Main Menu

Treatise on Citizenship

In my researches, I have come across a major work:

Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad Letter from the Secretary of State, Submitting Report … By United States Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad Letter from the Secretary of State, Submitting Report … December 20 1906 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. By United States Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt

Over 500 pages. Enjoy! I know I will.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for Obama eligibility deniers.

, , , ,

232 Responses to Treatise on Citizenship

  1. avatar
    misha May 9, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    I briefly skimmed it.

    It’s all over except for the shouting. It was a lost cause at the beginning, and it just shows the birthers for the kooks they are.

    BTW, Taitz and Berg are getting into bed with ant-Semites. Big mistake.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke wondered why no case before (1844) had dealt the citizenship issues in that case. His conclusion, which remains valid today, is that everyone is of the same opinion, that everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the condition of their parents.. This is why we experience so much frustration playing “wack a mole” with every novel legal theory that the eligibility deniers come up with rather than citing one nuclear court decision that would put them out of the misery.

    So rank amateurs like me, and lawyers on the other side lacking in grist for their arguments lob snowballs at each other. But think for a minute what would happen if one of these eligibility lawsuits ever came to court. President Obama would, of course, be defended by the US government. Think what some REAL lawyers could do (given what folks like me with no legal training and limited access to sources have done) defending Obama’s eligibility. The opposition would look like a swatted mosquito. The brief for the defense would be a joy to read. Enough fantasizing; such a case will never be admitted for obvious constitutional reasons.

  3. avatar
    Gordon May 10, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    Doc you’ve hit on the reason why no first rate lawyer would touch this case.

  4. avatar
    misha May 10, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    One more note: do these birthers have any experience with a security clearance?

    Obama got a top level clearance, which is hell to go through. My wife went through one.

    Do they really think he fooled all those investigators? If they do, they are really naive, or stupid.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    I think the operative word you used was “think”. I don’t see much “thinking” going on over there. Much of it is “monkey see, monkey do”.

  6. avatar
    Joyce May 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    Birthers think elected officials don’t need to go through the usual process to get a security clearance.

    Daniel Pipes, in today’s Philadelphia Bulletin, reports that Barack Obama could not possibly receive a security clearance if he were not an elected official.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    He couldn’t get a passport without a valid US birth certificate. As for the security clearance, exactly what security clearance does he have and when did he get it?

  8. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 10, 2009 at 8:55 pm #

    They have an agenda and they have cognitive dissonance. They won’t accept any facts or logic that undermine their beliefs.

    As far as I know, as an elected official Obama would not have had to go through the “normal” security clearance process. However, I would bet that there’s some pretty strong informal stuff that goes on before a newly elected Senator gets put on the Foreign Relations committee, especially since Obama came in at a time that the Senate was still controlled by Republicans.

    This article – http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003113975 — was a good reminder to me that the rank and file at the CIA doesn’t exactly sit quietly and let things slide. If Barack Obama was a “security risk” for any reason, I’m sure that somehow word would have gotten through to Richard Lugar before he took that first trip with Barack off to Russia to talk about nuclear weapons.

  9. avatar
    Joyce May 10, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    As far as I can tell, the President, Vice President, Senators, and Congressmen do not have security clearances, but do take a secrecy oath.

    I’m not really clear on this.

  10. avatar
    misha May 10, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    From Agnew’s case, I learned that both Obama and Biden had their last 10 years’ 1040 returns given the highest level audit.

    I’m sure his birth place was confirmed by the FBI, when he first started running. I don’t know about a clearance for Emanuel, since he has dual citizenship.

  11. avatar
    misha May 10, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    The Pipes article was published October 21, 2008, not today. And it first appeared on the Middle East Forum site.

    None of the assertions made by Pipes came from any US government source. All of it is hearsay, slanted to appear from official sources. “Obama Would Fail Security Clearance” is Pipes’ assertion, not the FBI’s.

    BTW, before anyone blasts me, I am Jewish and a Zionist. Obama wants to create Palestine by the end of his first term, and I fully support him, as does Emanuel and Axelrod. Emanuel has dual citizenship, in fact.

    It is the president’s duty to be fair to both sides. If there is not a two state solution, then Israel would become an apartheid nation, and we all know how well that worked out for South Africa.

    I have several Arab friends, and they are not Jew haters, nor anti-Israel. They just want to be treated with dignity. There is nothing inherently evil about Islam. The worst crimes against humanity were done by Germany and Italy. Hitler and Mussolini could give lessons to bin Laden. And they came from white Roman Catholic homes. Eichmann was raised Lutheran.

    The neo-cons should turn down the volume. It’s becoming tiresome.

  12. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    Rahm Emanuel does not currently hold dual citizenship — he relinquished his Israeli citizenship when he turned 18.

    Dual citizenship by itself would not prevent a security clearance, but it is a factor that could make the clearance more difficult to get. See: http://www.expatsinitaly.com/citizenship/sec_clearence.html

    However, it seems that the question is really one of allegiances or connections that exist at the time of seeking a security clearance. For example, someone who holds a foreign passport might be required to surrender it — but the issue is current status, not some artifact of birth.

  13. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2009 at 12:18 am #

    I’d also note that the stuff cited in the Pipes article (much of which is unsubstantiated rumor, some of which has been specifically discredited) – would prevent a security clearance. Pipes argued that Obama would be denied a clearance because of associations of some of the people Obama associated with — but for a security clearance, they would be looking at relatives, cohabitants, and others with whom Obama had close ties. See: http://www.expatsinitaly.com/citizenship/sec_clearence.html

    So if Obama had applied for a security clearance back in his college days while he had a Pakistani roommate — that could raise an issue (“cohabitant”) — but it is unlikely that the things Pipes raised would interfere with a clearance, even if they were true.

    Its really the same sort of logic that drives birtherism: they make up their own skewed interpretation of the rules, and then assert that Obama has violated them.

  14. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 11, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Elected officials do not submit themselves to a security clearance investigations. Also, elected officials are not required to submit a birth certificate to the State Department to obtain a Diplomatic Passport if they are traveling to destinations outside of the U.S.

    The State Department can issue diplomatic passports to non-citizens if the non-citizen is traveling on behalf of official U.S. Government business. If you’ll recall during the campaign, Secretary of State Rice called upon Obama to involve himself in the negotiations with a peaceful transition after the Odinga election in Kenya. That is justification to issue Obama a Diplomatic Passport, regardless of Security Clearance issues or citizenship.

    The President of the United States is not required to obtain a US Passport.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    Obama was not a Senator when he went overseas in 1981.

  16. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Correct.

    In my opinion, he had to go back to Indonesia because his Indonesian passport was about to expire … OR … he was on a diplomatic mission and he received a US diplomatic passport to complete an assignment deemed to be in the best interest of the US.

    The State Department can and has issued diplomatic passports to non-citizens if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the US. All US passports have an expiration date.

  17. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    1. Diplomatic Passports DO require submission of a birth certificate if it is 1st time issuance, see: http://www.state.gov/m/fsi/tc/1877.htm

    There is no exception for elected officials.

    2. Obama did not travel abroad to Kenya when Secretary Rice asked for his help with Odinga. He made a phone call. The first time Obama traveled abroad on official business was in 2005 when he traveled to Russia with Richard Lugar as part of a delegation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    3. You people really do just make things up as you go along, don’t you? Facts, law, doesn’t matter, right? Anything goes.

  18. avatar
    misha May 11, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    “You people really do just make things up as you go along, don’t you? Facts, law, doesn’t matter, right? Anything goes.”

    Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

  19. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 12, 2009 at 6:11 am #

    Your link refers to US Citizens traveling with coordination through FSI in 2009. You must be a US Citizen to obtain a job with FSI. Consequently, requiring presentment of a birth certificate before a Diplomatic Passport is issued is not an undue burden.

    You’re conveniently ignoring the fact the State Department can and has issued Diplomatic Passports to non-citizens if it’s justified as a benefit to the US Government.

    Soetoro was traveling on behalf of himself in 1980 to a foreign country on another country’s passport – or – he was traveling as a non-citizen US resident with a diplomatic passport to perform an assignment beneficial to the US government. Which is it?

    After his travels in 1980, Soetoro changed his name and transferred from a University in California to a University in New York.

    If Soetoro was acting on his own behalf with disregard for the Rule of Law in the US, then some Americans are concerned and would like an explanation. If Soetoro was on a mission for the US Government and the mission is classified – top secret, sensitive, then an Occidental College transcript could be released to reassure Americans Obama is who he says he is.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 6:35 am #

    Sven asks:

    Soetoro was traveling on behalf of himself in 1980 to a foreign country on another country’s passport – or – he was traveling as a non-citizen US resident with a diplomatic passport to perform an assignment beneficial to the US government. Which is it?

    How ridiculous! He was doing neither. He was traveling as a tourist on his own non-diplomatic passport US Passport.

    I don’t know about other places you hang out, but over here people who make assertions are expected to give reasons anc cite evidence. Fantasy can be fun, but it’s not part of a logical argument.

    And any number of sources, including statements of other students and school year books and identified class photos contradict that the President ever went by the name of Soetoro in the US. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/obamas-entire-life-photoshopped/

    The very fact that those who argue that the Present attended Occidental College as Soetoro cite a 1963 document about a high school student named Soetoro (when Obama was 2 years old) as evidence demonstrates how out of touch with reason that whole idea is.

    See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/orly-uses-photoshopped-image-to-mislead/

  21. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    Unbelievable…The “birthers” come back with different slants on the same discredited information. Does Sven have information that Obama was issued a diplomatic passport? Or is he making an assumption. If I recall there was an incident that some employees were looking up the travel records of Obama during the campaign. Since the State department had this records, I would assume that Obama had been issued a US Passport. It seem like these “birthers” will find some obscure exception (if we believe that non US citizens would be issued dimplmatic passports) to help support their wild assertions and theories…Crazy.

  22. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 12, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    If you believe my assertions are wild, then you probably believe the misinformation at the beginning of this thread concerning a background investigation Obama went through to obtain his Security Clearance.

