would NOT hold up in a court of law. These scanned documents would not meet the standard of evidence in any court of law. Yet, he wants the American people to accept them. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
And they were never claimed to be anything more then something for people to look at. In any court challenge, they would just bring in the actual documents not a laptop computer so people could look at the monitor.
And that is what makes the WND experts so silly, they look at a PDF and declaring it a forgery. When all they can really attest is that the PDF is an altered version of the original document. Whether that alteration is due to deliberate manipulation or scanning software is impossible to delineate.
1. I have no information that would enable me to determine the location of Mr. Obama’s birth.
2. See number 1
3. The document posted by the White House has many severe difficulties. The most serious for me is the fact that there is clear evidence that this document was created from one or more scans of at least one original contemporary Hawaiian birth certificate, subjected to optical character recognition, separated into individual images using various file formats, scrubbed for any evidence of the aforementioned maneuvers, reassembled, and then turned into a .pdf. The evidence of this includes the 200 or so letters and elements within the .pdf posted by the White House, which match exactly with at least one other letter or element in the document. While this is not in itself uncommon when OCR is selected as a scanning option or done as a post-processing step, examination of the actual underlying binary code in such cases will always reveal the custom “OCR fonts” which created these matching letters, unless steps are taken to scrub them. In the Obama document, these fonts are missing from the code, indicating that evidence of the specific maneuvers which created these matching letters was scrubbed prior to reassembling it. I am personally satisfied after attempting to find an honest way to reproduce the combination of large numbers of matching letters without hidden OCR fonts that the configuration of the document cannot be reconciled with the official account of the document’s travels from Hawaii. In other words, the document posted by the White House was not produced by simply scanning a paper copy of anything, and can be shown convincingly to be a composited document by analyzing the actual binary code. I therefore consider that it should have the legal status of a questioned document, that nothing contained therein can be relied upon as authentic, and that the subpoena that is outstanding for the original should be enforced upon the Hawaii DOH by Judge Lamberth. From my own experience starting in 1971 as a digital typesetter and offset printer, professional user of most of the Adobe product line, and graphics software coder I can say that the document makes it extremely easy to come to this conclusion. This is not only an obviously heavily manipulated document, it is crudely done by someone who was so careless as to invite questions of intent. Perhaps those who asked for it to be created consider us a conquered people and do not fear any reaction.
I’m bored so I’m gonna fill out Bernie’s little questionaire.
1.Do you still think that Barack Obama was not born in the United States?
Yes I think he was NOT born in the United States. In addtion, I think he’s a con man,liar, severe narcissist, and exhibits some sociopathic traits. I fully believe he is capable of pulling this scam, in large part because he has a willing media, anti-American Nancy Pelosi certified him when the Democratic party in his own state of Hawaii DID NOT CERTIFY HIM (did you know this Bernie?), congress is full of cowards who will not raise the issue or investigate it, and he’s got officials in the Hawaii Dept of Health in his corner whom are most likely liberal democrats/socialist minded people that absolutely would protect him.
2.If so, where do you think he was born?
3.Do you think the long form birth certificate released a few months ago is legitimate or do you think it’s a fraud. If you think it’s fake, why do you think that?
I think it’s a forgery. Why? Because of the obvious typeface differences in many of the characters. For example, how many typical typed documents have several different types of the letter “A” typed on them? In addition, I believe typewriter expert Paul Irey (50 years experience) when he says it’s a forgery. Also, I believe Doug Vogt,Adobe expert and book author Mara Zebest, and Dartmouth graduate Tom Harrison. Their findings offer “proof positive” the Obama doc is a forgery!
4.How would you characterize people who believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that his birth certificate is 100 percent real.
Liberal robots [or Obots], that will walk in lockstep with their socialist hero, and do as they are commanded by the upper echelons of the libearl heirarchy, no matter the consequences to the Constitution. I submit they don’t really care if it’s real or fake. They would happily continue to support and defend him, even if they themselves were told it was a fake. Socialism is their ultimate goal and that pesky little document, the United States Constitution, has and continues to be a major obstacle in their plans to reshape and rebuild (destroy) the American way of life to their satisfaction.
5.How would you characterize people who don’t believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and think his birth certificate is a fake?
Genuine American patriots!!!! God bless all of them for standing up to this injustice, defending our great Constitution, and having to deal with corrupt, spineless politicians,including nearly all Republicans, and mainstream / conservative news media such as Limbaugh, Levin,Beck, and other so called “patriots” whom have proven to be nothing more than cowards. They have really exposed themselves for what they truely are and what they really care about- themselves!!! They gotta protect thier income and careers. They gotta establish some cheap and pathetic street cred with the liberal media by bashing their own viewers and listeners. They make me sick and I will never defend, quote, or support any of these clowns ever again.
No. That’s rediculous, Bernie. By asking that question, it’s more of you mocking and riduculing us. Bernie, we are normal American citizens. We are doctors, military service members, fireman, teachers, educated professionals, blue collar average Joe’s trying to make a living to support our familes,etc. We are not a bunch of far right wing kooks that have all kinds of conspiracy theories. You should be ashamed of yourself for the way you have treated a large portion of your very own audience and a very large portion of the American citizenry. It’s disgusting. Understand, a lot of us aren’t trained professionals in this arena like you are, but we feel compelled to keep this issue alive because YOU and your pals in the media will not take it seriously. So, we have to try to do YOUR job for you.
7.Bonus question: Do you think there is a real devil who is the anti-Christ and who now lives among us?
Read the bible, Bernie. I would suggest if you don’t already own one, pick up a copy of the New Testament. I believe what that book says, so that’s my answer.
The people who defend Obama the most must never have had to deal with lawyers and law suits in their life.
Mature people who’ve seen life know that you never want to take a case to court. You always want to settle it out of court.
People who know life know that you do everything you can to end the conflict before you pay lawyers. Why fight anything in court if you don’t have to? Why pay money if you don’t have to?
You only fight in court if you have to.
Before this disputed long form, he must have been afraid not to fight. That’s why he sent in his lawyers. Over and over and over. Nobody likes doing it. But some people really have to. There’s no other reason.
I believe everybody on this 1,700 long list of posters would show anything and produce any document for a $200,000 a year job. I would. I’ve got nothing to hide. College forms anything. You’d be crazy not to… unless you’ve got something big to hide. Something that might get you thrown out of the country or humiliated.
There’s no reason he couldn’t have gotten this birth certificate (providing it’s legal) any time…in the beginning. How hard can it have been? It’s dumb to think they wouldn’t let him see it.
If people who defend him don’t understand the legal system, they’re ignorant. If they do understand that it’s best to avoid legal fights in court then they’re stupid if they don’t suspect anything.
Brilliant and profound common sense, Ron. Well said! ◄Dave►
Amen, Ron. Why did Obama spend upwards of 2 million dollars (of taxpayer money) sending his lawyers to court for 3 years before he finnally decided to produce the document that most of the lawsuites requested?
First off, the President has only been a defendant in maybe 6 cases, the rest were against other others. So he would have had no expenses in the 65 or so lawsuits.
Second, In one case he was awarded lawyer fees after the case was dismissed. IIRC, they sent a bill for about $500 to the plantiff.
Remember, he posted his BC in 2008 before he was President. To date he is the only President or Presidential Candidate to publically release his BC before or while in office. What did the others have to hide?
But I have a question for you.
The 9/11 Commission requested that President Bush and Vice President Cheney give testamony before them. Both Bush and Cheney refused. After some negetiations, both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney aggreed to meet with the Commission on the following conditions:
They would both meet with the Commission at the same time,
They would not be under oath,
Therewould be no transcription made of the conversation.
Compare that with the fact that former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore both met with the Commission separately, both testified under oath and transcripts were made of their testimony.
So here is my question, what did Bush/Cheney have to hide?
Here we go again. I believe you’re talking about a COLB not a BC. I know you and others say a COLB = BC. I know you say it’s the same thing legally so it’s the same thing. No difference. Exactly the same. Exaaactly. I know you say that. Others say it it on this thread too. I hear you. So we should just drop it.
I don’t agree.
I don’t talk about Bush anymore like I don’t talk about Harding and Harrison anymore. Bush did good things. Bush did bad things. Bush was right sometimes. Bush was wrong sometimes. Life was good under Bush.
I will say that he didn’t flood the stock market with ‘sell’ orders and he never bought a house he couldn’t afford.
I don’t need to answer for Bush and I don’t need to answer to you.
My point has been made. There was an easy way to answer a question and a ridiculously hard way to answer a question.
It didn’t have to get ridiculous like this. We didn’t have to have this disagreement.
None of this falderal would be necessary, if folks would just focus on the plain and obvious intent John Jay expressed when he asked that the NBC requirement be added to the qualifications for the position of CinC. His suggestion was accepted as common sense, and added to the Constitution without objection or debate. That intent was to preclude a scion of a foreign power, especially the British Crown they had recently evicted, from holding that office encumbered with divided loyalties.
No BC is necessary, because Obama freely admits that he was born a subject of the British Empire. By definition, he is thus not a NBC, and no amount of lawyerly obfuscation and derisive rhetoric from the Obots can change that. If you have not seen my letter to Bernie, which brought me here, you might appreciate it and the underlying essay it references:
Thanks for being a voice of reason in a churning sea of spinmeisters, Ron. ◄Dave►
Where in Jay’s letter to Washington does he define “natural born”?
He didn’t have to define it for Washington; he and all the other Founders clearly already understood what it meant, or they would have described their intent more verbosely. They damn sure weren’t referring to a 14th Amendment anchor baby. ◄Dave►
But was he referring to the concept of “natural born” that they understood as former British subjects and as lawyers trained in English law?
There is a distinct difference between a Natural Born SUBJECT of the crown, and the Natural Born Citizen defined by Vattel. ◄Dave►
But the term “natural born” is a legal term of art. It modifies the term subject or citizen. It had a definition the founders knew and understood. OF course we could ask someone who was there at the time.
In 1795, Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books”.
In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States, Swift wrote, “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.“
Was Chief Justice Swift wrong?
Natural born subjects of Vermont? Wow, I knew Vermont was a pretty tyrannical place today; but I wasn’t aware that they always viewed their citizens as “subjects.” Oh, well, each State had their own citizenship requirements, and all citizens of any State were also U.S. citizens. But it does not follow that if one State had no need of the 14th Amendment to create anchor babies, and that it chose to call those babies “natural born subjects,” that the Federal government was in any way obliged to regard them as Natural Born Citizens, in regards to the qualifications for the office of CinC/POTUS. ◄Dave►
You mention Vermont which is interesting because they also use the term “natural born subject” in their Constitution of 1786, as did the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Delaware legislature passed a law in 1788 that also used the term “natural born subject”
But the best is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which passed naturalization acts between 1780 and 1790 that interchangeable used the terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen”, in exactly the same way.
For example from 1785:
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
And then in 1788,
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.“
So Dave, what would be the understanding of the people of Massachusett for the term “natural born”? Since they used both terms interchangeably. They knew what “natural born” meant before July 4th,1776. How would they know what it meant after July 4th, 1776? If no one told them?
Remember Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”, in French or in English. The term first appeared in the 1797 edition, prior to that the term “Les Naturels ou indigènes…” was translated to read “The natives or indigenes”.
Not the whole Certificate versus Certifification nonsense. Look at the Nordyke Twins BCs, they are both titled “Certification” and they are LFBCs.
So you think a President not showing his BC is a bigger Constitutional Crisis then a President maybe being complaciant in the killing of 3000 Americans. Interesting.
I think the Nordyke twins may be one of the keys to solving Obama’s fraud. In addition to his being out of sequence with theirs, he may have used thier birth certificates as a template for his forged one.
If you look at the Nordykes the typed letters appear to be kerned. Look at
Gretchen’s the “ty” in “Maternity” looks kerned but not the “ty” in Susan’s. Notice the “ng” in Los Angeles appear to be touching in Gretchen’s, but not in Susan’s
Also notice how the word “Female” does not curve down with the page in Box 2. Neither does the word “Kapolani” in “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynocolgical Hospital” in both of the twins’ BCs.
May be they are forgeries that were created so when the President released his people could compare them.
As for the certification numbers, I have two words for that “Sig Waidelich”.
Let me explain to you that I’m past partisianship now. I’ve realized the elected Republicans are just as bad as the democrats. The only hope we have right now is the Tea Party. The establishment Republicans and RHINO’s have got to go. This birth certificate fraud, has exposed my own party as a bunch of cowards. Limbaugh, Levin, Beck, have all been exposed as weak and and in my view, false patriots. They are all part of the establishment machine. They critisize and mock their own audience in an effort to obtain cheap and pathetic street cred with their liberal media counterparts. It’s my view that the liberal media and politicians probably know Obama is a fraud, and they are allowing the fraud to stand. The Republicans in Washinton and in the media most likely know Obama is a fraud too, but like I said, they are just cowards so they too are allowing it to stand. It touches on a much bigger issue of how it all operates. They, along with the liberals, are in it for money and power. That’s it.
As far as GW and Cheney, if what you say is true then I agree with you. I’m not defending any establishment Republicans anymore because this birth certicate issue has exposed them for what they are. If you ask me if I think they were natural born citizens with U.S. birth certificates then I would say yes, of course they were. Their families have been in this country for generations and we know everything about them already, so I don’t think that would even be an issue. Obama’s past is very vague, and his father was born in Kenya. But, if somebody demands to see GW’s or any future presidents birth certificate, I say heck yes. They need to produce that stuff without question in the future.
Ron: I agree that ordinary people would have released the docs at the start, and his failure to do so gives birthers some mojo to keep going. But Obama is no ordinary person, he’s a man trained in the fires of Chicago politics (and it’s one thing he’s good at) who had “journalists” acting like teen girls at the airport when the Beatles deplaned. He had another option. Obama knew he could paint his critics as racist nuts who won’t engage the issues by keeping this going, and his fans in the MSM would play along (Thank you Bernie for documenting this). For what it’s worth, I think he was born in HI to an american mother, but what I think doesn’t even rate a cup of coffee. He’s in ’til Nov. ’12, and chance of putting him out then are worse if so many focus on his mysterious past; better if we focus on and highlight his mendacious present. Seniors in particular should realize that he lied to scare them into thinking Rs were risking NO SS checks in Aug. This lie alone, if played right, could do Obama more damage than the birth issue, and the press would have to go back to calling us racist instead of crazy.
I’ve heard the rationale that he used this issue – and obviously paid money – to taunt us, to play with us, to paint us as crazies and racists.
I don’t agree and I do think his record is bad enough to do him in politically, hopefully.
Outside of this thread of comments which could be a story in itself, and potentially a new effort by Orly Taitz, we have no choice but to stand down while we feel alone and ignored.
I’d like to see this thread get to 2,000 just for fun.
That can be arranged.
“We have no choice but to stand down while we feel alone and ignored.”
This is not true at all. This is just what the mainstream wants you to believe. Every “birther” is capable of submitting FOIA requests and getting the word out. When you exhaust your options for gaining the document that was requested, you will be given the option to sue.
Members of the “birther” summit are holding on to certain FOIA documents. They plan on revealing the information…eventually.
Why do you cop-out Trial? Why did you suddenly clam-up?
July 22, 2011 | 12:21 pm
…and Fogbow. Although, he conveniently leaves out the part of visiting anti-birthers sites. Hey Bob, I’m still more than willing to debate the short form with you. But, instead of copping out without providing evidence and say you just need to use critical thinking skills, why don’t you actually try to refute my embossed raised seal argument? In order for “birthers” to believe the LF is a fraud, they must also believe the short form is a fraud as well.
Trial, I have never believed Barry’s short form was legit. I’ve always thought it was fake, and it carried him as far as he thought he could go with it. Then, out of nowhere, after Trump made a huge deal, and Corsi’s book was about to be released, Barry got bold enough to release an actual forged long form. As Joseph Farah said, Obama blinked, and now the game begins. So, it’s only a matter of time before Barry gets discovered. It will be the death of the modern democratic party too! Can’t wait. That’s why, as Dr Corsi rightfully explained, the left is using Alinsky style attacks to denounce “birthers” and anyone who questions Barry. They are afraid and running scared right now. They got all their stock invested in Barry and when he goes down, THEY ALL GO DOWN! And it will be such a wonderful day when that happens.
Plainly stating the truth (that the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly said President Obama was born there, and that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship) is “Alinsky style attacks”?
This “ANY DAY NOW” mantra is over three years old. It’ll be January 19, 2017, and you will still be chanting “any day now”!
LOL, Bob, i’ve given plenty of examples of how the state of Hawaii is IN ON IT! I expect a lot of arrests and jail time for those folks.
Agreed. I have said elsewhere hereabouts that I lived in Hawaii for eight years. The Dems own that State, and when it comes to cronyism and corruption, it might as well be Chicago. ◄Dave►
what you’ve given are examples of raw allegations with no support from any authoritative, neutral sources. People like you are so desperate to prove what you want to believe that you cite propagandists like Corsi as authorities.
The State of Hawaii is a sovereign entity, in case you don’t known. Laws of the State of Hawaii must be recognized by other states and the nation pursuant to something called the Full Faith and Credit clause of something called the U. S. Constitution.
The State of Hawaii has certified that President Obama was born here.
On the other hand, if any State of Hawaii official has broken Hawaii state law in the process, then that official is subject to the law.
But where’s yuor evidence? Remember, to convict you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence presented. I know you have virtual certainty. But that certainty is based on fancy and hatred, it is not based on reason.
bob hadley, Corsi is a patriot doing his job. The evidence will come when it is determined that there is either no Obama birth doc in the vault, or there is a forged birth doc in the vault.
Corsi is a turd trying to manipulate voters into believing things for which no evidence exists. That’s not patriotic and is in my opinion one of the nastiest things someone can do politics-wise in a democracy. All he has to do is research PDF optimization and write an honest article about how it explains what seems to be wrong with Obama’s PDF in the minds of Photoshop experts. He’s already lost his reputation over this issue: the right-wing MSM won’t touch him… he won’t be getting any more Hannity jobs. It’s time to call it quits.
Corsi is doing the job the media refuses to do. He is a patriotic American who has courageously persued this issue. I’m not a document expert and you probably aren’t either. In fact, there’s not a whole lot of people in the world that specialize in this field and do this for a living. However, I don’t think “PDF Optimization” is responsible for literally 5 different known font types for the letter “A” appearing on that document. I’m just guessing this is your reasoning for that and all of the other anomolies and inconsistencies on that document. I mean, are you telling me that through “PDF Optimization” words are scanned, then magically transformed so that some of the letters in the final product represent known different styles of the same letters, and then sporadically represented in that way throughout the entire document? Please. Stop coming up with bogus excuses to counter the obvious facts.
The right wing MSM is part of the problem. They are no different or better than the left wing MSM. Only Dr Corsi and a handful of other patriots are trying to do something about this.
JR Jordan, You’re correct. Corsi IS doing his job. Corsi’s makes his money as a propagandist, shilling for whatever cause he adopts–in this case the birther cause.
What’s your definition of a “Patriot”? Oh I know! A patriot is anyone who says the truth. What is the truth? The truth is anything that your favorite websites and propagandists say it is. OK
PS: Here’s an Obama hater’s take on Irey’s BS typographic analysis…
You can throw out the word obvious all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. Irey’s typographic analysis is laughable. He doesn’t show how the typefaces on an at best 2nd generation copy that has been scanned SHOULD look. He doesn’t analyze a second, similar document for comparison or control… but as he points out, he knew it was fake before he saw it! We’re gonna disagree, but I didn’t see anything suspicious in his “multiple typefaces.” he can’t name the typeface by the way, but he knows they’re different!
I would never claim Irey’s claims are explained by PDF optimization. They’re explained by his willingness to believe and the result of the multiple copies and scanning of the document. That birthers discount this shows their own eagerness to believe. They look like the same typeface to me in every example he provides.
He needs to prove more than he has, which to date is that the letters in the scanned copy aren’t identical… and that he’s willing to make wildly unfounded claims such as the birth certificate is a composite of multiple 1961 Hawaiian birth certificates. That seems awfully specific for something he can’t provide any evidence for!!!
You know what will absolutely end this contriversy right now? The viewing and inspection of the actual document supposedly located in the vault at HDH. Until that’s done Matuskey, people will be talking about this indefinetly. And I did notice the different styles of the letter “A” that Irey pointed out.
People may talk indefinitely, but it’s a tiny minority that will be doing it. Obama shouldn’t have to mollify every concern every American has regardless of how ridiculous it is. What’s the point of providing the birther level of proof when what info is already out there is enough to convince any honest and reasonable person that he was born in Hawaii. If anyone should be getting criticism about all this its the people creating doubt where none should exist (e.g., Corsi, Farah, Vogt, Valley, Zebest, Irey, etc).
Welcome aboard to the weekend crew. I am glad Arthur gave the kids Sunday off. With all the long hours they have been putting in, they needed a break.
You have a rather creative explanation for the multiple font changes. I don’t see how it would make the cross bar on a lower case ( t ) jump from near the top to near the middle; but one certainly can’t fault the Obot’s fertile imaginations.
Tell me, though. If this was a brand spanking new BC, hot off the Hawaii copying machine from the ORIGINAL, and rushed by one of his legal eagles back to DC for the express purpose of showing it to the public. Why in the world would a brand new scan of it into a PDF, be done from a copy of a copy of a copy etc.
Sorry, that doesn’t pass the smell test, much less Occam’s razor… Try again; I am sure you can do better.
The PDF Irey used was made from the copy handed out to the press of the certified copy of whatever Hawaii copied (I assume they copied the original, but that’s just a guess). That means he did his analysis on something at least three copies removed from the original. It’s not Obama’s fault that Irey did his poor analysis on something copied that many times, not that I would trust his opinion even if he’d analyzed the original.
