Main Menu

COLB Unknowns

Here is a list of things I don’t know about the COLB:

  1. How many there are. The Obama campaign suggests that several were ordered back in 2007 (long before there were any “birthers”) for the purpose of meeting proof of eligibility requirements.
  2. How many were sent to state secretaries of state. One or more COLB’s could have been submitted with the paperwork to get on the ballot, but I don’t know that.
  3. Who else has seen the COLB. We know FactCheck.org staff saw it (and photographed it) and presumably various Obama staffers. But, for example, did Nancy Peolsi (who swore that Obama was eligible in an Affidavit) see it?
  4. Where the COLB is today.
  5. If it will be lodged in the Obama Presidential Library one day.

There is one thing I do know about the COLB: it says Barack Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.

Location of Birth

, ,

138 Responses to COLB Unknowns

  1. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 20, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    More interesting COLB facts posted at FR

    A poster at World Net Daily found some Hawaii government documents from 1961.

    Included in the documents that the WND poster found is a standard 1961 blank birth certificate.

    Here is what the WND poster wrote:

    “RE: Race

    Go to the following and download the 1961 document http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/

    here is a direct link to the file:

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf

    then go to the Technical Appendix, Section 5 and then on page 231 on race and color.

    The Birth Certificate is based on a standard. I have been saying this for months. The State of Hawaii has to follow the CDC guidelines as this data is compiled for other statics.”

    *******

    This is me, mirse, writing: When you see the document above on your monitor screen, follow these directions to see the 1961 blank birth certificate:

    1. Left side: Look for “Section 5: Technical Appendix”

    2. Then go to Right side: Look for “Standard certificate page 5.3”

    3. Note: On my computer, it is page 228 of 246, while on the document itself, it is page 5.3.

    4. As I studied the 1961 blank birth certificate, I saw potential political minefields if Obama’s long form birth certificate is ever released by Hawaii.

    5. Let me emphasize this: I don’t want Obama to release his long form birth certificate. I want the Hawaii government to release it, because I don’t trust anything that the Obama camp releases.

    6. My point is this: I don’t want anyone in the Obama camp to touch Obama’s long form birth certificate once the Hawaii government releases it. Again, I don’t want anyone in the Obama camp to touch the long form birth certificate before it is released to the public.

    7. Again, I saw a few items in the 1961 blank Hawaii birth certificate that may be serious problems for Obama.

    8. NOTE: The items on the birth certificate are numbered from 1 through 23.

    9. Item 2: “Usual Residence of Mother”

    c. City, town, or location”

    d.Street Address

    e. My point is this: If the information in the above items on Obama’s long form birth certificate does not match the information that is found in the newspaper listing of Obama’s birth that the pro-Obama camp brags about, then Obama has some serious explaining to do.

    10. Father:

    11. Item 8. Color or Race

    Problem: If the Race listed is different from the COLB birth certificate that the Obama camp displayed on Obama’s fight the smears site during the campaign—“African” was listed—then Obama and Hawaii officials have a lot of very serious explaining to do.

    12. Mother: Item “Mother’s Mailing Address”

    13. If mother’s mailing address is different from the address listed in the newspaper list of births, then, again, Obama and Hawaii officials have some explaining to do.

    14. Information about doctor:

    a. Item 18a. Signature

    b. Item 18b. Attendant at birth: md do midwife other(specify)

    c. Item 18c. Address

    d. Item 18d: Date signed

    e. The items about the doctor are very importnt, because if no such doctor exists, then Obama and his camp have some serious explaining to do.

    15. Item 20: Registrar’s signed signature

    16. Item 21: Date on which given name added

    17. In summary, I say this: If Obama has no reasonable explanation as to why item details on his long form birth certificate are different from what we have been led to believe during the presidential campaign—for instance, he has no explanation as to why the race of his father is different on the long form birth certificate than it is on the COLB short form birth certificate that appeared on his official fight the smears site—-then Obama is in a lot of very serious political and maybe even criminal trouble.

    NOTE: I tried to post a copy of a blank 1961 Hawaii birth certificate from the site at the beginning of this message, but I couldn’t do it, because it is in pdf format.

    If anyone out there can post a copy of the 1961 Hawaii blank birth certificate using the site at the beginning of this message, I would appreciate it.

    25 posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 4:16:55 PM by john mirse

  2. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Thanks for the unsolicited links. I’m sure people can get the the correct places from those.

    I seem to recall from someplace in my distant past that perjury is a serious crime … or have I somehow mixed that up with “requires clever explanations backed up by willing cohorts waiting to attack opponents”??

    I’m sure we’ll see before too much longer – and it will be very, very interesting to see things transpire.

    Let’s remember, though, that it is an eligibility issue and not just a BC issue and that Obama has told us that his father (a Kenyan) was governed by the BNA of 1948 and that he (O., Jr.) was govered at birth by that same Act.

  3. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 10:14 pm #

    People, He only needs to prove he was born in Hawaii. That’s all. Nothing more. He’s done that. There is no more long form or vault copy. Just info. You are speculating based on what. This is why I think he (the President ) is doing the right thing. You people will have one thing after another he has to prove. The State of Hawaii has to say that according to their records he was born in Hawaii. That’s it.

  4. avatar
    aarrgghh July 20, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    sven:

    More interesting untethered COLB facts speculation posted at FR …

    there. all fixed.

  5. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    But is he circumsized? (bada-bing)

  6. avatar
    TRUTH July 20, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    This post and the main reminds me of what my supervisor told me once years ago in a field I won’t mention for lack of relevance. Anyways, when he was referring to our product he says “TRUTH, you can take a turd, paint it real pretty, wax it and shine it up real shiny, but it’s still a turd.”

  7. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    And your point is?

  8. avatar
    Greg July 20, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    According to the Hawaii website, we can all get access to it 75 years after the event as a genealogical request. So, can the birthers hold out until 2036?

  9. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    Absolutely and when it comes to conspiracy theorists twice so.

  10. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 20, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Doesn’t matter, Sven.

    All the birth certificate has to have is the following facts.

