OCT admin featured on Dr. Orly Blog

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

…and then asked to “go away”.

A Natural Born Citizen…Orly? is a blog of Dr. Orly Taitz, a California dentist and attorney whose topic is Obama’s eligibility to be President and a general collection of all things negative about Obama. It is in many ways a reversed mirror image of Obama Conspiracy Theories. We’re pretty much opposite in our views of everything.

In an article titled Disinformation, Right on our Blog this writer’s comments were featured, ridiculed (“What are you, insane? Naive? Stupid?”), and I was told:

You are nothing but an Obama operative and a troll. Go away.

Robert Stevens (who seems to write on behalf of that web site) said quite a few other things that the interested reader can view through the link to his article above. I posted a reply which seems, remarkably, to have passed moderation and is still there. I consider Dr. Orly rather gracious in letting it remain, especially because it gives this web site a plug. The comment has been deleted as of today, along with any link to ObamaConspiracy.org. This is what I said (minus a few typos):

I am certainly flattered to find my small comments featured by Dr. Orly here. The guys at work will get a BIG kick out of it.

I will answer the questions asked, and then if you really want, I will go away. It was not my intent to cause trouble (“troll”) but to raise the obvious questions raised by what I saw here.

First, I am not an paid Obama operative, nor associated with the Obama campaign or the Democratic party in any way except that I did donate $50 to his campaign and voted for him. Oh, and I was a Walter Mondale delegate to the county convention. Why am I doing this? Why is Dr. Orly doing this? Why is or Berg, or Wrotnowski or Donofrio? I hope that all of us are pursuing what we believe is true and in the best interests of our country.

I personally have 30 years experience in the vital statistics industry and printed my first computer generated abstract COLB in 1977. I served for 2 years on the NAPHSIS Fraud Prevention Committee, and am on a first-name basis with several several state registrars (not Dr. Onaka), and it really irritates me some of the outlandish claims being made about birth certificates, vital records process and the way in which professionals highly regarded by their peers are being maligned.

Second (and this should be obvious), I know that “XXXXXXXXXXXX” is Ron Polarik because Sandra Lines sworn affidavit says that is who it is. Add to that, XXXXXXXXXXXX attaches his final analysis to his “affidavit”, and XXXXXXXXXXXX’s credentials match those claimed by Polarik.

Alvin Onaka would not go to jail for blowing the whistle on document fraud–that is his job. And if you think he is afraid of being killed, well you live in a much stranger world than I do.

I am neither insane nor stupid. Am I naive? That’s proven by my trying to bring a little light here.

I would not normally advertise my blog as a visitor somewhere else, but since I’m being asked to leave, and won’t have the opportunity to speak to you again, I can be reached at obamaconspiracy.org (where you can find out in more detail “why I am doing this”).

Thanks for the opportunity to visit with you. It’s been fun. Happy New Year to you all.

Reminds me of another experience over on the FreeRepublic.com.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I am not a real doctor. I have a Master's Degree.
This entry was posted in Lounge, Orly Taitz and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to OCT admin featured on Dr. Orly Blog

  1. bogus info says:

    You are too funny. Does the words “Drama and frantic” come to mind? Kicked you off, huh?

    BTW, have you heard that Dr. Orly spent an hour talking with Fitzgerald’s assistant and “spilled the beans” on Obama? Supposedly SCOTUS is secretly investigating through FBI & DOJ all the phone calls & letters claiming Obama is ineligible.

    Also, according to the blog, Joseph Farah from WND claims that he knows the “true story” on BO birth. But, he will reveal it at a time that he chooses as he is trying to give BO a “chance to come clean.” And supposedly, Jack Wheeler of To The Point News website also claims he “knows the true story” on BO birth. Here is the blog site:

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    You can be sure the Supreme Court isn’t investigating anything.

    For that record, I know the real story of Obama’s birth and I’m not gonna hold back any longer.

    Obama was really born August 4,1961 at the Kapi’olani medical center in Hawaii. His mother was Stanley Ann Dunham (or Obama) and his real father was Barack Hussein Obama.

    Remember, you heard it here first!

  3. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Because I promised to stay off Dr. Orly’s blog, I can’t reply to the comments there that follow mine. I will do so here.

    rebel says:

    Hawaii law required giving Authentic Hawaiian birth certificates to babies born in FOREIGN COUNTRIES if child was adopted and SEALING FOREIGN birth certificate! Refer to law-HRS 0338-0020 0005.htm (a)The department of Health SHALL establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person BORN in a FOREIGN COUNTRY and child by adoptive parent or parents. refer to law-HRS 0578-0014.htm(b) If a NEW birth certificate is issued,the ORIGINAL birth certificate SHALL be SEALED.Refer to law HRS 0338-0041.htm(b)any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any evidence by competent evidence of nonidentification.4 U.S.D.C. Haw.258.certificate not controlling. Because Hawaii SEALED OBAMA’s ORIGINAL birth certificate Obama must have been adopted.That would explain why CIA DNA test concluded that Obama’s American grandparents were NOT biologically related to Obama.

    Rebel, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the adoption issue. What you suggest will not work for a couple of important reasons. I discuss this in my article: Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii. The law §338-20.5 says:

    “The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents.”

    The other problem with this theory is that birth registration for foreign-born adoption was a new procedure introduced in Hawaii in 1979, when Barack Obama was already 18 years old. It was introduced as a result of the 1977 recommendation of the National Center for Health Statistics. See US Vital Statistics History 1950-1995.

    CIA DNA test?!?

  4. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    hearing the funeral dirge says:

    Yes. It is called a “change agent”. Same as we’ve seen in the schools and mainstream media. They make an art out of twisting information based on lies,and stating them as truth. They believe in their Communist cause. Perhaps, Kevin worships the same Hanuman demon monkey god that BO does. Or worships him as the Messiah and justifies the lies in his reprobate mind.

    No, I’m a Lutheran.

  5. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    It gets better and better. Dr. Orly TaitzRobert Stevens has now named this humble web site: “O-bot central”! (Orly doesn’t name OCT directly, but does so by the copied content from here that follows.) I’m flattered. Wouldn’t it be really cool to be an “Obama operative” and be in on all the secret plans and stuff? Maybe get an autographed T-shirt when it’s all over? That is so deliciously funny!

    While I have been told to “go away”, Dr. OrlyRobert Stevens is more than welcome to post here anytime she wants.

    Dr. OrlyRobert Stevens did raise some interesting issues, though, and I will copy them and reply in comments to my article Why don’t you just ask?

  6. Hitandrun says:

    admin writes:

    >Dr. Orly said quite a few other things that the interested reader can view through the link to her article above. I posted a reply which seems, remarkably, to have passed moderation and is still there.<

    Admin, you continue to confuse here as elsewhere Dr Taitz with “Robert Stevens”, a frequent poster on her blog (unless Dr Taitz has adopted a pseudonymn). Please get it right.