And that’s not even getting into the inconsistency a typewriter would give you.
Matusky, i’m sure Irey and others would love to examine the original, or even the xerox of the original would be better than the pdf. I’m just trying to figure out why the original wasn’t made available, and why not even the xerox copies were made available. I think Obama did it this way purposely so more confusion could be created to help cover his tracks. If he were honest and forthright about this, he would have allowed the original document to be made available for inspection. I mean, if you don’t have anything to hide then there’s nothing to worry about, right?
When is anyone’s original birth certificate made available for inspection? Particularly, when is an original made available for conspiracy theorists to inspect it?
A certified copy was made available for the press to see and they were given copies. How much more available do you need it to be? You want one sent to your house?
You can have nothing to hide and still not give in to every little demand… especially demands from conspiracy theorists.
I realized I never answered the questionnaire seriously! Well, here it goes:
I believe he was more than likely born in Hawaii like he claims.
2. If so, where do you think he was born?
3. Do you think the long form birth certificate released a few months ago is legitimate or do you think it’s a fraud. If you think it’s fake, why do you think that?
It’s more than likely authentic. Whether it’s a fraud or not will likely never be answered.
4. How would you characterize people who believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that his birth certificate is 100 percent real?
There are 3 categorizations:
2. Non-partisan (Don’t care)
5. How would you characterize people who don’t believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and think his birth certificate is a fake?
Skeptics. I would like to point out you DID NOT ask how you’d characterize people who say it’s “100% fake.” That’s a different question all together.
6. Do you think Barack Obama is a kind of Manchurian candidate? That is, do you think he’s a front man for some devious un-American force that is calling the shots and pulling the strings?
This is making things too complicated. I believe the Chicago Mafia inside the White House has been committing crimes. More than likely, some of these crimes are related to the birth certificate(s).
Bonus question: Do you think there is a real devil who is the anti-Christ and who now lives among us?
There are anti-christs. There are also false prophets. Do I believe THE anti-christ now lives among us? I’m not God, so I don’t know.
I didn’t bother with the questionaire because I don’t take Bernie seriously on this issue. It’s not like he’s going to actually do anything about it, if a majority of respondents believe Barry is a fraud.
I admire your attempts in previous posts to be open minded and fair about this issue. However, please realize no liberal will ever return that favor. It’s thier way or the highway, period. Much like liberals in congres who always talk about bipartisanship and how the Republicans should compromise their postions and vote with them, etc. They NEVER compromise. Why should we? My point is you can’t talk to these people like normal human beings, they will not change their minds on anything. You can throw hard evidence in their face all day long and they will not relent. Honestly, it’s just a waste of time trying to reason with them.
“I admire your attempts in previous posts to be open minded and fair about this issue. However, please realize no liberal will ever return that favor.”
Yep, I’ve made that point in a previous post. This is the reason I despise anti-birthers. I do think some “birthers” and their arguments are silly or some just have Obama hate syndrome, however, what I’m sick and tired of is being told the “birther” issue isn’t worth discussing. This is simply a LIE!
To say that the birther issue isn’t worth discussing is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Whether it is a sincerely held opinion or whether it is a fact-based opinion is a different matter. You’re too liberal when it comes to calling people liars.
The accusations and charaterizations made by JR Jordan above regarding liberals, to which you say you concur, are bigoted.
There is no way that he can support these generalizations. There are tens of millions of liberals in this country (not to mention elsewhere)who he has never seen, much less know well enough to make those accusations about. Even if he adds the qualifer “usually” or “typically,” it’s still bigotry.
His accusations sound like a self-portrait. I guess he’s a liberal, liberal, liberal.
BTW, how can President Obama’s BC be authentic yet fraudulent. An authentic fraud crafted y the Hawaii DOH?
And what evidence (from authoritative, neutral sources) do you have that crimes are being committed in the WH?
“You’re too liberal when it comes to calling people liars.”
I call those who lie liars. It’s not that hard of a concept.
“There is no way that he can support these generalizations. There are tens of millions of liberals in this country (not to mention elsewhere)who he has never seen, much less know well enough to make those accusations about. Even if he adds the qualifer “usually” or “typically,” it’s still bigotry.”
LOL. This is coming from YOU. You’re a hypocrite.
Btw bob, what happened to those COLBs that you had? (Then the story changed to you had to go get them? Then the story changed to you got an anonymous friend’s marriage certificate?) Rest assured, I wouldn’t trust anything you say anyway.
“I call those who lie liars. It’s not that hard of a concept.”
The concept isn’t difficult. You evaded my point, however. A person isn’t lying when he’s stating an opinion, as opposed to making a statement of fact that he knows is false.
In addition, calling someone a liar when you have no way of knowing whether his statement of fact is false, only debases you.
Show me an instance of my making a bigoted remark. If you do, I will retract it. I have something called integrity. But I think you’re grasping at straws again.
The COLB’s have to be somewhere in my house. They’re not where I thought they’d be. I think my wife put them somewhere. She’s also looking for them.
My story hasn’t changed. You need to read carefully before you hurl invectives. Oh, I forgot! you don’t value integrity.
I said that two years or so ago I compared my short-form COLB to the one President Obama posted. I said that, but for the specific info contained therein (birthdate, parents, etc.), they were identical.
Since you were so insistent that that couldn’t be (even stooping so low as calling me a liar, when you have no way of determining that I was lying), I said I’d check my COLB again.
You neede to get your facts straight. There was no change in story.
If I were the liar you liberally say I am, then I would’ve simply said I already checked my COLB and confirmed my initial comparison.
Yes, a friend lent me his Certificate of Marriage issued by the Hawaii DOH on March 22, 2006 pursuant to the pertinent sections of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
The general format is the same as the Hawaii COLB’s. The paper is the same. It has a light seal. The date of issuance and the registrar’s stamp are on the flip side of the COM.
The reason you don’t believe anything I say is because you know what I say shows that you have made a deeply emotional investment in ideas that you have not sufficiently investigated. You’re like a child who covers his ears, violently shakes his head, and screams “I can’t hear you.”
Since you’re the expert, tell me: do Hawaii COLB’s have the date of issuance and the resistrar’s stamp on the front of the COLB’s or on the flip side? Do they have a light seal?
And you’ve never answered my question: Where can i find the law saying that a legitimate, legal Hawaii COLB is REQUIRED to have an embossed seal? The HAR provion you cited, as I showed you before, does not states that it’s a REQUIREMENT.
“What I will not respect is those that use Alynsky tactics to shut-down all productive dialogue of the issues all together.”
LOL. This coming from you. You’re a hypocrite, and I can back that up.
You’re full of it bob. Anyone can go back in this thread and see the statements you’ve made.
I also have a question I’d like all the anti-birthers on this site to answer:
Why are you here commenting on this site?
I knew it! You can’t cite an example of a bigoted remark I’ve made.
I’ve made remarks about bitherism. I’ve also defined that general cluster of ideas. If you review my answers to Bernie’s questions you’ll see that I very loosely characterize bithers.
You have again evaded my main points and my questions. I guess it’s wise to keep quiet rather than further reveal your ignorance.
LOL. When this charade was brought up last time, I simply said “Let the readers decide for themselves.” I’m sticking by that.
Now, bob, why are you here posting on this site?
oh, and I comment on this site for various reasons. I like interacting with a wide variety of people and to keep abreast of different types of thinking.
In addtion, sometimes my own thinking can be legitimately challenged in my exchanges.
With you, let’s see…I simply like to rattle your cage.
Why are YOU on here commenting? Be honest now.
“With you, let’s see…I simply like to rattle your cage.”
LOL. I can see that. Although, I would argue you want to rattle everyone’s cages!
“Why are YOU on here commenting? Be honest now.”
I’m here to share my findings with those here and Bernie…and, maybe I’m also here to “rattle some cages”…
BTW, I remember a while back Dean got you (Hadley) confused with bob (fogbower). I don’t really think your “bob” because you write differently than him. I’d like to apologize on his behalf (I think he’d be okay with this?)
“LOL. When this charade was brought up last time, I simply said “Let the readers decide for themselves.” I’m sticking by that.”
I thought you were here to share your thoughts and findings. I brought up some legitimate points and asked some legitimate questions. Why don’t you share your wisdom? Re-read my posts for my questions.
But, given your ignorance and lack of proper investigation, you’re probably wise to stick with your silence.
And what is your relation to Dean Haskins that you feel as though you can apologize on his behalf? Why isn’t he man enough to unequivocally apologize himself?
You owe me an apology for repeatedly calling me a liar. But only someone who values integrity and who has his head where the sun shines would do that. So I’m not expecting anything.
I stick by what I’ve stated. Like I said, let the readers decide for themselves.
The readers can decide for themselves? What does that mean? Are you saying that the readers can “decide” for themselves the answers to my questions?
Do Hawaii COLB’s have the date and the registrar’s blurb and signature stamped on the front or the flip side ?
Where does it say that Hawaii COLB’s are REQUIRED to have an embossed seal to be legit? If that HAR section you cite is your only citation, then you need remedial reading.
Is it possible for a legitmate, legal, official Certificate of Marriage issed by the Hawaii DOH in 2006 to only have a light seal?
How can President Obama’s COLB be legit but fraudulent?
What evidence from authoritative, neutral sources do you have that crimes are beibng committed in the WH?
BTW, how many legitimate, legal, official COLB’s issued by the Hawaii DOH have you examined?
What kind ofPRIMARY investigation have you done?
And was Dean Haskins neutered? Why can’t he unequivocally apologize for himself?
Conservatives (Rebuplicans, Tea Party) typically represent hard working, tax payers whom are above all patriots.
Liberal (dems) are lazy, selfish,typically anti-American, cut each others throats in a heartbeat, communist roots, very, very bad people. They live parasitically off the above.
Republicans like Rep. Joe Walsh?
JR Jordan, You’re a bigot! You’re calling Sen Dan Inouye, a liberal demcrat, lost his arm fighting in World War II when trying to save his unit from enemy fire lazy, unpatriotic, back stabbing, non-taxpayer with communist roots.
He did so to allow pathetic, whinny haters like you to smear hard working, patriotic, tax paying Amercans who happen to think differently from you without having to be held responsibible for your hateful remarks.
Sen. Dan Inouye is only one of tens of millions of patriotic, hard working, tax paying Americans who happen to be moderate or liberal on many or even all issues.
Do you think our Founding Fathers agreed on what should be in the U. S. Constitution? Not at all! Oh, I forgot. You might want to dismiss our Constitution as a compromise between a group of smelly, long-haired, raucous guys, many of whom were slave holders.
Do you have any self-respect?
to bob hadley:
JR Jordan, You’re a bigot! You’re calling Sen Dan Inouye, a liberal demcrat, lost his arm fighting in World War II when trying to save his unit from enemy fire lazy, unpatriotic, back stabbing, non-taxpayer with communist roots
Yes, i’m calling liberal democrats lazy, unpatriotic, communist inspired socialists. I am NOT a bigot of any sort and I deeply resent you making that accusation. I have and always will have deep respect for Dan Inouye, a member of the 442 Regimental Combat Team, whom I read about and wrote a report on back in the 5th grade, some 25 years ago.
Having said that, lets talk about Frank Luke and Captian JP Cromwell. They gave their lives to defend the Constitution. Both of these brave men knew they would die but they sacrificed themselves to defend our way of life, and our great Constitution. They did this so one day people like you could stand up for and defend a usurper fraud who has ascended to the presidency.
Liberalism is destroying America and it’s not easy to critisize a party as a whole which has included great Americans such as Dan Inouye, John Glenn, and Max Cleland. However, the Constitution trumps all of that. The Constitution must be protected and defended, even at the expense of some great Americans whom happen to wind up on the wrong side. Inouye and Cleland both voted in support of partail birth abortions. That has to be one of the most horrendous and horrific acts a human being can do to another human being. Bob Hadley, I greatly respect what these guys did for their country while in uniform but I have absolutely no respect for their voting records, which in large part have contributed to eroding the value of the Constitution and has destroyed the right to life for unborn babies. They and their party have all contributed to forcing socialism on our great country, in small or large ways over the years.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
– Winston Churchill
“I’m making a generalization. I’m saying the majority in that party are indeed communist inspired socialists.”
OK, now we’re making a little progress, not much but it’ a start. Now you’re “merely” saying that a majority in the Democratic Party are communist inspired socialists (whatever that is). Above, you also call them (the majority in the DP) lazy and unpatriotic.
That’s still a bigoted statement, however. Look up the word. One of the definitions of a bigot is one who makes generalizations about a group of people when he doesn’t know nearly enough of the people in that group to justify that generlization.
JR Jordan, you become what you hate. Never froget that.
You missed my point about Winston Churchhill. Using your apparent standard, he would have been a socialist.
One example: Once, during WW II, someone was talking to Churchhill about cutting the arts from the national budget. Churchill responded, “If we cut that, then what are we fighting for?”
According to your standards, even President Reagan would be a liberal, maybe even a communist inspired socialist. He raised taxes several times. He granted amnesty for illegal aliens, he cut and run (from Beruit) when the going got rough, he never passed or even proposed a balanced budget.
You’re living in a fantasy.
“Yes, i’m calling liberal democrats lazy, unpatriotic, communist inspired socialists [whatever that is].”
Quit weaseling. Are you or are you not calling Sen. Dan Inouye, Max Cleland and all the millions and millions of other liberal democrats lazy, unpatriotic, communist inspired socialists?
How can you say that about so many people you’ve never even seen? You sound brainwashed. How else woul you pass such a severe judgment on so many people you don’t even know, most of whom are hard working, patriotic Americans?
Why not get informed, instead of hurling your invectives? Oh, I know. Because the more truly informed you are, by authoritative and neutral sources, the more you’ll see how stupid your invectives are.
BTW, you would have considered even Winston Churchill a socialist.
I’m making a generalization. I’m saying the majority in that party are indeed communist inspired socialists. I will not call Dan Inouye or Max Cleland lazy and unpatriotic. I have no clue as to why these two fine men chose to be Democrats. That is a mystery to me. However, I am disturbed by their voting record. As far as the lazy ones, well bob hadley that’s representative of all the millions who freeload from liberal social policies that do not encourage hard work, competition, or ambition to succeed. This is your party bob hadley. The actual leaders in your party, well now that’s different. They are all multimillionaires. Why is that? They get a chance to get rich and use capitalism to do so, but they don’t think the “little people” should have those same oppurtunities. You got the peasants so to speak that in most cases under liberal policy will never make anything of themselves and will always be dependant on the government, then you got Al freaking Gore, a Billionaire! Wow, some party you got there bob hadley. It’s a party of hypocrites and extreme contradictions.
Reread the quote I posted from Churchil. Don’t you think what he says deserves some thought? He was only one of the greatest men that ever lived, saved his nation after the weak Chamberlain almost lost it.
Ted Kennedy, the liberal hero that all liberals admire was absolutely unpatriotic, and a communist sympathizer, among many other things. He is also famous for saying “I’d rather be red than dead”. Well, I don’t think Audie Murphy would’ve ever made a statement like that. I know I wouldn’t either. bob hadley, the modern version of your party was inspired by Soviet style communism. This is a fact. I consider this unAmerican. The old democrats were much more patriotic but very, very, very racist. This is your history bob hadley.
At least you can acknowlege you’re making a generalization, but you wont understand the first thing about politics until you stop holding your side up as paragons of virtue and demonize the side you oppose. That’s just lazy thinking… but it sure makes it easy to make sense of the world when you mak it black and white.
Mutaskey, I see what you are saying but please make note that I have posted my displeasure with the Republicans numerous times on here. And it’s not just about the birth certificate issue either. I do not like the RHINO Republicans at all.As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that politicians are all in it for themselves. It doesn’t really matter what party they belong too. They will get rich in politics and stay rich. I’ve lost a lot of faith in my party, but even at that, I would never vote for a democrat because I won’t compromise my core values and beliefs. I’ve got to settle for what we have right now. And I’ve realized there are no “Mr Smiths” so to speak. I am greatly concerned about the future direction of this country and I do believe socialism will be our downfall, if it’s ever enacted on a grand scale.
OK, now we’re making a little progress, not much but it’ a start. Now you’re “merely” saying that a majority in the Democratic Party are communist inspired socialists (whatever that is). Above, you also call them (the majority in the DP) lazy and unpatriotic.
That’s still a bigoted statement, however. Look up the word. One of the definitions of a bigot is one who makes generalizations about a group of people when he doesn’t know nearly enough of the people in that group to justify that generlization.
JR Jordan, you become what you hate. Never froget that.
One example: Once, during WW II, someone was talking to Churchhill about cutting the arts from the national budget. Churchill responded, “If we cut that, then what are we fighting for?”
According to your standards, even President Reagan would be a liberal, maybe even a communist inspired socialist. He raised taxes several times. He granted amnesty for illegal aliens, he cut and run (from Beruit) when the going got rough, he never passed or even proposed a balanced budget.
bob hadley, there’s a group of people in my country that are trying to destroy the American way of life. They are called liberal democrats. They like to raise my taxes and spend much more money than they take in, then try to raise my taxes again when the debt ceiling has been reached. Instead of cutting ridiculous social programs, many of which are a complete waste taxpayer dollars, their solution is to raise taxes again and again. And all they really know how to do is spend money.
Unfortunately, this group was heavily influenced by Soviet style communism. This is an undisputed fact and all you got to do is google away. Heck, it’s common knowledge, why even try to defend it? Most liberals are proud of this. Also, unfortunatley, many Americans have been suckered into this party with promises of free this and free that. They use class warefare to promote their flawed agenda. The rich are evil, etc. Even tho the rich pay the majority of taxes which funds all the social programs. (i’m not rich myself btw). And the rich are the job creators too.
So, if i’m “bigoted” against people who are in the business of destroying my country then I guess your right.
JR Jordan, First, you need to make up your mind. Earlier you also stated that anyone in the DP is lazy, unpatriotic and a socialist. You also implied that they don’t pay taxes. Now, you’re saying it’s really the liberal democrats.
There’s tens opf million of Americans in the DP, a very sizable portion of whom are liberal. There’s no way you know that a majority of them are lazy, non-tax paying, socialist and unpatriotic.
Perhaps you’re playing semantics. Maybe you think a liberal by definition is a socialist. Maybe you think a liberal is by definition unpatriotic. But that still doesn’t justify you calling a majority of the tens of million in the DP lazy and non-taxppaying.
BTW, was President Reagan a liberal? Was Winston Churchill a socialist? If you don’t understand my questions, re-read/read my post above.
///JR said: “I won’t compromise my core values and beliefs. I’ve got to settle for what we have right now. And I’ve realized there are no “Mr Smiths” so to speak.”///
You are on the hero’s path, JR. Take the next step:
The birther position is supported by neither fact nor law. There is no competent evidence (“hard,” “circumstantial,” or otherwise).
Which is why this “issue” ignored by all but a tiny few.
I can respect this position.
What I will not respect is those that use Alynsky tactics to shut-down all productive dialogue of the issues all together.
Stating the plain truth is “Alynsky tactics”?
Rather than mindless namecalling, you could, you know, cite law or facts.
“Stating the plain truth is “Alynsky tactics”?”
No, not at all.
“Rather than mindless namecalling, you could, you know, cite law or facts.”
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. A good example of what I’m speaking of can be found in this video:
If someone says something ridiculous in public, don’t be surprised if they get ridiculed for say it.
I can understand that too. However, when someone hasn’t taken the time to research an issue at all, but then uses Alynsky tactics against someone who is in the “fringe” who has actually done some research (regardless on whether you or I think the research they’ve studied is legitimate or not), it is simply inappropriate.
President Obama’s birth has been extensively covered. (As well as the definition of natural-born citizenship.)
But apparently you have the ability to read minds and determine who has done “sufficient” research.
“President Obama’s birth has been extensively covered. (As well as the definition of natural-born citizenship.)”
That’s up for debate.
Hey bob, why are you here on this site?
Maybe “up for debate” here, but not in the real world.
Afraid to give a real answer bob?
Because Soros pays me well.
I think the reason is much more simple than that bob.
That George Soros doesn’t pay me well?
Jesse Lee changed his name to George Soros?
I liked your answer to #5. Your answer to #3 surprised me. Have you not reviewed the several different articles in WND, detailing the evidence of a forgery? Regardless of the validity of the credentials of the authors, once they point out obvious flaws, they are quite obvious and difficult to explain away. Without even getting into the Adobe software issues, the typographer’s work alone, pointing out the different type fonts, some even in the same word, pretty conclusively suggests to me that this document was not typed on a single typewriter. Will you please explain your lack of skepticism for its authencity? Thanks, ◄Dave►
I have viewed the various articles on WND. I have also looked at what the authors had to say (and no, I didn’t prejudge them because they weren’t the “perfect” experts or “crazy people” or whatever the Obots like to say).
They do make some excellent points. One of the most interesting reports I read had circumstantial evidence (based on pixelation) that the signature of Stanley Dunham had replaced the original signature of one of Obama’s relatives (the grandfather I believe?)
You see, I personally believe that the BC that was put up online was put up simply to screw with skeptics and “birthers.” I believe they (whoever they is) screwed with the BC intentionally.
Now, that is an interesting theory. I will have to cogitate on that a bit. My initial reaction is to wield Occam’s razor and say that if the motive for posting a ‘screwed with’ BC was simply to toy with and/or embarrass skeptics and ‘birthers,’ they wouldn’t have had to put so much work into it. Just carving it up into layers alone would have accomplished that.
There would not have needed to put so much effort into playing with different typewriter fonts, which was a subtlety that took quite some time for the typographer to finally look at it and discover. If I am not mistaken, these anomalies also exist on the B/W handout the press got on Apr. 27th.