    1. Your full name

    2. Full name of Mother

    3. Full name of Father (if known)

    4. Date of Birth

    5. City of Birth

    6. County of Birth

    7. State of Birth (persumed since it is a state birth certificate)

    8. Gender

    9. Date Birth Record was filed

    10. Official Certification

    You can see plainly from the photographs on the internet that this birth certificate has every one of those requirements.

    Frankly, I don’t really care what birth certificates said in 1961. That’s not the birth certificate that Obama Published, and there’s absolutely no reason to publish that birth certificate. He published one from 2007, which was one that he requested in 2007.

    You’re trying to put lipstick on a pig. Your theory is still a pig, no matter how much lipstick that you put on it.

  11. avatar
    Epectitus July 21, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    If Obama has no reasonable explanation as to why item details on his long form birth certificate are different from what we have been led to believe during the presidential campaign—for instance, he has no explanation as to why the race of his father is different on the long form birth certificate than it is on the COLB short form birth certificate that appeared on his official fight the smears site—-then Obama is in a lot of very serious political and maybe even criminal trouble.

    And if no items are different, then no explanations are necessary. Reasonable or otherwise.

  12. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    My NY Transcript (which is what they call it) does not even include the city. Nor does it have anything that requires the nationality of my parents. I am writing to get the certificates of my adult children. We are a military family so they were born in different states. I am curious to see how these states, two in the south and one in the southwest state the information.

  13. avatar
    Greg July 21, 2009 at 1:15 am #

    I’m reminded of a saying. Something about my aunt and nuts. If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, my aunt would be my uncle. Or something like that.

  14. avatar
    Lollie July 21, 2009 at 2:35 am #

    So, can the birthers hold out until 2036?

    Oh gee, there’s a statement that hold out wonderful promise: we only have to listen to these bir’fer nutters for the next 25 years.

  15. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 8:02 am #

    I have seen these speculations and what people do not understand is that the form is filled out not by officials but by the parents. If Obama Sr considered himself to be an african, then he could have used this term and the COLB would reflect this,

    The COLB is an accurate reflection of the ‘long form’, and speculations aside, there is no evidence that the COLB does not meet the requirements of Hawaii.

    But I understand why some what to imply that it could. Tough…

  16. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    JTX, We have all been asking you this for awhile now. Why do you think that any requirements for US Citizenship is affected by the British Nationality Act or any other foreign law? You keep bringing up the BNA, we all explain that it has no effect on US law or citizenship requirements, and yet you still continue to reference it and cite it. So can you explain to us why a foreign law holds any relevance to US law? Please, we are still waiting.

  17. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 10:34 am #

    If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a trolley car. (bada-bing)

  18. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    What do you think?

    I can’t wait to see how creative this crowd gets when Corey Booker announces.

    Remember that Harvard professor yesterday? That says everything.

  19. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    American “Grand Jury” describes the American Grand Super Jury as one of the “smartest moves we ever made.”

    That epic fail is not exactly something to be boasting about. And if that was one of your smarter moments….

    “We actually had one Judge tell us our Presentments were unconstitutional. Imagine that!”

    Not only have I been imagining that, I’ve been saying that since they stole the idea from Stephen Pidgeon (who appears to have regained his facilities and dropped out of active participation of the birfer movement).

  20. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    Black Lion:

    You’ve apparently missed the fact that Mr. O. has stated publicly that at birth he was governed by the BNA of 1948 as was his Kenyan father.

    Of course he may be aying about that (too) but we won’t know until we have the definitive information of the real BC, will we??

    Or maybe you’re just saying that Mr. O. was lying about that when he proclaimed it – that may be … but you can bet that the truth will eventually be known – and I don’t mean just from misguided opinions of the Obama fans on this website.

    Once it all settles out – and it will – it will be instructive to see how many of you say “I was wrong” and how many of you just quietly evaporate into the good night.

  21. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Get with the program, man. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that Mr. Obama has never published a Birth Certificate at all.

    The COLB is merely indicative of the fact that the state has in its possession facts about his birts but then they have already clearly stated that they DO have his original BC on file (period).

  22. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    it will be instructive to see how many of you say “I was wrong” and how many of you just quietly evaporate into the good night.

    Oh, the irony.

  23. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    He’s “proved” so such thing but merely claimed it. The state of HI has publicly stated that they DO have his original BC and are you claiming they are lying? They’ve not said anything about the contents.

    But you’ve missed the REAL issue which is not the BC but his eligibility to hold the office he occupies. He’s never conclusively demonstrated his Constitutional eligibility (yet).

    It also matters not where he was born (assuming he was born) since he has admitted that, being governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 at birth, that he cannot be a “natural born citizen” no matter how much you wish he were,

    You’ve merely been bamboozled along with the other millions who voted for the man.

  24. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    He’s never conclusively demonstrated his Constitutional eligibility (yet).

    And how does one “conclusively” demonstrate eligibility?

  25. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    misha:

    You apparently don’t do your research. No, he isn’t according to the recent book that goes into great detail on such a description.

  26. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Greg:

    A court ordered discovery in the next few months should do just fine I think.

  27. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Oh the irony… Have you responded yet to requests to specific support for your claims?

  28. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    One can always dream. Of course standing will continue to be a major unresolved issue.

  29. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    Pidgeon is now working for Orly it seems.

  30. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    A court ordered discovery in the next few months should do just fine I think.

    Too bad for you no court has allowed one of these (many) cases to get to the discovery phase.

  31. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    JTX: But you’ve missed the REAL issue which is not the BC but his eligibility to hold the office he occupies. He’s never conclusively demonstrated his Constitutional eligibility (yet).

    Congress, the only Constitutional Authority here disagrees with you. And since Obama has no obligations to ‘conclusively demonstrate’ to your satisfaction, I’d say the issue is moot.

  32. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    JTX: t also matters not where he was born (assuming he was born) since he has admitted that, being governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 at birth, that he cannot be a “natural born citizen” no matter how much you wish he were,

    Again, unsupported by any reference or argument and in fact reality strongly disagrees with your interpretation. But let’s not be confused by reality 😉

  33. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    The only recent Pidgeon-Taitz link I’ve seen lately is this brief e-mail (along with the obligatory shoutout from jtx).

    Bonus: Taitz has posted Cook’s resume.