    Also, I cannot locate your original reply to Mr Stevens on Orly’s blog. Can you cite the date and time of your post or comment as it appears on her blog?

    Thank you,

  7. Dr. Conspiracy says:


    Sorry about that. Robert Stevens writes like he owns the place (telling me to “go away”) and I missed his name in the fine print. I have a lot of corrections to make. Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn’t be surprised if Orly has very little to do with the site in reality.

    As for the link, I see that my comment has been deleted from Dr. Orly. I will have to also correct my remarks about her being gracious to leave it up. It used to be attached to http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/disinformation-right-on-our-blog.html

    The Dr. Orly blog is now using material from Obama Conspiracy Theories without attribution.

  8. bogus info says:

    I wasn’t sure what to post this under so since this is Dr. Orly blog info, figured this was as good as any. Here is a message from one of the posters on that blog:

    Kay replies:Yesterday, 8:51:42 AM“This comes from The Obama File:
    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    ” … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.

    Perkins v. Elg’s importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

    Besides being a lawyer, I am an accountant as well. We know that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

    Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can’t change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is.
    Like this comment? [yes] [no] (Score: 0 by 0)Community assigned karma score: 0 by 0Mark as offensive replydeleteeditmoderate

    My question is concerning the posters Kay’s statement regarding Perkins v. Elg. I am certainly no lawyer, which she alleges to be, but I have read the USSC decision numerous times and do not agree with her assessment. What is your opinion?

  9. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    This interpretation of the Bingham quote is the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. It goes something like:

    If one is born of American parents then they are a natural born citizen

    Joe was not born of American parents

    Therefore Joe is not a natural born citizen.

    In Perkins v. Elg (1939): Elg was born in the United States of Swedish nationals. The court calls her a “natural born citizen”. Cased closed.

    I gotta go see how Donofrio tries to spin this one.

    [time passes]

    Donofrio’s response is pretty straightforward. He claims her parents were citizens naturalized before she was born, and that appears correct. Oh well, no easy win. 🙁

  10. bogus info says:

    Congressional Hall of Shame

    This is the most interesting part of the article:
    web page

  11. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    For once, I can be proud of MY senator who said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    These letters from our legislators put to lie those claims that “everybody knows that you have to have two US parents to be natural born”. The Dr. Orly blog is piling up evidence against itself. There comes a point where after ridiculing 99.99% of the world, one really looks silly.

  12. bogus info says:

    “silly” is a understatement.

  13. bogus info says:

    Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)
    Joseph Mandoli was a dual US/Italian citizen by birth (born in the US to Italian parents). He left the US as an infant and moved to Italy with his parents. When he sought to return to the US in 1937, his claim to US citizenship was rejected because he had failed to return promptly to the US upon reaching the age of majority, and also because he had served briefly in the Italian army in 1931.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the law, as it then stood, did not permit natural-born US citizens to be stripped of US citizenship for failing to return to the US upon reaching adulthood.

    The court did not base its ruling in this case on any overarching constitutional arguments. Rather, it examined the legislative history of the portions of US citizenship law, and concluded that Congress had consciously chosen to make these provisions applicable only to naturalized US citizens (see Rogers v. Bellei below).

    In particular, the court noted that although US law at that time required certain US citizens with childhood dual citizenship (such as those born abroad to American parents) to make a specific “election” of US citizenship (i.e., a declaration of allegiance followed by a return to the US) upon reaching adulthood, no such requirement applied to a person who had US citizenship on account of having been born in the US. Lower courts had apparently interpreted the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Perkins v. Elg as imposing such an “election” requirement quite broadly.

    The court also decided that Mandoli’s foreign military service did not warrant loss of his US citizenship because, under Mussolini’s Fascist government, he really had had no choice but to join the Italian army.

    Dean Acheson (Dean was his first name, not a title) was Secretary of State during Truman’s second term as President.

    [go to the full case]

  14. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    I don’t see the phrase “natural born” in the text of Mandoli v. Acheson.

  15. bogus info says:

    “This case presents but a single question, upon which petitioner and the Government are substantially agreed that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. 1 Does a United States citizen by birth who by foreign law derives from his parents citizenship of a foreign nation lose his United States citizenship by foreign residence long continued after attaining his majority?”

    The above would be the intent of the Supreme Court. Does Citizen at birth equate to natural born citizen?

    Also, Perkins V. Elg in the beginning speaks to her Father being naturalized specifically but not her mother. Also the USSC seems to use the terms “citizen at birth, native born citizen and natural born citizen” inter-changably. Do they each have three different definitions?

    Wong Kim Arc would be another to look at.

    Utimately, it would come down to the interpretation by the USSC. Obama’s mother was a natural born citizen so would that be a factor? Would be interesting to see how the USSC would interpret this, huh?

  16. bogus info says:

    “Berg filed another lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL
    SEE:12/30/08: Press Release – DETERMINED to have the TRUTH regarding OBAMA that he is NOT “NATURAL BORN” and therefore NOT constitutionally QUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT BERG files a lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL The lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA Further, OBAMA is named as “BARRY SOETORO” as that is his “real” name when he was legally adopted in Indonesia

  17. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    bogus, Thanks for the tip. A pointer to the press release is on ObamaCrimes.info.

  18. bogus info says:

    What do you think about this new development/lawsuit filed by Berg?

  19. bogus info says:

    Other than the allegations, have there ever been any real proof/evidence that Obama was indeed adopted by Soetoro?

  20. bogus info says:

    This is interesting from Dr. Orly’s blog:


  21. bogus info says:

    “The Obama File Latest OBAMANations


    President-Elect Obama Birth Certificate – It’s A Fake – Part deux

    Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines has documented in an associated affidavit [.pdf] the following:

    1. I am Sandra Ramsey Lines, With an adddres at… I am a former federal examiner and law enforcement officer. I began training as a forensic document examiner in 1991. I am a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials. My background and credentials are set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto.

    2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit [.pdf] posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.

    3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for obliterating it.

    4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.

    Read the affidavit –

  22. bogus info says:

    Anonymous says:Today, 4:58:27 PM“I am a lawyer and I submitted this for the Obama Files so that it can clear up the constitutional terms:

    Natural born citizen = a person born of two parents who are U.S. citizens AND the person is born in the U.S. mainland

    Native Born citizen = is a person who is born in the U.S. Mainland (this is what the supreme court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark declared that Wong Kim Ark is because he was born in San Francisco, CA)

    Citizen of the U.S. = is either one of the following: (a) person born in the U.S. mainland (as defined in the 14th Amendment, section 1) OR (b) naturalized by federal statute (Congressional act) OR (c) has is born to a U.S. citizen parent under federal statute

    There is another supreme court case, Perkins v. Elg that was decided in 1939 that gives examples of what a natural born citizen is (e.g. Elg). There is caselaw to explain all of this.