Then, once they were discovered, how could they be sure that the folks at HDOH wouldn’t balk to cover their own behinds and expose them; because obviously the original couldn’t contain them unless it too was forged.
Now I understand your cryptic questions regarding intent in the felony of forgery. Even if technically it might not be a prosecutable crime, it sure would be considered a political one by a whole lot of people, even on his side of the isle. I’d damn sure lose respect for my guy (if I could ever find one) if he pulled such a silly stunt, which wasted so much time for friend and foe alike just for some perceived political advantage in the future.
I somehow missed the detail about the artifact of Dunham’s signature. This brings to mind the very first (of now three) Obama BC that was published on the Media Matters website back during the election. You remember, the one with the redacted file number. The guy who dug into that one and found the anomalies in the border and the fact that it was an obsolete form no longer used at the time it was supposedly issued, claimed to find artifacts of Obama’s sister’s BC on it. He surmised that it had been soaked in a solution to remove the laser printing plastic and then dried out as a blank to print the forgery on.
I have often wondered exactly what her immigration status is. Was she naturalized, or perhaps did her grandparents register her birth off island too? I know that HDOH claims not to have a BC for her; but I am disinclined to trust them myself. I think I heard she was a U.S. Citizen; how did she become one? ◄Dave►
The State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly stated that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Therefore, President Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.
Let me know what you think about this article (specifically concerning the COLB):
Yes, that is the version I was speaking of, and forgive me for confusing Media Matters with the Daily Kos. I get my Obots all scrambled in my mind, mostly because I don’t pay much heed to them.
To be honest, I am very confused. I had never heard of a “blank” HI form available on the internet. I note that what he purports to be such a form has the identical Jun, 6, 2007 date bleeding through the back. This tells me that it wasn’t a truly blank form put there by HDOH for some reason. In fact, it comports with the story I just mentioned about using a solvent to remove the printing from a real COLB. This appears it could very well be the results of that operation. So my question, where was it obtained on the internet, and who put it there?
I’m afraid his assertion that he has found ‘proof’ of a forgery is a non sequitur for me. I am working from my iPad at the moment, so I don’t have any imaging tools, other that the ability to blow up a pic a bit with a spreading fingers gesture. I don’t find his noise ‘behind’ redaction marks persuasive of much anything. As far as tying the Kos ver. with the ‘blank,’ forget the fancy stuff… what about that date bleeding through?
I did find the difference 8 years made back in the ’60s on the long form interesting. The questions pinning down the actual location of the birth are thought provoking. Had I not seen the Nordyke twins ver., THAT would be suspicious. Of course, I could crawl into your shoes and ask myself how I know that they weren’t disinformation too?
So, tell me what I am missing there… ?? ◄Dave►
What you are missing is that (surprise!) anonymous nonexperts don’t know what they are talking about.
The “Danae” document was redacted in an amateurish manner. So it was easy for an amateur to unredact it.
The Daily Kos COLB’s redaction was more sophisticated. The data was removed from the image, and then the black box was added over that “hole.” So removing the black box just exposes the hole.
Come on… be fair. Surely you detected that I wasn’t very impressed with the amateur.
I may have been a bit diplomatic; because I didn’t know what relationship you may have had with the site and became equally curious as to what you thought of his work. But, a fair assessment would have to acknowledge that I passed your test. ◄Dave►
“Let me know what you think about this article (specifically concerning the COLB)”
How funny is it that you think danae is an Obot and then reference her long form BC to show the President’s COLB is a forgery. Wow
Oh, no! It must be getting late. I mistook Bobby’s reply to my assessment of Trial’s link as a reply from Trial. Thus, I thought I was replying to Trial with the post above. Color me embarrassed and on the way to bed… Sorry… ◄Dave►
There’s also this:
I find the latest from Leo rather persuasive:
How about the AA brigade?
Be sure to check out the comment section to the above post. Leo has found the smoking gun proving the Obots have been busy revising the ‘Justia’ SCOTUS database to obscure references to Minor v. Happersett since all the way back in 2008 before he was even elected. They even deleted whole paragraphs in citations! This is unconscionable. I just lost all residual respect for these reprobates. Sorry, Arthur… I kinda liked you; but this is war! You kiddies like ad hominem? Bring it…
Yes, but, how do we know it wasn’t the McCainbots that did the scrubbing?
I guess we don’t ‘know’; but I can give you three quick reasons to doubt it. First, he already knew he was losing the race by Oct. ’08. Then, since he was born on a military base in the Canal Zone, which we had a 99 year lease on at the time, while his American parents were serving their country, he at least had an arguable case. (I would argue against it, myself). Finally, he had the sense of the Senate resolution in his pocket (which also is meaningless, but as a creature of the Senate I am sure it brought him comfort).
“McCainbots” weren’t nearly as weak and pathetic as McCain himself. McCain could have went after Barry much, much more vigorously, but he was too scared to do this. His followers were mostly behind him cause we had no other choice. It was either him or Barry. At least McCain wasn’t a socialist. At least we knew nearly every detail of McCains past. I don’t think any McCain supporter would’ve done this at all.
As far as McCain being eligable, his father and grandfater were United States Navy admirals. Just because McCain wasn’t born on U.S. soil, due to his father being stationed where he was, I don’t think this would disqaulify him at all. Heck, Barry’s philandering, deadbeat father was born in Kenya.
“As far as McCain being eligable, his father and grandfater were United States Navy admirals. Just because McCain wasn’t born on U.S. soil, due to his father being stationed where he was, I don’t think this would disqaulify him at all. Heck, Barry’s philandering, deadbeat father was born in Kenya.”
That’s a topic for a different article ;D
“Heck, Barry’s philandering, deadbeat father was born in Kenya.”
I recall another “birther” called Obama mama a “ho.”
I mean, I know what they’re saying is true, but they should at least be as classy as the anti-birthers! Wait…they’re even worse!
Hey bob, you’re a hypocrite.
I’ve insulted the dead by calling someone a “ho”? A “philandering deadbeat”?
I’ll stay classy and drop the deadbeat part. However, the philandering part is absolutley true. If theirs a nicer way to say it, i’m all ears. Even the college officials where Obamer Sr went to school at made note of this fact.
Good to know you think the case against President Obama’s eligibility is strengthened by impugning his dead father.
Bob, Your President’s half brother lives in an 8×8 shack in Kenya with a dirt floor, no indoor plumbing, and survives on something like .80 cents a month. What does this say about multi-millionaire Barry? He won’t even take care of his own freaking brother for crying out loud. His dad is deceased so I’ll lay off those comments unless it has to do with his time in the U.S. and whether or not Obama was born here.
And you know for a fact that the President has refused to help his half brother?
May be the brother refused any help.
“But reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and “earning less than a dollar a day.”
The reports left him angry.
“I was brought up well. I live well even now,” he said. “The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.
“I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges,” Obama said.
Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.
At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.
“I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life,” said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama’s house.
But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother. He acknowledges that he is biased but said he knows that his half-brother will be the next president.
“Because he wants to be [president],” he said. “I think in life, what you want is what you are supposed to get.”
You may want to read this:
Read some of the comments from real lawyers about Justia
YES! Read about it from very possibly the same people who had something to do with the scrubbing in the first place! That makes perfect sense! I hope you see the light Dave.
Wow, you really are in the land of delusions. Amazing, absolutely amazing.
Sorry, I busted your delusion about debossed seals.
You did nothing of the sort.
Once again, why would Dave go on there (an Obot site filled with disinformation)then give his undying trust to Obots who go around the internet spreading disinformation?
There’s no evidence that the readers of obamaconspiracy.org had anything to do with justica.com committing the horrible crime of creating a hyperlink.
Donofrio does make a valid point, though: Justia *is* a crappy site.
Good points! Obot lawyers would have no reason to do the scrubbing! You’re also right about there being no definite proof the “readers of obamaconspiracy.org had anything to do with justica.com!”
I’m sure the information scrubbed itself.
Considering the original text of the case in all the other legal databases, other sites on the web, as well as the bound volumes around the world, yes, there is no point to “scrub” a single second-rate database.
And by “scrub,” Donofrio means “created a hyperlink.” The horror.
:::shudder::: I need a shower after wading through all that. If that is where you Obots get your talking points, no wonder mostly all you have is ad hominem. That was essentially one big pile of it. There was no serious effort to refute Leo’s reasoning behind Minor, just ad hominem dismissal of him. The treatment of the serious implications of the Justia matter ranged from suggesting that Leo was lying, because the missing data is no longer missing; to suggesting that anyone who utilized Justia wasn’t a real lawyer, because preferred databases were available; to suggesting that perhaps the problem was in Leo’s browser. All in all, it was just one big effort to discredit Leo, rather than address his assertions on there merits. Pathetic, really…
You are missing the big picture: Donofrio is a lousy source of information; he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The reason why no one in that thread bothered to discredit Donofrio’s argument because that was already done TWO YEARS AGO:
Uh-oh. There’s that site again. Dave, why haven’t you’ve seen the light yet? What the heck’s wrong with you?
The semi-professional poker player/chess guru/punk rocker/arty filmmaker/paraclete Donofrio? The Donofrio whose latest foray into court was called “utterly frivilous,” and he’s looking at a $100,000 sanction? The Donofrio who has never won a case? Do you mean that Donofrio? With a sterling background like that, how could he possibly be over his head?
Justia is a commerical (low-rent) legal database that (gasp!) created a hyperlink! Rest assured: No matter how sneaky that President Obama is, he can’t change wording in that cited case in every bound book around the world.
Ad hominem all you got, Bobby Boy? What about Minor itself? Is Leo right regarding it being a SCOTUS precedent in defining NBC? Looks like it to me. Grow up and address the issues, not the personalities of the researchers. I’d take the help of the devil himself, if that’s what it would take to get your evil boss tossed out of our White House. Try thinking for yourself for a change, rather than worshiping authorities.
No, you kids couldn’t get to all the bound copies; but making sure nobody searching the most used database for the key word ‘Minor,’ wouldn’t find the places where it was referenced by other decisions, might just thwart somebody’s research, don’t you think? Oh, that’s right, you boys don’t think, you just lash out, and repeat your talking points mantras…
So one commercial database has been slightly altered (in a way that could be considered an improvement…). Oh noes!
Just pointing out Donofrio’s noted lack of credentials. Donofrio has NEVER WON A CASE and is LOOKING AT A $100,000 SANCTION, yet you think he’s a genius.
Donofrio misreads Minor, and thinks it is controlling. That you think Donofrio is correct must give you comfort at night. But no judge, professor, or other expert agrees with Donofrio’s position.
Donofrio’s paranoid attack on Justia is further proof that his thoughts aren’t fully completed, and not worth the time. A crappy site made a crappy hyperlink; so? And Justia is not the most used legal database — findlaw is. And real lawyers use professional databases, like westlaw and lexis/nexis.
I’m not going to comment on Donofrio’s credentials, history, or competence to be a lawyer other than to say I support anybody that risks their careers, income, and reputation to defend the Constitution. Barry is a fraud and a usurper so I commend Donofrio for doing what he has done so far.
As far as the judge saying Donofrio’s lawsuite was “utterly frivolous”, I say the judge is utterly spineless. That’s why the majority of these cases have been thrown out, because weak, pathetic judges keep covering for the clown Barry and they will not grant standing so these cases can move forward. Then, media talking heads, and even Limbaugh, Levin, and Bernie, whom are all just part of the establishment machine, can use it as an excuse and say to their listeners that the courts have investigated this and the lawsuites were thrown out. No, the courts haven’t done squat. No investigations whatsoever. They never let those lawsuite’s move forward. Except Orly finnally got her subpoena. She will be at HDH on August 8. Can’t wait to see what kind of excuse Hawaii Dept of Health uses to refuse her.
Donofrio, etc. aren’t defending the Constitution; the opposite really, by arguing against well-established precedent in an effort to undermine the duly elected president.
Your misplaced anger at the courts is further proof your lack of understanding: standing in a concept engrained in the U.S. Constitution. (And the barrier to average citizens filing these kinds of suits, ironically, was raised considerably by conservative justices.) It isn’t the court’s job to conduct investigations, and these suits were all properly dismissed under well-established rules. That you don’t like this doesn’t make any of the judges spineless.
And Taitz didn’t “get” her subpoena; what she sent to Hawaii isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. The State of Hawaii has already told her that she is not entitled to access President Obama’s records, I GUARANTEE that it will suffer no ill effect for its position. The only issue is whether Taitz will get herself sanctioned, arrested, or made a fool of (again) in the media.
We have a usurper in the White House. A man who has not been honest about his past, and his true political agenda (impose socialism on America,take away our 2nd ammendment rights, murder unborn childern,etc). He somehow has a social securtiy number issued in the state of CT, a place in which he has never lived. He has also produced a forged birth certicicate. We have a congress who refuses to investigate. In light of that, I don’t care how we get to the truth, be it through the courts, private investigators, dilligent citizens, etc. We must get to the truth to have this con exposed. If anything, the courts can be used to obtain information such as his social securtiy application, selective service,etc. If we can find a smoking gun that way, then perhaps our elected officials will become brave enough to launch a full investigation. However, these court cases continue to be thrown out as “frivolous”. What’s frivolous about wanting to know information about the most powerful man in the world? I mean, this guy has access to “the button” and we know very little about his past. We got GW’s mediocore grades from his college transcripts, the media had a field day with that. Where’s Obama’s college transcripts? How come YOU don’t want to know what his grades were, what his thesis said, etc,etc. His autobiography has already been taken apart too, so please don’t reference it. Its’ full of lies and contradictions. He wrote what he wants us to know about his life, which i’m sure everything in that book was carefully orchestrated.
“How come YOU don’t want to know what his grades were, what his thesis said, etc,etc.”
When we’re Obots ever interested in the truth?
President Obama is not an usurper; he is the duly elected president.
There’s no evidence that President Obama has been dishonest about his past, or has a secret agenda.
President Obama does not have “a social security number issued in the state of CT.”
The birther lawsuits are frivolous because most of the plaintiffs lack standing under clearly established law; moreover, President Obama is a natural born citizen under the accepted definition of that term. (And lawsuits are not the means to discovery information.)
President Obama’s past is well known; he wrote a book about himself; others have well.
George W. Bush did not disclose his own grades; they were leaked to the media. Regardless, a candidate’s grades are hardly the most pressing reason to vote for him or her. (Speaking of which, where are Sarah Palin’s grades; what is she hiding?)
I think the grades in and of themselves aren’t what “birthers” are actually after.
Good grief, Bob. I sure hope you are being well paid to incessantly repeat this nonsense. Talk about ‘birthers’ being fanatics! I am already weary of this BS, I can’t imagine having to do it for a living…
///President Obama is not an usurper; he is the duly elected president.///
More and more folks are becoming skeptical of this every day. It will take more than the likes of you, repeating it a hundred times a day, to convince them of it. It would take a whole lot more actual documentation of his past, which he steadfastly refuses to produce.
///There’s no evidence that President Obama has been dishonest about his past, or has a secret agenda.///
While I agree his Marxist agenda is not a secret, there certainly isn’t any doubt about it, for anyone who has actually studied what little is known of his past. To say there is no evidence that he has been dishonest about it, is more than laughable. His nativity narrative is almost completely a lie. Hell, it has been well documented that his mom and alleged father never even lived in the same State after his birth, much less the same house; yet he claims they were deeply in love before the family broke up at his age of two. Total BS, bob, and surely you know it.
///President Obama does not have “a social security number issued in the state of CT.”///
And, you know this, how? Has he ever denied it? The lady who discovered that was a PI doing some research for a client, not a crazed ‘birther.’ It gets worse. The SS Administration ‘accidentally’ reissued (something they never do) a CT SS # to Obama in HI, once belonging to a man who died in HI, of all places, who just happened to have a bank account in his grandmother’s bank. Now, doesn’t that beat all for a coincidence? (btw: In HI, one’s DL # is the same as one’s SSI #, and gets printed on everyone’s checks – I lived there for 8 years and used the same bank) You need to go have your BS detector repaired, Bob. It’s running backwards.
///The birther lawsuits are frivolous because most of the plaintiffs lack standing under clearly established law; moreover, President Obama is a natural born citizen under the accepted definition of that term.///
Accepted by whom? Not by me and an ever-growing number of American citizens. Nor by our Founders, in particular John Jay, who asked that the term be included in the qualifications for POTUS to preclude any chance of divided loyalties. They all must have understood the term, for it was added at his suggestion without objection or debate. In fact, the very situation of a man born a subject to the Crown of England was precisely the circumstance they were intending to avoid.
///(And lawsuits are not the means to discovery information.)///
Then, why in hell do lawyers call their fishing expeditions ‘discovery?’
///President Obama’s past is well known; he wrote a book about himself; others have well.///
OK, that rips it. I would like to issue you a challenge. I dare you to read Jack Cashill’s book, “Deconstructing Obama, The Life, Loves, and Letters of Americas’s First Postmodern President.” It makes an essentially irrefutable case that Obama’s famed literary masterpiece, “Dreams from my Father” (on which his reputation as a brilliant intellectual is solely based), was actually written almost entirely by, of all people, his terrorist pal Bill Ayers. This was a premeditated and calculated effort to manufacture a phony narrative for Obama’s life, and he continues to tell the baldfaced lie that he wrote it by himself, to mock ghost-written books of political opponents.
I double dare you. In fact, if you can do so, and somehow be able to come back here and honestly tell me you came to ANY other conclusion than that Ayers ghost wrote that phony story, I’ll buy you a case of Kool-Aid.
///George W. Bush did not disclose his own grades; they were leaked to the media.///
Finally, we agree on an immaterial point.
///Regardless, a candidate’s grades are hardly the most pressing reason to vote for him or her. (Speaking of which, where are Sarah Palin’s grades; what is she hiding?)///
Then, why in the name of Zeus did you drag Palin into this? Are you being paid to work on than case too? You are quite a piece of work, Bob. ◄Dave►
Why do you think bob is here writing comments anyways?
For that matter, why is someone from fogbow who has researched a great amount of material on the “birther” issue purposely telling lies and spreading disinformation? I mean, do you honestly believe bob is full of anything but B.S.?
I thought I had made it clear that I thought he was full of BS. I am unfamiliar with Fogbow; am I missing something? As to his motive, I have concluded that either he is one of the paid Obots, just enjoying his job of spreading disinformation; or an out and out kook, worse than any ‘birther’ I have encountered, in his fanaticism. I do wonder if he gets overtime pay for working at all hours, to make sure there is a derisive reply to every single post anywhere, regarding the eligibility contraversy. ◄Dave►
Fogbow is the leading anti-birther site on the internet. They’re users go around to various “birther” sites and spread disinformation. The administrator was involved in “The “’Bomford’ Fake Kenya Birth Certificate” scandal.
Taken right from the fogbow site:
“In early 2009, an unnamed Obot genius created the “Bomford” FKBC. It became known as the “Bomford” because the original birth certificate, that was used as the “template” for creating it, was found on a family genealogy website in Australia. It was a birth certificate dated 1964, belonging to a gentleman named David Jeffrey Bomford. Except he wasn’t born in Kenya. He was born in South Australia. The original birth certificate is shown below, and the FKBC is shown on the home page of this website.
One important thing to remember about the Bomford: The document itself never left the home of the genius who created it. The only thing anybody else in the world saw was just a photograph of the document (and the subsequent photos showing that it was destroyed by its creator).
In July, 2009, after an unsuccessful attempt to get Phil Berg to fall for it, the photograph of the Bomford FKBC was placed on a USB flash drive, and mailed to Neil Sankey, the “private investigator” for Orly Taitz. It was mailed from the ZIP Code in Washington, D.C. where the Kenyan embassy is, but there was nothing else on the flash drive except the photograph itself. No document was included to verify its authenticity. No individual was identified as the source of the photograph. Most important at all, the so-called “private investigator,” Neil Sankey, apparently made no attempt whatever to determine whether it was authentic or not. He must have simply turned it over to Orly Taitz, because she immediately filed it as an exhibit to a legal motion in federal court, in the case titled Barnett v. Obama, in the Central District of California, before Judge David O. Carter.”
The person who mailed it was the administrator.
There are some who believe that one of these “Obots” was the one who created the supposed fraudulent short form certificate (uh-oh, I don’t think they’re gonna like me writing that).
You have many opinions about lies, dishonesty, etc. But no actual facts. You saying something is a lie is not proof that it is.
You also much speculation about things outside your knowledge. Again, your speculation is not proof of anything.
Social security numbers are not assigned by the state that they are “issued” in. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
And this notion that the social security administration “reissued” President Obama a dead person’s number is total birther fantasy born from false premises and faulty data.
Birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. That definition is accepted by judges, professors, and other experts. You are free, of course, to think the law ought to be changed, but your incorrect nonexpert opinion on the actual state of the law will not change anything.
“Discovery” is not to discover whether you have a case; it is a method to compel your opposition to disclose the evidence that they have. Suing someone without first having a factual basis for a lawsuit is a bad idea.
I bring up Palin’s grades only to demonstrate birther’s singular obsession with President Obama. Despite all the posturing, they don’t really want candidates to more fully disclose.
And suggesting “Obots” created President Obama’s COLB (which the State of Hawaii vouched for) is about one the stupidest things I’ve heard from a birther, and that’s saying a lot.
Are you drinking on the job, Bobby? Or, smoking some of that wacky tobacky you kids like so much? You are becoming ever less coherent.
Social security numbers are not assigned by the state that they are “issued” in. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.///
Lets be precise with our language. Are you asserting that the SSI never in years past reserved the first three digits of a SSI # for applicants from a particular State? Or are you perhaps trying to pettifog the subject with the fact that they recently ceased the practice?