    For all I know, you probably believe an investigating officer discharged with the duty of a background investigation is cool with a subject who will not provide a copy of his college transcripts, his passport record and only an electronic image of his birth record. Not to mention a known association with a domestic terrorist suspect … admitted drug use … etc.

    Furthermore, you probably believe Obama would not have been sworn in to his Senate seat until his fantasy background investigation had been completed and signed off on by a government official sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.

    Step back into reality for a minute. Obama’s passport record was breached after he had been issued a Diplomatic Passport as a sitting US Senator. Any sitting US Senator will receive a Diplomatic Passport to travel outside of the US so they may discharge their duties as a Senator; regardless of the citizenship status or their birth record. It is up to the voters to vet a US Senator, not the US State Department.

  23. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Obama has had a passport for years, long before he was a politician.

  24. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Doc where did you pick up this Sven? He just makes it up as he goes. What a tail he weaves.

  25. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 12, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Yes, technically you’re correct. He does have a passport. It was issued by the country of Indonesia.

  26. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama had to go through security clearance at the highest level, because he was privy to sensitive Intelligence reports.

  27. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    No evidence of this exists.
    Simple really.

  28. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    “In my opinion”. Is that how you present serious debate? Everything you say is based on wild speculation.

  29. avatar
    richCares May 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    “Yes, technically you’re correct. He does have a passport. It was issued by the country of Indonesia.”

    What a statement, it would be really nice if you show proof of this other than pulling it out of your rear end.

  30. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    By the way, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama had to go through an extensive background check for the purpose of getting high level security clearance. Members of certain committees are privy to sensitive intelligence reports.

  31. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    and unsupported by any data and even contradicted by what we know.

    1. It is unlikely that President Obama would have an Indonesian passport because he was never a citizen of Indonesia
    2. Obama, in one of his books, mentions how he returns to the US from Indonesia on his US passport.
    3. Even diplomatic passports require the same application procedure, which include providing evidence of being a US citizen.

  32. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    Where did you get that Indonesian passport? Wild speculation, or is there some other “proof” you birthers are always talking about that some secret nefarious organization is hiding?

  33. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    The State Department can issue diplomatic passports to non-citizens if the non-citizen is traveling on behalf of official U.S. Government business.

    As far as I can tell Sven has presented no evidence of such other than claiming that Obama was granted a passport.
    But that’s just circular.

  34. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    Is this guy Heavy’s little brother?

  35. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    Members of the House and Senate Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Armed Services Committees go through high level and ongoing background and security clearances, as do the POTUS the VP and cabinet members. These individuals are privy to top level sensitive documents. None of the birthers seem to have to basic computer skills, or access to any reference material to find this out.

  36. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 12, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    Gordon, let me help you with a remedial civics lesson. There are three, equal branches of government. A Security Clearance investigation/designation is performed by the Executive Branch.

    Obama was member of the Legislative Branch. The Executive does not and cannot prevent any member of Legislative from performing an official duty. Requiring a Security Clearance designation from a member of the Legislature could prevent Legislature from performing their duties.

    For example, Obama presented an itinerary to the Sec of State when he visited Europe during his campaign. The Sec of State had to provide Obama with a Diplomatic Passport because a portion of his itinerary was to inspect and debrief military hospital staff and patients in Germany. Regardless of Obama’s birth record and citizenship, the Sec of State could not deny Obama a Diplomatic Passport because he was a sitting Senator at the time.

    Furthermore, the Executive Branch cannot prevent a member of the Legislature sitting on a Foreign Relations Committee from inspecting and gathering information, even if that Senator is not who he says he is and citizen of a foreign nation.

  37. avatar
    Heavy May 12, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    See, that’s where you sickos veer off course. I have not made any claims or accusations about your messiah. I have simply asked a question: WHY WON’T HE SHOW THE DAMN THING? I’ve yet to receive a credible answer.

  38. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Sven, my only question is where is your evidence? That he has an Indonesian passport? Do you have a copy of it? Do you have a copy of his passport that shows that it is a Diplomatic passport? I only ask becuase you want us to believe your accusations without supplying any proof. Like I have said on numerous occasions, you are making the accusations, so it is incumbant on you to supply proof to back up your accusations. Obama has supplied proof to the proper authorites that he is a citizen. If you believe otherwise, provide proof. If you can show me an Indonesian passport or a US Diplomatic passport,then I am sure people would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt. The last time I checked, the US has a pesky little requirement called proof. You and all of your “birthers” make these wild accusations without providing any legitimate proof. Why should be provide his school records? Is that going to make him a better President? If some strangers wanted to see your college records, it would be OK to release them? Of course not. And admitted drug use? Bill Clinton and George Bush used drugs, and I didn’t see any kind of uproar. And what does past drug use mean for the President? If we held prior drug use against someone, then the world of politics would become a lot smaller. Although on the plus side Rush Limpballs would be off the air.

  39. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    You are correct with you civics lesson. However you are forgeting one thing. Although the Executive branch could not prevent Obama from being Senator if he did not pass his background check, they could prevent him from having access to sensitive and classified information. You seen to forget that little tidbit. And for Heavy regading showing the BC, according to the US State Department and other relevant government authorities, he has. If you can show me in the Constitution where he is required to show his BC or other personal information to the general public, then I would be with you asking him to show it.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    And your “opinion” is based on what exactly?

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    Actually I don’t “believe any of this” because I haven’t seen any evidence. Following are things I have no opinion on:
    1) Obama has a diplomatic passport (plausible)
    2) Obama has a carefully vetted security clearance (plausible).

    What I do have an opinion on is:
    1) Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia (based on US and Indonesian law – link below, and denial of US State Department in Strunk v US Department of State)
    2) The only passports he could have theoretically traveled on in 1980-81 were Kenyan or US, since those were the only two countries he was a citizen of.
    3) Obama regarded himself a US Citizen when living in Indonesia (according to his book).

    I believe your assertions are wild based primarily on Indonesian law as detailed in this article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/

    If you have any specific arguments with evidence that there are errors in the preceding article, then by all means comment on it.

  42. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 12, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    This from our own government websites.

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/nofee/nofee_836.html

    According to what I could find, one still has to follow the same rules.

    Passports
    Official and Diplomatic Passports
    Official and diplomatic passports are issued only in Washington, DC by the Special Issuance Agency (SIA) to employees of the U.S. government traveling or on assignment abroad on official business. However, the Consular Section can accept your application and forward it to Washington, DC for processing or you may elect to mail your application and accompanying documents directly to SIA yourself.

    To apply for an official or diplomatic passport, you must present:

    Either a completed but unsigned passport application DS-11 (if this is the first time you have applied for any kind of passport) or a completed DS-82 (if you have a tourist passport or are renewing your diplomatic or official passport); forms can be found at http://travel.state.gov/passport/forms/forms_847.html);
    Two recent identical color photographs (see Photograph Requirements: http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/photo_req.html);
    Original documentation proving you are U.S. citizen;
    Proof of identity;
    If you are with Department of Defense, you also need a typed and signed DD-1056
    If you are from a Department or Agency other than DoD, you need :A copy of your orders from your Department or Agency; (for 3161 contractors, a copy of your travel authorization and your contract;) and a memorandum from your headquarters office outlining the need for an official or diplomatic passport;
    There is no fee for an official or diplomatic passport.

  43. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    He has shown “the damn thing”, something you do not seem to care about.

  44. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    I notice that you still have not shown that the State Department can give diplomatic passports to non-citizens. But you are wrong to suggest that separation of powers cannot lead the executive branch from refusing security clearance if problems arise. But regardless, the issue here is if Obama could have gotten a diplomatic passport without the necessary documents provided.
    You have failed to provide such evidence. At best it is speculative…

  45. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 12, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    The website you’re quoting has been edited since the usurper took office. Try posting the information from “the year of living dangerously” (1980).

    Try thinking outside of the box, too. Do you think the Legislative Branch of the US Government would allow the Executive Branch of the US Government to impede their duty to gather information and inspect US interests outside of the country? Denying a Senator a Diplomatic Passport because of failure to prove identity or not having appropriate travel orders would be an excellent way for the Executive Branch to keep the Legislative Branch from nosing around in its business.

    The FBI may investigate, execute search warrants, interview, etc; the AG may indict and file charges, but the Executive Branch does not vet any member of the Legislative Branch and cannot impede in the duties of that member.

  46. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    From my reading – only government employees can receive diplomatic passports. Can non-citizens be actual government employees?

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    Sven, are you asserting that the “proof of citizenship” requirement was added to the page since Obama became president?

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/nofee/nofee_836.html

    If no, then please explain the relevance of your comment that the page has been “edited”. Also, how do you know that it has been “edited”?

  48. avatar
    Heavy May 12, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    As I said…

  49. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    The Constitution specifies:

    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    Therefore, it would not be an intrusion of the Executive Branch to obtain verification of citizenship + age from a Senator as part of the passport process; it would merely be law enforcement. By definition, every sitting Senator should be easily able to document that they are a US citizen over the age of 30 with the State Department, the usual method being with either a previously issued passport or a birth certificate.

    (And if you have any good law about why it is that the Executive Branch is Contitutionally barred from looking into the affairs of members of the Legislative Branch — it would have been helpful if you could have told Ted Stevens’ lawyers about it last fall)

  50. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    By definition, under the US Constitution, Senators have to be US Citizens.

    So yes, the Executive Branch can indeed prevent a member of the Legislature from doing his job if the Senator happens to be a “citizen of a foreign nature”… because in that case the Senator would not be qualified for his job.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    According to the usually reliable Wikipedia, members of Congress carry “Official Passports.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport#Types_of_passports

    And don’t be confused by the phrase “non-citizen nationals”. This means non-citizen nationals of the United States, a category that applies to a couple of US controlled islands where the inhabitants are US Nationals, but not automatically citizens.

    A passport is a primary proof of nationality/citizenship [US Dept of State web site]. I can’t see that the US would ever (intentionally) issue a passport to a non-citizen/national, no matter what that person was doing for the government. [Ya know, CIA, black ops, movie plots excepted.] Just read the passport; it says preprinted that the holder is a “citizen/national” of the United States.