  23. bogus info says:

    BerlinBerlin replies:Today, 4:44:19 PM“Sounds like Berg has the adoption papers.
    The Dezember surprise

  24. Dr. Conspiracy says:


    On Orly re Senate resolution 511 we see the same denying the antecedent fallacy, and it’s nice that senate staffer Jon Yoshimura points out how wrong her interpretation is.

    Unfortunately he says that Obama should settle it, but I fail to see HOW Obama can settle objections that he must have two US Citizen parents to be natural born. He doesn’t have this, he doesn’t claim to have it and I don’t know what else he could do. I suspect Jon Yoshimura is speaking out of frustration over all the crank emails he is getting.

  25. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Anonymous lawyer is talking through his wig.

  26. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Common sense, common law, and case law all tell me that natural born citizen = citizen at birth. I am not a real lawyer, I just play one on the Internet. See the threads here.

  27. bogus info says:

    There are two schools of though regarding the definition of “natural born citizen”. Those who thinks like the above lawyer believes our Constitution was based upon Law of Nations (Vattel) and those who think if you are born here = natural born citizen believes our Constitution is based upon common law.

    Law of Nations would result in three classes of citizens. Natural born, native born and naturalized. Common law would result in two: natural/native born and naturalized.

    There are some who take it even a radical step further: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

    Many on the anti-Obama blogs argue that “natural born citizen” and their definition of what it means cannot be changed. However, I disagree with this. If the constitution was not meant to be changed/altered, then the our founding Fathers would not have specifically provided for the process of amendments to the Constitution which Congress has the authority to do. Nor would they have given the USSC the authority to interpret the Constitution. (precedents). The above lawyer may have his/her opinion/definition of “natural born citizen” but bottom line, the only opinion/definition that would be valid would be the USSC decision.

    The subject of “natural born citizen” doesn’t exactly come up in normal conversations. LOL But, I believe the majority of Americans would say that if you are born in America, then you are a “natural born citizen.” But, I could be wrong.

    I don’t quite understand the significance of whether Obama was adopted by Soetoro. Being a minor, Obama had no say in the matter. The only issue in my mind is if Obama was born in Hawaii, which I believe he was.

  28. Dr. Conspiracy says:


    The Supreme Court in Wong sided with the “common law” approach. A few believe Wong was wrongly decided but it is the basis for many other citizen cases. I would call it “foundational”.

    The Indonesian thing is about fear, uncertainty and doubt. It has nothing to do with whether Obama’s a natural born citizen. It also feeds that general

    “Obama can’t be president because….” in this case because his real name is not what we voted for. I can’t see how the Berg lawsuit was ever intended to win. It’s too sloppily prepared, and too preposterous in its allegations.

    I think Berg should be sanctioned under Rule 11.

  29. bogus info says:

    I figure IF Obama was adopted by Soetoro, he probably had his name legally changed back to Obama-birth name? Now, that’s just speculation on my part. But, it would make sense to me.

    Berg is a very poor lawyer in my opinion. Donofrio and Dr. Orly are close behind him. But that is just my own personal opinion based upon the information at hand.

  30. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Legal name changes in Indonesia would not be valid in the United States. I have no interest in an Indonesian adoption implication until I see some evidence it even happened, which there isn’t.

    I can’t say the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California (filed by Orly Taitz) is as loony as Berg’s, but it has false statements in it about Hawaiian law and other junk.

  31. bogus info says:

    Why would a Retired Colonel be an issue as far as “following orders/taking orders” from PE Obama? He’s not active duty. Doesn’t make sense.

  32. bogus info says:

    Do you see any significance of when Berg’s lawsuit is set for Conference with the Supreme Court? This guy does. I don’t. I think the cert will be denied making the application a “moot” point. But, I’m not a lawyer.

    Ted // Dec 31, 2008 at 12:41 am
    Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution

  33. woops says:


    Instead of arguing like a mathematician trying to calculate how much water a vase holds by using complex mathematical equations….why not just fill the vase up with water and pour the water in a measuring cup? Obama….just follow what lawyers call “The Best Evidence Rule” and release your vault or sealed or whatever you call it Birth Certificate (not certification of live birth), okay? Like the commercial says, “Just Do It” What’s that? Your silence is deafening.

  34. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    bogus info: “Do you see any significance of when Berg’s lawsuit is set for Conference with the Supreme Court?”

    None whatever.

    Ted is deluded.

  35. Dr. Conspiracy says:


    Release as in a JPG image on his web site? Best evidence makes sense if there were a court case being heard but their isn’t. I’m sure if Congress asked for a little peek, it would arrive post haste, but Congress is busy writing their constituents that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    And in any case, the crowd has already left the birth certificate thing behind and are focusing on redefining “natural born citizen”. Nothing Obama can do about who his daddy was.

    Let’s take a reality check for a minute:

    • Obama provided an official birth certificate for the world to look at way back last June
    • Obama let a a well-respected fact checking organization look at it
    • Hawaii State officials said everything was done according to regulation
    • The only person who claims anything is technically fishy won’t even give his right name
    • Berg, the guy who is suing, referenced a Canadian birth certificate for Obama signed by Dudley Doright (a cartoon character)
    • The courts have dismissed every single lawsuit
    • The Supreme Court has rejected every attempt at an injunction or stay
    • Other lawsuits reference laws that weren’t even passed at the time they use them, reverse meaning and generally get all their facts wrong
    • Nobody has any good evidence for any of these claims

    Every single point has been discredited and you can find solid evidence all over this web site to prove that. It tell you, it is not Obama that should show something, it is the people who are carping that should show something: show some real evidence or else shut up.

  36. Noquitter says:

    The world to look at?

    Having “his people” produce a Certificate of Live Birth on the internet doesn’t mesh for me.
    I just have a hard time with everyone saying because a couple of staff people over at Factcheck held it and looked at it, it just has to be true. They have no credentials to verify legal documents. They’re just people. People that aren’t qualified to speak for the government.
    What credentials do they have in Document Verification?
    We were promised transparency. For any administration to deny this basic information of eligibility, goes against everything this nation was founded on. Please do your job and end our concerns and demand BHO to release the original vault copy of his birth certificate.

  37. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Why couldn’t credentialed individuals look at the existing certificate? I’m not aware of anybody being refused access to it. While I cannot personally confirm this, I was told that anyone who went by the Campaign HQ in Chicago could look at it. I couldn’t schedule the trip myself, but I really would have liked to go. It would have been cool to see the piece of paper that launched a thousand blogs.