  34. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Dual nationality, however, is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. See 3 Hackworth, supra, pp. 352 et seq. One who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it even though, by the law of another country, he is also a citizen of it. He can, under certain circumstances, be deprived of his American citizenship through the operation of a treaty or an act of Congress; he can also lose it by voluntary action. See Perkins v. Elg, supra, at 307 U. S. 329. But American citizenship, until lost, carries obligations of allegiance, as well as privileges and benefits. For one who has a dual status, the obligations of American citizenship may at times be difficult to discharge. An American who has a dual nationality may find himself in a foreign country when it wages war on us. The very fact that he must make a livelihood there may indirectly help the enemy nation. In these days of total war, manpower becomes critical, and everyone who can be placed in a productive position increases the strength of the enemy to wage war. Of course, a person caught in that predicament can resolve the conflict of duty by openly electing one nationality or the other and becoming either an alien enemy of the country where he resides or a national of it alone. Yet, so far as the existing law of this country is concerned, he need not make that choice, but can continue his dual citizenship. It has been stated in an administrative ruling of the State Department that a person with a dual citizenship who lives abroad in the other country claiming him as a national owes an allegiance to it which is paramount to the allegiance he owes the United States.

  35. avatar
    evreport July 21, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    The US government couldn’t care less what happens under another country’s citizenship laws. No action a parent of a minor takes in another country affects the child’s legal standing as a US citizen. The child, when of age, would have to actively renounce his US citizenship. Where did Obama do this? He was born in a state of the union and has American citizenship from birth. Nothing anywhere on earth changes his legal standing as a citizen unless he changes it himself.

  36. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    evreport . No action a parent of a minor takes in another country affects the child’s legal standing as a US citizen. The child, when of age, would have to actively renounce his US citizenship. Where did Obama do this?

    Well stated. In fact, by returning to the US and continuing to live there, well before reaching the age of majority, Obama clearly indicated his choice.
    Strangely enough, that does not appear to be sufficient to some, but well, they are somewhat lacking in reason, logic and supporting evidence.
    Claiming that since Obama was born on US soil but subject to dual citizenship has no impact on the fact that Obama was born on US soil owing allegiance to and subject to jurisdiction of the United States and thus a native and natural born citizen

  37. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    As usual JTX you ignored the question. I wonder why? The question is simple. Why do you think that a foreign law, the British Nationality Act, would superceed US Law? And if you think that it does superceed US Law, can you show us precedents or legal rulings that support your conclusion. Yes President Obama said that he was subject to the BNA. We have established that. As NBC has pointed out, US law does not recognize the BNA or any other country’s law in regards to citizenship. So again JTX, can you explain how the BNA superceeds the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS rulings? I am curious to hear your theory. However I am pretty confident you won’t address the question but again ignore it in your response. And that says everything.

  38. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    NBC, do you think that JTX will ever actually answer the question and attempt to explain how the British Nationality Act, a British law, is more important and superceeds the US Constitution, US law, and SCOTUS rulings? In all of the times he has been on this site, he has never explained to us how this is possible. Do you think it is because he knows that it is not? Probably so. I think he subscribes to the theory that if you repeat something enough times, someone may think that it is the truth. Unfortunately on this site, we require you to substantiate your conclusions with law or fact. Neither of those JTX can provide to support his wild BNA reasoning.

  39. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    And they never will…No court will ever allow the fishing expedition that the birthers want. They have not supplied one iota of compelling admissible evidence that contradicts the COLB. So no judge will order President Obama to prove anything. At most the court would request to see his actual COLB, and then rule in favor of Obama. No court will order the records that the birthers want. So if you are waiting for the court ordered discovery motion, you might have a long wait.

  40. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Again, are we a colony? Let’s suppose that a couple, one an American citizen and one from another have a child in the US. You are telling me that the child being raised here is subject to the law of the other country. Again, are we a colony? Give me court rulings that back up your claim.

  41. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    Court rulings jtx, not books. Some people write books claiming that aliens abducted them or that the earth is flat. Claims in books do not make it true. Give us specific rulings from the courts.

  42. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    If the information comes from the long form that is stored electronically in Hawaii, what difference could there be? No more than would be found between my NY Transcript of Birth and what is stored electronically. It comes from the long form. Unless of course you believe the Republican Administration in Hawaii lied. It has to be one or the other.

  43. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 21, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    JTX, the Hawaii State Department of Health has said, “It’s a valid state birth certificate.”

    JTX, and it’s also indication of what those facts are.

    1. His Name is Barack Hussein Obama II.

    2. He was born on August 4, 1961

    3. The city that he was born in: Honolulu

    4. The island that he was born on: Oahu

    5. The county that he was born in: Honolulu

    6. That the birth was filed with the state on August 8, 1861.

    7. His mother is Stanley Ann Durham

    8. His father is Barack Hussein Obama

    Need I go on? The COLB is a valid Hawaii Birth Certificate. It is evidence that the state verifys those facts.

    I’ll believe the State Department of Health (the one who actually issues the certificates) rather than you.

  44. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    Nos. 2-6 demonstrate Obama’s eligibility.

    By Hawaiian law, the COLB derived this information from Obama’s vault certificate.

    There’s no competent evidence to suggest that the paper COLB varies from digital reproduction that has been posted to various sites.

    End of story.

  45. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 21, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    He will at the same time he answers the question as to what expert has examined the same COLB that has previously been examined by others and has determined that the COLB is a forgery. Examining a digital scan is useless and cannot be used in a court of law.

  46. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 21, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    It’s interesting that he posts this. One of the most interesting things is:

    “USAFA Cadet 1978-1979
    NJARNG OCS 1988 – 1990”

    First off, he lists that under enlisted service. The United States Air Force Academy is not enlisted service. You’re not enlisted when you enter the Air Force Academy. You’re a cadet, but you’re not enlisted. But also, why did he only spend one year at the Air Force Academy? Inquiring minds want to know!

    And at the New Jersey Army National Guard, I don’t think that you get credit for going through as enlisted there as well. Someone who is more familiar with the Army might be able to correct me there.

  47. avatar
    Mark July 21, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    Saw that resume…

    US Air Force Academy for one year (allegedly, since I have not personally seen the transcripts or DNA evidence)

    Then a laundry list of correspondence courses(alledgely taken) about Army transportation engineer and very unimpressive LAN guy stuff.