///And this notion that the social security administration “reissued” President Obama a dead person’s number is total birther fantasy born from false premises and faulty data.///
You misunderstand, Bob. My notion is that he appropriated that number to erase an earlier identity, not that the SSI Admin. reissued it. That was a sarcastic reference to what some Obots, perhaps less professional than you, say to try to explain away the indefensible. You being professional and all, just dismiss the subject in an indignant huff, rather than get bogged down in inexplicable details.
///Birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.///
Do you keep track? How many times have you said this mantra today? You can go out on the street and bay it at the moon all night, for all I care. It won’t make it true, and you haven’t convinced a soul hereabouts.
///“Discovery” is not to discover whether you have a case; it is a method to compel your opposition to disclose the evidence that they have.///
Oh, we already know we have a case, and yes we wish to compel the Obamunist to disclose the evidence we need to toss him out on his ample ears. We are doing precisely what your lawyer buddies do when they pursue ‘discovery.’ Maybe even setting perjury and conspiracy traps. He is going down, Bobby. You might as well get used to failure.
///I bring up Palin’s grades only to demonstrate birther’s singular obsession with President Obama. Despite all the posturing, they don’t really want candidates to more fully disclose.///
It is simply a juvenile non sequitur, kid. How old are you anyway? Isn’t it past your bedtime?
///And suggesting “Obots” created President Obama’s COLB (which the State of Hawaii vouched for) is about one the stupidest things I’ve heard from a birther, and that’s saying a lot.///
Really? Why did it show up on the Daily Kos first? Saying the State of Hawaii vouched for it is akin to saying the Mayor of Chicago vouched for it to me, Son. I used to live there, and I know how that place is wired. Before you get all indignant about that statement, ask yourself how much confidence you would place in the State of Texas, vouching for a document published on WND purporting to cover for George Bush. Yeah, it’s like that… ◄Dave►
“The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.
Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.
Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.”
Again: The SSA says IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE ANY KIND OF USEABLE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION.
And there is no evidence President Obama misappropriated anyone’s social security number.
Birth in the United is sufficient for a natural-born citizenship. It doesn’t matter if you refuse to accept this; you are just wrong. Which is why the professors and other experts are quoted in court cases and in the media, and not you.
There is no legal case against President Obama. Just lies, rumors, speculation, and innuendo. No actual facts, let alone competent evidence. But the amateurish attempts to play lawyer are very amusing!
The COLB showed up on Daily Kos first because the Obama campaign gave it to them first. Duh.
That you dislike the State of Hawaii is not proof of fraud. And under the U.S. Constitution, if the State of Hawaii says President Obama was born in the United States, then every court in the country will accept that a lawful, sufficient competent evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
If the State of Texas said that George W. Bush was born there, I’d be concerned because George W. Bush was born in the State of Connecticut. But the Texas hasn’t, so I’m not concerned by your analogy because only the State of Hawaii has said President Obama was born there.
“Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information.”
This information was not added to the SS site until recently. Also, please note, IT DOES NOT SAY IT CANNOT BE USED FOR GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION!
“And there is no evidence President Obama misappropriated anyone’s social security number.”
The year 1890 is associated with the SSN.
Harrison Bounel 1890 alias related to Barack Obama:
The Bounels are relatives of Michele Obama (Robinson). Harry Bounel was born in 1890 in Connecticut.
Bonus question for anti-birthers:
Why are you, gorefan, and Matuskey here posting? For that matter, why are you guys going around the internet posting disinformation on “birther” sites?
*Correction for info on youtube video*
Harry Bounel was a “roomer” of the Robinsons and was born on 1860. The important thing to note, however, is there is only one other Harrison/Harry Bounels.
“Okay class, let’s try an experiment. Please read these questions and send me your comments. Trust me, I’m a professional, I know what I’m doing. I anxiously await your responses.”
Over a week has past and over 1,500 comments have been posted since Bernie Goldberg undertook this ‘experiment.’ And although in the meantime he posted two other articles, he has yet to return to his ‘class.’
It would appear the only thing Bernie was anxiously awaiting was an opportunity to boost traffic to his site and to sport with our intelligence.
I think its safe to say we can leave the classroom now. Badly done, Mr. Goldberg. Bad form indeed.
I daresay the only reason the Birthers – and I am a proud Birther – are here is because Bernie is a member of the media that is paying attention to the ineligibility issue. Personally, I just had to go look at Bernie’s bio section to see who he is.
Apparently, he wrote a book called “Bias.” Well, Goldberg is obviously an expert on that. He is biased toward doing what his Obama Overlords tell him.
The bio also says that “…he is also a news and media analyst for Fox News where he comments regularly on the state of the press and television news as well as on politics and culture for the network’s top rated program, The O’Reilly Factor.”
Ooooh. Well, you’re right, then. That’s the end of that. O’Reilly was the nitwit who tried to lie to everyone about how Obama got his fraudulent Social Security number.
The good news is that I’m sure we Birthers have reached a ton of new people through this forum. The Obots have shown their true colors here, so anyone with honor and integrity will ignore them completely, and at least look into the matter. What they will find is a story of the biggest political scam in American history. and Bernie and Bill are just two of those scum that make the scam possible.
Given all of the hateful lies and vile bigotry the birthers have produced over the last few years (plus the sedition and lack of respect for the Constitution…), I would think that any American would be ashamed to call themselves a birther
“Given all of the hateful lies and vile bigotry the anti-birthers and liberals have produced over the last few years (plus the sedition and lack of respect for the Constitution…), I would think that any American would be ashamed to call themselves an anti-birther or liberal”
I corrected that for you.
“hateful lies and vile bigotry” are traits of the liberal left (liberalism, communists, socialists, marxists, it’s all the same. I am proud to be called a “birther”.
Lack of respect for the Constitution? LOL, Barry has all but urinated on that document. He has zero respect for it. He’s an Alinsky trained, anti American socialist, and a very incompetant one at that.
Here’s a quote from a real leader on socialism:
Well, I’d be happy if he at the VERY LEAST contacted Jana Winter and Vallely, then asked O’Reilly why he had his segment scrubbed.
Nobody is going to conctact any of those folks. They are all just covering their rears, protecting their incomes, ratings, careers, etc. They are pretending to be dumb on this issue, anybody with half a brain knows Barry is a fraud, the conservite media has failed us tho. They are no different than the liberals, this is just a big game for them and they are playing it. And when they denounce birthers, they are just trying to get some cheap, pathetic street cred with the liberals and media.
“They are pretending to be dumb on this issue”
But, that’s not the half of it. Jana Winter committed libel and should be FIRED. O’ scrubbed a segment of his show after staking his professional career on the “birther” controversy (that’s censorship).
I just hope Bernie doesn’t actually think he can stay in business once Barry is finnally exposed. I mean, lets face it, most of Bernies fans could be considered birthers. Maybe not hard core birthers like myself, but most think Barry is hiding a lot from his past and every time they conduct a poll, a majority of Americans still have doubts about Barry’s birth certificate. Bernie has mocked and riduculed is own audience. I hope he has the decency to retire when the fraud does get exposed.
Sometimes people from outside our country see us better than we see ourselves. The following statement was translated from a Czech Republic newspaper editorial.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”
“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
I can’t say that I disagree with that, Lucy. Sad but pehaps very true.
And if someone else garners a majority of electoral votes in 2012, then President Obama will be out.
Until then, he is the duly elected president.
On August 8,2011 Dr Orly Taitz will travel to Hawaii State Dept of Health with a subpoena ordering the viewing of Obama’s original birth certificate. Paul Irely and Doug Vogt will go with her. Here’s the story on WND:
Unless Obama or the Hawaii Dept of Health find a way to block this, the original document (if it exists) will be viewed by order of the court. You can go to birtherreport.com to view the actual signed subpoena.
Bob/Arthur B. What’s your take on this? Do you have any problems with this? Are you guys going to support this? I’m assuming that since you don’t think there’s anything wrong, you guys will have no problems at all and you guys should be very skeptical if this does get blocked. I’d like to hear your take on this new devolopment.
Well, Taitz and crew are going to probably get there and…well, that’s it. Nothing has really changed. The privacy laws are still in effect. The only way I see Taitz actually getting to see the BC is by getting the signatures of a couple judges.
Now, we could discuss whether those “privacy” laws are actually valid in this particular circumstance, but, I don’t see the HDOH just giving Taitz the special key and saying “Go at it!”
well, if I’m understanding everything correctly, a judge has ordered the Hawaii Dept of Health to allow Taitz to view the document through the issue of a subpoena. I don’t think any privacy laws will affect the court issued subpoena.
Even if this were true, I’m pretty sure she’d still need a signature from a Hawaii judge.
As displayed on her website, the July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii allows her to examine the original 1961 Obama birth certificate on Aug. 8 at 10 a.m.:
Page 1 of Orly Taitz subpoena to Hawaii
Page 2 of Orly Taitz subpoena to Hawaii
Taitz’s subpoena was served upon Loretta Fuddy, directory of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine is representing Fuddy.
Because Fuddy neglected to file opposition to the court-issued subpoena within the 14 days specified, the Hawaii DOH appears to have little recourse but to comply with the subpoena by producing the Obama original birth certificate for Taitz’s examination.
Taitz is planning to travel to the state agency, despite receiving no answer from Fuddy as to whether or not she intends to comply with the subpoena. Taitz put the question to Fuddy in a July 27 letter.
Read more: The birth certificate please! Subpoena to be delivered http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=327373#ixzz1TVZW1BY8
“Because Fuddy neglected to file opposition to the court-issued subpoena within the 14 days specified, the Hawaii DOH appears to have little recourse but to comply with the subpoena by producing the Obama original birth certificate for Taitz’s examination. ”
Dishonest WND journalism.
Sorry, JR, but you’re not understanding this correctly at all. No judge has ordered the production of anything in this case.
As is standard, one who has been denied documents under a FOIA request is entitled (if certain conditions are met) to file a civil suit. As is standard, an attorney can request a blank subpoena from a court clerk and fill it out.
However, that doesn’t make the subpoena valid, and does not require compliance by the person on whom it is served. Hawaii has already made it clear that they are not planning to comply, and there is no indication that the court will force them to do it since the documents requested are not subject to FOIA disclosure in this case.
If you want more information, I can refer you to other sources, but I caution you not to rely on what Orly’s site says. You don’t have to take my word for it — follow her record. She has been wrong about every law suit she has ever filed; she is simply a horrendously incompetent lawyer.
You do know she got sanctioned *again* last week — in a different case, and by a different judge from the one who on Monday made a reference to her stupidity.
Did you read the actual subpoena? It is from a U.S. District court and it says the Hawaii Dir of Health is “commanded” to release the original 1961 typewriter birth certificate for Barack Omaba II.
Now, I realize Fuddy has skipped town. However, this is a real subpoena for a U.S. Federal court.
It is a form subpoena; they all say that. And, by law, the clerk is obligated to give one to *anyone* who has a pending case and requests one.
No judged signed it, no decision was made by anyone whether it was appropriate to issue. Taitz asked; the clerk complied.
I GUARANTEE that the Hawaii Department of Health will ignore Taitz’s “subpoena,” and it will suffer no ill effect.
The more interesting question is whether Taitz will get herself arrested in the process.
I stopped counted the number of ways the subpoena isn’t valid. And it wasn’t issued by a judge.
Well, I really don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with having his original typed 1961 birth cerfificated inspected. I mean, there’s nothing to hide right? It’s just the original version of what was released on 4-27-11 so privacy shouldn’t be an issue. We’ve all seen it and it IS the same thing right?? So, I would like to know if a court, judge, whoever, allows it to be viewed, even against Obama’s wishes, do you guys still have a problem with it? Or will you say OK, no prob cause we don’t believe Obama is hiding anything.
No actually it is not exactly the same thing.
BCs contain medical information that is collected at birth. That information is not included on the BC given to the parents. And that information is still private.
It includes medical information on the child and on the mother.
What he released on 4-27 is suppossedly an exact copy, or scan of what’s in that book in the vault. I’d be interested to see if there is any such thing in that vault to begin with!
“What he released on 4-27 is suppossedly an exact copy, or scan of what’s in that book in the vault.”
I’m not sure where you got that idea. It is generally understood that states keep lots of birth data, and much of it is so highly confidential that it’s never released, even on the longest of long forms.
What he released on 4/27 is supposedly an exact copy or scan of that portion of the birth record that goes onto a long-form birth certificate. Not only is there no guarantee that all parts of the record will be shown, it’s a very safe bet that that is not the case.
Arthur B, I’d be satisfied if that one page could be viewed. Of course, I think the American people deserve to see all of the information available. I’m really hoping Taitz is successful.
If a judge orders it, fine.
BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
1. Taitz’s subpoena is invalid; she’s just setting herself up for failure.
2. As a Hawaiian deputy attorney general explained to Taitz, Hawaiian law precludes releasing President Obama’s long-form birth certificate’s to Taitz. And no judge is going to disagree with that.
I have no doubt that the records maintained by the Hawaiian Department of Health are identical to paper versions given to President Obama’s people, and the digital versions created from those.
I also have no doubt birthers will look for some sort of anomaly, and cry “forgery!”
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Hopefully, they will be allowed to view the document (if it exists). If it doesn’t exist, Houston we go ourselves a little problem here – lol.
Again: Prepare to be disappointed. The State of Hawaii is not going to honor Taitz’s subpoena (and it will suffer no ill effects for doing so). So one will be viewing anything that isn’t already known.
And the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly stated that President Obama was born in Hawaii, and there’s no competent evidence to suggest otherwise.
You may be right, Bob. However, the reason this whole thing has exploded into a giant controversy is because Obama himself chose to hide his past. He has only himself to blame for this. Myself and many others wonder if he is hiding something. That’s the natural effect of hiding your past like he has done.
Except President Obama hasn’t hidden his past. Certainly not more than any other candidate.
He wrote a book about himself. His COLB has been online for over three years from now.
God bless Dr. Orly Taitz, and her family. She is an American hero, and we all owe her and all those who have fought hard for the United States and the Constitution, a debt of gratitude.
How do you obots/sellouts sleep at night?
On my back; you?
Orly Taitz, debt of gratitude, on your back…
Thanks guys, I’m going to have nightmares.
Words mean something. No word in the Constitution is without meaning. No word in the Constitution is superfluous. To be President the highest law of the land demands that one be a natural born Citizen. Not just a Citizen, not just a born Citizen, but a full on natural born Citizen.
Obama may have been a born Citizen (if his unverified, highly doubtful nativity story is to be believed), but that “fact” alone would not necessarily be enough to qualify him as natural born Citizen. So what is the difference between the two?
Let’s take a few examples.
1) Someone born to Citizen parents, but born outside of American sovereign soil (born of blood but not of dirt). McCain was an example of this class. The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution that people like him are nbC.
2) Someone born to illegal alien parents, but on American sovereign soil (born of dirt but not of blood). These are the so-called anchor babies.
3) Someone born to legal permanent resident alien (i.e., non citizen) parents, but on American sovereign soil (a variation of born of dirt but not of blood). Kim Wong Ark is the classic case of this type. Although The Supremes ruled that he was by rights a citizen, they did not directly rule upon his nbC status as it was not at issue (however, the dicta strongly suggested that KWA was not nbC).
4) Someone born on sovereign American soil to one citizen parent and one non-citizen transient alien parent (born of dirt and of half-blood). Although no court has ever established that Obama belongs to this class, let’s for the moment assume he does for the sake of this analysis.
5) Something else. Other combinations exit, but let’s ignore them for now or until they arise as somehow important to the analysis.
It is almost without question that a significant difference must exist between “born Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” otherwise the Founders would have simply used the shorter former term rather than the longer latter one. Therefore, at least some of cases 1-4 above must have been in that “tweener” class by the Founders’ understanding.
Historically, in the time of the Founders, cases 2 and 3 would not have even been considered citizens, so they can’t be the tweener cases. And, until less than 100 years ago, the citizenship of the wife followed that of the husband immediately upon marriage, so case 4 was inconceivable to the Founders. Case 1 (McCain’s case) was something they discussed and, in spite of the recent nonbinding Senate resolution, the best evidence strongly suggests that they considered someone of case 1 to be a tweener.
Again, case 4 (Obama’s case, at least for the sake of this analysis in spite of strong reasonable doubt otherwise) never made it onto the Founders’ radar (had they had radar, that is), but we can look to their expressed intent to see where it would fall. Clearly, since their stated intent for the nbC requirement was to exclude all foreign influence or allegiance, someone born to a foreign father (remember the father was determinant) would definitely be a tweener (actually they probably wouldn’t even consider such a person to be born a citizen).
Words mean things and Obama clearly does fit the meaning of the “natural” modifier to “born citizen.” The guy is a self-professed citizen of the world and it shows (and proves the Founders’ wisdom in excluding such from the Presidency).
Come on Bernie – man up and do your patriotic duty to call for a full-on, no holds barred, congressional investigation of this issue so that it may be finally properly resolved (and perhaps the country may be saved in the process – we desperately need to get back to strict adherence to the rule of law, the Constitution in particular).
Judges, professors, and experts all agree that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
And, apparently, so does Bernie: He’s a fan of Rubio.
Not ALL judges, professiors and experts agree to this. Not by a long shot.
Please name some of those who don’t — and please concentrate on the ones who are widely recognized as experts, so we can compare their credentials against those who feel differently.
I am growing weary of the incessant credentials challenges hereabouts. It has been my observation in a long life, that wisdom and common sense are directly proportional to one’s age and life experiences. I have found them to also inversely proportional to the number of years one spends cloistered in the mind-numbing environs of a modern ‘Progressive’ University or Law School campus.
Thus, young lawyers start adulthood at an extreme disadvantage, and can only hope that they can overcome their handicaps, by paying careful attention as the years tick by. Of course, this is only possible if they learn to think critically for themselves, which is no mean feat for those accustomed to evaluating new data by how it makes them ‘feel,’ or what simpatico ‘experts’ decree, rather than what it causes them think. Good luck to you young fellows.
It other words, you got nothing.
When a case goes before a court, the judge doesn’t ask people off the street what they think. Rather, the judge does research and sees what other judges, professors, and other experts have said on the subject.
And in this case, judges, professors, and other experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
You don’t get it, Bob. This isn’t going to court. Your Obamunist will resign and accept a deal for a pardon from Biden, rather than expose himself to jail for his felonies. All we need do is get someone like Bernie to stand up on his hind legs like a man and force this into the public square. The Dems will force his resignation in a heartbeat once the media turn on him like a wounded beast…
That is why I am focused on the one simple issue, “Born a Brit – Not Legit,” which is simply true, regardless of your feckless attempt to brush it aside as ridiculous. Flail away, Bob, it isn’t working. Those who might be swayed by you, aren’t hanging here. Those whom I might persuade to get focused and spread the simple message are. I am on the winning team at this point, and you are not. C’est la vie…
I will break this to you gently: President Obama is not going to resign because and a tiny minority on the internet refuse to acknowledge that birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
But, but, but….RUBIO! He’s just gotta be on the ticket! I could care less even if he was from Guam!
Rubio was born in Florida. And the CRS in 2000 opined people born in Guam are natural-born citizens.
Come now bob. You’re being intellectually dishonest again. The premise of that CRS report was that someone could be natural born even if they were NOT born in the United States (as long as they had U.S. citizen parents). This is another debate all together.
“Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as ‘natural born’ citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States.”
At first, I would say you have a reading comprehension problem. However, anyone who reads your comments should be able to tell all you’re doing is spreading disinformation.
Once again, that OPINION was made on the premise that it didn’t matter where one was born to be a U.S. natural born citizen (as long as they have U.S. citizen parents).
But…I do enjoy getting you on the facts. So, you can “sigh” all you want.
Sorry, I think you’re the one misreading the document here.
The body of the text says: “Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.”
And then the footnote says: “Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens…”
The first quote presents itself as a widely held “interpret[ation]” concerning those born abroad to two citizen parents. The second quote states plainly and without further conditions that people born in certain U.S. territories are “legally defined” as natural born citizens.
You may not agree with the definition, but I see no basis for concluding that the footnote includes the presumption of two citizen parents. The whole point of their discussion is to clarify the legal situation, and I would expect the authors to choose their words carefully. I don’t think the plain language of the text says what you think it says.
What I’m saying is the CRS document only stated an opinion. That’s it. The reason why this is important though is because it is somewhat similar to what happened with McCain. Was McCain a natural born citizen?
I’m not saying what I personally believe, what I am saying is all this is based on OPINION.
@Trial — “What I’m saying is the CRS document only stated an opinion. That’s it.”
I don’t think you’re representing it quite accurately.
The report took pains — in just those two quotes! — to choose their words carefully. The first of the conclusions was described as the way “[m]ost constitutional scholars interpret this language” and the other was described as a “legal defin[ition].” A scholarly consensus and a legal definition are two very different things, and I don’t consider it accurate to lump those two descriptions together as “only stat[ing] an opinion.”
I am assuming that the 1996 report that they cite in support (“U.S. Insular Areas…”) goes into more detail explaining why one is a widely held interpretation and the other is a legal definition, but I haven’t read it.
And there remains no reason to believe that the legal definition cited in the footnote contains any presumption of two citizen parents.
You, of course, read where I specifically qualified it was the CRS’s opinion, right?
But the CRS is not some anonymous nonexpert on the internet: It is the professional service that advises Congress. And it has many talented, educated people on its staff, who actually know what they are talking about.
Most actual experts agree with the CRS (that two U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for natural-born citizenship, regardless of place of birth), but not all.
And here’s the kicker: Rubio was born in Florida. Bernie knows that; the Guam comment was just rhetorical flourish.
The CRS has an agenda:
-Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now-
“The core problem with the CRS Memo takes the form of what seemingly is a conscious effort on the part of the memorandum drafters to “adjust” or “tweak” the actual language of two critical federal documents in order to arrive at a predetermined, targeted result. The documents thus victimized in the CRS Memo are (1) the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and (2) the U.S. Attorney General’s “opinion” in Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 15 (1875), accurately quoted in Elg, but altered and thus misquoted in the CRS Memo. Let us hope this is an innocent mistake, for if it is not, it is a matter which should concern everyone, and in particular, 535 members of Congress.”
