Main Menu

Comment for Michael Patrick Leahy

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

“to investigate without a reason is what I call a smear campaign”

I received an email from Mr. Leahy, directing me to a post on his blog and asking for my comments. Leahy (self-described Conservative author and grassroots new media strategist)  raises a number of “questions” rhetorically posed to Hawaiian officials to dig into all the nits of what they did and said. Some of the questions are ones I might ask out of curiosity, but some presume long-discredited conspiracy theories, or would be unlawful to answer.

I replied to the email this way:

I think your “questions” can be categorized into three groups:

1. Questions which cannot by law be answered by the persons to whom they are directed.
2. Questions which have already been answered, deal with scenarios which are contrary to law or contain misstatements of law.
3. Questions which are irrelevant to the time and place of the President’s birth.

President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth says on the face of it: Location of Birth: Honolulu. What exactly don’t you understand about that?

If there were ONE TINY FACT that contradicts Hawaiian birth for President Obama, perhaps raising questions would make sense, but to investigate without a reason is what we call a smear campaign.

Over at the blog I commented:

There are three things numbered “1” in the article. I’ll ignore the first set, and suffix the second with “a” and the third set with “b”.

2a.  What was the name of the hospital ?

Why ask a question which law prohibits Okubo from answering?

3a. What was the name of the attending physician ?

Why ask a question which law prohibits Okubo from answering?

5a. Was the original birth certificate on record submitted as part of the 1911 Hawaii Birth Certificate program, which allowed parents of children residing in Hawaii who were over one year of age to submit alternate birth documentation to the Department of Health and still be called “an original birth certificate.”?

This is a dumb question. Barack Obama’s birth certificate shows his birth was registered 4 days after birth. The question is already answered by law, and should be dropped from the list. And the program is the “Hawaiian Birth Certificate”, not the “Hawaii Birth Certificate”, a program which only applies to persons of native Hawaiian descent (which Obama is not).

6a. On what date was the original birth certificate on file registered ?

August 8, 1961. It’s on the birth certificate.
1b. For the Hawaii Secretary of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, who issued the finely parsed official statement of October 31, 2008 which left the impression that she had seen the hard copy of the original birth certificate: Why did you not simply and honestly declare in your October 31, 2008 statement that you had not seen the hard copy of the original birth certificate, and that your statement verifying the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth” was based upon a forensic review of the process by which the data about President Obama’s birth in the State of Hawaii’s birth records was included in the data base, and that this process was consistent with the state’s policies and procedures?

The question is silly. Hawaiian officials did not look at the document posted on the Internet, and would have no way of verifying its authenticity. What they did say is that Barack Obama is registered in Hawaii, and in 1961 the only legal registration was for infants born in the state

3b. For the Hawaii Secretary of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino: Can you make public all electronic records you used and the documentation process you went through to confirm that President Obama’s birth records were kept in the State of Hawaii birth records data base in accordance with the state’s policies and procedures?

This asks for violations of state law. The question should be withdrawn. The process could be disclosed, but not the records.

4b. For the Hawaii Secretary of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino: Will you request that officials at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children now transfer a copy of their original records related to the birth of President Obama to you, and will you publicly release those records?

The question asks for violations of both state and federal law. The question should be withdrawn.

6b. For the Hawaii Secretary of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino: Can you confirm with one hundred percent certainty that the original birth certificate of Barack Obama upon which your electronic records were based was in fact a “Certificate of Live Birth” issued by Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, and not a substitute certificate submitted within a year of the actual birth, as allowed for by Hawaiian Statues which were in place from 1959 to 1978?

There is some confused terminology in this question. A hospital does not “issue” a birth certificate. The hospital initiates a document which when accepted by the State becomes a birth registration, and when issued by the State becomes a “birth certificate”. It would be a violation of Hawaiian law for Dr. Chiyome to disclose the name of the hospital where Obama was born — so the question should be withdrawn.

Further when a birth registration is changed (according to Hawaiian Law) the certificate issued must clearly be marked “altered”, so this part of the question has already been answered.

8b. For Maya Soetero-Ng, half-sister of President Obama: Is it factually true that you were born in Indonesia in 1970, and were subsequently issued a “Certification of Live Birth” by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, and that this document is of exactly the same type and form as the “Certification of Live Birth” that the same department has issued to your half-brother, President Obama?

It is certainly false that Maya Soetoro-NG ever had a Hawaiian birth certificate. That “factoid” was created of necessity to legitimize the theory that Maya’s birth certificate provided the base document upon which Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged. The story persisted to create confusion over what a “Certification of Live Birth” means. The fact is that Hawaiian Law 338-17.8 imposes a residency requirement on the parents; in order for Maya to have qualified for a out of state Hawaiian birth certificate, her mother would have to have been a legal resident of Hawaii in the year immediately preceding Maya’s birth, which was not the case. Also, an out of state registration would not be a “Certification of Live Birth” because that’s not what is being certified. Since a birth certificate is a primary document for proof of citizenship, they are very clearly labeled as to what they are and what they are not.

The implication is that if Maya could get one, then Barack could get one. The only glaring flaw is that the Certificate, by law, has to say where the child was born, and Obama’s COLB says he was born in Hawaii.

I find myself intellectually offended by the list of questions because they seem to be questions designed for a propaganda purpose, and not to obtain actual information. Some of the questions, are legitimate ones, but others are definitely not. I detailed the problems with selected questions in previous comments.

The questions are posed in such a way as to suggest the possibility of things which are already discredited by law and fact.

When the discredited questions are removed, no remaining question could possibly have any bearing on where and when President Obama was born. So why ask the questions in the first place, unless it’s a smear campaign, and not a legitimate inquiry.

, , , , ,

119 Responses to Comment for Michael Patrick Leahy

  1. avatar
    Bob Weber July 26, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    Doc, you outdid yourself. If the birfers weren’t so nasty, i’d hardly bother with them. But they have just the right combination of human stupidity and nastiness that it’s hard to resist poking them with a stick. Kind of like watching a bullfight but without the guilt of seeing a dumb animal tortured.

  2. avatar
    Mary Brown July 26, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    What? Isn’t the state in issuing a certificate, certification, transcript, saying that the information on it is true and verified. Do the folks who issue passports call each state for every passport request they process and ask them to verify the information on a document that is meant to do just that? Perhaps now that they know that the original paper was destroyed, they are going to what? try and say the officials in Hawaii are not truthful, involved in a conspiracy? They are really digging a hole.