    Anyway without some evidence to make me think that there’s anything awry, I won’t bother Obama about his birth certificate, no more than I bothered Bush, or Clinton, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon or Reagan, or the other Bush. Did you read about the Japanese soldiers who kept fighting after the end of World War II, who could not believe that the Emperor could surrender? Well, the election is over. Deal with it.

  38. Noquitter says:

    “credentialed individuals”
    what are the credentials and who are the individuals?

    “I was told that” by who?

    “Anyway without some evidence to make me think that there’s anything awry, I won’t bother Obama about his birth certificate”

    even so, don’t you think that those who are not fine with this situation deserve to have
    the questions answered?

  39. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Noquitter, no I think “deserving” has to be deserved, to be earned.

    As to who told me that, it was someone I met on the Internet who told me he was a lawyer and that I guessed lived in Chicago maybe. He seemed like a decent sort of [person who claimed to be a] guy. Ya know. Anyhow he was a lot more convincing than Berg’s lawsuit. At least he seemed to know more about the law.

  40. bogus info says:

    What confuses me about Polarik is that if he/she is in “fear of his/her life/death threats”, how come the other forensic expert isn’t in fear of her life? Sandra Ramsey Lines. I guess we will next hear that she has received death threats too? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

    On these anti-Obama blogs, “fear and smear” is part of their attack.

    Another thing that has confused me is if Dr. Orly’s blog has so many “hits”, how come the higest number that I has seen leave a comment is 15-24? And, those are always the “same old ones”.

  41. bogus info says:

    Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB

    Isn’t this headline a bit misleading? “Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB?” Isn’t this just another “expert opinion?” Had the case been heard, I am sure the other side would have brought in their own “forensic examiner” to disprove/cast doubts on both Polarik and Sandra Ramsey Lines “expert opinions”, don’t you think?

    Aren’t these individuals called “expert witnesses?”

  42. bogus info says:

    It has appeared to me from following Dr. Orly’s blog that when anybody disagrees/doesn’t conform to their opinions/wishes, they are then labeled as “part of the conspiracy”, “stupid,insane, naive, Obama operative”, spreading “disinformation”, etc.

    The list is becoming quite extensive:
    Members of Congress (said Ron Paul Sucks), USSC (won’t even repeat what Donofrio called them–very professional of Donofrio, don’t you think?), the media, RNC, DNC, Fitzgerald, Hawaiian officials, Colin Powell, John McCain, Biden and his son, Factcheck.org, Snopes. Have I left anybody out? I’m sure I have. Feel free to add more to the list.

    Also, thought this is interesting:
    Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

    Maybe a Ret. Colonel(Berg’s new lawsuit) will work this time?

  43. bogus info says:

    There are only three qualifications in the Constitution regarding President USA: The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

    Now, please explain to me where people get the idea that a Presidential candidate, PE or President has to release all the docs they are demanding: college transcripts, medical records, hospital birth records, passports,Mothers BC, medical records, death certificate, Grandmother’s BC, medical records, death certificate, etc., etc.

    Also, hasn’t the thought ever crossed anyone’s mind that Obama has had to be cleared in order to be briefed on the highly classified information the President obtains daily briefings on?

  44. bogus info says:

    Mikel says:Yesterday, 1:19:25 PM“I did not vote for Obama and I am not a Democrat. However I am wondering what we might be trying to accomplish with this kind of research. He is our president for at least the next four years and there is nothing you can do about it. I say that we are all better off if Obama does succeed and that we all should work towards that goal. Tell me one good thing (for Americans) that can come from discrediting our future president and I will retract my statement.

    The above is a poster to Dr. Orly’s blog–sometimes there is actually a “voice of reason” on these blogs and so far, it hasn’t been removed. Mine haven’t been either, so far. I’m sure “Robert” will try to provide several “good things for Americans”. Will be interesting to see what Robert says.

  45. laughinghysterically says:

    Wow. I am rather new to all this bat-sh#t-craziness but did recently have the lovely opportunity of visiting with the crazies on Berg’s mothership blog and subsequently (of course)getting banned for not hating Obama enough and pointing out reality from time to time.

    Wow is all I can say. Wow

    Just found this blog and in my humble opinion, GREAT JOB!!

  46. laughinghysterically says:

    And Berg’s newest interpleader action is HYSTERICAL.

    Can you say Rule 11 sanctions anyone?


  47. bogus info says:


    Oh boy, bet the USSC is really going to be “happy campers” regarding this. NOT!

  48. laughinghysterically says:

    Good Lord. Poor Roberts.

    Are they actually attempting to anger the Justices or are they really ignorant enough to believe this will help their cause somehow?

  49. bogus info says:

    This is interesting:


    Scroll down in the article to Registration or Gradebook–it is hard to read, however, what can be clearly seen is the Place of Birth on this doc. Guess what it says? Honolulu-can’t make out the date? By the way, who filled the doc out? Obama was 7-8?

  50. bogus info says:

    laughinghysterically says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 7:31 am
    Good Lord. Poor Roberts.

    Are they actually attempting to anger the Justices or are they really ignorant enough to believe this will help their cause somehow?

    You would not believe how many times I have asked myself the same question you ask above. Of Berg, Donofrio, Dr. Orly, etc.

  51. laughinghysterically says:

    Also, other news from the Berg mothership. They are all anxiously awaiting “big news” around January 4th about a “deadline” that is approaching.

    Best educated guess: the 60 day deadline for the government to respond to Berg’s Qui Tam (whistleblower) action. Recall, he filed this action on Novemeber 7th. Berg was REQUIRED to file the action under seal but shockingly did not manage to follow directions to well at first (DOH!!). Now the filing is apprently under seal and VERY super-secret over at the mothership. Even though, of course, one can do a google search and find numerous blogs discussing the complaint Berg filed. Smart money says the government will move to dismiss this action. Of course, over at the mothership they are under the impression that the government will choose to intervene and Obama will be taken down for good. LOL.

  52. laughinghysterically says:


    I hate to be mean but I do have to believe that many of these people are operating under a serious mental defect. Especially after my recent adventures into crazyland at the Berg mothership.

  53. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    re: Orly hits

    I don’t know how NBCO? counts hits, whether they include search engine crawls or not and whether the number of visitors is unique individuals over the month, or the sum of unique individuals for each day or what. One can never make much of statistics withing trusting the ones pulling the levers.