  52. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Occidental College has confirmed on its web site that Barack Obama was a student there:
    http://www.oxy.edu/x7992.xml

    It is painfully obvious that birthers like Sven have never been to college, or else they would know that in order to get into college, a high school transcript must be submitted. Since we know from high school yearbook photos that Barrack Obama was known as “Barry Obama” in high school, obviously that is the name he would have applied to college under.

    (College applications also usually give students a place to specify both their official full name as well as preferred nickname — so it is likely that the application listed “Barack” as the official name, and “Barry” as the nickname — there are a lot of Jimmies and Bills and Dicks in this world who are actually named James and William and Richard, including former US Presidents).

  53. avatar
    Cee Cee May 12, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    Just like our former VP(whom won’t go away)is named Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney, but of course he goes by the name Dick which fitting for him because he is a dick.

  54. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 12, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    Found it!

    8 C.F.R. Part 215 § Sec. 223.1(b)

    Actually, there are numerous situations where a non-citizen could travel on official government business with US travel documents.

    I don’t know exactly which circumstance applied to Soetoro’s travel as a non-citizen from the US to a foreign country in 1980, I just know his inaction on providing the evidence to prove his NBC status is suspicious.

  55. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    There appears to be nothing of relevance in the reference provided. Could you perhaps make your argument more clearly?

  56. avatar
    richCares May 12, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    “I just know his inaction on providing the evidence to prove his NBC status is suspicious.”

    that’s great evidence, show it to the Supreme Court, they need a good laugh!

  57. avatar
    HistorianDude May 12, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    First, Obama has had a passport since at least 1967 and his first passage to Indonesia. Since this predates COLBs, this first passport would have been issued on a certified copy of the log form certificate. Any subsequent passports are likely to be renewals of that original issued when he was six.

    Diplomatic passports are different from ordinary passports only in their concurrent grant of diplomatic immunity. Other than that, they are just passports and require the same documentation to obtain. In other words… a diplomatic passport cannot be acquired without the same proof of citizenship any other passport requires.

  58. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Especially since he has provided the necessary evidence which shows him born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen.

    As they say: Good luck and don’t let the facts disturb your beliefs.

  59. avatar
    Cee Cee May 12, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    @Sven- I see that 8 C.F.R Part 215 is talking about aliens departing from the US, but it doesn’t say anything about them having diplomatic passports.

    http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0.1.2.19.html

    And 8 C.F.R 223.1 (b) deals with refugees
    “”(b) Refugee travel document. A refugee travel document is issued pursuant to this part and article 28 of the United Nations Convention of July 29, 1951, for the purpose of travel. Except as provided in §223.3(d)(2)(i), a person who holds refugee status pursuant to section 207 of the Act, or asylum status pursuant to section 208 of the Act, must have a refugee travel document to return to the United States after temporary travel abroad unless he or she is in possession of a valid advance parole document.
    http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0.1.2.23.0.1.1.html

    Now I am not an expert and I admit I know nothing about laws, but what does this have to do with Obama? Can someone explain this to me?

  60. avatar
    NBC May 12, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Nothing but that does not stop our friend from believing that there must be some evidence that shows Obama to be lacking eligibility. Accuracy may suffer

  61. avatar
    HistorianDude May 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    There is no 8 C.F.R. Part 215 § Sec. 223.1(b)

    There are only Sections 215.1 to 215.9, and none of them are relevant to this discussion.

    http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=a62a9bc86f1bdcccedd86765ddbecf84

  62. avatar
    Cee Cee May 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    NBC and HistorianDude- That’s what I thought. lol

    I like to get involved into the conversation, but I get confuse when people say things.

    Thanks for letting me know.

  63. avatar
    HistorianDude May 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    From the Department of State Website:

    “Apply for Diplomatic Passports and Visas

    * Apply for your family’s passports.

    Applications can be filled out and signed in the Employee Services Center, Passport Office, Room 1252, Department of State. You must present your travel orders. FIRST-TIME APPLICANTS MUST ALSO PRESENT PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP (CERTIFIED COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR NATURALIZATION PAPERS). For renewal, a former U.S. passport is sufficient.”

    emphasis mine

    http://www.state.gov/m/fsi/tc/1877.htm

  64. avatar
    HistorianDude May 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    “Do you think the Legislative Branch of the US Government would allow the Executive Branch of the US Government to impede their duty to gather information and inspect US interests outside of the country? Denying a Senator a Diplomatic Passport because of failure to prove identity or not having appropriate travel orders would be an excellent way for the Executive Branch to keep the Legislative Branch from nosing around in its business.”

    Yes. They would.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    Senators have “Official Passports” rather than Diplomatic passports. Just edging the discussion in the right direction.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm #

    And exactly why do you think that President Obama traveled in 1980 as a non-citizen and what possible “official government business” would a nobody college student be on?

    Isn’t that, to put it mildly, “far fetched”?

  67. avatar
    Cee Cee May 12, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    I also find it funny that Sven thinks President Obama was not vetted or shown his COLB to be eligible as President, but in 1980 the US government thought he was important enough to send him on a super-duper top secret mission or assignment for the good of the US in Sven’s logic. lol

  68. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:26 am #

    Imagination beats reality any time

  69. avatar
    myson May 13, 2009 at 2:09 am #

    I just admire you guys, sven came here thinking he’s conversing with people who dont check facts provided but he’s finding out we here dont let unverifiable statements go, we require real proof. Quoting non-existent or incorrect laws seem to be popular with the birthers, why would a court listen to you wen the very laws you quote is wrong ???

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 6:42 am #

    I can understand someone with no legal training, fed by rumors, making mistakes like that, but when Philip Berg (in Hollister v. Soetoro) or Alan Keyes (in Keyes v. Bowen and Keyes v. Obama) and their attorneys makes bald-faced misrepresentations of the law, I have a real problem and begin to appreciate the value of sanctions.

  71. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 13, 2009 at 6:44 am #

    My goodness, I’m starting to think nothing will convince the Obama worshippers he is an usurper. One of you claims 8 C.F.R. Part 215 § Sec. 223.1(b) doesn’t exist!

    Ha Ha Ha.

    Okay cultist, here it is. 8 C.F.R. Part 215 (2)(i) refers to a Refugee Travel Document. I called it a Diplomatic Passport. Let’s ignore the big picture and focus on terminology.

    Non-citizens can travel outside of the US on behalf of the US and they can be issued US documents. It doesn’t make them a citizen. Consequently, Obama’s travel in 1980 does not infer US citizenship.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 7:15 am #

    Let’s go back to the big picture. Obama traveling on behalf of the US Government in 1980 is an unsupported fantasy. [If you disagree, provide evidence.] Anything following from that fantasy is moot. He was a college kid visiting family with a stopover to visit the family of a college room mate.

    President Obama most likely does not have nor has ever had a Diplomatic Passport, although it is plausible that he had an Official Passport as a Senator.

    The law you cited is inapplicable because Obama was never a refugee. Find an applicable law, or concede the point.

    In all cases, a passport requires proof of citizenship, or are you claiming that this was not the case until the Obama administration edited the page to say it was?

  73. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2009 at 8:22 am #

    Dr. C…Sven seems to be missing an important point. If Obama did not have a US passport, how did he travel to Indonesia with his Mom to live in the late 1960’s? I would have to believe that he would have needed one back then to travel so this fantasy about him working for the CIA and being issued some sort of “diplomatic” passport and not being a citizen does not make any sense. Like you I would have to see some sort of proof that he does not have an official, issued to a US citizen, passport.

  74. avatar
    Gordon May 13, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    No one claims that Refugee passports don’t exists, you contend that Obama had one without one iota of evidence only your speculation. You couldn’t get a case in court based on that kind of fanciful, wishful thinking.

  75. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 9:01 am #

    as for Sven, he is not speculating, he is following Birther talking points. He is just repeating what someone else made up. He doesn’t need nor will he accept proof. Actually Birthers are allergic to proof. Their hate of Obama makes them accept any negative Obama talking point without any checking what so ever. They will never concede their ignorance, too much hate for that.

  76. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 9:05 am #

    You’ve incited a liberal feeding frenzy, Sven. They have been spewing crap the same for months now. Trying to defend the indefensible.

    All their messiah has to do is SHOW THE DAMN THING!

    Until then, he deserves to be treating as the steaming pile of elephant dung he is.

  77. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 13, 2009 at 10:40 am #

    Do I hear a parrot? Sounds like a parrot. Same mantra with no relevance to the issue at hand, since the “damn thing” has been shown.

  78. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    SHOW THE DAMN THING

    you are right, let’s give him a cracker!

  79. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    Since he has shown the damn thing, your treatment of him, is as expected, personally motivated, not by facts.

  80. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 13, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    And I only got involved in this thread because the worshippers were claiming Senator Obama had submitted himself to a background investigation by an officer of the US government and successfully obtained a clearance rating.

    I proved a non-citizen can travel to foreign countries with US travel documents and they’re screaming for me provide evidence Obama is an usurper while Obama has spent millions making sure no one can have access to the records that prove he is an usurper.

  81. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    Cracker? Is that racially motivated?

    And, no. He HAS NOT shown tht damn thing. He has spent lots of money trying to avaoid showing it.

    Where there is smoke there is fire.

  82. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    Yes, my treatment of him IS personally motivated. I PERSONALLY take offense to this usurper!

    Wher are your so-called facts? NOT ONE has been presented to establish your messiah’s elligibilty.

  83. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    You have hit the nail on the head, Sven. That’s all it is…Idol worship. NOTHING else could explain it.

  84. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    “Obama has spent millions making sure no one can have access to the ”
    Sure he did, go ahead keep believing in crap! Avoid the evidence as most Birthers do.

  85. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Poor Heavy is still denying that Obama has shown that he is born on Honolulu. Poor heavy, still getting to terms with the reality that President Obama was elected to be our President for at least the next 4 years and that great things are happening to our country.

  86. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Still denying the COLB which shows him born in Honolulu.
    No wonder, your personal dislike of President Obama causes you to ignore the facts.