    From Air Force Academy Cadet to Army logistics. Life gives you a lemon…

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    The race issue has as it pertains to that document was discussed here some time ago. I certainly applaud the attempt to dig out some primary evidence like this US Natality report from 1961. The error that the original writer made is confusing the race of the parent with the race of the infant. Parent race is self-reported and open ended. Infant race is an item of data which is derived according to a set of rules, and must be put into a standard classification for statistical purposes. Child’s race, since it is a derived statistic, does not appear on either the short or the long form birth certificate.

    Since there is no way short of fraud within the Hawaii Department of Health at the highest levels, that the COLB differs from the original long form, we may safely conclude that there is no variance, and that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu.

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery-part-1/

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    Yeah, but you can say pretty much anything you want on the Internet and get away with it.

  50. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Better check your facts. HI has never said the COLB is “a valid birth certificate”.

    BUT – that’s not the issue in any event. The issue is that this man has not shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occurpies.

    He even told all of you that and you are too dense, apparently, to graspp what he said. He told everyone that his pappy was never a US citizen and that he (The One) was governed by the same law as was his pappy – the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    It’s amazing how a slick crafty con artist can fool some of the people all of the time … or maybe that’s the fault of the people being conned.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Which of Orly’s lawsuits are you talking about?

  52. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    Epectitus:

    And even more than all that the issue is not his BC at all but his eligibility to be President under our laws.

    He’s never shown that eligibility despite your collective pretenses on this site.

    He could have been born in a bathtub in Natchez, MS and STILL not be eligible. Are all of you reall that dense??? (guess so).

  53. avatar
    nbc July 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    JTX: He’s never shown that eligibility despite your collective pretenses on this site.

    He has released his COLB which shows him born in the US.
    That’s all that is needed.
    In fact, you have failed to provide any contrary reasoning beyond pure assertions.
    Why should we care about your beliefs?

  54. avatar
    Mark July 21, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    I am former USAF enlisted, so I give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

    From what I remember, cadets are on the payroll and subject to UCMJ. They are enlisted until graduation day when they become commissioned officers.

  55. avatar
    nbc July 21, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    JTX: BUT – that’s not the issue in any event. The issue is that this man has not shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occurpies.

    Not that he is required to do so and ignoring for the moment that Congress considered him qualified as per Constitution, you are arguing that in addition to being born on US soil, something else is needed. You have made various claims, most of them at odds with legislative and judicial history and Common Law history.
    Is it not time to present something beyond stomping your feet?

  56. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    NBC:

    As has been pointed out to you (and many others on this site), the issue is not the BC which you continually try to pretend it is.

    The issue is that he has never shown he is eligible under the laws of the country and all of your inana palaver about the COLB and BC is not too meaningful (unless they show him to be born NOT in the US – which I doubt).

    He’s already told all of you that he’s not a “natural born citizen” on his own website (before he destroyed the evidence and had his buds do a Seppuku on it). It’s still in archives, though and I’ve no doubt you’ve all read it, but there MAY be 2 or 3 on this site who did not read it.

  57. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Perhaps YOU think it’s a neat idea to assume that everything is kosher, Doc, but I doubt that would fly in a court of law. We’ll soon see though.

    However – AHEM!!! (227th time to make this obvious point) – the BC (or COLB) is not the issue at all but the eligibility of the man to hold the office he now occupies is what is yet to be demonstrated (by him).

    That’s the issue and not all of the Obot BC spin. You’re wrong in any event about the COLB “differing” since no one has ever seen a real COLB in any event but merely a computer image of one. Nice try, but not convincing.

  58. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    It’s amazing how a slick crafty con artist can fool some of the people all of the time … or maybe that’s the fault of the people being conned.

    Again: Oh, the irony.

  59. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    Just keep thinking that if it pleases you … however it is grossly incorrect as we’ll eventually come to see in court.

    You seem to forget that the man has told you and everyone else who might have been paying attention that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 – just like dad who was never an American (either).

  60. avatar
    nbc July 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    JTX: However – AHEM!!! (227th time to make this obvious point) – the BC (or COLB) is not the issue at all but the eligibility of the man to hold the office he now occupies is what is yet to be demonstrated (by him).

    I notice that you are still refusing/ignoring to present your arguments. In fact, the BC by any reasonable standard is sufficient to establish natural born status.
    Of course, the issue may very well remain unresolved by the courts due to the lack of standing issue.

    Present your case, or we will have to conclude that you have none beyond proof by repetitive assertion

  61. avatar
    nbc July 21, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    JTX: You seem to forget that the man has told you and everyone else who might have been paying attention that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 – just like dad who was never an American (either).

    And was born on US soil. His temporary status has no relevance to him being natural born.

    Simple.

  62. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    NBC (and Mary Brown):

    Read the book – Chapter 13 – and find out for yourself. The author sent the included description to Mrs. Obama and the USPS mailing record image is included.

    I doubt the circumsision etc. issue will go to court although you’d think it would were if false, wouldn’t you? The eligibility issue is already IN court.

  63. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    NBC Bob & BlackLion:

    Hang on there guys … won’t be long and it should be lots of fun.

    We DO live in “interesting times”. The case is unprecedented is US history (as is the situation) – a person running for President that tells everyone he’s not eligible under their stinkin’ laws … and they are too dumb – or too self-absorbed – to hear him!!! Oh, the fun of it all!!

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    I cannot imagine ever hearing you say “I was wrong.”

  65. avatar
    nbc July 21, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    JTX: We DO live in “interesting times”. The case is unprecedented is US history (as is the situation) – a person running for President that tells everyone he’s not eligible under their stinkin’ laws … and they are too dumb – or too self-absorbed – to hear him!!! Oh, the fun of it all!!

    JTX appears to be living in his own fantasy world where assertions require no logic or reason or evidential support.
    Fascinating.
    And of course, the courts will continue to dismiss the cases.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    We do not pretend that the BC is the issue. We say that there is NO issue.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    Which book izzat?

  68. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    I’m guessing jtx is referring to Larry Sinclair’s work of fiction.