  54. bogus info says:

    Best educated guess: the 60 day deadline for the government to respond to Berg’s Qui Tam (whistleblower) action. Recall, he filed this action on Novemeber 7th. Berg was REQUIRED to file the action under seal but shockingly did not manage to follow directions to well at first (DOH!!). Now the filing is apprently under seal and VERY super-secret over at the

    I had not seen this. What is it about? I don’t go to the “Mothership” blog. LOL

  55. laughinghysterically says:

    Someone should start a “sanction Berg” movement (and Orly and the rest of them)…hmmm.

    And, what is the deal with the lawyer/whatevertheheck with all these people? Orly-lawyer/dentist, the latest guy filing with Berg (can’t remember his name) lawyer/pharmacist.

    Apparently when you are this bad at the profession of law you need a fall back to support yourself. LOL.

  56. laughinghysterically says:


    Berg filed a Qui Tam(whistleblower)action back in Novemeber. Funny thing, the dumba#s somehow did not realize at first that he was required to file the case under seal and NOT disclose that he had filed it to anyone. Of course, someone found it and posted about it all on a blog.

    Do a google search for “berg whistleblower anti-puma” and click on the link for yestodemocracy dot com, they have all the dirt on this one in a post over there.

  57. laughinghysterically says:


    I spent some time over at the Berg mothership mistakenly thinking that reality, if pointed out with solid sources, might actually enlighten some of them. No luck with that endeavor. I was, of course, eventually banned. And, they are in a new “fundraising push” over there as well, big surprise! Poor fools being separated from their money.

  58. bogus info says:


    Waste of time and energy to try to point out anything to the “BCCT”. Just like their example of “Hawaiian Homeland Application” as proof that the COLB is not valid. Apples to oranges.

    Then they are quick to allege how much Obama has supposedly spent while never pointing out how much time and energy they have spent on this. Bet what they have spent on this is way more than what Obama has spent on this.

    Then they “ban or censor” anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with their conspiracy theories. Yet, they say that they support/uphold the Constitution? Yea right!

    When their so called “evidence” is questioned or found to be false or misleading, they scream that the evidence has been “tampered with/altered” by “Obama paid operatives”.

  59. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Yes, the school registration record says he was born in Honolulu, and that he’s a Muslim. But none of that information is “official”. It’s just what his parents wrote down on the form for whatever reasons they chose. While an interesting artifact of Obama’s childhood, the document has little other significance.

    The form is discussed here in the article: Obama was an Indonesian Citizen

  60. laughinghysterically says:


    Oh, I am all too familiar with the Obama paid operative accusation. If it were only true I’d be quite a wealthy woman by now!!

    Not only do they refuse to consider irrefutable FACTS they also refuse to understand even the basic fundamentals of law. They actually believe that the Supreme Court is going to hear Berg’s entire case on the merits and rule against Obama on January 9th. They also believe Obama will then be arrested and deported. It’s pure lunacy! When I was over at the mothership I was constantly amazed at the level of stupidity running rampant on that blog. It’s amazing they can even use a computer.

  61. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    This is part of the misinformation campaign to make people think the citizenship denier movement is bigger than it is. This is the “band wagon” propaganda technique. Fringe movements try to appear legitimate by using formal language, quoting documents and law, writing very long texts, inflating their numbers, and sometimes making very nice web sites.

  62. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    You can actually get away with pro-Obama statements if you sound wild enough on some of the sites, where they can ridicule you, call you (as I have been called) an “Obama operative”, or marginalize you. When you make calm, ordinary, well-reasoned and factual comments, they don’t want you because it makes them look bad.

  63. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    According to one of the worst distortions of natural born citizen I’ve ever seen, a chart at TheObamaFile states that the two United States citizen parent rule is in the Constitution.

  64. laughinghysterically says:

    Well, as we all know, reason and facts are the talking points of the evil paid Obot bloggers and must be avoided at all costs! LOL

  65. Thanks for the kind word. It takes a lot of time and work to write/manage a web site like this and appreciation is appreciated ‘)

  66. bogus info says:

    They actually believe that the Supreme Court is going to hear Berg’s entire case on the merits and rule against Obama on January 9th. They also believe Obama will then be arrested and deported. It’s pure lunacy.

    Yes, you nailed exactly what they believe, even though the correct information has been posted about a billion times.

  67. The forensic examiner took a look at Ron Polarik’s Final Analysis and concluded that the Obama image couldn’t be relied upon to be genuine. But we knew from the beginning that an image COULD BE faked. Sandra Lines (who after all was using her real name in a real sworn affidavit) made no claim that Obama’s image actually was forged, only that to be sure one would have to look at the original paper document. Then she goes on to talk about Polarik’s receiving death threats, something which is hearsay.

  68. woops says:

    Lets look at some other things that surely – from fool to wiseman – “Stinks on Ice” because the nose can’t be fooled.

    Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no paper trail — none.

    Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro adoption records — Not released
    Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released
    Punahou School records — Not released
    Occidental College records — Not released
    Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
    Columbia College records — Not released
    Columbia thesis — Not released
    Harvard College records — Not released
    Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
    Baptism certificate — None
    Medical records — Not released
    Illinois State Senate records — None
    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
    Law practice client list — Not released
    University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

    How can anyone defend this, anyone! No. God Bless the people who are fighting the good fight against this guy until he proves who he says he is.

  69. laughinghysterically says:

    These documents are NOT sealed, there are simply privacy laws that protect Obama’s privacy just like yours or mine.

    That is why YOU have not seen these documents, because they are PERSONAL information protected by PRIVACY LAWS.

    I would challenge you to find exactly the documents you are seeking about Obama for any other presidential candidate.

    If you can compile that list of publicly available documents for any poltician you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, guess what, this information is protected by PRIVACY LAWS and it is NOT standard operating procedure for any candidate to release such documents.

  70. It is not necessary to leave a comment to count as a “hit”. And remember, they delete comments over there. I don’t dispute her numbers; and I don’t trust them either. An assertion without evidence is just an assertion. Speaking of assertions: As of this moment there are 248 comments on this web site, but there have been 1,908 visitors and 6,457 page views (excluding search engines and RSS feeds) since December 16.

  71. laughinghysterically says:

    It truly is a great site!! Must be a ton of work to keep it up. Thanks for doing it!!

  72. I don’t believe John McCain nor George W. Bush have released their Pakistani passports either, nor their Soetoro adoption records (while we’re talking about imaginary documents).

    Some of these probably never existed. A medical record for Obama was released some time back. Some of these are reasonably lost (e.g. Fransiskus Assisi School School application).

    If you borrowed my lawn mower, and then returned it to me covered with mud, the blade bent, and the crank cord missing, what do you think I will do if you ask to borrow my chain saw? ❓

    Given the widespread misrepresentations made by the anti-Obama smear campaign, I cannot believe that any of these documents, should they exist and become available, would be handled responsibly. That is, rather than providing information, they would through distortion, provide misinformation, and that is to no one’s advantage.