  3. avatar
    John July 26, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    You can’t trust the State of Hawaii. Based on this weeks coverage of this issue, it appears that CNN or the State of Hawaii is involved in coverup to bury this issue. It’s clear that either CNN or State of Hawaii is LYING. CNN claimed that the State of Hawaii told them that Obama’s orginal BC was destroyed in 2001 when everything went electronic. This absolutely not true and is patently false.

    The State of Hawaii does indeed have Obama’s orginal typewritten BC in their vault archives.

    Through the course of Andy Martin’s lawsuit, The State of Hawaii acknowledged this to be a true fact.

    After this fact was known, Hawaii said that they had seen and verifed Obama’s Orginal BC.

    Any claim from CNN claiming that Hawaii no longer has Obama’s orginal BC is a LIE. If Hawaii has indeed destroyed it they are subject to severe liabilites.

    Andy Martin has been fighting the courts and Hawaii to see Obama’s Original 1961 BC that Hawaii acknowledged that they have. However, due to privacy and tangible interest laws, Martin has been unsucessful.

    In full, either CNN or the State of Hawaii is clearly lying.

    Obama, show your Vault Copy Birth Certificate.

    And of course, even through all this coverage we still do not know the name of the hospital and doctor. Further, no has yet to come foward to be witness to Obama’s birth.

    It is no conincidence that the MSM has failed to interview WND. WND has been the frontrunner on this issue for months and fully investigated this issue indicating that it is not a conspericy theory but a very real, concerning and viable issue. The liberal media simply does want to know that truth and the pundits that I heard simply have not investigated this issue. My hat goes off to WND from their investigative skills into this matter.

  4. avatar
    kimba July 26, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    The first time I got a driver’s license, I showed my certification to the clerk lady at the DMV. She looked at it, transposed my date of birth into the license database and handed it back to me. She didn’t have to call the county where I was born and verify if the information matched what they had on file. See, the raised seal and the signature told her it was authentic and the information on it was true. Imagine if every time someone presented a certification of Live birth for a drivers’ license they called and verified. Even the clerks at the license agency know what makes it authentic. Duh and Duh. Have none of these people ever gotten a passport or license?

  5. avatar
    John July 26, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    Further these pudits rely on contested facts:

    – Like the COLB that Obot FactCheck saw which has never been seen again.

    – The Birth Announcements that prove nothing in which WND investigated and found that the Obamas didn’t live at the address listed in the announcement.

  6. avatar
    John July 26, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    Since it appears that the State of Hawaii and CNN may engaged in a coverup, it ever more reason to see Obama’s Original BC. The State of Hawaii is now claiming it doesn’t even exist which is a lie.

    Like Phil Berg has said, if Obama’s Vault Copy BC showed he was born in Hawaii, WE WOULD HAVE SEEN BY NOW.

  7. avatar
    kimba July 26, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    “It is no conincidence that the MSM has failed to interview WND. ”

    HAHAHAHA! No, no it’s not. The major networks have legions of researchers on staff. They do their own investigating. They wouldn’t use WND as a source for the daily specials let alone a source for facts. WND wouldn’t be an original source for any fact about Barack Obama anyway. Good journalism means sourcing and verifying the facts yourself, not copying and pasting from somewhere else. WND isn’t really a news organization John.

  8. avatar
    BlackLion July 26, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    John, you lose any credibility by citing WND…They authenticated President Obama’s COLB back in August of 2008. I think Dr. C has the link on his site. So if you want to believe and support WND, then you have to believe it when they said the following…

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

    The state of HI has never said that they destroyed the BC…It was an false report in the Klein letter by CNN…

    Andy Martin is an avowed anti Semite and has filed numerous unsuccessful lawsuits…I would not rely on him for any type of success…

    Someone has come forth and said they remember the birth of President Obama….I believe that that article was cited on this site….And since there is a COLB, it doesn’t matter if no one comes forward…That is the reason that states have a BC or COLB…To provide proof…

    You and the other birthers want additional proof to support the proof that has been provided. There has been no proof provided that the President was born elsewhere, but the COLB is not enough. Court cases support the President, but you would rather believe in foriegn law (De Vattel and the British Nationality Act), unfounded rumor and unsubstantiated and so called analysis by some guy calling himself an expert. It is really amazing what you people will believe when they want to get rid of someone they happen to dislike…Fortunately the law is not on your side…

  9. avatar
    BlackLion July 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    Again sourcing WND. They never source where they get their info. They are as much a news organization as the WWE is a real sports league.

    Another birther lie. The COLB that FactCheck saw is still on their site. Will you please investigate for yourself before repeating debunked birther lies?

    We have seen President Obama’s BC, it is called the COLB. When Phil Berg actually wins a case, then you can use him as a source of information. Until then he just repeats the same lies. I remember his “boycott” of the state of HI. I wonder how that ended up. Or his great Obama BC summit in DC. I think there were about 10 people there.

    So now CNN and the state of HI have engaged in a coverup. The birthers will never give up. Anyone that does not support their wild accusations are involved in some sort of Obama coverup. If you want to find sheep to believe you John, you may want to visit Orly’s site. Since she bans the truth, there are many sheeple for you to try and sell your nonsense.

  10. avatar
    Mary Brown July 26, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    John, John, it doesn’t exist. Neither does mine exist in NY State. It went electronic as well. I have a transcript. Now for documents. Show me a Kenyan birth certificate. Show me a Port of Entry Birth Certificate. Phillip Berg also says President Bush was involved in killing 3,000 folks on 9/11. Now you see why we believe President Obama should not respond to you. This is about overturning an election whose results you did not like.

  11. avatar
    Mary Brown July 26, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    That is not, so. The witness did not move in next door until the 1990’s. They spoke to an elderly woman who did not reside at that address in the 1960’s. I believe that this site might direct you to the research that shows this.

  12. avatar
    kimba July 26, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    Let’s say you take your birth certificate copy out of the place you store it for safekeeping and take it to get a drivers license, or a passport, or establish your DOB for Social Security, or your pension. What do you do with it after you’ve finished? Barack Obama’s copy of the COLB that he showed FactCheck and allowed to be scanned and posted on his website is probably someplace similar now.

  13. avatar
    richCares July 26, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    John appears very fond of Bull PuPu, Birthers are so easy to manipulate, then go off and repeat total Bull PuPu. Is it small brains or just hate for Obama.

    john, here’s WND link where they verified Obama’s BC, do you like it oh brainless one.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

    It’s in a comment, but not the main article.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist!