    No worries, the next 4 years will be quite beneficial to Heavy’s coping

  87. avatar
    Joyce May 13, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    I proved a non-citizen can travel to foreign countries with US travel documents and they’re screaming for me provide evidence Obama is an usurper while Obama has spent millions making sure no one can have access to the records that prove he is an usurper.

    At least one of Obama’s lawyers said that he is working pro bono.

    The law says no one can have access to Obama’s records without his permission or an order of the court (remember when the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh’s right to keep his medical records “sealed”?).

    The days of slavery are over. You don’t own Obama. He has the same rights and protections guaranteed every other American citizen.

  88. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    I proved a non-citizen can travel to foreign countries with US travel documents and they’re screaming for me provide evidence Obama is an usurper while Obama has spent millions making sure no one can have access to the records that prove he is an usurper.

    First of all you have proven no such thing. You are still making up facts. As to Obama having spent millions, there is no evidence of such nor is there ANY evidence that indicates that President Obama is an usurper. In fact, the known data all point to the contrary fact.

    But I would not want to bother you with the facts, as you have shown to be not interested in them.

  89. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    And our so called idol, aka President Obama is set to do great things for our country. No wonder some are worried.

  90. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    One fact, Heavy nor Sven seem to want to address is that President Obama has shown, using legally admissable documents that he was born on US soil, or Honolulu to be more precise. Born on US soil makes him natural born.

    Case closed. Instead, Sven et al seem to be more interested in wasting effort and resources on denying the facts, just as President Obama is hoping.
    Imagine the irony…

  91. avatar
    HistorianDude May 13, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    I just looked again.

    8 C.F.R. Part 215 § Sec. 223.1(b) doesn’t exist.

  92. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    No, he has NOT. Get it? NOT!

  93. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    So, you admit it IS idol worship! Burn in hell, bitch!

  94. avatar
    HistorianDude May 13, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Actually… no. Where there’s smoke, often there’s just smoke.

  95. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    Richy, pay attention. It has been stated, by the government.

  96. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    No, he has NOT. Get it? NOT!

    Polly wants a cracker!

  97. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    RACIST!

  98. avatar
    HistorianDude May 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    There is no 8 C.F.R. Part 215 (2)(i) either.

    Part 215.2 ends at (c)

  99. avatar
    TollandRCR May 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm #

    This very much reminds me of a spoiled brat stomping his feet and screaming when told to go up to his room. That just means that he gets to stay alone in his room longer. It’ll have to be separate rooms, Heavy and Sven. Sorry about that.

    Incidentally, the word “not” implies that you have something to say. Try doing that instead of yelling “not!”

  100. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    RACIST!
    finally admitting it! Yes you are a racist!

  101. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    No such statement has been made by the government. Are you still making up ‘facts’?

    Why is that Heavy?
    Is the truth too hard to bear?

  102. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    Yes he has. Poor Heavy still intent on denying the truth.
    Sad really. But exactly playing in to the hands of President Obama, that’s the irony of it all.

  103. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    That is the most mature reply I’ve ever seen from you. And the right continues to claim to be the party of God.

  104. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Heavy indeed has nothing more to add than to stomp his feet, deny the facts and claim, contrary to reality, that President Obama has not presented any legally admissable documents.
    Of course, we all know this to be NOT true as President Obama has provided access to his COLB which shows him born on Honolulu, just as common sense and the known facts dictate.
    But Heavy, who has a personal dislike of Obama, has decided to ignore the facts. The next 4 years and beyond will be very therapeutical for our dear friend. It takes time to cope with loss.

  105. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    Mind your manners Heavy, no need to sound even more unreasonable than usual. And what do you thinks is meant by ‘so called’?…
    But yes, I do admire President Obama for his policies, his ability to proceed with his outlined plans for this country, and the enthusiasm with which the American public is embracing them.
    These are marvelous times for us Americans, times to hold up our heads in pride as we shake off the specters of torture and undermining of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
    Praise be to the Lord for allowing us to witness this in our lifetimes.

  106. avatar
    TollandRCR May 13, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    I think the reference is to
    8 C.F.R. PART 223—REENTRY PERMITS, REFUGEE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS, AND ADVANCE PAROLE DOCUMENTS
    Title 8 – Aliens and Nationality

    223.2 Processing (b) (2)
    Refugee travel document—(i) General. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an application may be approved if filed by a person who is in the United States at the time of application, and either holds valid refugee status under section 207 of the Act, valid asylum status under section 208 of the Act, or is a permanent resident and received such status as a direct result of his or her asylum or refugee status.

    Was Obama a refugee from political oppression in Hawai’i? I recognize that some folks do not consider Hawai’i to be a REAL state of the United States, so maybe that’s what these folks are trying to get at.

    This has nothing to do with Diplomatic Passports.

  107. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    Dr Conspiracy has so well documented the facts

    Thanks Doc, your efforts are a testimony to those who love our country and its Constitution, in your search for truth and fact.

  108. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    Exactly and it has not even anything to do with passports.
    What despair we see when facts are abandoned for fiction. Did you guys notice how Berg stated, contrary to the facts, that Michelle Obama was disbarred?
    At the same time we see Orly, desperately trying to support her outrageous claims with facts, and finding little support.
    Fascinating to see how they all are self destructing.

  109. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    We’ll see, we’ll see.

  110. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    Facts? Here’s one for you. Your messiah has NOT released his BC. What has been released on his behalf is not acceptable. We all know the firestorm is coming.

  111. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    The ONLY thing documented on this site are excuses why he should not SHOW THE DAMN THING. That’s it. Nothing else.

  112. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    Really? Now who’s avoiding FACTS?

  113. avatar
    kimba May 13, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    Whew, looks to me like the birfer nation is trying to bring the same chaos and desperation going on at the birfer sites to this one. Last Throes of a fruitless fight. All that’s left is the die-hard Obama haters. The rest of the villagers dropped their pitchforks and went home when Obama passed the 100 days mark.

  114. avatar
    meson May 13, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    Yep the birfers are a dying breed, I predict a few dozen diehards will end up cooling their butts in jail but the rest will just ride off into the sunset!

  115. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    you are right, it really bothers them that Obama is referred to as Mr. President by the press. When the press stands in respect as Obama enters the room drives Birthers crazy. They actually believe their own crap and can’t handle Obama’s success. It is really sad that their lifes are so full of hate it blinds them. The Bither issue has went nowhere and continues to head in that same direction. Frustrating for a hate filled Birther. Lemming march off the cliff as do the Birthers.

  116. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    Nice try, Richie! Can’t take the taste of your own medicine?

  117. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    Dying? If you mean dying for justice, you are correct. If you mean dying in number, you are sorely mistaken. But, you already know that, don’t you..

    There’s a storm coming and the ports are filling fast. There will be no harbor given to those who support this ILLEGAL administration. Just will be swift and brutal.

  118. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Hey, Richie. The plural of life is LIVES. Why don’yt you try to get one?!?!

  119. avatar
    kimba May 13, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    I agree, the diehards are so disconnected from the mainstream, they can’t understand why people are going back to their lives. You’d think that they would take the hint when they can’t get Rush and Hannity to take their calls. And the hustlers like Orly and the Grand Jury leaders are still feeding them a little BS every day that “there’s progress”, “we’re getting close”, “we’re talking to people close to the powers that be”….PT Barnum would be proud. (By the way, Obama is the “powers that be” right now right? Maybe the GJ folks are pawns of Obama!)

  120. avatar
    meson May 13, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    I can’t wait to see how swiftly and brutally the birfers get their asses kicked when they threaten the President, it will be a joy to behold seeing you and your lowlife ilk being put in your place!

  121. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    Threaten? You people are masters of deception!

  122. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    polly wants a cracker!

  123. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    He released his COLB which shows him born in the US. The COLB is legally admissible and equivalent to a certified copy of the BC.

  124. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    As opposed to masters of denial πŸ˜‰
    You’re funny…

  125. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Swift and brutal… Wow… Love the attitude.

    The storm appears to have been in a ‘tea-cup’

  126. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    The facts are clear, no such facts were presented by the government. Needless to say, once again Heavy excels in lacking in fact.
    Perhaps Heavy is confusing the facts with what the government actually did state.

    But those are just details… Who needs details when you already believe you know the truth eh Heavy?

  127. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion May 13, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    1) No proof that a passport was ever issued by Indonesia

    2) Obama was, at the time Lolo Soetoro married his mother, a year past the age that the Indonesian government would have granted citizenship to adopted children.

    3) No record that an adoption ever took place.

    4) According to US law, both now and as was in effect during the time period in question, a US citizen minor cannot renounce their US citizenship, nor can the parents renounce for the child.

    5) Indonesian law did not allow for the granting of Indonesian citizenship unless the previous citizenship was renounced, which was impossible under US law.

    In other words, there’s no proof Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack Obama, and under both US law and Indonesian law, there is no way he could have lost his US citizenship or been granted Indonesian citizenship. As such, there is no way he could have been given an Indonesian passport to travel on, and no reason why he couldn’t have been given a US passport like any other citizen.

  128. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    Who is now parroting ignorance?

  129. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    I knew it:

    Perkins Coie 688,316.42

    This is then used to conclude that this money was spent on defending Obama. Taking facts and turning them into beliefs.

    Hint: What roles does Perkins Coie play for “OBAMA FOR AMERICA”. Lacking any details, why jump to conclusions?

    Weird

  130. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    So the statement was
    “Obama has spent millions making sure no one can have access to the ”

    Facts show: Less than a million was spent by Obama for America (not Obama) on legal fees.

    See the differences between fact and fiction?

  131. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    Odd, isn’t it? This is the same firm who is defending your messiah and has threatened attorneys. So I’m sure NONE of the money went into the defense of THE ONE.

    You’re right. I’m just making things up.

  132. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Face it. He’s hiding the truth. It’s only a matter of time.

  133. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    Sure, I have no doubt that some of this money may have gone into defending President Obama although, like you, I have no evidence that any moneys were in fact used as such.
    I am glad that we agree that I was correct.

  134. avatar
    Heavy May 13, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    Right? About WHAT, exactly?