Read about it here:
LOL! If you want to cast doubt on the credibility of the Congressional Research Bureau, I hope you can find a more credible source than the Post & Email!
(and that of course should be “Congressional Research Service”)
One of the most anti-President-Obama birther sites says CRS has an agenda!
And what is the “proof” of this agenda? That actual experts read the law differently than biased nonexperts!
Reality has an agenda.
Hey Bernie, I was looking up what your personal take is on the “birther” controversy and I found this:
“I have a theory. And the theory is this: That the Chicago Mafia inside the White House want to keep this crazy controversy going. Because the longer it goes, the better the chance that they will conflate the crazy right-wing fringe with regular conservatives and regular Republicans.”
Let’s say you’re right. Now, is it not possible that Obama was born in Hawaii but crimes have still been committed? Just food for thought.
Of course it is!
Like I’ve been saying, gather your best evidence. Take your best shot.
See, this is the problem. How many people are actually willing to attack it from this angle? You see, when you gather evidence, you have to first have an idea of what you want to research. The problem with “birthers” is that they start with the “fact” Obama was born in Kenya and work from there. Which makes things worse is that sites like WND compound the problem. Let the record show WND has never claimed Obama was born in Kenya, and have pretty much left it as “he was born…….somewhere.”
This is what makes me appreciate researchers such as Miss Tickly. I can’t say for certain, but I believe she has been approaching it from this angle. This is exactly why I strongly appreciate the research she’s done on the seals.
Did you ever see “The Incredible Jewel Robbery”? It was a TV special, the last appearance together of the Marx Brothers. It’s about how they pull off this major heist by disguising themselves as policemen and their vehicle as a police car.
At the end, when they’ve almost gotten away with it, another cop notices that the seal on their “police car” is white on black, whereas the real thing is black on white. The whole scheme falls apart and they get busted.
A perfect plan … but they made one mistake … comedy gold … and I must say, that’s what occurs to me when I ponder the thought of the embossed vs. debossed seal.
But, then we have people who say “some seals on police cars ARE white on black, so there’s nothing suspicious about it.”
But, this is what’s most striking to me. Let’s say there ARE a couple just like that. Let’s say, 2 out of every 10,000. Should it still not strike people as odd that the car had the seal white on black?
Oh, trial, what can I say? It’s a long, long way from something “strik[ing] people as odd” to proving that the President of the United States to be ineligible to hold that office.
But remember what we discussed earlier. There’s no question that the State of Hawaii has confirmed that the LF posted by the White House is the LF that they certified. Therefore, since all the data in the COLB is also in the long form, we know that the data in the COLB is also confirmed to be correct.
So what are we left with? Worst case, Obama can order a new COLB, and it is guaranteed to have the same information that his previous one had. And maybe some day the historians will tell us whether, and why, the seal on the first copy went the wrong way.
Except there’s no indication the seal went the “wrong” way.
I understand your point, but why should we wait until historians tell us anything? Couldn’t some certain journalists investigate this for themselves? Particularly, someone with connections that could more easily find out the truth concerning the seals?
We’re left with two questions:
1. Is it possible for a Hawaii COLB to have a debossed seal?
2. If it is possible, why are they giving some COLBs debossed seals when it’s against Hawaii statute to do so?
It is possible.
Where is an example of a seal on a COLB that meets Miss Tickly’s standards?
You know, my friend, that if you wish to explore the question of the embossed/debossed seal, you have my support. As we’ve discussed several times, the birther “evidence” needs to be refined; there’s a lot of out-of-date, firmly debunked stuff that needs to be discarded, even if many of the birthers refuse to do so.
But if you believe that the seal question is still an open one, by all means explore it further, so at some point you can decide whether it’s finally the smoking gun or just more garbage.
But, again, I’ll tell you what my thinking is. Since 1) the SF (shorthand for the COLB issued in 2007 and scanned/photographed in 2008) contains data that is identical to the data on the LF posted on line in April, and 2) what was posted in April is confirmed by Hawaiian officials to be a true image of the one they issued and certified, there is no reasonable doubt that the document is authentic.
To my way of thinking, there is no plausible way to suggest the possibility that someone went to all the trouble of making a fraudulent document for the purpose of filling it with valid data. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test for me. To add to that the supposition that they went to the trouble of getting the form right, the data right, the paper right — and in the process of creating a fake seal to use, they screwed up and had a backwards one manufactured in error — all for the purpose of creating a fake document that had exactly the same information as the real one would have had…
Well, like I said, good luck with your quest, and by all means tell us what you find.
I believe this is one:
I would research this myself, but the HDOH says they’re not willing to discuss it. I guess I’m too much of a plebeian. See, you gotta understand, why are there debossed seals to begin with when all they claim to have is embossed seals? Either Obama’s SF is fraudulent, or the HDOH is more than likely committing a crime.
You can conclude that that seal embossed, and President Obama’s seals are all debossed?
I’m going to with option three: Miss Tickly is totally wrong on the embossed/debossed distinction. The regulations merely say “raised,” and the factcheck, etc. clearly show a raised seal.
I’m not sure I can be polite with you anymore. All you’ve been doing is spreading disinformation. At least with Arthur, I can have at least somewhat an intelligent debate. You, on the other hand, always seem to be intellectually dishonest.
“You can conclude that that seal embossed,”
Yes, and anyone with a COLB from Hawaii can see their COLB has an embossment as well.
“and President Obama’s seals are all debossed?”
NO, I never stated that! I’m very sick of your B.S. bob. I specifically stated I’m only willing to discuss the COLB that was put on factcheck’s website.
“I’m going to with option three: Miss Tickly is totally wrong on the embossed/debossed distinction. The regulations merely say “raised,” and the factcheck, etc. clearly show a raised seal.”
You’re full of it bob. They stated they only have embossed seals, and embossed seals are used for the purpose of authenticating records.
You accuse me of “spreading disinformation” and being “intellectually dishonest” but can’t give specifics.
Here’s a close-up of President Obama’s seal:
You can tell that the image you provided is embossed, yet President Obama’s is debossed?
Read the actual regulation: It only says “raised.” Nothing about embossed or debossed.
And, really, Miss Tickly’s argument is laughable: There’s an embossing machine that creates raised seals. If the clerk puts the paper in correctly, it is embossed and valid, but accidentally puts it in upside down it is invalid and has committed a crime? Really? The State of Hawaii is that stupid?
I’ve already discussed this with Matuskey who was also trying to spread the same disinformation. There are 9 pictures posted on factchecks website with different sides and angles of the seal.
“If the clerk puts the paper in correctly, it is embossed and valid, but accidentally puts it in upside down it is invalid and has committed a crime?”
How would they “accidentally” do it to begin with bob? And if they DID make a mistake, THEY SHOULD CORRECT IT!
And your magic eyes can look these images and declare them different? Does the Hawaii Department of Health have two different machines?
It is good to know that you are perfect and would never made an unnoticed mistake. The rest of us are fallible.
Thankfully, the regulations only specify “raised,” so regardless of the paper’s orientation, it has been properly certified.
Careful now bob. In the midst of your insults, you’re letting the truth get out.
@Trial — “Either Obama’s SF is fraudulent…”
Maybe we ought to agree that we are using language the same way.
Legally, fraud is defined as: “A false representation of a matter of fact — whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed — that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)
Is that more or less the definition you have in mind? If so, isn’t it the case that, even if the seal were backwards, there’s no fraud involved if the document states only true and correct facts?
In this context, the seal cannot be “backwards.” The regulations only require a “raised” deal. They do not specify in which direction the seal must be raised.
“In this context, the seal cannot be “backwards.” The regulations only require a “raised” deal. They do not specify in which direction the seal must be raised.”
You may be right; I have not investigated that issue.
But I feel no need to, as it is moot. There can be no fraud in a document that states only true and correct information.
So, as I’ve said, I encourage Trial to pursue it if that’s what interests him — to see what the laws and regulations say and to see how Obama’s documents look compared to other Hawaiian birth certificates. I’m not going to prejudge the results of his investigation.
But I am convinced far beyond any reasonable doubt that there’s nothing regarding the direction of the seal that could conceivably call into question any of the information on President Obama’s birth certificates.
You are correct that fraud requries an intent to deceive, and there’s no evidence that anyone working for the State of Hawaii has intended to deceive anyone. (Unless you want to buy into a massive conspiracy theory spanning two governorships, etc.)
The grown-ups are concerned with more pressing matters.
I like pie.
Hawaii Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8b
2.4 Issuance of Certified Copies of Vital Records
B. Standards for Copies of Vital Records
(1) Standard Copy
(b) Form of certification. Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the official seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.
“Furthermore, we all agree that a purported certified copy of a vital record which is not embossed with a raised seal is not a legally certified copy issued by the Hawaii Department of Health because the laws of Hawaii (HRS§321-10) give the Hawaii Department of Health’s regulations the force and effect of law”
And a response to UIPA request is legally binding? Really?
The regulations say only raised; they control.
Damn, I hate to let myself get dragged into these side issues, when I want to focus on the simple overriding theme: “Born a Brit – Not Legit” No conspiracy theory necessary. But…
I can’t let ALL of Arthur’s merry band of Associates (Shall we call them the AA Brigade?) get away with BS…
Turning a document over would not change the seal from raised to debossed. The raised part would just be on the back instead of the front. But, if one used a debossed seal, the raised part would always be a mirror image of the seal, which ever side it was placed on.
The term ‘raised’ is synonymous with ‘embossed.’ See:
Common sense alone would dictate that the ‘raised’ side of a raised seal would not be the mirror image of the seal. All ‘official’ seals that I know of are raised. This includes notary seals and corporate seals. It is extremely unlikely, and easily verified, that the HDOH possesses a debossed version of their seal making device.
Thus, if a BC exists with a debossed seal affixed, regardless of how accurate the data thereon, it is a forgery; and if used to convince us of anything in any manner, it is evidence of a felony. It could not be otherwise. ◄Dave►
1. Your source does not say raised means embossed. More importantly, neither do the State of Hawaii’s regulations.
2. Where is an example of a COLB with a “valid” seal? Under this ridiculous definition, the Hawaii Department of Health churns out nothing but forgeries all day long.
3. President Obama’s CUKC status at birth has no bearing on his status as a natural-born citizen.
Gee, Dave, I hate to be picky, but if all official seals are raised, why did someone go to the trouble of having a fake Hawaiian seal manufactured that went the wrong way? I mean, wouldn’t the person who made it have said, “Umm, are you sure that’s what you want? The real ones go the other way!” Wouldn’t a clever forger go to the seal maker and say, here, I want one that looks like *this*?
When you get finished with that you can explain how it could be a felony to convince someone of something using a document that has only true information on it.
Now don’t deny it, you said that “if a BC exists with a debossed seal affixed, regardless of how accurate the data thereon, it is a forgery; and if used to convince us of anything in any manner, it is evidence of a felony.”
And why would the State of Hawaii use a fake seal if it has access to the real machine? Especially after it repeatedly and expressly said President Obama was born in Hawaii.
“And why would the State of Hawaii use a fake seal…”?
I think the implication is that the fake seal proves that someone other than the State of Hawaii actually affixed the seal to the document, ostensibly the forger who created the document.
See, it was part of a plot in which someone got their hands on authentic Hawaiian security paper and painstakingly recreated the form of a COLB. They obtained fake copies of the state seal and signature stamps — and then — when all the preparations were made — they put the true data on the fake certificate!
And, just for a kicker, it turns out they screwed up and had the seal made backwards! So it busted the whole plan wide open — it wasn’t really a *real* COLB with correct information, it was really a *fake* COLB with correct information.
Isn’t that obvious?
…and then, when the this fake certificate (with the accurate data but the wrong seal) was released, not one person in the State of Hawaii and said, “That’s not ours!”
Their silence, of course, is further proof of the conspiracy.
Is it really that unbelievable?
Lucas’s fake document has external mistakes (registrar’s name is wrong, for example), a hospital official denied it came from them, and that “certificate” is being peddled by literally a convicted forger.
But other than that….
I wasn’t referring to the Lucas Smith controversy.
“The “Bomford” Fake Kenya Birth Certificate
In early 2009, an unnamed Obot genius created the “Bomford” FKBC. It became known as the “Bomford” because the original birth certificate, that was used as the “template” for creating it, was found on a family genealogy website in Australia. It was a birth certificate dated 1964, belonging to a gentleman named David Jeffrey Bomford. Except he wasn’t born in Kenya. He was born in South Australia. The original birth certificate is shown below, and the FKBC is shown on the home page of this website.
One important thing to remember about the Bomford: The document itself never left the home of the genius who created it. The only thing anybody else in the world saw was just a photograph of the document (and the subsequent photos showing that it was destroyed by its creator).
The person who sent the mail was the admin of fogbow.
I’m afraid I can’t see the analogy at all.
Would you please explain how the situations are similar?
The State of Hawaii (directly, or through its silence) is playing a practical joke, see….
Trial, is Bob correct? I don’t know whether I should treat your comment seriously.
Who said it was the state of Hawaii?
Well, the Bomford FKBC was intended as a hoax all along — and intended as an easily debunked hoax. All it took was discovering that it was based on an Australian prototype, and it was immediately clear that it could not have been from Kenya. And, of course, not only was there no independent confirmation of the data in it, even if it had appeared to be authentic it would have had to be thoroughly authenticated — unlike a document from one of our States, which would be presumed to be self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It takes some damn good evidence to call into question the validity of an official U.S. state document.
And of course, the Bomford FKBC was immediately debunked (as it was intended to be) and is considered a very funny joke by all who know about it except for a small subset of the birthers.
Now, how exactly is this like the Obama COLB?
“Internet bloggers revealed that the Bomford birth certificate had been forged from an authentic “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” issued in 1964 to an Australian citizen, David Jeffrey Bomford, born April 10, 1959, at Thebarton Community Hospital, in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.”
“Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is forged using his sister’s Maya Kassandra Soetoro’s COLB.”
Of course, this is all going under possibility number one, as I pointed out before.
I was being facetious.
Under this “theory,” either the State of Hawaii is involved, or the State of Hawaii is complicit through its silence.
And another birther canard: There is no Maya COLB.
It just so happens that I am involved with a training institute, which uses a unique seal for our diplomas. About two weeks ago, with graduation only a week away, we discovered that our seal device had become hopelessly misplaced during a move. I went on the internet, explored several options and chose a company claiming to be able to deliver one overnight. I submitted a PDF of our logo, punched a few radio buttons to select size, embossed or debossed, (raised or engraved), etc., gave them a credit card number, and exactly what I had ordered arrived two days later. Close enough.
Now, it doesn’t take a fertile imagination to see where somewhere in this process from my mouse clicks all the way to the kid in the back burning the dies, a human error could have caused a debossed seal to arrive. More importantly, the lady applying the seal to the diplomas, would not have noticed the difference.
Please note that I did not have to prove I had a right to use that logo or possess a seal of it. Even the credit card was a personal one, and the delivery address did not state the organization’s name. My conclusion: anyone who desired to forge our diplomas would not be stumped by lack of our seal.
If the State of Hawaii does not possess a debossed version of its mandated raised seal, then it becomes patently obvious that the proffered BC with one affixed is a forgery. It simply could not be otherwise. If some partisan Hawaii State official wishes to argue otherwise, they would at the very least need to produce the debossed seal. I lived in Hawaii for eight years. The Dems own that State, and it is nearly as corrupt as Chicago. Most government jobs are patronage filled, right down to the janitors. I trust them not.
Now, why would one wish to make a forgery of a document that supposedly already exists and is available for $20? I can think of one obvious one. Suppose, for argument sake, that the forgery contains the precise data of an original produced at the time of his birth. Now, what if, as is often the case, that original document was modified or replaced in the vault, when Obama was adopted by his stepfather? I can think of many reasons his parents would have wished to do so – for instance to get him registered in school in Indonesia…
Now, once he becomes an Indonesian citizen, he loses his U.S. citizenship. Technically, when he returned, he needed to be naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship. I doubt that he was; but in any case after he decided in college (as so many black kids were doing those days), to adopt his ‘African/Muslim’ name to be ‘cool,’ he had a problem with his nativity narrative that needed cleaning up. etc. etc…
So, if one had a copy of an original contract that had subsequently been amended; and one used that original copy for any reason to conceal the fact that it had been changed, would that be a crime? If one forged a passport that was spot on accurate in every other way, but removed the pages showing a particular destination, to fool someone into thinking one had never been there, would that be a crime?
Arthur, give bob a vacation… he is becoming an embarrassment to your cause. He doesn’t even get that we are suggesting that these phony BCs didn’t originate in the HDOH… In fact, if their seals are debossed, as the photographic evidence of the first one suggests, it is extremely unlikely that they were…. ◄Dave►
“And another birther canard: There is no Maya COLB.”
The Maya COLB was just an example. Another authentic COLB could have been used.
“Under this “theory,” either the State of Hawaii is involved, or the State of Hawaii is complicit through its silence.”
Not necessarily. The info may be “correct.”
Are you joking about this? Or do you think it is possible? I’m going to assume you are serious, and apologize if you are not.
Someone asked the DOH for index data on Maya Soetoro. The response was they have no records for her. So no Maya COLB.
Even Leo says she doesn’t have a COLB.
More than likely there is no Maya BC, but that is beside the point.
“Thus, if a BC exists with a debossed seal affixed, regardless of how accurate the data thereon, it is a forgery; and if used to convince us of anything in any manner, it is evidence of a felony. It could not be otherwise.”
Actually, from BC’s that ae available on the internet, it appears that a LFBC gets an embossed seal and a COLB gets a debossed stamp.
The deciding factors seem to be:
1) the raised side of the stamp is always on the same side as the vital statistics;
2) the lettering on the stamp is always oriented to read correctly on the side where the registrar stamp and signature are located. If the stamp/signature is on the back, debossed stamp, if the stamp/signature is on the front embossed stamp.
“Actually, from BC’s that ae available on the internet”
Actually, from BC’s Obots made available on the internet..
Both Dave and Trial avoid this obvious bit of reality:
If someone was forging President Obama’s birth certificate, the State of Hawaii would have said something.
So: Either the State of Hawaii is in-on-it/complicit, or a routine application of Occam’s Razor leds to the obvious conclusion:
The State of Hawaii has said President Obama was born in Hawaii; the State of Hawaii has issued certified documents stating President Obama was born in Hawaii; President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii.
Really, you think Miki Booth is an Obot?
Then maybe they should uninvite her to the Birther summit.
“Really, you think Miki Booth is an Obot?”
The answer may be much more simple:
That BC has an embossed seal. Therefore, it is authentic.
Well, maybe, here it is:
Clearly the lettering is backwards. Like the President’s, Danae’s and every other COLB that is on the internet.
So the question no one wants to ask Miki, is if the raised side of the seal is on the side where the vital statistics are listed.
MT only looks at Alan’s Long Form BC. She is comparing apples and oranges.
Ya know, there is a much more simple question we’ve been avoiding this whole time.
If most (with like 2 or 3, being from Obots who expect us to believe them to begin with with one picture only online), if not all seals are embossed on COLB’s, why does President Obama’s especially have a debossed seal? I mean, you would think someone as important as Mr. Obama would have his BC specially attended to. Why would they make a mistake (if it’s even possible to begin with) on his BC? Why doesn’t his have an embossed seal that could be authenticated? Especially when he’s going to be running for President of the United States?
You mean other than the fact you haven’t demonstrated that COLBs are embossed?
For that matter, why did both the White House and Mr. Obama say they requested the SF back in 2008 when it was “actually” 2007?
“Why would they make a mistake (if it’s even possible to begin with) on his BC?”
We are only talking COLB here not LFBC.
In 2007, he wasn’t President and the request was handled like any other.
BCs with the stamp/signature on the back have debossed seals.
BCs with the stamp/signature on the front have embossed seals.
It is that simple.
“We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and ‘all the records we could get our hands on’ according to spokesperson Shauna Daly.”
From the White House website:
“In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet.”
Obama “confirms” the 2008 date on the Oprah Winfrey Show:
OMG! In 2008, they said 2007. In 2011, they said 2008. No one has ever made a mistake on a date before!
Hello, President Biden.
Let it be known!
The WH website has not “corrected” its statement! Obama confirmed the 2008 date! 2 “mistakes,” no correction.
President Obama has more important matters to deal with stale, trivial mistakes.
What about the White House?
The White House isn’t preoccupied with other matters presently; they’ll get on it right away, for sure.
Hey, here’s a thought:
Maybe they DID “request” it in 2008! The WH and Obama told the truth!
Maybe the Hawaiian Department of Health stamped the COLB wrong in 2008. Or maybe Obama and White House’s 2011 story is incorrect. And?
Either way, the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly stated President Obama was born in Hawaii.
A tree is not a forest.
“Maybe the Hawaiian Department of Health stamped the COLB wrong in 2008.”
LOL. Really, you’re going to stick with this?
“Or maybe Obama and White House’s 2011 story is incorrect.”
Maybe if one of them made a mistake, sure. But, they BOTH said they made the request in 2008.
Oooooh: So if *both* President Obama and a White House staffer (who works for President Obama) made the same trivial mistake, it *must* be proof of forgery and a massive conspiracy that will be more epic than Watergate. (And not *at all* indicative of the staffer repeating President Obama’s mistake.)
Regardless, the State of Hawaii still has repeatedly and expressly said President Obama was born in Hawaii (regardless of whether President Obama’s COLB was issued in 2007 or 2008).