  73. bogus info says:

    Ditto! Thanks for this website and all your hard work!

  74. John McCain released volumes of medical records (to counter fears that he was “too old”) but refused to release his college transcripts (because he was near the bottom of the class). Politicians practice selective release. I can see very definitely why Obama’s attorney client list is not specifically disclosed (the records for the entire form are), since everyone on that list would come into slanderous attack on the Internet. You can’t sue an anonymous person for slander.

  75. laughinghysterically says:

    Oh, and BTW, they are ALL in fear for their lives. Berg’s crazies were going on about all the deathn threats earlier today. The PUMAs do it all the time as well, even going so far as to have said a PUMA member “disappeared” (and implied it was obviously the evil Obots that had snatched her up)when indeed the woman had simply missed a flight/etc. Of course, everytime the death threats come up they are immediately followed with a plea for more $$ which is inevitably answered. These folks are pretty much all following cult 101 standard operating procedure.

  76. bogus info says:

    Wednesday, December 31, 2008

    Where does the “burden of proof lie?”

  77. bogus info says:

    The comment by Sandra Lines regarding Polarik’s alleged “death threats” (totally not necessary IMO) leave me to believe that she is NOT a Obama supporter. LOL

  78. laughinghysterically says:

    If you ask me none of these suits will ever see the inside of a courtroom in any meaningful way. None of these plaintiffs have standing and even if they did, the cases raise a political question. The Third curcuit Court of Appeals already pointed this fact out, to no avail as Berg just forged ahead with another frivilous suit. The only thing that might stop this lunacy will be Rule 11 sanctions and discipline from the bar. These cases are an absolute disgrace and a complete abuse of the judicial system. Every one of these so-called attorneys should be disbarred.

  79. laughinghysterically says:

    They are also in fear for their life over at the Berg mothership that there is going to be a new Constitutional Convention where the US Constitution will be re-written by the evil socialist Obots and then the entire world will end.

    And, I swear, I am NOT making this up, they truly do believe this garbage!

  80. laughinghysterically says:

    Oh, and, they are still going on about the evil Obot lawyer “Tes”. She really ticked them off something fierce over there.

  81. There are some reasonable scholars who are proposing a constitutional amendment (not a Constitutional Convention, which might even scare me) to define precisely what a “natural born citizen” means. One who argues for this is the prescient article Natural Born’ in the USA: The striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity of the Constitution’s presidential qualifications clause and why we need need to fix it – Boston University Law Review 2005. However, virtually everyone agrees that children born in the US (except to foreign ambassadors and invading armies) are natural born citizens. It’s the John McCain case and the Barry Goldwater case that need clarification.

  82. bogus info says:

    Stanley Ann Soetoro’s Divorce Papers: Where’s Obama?
    Posted on December 19th, 2008 by David Crockett

  83. bogus info says:

    Proposed constitutional amendments
    More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction.[32]

    Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible,[33] and the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, to allow eligibility for Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.[32] The Bingman amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents,[33] while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible.[32]

  84. Noquitter says:

    Dr, some nameless “guy” you met on the internet is your source. You are starting to lose credibility. Please redeem yourself and demand transparency from the future President.

  85. woops says:

    Sometimes logic or proportion don’t work because The Nose doesn’t lie.
    In regards the unreleased “Birth Certificate (Long Form – NOT “Certification of Live Birth” consider the following and anybody will have to wonder “Something doesn’t smell right”:
    Obama/Dunham marriage license –not released
    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license –not released
    Soetoro adoption records — not released
    Passport (Pakistan) — not released
    Columbia College records — not released
    Harvard College records — not released

    Could it be that Barry applied and got student aid as a foreign student, etc…

    Obama, just show your long form birth certificate, okay?

    Look, even Jon Yoshimura, who works for Senator Akaka of Hawaii says “I agree. He[obama] should put this matter to rest.”

  86. I tell you what. Prove to me that Obama ever had an Indonesian passport, and I will support your desire to see it. I have a pretty good sense of smell too, and it smells a rat.

    As for Jon Yoshimura’s comment, I think we should see some proof that this statement was not taken out of context (which you cannot provide). It’s not like the Orly blog hasn’t done this before.

  87. Ok, Noquitter, explain how Obama got a US passport with a fake birth certificate? They have very experienced document examiners over at the State Department whose job is nothing else but spotting fake birth certificates.

    Show me you have some rational basis for your unprecedented demand for documents and that you are not politically motivated.

  88. woops says:

    A “Certification Of Live Birth” is prima facie evidence and obviously is good enough to run for president or get a passport. The problem is that when there are contradictions with prima facie evidence then one should look to the “best evidence” available – in this case the “Certificate of Live Birth” LONG FORM – NOT the “Certification of Live Birth” Bottom Line: If this question could be resolved are you arguing AGAINST seeing the Long Form??? That is an untenable position. What harm? What foul? What peace of mind could be had. If all Barry is trying to do is hide the fact “Muhummad” or even “Lucy” is his middle name or he got mediorce grades in college, is that really worth all the trouble boiling? Of course not. God bless the good people who are fighting the good fight for the right to know for sure. Look how seemingly impossible this task has become. I wish you would join us at least in agreeing that we all “Have a Right To Know”.

  89. laughinghysterically says:

    Sorry, have you looked at the “who’s who” section of this blog? You don’t trust Obama but you do trust THESE folks? Berg, Orly et al? Please.

  90. I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this blog. We examine Conspiracy Theories about Barack Obama. The people listed in the Who’s Who section are the ones proposing the theories we examine. There is no endorsement of these individuals or their theories implied by their presence on this page. They are the “players” in this business.

    And by the way, did you actually read those short bios? Try Berg, for example.

  91. How could there be contradictions between the short form and the long form? A photocopied long form and a transcribed short form are both certified copies. What do you think “certified” means? When the State applies the state seal and the registrar applies the registrar stamp they are certifying that the document is a true copy. I am not against seeing the long form. I am against misrepresentations of Hawaiian law, slander of Hawaiian officials, turning Hawaiian vital records process into a cartoon and generally the spreading of unfounded suspicions that get people worked up and anxious. And if you were about to say that all that anxiety could be cleared up by releasing a photocopy of the long form, you don’t understand how disinformation works, or how conspiracy theorists think.

    For example, just tonight, I proved that Polarik’s (someone who won’t even give his right name) claims of an implausible certificate number were either inept or intentional disinformation.

  92. bogus info says:


    I’ve pointed many to info on Berg, Martin, Donofrio, et al but no one has ever bothered to read the info nor comment.

    On these blogs, the constant theme is that they are “upholding the Constitution”, yet it appears that they haven’t bothered to read the Constitution. They proclaim loudly that the Constitution should not/cannot be changed/altered, yet a provision to do just that is provided in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. Why? Because our Founding Fathers realized that our country would grow/change and this provision would allow the Constitution to grow and change too.