  69. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Hang on there guys … won’t be long and it should be lots of fun.

    Sorry; I’m too busy waiting for the “OMG moment” that the Steady Drop has been promising for the last three months.

  70. avatar
    nbc July 21, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    Figures..

  71. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    I am not missing the point. You have no case law from the US to back up your point. Point us to court rulings that give your point credence. Again, we are not a colony. Not one lawmaker in Congress contested the election based on the British law you site. Not one. They all knew the his father was Kenyan. Lindsey Graham when asked said that if you are born on US soil you are a Natural Born Citizen. He is I believe, intelligent. So are many other members of Congress whose sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution and to withhold certification of an election if they believe the President Elect to be ineligible. So yes I know about eligibility I do not believe your arguments to be valid-any of them. I believe this is an evil attempt to overturn the election of someone whose politics you do not like.

  72. avatar
    kimba July 21, 2009 at 8:36 pm #

    Turn on your TV’s NOW! MSNBC, why birtherdom is a bigger problem for the GOP than the White House! Look now!

  73. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    “I am former USAF enlisted, so I give him the benefit of the doubt on this.”

    Yeah, but why did he only stay one year at the Academy? Doesn’t look good.

  74. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    Oops, don’t have cable. Do you have a web link? I’d like to see it.

  75. avatar
    kimba July 21, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    Oh, I forgot the link to Mathews. I bet huffpo will have the Olberman link soon, if I see it I will post it misha.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/bad-day-for-birthers-as-m_n_242378.html

  76. avatar
    SFJeff July 21, 2009 at 9:01 pm #

    “The case is unprecedented is US history (as is the situation) – a person running for President that tells everyone he’s not eligible under their stinkin’ laws … and they are too dumb – or too self-absorbed – to hear him!!! Oh, the fun of it all!!”

    I would ask JTX to cite this…but JTX is very uncomfortable with citing facts. Perhaps he is confusing Obama publishing a book telling everyone he had a Kenyan father with President Obama talking about the law.

    At least he wasn’t asking about his Pappy again.

  77. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 21, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    jtx: They told Politifact, “It’s a valid Hawaii State birth certificate.”

    I don’t know what you’re talking about, but that’s a direct quote from Janice Okubo, the spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    So, my question is why are you lying?

  78. avatar
    kimba July 21, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    Y Sr Sanchez tambien, ademas.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/rick-sanchez-takes-on-oba_n_242261.html

  79. avatar
    BenjiFranklin July 21, 2009 at 9:20 pm #

    Dear Black Lion & NBC,

    JTX’s comfortability with ignoring your pointed question about the legal basis for his claim, combined with his unlawyerly tolerance, even relishment, of a case endlessly reconstituted from debunked conclusory allegations devoid of a shred of real evidence, reeks of a court-room wannabe who has been gaveled into a sleep-it-off cell so many times, he’d like the whole judicial system overturned to validate his “tuck-me-in” fantasy of being The Law, sad-sack make-believe legal expert and sole trademark applicant for the rights to, “You’ll see!”.

    The Birther Circus can always use another weak theory of Law; has anyone noticed that they deny there is any doubt about what constitutes Natural Born Citizenship, while among themselves, relying on SEVERAL MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE definitions of the term?

    Alan Keyes, for example, feels that if it is proven Obama was born in Hawaii, that would be sufficient proof of his Natural Born Citizenship, for Alan Keyes. His lawyer-substitute, Orly, disagrees. (both as of last Weds on the 7/15/09 Lou Dobbs Radio Program – you can listen at http://tinyurl.com/l5xn62 by clicking on the calendar cell for 7/15 and then scrolling into the program player to 1:33 for Orly’s brief statement and 1:38 for Keyes’ Orly-consternating admission!)

    Keyes has essentially admitted for months on his website, “Loyal to Liberty”, that parsing the “Natural Born Citizenship” expression has achieved no exclusive definitive consensus historically.

    Misha, your rim-shot joke invoking the specter of the birthers counting a circumcision inspection among the straightest arrows in their quiver, made me think “birfer-think” for a dehumanizing, racist moment. Through their pinhole view of political reality, getting rid of a President they disagree with, is just them casually invoking Elective surgery. JTX will be trying to stop the grand opening of the 2 term Obama Presidential Library in a decade or so, – he’ll show us. Bidda Bung!

    Benji

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    OMG. That thing finally came out?

  81. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    $26 on Amazon. Gift-wrapping available!

  82. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    Again, jtx give me US court rulings not British Law to back up your claims. You refuse. Why? They do not exist.

  83. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Jtx, I want you to give me specific US court rulings that back your position. Not the opinions of an author but the rulings of a US court.

  84. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    Black Lion:

    It is you who miss the point and try to ignore the fact that Obama has told everyone he was governed by the (as you call it) “foreign law”. In fact, that makes him a foreigner from the standpoint of being eligible under the Constiturion.

    … ansd you don’t even grasp that point!! Shame on you.

  85. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    NBC:

    There is a difference b etween “citizen” and “natural born citizen” and you seem to try to mix them up – perhaps intentionally.

    This will all come out in court – and they will certainly (unlike you) distinguish between them.

  86. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 10:40 pm #

    It’s like the old cartoon …

    “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog”.

    … or possibly a “Dr.”.

  87. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    JTX: It is you who miss the point and try to ignore the fact that Obama has told everyone he was governed by the (as you call it) “foreign law”. In fact, that makes him a foreigner from the standpoint of being eligible under the Constiturion.

    Totally nonsense and lacking in any reference to fact or logic. Of course do not expect JTX to support his claims which are contradicted by known common law history as well as legal rulings.

  88. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    JTX: There is a difference b etween “citizen” and “natural born citizen” and you seem to try to mix them up – perhaps intentionally.

    This will all come out in court – and they will certainly (unlike you) distinguish between them.

    That’s fascinating I back up my assertions and you accuse me of intentionally mixing them up. As to your hopes that the Court will get to address this issue. Welcome to the world of illusions and wishful thinking.

    There is no way the Courts are going to grant standing to any of the few remaining lawsuits.

    And there is no way you will ever support your vacuous claims.

    Those my dear friend are two established facts

  89. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    nbc:

    Downgraded to lower case??