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    Mr. Leahy replied to my comments in email by saying: “I found them to be quite unresponsive to the questions.”

  17. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    Just one thing.

    The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth certificate to Politico and the St. Petersburg Times.

    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

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

    You’re wrong on the fact that the State Department of Health hasn’t looked at the image on the internet. They not only looked at the image, but declared it an image of a “valid Hawaii state birth certificate”.

  18. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    “Through the course of Andy Martin’s lawsuit, The State of Hawaii acknowledged this to be a true fact.”

    Thanks for bringing up Andy Martin.

    “In 1973 the Illinois Supreme Court refused to grant him a license to practice law in the state. His 1996 run for the Florida State Senate came unraveled when it was revealed that he’d named his campaign committee for his 1986 congressional run “The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America.” He assaulted two cameramen from WPTV, the NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach. He was convicted of criminal mischief and sentenced to a year in jail. Martin has been labeled a vexatious litigant by numerous federal and state courts. In his motion for the 1983 bankruptcy case, he called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.” In another motion that year, Martin stated, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.” He went on to say that “Jew survivors are operating as a wolf pack to steal my property.” When later pressed in an interview about his remarks, Martin claimed that the anti-Semitic comments were inserted into his court papers by malicious judges.”

    Martin and the rest of his coterie is the gift that keeps on giving.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)

  19. avatar
    Douglas July 27, 2009 at 1:42 am #

    EDUCATE THYSELF!

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

  20. avatar
    Rickey July 27, 2009 at 2:04 am #

    Another rehash of the same old tired arguments, this time by an anonymous “investigator” supposedly hired by an anonymous “retired CIA officer” and citing a forgery analysis by the anonymous “Ron Polarik.” Really convincing material there.

  21. avatar
    NBC July 27, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    One practitioner in Virginia, who hates Obama like a dog hates cats, led a reporter through his efforts. Because the man is a retired clandestine CIA officer, identifying him could endanger officers or operations that remain classified, so McClatchy will not reveal his name.

    In late 2006, convinced that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for America, he decided to start an anti-Obama operation. He combed the public record on Obama. He used a couple of allies and informants — half-jokingly dubbing his group “The Crusaders” — to learn about Obama’s background, especially his Africa connection and how he came to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    He assembled a dossier on Obama, including allegations that Obama attended a madrassa, or Islamic religious school, in his youth in Indonesia.

    Then the retired spook tried to get Israeli intelligence officials interested in his Obama dossier. They weren’t, to his chagrin. He also shopped it to some foreign reporters. Again, no luck.

    He wound up posting some of it on a blog — and where it went from there in the vast world of cyberspace is anybody’s guess.

    But a few months after the man began his work, the allegation that Obama was educated in a madrassa appeared in an anonymous article in Insight Magazine, an online publication of the Unification Church, in January 2007. It also claimed that Clinton operatives had dug up the information. The article was cited by several conservative commentators, including on Fox News, before it was debunked.

    The piece had the markings of what’s called a “false-flag” operation: Make a covert operation appear to be the work of another party. And, like many misinformation campaigns, it “takes what you might believe without any factual basis and seen circulating around …a lot of speculation spun into a story,” said Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA official.

    The retired CIA officer, who said that he and his fellow Crusaders have abandoned their effort, said he wasn’t the source of the Insight story.

    “I might have been a secondhand, or third-hand, or fourth-hand source,” he added. “But I don’t think so.”

    Pwned

  22. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    westernjournalism is WND. Educate thy own self.

  23. avatar
    Black Lion July 27, 2009 at 9:57 am #

    Of course he did…That is the usual birther response. The spew nonsense, you reply with laws and facts, and they say you are either avoiding the quesiton or they completely ignore what you said. Or my favorite is that they will intentionally misquote a law to fit their wild theories. These people don’t believe in logic or the facts. They want to believe in the conspiracy.

  24. avatar
    Douglas July 27, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    This is no ‘rehash.’ I welcome anyone to dispute the breakdown of the four types of Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and the circumstances under which such a document might have been issued by the state of Hawaii. However, the perennial question continues to be begged: why does Obama continue to resist release of whatever documentation is on ‘electronic’ file with the Hawaii Department of Health? We now know (per CNN’s Klein) that the ‘paper’ birth certificate was destroyed, persumably in 2001 when the Department of Health went ‘paperless.’ Presumably in its place is a scan of that document to which anyone with a ‘tangible interest’ may access (for a nominal fee, of course!) Upon such authorized release, the American people may then know the statutory rationale for the issuance of the COLB. If that rationale comports with a Hawaiian birth, case closed. If not, something is rotten in Washington DC and a constitutional crisis will quickly ensue.

  25. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    Rehash. westernjournalism is WND. No new source. No new information. Everything they print now is recycled stuff from pre-Berg.

    Most of your birther friends are now saying the birth certificate isn’t important. So why would he release it now? Admit it, no matter what information Pres Obama would release to you, it wouldn’t be enough. Please list for us the names of the 43 former Presidents for whom you have personally, physically seen their birth certificate.

  26. avatar
    Rickey July 27, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    Why should I or anyone else give any credence to a legal analysis by an anonymous investigator? What are his (or her) qualifications? You have no idea, obviously.

    Besides, if you have been reading the posts by JTX here, you will see that birthers are prepared to switch gears in the unlikely event that they are convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii. Then we will be back to “he can’t be natural born because his father was Kenyan (or British)” or “he gave up his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia” or maybe we’ll hear more of the bogus story about him traveling to Pakistan on a non-U.S. passport.

    But, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Hawaii does have a document which is ambiguous about where Obama was born. So what? You can’t prove a case with ambiguity. Where is the PROOF that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii? In case you’ve overlooked it, birther Christopher Strunk has been provided with the passport records of Obama’s mother, but he has been strangely silent about it ever since. How much would you like to be that her passport records show no record of a trip to Kenya in 1961? In all likelihood, there is no record of her ever leaving the U.S. in 1961.

  27. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    It’s probably more like she didn’t have a passport until she and Barack traveled to Indonesia in 1967.

  28. avatar
    Douglas July 27, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    It will be enough for this ‘birther’ should the Hawaii Department of Health release everything it has on file for Obama.

    As for preceding presidents, you certainly are aware that any president (save Obama) born post-1787 (the year of the Constitution’s ratification), was both born on U.S. soil and had parents who were born on U.S. soil, thus comporting with Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (along with the age and residency requirements). The only ‘exception’ would be Chester A. Arthur who father was Irish but who was naturalized when Arthur was 14 years old. Perhaps that is why Arthur destroyed virtually all of his pre-presidential personal papers and correspondence before his death. Maybe he knew something that we to this day don’t know and on which we may only speculate.