  135. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    “There’s a storm coming and the ports are filling fast. There will be no harbor given to those who support this ILLEGAL administration. Just will be swift and brutal.”

    do you mean “Justice”? Not just delusional, but mentally ill as well. Nice hateful life you have there, keep your eyes closed, else it may scare you.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    But of course he had a passport, a US passport. His book, Dreams from My Father, (written a dozen years ago) mentions him showing a US passport when he returned from Indonesia at age 10.

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    I don’t think refugee passports exist (until someone shows me something really obscure I haven’t found).

  138. avatar
    NBC May 13, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    But we all know that when he wrote the book, he knew that he was going to be challenged… Just like his parents knowing at birth to fake a birth certificate…

    Credibility is of no importance really…

  139. avatar
    Gordon May 13, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    Detective Heavy, what the devil was that long itemized list? You are starting to meltdown.

  140. avatar
    Gordon May 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    I thought Sven was your pseudonym.

  141. avatar
    Gordon May 13, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    Here’s the thing, Heavy is under the impression that there is some wave waiting around the bend. He reminds me of the Halle Boppers, faithfully waiting for their ship to take them home.

  142. avatar
    Gordon May 13, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    In Heavy’s old world view of America, the black man had to have more proof than anyone else.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    If indeed President Obama is not a usurper, then I would hope that there is nothing in the world that would convince me that he is. If he is not, then something should have surfaced by now.

    I don’t think that the refugees you refer to are traveling “on behalf of the US”.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    Sometimes where there is smoke, there is just someone blowing smoke.

    “Where there is smoke there is fire” is equivalent to saying “all accusations are true”.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    I thought Sven said “to a foreign country”, not “return to the US”.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    Operating in a fantasy world often causes problems in the real world.

  147. avatar
    Mary Brown May 13, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    If I understand, when this storm comes people who oppose will be what-put in camps, tried, shot? You are speaking like the very people you claim to find dangerous-like Osama bin Laden. You know the man who believes he has the right to kill those who disagree with him-those he believes have tainted Islam. I think I know one thing about folks like this. They are really all the same whatever their cause.

  148. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 12:30 am #

    Don’t worry. Heavy has been predicting ‘swift justice’ since January 21 with no progress..
    Give him some time to cope with his losses.

  149. avatar
    myson May 14, 2009 at 3:15 am #

    i think he’s being doing that earlier, 21 jan 09 was just he’s saddest day (in my opinion)

  150. avatar
    misha May 14, 2009 at 6:20 am #

    From reading the birthers on this site and Orly’s, I now realize they are insane, in the clinical sense.

    Orly’s site has twice threatened an armed insurrection, and here there have been veiled threats.

    They just can’t stand that a black family is in the Whitehouse, and it is driving them mad.

    Some of these people need a hobby. I also read that Berg has been fined $10K for improper behavior as an attorney. Orly has a law degree from an unaccredited correspondence school. We’re not dealing with deep intellects. And those GIs who have signed on the bandwagon, at Berg’s and Orly’s requests, are ruining their careers with this nonsense. Berg already left Hemenway out to dry.

    Eventually their agitating will go over the line.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2009 at 6:34 am #

    The decision and the sanctions in Hollister v. Soetoro (the case Hemenway signed) are being appealed.

    Also on the legal front, the writ of certiorari in Schneller v. Cortesresponse is due May 18 at the Supreme Court. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-9797.htm

  152. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 8:09 am #

    No, Gordo. Your messiah’s defense is what is melting. It’s only a matter of time before he is exposed as the fraud he is.

  153. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 8:10 am #

    Oh, it’s coming, detective.

  154. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 8:12 am #

    No, detective, it has nothing to do with race, no matter how much you want it to. It has to do with the Constitution. Something that you slimy libs care NOTHING about.

  155. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 8:15 am #

    Actually, since Nov. 4. It will happen. And YOU will not be easily forgiven for your actions against this country!

  156. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 8:18 am #

    Yes, misha, hon all who oppose THE ONE are racists. Wha else could explain it.

    LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!

  157. avatar
    TRUTH May 14, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    I would probably be better off spending my time watching grass grow or paint dry then replying to Misha, but sometimes I just have to stoop low to get on the same level as the person I’m addressing, just for fun.

    It is absolutely not about race, it’s about policy. I don’t believe Obi-Wun is qualified for the seat he holds. Is he eligible?, apparently that really doesn’t even matter. My guess is even if the proper authorities thought he wasn’t eligible, they would not dare challenge him for fear of what it would cause a few million ignorant people to do.

    But racist….ha..that’s just something for your side to scream every time adversity faces you. “We can’t get a job,RACIST!!… We didn’t get a raise, RACIST!! Our school grades are very low, RACIST!!”

    I could name MANY black people more qualified than Obi-Wun and that I would want to be President. Black, White, Asian, it does not Matter. What matters is they do what is best for America and Americans. Obama SAYS that’s what he wants, and he has convinced many of you into believing him. He wants what is best for HIM and his Party. Even many of the people that voted for him are beginning to see that.

    The excuse, “he’s only been in office 3 months, you haven’t given him time.”..I don’t want to hear. I’m not saying fire him, that would be asking for to much. I’m just saying his policies will screw this country up so bad that we won’t be alive by the time it gets corrected.

    Racist…ha…those that scream that word are the Real racists. Ok, back to something more valuable, that paints going to dry soon.

  158. avatar
    richCares May 14, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    “Even many of the people that voted for him are beginning to see that”

    sure they are!

    “The excuse, “he’s only been in office 3 months, you haven’t given him time.”..I don’t want to hear. ”

    Never heard this before, you are so brilliant.

    you certainly don’t hide your racism very well.

  159. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    Truth, this why people ignore little richard here. He obviously swings to the other side.

  160. avatar
    Black Lion May 14, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    Truth…Let us examine your comments…

    “I don’t believe Obi-Wun is qualified for the seat he holds.”

    Why is that? You made a statement without any kind of supporting reason. Did you feel that George Bush was qualified? What is your definition of qualification?

    Is he eligible?

    Accordiing to the information provided he meets the qualifications under the US Constitution. Most people believe that unless you are one of those that is trying to redefine what a natural born citizen is or don’t believe in the birth certificate. The “proper authorities” do believe he meets the qualifications of the office.

    Even many of the people that voted for him are beginning to see that.

    Again where are you getting this information? According to the latest polls Obama’s positive ratings are still high as well as those who see him as doing a favorable job.

    “I could name MANY black people more qualified than Obi-Wun”

    Well tell them to run for President then…However Obama does have a BA from Columbia and a JD from Havard…Those are some serious qualifications…So you must know a lot of Rhodes Scholars…

    If you want to claim that a lot of the dissent against President Obama is not about race you are entitled to your opinion. However when you read the comments on blogs like Orly’s and Repubx and how they have alligned with people from Stormfront and other Neo-Nazi organizations, you may think differently. Maybe some do hate him for his politics, however there are some out there who do hate him for his race. To ignore that fact is being disingenuous. A lot of people seem to forget that he has only been President for about 4 months, after the last 8 years of mismanagement a lot of Americans are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and some time to fix this country.

  161. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    Heavy has been saying this now for quite some time. Perhaps Heavy’s belief that President Obama is some sort of fraud, is facing an uphill battle.
    While Heavy is focusing hard on ignoring the facts, President Obama seems to be doing quite fine in restoring some dignity in this country.

  162. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    You mean those ‘slimy libs’ who are now trying to figure out to what extent the previous administration has undermined and violated Constitutional rights.
    Of course, us slimy libs, do not have to ignore the facts that President Obama showed legally admissible evidence that he was born on US soil.
    On the other side we see empty threats, promises and hopes that soon, anytime soon, they will be able to show President Obama to be ‘a fraud’.
    While they are spending much effort chasing a specter, President Obama is doing great things for our country.

  163. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    Yes, the world is all crazy and Heavy is the only normal person. ROTFL.
    Hint: Liberalism is a political and social concept which, contrary to how the term is understood in the United States, has little to do with communism, or socialism. But ignoring for a moment the historical ignorance, liberalism according to Wikipedia is a broad class of “political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals”

    Wow. Individual liberty and equality… Sounds just like the Founders of this Country and the Constitution.

  164. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    Empty words which ignore once again, that President Obama is our elected President and that he has shown legally admissible evidence that he was born on US soil.
    So what actions does Heavy in mind that will be hard for him to forgive us for?
    Winning an election it seems… For some coping takes a bit more time. Good luck my friend.

  165. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    Anytime soon?

  166. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    If your definition of “Dignity” includes bowing to Saudi kings, and apologizing to our sworn enemies, then I guess you are right.

    But then again, you ARE a liberal and liberals cannot be shamed.

  167. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    I could name MANY black people more qualified than Obi-Wun and that I would want to be President. Black, White, Asian, it does not Matter. What matters is they do what is best for America and Americans. Obama SAYS that’s what he wants, and he has convinced many of you into believing him. He wants what is best for HIM and his Party. Even many of the people that voted for him are beginning to see that.

    Perhaps there are many more black people as or more qualified than our elected President, although he has significantly raised the bar with respect to his predecessor πŸ™‚

    Obama, like any politician has made promises, the difference seems to be that he has the skills and determination to follow through on his promises. That’s what seems to scare some of President Obama’s opponents most, the fact that he has built sufficient political capital to finally restore some common sense and dignity to this country’s policies and politics.

  168. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    No, the world is not ALL crazy. Just the liberals.

  169. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 11:15 am #

    No luck needed. Just steadfast dedication to defending and upholding the Constitution.

  170. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    Common courtesy seems to be a concept that has become foreign to some of us it seems. Apologizing where apologies are due is also part of restoring dignity to our Country. If we behaved poorly, then it’s time to apologize for that, correct it and move onward.
    For some, President Obama’s efforts may be wasted as they lack a comprehension of what dignity is all about. However, for our country as a collective, President Obama has managed to restore respect, dignity and an adherence to our Constitutional principles.