    You’ll find out in court that Obama having run for the Presidency and having been now sworn into office will still have to show that he IS factually qualified.

    He’s told everyone that he isn’t and you don’t even recognize that. That’s truly funny – and sad.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    I think Black Lion’s difficulty at grasping your point is that it lacks any basis in law.

  91. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    Or a ‘judge’? ROTFL

    You’re funny in your denials.

  92. avatar
    Mary Brown July 21, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Jtx, give me the court rulings- US court rulings to support your statements about British Law.

  93. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    JTX: He’s told everyone that he isn’t and you don’t even recognize that. That’s truly funny – and sad.

    You are once again presenting no facts and evidence, nor logic and reason. In fact he has told everyone that he is a natural born citizen, just as the evidence, facts, legal history and common law precedents continue to show.

    And there is no way the Courts are going to hear such a case. For the last 9 months or so they have continuously dismissed such suits due to lack of standing and indeed per the US Constitution, they cannot address a clear non justiciable constitutional political question which by the Constitution is left to Congress.

    Such are the facts.

  94. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    NBC:

    Back up your claims??? That’s a laugh. As for giving “cites” in this kangaroo court filled with those who believe in their hero regardless of what he does then “cites” don’t matter.

    In court, however, cites DO apply. And that’s where the battle will progress – and fairly soon despite your unfounded beliefs that the courts are in Obama’s pocket.

  95. avatar
    richCares July 21, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    ” – it will be instructive to see how many of you say “I was wrong” and how many of you just quietly evaporate into the good night.”

    Unbelievable, jtx’s posts clearly show a lack of intelligence, I wonder where he gets this stuff, it can’t possibility be derived on his own. He has really weird delusions and don’t expect an answer from him on your logical questions, he probably doesn’t even umderstand your questions.

  96. avatar
    jtx July 21, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    nbc:

    Sorry but Congress has never said the man was “qualified” and it’s not up to them in any event. He has to qualify under the requirements of the Constitution.

    So now you’re pretending to be an expert on Constitutional law and court proceedings? Is your last name Obama?

  97. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    JTX: Back up your claims??? That’s a laugh. As for giving “cites” in this kangaroo court filled with those who believe in their hero regardless of what he does then “cites” don’t matter.

    As I expected, you have nothing to cite. Well done my dear friend although I am somewhat disappointed that you blame your failures on others. What happened to the good ole’ American tradition of taking responsibility?

  98. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    You’ll find out in court that Obama having run for the Presidency and having been now sworn into office will still have to show that he IS factually qualified.

    Which court will so order POTUS to do so?

  99. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    JTX: Which court will so order POTUS to do so?

    Judge Judy….

    Or perhaps those dandy guys from the ‘american’ grand jury knitting circle?

    The Court of International Justice in The Hague?

    The Klingon High Court?

    Who knows.. What I can tell you based on the past rulings which make for US precedents, the courts will continue to rule lack of standing and a non justiciable political question.

  100. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    JTX: Sorry but Congress has never said the man was “qualified” and it’s not up to them in any event. He has to qualify under the requirements of the Constitution.

    So now you’re pretending to be an expert on Constitutional law and court proceedings? Is your last name Obama?

    Sorry my dear friend but per 20th amendment the President Elect was found qualified and elected President.

    I am not pretending anything, I am merely presenting the facts and support them with references. It’s for others to decide if they have a better argument. You should give it a try perhaps.

    And since the President was duly elected, the only form of Quo Warranto which is legally provided for is through the process of impeachment.
    There is nothing SCOTUS can do here.

    Mr Thurman: It seems to mo that these considerations abundantly show that the idea of contesting the office of Chief Magistrate of the United States in any court whatsoever is not to be entertained for a moment. I do not, therefore, agree with the Senator from Vermont that there can be any such contest. I do not think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the title of the persons declared in the joint assembly of the two houses to be President should remain in doubt for a single moment, but that, on the contrary, from the time he was declared to be elected all men should respect his title, for ho was declared elected pursuant to the Constitution of the country. There might be error in deciding who was elected; every body of men is liable to commit error; courts are liable to commit error as well as congresses; the decision may be in favor of the wrong man ; but the public safety and peace require that that decision, when once made, shall be final and irrevocable.

    Mr. Frelinghuysen: It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is one idea which the Senator from Ohio has entirely omitted, which is conclusive upon this subject,; it certainly is to my mind. I think the twelfth article of the amendments to the Constitution settles who has jurisdiction over this question. It does not do so in express terms, but it does do so by necessary implication. It says that the President of the Senate is to open the certificates and the votes, which are then to be counted in the presence of the two houses. That by necessary implication to my mind gives the jurisdiction over this subject to the two houses; and if the Constitution does give it to them, we cannot by law give it to the judiciary of the country.

  101. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    gracias.

  102. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    When I ask jtx a question, I’m actually curious to see what the answer is (if there is one).

  103. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Good luck. JTX does not seem to be interested in providing any details as to his claims.

  104. avatar
    BenjiFranklin July 21, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    Dear jtx,

    I bet you won’t need a court order to discover Obama has been added to Mnt. Rushmore! Your oft-predicted court ordered discovery has already let Candidate Obama conduct one of the longest Presidential campaigns in History SUCCESSFULLY, let Obama win the election and have his victory so acknowledged for two months while he shrugged off several lawsuits and SCOTUS appeals to be allowed with the Judiciary’s collective blessing, to become the President Elect. Your “predictated” C.O.D. then saluted by hesitating while the Chief Justice of SCOTUS swore Obama into the Presidency and control of our Military as the Commander-in-Chief, your threatened C.O. discovery then conspired with the accused usurper to stand idly by while Obama appointed his cabinet, your fast-approaching C.O. discovery then paused to let Obama take control of the economic future of the country, hoping I suppose that he would impose a socialistic ruin on the Nation, and as Obama unimportantly appoints a lifetime Justice to SCOTUS, your predicted Court-ordered discovery now closes its eyes to the Wars in which we are engaged and the exceedingly dangerous international crises that are developing, as the fast-approaching desperatedly called for court-ordered discovery now cousels Jtx to lower it’s expectancy level to “condition green”, that is, “discovery anytime in the next few months”.