    I think we could stipulate that to question a president’s birthplace, as well as his paternal lineage, is unprecedented in this country. This is a constitutional crisis in the making. I don’t know if the political process will withstand such an onslaught.

  29. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    richCares:

    You ant the rest of those in the Flying Monkey Squad really should take a deep breath and realize that you are beating a dead horse WRT your “defense” of your hero – our ineligible Prez.

    The issue – as I’ve pointed out hundreds of times is not really the BC at all – but the eligibility of the man to hold the office he now occupies. The BC itself is merely one small fact in a chein of facts that will eventually become public much to the detriment of Mr. Obama and (presumably) to your chagrin in finding out that you have both contrived and colluded with massive fraud against the American public.

    As someone once said “… it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature …”. If you had either a) sense or b) decency you’d stop right now. I guess though you’ve demonstrated a lack of either a) OR b).

  30. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    Exactly. Unprecedented. As well as unfounded. What reason is there to question Pres Obama’s birth place and “parental lineage.” It’s a smear campaign.

    You had me going that you’d be satisfied until you mentioned “parental lineage.” Not your kind of “lineage” perhaps?

  31. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    dunstvangeet:

    Your pretense and that of the others in the Flying Monkey Squad on this site falls WAY short of being believable.

    You should carefully study the facts of the matter (give it time to load even with IE8 – the report is quite definitive):

    C:\Obama Stuff\Kerchner etal v Obama et al advertorials\WCJ – An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report .mht

  32. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    kimba:

    You and the rest of the Flying Monkey Squad should “reconsider” your tactics since what you are doing is actual becoming complicit in this unprecedented fraud.

    You may be sucked into the maelstorm along with the ineligible office holder. But maybe you think that is “fun”?? No accounting for some people’s taste.

  33. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Rickey:

    You see to have selectively (mis)read many of my posts on this blog.

    What I HAVE said is that any valid HI BC (if it actually exists) showing HI birth is but merely one finding of fact in a whole string of facts to be addressed in discovery.

    That’s not the issue at all (it’s merely one fact of many that will come out). The real issue is the eligibility of the man holding the office he now occupies – which eligibility he has never been able to demonstrate. As can be seen by all available facts so far – and by the media furor that you (and others in the Flying Monkey Squad – such as CNN and other media) are becoming increasingly complicit in – the man is unlikely to be eligible under the laws of our country.

    If he is, why not merely show himself to be??

  34. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    NBC:

    Too funny!!! The Forgers now splash their own conspiracy theories all over the electrons!!

    Did Barack tell you all that???

    I note that you never countered the factual information presented about the different types of BCs or official HI statements at all but merely spewed hate.

    The Flying Monkey Squad is getting desperate in their death throes it seems.

  35. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    kimba:

    Can’t refute it, I see!!

  36. avatar
    Greg July 27, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    A Constitutional crisis in the making? The system has a process in place for dealing with this sort of thing. It was actually addressed in Calvin’s Case in 1608 in Britain. Even if the King was a usurper, the citizenry owed their allegiance to that king, not to the rightful holder of the crown.

    The doctrine continues to this day in the “defacto officer doctrine.” Since Obama holds the office of President, and it’s only his eligibility to hold that office that is challenged, not the existence OF the office of President, even if his eligibility were challenged, he would qualify as “de facto” president. All his actions would be held to be valid.

    There really is no Constitutional Crisis. It’s just more wishful thinking on the part of birthers in order to gin up a case or controversy so they can pretend to have standing to challenge Obama’s Presidency.

  37. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    It’s sort of sad to see the Flying Monkey Squad go down in flames and take all their members with them.

    That’s what happens, though, when they choose to be complicit in fraud – and they’ve consciously done in this case.

    Eligibility is Eligibility … and (apparently) never the twain shall meet. So is fraud!!!

  38. avatar
    Mary Brown July 27, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    You might go to a site Barackryphal. The person who blogs is a liberterian, not a democrat or liberal. He has done some research on Polarik’s claims that if you are in the least bit open minded you should check into.

  39. avatar
    Mary Brown July 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Go to Barackryphal jtx. Lots of good stuff about Polarik the annonymous. Do you notice we do not use annonymous sources. Quite cowardly aren’t. You love documentation and yet you refuse to shoe me a Kenyan birth certificate or a Port of Entry Birth Certificate. Do you have those? As Adlai Stevenson once said to the Soviet Ambassador, Answer, yes or no and I will wait until hell freezes over. Do you or do you not have a Kenyan Birth Certificate and a Port of Entry Birth Certificate. Remember Obama’s uncle has clearly stated he was born in Hawaii. There is an original tape. Oh, by the way where is the Original tape of this conversation Obama’s grandma had. It was never given to the court was it? Again I would start with Barackryphal since the info you give is just a rehash of Polarik the annonymous, and now new annonymouses, cowards that they are.

  40. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    And your denial of it is amusing.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii State birth certificate.”

    You just can’t seem to get around that. The Hawaii State Department of Health declared the birth certificate valid, jtx. This means that he was born in the State of Hawaii. End of Story. He’s a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.

  41. avatar
    Greg July 27, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    About the different types of Birth Certificates.

    1. Hawaii only puts out a single form now. It is the Certification of Live Birth (COLB).

    2. The COLB is considered to be prima facie proof of the facts it represents.

    3. Obama’s COLB was certified – stamped with the official seal of Hawaii and signed by a worker of the state of Hawaii. He signed that all the facts were the same as what was on file at the Vital Records office.

    4. We know from the descriptions that Obama’s BC CANNOT be BC3 or BC4. BC3’s must state that they are DELAYED certificates. BC4’s must state that they are DELAYED certificates AND can only be obtained after 1 year of age. Obama’s certificate was registered 4 days after his birth.

    5. The fact that Obama’s BC was registered 4 days after his birth makes it unlikely that his BC is BC2 either. It currently requires a certification that a physician examined the infant. So, did Obama’s mom fly back to the states with an hours old infant so a physician could examine it?

    6. The article is premised on the fallacious assumption that Obama can request or allow the release of his “vault form” birth certificate. Hawaii represents that it cannot release such documents and that they do not release them for ANYONE!