    Shaming liberals may be somewhat hard since this presumes that they have taken actions which require them to feel shame. Shame is the response to a situation in which the one feeling shame realizes that he was wrong. There seems to be a lot of shame going around right now. I just watched the Judiciary hearings on torture and I can imagine that some involved must feel deeply ashamed. We shall see how this country can recover from its newly found knowledge that it has been lied to consistently, and apparently the lies went all the way up. Restoring a sense of self respect, and legitimacy is one of the important tasks President Obama is realizing for our great country.
    Some may believe, based on their past experience with their own politicians, that Obama’s beliefs are just for political expediency, however, they may come to realize that he is dedicated to follow through on his visions for our country, visions which motivated millions to elect him our President.
    A bright new era lies ahead of us. Smile Heavy, there is sufficient room for all of us…

  171. avatar
    Gordon May 14, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    Truth you digress, you don’t believe he is qualified based on his policies, whereas the majority of Americans think he is, that;s what the election was about. This whole birther issues is a sidebar attempt to overturn an election and is a whole other issue.

  172. avatar
    Gordon May 14, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    You have a time frame on that Heavy?

  173. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    Yes, those ‘crazy liberals’ who are in favor of “Individual liberty and equality… Sounds just like the Founders of this Country and the Constitution.”

    No wonder, Heavy once again seems to ignore the facts in favor of his (ill founded) beliefs.

  174. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    Cool, you sound more and more like a liberal here. I guess, you are all in favor of exploring the Constitutional abuses of our government then? Including our previous one?

    I raise you a COLB. Your turn. πŸ˜‰

  175. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:29 am #

    When you lack sufficient political and social capital, what else to do but to return to a favorite pasttime “conspiracies”? Such a position requires no attention to facts, but rather takes a principle for granted and will interpret anything in that light, and ignore anything that would cause one to have to reject said ‘principle’.
    Lacking reason, fact, and public support, all that remains is… Well, not much really.

    PS: Did you guys notice how Orly exposed, once again, Berg’s secret lawsuit, making a dismissal of this suit even more likely.
    Ironic how they are all self imploding…

  176. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    You have no interest in the Constitution. Your interest is in advancing your social agenda.

  177. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    Make up your mind please. You called me a liberal which means that I believe that “individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals”. Sounds a lot like the Founders of our Country and the Constitution…
    It is my interest in the Constitution which makes me interested in restoring dignity to our policies and yes, advancing a social and political agenda. Unlike our previous administration, furthering the social agenda, does not require me to abandon our Constitution.
    I understand why you believe that social change requires one to ignore the Constitution as you may have been exposed to many of such examples during the last 8 years or so. However, there is no need for despair as we have leaders willing, capable to restore our sense of justice, self respect, without violating the Constitution of our country.
    What a concept eh?

  178. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Obviously, you are just another Bush basher. YOUR social and political agendas are what is wrong with this country.

    BUSH SUCKS!

    NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

    HELL NO, WE WON’T GO!

    Sound familiar?

  179. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Obviously, you are just another Bush basher. YOUR social and political agendas are what is wrong with this country.

    I wish that my rejections of Bush were like yours, based on just my personal dislike of the person. However, this runs much deeper as it involves a level of re-intepretation our Constitution to enable a dismantling of our Constitutional rights, to an extent never witnessed since the Constitution was written.

    As I said, I wish it was just Bush bashing and not a conviction that our Constitution was severely damaged through the actions of our elected officials. The recent revelations should make anyone interested in the Constitution shudder.

  180. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    I’m interested to know how you think the Constitution has been damaged by the Bush administration.

  181. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    I am somewhat surprised that you feel necessary to ask that question. However, I do not want to change the direction of this site’s focus on President Obama by exploring the many constitutional failures of his predecessors.

    May I suggest you read up a little? Or stay tuned for the inevitable hearings that have already started.

  182. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    Just what I thought. How can I “Read up” on YOUR opinion, which is what I asked for?

  183. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    How can I “Read up” on YOUR opinion, which is what I asked for?

    Because my opinion is based on the facts as they are becoming known to us? My opinion is not what really matters, it’s familiarizing oneself with the facts which will lead one to a better understanding of how we forced to abandon many of our Constitutional rights during the last 8 years, all under the guise of ‘war against terrorism’.

    Let me leave you with a final quote

    There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

    Source: click here

    Yet, some seem to consider torture still defensible, and even a biblical requirement. Strange. I can understand why people may hold the belief that torture is defensible, but based on Christian principle?…

  184. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    EXACTLY what I thought you were getting at. Not only are you a liberal, but a limp wristed, weak willed one at that.
    You CLEARLY have no clue about what you speak. That is the danger of people like you.

    Forunately, our brave soldiers know differently and will protect us from those who have sworn to kill us.

    WE THE PEOPLE will protect us from the likes of you and your ilk.

  185. avatar
    richCares May 14, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    “Forunately, our brave soldiers know differently and will protect us from those who have sworn to kill us.”

    I am one of these brave soldiers and we think you are full of Sh___!

  186. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    EXACTLY what I thought you were getting at. Not only are you a liberal, but a limp wristed, weak willed one at that.
    You CLEARLY have no clue about what you speak. That is the danger of people like you.

    Just calling something ‘clearly’ does not make it so. Neither do insults further one’s argument.

    Forunately, our brave soldiers know differently and will protect us from those who have sworn to kill us.

    I surely hope they do and that they are not forced to violate our Constitution, International Treaties and US Law. In the end, as birthers have so clearly argued, following ‘illegal orders’ is itself an illegal act. But I doubt that these constitutional violates extend to our armed forces who are well trained through the Army Field Manual as to the extent of what is legal and what is not.

    WE THE PEOPLE will protect us from the likes of you and your ilk.

    Is that a “Pluralis majestatis”?

    Why do you have to be protected from those who want to enforce the Constitution? I am confused?
    Do you have any reasoned arguments?

  187. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    Yeah, OK, richie.

  188. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Well said Rich, as I expected, the US military is well enough equipped and trained to recognize the boundaries of their actions. Although, I now remember the devastating impact of our administration’s position on some military in charge of the military prisons such as Abu Ghraib. Unfortunately so.

  189. avatar
    Heavy May 14, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    No, you’re not confused. You are deranged. There is quite a difference.

    Does the Constitution cover enemy combatants?
    Yeah, didn’t think so.

  190. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    ARMY FIELD MANUAL FM34-52

    The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

    The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

    Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

  191. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    I see, I am deranged.. What did I tell you about the impact of the use of insults on your arguments?

    As to the concept of enemy combatants, do you believe that the Constitution and International Treaties allow the use of torture? Do you think that by renaming these people enemy combatants that we can suddenly torture them?

    Again, it’s time for a history lesson from Wikipedia

    Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] Prior to 2008, the definition was: “Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.” In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term “enemy state” may be replaced by the more general term “Party to the conflict” (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]

    In the United States the use of the phrase “enemy combatant” may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, “enemy combatant” actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term “enemy combatant” has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.

    The Supreme Court when asked to rule on this issue rejected the Administration’s argument that article 3 of the Geneva Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

    That’s how the Constitution works my dear friend, not through the wishful actions of the executive but interpreted by the Supreme Court as required by the US Constitution itself.

    Congress has no power to violate the separation of powers by such a
    blatant denial of a constitutionally mandated, traditional, and essential
    judicial power to implement treaty law of the United States that, as the
    Constitution expressly requires, shall extend to all cases . . . arising
    under . . . treaties.

    The Appeals Court concluded

    The express language of the Constitution thus provides that a treaty ratified by the President, after the Senate’s advice and consent, see U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, is part of our domestic law and may be enforced in a domestic court.

    What about them ‘liberal facts’

  192. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    I’m not going to call anybody racist. But I would note that the one phrase “fear of what it would cause a few million ignorant people to do” is something a racist might say. Only TRUTH knows what picture he had in his mind when he said that.

    I personally AM a racist (a recovering racist anyway). I grew up in lower Alabama in the 1950’s and one would have to be a truly remarkable individual to come out of that environment without some ingrained stereotypes about the races. I realize that racism is irrational, and so I try not to let my upbringing surface. Folks like me who came out of that environment and have seen overt and sometimes violent racism first hand and have had to grapple with it, are a little more conscious of racism in themselves and have a much more difficult time retreating into denial.

    I think that while racism exists, it is not the best principle to apply in understanding the nObama movement. Obama brings together characteristics of race, background, class, and hot button political views that trigger prejudice in some people. If you look at nObama web sites, and comments here by folks like Heavy, it is apparent that Obama is not being judged on his job performance but by expectations of what he will do and what he is like based on some external characteristics, one of which is race, but far from the only one. I would call Heavy an anti-liberal before I would call him a racist. I hesitate to use the broader term bigotry because it carries an insulting connotation. Bias is too harmless a word.

    Lacking a label is probably a good thing in that it makes it harder stereotype the nObamas.

    I do find the eligibility denial, the disrespect insulting language directed at Obama, and the knee-jerk negative reaction to everything he does or says, rather irrational, whatever the label.

  193. avatar
    JeffSF May 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    “It is absolutely not about race, it’s about policy.”

    Objecting to the President’s policy agenda is understandable- even though I disagree with you, political dissent is what this country is about. I hope you felt the same way when people were objecting to the previous administrations policies.

    And then you go completly the other direction with the next sentence: “I don’t believe Obi-Wun is qualified for the seat he holds.”
    Even though I did not feel Bush was qualified to be President, once he was elected I accepted that he was the President and desired the respect of the office, and should be judged upon his performance. The Birthers dislike the man and refuse to accept that he is the President and attempt to mock and demean him for who they perceive him to be, rather than for his policy.

    “My guess is even if the proper authorities thought he wasn’t eligible, they would not dare challenge him for fear of what it would cause a few million ignorant people to do.”

    All it would have taken was one congressman to object- but none did.

    “The excuse, “he’s only been in office 3 months, you haven’t given him time.”..I don’t want to hear.”

    9/11 happened 8 months into the Bush Presidency, yet Bush apologist blamed Clinton policies for it. 3 months into President Bush’s administration he is being blamed for the Recession.

    “I’m not saying fire him, that would be asking for to much. I’m just saying his policies will screw this country up so bad that we won’t be alive by the time it gets corrected.”