Oooooh: So if *both* President Obama and a White House staffer (who works for President Obama) made the same trivial mistake, it *must* be proof of forgery and a massive conspiracy that will be more epic than Watergate. (And not *at all* indicative of the staffer repeating President Obama’s mistake.)
LOL. Nice try bob. Why (and how for that matter) would a staffer hear what Obama said in a comment on the Oprah Winfrey Show then write the same thing down on the WH site? Your grasping at straws bob.
BTW, I hope your fogbow buddies laugh at you for this comment you made:
“Maybe the Hawaiian Department of Health stamped the COLB wrong in 2008.”
It sure did give me a chuckle.
I don’t think the Hawaiian Department of Health stamped the COLB wrong. It was just an example of a possibility more plausible than massive conspiracy and forgery.
I don’t recall anyone saying “massive conspiracy” but you bob.
“I’m grasping at straws.” Says the person claiming there’s anything meaningful in difference between 2007 and 2008.
How did the staffer get the wrong information from President Obama? President Obama gave him the wrong information; duh. As it took a couple of days to get the long-form birth certificate, the press release probably was written before April 27.
And how would characterize this imaginary conspiracy involving President Obama, his people, two Hawaiian governorships, etc.? Mid-sized?
“President Obama gave him the wrong information; duh. As it took a couple of days to get the long-form birth certificate, the press release probably was written before April 27.”
Oh! I should have known! Obama has nothing better to do with his time than to tell the person who wrote the article a wrong date for when the campaign themselves asked for the COLB. It makes perfect sense!
Btw, bob, the Oprah Show didn’t air live.
The writer of that article was Daniel Pfeiffer…the communications director for the 2008 Obama campaign!
So you find it implausible that President made a mistake when he told his staffer that he requested the COLB in 2008? A mistake that President Obama repeated when he taped the Oprah show? (Or vice versa; order not important.)
Once again, the writer of the article was Daniel Pfeiffer, the communications director for the 2008 Obama campaign!
And Pfeiffer didn’t pick up on the error; so?
Unlike birthers, President Obama (and Pfeiffer) are not stuck in 2008; in the last three years, they’ve been busy with other, more important things.
Yet, they released the long-form. That makes a lot of sense.
To shut Trump up. And it worked!
LOL. Yeah, I believe that one. Obama takes time off his busy schedule to deal with a “non-issue” just to shut Trump up. Then he goes on Oprah’s show just to discuss how it was a “non-issue.” Then he has a White House correspondents dinner almost entirely over his birth place.
Hey bob, no one forced Obama to do anything.
For people obsessed with Obama and his birthplace, no one listens to him:
“The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country.”
“At a time of great consequence for this country – when we should be debating how we win the future, reduce our deficit, deal with high gas prices, and bring stability to the Middle East, Washington, DC, was once again distracted by a fake issue. The President’s hope is that with this step, we can move on to debating the bigger issues that matter to the American people and the future of the country.”
“Now, normally I would not comment on something like this, because obviously there’s a lot of stuff swirling in the press on at any given day and I’ve got other things to do. But two weeks ago, when the Republican House had put forward a budget that will have huge consequences potentially to the country, and when I gave a speech about my budget and how I felt that we needed to invest in education and infrastructure and making sure that we had a strong safety net for our seniors even as we were closing the deficit, during that entire week the dominant news story wasn’t about these huge, monumental choices that we’re going to have to make as a nation. It was about my birth certificate.”
“But we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other. We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”
“I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest. But I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them — not on this.”
Except, my argument has never been that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. Keep on going with the disinformation tactics though.
This may shock you: A few readers here do think President Obama was born elsewhere.
LOL. You can be funny at times!
Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not is just the icing on the cake. Personally, I believe there is quite a lot of evidence he was.
So, let me get this straight. Your theory is:
In 2007, Obama’s campaign (which included Pfeiffer) requested the COLB (even though it’s a non-issue).
Then, they put the COLB online with a redacted birth certificate number (just for lulz and to invalidate the certificate).
Then, factcheck goes and takes pictures of the COLB then later puts down the COLB was requested in 2007 which is confirmed by the date stamp.
Then, sometime around April 27, 2011, Obama comes up to Pfeiffer (for some reason) just to tell him to put down the COLB was requested in 2008. Pfeiffer couldn’t remember when he and the others in Obama’s close circle went to get the COLB, so it he writes down exactly what Obama told him (which means Pfeiffer could care less about facts and would put down whatever on the WH site without proofreading his work, and he can’t remember when he and others got the COLB).
Then Obama goes on the Oprah show and says he requested the COLB two and a half years ago (which means he had a pretty exact date in mind).
The COLB on the WH site is different than the one originally “released” but still has the BCN blackened out which invalidates the certificate.
That a national campaign would order copies of a candidate’s vital documents is not only unsurprising, it would seem standard.
That President Obama (and Pfiffer) forgot what year the COLB was ordered is unremarkable, given that President Obama has been actually governing for three years, and not stuck in the past like others. But your burden of perfection must be a heavy one.
That you think Pfiffer personally wrote the press release is charming. Naive, but charming.
That you think blacking out a portion of a digital image somehow invalidates a paper document speaks volumes. And not in a good way.
“That you think Pfiffer personally wrote the press release is charming. Naive, but charming.”
Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on April 27, 2011 at 08:57 AM EDT
“That you think blacking out a portion of a digital image somehow invalidates a paper document speaks volumes.”
Any alterations invalidate the certificate.
“That President Obama (and Pfiffer) forgot what year the COLB was ordered is unremarkable, given that President Obama has been actually governing for three years, and not stuck in the past like others.”
But, Obama stated he got it two and a half years ago. Pfeiffer wrote they got it in 2008.
Going by your logic, we shouldn’t trust anything written on the WH site.
Again, that you think that because the press release went out under Pfeiffer’s name means he wrote it is really charming. Do you think President Obama is the one tweeting and posting on facebook as well?
Altering a digital copy of a paper original does not invalidate the paper original. If you make a copy of your driver’s license and then deface that copy, you are still licensed to drive because the original is still intact.
That people with far busier lives than you made minor mistakes is not noteworthy. And does not alter the fact that the State of Hawaii issued President Obama certified copies of his birth certificate. Twice.
“Again, that you think that because the press release went out under Pfeiffer’s name means he wrote it is really charming. Do you think President Obama is the one tweeting and posting on facebook as well?”
LOL. You’re grasping at straws.
“Altering a digital copy of a paper original does not invalidate the paper original. If you make a copy of your driver’s license and then deface that copy, you are still licensed to drive because the original is still intact.”
This in and of itself is somewhat accurate. However, what you conveniently leave out is the fact there is no number under the “blackened out” segment.
“That people with far busier lives than you made minor mistakes is not noteworthy.”
If it was only a mistake by Mr. Obama, fine. But, when both the White House and the President claim that they requested the COLB back in 2008, I doubt it’s simply a mistake.
I’m grasping at straws, says the person who sees something nefarious in trivial mistake over a date concerning a nonissue.
If one person makes a mistake, it is acceptable, but if two people make the same mistake then it is a conspiracy? So if one birther claims Maya had a COLB, it is a mistake, but if two make that claim then they’re conspiring to overthrow the duly elected president?
If the numbers are blacked out, how do you know if there were no numbers underneath the blacked-out area?
“If the numbers are blacked out, how do you know if there were no numbers underneath the blacked-out area?”
Ahhh: An anonymous nonexpert not displaying the methodology employed.
The scientific method weeps.
1. Download ‘Image Analyzer
2. Install Image Analyzer
3. Copy the ‘settlethebet’ images
4. 4. Open Image Analyzer and open one of the ‘settlethebet’ images.
5. Open the ‘Color Mapping’, the 11th icon in the menu bar. (looks like a graph with a curve)
6. Use the drop down menu and select ‘Zero Point’ the setting will start at 127, move the slider to the bottom and notice the layering disappear and the lettering become visible. At 4 or 5 is the best for seeing that the lettering is evident.
7. Now attempt to try the same with the Obama COLB’s.
So, according to this anonymous nonexpert, if I put this image through some freeware (which, undoubtedly, real experts use), the green/black/white COLB has, underneath that black box, a multicolored box?
Should I be calling the peer-reviewed journals, or would like the honors?
It invalidates the certificate because the underlying details have been completely removed.
“This is what makes me appreciate researchers such as Miss Tickly.”
The problem I have with MT is that when proven wrong she refuses to admit she was mistaken. For example, for a long time she said that based on what the DOH said the President’s COLB showed he was not born in Hawaii because it said “Date Filed” instead of “Date Accepted” like the Nordyke Twin’s BCs. Then danae released her COLB and it also said “Date Filed” MT immediately accused danae of being an obot. But Miki Booth then released her son Alan’s COLB and it also says “Date Filed”. MT never admitted her original mistaken assumption.
By the way, Alan Booth’s COLB appears to have a debossed stamp. MT conveniently ignores this COLB and instead focuses on Alan’s long form BC and it’s embossed stamp.
Why doesn’t MT contact Miki Booth at the P&E and examine Alan Booth’s COLB?
Exactly; Miss Tickly has confirmation bias, just like these other “experts.”
Is it “possible” that President Obama was born in Hawaii but crimes were still convicted?
Of course; there are an infinite amount of things *possible.*
Is there any competent evidence to support this possibility? None has been presented so far, and there’s no indication any will ever be forthcoming.
51 Bullet-Pointed Facts That Dispute Barack Obama’s Identity & Eligibility to be President of The USA! Share This
By Kevin A. Lehmann on in Politics
1. The Unenforced Definition of “Natural-Born Citizenship”
The U.S. Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen in order to be eligible for the office of President.
In seeking to define the meaning of “natural born citizenship”, those who blindly support Obama desperately seek a minimalist’s definition of the term. They desire that a natural-born citizen is one to whom may be ascribed as few requirements as possible in order that a candidate, with whom they share ideological fetishes, can be president regardless of his actual fitness for the office. They seek to assume jurisdiction over the declaration of being “natural born” in the minds of as many as possible while contending that “natural born citizenship” means the fewest, most remedial natal circumstances possible, which will allow their politigod, Barack Obama, just enough legitimacy to squeak by and be eligible.
Their definition allows Obama to merely meet what they consider the most easily argued, though obviously unverifiable characteristics of Obama’s obscure citizenry, in this case, his birth place.
However, unfortunately for Obama supporters, the purposed intent of our founders was not so slight in this matter. They sought to make the meaning of being a natural born citizen the highest, most laudable position of all forms of citizenry. After witnessing the corruption and inbreeding and treasons of monarchal rule, America’s founders desired that becoming President of the United States to be as difficult as possible…politically, socially and biologically.
All arguments seeking to diminish this truth are reprobate and defamatory, made in the interest of serving one’s own political lust, not defending the sovereignty of our Constitution or upholding the value of the blood ransom paid by our people.
Hence, logically, our founders induced that the highest form of eligibility for the highest office would be a lawful mandate.
Consider the following:
Taking survey of all possible circumstances which, therefore, lend credibility to one’s claim to legitimacy, and thereby, eligibility to lead, there is much more to consider than simply one’s location of birth. In order to meet the highest standard intended by our founders, we must also consider that biology must also meet this standard. Not only is it essential that a presidential candidate be born under the sovereign geographic protection of our Constitution, he must also be conceived by two parents of native citizenry, possessing U.S. citizenship.
Moreover, let’s consider further extension of this ideal by commanding that a presidential candidate also be conceived legitimately within the bounds of legal marriage of their parentage. Having been measured and found wanton, those subservient to bias for persons over their respect for the office would not embrace this noble ideal. For them, uplifting the standard of the presidency remains an inferior cause to diminishing the requirements in order to provide access for their inferior candidate. Therefore, they seek to minimize the standard, not maximize the person.
Of course, this would disqualify many from being the President…as so it should!
However, let’s not even stop there. We should also assume that our founders sought to ensure that a presidential candidate had also preserved their natural-born citizenship from “conception to election”, never having allowed it to be revoked, or never having it revoked even against their will. For, even those who lose their eligibility to no fault of their own should bear up in faith that this is the intention of higher power, sacrificing for the sake of sovereignty of the office rather than opportunity for the man!
Let all of these metrics define the standards of natural-born citizenship in America. Bannish minimalism and seek the highest mark in the spirit of exceptionalism forged by our forefathers! Hold this mantle lest that crown be stolen by any upon the earth without seeking the interests of God and country first! Daringly and boldly, let these marks serve as the highest definition of humanity’s advanced citizenship and the prescribed metrics for eligibility to be President of the U.S.!
We should set a higher bar, not lower it. It is impossible to choose one’s own natural-born citizenship because it is preeminent and incumbent to one’s birth. Historical writings, along with related legal precedents strongly suggest this form of citizenship is achieved when natural circumstances make it impossible for that individual to have any citizenship or allegiances other than with the United States at the time they are elected as President. Research of America’s founding culture reveals that a very heavy emphasis was placed on legitimacy at birth.
Therefore, it is probable that one’s most authentic degree of natural born identity does not occur at birth, but at conception. With this in mind, we must consider that the framers of the Constitution assumed it was commonly understood that the definition of “natural-born citizenship” for a presidential candidate to mean a citizenship status that was not just acheived by the event of birth but that it was a maintained status from “conception to election” in order to qualify a sovereign candidate. This is the most complete definition of natural born citizenship possible. There is no other degree of more complete natural circumstances which can establish the status of one’s existence.
Therefore, theoretically, natural-born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be measured by three metrics:
1) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents
2) Birth in a geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution
3) Maintenance of that citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative procedure.
This means that their citizenship has never been achieved by any legal or administration process at or after birth. Dual citizens and expatriates are not natural-born citizens. Those who lose their natural-born status by taking the citizenship of another country or denouncing their natural born U.S. citizenship cannot regain it. A natural-born citizen is one who was born within a geographic region under the protections of the U.S. Constitution AND to two U.S. citizen parents, they being either natural-born or legally naturalized through immigration or repatriation.
Despite ongoing, unanswered questions about his geographic origins, Obama does not meet the requirements to be a natural-born citizen for two possible other reasons:
1) His alleged biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. Citizen
2) He was adopted by his muslim, Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in the mid 1960s thereby taking Indonesian citizenship, thus forfeiting natural-born status.
“Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution…”
2. The Suddenness of Obama
The American public was essentially made nationally aware of Barack Obama following his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Obama’s emergence into national politics was not a gradual inception. It was a sudden, covert ascendance to power seemingly assisted by foreign-like forces as an assault on vintage American conscience.
Obama was elected to the U.S. Congress as a Democratic Senator from Illinois in November, 2004, after his candidacy was promoted in the state by a vastly corrupt, liberal, Chicago-based political cartel and a conglomeration of burned-out, 1960′s, radicals like Bill Ayers and Madeline Talbott. Then despite his lack of executive experience, in February, 2007, after only two years of serving at the federal level, Obama announced his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election defeating Hillary Clinton, a 17-year veteran of federal politics and former First Lady, for the Democratic Party Nomination.
Obama went on to then defeat John McCain, a decorated war veteran and a 34-year seasoned expert in federal politics as a longstanding Arizona senator, having been elected by a bowing consensus of ashamed white liberals, Bush-hating radicals and angry, racist minorities seeking reparative justice.
By all observable metrics, Obama should have been considered nothing but a long shot to contend for the DNC nomination. Instead, he defied these odds and even his own advice when, in 2005, he said,
“In order to run for president, a person needs to know what they are getting into…I am not confident I have that experience yet.”
3. The Foundations of Natural Born Citizenry
When the founders of America wrote the Constitution, they included the “natural-born” mandate in order to ensure that no President would be subject to, or exercise, a plurality of political interests in their international relationships. Having experienced the corruption of a monarchy in Great Britain for generations, the founders of America, after declaring and defending their right to freedom from that corruption during the Revolutionary War, wrote the constitution within the legal framework of empowering inalienable rights and protection of the American people, not empowering the government.
Upon declaring independence from the crown, after seeing the destructive consequences of an intermingling of international loyalty through forced Royal intermarriage, in-breeding, monarchal polytheism, power sharing, birthright subversion and support of covert insurrections of inferior nations, the founders made it a law that any President had to be a natural-born citizen.
4. Logan Act Violated By Obama
With this mind, we learned, in October, 2008, that American author and columnist,Jerome Corsi was arrested while visiting Kenya during an investigation which revealed that Barack Obama had actively campaigned for and contributed money to Kenya’s Democratic Socialist Orange Party candidate, Raila Odinga, from 2006 to 2008. Corsi had traveled to Kenya and acquired correspondence and documented evidence showing that Odinga, a fellow Luo tribe descendant and alleged paternal cousin of Obama, had entered into a written agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), a highly influential and radical Kenyan Islamic foundation, seeking Odinga’s support for, among other things, Sharia Law, in exchange for the Islamic group’s support of Odinga’s candidacy.
The evidence acquired by Corsi also shows that Obama was aware of this agreement even while he was raising more than a million dollars of American money to support Odinga’s campaign. The Orange Party Movement is the communist opposition party to President, Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU).
Obama’s involvement in the Kenyan election, while an elected official of the U.S., was clearly a violation the Logan Act which prohibits American politicians from influencing or participating in foreign elections. The Obama Administration’s U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has refused to pursue any investigation of Obama’s activities with Odinga in Kenya in 2006 until 2008. In 2008, video of Obama’s speeches on behalf of Odinga surfaced on YouTube and several other websites which clearly show Obama stumping for Odinga.
In the aftermath of the December, 2007 election, which Odinga lost, the Orange party leadership and members of Kenya’s Luo tribe incited violence among his radical constituents. Kenyan Muslims engaged in a week long violent demonstration in which they burned nearly 1000 Christian churches and murdered almost 1000 of Odinga’s political opposition which are members of the predominantly Christian, Kikuyu tribe. Under the threat of this violence, with the support of Obama and the Bush administration, the Kenyan majority PNU Party was forced to take an unprecedented action in the history of its government by artificially amending its constitution in order to create a leadership position for Odinga who was ensconced as the country’s first Prime Minister in April, 2008.
The tragic events and violence of the 2007 Kenyan election were the exact consequences the founders of America were trying to prohibit U.S. government officials from instigating or being influenced by.
Obama’s geopolitical connections, along with his probable biological relationship with the Kenyan Communist Party, now an active part of the Kenyan government, creates a relationship vulnerable to illicit influence. Obama has now brought that illicit relationship, and all of its consequences, with him into the office of the U.S. Presidency. The founders wisely understood that the mandate of Natural born citizenry for a President is the best possible protection against such vulnerability.
5. Suspicious Nomination Certifications
In July, 2009, documents were revealed showing that Obama was never officially certified to run for president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by the Hawaiian Democratic Party. On August 27, 2008, the Hawaiian Democratic Party created a customized Nomination Certification document for Obama containing the following words:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.”
In comparison, unlike the 2008 Hawaiian OCON for Obama, in every other previous Presidential election, the Hawaiian Democratic Party has certified the nomination of their state’s Democratic candidate with the following words:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution…”
Notice that the wording of HDP’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination omits the words “…under the provision of the United States Constitution…”
Upon receiving Hawaii’s State Nomination Certification for Obama, which omits the reference to the Constitutional legality of Obama’s nomination, the National Democratic Party Office created two separate documents with the same header title, “Official Certification of Nomination”, both versions were signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, and Alicia Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention and notarized by a Denver notary. One of these versions was sent from the National Democratic Party headquarters to each of the 49 states’ Democratic Party headquarters.
However, only the State of Hawaii received an Official Certification of Nomination from the DNC containing the words:
“…the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…”
The document then lists Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the candidates. However, the rest of the 49 states received a different Official Certification of Nomination containing the words:
“…the following were duly nominated as candidates of said party for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively…”
Why was the state of Hawaii’s local Democratic Party headquarters sent a different OCON document from the National Party headquarters than the other 49 states?
There is strong evidence suggesting that Hawaii’s local Democratic Party officials refused to certify Obama’s nomination as being Constitutionally eligible. As a result, Hawaii’s Election Commission, headed by Kevin Cronin, jockeying behind closed doors, refused to place Obama on the Hawaiian ballot under Hawaiian Election laws mandating that every candidate seeking placement on the Hawaiian presidential election ballot must be certified as “Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States”.
Since the DPH refused to place this language in its Official Certification of Nomination, Obama, therefore, required that the National Party Committee, headed by none other than Nancy Pelosi, take responsibility for declaring the constitutional eligibility of his nomination under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, even though his eligibility had never been vetted or verified as legal.
This has never happened in the history of America’s vetting endorsement process and indicates that the Democratic National Party leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, was made aware that there was a legal problem with Obama’s candidacy. However, the DNC certified it anyway and, in doing so, committed federal election fraud.
6. State Ballot-Fail!
It is the responsibility of each states’ party head office to certify that their candidate is Constitutionally eligible to serve in coordination with their state’s laws. Since Obama was not Constitutionally certified to run in the state of Hawaii in 2008, no other Secretary of State, in any state, ever confirmed that Obama was vetted by federal or party authorities in their state prior to being placed on the 2008 Presidential ballot there.
In fact, nearly a dozen Secretaries of State, including Hawaii’s, have officially refused to reveal any information about the vetting of Barack Obama in their state because they simply cannot even show that he was actually proven to be eligible there.
7. PUMA: The First Birthers
In early summer, 2007, the so called “Birther” conspiracy theory was first created by renegade members of an ultra leftist group known as the PUMAs. (That’s right! They were leftists). They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters who did not want to surrender the Democrat party nomination to Obama after a hard fought campaign leading to the 2008 Democratic nomination. In June, 2008, PUMAParty.com began promoting the idea that their party’s nomination of Barack Obama could be overturned on constitutional grounds that he was not eligible to be president based on the fact that he may not be a natural born citizen.
Thus, the Birther movement actually began in the minds of liberals, not “right-wing nuts” as Obama zealots love to claim.