    7. Because the COLB is considered prima facie evidence of the facts it contains, it would be considered proven to the satisfaction of any court or agency that Obama was born in Honolulu. To rebut this claim, someone contesting it would have to produce EVIDENCE that Obama was born somewhere else. What isn’t evidence? Allegations that Obama COULD have gotten a falsified BC (you’d need evidence that he DID get one). Highly edited hearsay evidence from Grandma that he was born in Kenya. Hearsay evidence that his sister told a grade-school he was born in a different Hawaiian hospital than other hearsay evidence suggests. Hearsay evidence from anonymous internet “experts” that the particular COLB is forged.

    8. Just for a “for-instance,” if the proposed law passed requiring Presidential candidates to show their birth certificate, Obama’s COLB would suffice.

  42. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    Maelstorm? Flying Monkey Squad? Tactics? Last I heard, the Secret Service and the Southern Poverty Law Center were concerned about Birther tactics. The only sucking is going to be the sound of the last birther swirling the drain.

  43. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 27, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Unfortunately for you, and the rest of the birthers, the B.C. issue is the only one being pursued.

    Minute questions of whether or not both parents have to be US Citizens for their child to be a ‘Natural Born’ citizen aren’t even in the picture.

    In answer to that, all legitimate constitutional evidence points to President Obama being natural born, under the circumstances of his birth.

    Gonna quote French philoshpers to make your point now? Save your breath, The Constituion is as clear as can be, President Obama is natural born.

  44. avatar
    Bob July 27, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Cook v. Simtech dismissed again.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:07 pm #

    Greg, I have some doubts about the first statement: “Hawaii only puts out a single form now.” While I have no information specific to Hawaii, I know that in many other states there are special types of forms for special cases, especially Out of State registrations and Foreign Born Adoptions.

  46. avatar
    Black Lion July 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    It is amazing how when JTX cannot refute counter claims or support his own claims with evidence, he resorts to name calling. On more that one occasion he was asked where in the US Constitution, US Law, or Supreme Court rulings is natural born citizen defined? Where does it require that both parents or even one parent had to be a citizen? He will call names and pull the BNA out of his behind, but can never make a concise legal argument or even give some legal precedent that supports his claims. I guess you have to bury your head in the sand to be as obtuse as he is.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    We agree on one thing, jtx, there is a lot of fraud involved in the Obama birth certificate business. I just think that it is all on the denialist side, from the likes of Janet Folger Porter, “Ron Polarik”, the Rev. “Kweli Shuhubia”. The quoted names are not real names.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    The facts about Arthur’s parentage were known at the time and even written about in a book by a contemporary opponent. The Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) said quite plainly that someone like Arthur was eligible to be president.

    More likely Arthur burned his papers to protect the political cronies who got spoils system jobs before Arthur became president (and cleaned up his act). I don’t know what Arthur could possibly have burned that would have had any relevance to his presidential eligibility.

  49. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    As for preceding presidents, you certainly are aware that any president (save Obama) born post-1787 (the year of the Constitution’s ratification), was both born on U.S. soil and had parents who were born on U.S. soil, thus comporting with Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (along with the age and residency requirements).

    Um, you do know that’s a direct lie, don’t you?

    Let’s take a look at Vice Presidents as well, who are, according to the 12th Amendment, also required to be the eligible for the Presidency.

    1. James K. Polk – Mother was possibly born in Scotland.

    2. James Buchanan – Father was born in Ireland

    3. Andrew Johnson – Father was possibly born in England, Mother was possibly born in Ireland

    4. Chester A. Arthur – Father was born in Ireland, and was not a U.S. Citizen when Chester A. Arthur was born.

    5. Woodrow Wilson – Mother was born in England

    6. Herbert Hoover – Mother was born in Canada

    Now, onto Vice Presidents

    1. George M. Dallas – Father was born in Jamaica

    2. Andrew Johnson (see above)

    3. Chester A. Arthur (see above)

    4. Spiro Agnew – Father was born in Greece

    So, I have 8 cases that directly discount your theory of Natural-Born Citizenship. By the way, this doesn’t include Charles Curtis, who was born in Kansas before Kansas was a state, to a mother who could have been ineligible for U.S. Naturalization because she was 3/4ths Native American.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    As best I recall, entry and exit records (distinct from passport records) are not available for 1961. But Strunk asked for her passport records too, and one would think that if Stanley Ann had a passport in 61, he would have touted it.

  51. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    JTX, just one question. You keep on mentioning the British Nationality Act. My question is where in U.S. law does it give up soverignity and designate a foreign nation to determine who can and cannot be President?

    Perkins v. Elg makes it quite clear that U.S. Nationality law operates independantly of any other nation’s laws. Therefore, where does having a birth governed by a foreign nation matter one bit?

  52. avatar
    Black Lion July 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    I had predicted a couple of days ago that this document would be making its rounds on the birther sites and that they would be using it as some sort of evidence. Phil over at tROSL posted it and his commenters thought it was the so called holy grail. It is funny how the birthers such as this document or the infamous Polarik analysis is unsigned but held up as factual yet they claim that President Obama cannot prove specific events. Unsubstantiated evidence is OK as long as it is against President Obama.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    Klein misspoke.

    If you look at the anonymous Western Journalism analysis, you find assertions that say generally: the birth registration was unlikely to be a hospital registration BECAUSE Obama won’t release the old forms.

    If you accept that logic, then you have also:

    The Western Journalism report is a fraud because it hides the name of the investigator.

    The paraphrases of former Hawaiian law are unfaithful to the originals because the report doesn’t provide information to enable the reader to check them.

    However, even if the BC1-BC4 breakdown is correct (and I doubt it is exactly), we still have as the most plausible scenario that Barack Obama was born at the Kapi’Olani Medical Center in Honolulu in 1961, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

  54. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    Hawaii does too.

    1. Offered to someone who’s birth is registered more than 1 year after the actual birth. Not considered sufficient primary evidence to prove place of birth. Under Hawaiian Law, the birth certificate has to be marked to indicate the late birth record, according to Hawaii State law. (Barack Obama’s was registered 4 days after the birth, therefore, he’s not eligible).

    2. Offered to someone who’s amended their birth certificate, due to something such as an adoption, a paternity suit, or anything else. Must also be marked clearly indicating such, according to Hawaii State Law. (Barack Obama’s has no such mark).

    As far as the 3rd type that JTX is referring to, I have no clue. Maybe foreign adotion birth record, which has to be accurate on the child’s place of birth. I’m persuming the 4th type is the regular Certificate of Live Birth, which is what Obama has.