    I hope you are wrong. This is where I get so irritated by the hard core Obama haters. You all seem so happy to see this country go down in flames just to show that Obama is wrong. When Bush was elected, I wished him well because if he did badly the country would suffer. I sincerely hope Obama’s policies result in a rebounding economy, improved healthcare, a safer America and a healthier world. And if all that happens, all of you will still be complaining he is the ursurper and finding something else to complain about him. But sure…its not about race.

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Any time the United States abuses someone so as to induce outrage, it makes it easier to recruit the next suicide bomber. The Bush administration’s arrogant stance in the world quickly evaporated almost universal condemnation of terrorism we experienced after 9/11. It is the belligerent cowboy mentality of those like Bush that is the real threat to our brave soldiers.

    It appears, although not fully proved (yet), that the Bush administration lied about the value of information the received from detainees subjected to torture. As one interrogator said: it’s a lot easier to hit someone than to outsmart them (but he said, less effective at getting information).

  195. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 14, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    “PS: Did you guys notice how Orly exposed, once again, Berg’s secret lawsuit, making a dismissal of this suit even more likely.
    Ironic how they are all self imploding…”

    Berg initiated the False Claims Act suit and requested it be put under seal to protect his financial interest in the suit. The only way Obama will be able to have the suit dismissed is to prove he actually his Barack Hussein Obama and not someone else claiming reimbursement of US Government funds under false pretensions.

    Next!

  196. avatar
    richCares May 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    “The only way Obama will be able to have the suit dismissed is to prove he actually his Barack Hussein Obama…”

    sure, dream on loser! where did you get your law degree, same place as Orly?

  197. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    In fact, Berg forgot to file it under seal, as such the chance of dismissal is quite real.
    My predictions are that the case will be rejected due to failure to file under seal. The case has been discussed by many sites in full detail.
    I understand why some hope this case will succeed but the errors made so far seem to suggest that the case will fail early.
    Just a hunch…

  198. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    I’ve read the sealed complaint in Berg v. Obama. My guess is that the failure to file under seal at first will not result it its dismissal, nor the prohibited act of serving the complaint on the defendant. What will demand its dismissal is that Berg has no case under the False Claims Act. To file a FCA case, the relator must provide information to the government that the relator uncovered himself, and that is not “public knowledge.” In fact, there is nothing whatever in the complaint that was not on a hundred web sites when the suit was filed. It’s just 4 particulars lifted from the previous run of Berg v. Obama et al filed in PA.

    See: http://quitamguide.org/federal-false-claims-act-title-31

    Next.

  199. avatar
    TRUTH May 14, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    Lil’ richie is your typical ‘take some words & put a Liberal SPIN to them’ type of person. When the Truth Hurts, just SPIN-IT! and see if it changes colors to one you like better.

  200. avatar
    TRUTH May 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    Gordon, allow me to Decipher my ENGLISH for you. I don’t think he is Qualified, Period. Not BECAUSE of his Policies. I apologize if it sounded that way. I do not like MOST of his policies, but they ARE NOT why I think he is not qualified. And Not Qualified isn’t the same as Not Eligible. There are 16 million posts in here about him being or not being eligible, I’m not going there.

    My reply-post was in ref to a STUPID Racist issue. The point I made of him NOT being qualified was merely my description of the Man within the discussion. I Pay my taxes and am Registered to vote, I’ve a right to my opinion, and if that means I’m going to say it for the next 1350 days I’ll remind you every day how you elected a NON-Qualified person as your President.

    Now you can Digress back to your happy place and continue reading the Enquirer.

  201. avatar
    richCares May 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    “Now you can Digress back to your happy place and continue reading the Enquirer.”

    Where do you get these inane comments? They do you no complements!

  202. avatar
    Jez May 14, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    A serious question Truth:
    What traits and / or experiences would a person need to have to consider them “qualified” for the position of President?

    I have heard a few people mention the “not qualified” meme, so now I’m asking someone that I think would give me a decent, straight forward answer.

    Thank you for your time.

  203. avatar
    Chris May 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    The nObama crowd (at least the birther contingent) is basically anti-government in general. I’d hazard to guess that Orly and her followers (all 18 of them) are all disgruntled Ron Paul supporters. I’m sure some of them are racists, but race isn’t the driving factor behind their delusions. In an alternate universe, they’re up in arms over McCain’s eligibility as POTUS.

  204. avatar
    TRUTH May 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    First, pretty decent reply JeffSF. At least you didn’t go off the handle as many do, but attempted to make valid points.

    I’ve only a minute but want to reply back on one of the points. When I say “Obi-Wun” I’m not mocking him. I use that term because so many Obama supporters look at him as this almighty savior of broken souls caused by the terrible capitalists in charge the last 8 years. Like he has the power of Obi-Wun-Kanobi..ie..”Obi-wun-Kabama”.

    And if YOU accepted Mr. Bush once he was elected, congratulations to you Jeff. Your one of the 16 Democrats that did. Call me tin foil hate wearer, birther, anti-Obama right winger, which ever makes you feel good. I Do Not like Him. It is in MY personality that I detect him as a Liar which will say what he thinks the people want to hear, and DO what he thinks he can get away with.

    I continue living my life as always, in hopes he DOES do well enough that I can take care of my family and see my children succeed. I use this venue from time to time merely to express I feel that is threatened.

    Let me put it like this, in a mathematical example. In 40 years there has always been a small threat, say 2-10%. That has risen to 20%. STILL a 80% chance we’ll be ok, but nonetheless the worst I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. Don’t try to scrutinize the numbers, I pull them out of the air to make a point.

    Happy Posting

  205. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Well said!

    As someone who was brought up in a very liberal household I can say that I was only exposed once to racism prior to moving to Georgia in 1975. In 1967 we moved to Texas – I was about 5 and was very much into my father’s Native American heritage. (I ran around in headbands and moccassins, lol). Immediately upon moving into our new neighborhood I was advised that “our kind” (Indians) were not wanted there. I really had no idea what they meant. Not until much later did I learn that my parents were not even allowed to purchase the house until they had signed a statement saying they would not default on the loan and move “back to the reservation.” The closest we had ever been to a reservation was when we would go to Cherokee, NC to sightsee. My father was a professional who had worked in high security clearance at Cape Canaveral and was then in charge of building F-15s in Fort Worth. He retired from Civil Service with such high clearance that he is still sought after as an independent contractor. Oh, and he voted for Obama and despises Bush. He is my hero.

  206. avatar
    TRUTH May 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    Shucks Richie, I’m not Complemented in your eyes. Well, I don’t know WHAT I’m going to do with myself now.

  207. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Sven wrote: ” The only way Obama will be able to have the suit dismissed is to prove he actually his Barack Hussein Obama and not someone else claiming reimbursement of US Government funds under false pretensions.”

    That’s a very confused statement.

    First a case is not “dismissed” by the defendant proving the allegations in the case are false. A case is dismissed if it is not according to law, an improper case.

    Second, unlike Svenland, in the United States it is the requirement of the government or the relator to prove that the defendant is making a false claim.

    The specific claim in the sealed case is that Obama collected a salary as Senator when he was ineligible to be a Senator because he was not a citizen of the United States. Berg cites 4 pieces of evidence: the Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae which just supports the grandmother tape; the “affidavit” of Kweli Shuhubia which is not an affidavit as it was signed with a false name, the partial transcript of the grandmother tape (the full tape states clearly that Obama was born in Hawaii) and the Indonesian school record (which shows Obama was born in Hawaii).

    If Obama were ever required to answer the complaint, he could show his COLB or his passport. Or he could look at the “evidence” and give one of those big smiles and laugh, as the evidence pretty much impeaches itself.

  208. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 14, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Hmmmm, so if Amb. Keyes is successful in exposing Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro and not Barack Hussein Obama, then the False Claims Act Lottery is wide open.

  209. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    There is no evidence that President Obama at any time changed his legal name. Furthermore, the change of a name does not necessarily mean a change of eligibility status.
    Is this the best you hope for?

  210. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    Furthermore, Keyes has little chance to prove anything here. Legally speaking of course. Of course, in the minds of a few, Obama has already been convicted even though all data suggest that he was born in the US and thus natural born.

  211. avatar
    richCares May 14, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    Birthers are fed this false hope as a means of fund raising, Sven’s point is meaningless other than being suckered in by a fund raising ploy. Each and every case had it’s magic “will succeed” moment to raise funds yet each failed as will the Keyes one, and that’s a guarantee!

  212. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2009 at 8:55 pm #

    If the moon were made of green cheese, mice would be happy there.

  213. avatar
    NBC May 14, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    So let’s see:

    Berg discussed the nature of the lawsuit several times in public.
    Much of the material of the lawsuit was known before it was filed.
    Berg forgot to seal the lawsuit at filing.
    Any of these may be sufficient for the lawsuit to be rejected. Just check out the history of similar lawsuits. Failure to seal is deadly to the success of any such suit.

    And these are just the musings of someone who has never gotten any formal legal training. Imagine the field day a real lawyer would have with Berg’s suit here?

    Predicting the future from past success, I would not be surprised if this one fails as miserably as the others.

  214. avatar
    Gordon May 15, 2009 at 8:11 am #

    Got you Truth, you think he is not qualified, fine. I think that is one of the challenges we have every election. I felt that way in 2000 about Bush, but didn’t spend my time post election with this whining obsession I see among you Nobamas. I strapped up for the next election and then the next. At the end of the day 54% of the American voters thought that he was. Frankly if your beef is about qualifications and not elegibilty, you’re at the wrong stop, because you seem to have another debate and may just be attaching yourself to the BC as a goof.

    Meanwhile if you have attached yourself to the BC issue you have company from Sven, who is carefully debating the lawsuits of those great legal minds Orly Tatiz and Berg. Maybe you should pick up the Enquirer, otherwise Sven will have you reading some real intellectual stuff over at DefendOurFreedoms@ whatever she’s using these days.

  215. avatar
    Gordon May 15, 2009 at 8:27 am #

    Every blog site I go on when you see some prevarication of “truth” in the moniker I know it’s some Right winger spewing anything but the truth.