    Here is a good website detailing these Amendments to our Constitution and the reasons why they came about.


  93. woops says:

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Have you read the following?

    “In order to process your application, DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Home Lands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

    Why can’t “We, The People” ask for the same standard and receive the “additional verification” the long form provides?

    Read carefully the Hawaiian official statements.

  94. Yes, I’ve read that. There are maybe a thousand web pages reciting that identical comment, without the writers understanding it. For your own education, why don’t you go find out what it means and come back and tell us exactly why this particular web site is asking for that particular form of birth certificate. Once you have that information, then we can discuss whether it has any bearing on the quality of information on the shorter form. Let me give you a hint: if Barack Obama were to apply to the DHHL web site with EITHER of his forms, he would be rejected.

  95. bogus info says:

    This is one takes the cake of all the blog comments I have read. Hysterical!

    Kathy replies:Yesterday, 1:01:36 PM“I guess we could do all three, but I just don’t want to aggravate our SCOTUS, so am doing what Berg suggested: write to all 9 Justices, put them in separate envelopes and then put all the envelopes in one big manila envelope and mail that way. Also, I am going to be careful to not admonish the Justices to rule one way or another, but to just hear the cases before them. (I think I did a little admonishing in my first round of letters. . . not knowing any different
    Thanks for your comment!

  96. bogus info says:

    On above, by “all three”, she is referring to “fax, email, and snail mail.” Would love to be a fly on the wall when the USSC gets all these. LOL

    Think the USSC will be “aggravated?”

  97. That’s how I’ve always done it with letters to Santa Claus.

  98. The Supreme Court has been the subject of mail campaigns that dwarf this. People for/against abortion rights, environmentalists, death penalty for/against, industry lobbies, separation of church and state — these are all special interests with a huge following. Thinking that supporters of a totally crank lawsuit will influence, much less anger, the Supreme Court with this little [insert your own demeaning expletive here] is delusions of grandeur.

  99. bogus info says:

    I figure they all go into “File 13?”

  100. bogus info says:

    Patrick Fitzgerald Extends Investigation For Two More Months

    Read the above article and voice your opinion.

  101. One bit of Dr. Taitz’s comment was interesting, when she said

    “You should not believe BO’s thugs that are implying that Patrick Fitzgerald is on the take like everybody else and nothing will come out of this investigation.”

    That sounds like a Conspiracy Theory!

  102. bogus info says:
  103. bogus info says:
  104. “Сумасше´шая” if you ask me.

  105. Publicity stunt.

  106. bogus info says:

    Another chuckle:

    The Obamalytes

  107. laughinghysterically says:

    Sorry, my comment was directed at No Quitter’s statement directly above saying (to admin, or Dr) “Please redeem yourself and demand transparency from the future President.”

    Maybe I wasn’t using the reply to comment function correctly or it just wasn’t clear for whatever reason who I was directing the sarcasm at. 🙂

    I love that you have put together this site, and completely understand that you are here to shed some light on all this conspiracy tin-foil-hat lunacy. Oh, and I support you in this endeavor 100%!!!!!

  108. laughinghysterically says:

    I love how all these stories build up the followers bu letting them know the absolute horrow that MAY await Obama IF X,Y,Z thing happens.

    I cannot believe people are this stupid.

    One could argue that IF studity were a crimnal offense then all the PUMA/Birther/Truthers MAY be convicted and end up serving VERY long sentence. LOL
    By their standards the above ius serious breaking news. Now all we need to do is wait for the arrests of the tin-foil-hat crazies to commence!! 🙂

    Clearly, if I can dream up and speculate about any bat-sh*t-crazy scenario then it must be the case that it will come true, right? LOL.

    The good Dr. Orly should go back to dentistry.

  109. laughinghysterically says:

    Sorry about the typos above!

  110. FKR says:

    This Ted guy is making his rounds on the blogs copying and pasting the same constitutional “challenge” to Obama’s right to become the US President. Here’s my take on his idiotic argument:

    Sure, let’s give it a shot:

    1. Sounds good to me! No argument here…

    2. Yep, father was Kenyan. However, don’t forget that his mother was an American citizen. If the father was unknown, Obama would still have been born to an American mother – would anyone doubt his eligibility then? A newborn infant left at the doorstep of an orphanage – would his origin be scrutinized should he ever run for office? Maybe by some right-wing nuts unless, of course, he were to run for the Republican party. In that case his ascension to power would be hailed as an American success story.

    3. “Therefore” only applies to Ted’s own definition of “natural born citizen” which Ted has not shared with us in 1. or 2.

    (From Wikipedia) The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an additional source of constitutional doctrine stating that birth “in the United States” and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, entitles one to citizenship:
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . . ”
    This clause mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens). However, the full text of the fourteenth amendment does not mention the phrase “natural born citizen,” nor does it address Presidential qualifications. The phrase “natural born Citizen” is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, as is also true with most other constitutional terms.

    4. Conferences have not taken place, so this is all idle speculation. The Berg case, by the way, is predicated on a totally different premise having nothing to do with Obama’s father (in case you’re interested: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/).

    5. 6. 7. More speculation…. Although, a President Biden would still be a good choice for the country. I can go either way.

    So how IS “natural born citizen” defined? Since it is not specifically spelled out in the 14th amendment, it is left to interpretation, EVERYONE’s OWN interpretation. In the past most people’s take was that the person had to be born in this country. However, now that Barack Obama has won the presidency, some are trying to define it merely in a way that would exclude him from eligibility. Now it’s not sufficient to be born in the U.S., the person rather has to have TWO U.S. citizens as parents. Apparently one’s not enough… others are trying to withhold eligibility based on the fact that Hawaii is not really part of the United States. Berg’s argument is that Obama’s mother became an Indonesian citizen later in life. These people are all just grasping for straws. This has nothing to do with protecting our constitution (where were the same people when Bush crapped all over it the past 7 years??) and everything with right-wing ideology and, in some cases, simple racism and/or hatred.

    Ted // Dec 31, 2008 at 12:41 am
    Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution

  111. You won’t see them here.

  112. bogus info says:

    These two comments were posted to Doc Orly’s blog. No response yet but I’m sure they will be labeled O-Bots. WoooHoooo!

    Loren says:Today, 6:34:04 PM
    “”At this point, the legal fees spent by Obama to hide his past are probably up in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

    And what is that estimate based on? Even if one assumed the attorneys involved were charging $500/hour for their time (a very high rate under the Laffey Matrix), you’re proposing that Obama’s attorneys have billed in the neighborhood of A THOUSAND HOURS.