8. Hawaiian Certi-Fiction
Shortly after PUMAparty.com began clamoring for a more thorough review of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the image of a document containing sparse information about Obama’s alleged birth was posted on the internet by undisclosed sources, from an unknown origin. The image appeared on extreme leftwing websites like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and later on two websites claiming to be non-partisan reviewers, Factcheck.org and politifact.com.
One of the fact checking sites is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant. Obama served as the chair on the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Project in 2002.
9. Certification of Identity, not Natural Birth
The 2008 document image was determined to be created by an unknown source from a digital template form of a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is a surrogate, independently published, municipal cover document issued to those applying for copies of birth certificates in the state of Hawaii since 2000. In response to Y2K system updates the State of Hawaii began migrating from paper copies of original birth records to digitally created printed documents. The state of Hawaii openly admits to changing its document format under the guise of preventing identity theft.
10. Cartoon Fun
In 2009, it was demonstrated by three separate document specialists that an image of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was easily constructed and falsely authenticated using two different medical imaging software programs. This demonstration discredited the State of Hawaii’s claims that its “Certification of Live Birth” provided better protection against identity theft than old paper copies of the Certificate of Live Birth.
11. Department of Hawaiian Native Homelands
The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was found to be so unreliable in clarifying the bearer’s legal and demographic identity that the State of Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands refused to accept it as a primary source of identification for its applicants seeking to purchase Hawaiian land reserved for genealogically native Hawaiians. Before 2010, the agency’s website stated:
“In order to process your application for identification as a native Hawaiian, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requires additional verification…”
Only after it was determined that the Department of Hawaiian Homeland’s policy against the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” conflicted with another Hawaiian state agency, the Department of Health’s, political endorsement of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, was the policy changed and the wording against the credibility of the document scrubbed from its website. This led many to accuse the State of Hawaii government of selling out to protect against exposing the ineligibility of Obama rather than upholding the eligibility of thousands of potential native land owners in Hawaii. Some actually accused Hawaii’s land management of selling out to a liar while native Hawaiians were at risk of being deprived of their right to purchase native lands because non-natives could now use a less credible version of identification when applying for a land purchase.
12. Hawaii Denies COLB Image
After all was said and done, the State of Hawaii has refused to ever confirm that it issued the 2008 document image. In light of sophisticated, digitally based document imaging technology, the authenticity of the image remains highly questionable, especially without the official endorsement of the Hawaiian Health Department. Some independent reviewers have, unequivocally, determined the image to be a forgery.
13. The Million Dollar Birth Cerificate
On August 21, 2008, Philadelphia based attorney, Philip Berg, filed the first of several high profile cases attempting to force Obama to show authentic, legal, original documentation proving that he is eligible to be president of the U.S. Berg is a lifelong, registered Democrat with a history of running for Democratic office in Philadelphia. Following Berg’s case, other plaintiffs have filed similar suits including Alan Keyes and several military officers, all of which have been dismissed by irresponsible judges refusing to weigh the merits of evidence in the cases.
Some judges have even gone on record as saying the reason they dismissed their case was because “Questions about Obama’s eligibility had already been answered on Twitter.”
Since then, Obama has paid more than 1.6 million dollars to the Washington law firm, Perkins Coie to prevent the release of his original birth certificate, which costs about 20 dollars to order from the State of Hawaii.
14. Executive Order No. 13489
Obama was ensconced as President on January 20, 2009. Just one day after his inauguration, he signed Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially violates the Freedom of Information Act and prohibits the release of Obama’s personal and presidential records, during and after his presidency, by the National Archives without first being consulted by the National Archives Director and the Attorney General. Seven days later, Obama gave his famous “Transparency Will Be the Touchstone of This Administration” speech in which he hypocritically admonished previous administrations for what he feels are “too many secrets kept by government in Washington”. Obama vowed to change how government deals with secret information by making his administration more open.
Since this dishonest, landmark speech, the Administration has fought to keep Obama’s past secret more than any other President in American history.
15. Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin
In April, 2008, after the fraudulent dismissal of more than two dozen civilian court cases which had been filed against Obama attempting to force him to produce original documented evidence of his natal identity, a highly decorated officer with more than 17 years of unblemished service in the U.S. Army brought the Obama eligibility into the active military ranks. Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin, an active duty flight surgeon serving the President’s Chief of Staff and working as a commanding ranked physician of a critical care facility, refused to deploy for duty in Afghanistan under his legal right to refuse orders that he, as an officer, believes are illegal.
According to Lakin, Barack Obama has not demonstrated provable, documented evidence that he is eligible to hold the office of President and is, therefore, not legally qualified to issue orders to the United States military as Commander In Chief. Lakin’s oath upon becoming an officer is to defend the constitution, not the president. His duty, as an officer to refuse deployment orders he believes are illegal, are legitimate based on clear and concise legal grounds. Despite this fact, however, Lakin pleaded guilty to a circus court under the command of the Obama administration’s military staff, and was sentence to six months in prison and dismissal from the service.
He has since been lauded and exalted for his sacrifice and commitment to his duty to defend the Constitution. Supporters may contribute to his fund atTerryLakinActionFund.com
16. The History Of Standard U.S. Certificates of Live Birth
As census and vital statistics documentation methods evolved, the U.S. Department of Health has utilized a document template with the header title, “Certificate of Live Birth” since the early 1900’s. The U.S. National Vital Statistics Division, since its first published data report in 1915, refers to the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” as “The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event.” This document has evolved throughout a 110 year process with input from the National Conference on Vital Records and Statistics, the National Vital Statistics Division, The Census Bureau and the municipal state agencies are assigned with the responsibility of gathering, storing and reporting natal statistics to the U.S. Department of Health. Although it has undergone state specific revisions to support municipal laws and identity protection, it is important to note that it has never undergone a reduction in vital data content.
17. Hawaii’s Rogue Document
The standard, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document template has been slightly revised by various states for the purpose of meeting identification and formatting needs, such as concealing the social security numbers of the parents. However, no state, except one, has ever reduced the overall quantity of information contained about the bearer’s natal identity, such that it is now impossible to determine their natural-born status, and then used that reduction of vital information in an endorsed document form. Only the State of Hawaii has created this form of independently published, digital documentation.
18. Hawaii Violates Federal Guidelines
In the entire 110 year history of the standard, official, federal, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document’s existence, only the state of Hawaii has gone astray from the standard version to such a degree that it actually conceals one’s full natal identity rather than reveals it. When comparing document forms, the use of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an unauthorized reduction of content otherwise prescribed to confirm the bearer’s natal identity and, essential to verifying one’s eligibility to be a candidate for president, the bearer’s natural born status.
19. Exploitation of Hawaii’s Lost Culture
Because of its remote, water-locked, geographic characteristics; its tumultuous indigenous history; and a vulnerable culture altered by a transference of sovereignty in the late 1800’s, the Hawaiian islands gained a reputation for maintaining a vague process for documenting immigration, vital events and indigenous population. Historical archives dating between 1890 and 1941 reveal that the Hawaiian Islands served as an unofficial, but widely pursued, sanctuary for thousands of foreign expatriates seeking protection from political persecution in China, Japan, Southeast Asiatic nations, the Middle East and, later, the United States.
This multicultural instability resulted in the implementation of less than thorough procedures for recording and differentiating native born, immigrant and indigenous populations.
One example of this surrogate nativity was granted to a Mr. Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese expatriate who received an official Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 stating that his birth had taken place in Hawaii in November, 1870. However, later evidence revealed that Mr. Sun’s birth had actually occurred in China in 1866. Archives reveal that the state of Hawaii has provided similar documentation to thousands of immigrants over the years without ever confirming their age, the birth place or their actual identity.This murky process was further complicated when Hawaii became a state of the U.S. which demanded that it begin implementing the federal documentation standards for U.S. citizens as well, in 1959.
Vulnerabilities in Hawaii’s documentation process created passive conditions which allowed unidentified inhabitants to later proclaim any identity, or multiple identities, they desired to serve their individual interests.
20. Hawaii’s Communist Past
Based on investigations in the 1950’s and 1960’s, a disproportionate concentration of pro-communist activity was found to have become a part of Hawaiian culture. This is substantiated by an increase in the population and activity of communist sympathizers identified by the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings conducted after WWII, during the beginning of the cold war between the U.S. and communist Russia. Evidence of pro-communist presence in Hawaii can be found in publications like the Honolulu Record in which one of Obama’s communist mentors, Frank Marshal Davis was a columnist.
Obama Sr. would later return to Kenya sometime in the mid 1960’s to promote his communist economic theories and work in government with his friend and leader of Kenya’s communist KANU party, Tom Mboya.
21. Hawaiian Document Proven Deficient
In August, 2008, a former U.S. Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics Registrar stated that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” cannot be considered an original birth certificate created at the time of occurrence of the birth because
“…it does not contain the signature of the licensed medical professional qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth in accordance with administrative requirements established by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division, and it does not contain the name and location of the hospital which issued the original record, which would be a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” if the child was born in the United States.”
Further investigation of Hawaii’s revised statutes reveal that the Hawaiian Department of Health not only contends with federal law, it also contradicts its own self-declared authority to issue falsified birth nativity under HRS 338-17.
22. Hawaii’s Self-endowed Permission To Violate Federal Law
Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 338-17.8 states:
“Certificates for children born out of State.(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”
The law permits anyone born to parents who claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of their birth, at any time before or after the enactment of the law, regardless of the actual location of the birth, to receive an original birth record which states that the location of birth is Hawaii, and, therefore, occurred in the U.S. Hawaiian lawmakers have confirmed that the law is not constrained to the date of birth. It is applicable to the date of application for the certificate.
This means this law would enable Obama, anytime after the age of 21 to apply for and receive a newly created original Hawaiian birth certificate after providing evidence that his mother or father merely resided in Hawaii for one year prior to his birth. He could have applied for this certificate any time since is parents are known to have resided in Hawaii since 1960. He could have been born outside of the U.S., however, the State of Hawaii is obligated by law to grant him an original birth certificate stating that Hawaii is his birth place simply because he was able to show that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence.
Moreover, the evidence provided with Obama’s application may not be reviewed by any third party under this law. Only the Director of the Department of Health is granted with the authority to determine the validity and deadlines required in providing such evidence. In essence, under Administrative Rule 91, the state of Hawaii has empowered a state-level, municipal employee to determine the federal, natural-born status and therefore, the Constitutional eligibility, of any individual, even a sworn enemy of the United States, seeking the most powerful office in the world.
23. Obama’s Own Words
On page 26 of his 1995 Autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama admits to possessing a copy of his original birth certificate in the late 1970’s. This document was an official copy of an original vital record assumed to still be filed with the office of Vital Statistics in the city where Obama was born, wherever that is. Why does Obama not still possess this copy and where is the original used to produce it? Where is the official, original birth record used to produce the document which Obama himself admits to having more than thirty years before being issued a fake document from Hawaii?
Why is Obama lying about this document? What information does this document contain?
24. Obama Loses Natural-Born U.S. Citizenship By Adoption
Barack Obama claims to have lived in Indonesia with his mother from approximately 1967 to 1971 where he assumed the surname of his step father, Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. Since Obama became a citizen of Indonesia, he forfeited any claim he may have had to Natural-born citizenship in the U.S. Recall, a Natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is achieved by natural circumstances which, if unrevoked, make it impossible for them to have citizenship loyalties to any other governing power. If a Natural-born citizen becomes a citizen of another country at any time prior to running for the office of the president, he or she is no longer eligible.
Because of this forfeiture, Obama is not eligible to be president because his Natural-born status cannot be reclaimed once legal or administrative procedures are employed to repatriate him in the U.S.
Also, despite Obama’s claims that he remained in Indonesia during this time, there is photographic evidence placing him in Hawaii in 1969. Questions remain how and why Obama may have traveled to Hawaii at this time, including any documentation he used, which raises doubts about the validity of his origins narrative, and therefore, doubts about his identity.
25. What’s In a Name?
Barry or Barack, Soetoro or Obama, or Subarkah? Records from his time in Indonesia reveal that Barack Obama has used at least one other alias and possibly two. He was registered for school under the name Barry Soetoro as a muslim student. When Obama applied for state bar license in 1992 to practice law in Illinois, the application asked if he had ever used an alias. He stated that he had not at that time.
There is evidence that suggests Obama was not honest about his use of other names throughout his life. Recent passport application information submitted by his mother in the 1960’s reveals that Obama may have had a third surname of “Subarkah” which his mother had written on the application.
26. Dunham’s Secret Absence
Many records exist confirming Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii from late summer of 1960 until February of 1961. However, from February until September, 1961, there are no records or eyewitness accounts of her presence in Hawaii. In fact, the void is quite stark. Obama was allegedly born during this void of time in Dunham’s documented life. The next record indicating her possible location is a class registration record showing that she had enrolled in classes for fall term of 1961 at the University of Washington, just two weeks after allegedly giving birth to Obama in Hawaii.
27. Dunham Too Young To Confer Citizenship
Ann Dunham turned 19 years old in November, 1961, almost four months after Obama was allegedly born in August, 1961. Citizenship laws in effect in the U.S. in 1961 required the mother of a child born outside the U.S., to a foreign father, to have lived in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. Since Dunham had not yet turned 19, she was not legally able to confer citizenship to Obama if the birth occurred outside the U.S.
Therefore, Obama is, at a minimum, a citizen of Great Britain. The founding fathers, in writing the eligibility mandate, having fought a Revolutionary War against Great Britain, would have rejected Obama as a presidential candidate for this reason.
28. Hospital Mystery
No official records have ever been provided from any authoritative source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children. Not one administrative authority from Kapi’olani has ever verified or provided original patient records showing that Ann Dunham was ever a maternity patient there. As a testament to the longstanding controversy over Obama’s birth hospital, in the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s Wikipedia biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center.
In 2006, it was omitted and remained blank until June, 2008 when editors stated that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. On January 24, 2009, Kapi’olani Medical Center, on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, allegedly received a letter in which Obama wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.” It was later admitted by administrators at Kapi’olani that the letter was a facsimile created in a digital format.
To date, no administrator, or official of the Obama administration has ever confirmed that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center.
To date, Obama’s operatives have failed to identify the identity of Obama’s actual birthing doctor.
29. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers
In 2010, Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John Sampson revealed that President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth. Moreover, Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was around 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii. The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his SSN are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses and start with 040 through 049.
“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains, “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”
In April, 2011, further investigation by ex-CIA personnel confirmed that Obama’s social security number was fraudulently issued after the original owner of the number, who had once resided in Connecticut, died in Hawaii in 1977. As a result, it is now supported by evidence that Barack Obama is committing social security fraud and that his number was issued through channels possibly provided by his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who worked in the financial and banking industry and who had ties to communist support organizations and international interests.
It is highly likely that Obama, when issued his current social security number, was not a legal citizen of the U.S. and, having access to records through his grandmother, was allowed to use the number after its original owner had died. It has been shown that the original owner of Obama’s social security number had opened at least one account at the bank where Madelyn Dunham was employed in Hawaii in 1965.
30. Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen
Obama’s alleged father was a Kenyan national with citizenship in Great Britain. His birth registration is recorded in the British National Archives, General Register Office “Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates of Africa and Asia, 1895-1965″. Obama’s children are also contained in these registers. He attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1961 before abandoning Obama Jr. and Dunham to attend graduate school at Harvard in 1962.
Since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, it is impossible for Obama to be a natural-born citizen.
The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which has been misrepresented as the federally accepted, official document issued by the state of Hawaii for Barack Obama’s birth shows Obama’s father’s race as “African”. Unfortunately, this term violates the U.S. Department of Health’s acceptable classifications of race for official birth certificates. According to NVSD protocols, Obama Sr. is classified as a “Negro” in 1961, not “African”. The term “African” is not even an option in the NVSD manual. Africa is a continent not a race. For example, there are white people from Africa, but they would not be categorized as “African”. Using this premise, we could argue that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth should also list his mother’s race as “North American”?
If using geographic association in describing Obama’s mother’s race is so ridiculous, why is it acceptable to explain his father’s?
The use of the term “African” to describe the race of Obama’s father is yet another diminishment to the credibility and authenticity of Obama’s natal records. The inclusion of such a non-specific, vague, unclassifiable, misrepresentative term to describe an individual’s demography only raises yet more doubts about the ability of the Hawaiian Health Department to convey accurate vital statisics documentation.
31. Obama Marriage Mystery
To date, no documented evidence exists proving that a legal marriage between Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever occurred in the U.S. The two were allegedly married in Hawaii in early 1961, after Obama Jr. was allegedly conceived sometime in November, 1960. However, no public announcement, or eyewitness of the marriage or marriage license has ever been found.
In Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, he states,
“In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky. A bill of particulars I have never quite had the courage to explore. There is no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No family members were in attendance. It is not even clear that people back in Kansas were even informed.”
Obama’s admission that ‘There is no record of a real wedding’, raises yet another doubt about his long disseminated, life biography with regard to the status of the relationship between his parents. The unanswered questions about his parents marriage contradicts the accuracy of testimony and records declaring Obama’s identity, such as his birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers which undeniably state that his parents were married, and divorce documents which do not contain any reference to a legal marriage license.
There are fundamental questions about the relationship between Obama’s parents which no one has been able to answer. If they were married in Hawaii, what is the name of the officiate presiding at the wedding? Where did it take place? Does the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office possess a copy of the Obama’s marriage license which they used to determined their marital status for the birth announcements? If so, why was the Obama marriage never announced in those same papers? Why was the wedding kept secret?
Was the marriage even legal given the evidence that Obama Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya?
32. Divorce Decree and Custody Documents
In 2009, a set of what appears to be authentic document images of a Divorce Decree shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was awarded an uncontested divorce from Obama Sr. in March, 1964. The Divorce was granted in a Hawaiian civil Court on March 5, 1964 after a hearing to determine custody rights of the parents of Barack Obama Jr. According to the document images, Dunham had filed for divorce in January, 1964. The set of documents posted on the internet in 2009 are suspiciously missing the official birth certificate of Barack Obama Jr. which was requested by the court in order to confirm parentage.
33. Obama Sr. Already Married
Obama’s father was apparently a bigamist. He was allegedly already married to a woman in Kenya when he allegedly married Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama’s other wife’s name was Kezia Aoko (also found as other spellings). This would nullify any marriage to Dunham because it is illegal in the U.S. to be married to more than one person.
34. Suspicious Death
Obama Sr. died in 1982 after an alleged car accident. Recent investigations into his death reveal unanswered questions about his declining professional status and his strained relationship with Tom Mboya after he published a scathing report called, “The Problem with Our Socialism”, criticizing Mboya’s economic development plan for Kenya.
35. Birth Announcements
In early 2009, researchers discovered announcements of Obama’s birth in two separate Honolulu-based news papers. An investigation of the procedures used to publish birth announcements reveals that the information used by the news papers came directly from the Hawaiian Department of Health’s bi-weekly birth registration lists. These birth announcements are typically published for registrations over a two week period and do not contain the location of the birth. The announcements always assume, without exception, that the parents are married, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” reveals that of the 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, there were 1044 illegitimate births in which the father was not identifiable. An average of three per day!
In every case, without exception, both papers publish all announcements with the surname of the father as if they are always married and with the assumption that two parents always exist at the time of birth, even when the father is dead. The announcements do not publish the first names of the parents or child, nor do they identify the name of the registrant. They publish the sex of the child, the address of the registrant and the day and month of the birth. The announcements do not print the location of the birth, the name of the attending physician, the name of the hospital, the time of birth or the given name of the child.
36. The Paper Chase
An analysis of all of the birth announcements published along with Obama’s announcements in both newspapers reveals that both papers published the exact same announcements, including quantity of birth announcements, in the same exact order and in the same exact contextual format in both papers. The announcements are not published in alphabetical or chronological order which begs the question: What system was used to determine their order? They are obviously not randomly ordered since they appear in the same order in both papers. The possible answer: Geographic birth registration numbering. An investigation of the U.S. Department of Health’s archived natal data reports reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on the location of the registration office they are received in.
37. Obama’s Other Address
The birth announcements were published containing the registrant’s address at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., Honolulu, HI. This address has been proven by investigators to be the residence of Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madeline Dunham, as well as Obama’s mother. Directory records available in 1961 show that Obama’s father, Obama Sr., resided in an apartment at 625 11th Avenue, near the University of Hawaii. Why would a married man list an address for the birth of his son that was not his address?
38. Birth Registration Protocols
An investigation reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on their associated location to the regional vital statistics registration office in which the vital event is recorded. There were four such offices available in Hawaii in 1961, two of which served immigration processing and vital events originating outside the Hawaiian Islands. Obama’s alleged birth registration number, 151-1961-010641, indicates that his birth was registered in one of these regional offices.
39. Non-Sequential Birth Registration
Obama’s birth registration number appears to be non-sequential with other births recorded at the time of his birth. One example cites the standard “Certificate of Live Birth” records of twins born to Eleanor Nordyke, whose births occurred 19 hrs after Obama’s alleged birth in Kapi’olani Medical Center. The twins were assigned birth registration numbers ending in 037 and 038, respectively. Obama’s birth was assigned number 041 despite the fact that his birth allegedly occurred before the twins in the very same hospital. If no other births occurred between Obama’s and the Nordyke’s, one would expect that Obama’s birth registration number would end in 036, not 041. If other births did occur in the 19 hours between Obama’s and the Nordykes’, Obama’s registration number would be expected to be even lower.
40. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s Reluctant Accomplice
On October 31st, 2008, and, again on July 27th, 2009, the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health released the only two official statements by the government of the State of Hawaii about Obama’s natal records. In her October, 2008 statement she release the following:
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
The statement does not specify the type of original birth certificate on record and directly contradicts statements made by an official of the Hawaiian elections Office that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original birth certificate for Obama. Fukino further clarified her statement eight months later with the following:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
The problem with this second statement is, first, she, again, does not identify the title of the “original vital records” documents she has seen. Notice she uses the word “records”, plural. Whether they are a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth, a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Foreign Birth accompanied with testimonial documents, medical records or other evidence is not disclosed by Fukino.
Second, she violated Hawaii’s identity protection law, the very same HRS 338-18 she cited in her first statement, by disclosing information from the vital records about Obama’s unverified birth place. If she is so willing to provide this private information, why not disclose the rest of it? Answer: Because this information serves the bias of the State of Hawaii’s endorsement of Obama’s legitimacy. Otherwise, Fukino would also disclose the other information that perhaps is NOT so favorable to Obama, as well, such as the title of the ‘original vital records’ or whether the certificate had been amended.
Third, and most grievous, as a state-level, municipal employee way out in the State of Hawaii, Fukino neither has the federal authority, nor the qualifications to determine the Natural-born status of a candidate for federal office. In fact, Fukino’s audacious, bizarre proclamation is laughable and only exposes the State of Hawaii’s fragile confidence in their documentation procedures, let alone its ability to declare the historical meaning of Natural-born citizenship. That job falls under the federal authority of the Secret Service, the State Department in coordination with the state Elections Offices.
41. Hawaii’s Amazing Legitimate Birth Rate
Both papers also published the nearly two dozen announcements assuming that every child was born to married parents living at the same address, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” shows that there were 1044 illegitimate births in Hawaii in 1961 in which the father was not identifiable. This is an average of three illegitimate births per day! Over the nine day period of births covered by the announcements in these two issues, one would expect to see at least one single mother, or unmarried couple, giving birth among the more than two dozen announcements surrounding Obama’s birth from late July to early August, 1961.
In fact, a review of every issue of the newspapers in the entire year of 1961 shows that all birth announcements were published by “married parents”. If the newspapers indeed printed accurate announcements based on testimony from the actual parents or family members there should be some information which does not conform to this cookie-cutter identical format when comparing each announcement between newspapers. However, the rigidity of the format, and the possibility of inaccuracies, led investigators to conclude that the originating information used to publish birth announcements in 1961 was not conveyed from the parents or family directly to the newspapers, but instead was first processed by a single municipal source, before being provided to the news papers.
Therefore, since we know Hawaii registers foreign births as being native births, the announcements would be published without the location of the birth, or marital status of the parents, as a consideration. This then would suggest that if there is any inaccuracy originating with the source information, which occurs in the transference between the registrant and the municipal authority, the newspapers would never see the necessity to confirm the accuracy of the information. Why would a newspaper take official information certified from a government agency in the form of a list and then expend resources to get a second opinion about its accuracy from the original registrant? They wouldn’t.
The newspapers print announcements without ever knowing if they are accurate or not when the information comes from the local municipal authority.
Therefore, since the municipal authority does not create its birth list discerning between native birth and foreign birth registrations it employs the policy of only publishing the address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Since the municipal authority treats all births as legitimate, by default, it would construct the birth registration list as though the parents are married in every announcement and submit the list to the newspapers who would publish what appears to be all local, native births to married couples. The problem with this flawed procedure is that the announcements are not an accurate account of the actual facts of the natal event.
Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement that a birth announcement in a newspaper must match the metrics of an official birth certificate.
42. The Welfare of Baby Obama
Upon analyzing the procedures used to publish birth announcements, we discover vulnerabilities in the assumptions about the accuracy and content of the birth announcements. With a simple explanation, it becomes much more reasonable to assume that Obama’s birth announcements were never a part of some crazy-minded conspiracy but, instead, were simply the result of being included in the Hawaiian Health Departments birth registration lists after Obama’s birth was registered by Obama’s grandparents, more than likely, for the simple reason of making sure their daughter and grandson could receive state benefits as resident citizens of the U.S. Obama’s grandparents were indeed residing at the published address found in the announcements.
However, ignorant, hostile Obama supporters enjoy the opportunity to claim that so-called “birthers” believe a conspiracy of such magnitude that Obama’s birth announcements were planted in the Hawaiian papers in 1961 just in case Obama might run for president some day. This is a ridiculous canard. Only a blind ideologue would fail to realize that birth announcements do not verify Constitutional eligibility in the first place.
Therefore, both sides of the argument, either lauding birth announcements or ridiculing them, as a viable part of any conspiracy to promote the legitimacy of Obama is idiotic. If Obama’s birth announcements were not automatically conveyed by the registrar, they were more than likely submitted in collaboration with his mother or grandparents as a practical matter in order to simply share the news of Obama’s birth with the community and to, possibly, act to secure Obama’s eligibility for welfare and baby formula, not a nomination to the presidency.
However, without publishing the identity of the registrant, the editors of the newspapers printed all of the week’s announcements based on typically practiced protocols after receiving the official birth lists from the Hawaiian Department of Health. There was nothing premeditated or fraudulent about this. Municipal laws were followed and journalistic standards were correctly assumed considering the official source in the newspapers’ view. The possible breakdown in accuracy occurred as a result of the Department of Health’s legal ability to include foreign births in the Hawaiian birth registration lists and the registrant omitting birth location information, while the papers did not print it any way.
43. Obama’s Secret Natal Data
According to the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of theU.S. Volume 1 – Natality”, natal statistics were harvested using a “50% sampling method” and, furthermore, statistics were taken only from “even-numbered birth records” in 1961. Since Obama’s birth registration was allegedly an odd number, his unique natal statistics would remain ureported by the State of Hawaii, and unpublished as part of the U.S. Department of Health’s annual natal data report.
This is relative in the fact that, since Obama was a bi-racial, (categorized as non-white) baby allegedly born to an 18-year old, white mother and a non-white, non-citizen father, in an urban hospital in Hawaii in August of 1961, his natal statistics would be extremely notable and rare for this time and place. In fact, statistics show that less than 1 in 20,000 births occurred under these circumstances within the demographic classifications used by the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961.
The unconventional circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth are very conspicuous.
44. No Witnesses of Obama’s Birth Still Alive
To date, no living eyewitness of Obama birth exists. It is assumed that his birth was witnessed by at least three people including his doctor and his mother. However, no documentation of the birth has been provided containing the name of the doctor or eyewitnesses.
45. Obama’s Radicalism
Obama has lived a life wrought with radicalism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama writes,
“…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”
In the late 1970’s a teenaged Barack Obama met Frank Marshall Davis while the two were both living in Hawaii. Davis, an avowed member of the Communist Party and one of the era’s poetic pioneers of fierce anti-American radicalism, developed a paternal-like relationship with Obama, which Obama acknowledges in his book, “Dreams From My Father”. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) member.
Obama has maintained lasting relationships with radicals throughout his entire life. He worked with ACORN activist and chapter leader, Madeline Talbott in 1992. He had a close personal relationship with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers and served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Foundation, a radical Chicago-based education activism organization. Obama attended a church for 20 years where radical pastor, Jeremiah Wright, still maintains an anti-American ministry under the guise of Black Liberation Theology.
As the Obama presidency rampaged through its first year, Senior Environmental Advisor, Van Jones, resigned in early September, 2009 amidst a firestorm of controversy over his criminal and communist past. Then, in November, Anita Dunn resigned her position as White House Communications Director when video surfaced which exposed her as being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dictator and mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students.
46. The Deaths of Lt. Quarles Harris and Donald Youn
Excellent, Saska! Now it’s time for Bob and Arthur to start picking this apart and making excuses for all the facts you have presented.
Uh, a lot of this material is outdated…and he probably should have just put up a link, instead of bombarding the thread with a block of text that probably no one will bother to read…
True, I just scanned through it myself, and I recognized a lot of it. Still, there are some very valid points and facts in here. Liberals with just ignore it but if any open minded folks read it, they may learn some good info.
Ha! Dear Saska did this to my blog yesterday, but mine only allowed up to point 3 or so before the character limit was reached. Her heart and passion are in the right place, and we sorted it out amiably.
I had opened the link for verification and found the tab still open this morning, so I read the whole thing – and commented on it as follows:
Nicely done, Kevin. A commenter posted a lengthy excerpt of this article to the comment section of an essay of mine at:
…yesterday. I reduced it to a few paragraphs consistent with fair use standards and left the link to here. I had thought she had pasted the whole article, and was surprised this morning, while reviewing the tab I had left open, to discover it was much longer and more informative than I had suspected.
To be honest, I was unimpressed with the beginning, as it seemed to be imputing a lot of theological/moralistic motives for the Founders inclusion of the NBC requirement, which I would challenge. I not only doubt them, I find them to somewhat obfuscate John Jay’s simple motive to preclude the international loyalty intrigues suffered by Europeans, due to the intermarriage between Royal families.
Once past that, however, it is a very good compendium of the controversies swirling around the mystery man currently occupying the White House. It would make an excellent first stop for all those who are just waking up, and heretofore had dismissed the ineligibility issue as bunk. I think the obvious forgery of his latest BC is making skeptics of a lot of folks previously disposed to give him the benefit of doubt.
Your bio suggests we have much in common. I am sure you would enjoy the above essay. If so, you might also appreciate my recent letter “To Bernie Goldberg.” Keep up the good fight. ◄Dave►
Wow! An outdated cut-and-paste block of bloated text! That’ll show ‘em!
Three Bullet Pointed Facts in Response:
1. Birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
2. Hawaii is in the United States.
3. President Obama was born in Hawaii.
You know it’s coming Bob; Tick, Tick, Tick
When logic escapes you, you get to yell FOGBLOW!
Wow! An outdated unsubstantiated obfuscation! That’ll debunk facts.
Three Bullet Pointed Facts in Retort:
1. Birth in the United States has never been sufficient for natural born Citizen status.
2. Hawaii issues Hawaii birth certificates for those not born in Hawaii.
3. Beginning as early as 2004 (that’s 4 years before anyone questioned Obama’s birthplace/citizenship) Kenyan newspapers and high-level government officials were publically proclaiming that Obama was born in Kenya.
1. Judges, professors, and experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. (Professor Chin, Ankeny case, CRS, to warm you up.) And none say otherwise.
2. A Hawaii foreign-birth birth certificate would list the actual place of foreign birth; President Obama’s birth certificate says was born in Honolulu (which is Hawaii, which is in the United States).
3. Where are these mysterious newspapers and officials? Surely you are not referring to an AP article that was edited by a Kenya newspaper, because in the original AP article, there was no mention of being born in Kenya.
The comment ticker is at over 1300 comments and still spinning. That size of that number (and the recent in-force influx of Obama’s flying monkey squad) should tell you something – your column has hit a nerve with your readers and this is an issue to the nation’s collective concern that is growing not dying.
It should also tell you that, regardless of which side of the issue one may personally stand, this issue will never be put to rest until it is investigated thoroughly and openly at the highest levels with the authority to cut through all red tape and other road blocks to discovery of every bit of related evidence that may reveal the truth about Obama’s life story.
Obama works for We The People. Because of the extraordinary situation of doubt that he alone has let develop he has no legitimate expectation of privacy. Nothing less than full congressional investigations are called for at this point.
But, the only goal Bernie apparently had was to support Rubio candidacy. If we were actually to look at this issue, we would see “Media Bias” by Fox News where they scrub content (O’Reilly) and commit libel (Jana Winter- who should be fired)
I think Bernard is going to do exactly nothing about this, and the disingenuous obots, Dr. Con, Arthur B., bob, et al. will applaud Goldberg’s treason. They must all obey their Obama Overlords, the Big Money Backers, because that is where the cold, hard cash comes from.
Of course, Obama is a puppet, just like they are. Barry Soetoro does what he is told, and will continue to live in style as long as he does. And The Powers That Be have ordered the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the military to stand down. And, for some reason, they do, for the most part. There are some exceptions, such as the valiant Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.
I am an ex-Yellow Dog Democrat, btw, and not a Republican. Now I guess I am a patriot without a party.
“will applaud Goldberg’s treason.”
I think you’re going too far with this. What I will say is Bernie has been proven to be a hypocrite and technically a liar (please see natural born article, he purposely misled his viewers leaving a critical piece of information out of the article while making fun of e-mails he received). He may have also made fun of Christianity.
But, treason? That’s going too far. Ya always gotta be a patriot and all that jazz.
Because nothing is persuasive like mindless, hyperbolic accusations and name calling!
“Yellow dog”? You voted in the 1928 election?
Good post Alex. I’m beginning to feel like a patriot without a party myself, though I’d asoon have my fingers caught in a car door than vote Democrat.
In reply to the questions:
No. I read in the Encyclopedia Britannica that Obama was born in Hawaii, and have never had any reason to think otherwise.
2. If so, where do you think he was born?
At the Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4. 1961.
It’s legitimate. It would have to be a crazy conspiracy for the State of Hawaii and the President of the United States to fake it.
4. How would you characterize people who believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that his birth certificate is 100 percent real.
I don’t think there is any simple characterization of this diverse group, but I would say that generally that they are lacking in critical thinking capability. Some people have an active imagination and an inability to tell the difference between the real and the imagined. Many of them become conspiracy theorists. They are “believers” as opposed to “skeptics.”
No, I do not. I mean, there are lots of interest groups that try to influence politics, and I’m sure that there are some folks that President Obama listens to more than others, but I generally believe that the President is politically who he describes himself to be in his book, The Audacity of Hope. History will be the judge.
No. I believe that there is evil in the world, but I don’t need to personify it. I don’t think that modern millinnealist Christians are any more correct than the ones who sold all their belongings and went up the mountain to greet the Second Coming in the 2nd century.
How much did you get for your soul, Con Man?
At first, I thought this was a satirical piece. Then, I saw who wrote the answers for the questionnaire.
To Bob and all the other folks that have dismissed WND’s document experts (Zebest,Vogt,Harrison,etc), saying their findings won’t hold up in court, and they aren’t credible,etc, would be laughed out of the courtroom,etc,etc here’s my response from WND when I asked them why they wouldn’t hire a “real” certified, court approved document imaging expert:
Thanks for your email.
It is part of the Obama supporters’ disinformation campaign. Obama did not release the original birth certificate — the paper document is still in the vault in the Hawaii Department of Health. Experts who are certified to testify at trial and are members of the various certified forensic associations are trained to be reluctant to render an opinion unless they can view the original document. All Obama has released are xerox copies and a PDF file. Even the certified copy of the birth certificate — the only one with an embossed seal — the White House has locked from view. A court of law would demand the “best evidence” of the document and the “best evidence” is the original 1961 paper Obama birth certificate, if such a document really exists.
The experts WND has brought forward are some of the country’s top experts on Adobe software. To say they are not experts because they are not certified by one of the forensic associations is not correct. Detecting electronic document fraud is a relatively new science and the experts we have brought forward would all be accepted by courts for their expertise.
Most of the Obot radicals themselves lack the credentials to give a professional judgment on the credentials of the experts we have brought forward.
In the final analysis, the Obots cannot answer what the WND critics have proven — all they have left is to launch Saul Alinsky attacks on the WND critics who have risked their careers to come forth and tell the truth.
When you think about it — if Obama had been honest, Obama would himself have released the original 1961 paper document to a group of forensic experts who are court-qualified. Have Obama release the original 1961 paper document and WND would be delighted to get together an expert panel of traditional forensic experts ASAP.
Meanwhile, maybe the Obots could show why the WND experts are wrong — we now have overwhelming evidence the document is a forgery and the Obots are reduced to saying the experts are not experts — a judgment the Obots are not professionally qualified to make.
Thank you for posting this. I think it makes WND’s thinking very clear.
They complain that “the Obots cannot answer what the WND critics have proven” — and yet they concede that “[e]xperts who are certified to testify at trial and are members of the various certified forensic associations are trained to be reluctant to render an opinion unless they can view the original document.”
In other words, “the WND critics” have proven exactly nothing about the original document, and that is precisely what Mr. Tremblay admitted.
Because Hawaiian officials have certified that the hard-copy long form produced in April is a true copy of what’s in the record book, this is legally a closed issue — and, as WND concedes, nothing that any of their “experts” have said casts the slightest doubt on the validity of the original document.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Athur, your missing the point. The experts WND has brought forth aren’t certified by professional forensic organizations,etc. This was Bob and Ernests point to me, that they would be laughed out of the court room,etc, and weren’t credible cause they didn’t belong to professional organizations,etc.
People that ARE certified in those organizations (the ones Bob suggested WND contact and hire) are usually trained not to make assessments on anything but the original document. Obamer won’t give us the original, therefore most of those folks won’t make a judgement.
However, The Adobe experts that WND has brought forth, have looked at it and base on their Adobe expertise, they have determined it’s a forgery.
So, Arthur, in order for WND to go hire those types of certified court approved document experts, they would need the original document, to meet the courts requirement for “best evidence”.
My response below addresses your points. I’ll add this:
If WND knows its “experts” opinions are useless because they have not examined the original document, then why is WND touting these “experts” useless opinions?
They are touting their Adobe expertise. An actual court case would involve obtaining the original document, and forensic experts looking for signs of a forgery. Since we don’t have the original, all anybody has to look at right now is the scan pdf version. That’s it! Now, based on what they have to work with, using their vast Adobe experience, their finding is that its a forgery. This should be enough to merrit a subpeona for the original document to be further analyzed by a court approved forensic document expert, to examine the original hand typed document. No computer or Adobe expertise needed at this point, just an actual examination of the original document.
@JR Jordan — “The Adobe experts that WND has brought forth, have looked at it and base on their Adobe expertise, they have determined it’s a forgery.”
Have looked at “it” and “it” is a forgery? What are you referring to — what’s the “it” you’re speaking of? All they looked at was the pdf.
If we’re speaking of long forms, the only relevant document at this point is the hard-copy long form that was hand-carried back from Honolulu. It is a piece of paper, obviously not a pdf, and “Adobe expertise” — even if the “experts” had it — is entirely irrelevant to determining its authenticity.
Not the slightest doubt has been cast on the authenticity of that paper document. Until there is doubt with admissible evidence to support it, there’s not going to be any court case. The whole reason we have official birth certificates is to prove when and where someone was born. President Obama’s documents do exactly that.
You don’t need an expert. All one need do is look at the reports and look at the documents.
This is what American’s are now doing.
You want to pretend this man is not a fraud, then- just pretend.
You will need an expert if you want to see the inside of a courtroom. Or somewhere besides the comment sections of obscure articles on the internet.
Arthur, the have looked at the PDF, yes. That’s all they have access too! These folks are Adobe experts for sure. So based on that, they determined thru the PDF that a forgery has taken place. The White House won’t release the “certified copy” for anyone to examine, nor will they release the original vault document, if it exists of course.
So, you grant my point. With only the pdf having been examined, there isn’t the slightest reason to suspect the authenticity of the hard-copy long form.
Since it was certified by state officials, it is prima facie evidence. That can be called into question if there is admissible evidence of forgery of the certified copy. But the “experts” you are referring to have produced *no* evidence concerning the certified copy, much less admissible evidence, so at the moment the document stands. It is legally undisputed proof of where and when the President was born.
Yes, you are correct, at the moment this fraudulent document stands and is recognized by the State of Hawaii and the United States government. It’s very sad, but true. I believe there is enough evidence taken from the PDF to warrant a full investigation though. This is what I am hoping for. Until then, unfortunatly, it stands as a legal and valid document.
Thanks, but just one question. Since you’ve acknowledged that all the experts you’ve cited have opined only about the pdf, on what basis have you concluded that the certified hard copy is a “fraudulent document”?
Arthur, I believe the certified paper copy is fraudulent because Obama himself is a fraud and based on all of his contradictions and vague past, he has no credibility with me. I realize no one has been able to view this certified copy, except for one liberal MSNBC reporter, otherwise it is not allowed to be viewed. I’m just going out on a limb buddy. This guy is a liar and a con man, thats what I’m basing it on.
OK, I understand. Your opinion that the document is fradulent is based on your general distrust of President Obama, but not on any actual evidence about the document.
As long as you are willing to acknowledge that, I have no problem with your opinion even though I do not share it.
Not exactly, his past and current actions, contradictions, and lies cause me to challenge his credibillity. That does make me believe he is hiding something for sure. However, I do believe in the evidence that WND has put forth and I do believe their experts are credible. I will concede there’s virtually nothing anybody can do about it, unless a congressional investigation is put forth, or somebody, somewhere drops a bombshell and offers up further proof to spark and investigation. It’s going to take patriots and people who really care about our country, and our proud history to get this done. It will happen sooner or later though. I’m very confident of that.
I’m not sure where the “not really” part comes in.
You’ve already acknowledged, I believe, that nothing that the WND experts have said bears any relevance whatsoever to the authenticity of the paper long form.
I’ve got that right, yes?
(pardon me, “not really” should have been “not exactly”)
So: You believe “experts” who aren’t really experts (because they tell you what you want to hear), ignore actual experts (because they tell you what you don’t want to hear), and dismiss out of hand the State of Hawaii officials (because they, clearly, also also in on this massive conspiracy that only a tiny few can see).
In the reality-based world, a court would accept the State of Hawaii’s documents, and not acknowledge WND’s “experts.”
Reality is biased against your position.
On the hard-copy long form posted on the White House web-site on April 27th, Hawaii State Registrar Alvin T. Onaka PhD certified “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH”.
Since the Hawaii State Registrar himself certified that it could be an abstract, therefore not a true copy, this is most definitely NOT a legally closed issue.
In addition, unlike both Nordyke twins and at least two other Hawaii long-form BCs from the same era, Obama’s long-form BS does not have a visable, much less legible, embossed seal of the STATE OF HAWAII * HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” as required by Hawaii law.
The long-form birth certificate has a raised seal — pictures were taken at the press conference.
“It’s not a copy, it’s