  216. avatar
    Gordon May 15, 2009 at 8:40 am #

    As much as I thought “Truth” had digressed, Sven is in total meltdown, with stuff about False Claims Act and God knows what else from Orly Bizzaro World. Now BHO isn’t BHO.

  217. avatar
    Gordon May 15, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    I was over at Team Sarah, a site filled with these birthers, and they cannot understand why their heroes, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh won’t speak on this matter. Those three have no journalistic integrity whatsoever, and they have the good sense to know this is a fantasy.

  218. avatar
    TRUTH May 15, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    Gordy, your the one dragging out the not-qual’d subject. I was just ATTEMPTING to make it clear to you what my original post was about, which you took a part out of and continue to MAKE IT your Beef. I KNOW, I GET IT, the election is OVER. Is it now Illegal to use such negative adjectives when I’m speaking of YOUR President?

    FYI, I stated long ago Orly is an idiot. Berg on the otherhand is like a dog chasing a bone tied to its tail. I don’t think though he is as ignorant as Orly. Sometimes I think Orly is an Obama plant, it’s so obvious shes wrong, but that’s what they want to people to see.

    I think I said it elsewhere, if you accepted Bush getting voted in, your 1 of the 16 democrats that did. Pat yourself on the back.

  219. avatar
    TRUTH May 15, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027091370936935.html

    **The Best Paragraph in the Above Link**

    Manifestly, Mr. Greenwald believes that “black hole” is simply moving to Bagram. “I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law,” he writes. “But these actions — these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney — are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don’t want to see it, or that you’re so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you’ll just believe that even when it seems like he’s doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good.”

  220. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    It seems to me that those on the far left and those are on the far right are first and foremost ideologues. Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist.

  221. avatar
    JeffSF May 15, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    Truth,
    Well I am always glad to have civil discourse, but frankly when you call the President “Obi-Wun” it is not a sign of respect. I will take any posters comments more seriously without name calling(from either side).

    “so many Obama supporters look at him as this almighty savior of broken souls caused by the terrible capitalists in charge the last 8 years”

    This is a frequent charge on right wing sites. The whacko WND practically starts every article with that assertion(savior, messiah, etc). I think this argument is intended to show that those who voted for Obama were voting on faith(something the right wing likes in theory, but not in Liberal voters), rather than their feeling that he was the best candidate for the job.

    So let me tell you why I voted for him. I liked what he was saying. Especially early on his message was relentlessly optimistic. As a moderate liberal, I thought he was the best of the bunch. Most of the people I know who voted for Obama did so because they liked his message of promise.

    Does that mean I must blindly agree with every policy and decision Obama makes? No- the link you provided regarding the Habeas Corpus issue is disturbing to me. I have strong feelings about Habeas Corpus and the Constitution. So I will watch and see how this goes- and the Obama Administration regularly argues that the U.S. Government has the right to kidnap any non-U.S. citizen from anywhere in the world and hold them indefintely without a fair hearing, I will oppose that policy. If there are enough issues I disagree with the administration about, I reserve the right to oppose the entire administration.

    “That has risen to 20%. STILL a 80% chance we’ll be ok, but nonetheless the worst I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.”

    As an fyi- sometimes it is difficult to keep track of your subject because you refer to it vaguely- the line above you refer to worry that you and your family won’t be okay- and of course that is legitimate.

    Lets break that down though- how about this: War risk and Economic risk.

    War: I personally feel much safer than I did in the 1960’s. There is a much smaller risk of a major nuclear war than when the U.S. and the USSR were going toe-to-toe. While there is certainly risk of another terrorist attack, the risk is much smaller than our risk of a major earthquake or hurricane. Even if we accept that there is a serious risk of a nuclear attack on a single site by a terrorist, that is far less of a risk than what was posed by the Soviet Union in the 60’s and 70’s. Anyone else remember crawling under desks for protection? I am more concerned about Pakistan than I am about Iran. I am more concerned about Russia than I am about North Korea. All of those concern me more than Al Quada.

    Economic- everyone should be at least at some risk, I know I am. Is most of the economies trouble Obama’s fault- no. I am uneasy with the economic plan being implimented, but there are knowledgable- heck even brilliant people who support the policy. I hope it works.

    And Truth- you still haven’t said why you think President Obama isn’t qualified. I know you can articulate well when you chose to- explain to us why you think he is not qualified, other than your personal belief that he is a liar.

    So far I am about 80% with Obama. I am giving him benefit of the doubt on the economy(heck can’t say he is doing any worse than Bush), I like what he is doing with foreign affairs, have some concerns about habeas corpus. I think the next 180 days will be interesting.

  222. avatar
    JeffSF May 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    Heavy is fun to read.

    He is confident he is protected by U.S. soldiers:

    “Forunately, our brave soldiers know differently and will protect us from those who have sworn to kill us.”

    Yet when a U.S. soldier disagrees with him, he mocks the soldier, continues to refer to him disparigingly

    He apparently thinks the majority of the electorate are insane:

    “No, the world is not ALL crazy. Just the liberals.”

    I wonder- at a certain point if you think 90% of the world is crazy, is it time to reexamine your definition of crazy? Or at least stop using the word as something negative?

  223. avatar
    Mark May 15, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    Exactly!

    It seems any site that calls itself “911Truth” or something always wants donations.

    Like the Kansas song says “If I claim to be a wise man, then it surely means that I don’t know”.

  224. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 15, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    Yes, BHO was BHO until he was Barry Soetoro and then he was Barry Obama until he decided to become BHO again.

    We know Barry Soetoro was registered as an Indonesian citizen in a public school and BHO declared on his law license application that he has never used a name other than BHO. And now he refuses to release a valid copy of his BC and his college transcripts.

    The beauty of the False Claims Act is that anyone, not just Phil Berg, can file for recovery if they can get evidence of identity fraud on Soetoro/Obama.

    Not to mention the fact he might be determined to be ineligible to be the President of the US. But I digress, Berg, Orly, Appuzo and many others are only interested in an accurate historical account of Soetoro/Obama’s past for the archives.

  225. avatar
    Bob May 15, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    Taitz filed a mandamus writ with SCOTUS.

    The betting pool on the speed of the denial is now open.

  226. avatar
    NBC May 15, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    We know Barry Soetoro was registered as an Indonesian citizen in a public school and BHO declared on his law license application that he has never used a name other than BHO. And now he refuses to release a valid copy of his BC and his college transcripts.

    We know that someone registered Obama as a citizen of Indonesia although we also know that the laws of Indonesia do not allow for Obama to have gained such citizenship. What we have here is at best a mistake, and at worst a lie. Nothing really affects Obama’s status as NBC. In fact, even gaining Indonesian citizenship would have no impact. Surely you do realize that children cannot abandon their US citizenship through actions of their parents?

    The beauty of the False Claims Act is that anyone, not just Phil Berg, can file for recovery if they can get evidence of identity fraud on Soetoro/Obama.

    Untrue. The FCA does not allow one to file a claim based on material that is already publicly available. You’re not much of a legal expert now are you?
    The beauty is that lacking any evidence, and pre-announcing the case, Berg may have caused an early demise of the lawsuit, and any hopes of others filing a similar one.

    Sad isn’t it.

  227. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    1. The Indonesian school registration does not say Obama was an “Indonesian Citizen”. It says nationality: Indonesian
    2. The Law application instructions say that the item asks whether the application had practiced law in Illinois under another name (Obama hadn’t)
    3. Obama has released a 100% valid copy of his birth certificate
    4. There is no evidence of identity fraud
    5. Berg, Apuzzo and Orly have all signed false statements in their lawsuits. That does not support the concept of an “accurate historical account”.

  228. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm #

    “citizen of Indonesia”? Not in the translation I read.

  229. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 15, 2009 at 9:08 pm #

    Ha Ha Ha. Stop! You’re crack’n me up.

    You’re saying Berg has no evidence and the you turn around and say Berg has publicly exposed Obama’s identity fraud so the False Claims Act can’t be used.

    You sound like the guy on FR who says the usuper filed an Executive Order stating his records are inaccessible, so no one will be able to prove he’s a usurper. Nevermind the fact the accusation was made before he became a usurper and the usurper only signed the EO to keep from being exposed.

    It’s similar to a bank robber who says he can’t be prosecuted because the money he stole can’t be found. The stolen money has been successfully hidden, so no bank robbery occurred. The bank robber then takes the money he’s found under his mattress and buys the bankrupted bank. You can’t charge the owner with robbing his own bank.

    You’re funny.

  230. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    One has to be careful with Sven not to be taken too literally.

    “Berg has no evidence” means “Berg has no evidence that would make his case.” Or we might say “Berg has no good evidence” or “Berg has no probative evidence”.

    I personally would say that he has no admissible evidence. Berg offers 4 items of evidence:

    1) Affidavit of Ron McRae: heresay.
    2) Affidavit of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia: Sworn under a fake name, so not sworn and Shunubia (whatever his real name) isn’t about to come to the US, testify and face perjury charges.
    3) Grandmother tape: Inadmissible without testimony of Shuhubia, who alone can say the tape is authentic. Plus the whole tape says Obama was born in Hawaii anyway.
    4) Indonesian school record: no one to swear it’s authentic. [Maybe get this in, but it proves nothing.]

    So no proof; no case.

    And even if Berg had evidence Obama was not a citizen of the US, he still couldn’t make a case since no matter what Obama’s citizenship, the Senate accepted his election, so he was a Senator. You can’t go back and unmake Obama a Senator and then sue him for collecting his salary and expenses.

  231. avatar
    NBC May 15, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    You’re saying Berg has no evidence and the you turn around and say Berg has publicly exposed Obama’s identity fraud so the False Claims Act can’t be used.

    Nope, I stated that by making his accusations public he has caused his FCA attempt to be likely dismissed.
    Check out the history of FCA’s in which the accuser forgot to seal the case or forgot to remain silent about it and you will come to realize that any such disclosure is sufficient for the claim to be rejected, whether true or not.
    It seems obvious that you are not very familiar with the issues of law. But then again, that means that you are perhaps in good company as none of the ‘lawyers’ who have filed lawsuits against President Obama have been successful.