    So the courts are just waiting through this road to ruin, for “just the right pleading” before they lift a finger to save our country, by your reckoning?

    I hope that the delusions you grasp at are as comforting to you as they are entertaining to me. Adults aren’t impressed by your failed arguments’ endless whining defaulting appeal to the image of an ever-approaching court-ordered boogey-man peeking under Obama’s cloak of secrecy to save your face.

    Benji

  105. avatar
    Mary Brown July 22, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    Andy Martin perhaps.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 22, 2009 at 8:23 am #

    “Weak in argument, but irritating and insulting in style.”

    William Cotesworth Pinckney
    Life of Marhall, v. 2, p. 324.

    Cites? You can’t handle the cites.

  107. avatar
    myson July 22, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    No one (& I Mean NO Obot)has EVER said the courts where in Obama’s pocket I challenge u to prove otherwise !!
    What we have constantly said is that the LAW is on Obama’s side !!!
    As the courts are interpreting the law as it is, we have been very confident that all actions taken by the birthers will fail because the law is quite clear to any good lawyer

  108. avatar
    Black Lion July 22, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    The birthers are right. The mainstream media is getting involved. According to them the end is right around the corner. The following is from CNN…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/rick-sanchez-takes-on-oba_n_242261.html

    “It’s a “completely unfounded story,” Sanchez said, and then repeated himself for emphasis. “There’s something strange about even having to do this story,” he said, but so many people believe it that “it needs to be addressed.”

    The best part was the ending….He basically sums it up for every rational person out there….

    “Sanchez ended with even more evidence — the birth announcement in a Hawaii paper. But its doubtful that anyone who has held onto this delusion in the face of so much evidence can be convinced.”

    He is right…It is doubtful that anyone that believes in the delusion that the President was not born in the US will never be convinced otherwise no matter how much evidence it presented….

    Another mainstream network addressing the issue…

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907210040

    It is funny to see the GOP sponsors of the infamous bill try and defend themselves…

    Or Liz Cheney, who should be more worried about the crimes her Dad committed rather than being part of the birther nonsense…”I want my country back”? These people are unhinged.

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907220007

    Liz needs to tell the truth…the actual reason her racist, nut case crowd is “fundamentally uncomfortable” with Obama is because he is black. What Carville says is true…you cannot denounce the nuts because they are your base and can’t afford to alienate them. It has nothing to do with “defending America”. It is an underlying race issue. If you just read some of the postings on Orly’s site, you will see it.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/07/22/liz_cheney_and_birthers/index.html

    And of course there is good old Lou Dobbs, still stirring up the controversy. It is amazing the idiots that he has on his shows. Obviously these people don’t even know what they are talking about. The one guy could not pronounce the word “live” and assumed that there was another document that the President could just order from the state of HI, and even then he said the only thing this certificate shows is the place you were born. Are these people for real? Is there something else you need to show in order to prove that you were born in the US other than the city you were born in? What is the use of putting people on if they are completely ignorant of the facts at hand. But it is Lou Dobbs. He only wanted people on that agree with him.

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907210047

    The bottom line is that Orly, Berg, and their supporters wanted the so called issue out there in the mainstream media. However it is a perfect example of “be careful of what you wish for”. When Orly and Keyes were on CNN last week, they came off looking crazy. Now as the mainstream media picks up on this issue, and you see people like that woman at the Town Hall meeting for Mike Castle of DE, most Americans are beginning to see these people as unhinged and crazy. The GOP, who seems to being giving tacit support to the movement, is being associated with them and are beginning to look foolish also. Most Obama supporters are happy that this issue is coming to light, just like they welcome the hearings in court. We are a nation of laws and the law will eventually support Obama. These individuals will continue to look dumb and foolish and eventually the politicians that support them will begin to run for their lives because they will be afraid of being voted out of office.

  109. avatar
    NBC July 22, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    JTX: You seem to forget that the man has told you and everyone else who might have been paying attention that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 – just like dad who was never an American (either).

    Partially correct, Obama stated that his status was governed by the 1948 BNA. His status was also governed by US Common Law which caused him to be born a natural born US citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. He was born under allegiance to the US and under jurisdiction of the US. The facts are simple and straightforward although somewhat complicated by the existence of dual citizenship status. Since however Obama clearly chose to retain his natural born US status, no issues remain.

    Such are the laws and precedent.

  110. avatar
    NBC July 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

  111. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    I see no reason to do that, but you’re welcome to find out for yourself.

    And it is Obama himself who has stated that, not moi! Are you calling your boy a liar???

    You may be right.

  112. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    Bob: and NBC:

    Just about Federal District Court or higher should fill the bill.

    Do all of you O-lovers have some preference??? I’ll see if I can arrange something, if so.

  113. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    NBC:

    And you don’t think he said he was governed at birth by the British Nationality Act of 1948???

    Why do you call him a liar??? I thought he could do no wrong in your eyes.

  114. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    richCares:

    I really appreciate all of your glowing admiration and accolades.

    And if you think that your hero did not say he was at birth governed by the BNA48, you’re tne one who displays what you accuse me of.

    Stop attacking Obama or I’ll report you to the Federal Thought Police.

  115. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 9:20 pm #

    I provided you with what he said and your statement is at odds which what he said. So I would not call him a liar no. What’s your excuse for misremembering?

  116. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    JTX: And if you think that your hero did not say he was at birth governed by the BNA48, you’re tne one who displays what you accuse me of.

    No, that is not what Obama said. Why are you continuing this foolish assertion?

  117. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    JTX: Just about Federal District Court or higher should fill the bill.

    Why do you not file and avoid the usual dismissal based on lack of standing, non-justiciability, mootness and failure to state a claim?

    Good luck my friend. But I am not holding my breath that you can go where 40+ have gone before and failed. And every time the precedents become stronger and stronger

  118. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    Black Lion”

    Oh, well., that settles it then if HuffPo said it (even if indirectly from CNN). Good to have all these “unbiased” sources isn’t it?? Just one small problem – they’re full of beans!

    The CNN looney lefter even shows a PARTIAL image of the known bogus COLB and cuts off the notice on the bottom that says any alterations make this worthless or words to that effect. That doesn’t get your notice???