  55. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Don’t you know anything – He burned his certified birth certificate from Canada! *eyeshift*

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Anybody who cites Ron Polarik has automatically disqualified themselves as an “investigator”.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    By the way, I am working on an article on this faux investigation; however, Obama Conspiracy Theories does research before articles are published, and the research for this one is not easily done since it relies on obscure sources.

    The essential output of the “investigation” is that “fraud is always possible” something I’ve said here since the site opened. The other thrust of the report is: “Obama is guilty because he won’t accede to our demands for documents.” That’s the “guilty until proven innocent” mind frame, which is appropriate for the lynch mob mentality of the denialist movement.

  58. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Oh, and jtx, I’d really like to know how I can get a report on your home computer that you haven’t uploaded to the Internet.

    You seem to be trying to link to something on your C: drive.

  59. avatar
    Greg July 27, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    I base #1 on the statements of the Hawaii Department of Health contained in the June 6, 2009 article:

    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

    “The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

  60. avatar
    Mary Brown July 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    I just read the interview about Birth Certifications vs. Certificates in the Honolulu paper. I suspect, they need to try establish that President Obama’s is forged because the long form argument is no longer valid.

  61. avatar
    Mary Brown July 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    An item of small interest. The President of the Mormon Church brought President Obama five volumes of family history based on their genealogical reasearch. The Mormon Church is noted for the quality of its work in this area. I do not believe that these folks would have been at the White House with anyone they believe to be unqualified. Again, totally anecdotal and I recognize that.

  62. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    I saw that too. Let’s hack his computer.

  63. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Kimba: Douglas wrote “paternal lineage, not “parental lineage.” Which makes it worse bigotry.

    As I wrote many times before, that’s what is really behind this.

  64. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    “He burned his certified birth certificate from Canada!”

    No. Arthur burned his birth certificate from KENYA! (bada-bing)

  65. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Oh, yes, he did write ‘paternal’ didn’t he? Yes, it’s worse.

  66. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Dr C wrote:

    “As best I recall, entry and exit records (distinct from passport records) are not available for 1961.”

    I’m pretty sure there would be an Immigration record for Obama, Sr. if he had returned from the Grand Honeymoon Trip to Kenya in 1961. Certainly there would be a record of entry for the infant Obama unless Stanley Ann smuggled him past Customs & Immigration in a false compartment in her suitcase.

    One point of interest: All international airlines keep flight passenger manifests. How long they retain them, I don’t know. Maybe somewhere in the BOAC archives is the evidence that will break the Vast Conspiracy wide open!

    Yet, I don’t know of a single birfer who has even inquired British Airways, successors to BOAC, about their archives. Either they haven’t done it, in which case they are incredibly stupid, lazy, or ignorant – or they don’t believe their own story, and don’t bother checking. Or they have inquired, found nothing, and suppressed their findings. In which case, they are dishonest. Take your pick. Dishonest, stupid, lazy, or ignorant. Or a combination thereof.

  67. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    “But a few months after the man began his work, the allegation that Obama was educated in a madrassa appeared in an anonymous article in Insight Magazine.”

    “Madrassa” is the Arabic word for “school”. My Lebanese friend was educated in a madrassa. It was run by Father O’Malley & Sister Mary-Elizabeth.

  68. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    And even then, his statement is not true. I can name at least 5 people who did not have their fathers born in this country, yet still became President or Vice President.

    George M. Dallas

    Spiro Agnew

    Andrew Johnson

    James Buchanan

    Chester A. Arthur

  69. avatar
    MysteryMessiahTheatre July 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Heads up, Doc;

    Orly gets 90 seconds after Ben Smith excoriates the Constitutionalist on NPR. SPLC triple stamps the fear and doubt with claims of racism.

  70. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    Probably, no POTUS ever improved his reputation during his time in office as much as Arthur. He entered widely regarded, with some justification, as a corrupt political hack. He left office with a wide reputation for honesty and integrity. The fact that he knew he was dying of progressive kidney failure may have had a lot to do with his change of direction.

  71. avatar
    Black Lion July 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    Tremendous article today in Media Matters regarding the Lou Dobbs, CNN, and the birther movement.

    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200907270015

    One quote regarding Rush Limbaugh, the former champion of the movement…

    “Limbaugh’s scared to talk about the birthers and won’t defend them because he has seen how Dobbs and the movement got manhandled by the press — including by conservative commentators. In fact, Limbaugh himself took some friendly fire from Philip Klein at the far-right American Spectator who, under the headline, “Shame on Rush,” announced: “To any sane human being, there is no controversy.”

    “Limbaugh saw how the press was sticking to the birth certificate facts and wasn’t shy about knocking down high-paid radio hosts who tried to traffic in that nonsense.”

    I will agree that the Orly and her birther followers should have been careful of what they wished for. For months they wanted the mainstream media to report this story. Now that they have, and in turn debunked almost every ridiculous birther claim, they are begining to look like the fringe nutcases that they are. And that is thanks to the Lou and his media spotlight.

  72. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Normally, they do.

    However, there’s a few Hawaii State laws regarding birth certificates.

    Read HRS 338-16(a).

    (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

    That’s where I think he’s getting his. Neither of which Barack Obama has.

    The other law (passed in 1982) which might make a different COLB is 338-17.8, which allows for the registration of foreign adoptions. Again, that doesn’t mean that they get a birth certificate that says, “Honolulu” as the place of birth, but that does mean that they can register their foreign birth with the Hawaii Department of Health.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

    Added to the type that Barack Obama has, you could argue that those are 4 distinct types of COLB.

  73. avatar
    Mary Brown July 27, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    But in the current sense they are reported as schools run by fundamentalists.

  74. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    “Good journalism means sourcing and verifying the facts yourself, not copying and pasting from somewhere else.”

    *****************

    One thing about the birfers is the incredible amount of copy-and-paste. True confession time: As I’ve mentioned, my original interest in this was as a “Why Do People Believe Weird Things.” At first, when I studied the birfer sites I adhered to the Star Trek Prime Directive – Study, Don’t Interfere. Mostly “FreeRepublic”, and also WND. But the huge volume of copy-and-paste regurgitation of misinformation finally got to me. It’s like having your neighbor play Ethel Merman albums around the clock at full volume. So I started posting at FreeRepublic. (A donut to anyone who can guess my Freep identity – NO CHEATING!) Amusingly, I’ve seen birfers copy-and-paste stuff I’ve written into their long and rambling posts. They don’t realize I’m debunking their stories! They think that massive verbiage is more important than logical argumentation.