    But on what? In Berg’s case, for instance, I know Obama’s lawyers only filed two motions and two very short briefs. A long afternoon’s work for an election law attorney. And I would imagine they’ve been recycling those motions and research for the other cases, so they’d have spent even less time on those. Even if you generously assumed they’ve spent 5 hours each on 20 cases at $500/hour (high estimates on each), that’s still only $50,000, not “hundreds of thousands.”

    So how do you justify the allegation of a thousand billable hours?

    Anonymous replies:Today, 7:10:17 PM“It appears to me all of the claims about costs to defend in these various frivilous lawsuits are speculative. I’d doubt the costs are very high because Obama’s lawyers would not need to research anything more than the issue of standing. The law is rather settled on standing and most litigators are very familiar with it, It likely takes no research at all to write a successful motion to dismiss any one of these cases.

    Dr. Orly, I think some people take offense at the many lawsuits that have been filed and subsequently dismissed for lack of standing. All of the dismissed suits so far assert the same general legal theories and allege essentially the same batch of facts. Some might think that filing essentially the same lawsuit over and over constitutes an abuse of the justice system. Maybe some feel that it reaches harassment of the plaintiff. Maybe some think that it is likely unethical for any member of the bar to file such suits over and over. Maybe some are simply waiting for the court to impose rule 11 sanctions on the lawyers engaging in these seemingly frivilous suits. Maybe some feel that these lawsuits are wasting the courts’ time and taxpayer resources because the lawsuits seem to be without merit as they have all simply been dismissed. Maybe that is why some take issue with this “patriotic” effort.
    Like this comment?

  113. laughinghysterically says:

    The second comment was me!! 🙂

    I wasn’t able to post over there before for some reason, but, apparently I can now!

    I am sure it will be deleted, but I just could not resist responding to her stupidity!

  114. bogus info says:

    Good post. Mine was the one responding to Roberts original article–I’m the so called O-Bot in the article. He keeps shoving “truth, yet verify”, so I shoved it back at him. Doubt if he will respond to mine.

  115. laughinghysterically says:

    We should all keep poking at them with the truth whenever we can get it posted over there. They really don’t do well under pressure. The whole situation might be quite amusing if they weren’t spreading such unbridled hate and anger.

  116. bogus info says:

    Got another chuckle from this one. This mentality blows my mind.

    bob strauss says:Today, 7:35:18 PM“The document,(divorce decree),if it was filed by Obama I, may have indicated where Obama II was born, to indicate to the court that Obama II was a British citizen. This would make sense if Obama I hoped to gain custody of Obama II. This scenario may answer an earlier post doubting that they would state where the child was born.

  117. laughinghysterically says:

    Over at the Berg mothership Berg’s volunteer helper and blog den mother posted the below about Ed Hale. Pot, meet kettle. Hmmm.

    Linda Starr wrote:

    These guys are con-men who prey on the hopes and desperation of people trying to do the right thing. You can tell Ed, I said so, too. We don’t like liars and con men.

  118. laughinghysterically says:

    I think Linda Starr must have meant to say, “We don’t like liars and con men who prey on the same deluded audience that we do and compete with us to separate the fools from their $$”.

    Maybe Linda is jealous of Ed Hale? He might be proving to be a better grifter than Berg at present after his “I need to raise $1000 to buy the divorce decree” stunt!.

  119. bogus info says:

    truthbetold11 says:Yesterday, 7:37:49 PM“how about 20 million people march to washington then it will get their attention,strength in numbers

    Anonymous replies:Yesterday, 1:45:44 AM“How ya gonna get 20 mil to march in Washington if only a few dozen ppl wrote letters? I wish!

    Does the above a pretty good assessment of how many are involved in this “conspiracy theory?” LOL.

  120. Unfortunately, it’s the goodhearted people who more easily fall prey to the scam artists. As Jesus said: (Luke 16:8 NASB) “… for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.”

  121. I suspect that Robert Stevens reads this blog. Don’t say anything over here that you don’t wanted to see distorted over there. As for me, they told me to go away, so I did.

  122. I would point out that Berg v. Obama et al. alleged criminal wrongdoing on the part of Obama, not just an aside to a Canadian Dudley Doright birth certificate TechDude and Polarik. Defense of that suit is not defense of the vault copy of his birth certificate. The only suit I know of where someone is suing Obama solely to see a birth certificate is the Essek v. Obama case in Kentucky.

    I would also point out that to win any case in court involving the birth certificate, all Obama’s lawyer has to do is plop down the Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii, which is prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, and the matter is effectively over. That is, Obama is not protecting the vault record in any case he defends.

    Essek is a little funny. While the right describes Essek as a “truck driver”, he is also a recent Senate candidate who tried to unseat Mitch McConnell in the Republican Primary. Essek describes himself as the founder of the Society for Liberty and Prosperity. That must not be going to well because he applied to the court to waive the fees, claiming poverty. The Lexington Herald-Leader web site said:

    Kentucky is a red state with no shortage of conspiracy theorists and unusual politics, so it’s no surprise that what might be the first post-election court challenge to Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president comes from a Whitley County truck driver…

    Essek wants Obama to provide a copy of his birth certificate to a federal judge in London for verification.

    He knows some people might find his request odd, especially after the election, but says he would tell them it’s never too late to do the right thing.

    “I may very well be chasing windmills thinking they’re monsters,” he acknowledged.

    Indeed Essek is asking for proof that Obama is qualified to be president; he’s not specifying what kind of documentation is necessary.

    The bottom line is, I don’t think anyone can point to a nickel Obama has spent specifically defending the vault record from view.

  123. bogus info says:

    Oh yes, Robert reads this blog. Just like we read theirs. I would welcome his posts here.(owner of this blog has final say) I’m not a O-Bot–whatever that is.

    However, it appears to me Robert doesn’t welcome any posts on that blog that contradict what he says. There are so many false and misleading statements on that blog. But, by the same token, I’ve seen them made on all the blogs–on both sides. I have tried my best not to make any by researching and appreciate corrections to my statements IF incorrect, but I also expect the person correcting me to point me to his/her source to verify for myself. Using Robert’s own words: “Truth, but verify.”

  124. Pingback: Blog or Die! » Banned: Sleeper Troll

  125. “This suit [Keyes v, Bowen] , like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” [Obama’s lawyer Woocher] said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.


  126. Robert E Stevens says:

    Hello, Robert Stevens who called you a troll, is a the biggest troll on the planet.

    he normally participates in racist forums.

    he is a screaming fascist, you can hear recording of him here


  127. Randy says:

    Where in the world has Ted gone? I really miss his chess metaphors and his thanks to poker playing lawyers. In December he had me worried until I realized that he was a one man echo chamber.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.