    Could that be because you’re biased???

    And we see that all of you on this hate-speech site persist in mis-spinning the tale by attempting to help Obama be claiming it is some sort of BC issue.

    It isn’t – it’s an issue of whether or not the man is eligible to hold the office he occupies under the laws of uor country – and none of you get to determine that no matter how hard you spin and insult. I don’t either and that’s also how it should be.

  119. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    JTX: The CNN looney lefter even shows a PARTIAL image of the known bogus COLB and cuts off the notice on the bottom that says any alterations make this worthless or words to that effect. That doesn’t get your notice???

    You may believe it to be bogus but there is no credible evidence of such. At best it’s inconclusive.

    And cutting off the notice at the bottom does not change the fact that the COLB shows Obama born on US soil, just like the other evidence shows as well.
    Combine that with a lack of evidence to the contrary and we have a problem JTX seems unwilling to address.
    Good luck my friend.

  120. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    JTX: Oh, well., that settles it then if HuffPo said it (even if indirectly from CNN). Good to have all these “unbiased” sources isn’t it?? Just one small problem – they’re full of beans!

    ROTFL… Yes, anyone is biased except those who agree with JTX. Now that’s a novel definition. Good luck with that one.

  121. avatar
    Mary Brown July 22, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    Jtx, produce a Kenyan birth certificate and a port of entry birth certificate for infant Obama. You want things produced so let’s see you produce evidence. Citations of US law, Kenyan Birth Certificates, Indonesian Adaption Paper, Port of Entry Birth Certificate.

  122. avatar
    Mary Brown July 23, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    The reason jtx is to give credibility to your claims. How funny you are. You remind me of my teenage son caught in a lie who said to me, “I see no reason to discuss it with you.”

  123. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 1:38 am #

    Hahaha. You are a very perceptive person. I wonder when JTX will come back pretending nothing happened…
    How embarrassing

  124. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    Mistress Mary, Quite COntrary …

    You seem completely poblivious to the fact that Obama himself has told everyone that his daddy was a furriner and governed by the BNA48 and that he, sonny boy, was also governed by that same law. “Same” means the British Nationality Act of 1948 in case you don’t have a dictionary handy – or perhaps ask your teenage son.

    There’s no lie on MY part Mary dollink; on Obama’s …??? Why don’t you ask him.

  125. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    NBC:

    Marty Brown seems unable to manipulate her keyboard and the Web to go find the BNA statement that Obamna made.

    So if you’re “embarrassed”, be embarrassed for her, not me.

  126. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    nbc:

    What, lower case again – or does your keyboard act up like Mr. Obama’s Teleprompter???

    Shouldn’t be too much longer. I’ll be sure to point it out to you since I doubt you’ll notice.

  127. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 23, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    And JTX, you have yet to show me where the United States cares what the British Nationality Act of 1948 says? Do you realize how dangerous of an assertion that you’re stating? You’re stating that foreign nations determine who can and cannot be President, jtx. That’s an extremely dangerous assertion, jtx. I would not say that British Laws have one say about who is and who is not President. I look to United States laws for that, and you have yet to support your assertion that U.S. law is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

  128. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    nbc:

    Are you trying to hide with your lowercasing??? I doubt that’s a good disguise but enjoy your fun.

    As for Mr. Obamas telling everyone about his being governed by the BNA48 – you seem as inept as Mary Brown in not being able to google that up. It’s widely available and read like this on his FightTheSmears.com site:

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

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

    Despite the Obamatools attempts to eliminate the evidence it is still around – it’s not nice fool Mother Nature!!

  129. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    nbc:

    You missed my post above from FightTheSmears.com – try and stay u[p with things lest you are hopelessly left behind.

  130. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm #

    nbc:

    You’ve got it quite backwards NNNBBBCCC!

    The COLB presented has no credible evidence behind it but may very well serve as proof of criminal document fraud at some point in the not too distant future.

    The HI official in charge of Vital Statistics has said that no such actual document was ever issued.

  131. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    You seem to be really missing out on the real points involved here.

    I’ve NEVER said anything about any belief of mine that Obama was born anyplace other that in HI in the good ole US of A. BUT (ahem) I HAVE repeatedly stated that even if he were born in the US – say on a Mississippe river paddlewheel steamer – that hw would STILL not be eligible under the Constitution … nor has he ever shown that he is. Why don’t you speak to him??? I’m sure he’d listen.

  132. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    JTX: You seem completely poblivious to the fact that Obama himself has told everyone that his daddy was a furriner and governed by the BNA48

    For the umptieth time, that is not what Obama has stated. Provide your source.

  133. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    nbc:

    No, that’s not the reason at all. The reason it that they (like most of you Kool Aid drinkers on this site) are misstating the issue.

    It is NOT a BC issue at all, but one of the man never having shown he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies. That makes it a legal matter that none of you (or me) will “solve” by playing pretend-lawyers on this site. But if that keeps you happy, that’s fine.

  134. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    JTX: So if you’re “embarrassed”, be embarrassed for her, not me.

    Why, she is not misrepresenting what Obama stated.

  135. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    As expected, hot air.

  136. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    JTX: that hw would STILL not be eligible under the Constitution

    Why not? Just because you misremember Obama’s words about the BNA? Realize that most sources disagree with your ‘opinion’ and that you have failed to support your ‘opinion’ with any fact, logic or argument.

    I am soon, any time now…

  137. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    JTX: The COLB presented has no credible evidence behind it but may very well serve as proof of criminal document fraud at some point in the not too distant future.

    The COLB is the prima facie evidence of birth. As to criminal fraud, you’re again grasping at straws.

    JTX: The HI official in charge of Vital Statistics has said that no such actual document was ever issued.

    No he didn’t that is the second time you seem to misremember these facts. Sloppy my friend.
    What Polarik reported is

    I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

    “Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.

  138. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    JTX: It is NOT a BC issue at all, but one of the man never having shown he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    Again I understand your ‘opinion’ which has been exposed as lacking factual support. You cannot even correctly quote what the President said about the BNA.

    Born on US soil: Natural born

    If you disagree, present your case.

    I have asked you this many times now and nothing yet. That’s telling enough.