  75. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    Interesting. Dobbs “helped drive a stake through the heart” of birtherdom.

    You know, I wonder if the birther thing isn’t more like Jason from Friday the 13th. That you can drown it, shoot it, stab it, burn it, bury it. And somehow, it keeps coming back. I honestly think the “stake through the heart” is going to have to be some respected Republican growing a pair and speaking out. I would like to hear Michael Steele explain to them how, yes, Bobby Jindal is a natural born citizen. Even then there’ll be some who just never let it go.

  76. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 27, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    I tried that too, just reading and not responding, and then I tried responding in a neutral tone – not agreeing or disagreeing – but got blasted for being an obot. So then I spoke my mind and used some of Dr. C’s site to back me up and promptly got banned from Plains Radio. Oh well.

  77. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    “Someone has come forth and said they remember the birth of President Obama….I believe that that article was cited on this site….”

    **********************

    I believe you are referring to Barbara Nelson, who says she remembers Dr. Rodney West passing on an amusting bit of hospital scuttlebut about how “Stanley gave birth today” and writing down Stanley Ann’s name on a napkin.

    Admittedly, this story is rather thin, especially after 47 years. Our memories play tricks on us, and we enhance our stories. That fish gets bigger and bigger with every telling. However, Nelson’s story does have details – it’s part of a narrative. By comparison, the birfer report of the relatives being present at Obama’s Kenyan birth (in Mombasa, of all places!) lacks any narrative. You’d think that if the relatives had left behind their crops and farm animals and traveled hundreds of miles from the remote village of Kogelo (no phones, no electricity, sporadic mail service) to Mombasa to be present at Obama’s birth, there’d be loads of stories about how this came to be! But we hear no such narratives. So thin as it is, Nelson’s story is 6″ armor plate compared to the birfer claim.

  78. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm #

    Make that “AMUSING bit of hospital scuttlebut”

  79. avatar
    Rita July 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    Haha, now the House seems to be getting into the mix – check out the 3rd Whereas clause in the resolution below, which has been introduced in the House:

    http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.593:

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    Priceless.

  81. avatar
    Shrieking wombat July 27, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    Oh this is a surprise. Cook v Simtech has been thrown out:

    “Plaintiff’s complaint, at its core, is but another attempt to embroil a United States District Court in an ongoing controversy of whether President Barack Obama is a nativeborn citizen of the United States of America and thus qualified to be President under the United States Constitution. See Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F.Supp.2d. (D. D.C. 2009); Berg v. Obama, 574 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Dawson v. Obama, 2009 WL 532617 (E.D. Calif. 2009); Cook v. Good, 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. 2009); Cohen v. Obama, 2008 WL 5191864 (D. D.C. 2008). As in Hollister, “[t]he right thing to do is to bring [this case] to an early end.” 601 F.Supp.2d at 180.

    Plaintiff’s first attempt to involve a federal district court in this ongoing conspiracy theory that President Obama is unqualified to be President of the United States of America because he is not a native-born citizen was rebuffed just eleven days ago by United States District Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia based on lack of standing. As Judge Land observed, because Plaintiff’s orders have been revoked, he cannot satisfy the legal elements of standing to pursue a claim in federal court under Article III of the Constitution. 2009 WL 2163535 *1; see also Cohen, 2008 WL 5191864 *1 (citing Berg, 574 F. Supp2d 509). The same result is appropriate in Plaintiff’s second attempt in this case to thrust a federal district court into this controversial maelstrom. Having come to that jurisdictional conclusion, the Court is precluded from reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Dimaio, 520 F.3d at 1303.(1)”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/17716064/Order-Dismissing-Cook-v-Simtech-

    Quite a nice little body of law growing here.

  82. avatar
    Rita July 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    Dr. C – apparently the Resolution passed by unanimous vote 🙂

  83. avatar
    Shrieking wombat July 27, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    And Gwaker has the goods on Crazy Eileen:

    “Last month, Republican Representative Mike Castle was confronted by a woman demanding proof that Barack Obama is a citizen. The lady has been identified, and she is, of course, nicknamed “Crazy Eileen.”

    Apparently she calls into a local talk radio station all the time. In this clip, she is talking about aliens. Also she predicts Armageddon in 95 years.

    She repeatedly has called Obama “the antichrist” on the airwaves, and “her phone calls have turned to faxes and threats,” according to Morris.

    “I have actually talked to an angel who came down in human form,” she said during the Jan. 1 show. “We will have alien contact in October of this year, in the southwestern USA.”

    And this is the woman the crowed applauded. She’s been banned from calling into local right-wing talk radio for her nuttiness.’

    http://gawker.com/5323938/meet-crazy-eileen-the-birther

  84. avatar
    Rita July 27, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    Oh, and Dr. C, here’s an article from Salon naming names in terms of the birthers and birther supporters in Congress

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/28/birther_enablers/index.html

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    Including Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    I guess the “no cheating” comment is directed at me. OK, I won’t cheat.

  87. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    “You know, I wonder if the birther thing isn’t more like Jason from Friday the 13th. That you can drown it, shoot it, stab it, burn it, bury it. And somehow, it keeps coming back.”

    *****************

    Remember the Proctor & Gamble “satanic” man-in-the moon logo? The one that they’d been using for decades? Or how about the “Aspartame causes every disease known to man” stories?

  88. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 10:20 pm #

    I did like the mention of Sen. Hiram L. Fong.

    Political conventions were once pretty good entertainment, unlike the dreary events of today. There was both real drama and silly spectacle. States used to send “favorite son” delegates to the conventions where they would dicker over which candidate they’d eventually support. Hiram L. Fong was several times a Hawaii favorite son candidate. He’d get nominated as “The Next President of the United States, the Honorable Senator Hiram L. Fong!” and there would be an entertaining little parade on the convention floor with horns, confetti, and balloons. Different era.

  89. avatar
    Greg July 27, 2009 at 10:24 pm #

    Here’s the NPR show mentioned above:

    http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/the-fury-of-the-birthers

    It also had Michael Medved excoriating the birthers.

  90. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    “Also she predicts Armageddon in 95 years.”

    95 YEARS? We’d all better start taking our vitamins and getting plenty of rest or we’re going to miss it!

  91. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    The previous comment doesn’t seem to have any context or references.

  92. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 10:46 pm #

    kimba:

    Nice misdirection try there Obamatron!!

    Guess you miss the point the discussion is anout Obama and not Jindal.

  93. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    Rita:

    Means nothing at all. It’s just the Beltway Bastards blowing smoke up their own gavels.

    It’s exactly as meaning as SR 511 was – which means … zero.

  94. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    Shrieking wombat:

    Actually she sounds more rational and even handed that most of you Obamatrons on this blog.

  95. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    Greg:

    Gee – Michael Medved (shake, cower, shudder) – isn’t he the guy who wrote the Constitution??

  96. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    In a court of law that and $2.00 won’t even get you a cup of coffee.

  97. avatar
    nbc July 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    What about this one>

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

    Game set and match…

    What a week eh… And it has not even started.

    Cook v Simtech thrown out, Kerchner motion in opposition filed…

  98. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    No, 94 years. A spaceman told me.

  99. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    Black Lion:

    There’s certainly no reason to make any sort of “legal argument” in this kangaroo court.

    THis is merely the last gasp of the Obamatrons who seem unable to use any intellect they might have to think about the implications of the fact that their hero (or anyone else – including them vor that matter) have even shown him to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    He already told you he was a Brit, guy. Let me spell that for you B – R – I – T … that means not American at birth. Check your dictrionary.

  100. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Are you actually alluding to something meaningful or just blowing more smoke out you (err) ears??

  101. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    misha:

    Boy – am I scared!! Don’t burn down your own house instead.

  102. avatar
    jtx July 27, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    Rickey:

    Well, fair’s fair. All we hear from the Flying Monkey Squad it the same old same old regurgitated slop.

    Even the Presidential Press Sec’y. is losing his grip on reality – just like youse guys.

  103. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Don’t be a stickler for details. Birthers don’t bother; it works for them.

  104. avatar
    Rickey July 27, 2009 at 11:37 pm #

    Ann Coulter was on Fox News the other day and called you birthers “cranks” and said that Obama’s eligibility to be president is not an issue. Mike Huckabee agreed with her.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/ann-coulter-birthers-are-wrong/

  105. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    “I have actually talked to an angel who came down in human form”

    Actually, it’s quite common for this to happen. When President McKinley was told of Spain giving the Philippines to the States, he claimed an angel appeared, and told him to civilize and Christianize the people there.

    Hasn’t that ever happened to you?

  106. avatar
    Joyce July 28, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    Thanks for the link!

  107. avatar
    Joyce July 28, 2009 at 12:26 am #

    “Ann Coulter was on Fox News the other day and called you birthers “cranks” ”

    That settles it!

  108. avatar
    Rickey July 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    And Philip Klein in the conservative American Spectator blog:

    “To any sane human being, there is no controversy. Obama has produced an authentic certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii that clearly shows he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. State officials have confirmed the document as legitimate and have stated that such facts would have to be verified by the state before they appear on the document. And if that isn’t enough, the fact is corroborated by a contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement.”

    http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/22/shame-on-rush

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Just to remind everyone that next Tuesday is President Obama’s birthday. We will be celebrating US Citizen’s Day with our friends from the Federation of US Citizens.

    http://www.federationofuscitizens.com/

  110. avatar
    richCares July 29, 2009 at 1:26 am #

    the village idot chimes in, what can’t find any flying monkeys?

  111. avatar
    Gary August 4, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    I’ve been reading all this back and forth about whether or not Obama is or is not legitimately, constitutionally our president and can not for the life of me answer these questions based on the presented facts. 1) Who, specifically, by name, is responsible for properly ascertaining the eligibility of someone running for president? 2)Has this person issued a sworn statement verifying that Obama is eligible based on his investigation? 3) If this person does not exist, why doesn’t Obama just end all the speculation and ill will it engenders and just release his birth certificate? What possible good for the country comes from not doing so?

  112. avatar
    Bob August 4, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    1. No one. (Although Obama and Pelosi did sign documents attesting to Obama’s eligiblity.)

    2. No.

    3. Because Obama knows nothing will “end the speculation” (and is not gathering ill will, but scoring easy political points off the Republicans). And Obama doesn’t because it would seek a horrible precedent, both for himself and future presidents.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 4, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    State secretaries of state generally have the responsibility to determine who is eligible to be on the ballot in their states. Nancy Pelosi in her role as chairman of the Democratic National Convention signed an affidavit that went to some states, certifying that Obama was eligible to be president and that he was the nominee of the Democratic party.

    The 20th Amendment gives Congress the responsibility ultimately to determine the eligibility of a president before they certify the election.

    Obama released a certified copy of his birth certificate in June of 2008.

  114. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    kimba:

    Sorry, gut – the stake wasn’t long enough to reach very far. The questioning about you boy’s real backgeround is now more intense than even – and will continue to grow.

    What position will (almost) all of you on this blog take when it is determined that he is not legally eligible???

    Maybe – doesn’t matter; all us looney leftist libs love him no matter; just leave him be???

  115. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    I’ll make you a wager, jtx. I’ll give you $100,000 if Obama is found ineligible before 2012, $1,000,000 if he’s found ineligible before 2016 and $10,000,000 if a court finds, retrospectively, that he’s ineligible by the year 2060 IF you’ll commit to the same amounts and targets.

  116. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    Dear Mario, or at the adoption of your latest alias, Cassaundra Cueter:

    You’ve apparently mixed up two of your postings. I won’t judge your choice of a backup source of income – it’s not surprising really – given your professional amorality and how you do love to talk, but you might want to retrieve your Natural Born Citizen misinformation from THEIR site. Or do you really want to contaminate the marketing potential of your audioerotic image with postings that will let that crowd find out, you’re just THAT loser Birther lawyer?

    Benji Franklin

  117. avatar
    Scientist March 17, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    Benji-I think you’re wrong to tar Cassaundra with the Mario brush. She makes a much more positive contribution to society than he does.

  118. avatar
    misha March 17, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    Hello, you’ve reached Rabbi Misha’s answer line.

    To discuss the torah, press 1
    To discuss the Talmud, press 2
    To discuss Buddhism, press 3
    To speak with the cat or dog, press 4

  119. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 18, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    Dear Scientist,

    True, but Greg and Mario are much more widely separated on that continuum of societal contribution. In Greg we have a competent attorney able to authoritatively and dismissively analogize Mario’s extra-legal contrivances, even while mixing in sparkling spot-on references to Relativity Theory and the Uncertainty Principle; in Mario, we have a dismissal-bound historically incompetent “would-be Orly Taitz”, synthesizing novel legal theories cobbled together from his own relatively unprincipled certainty!

    Benji Franklin