Main Menu

Fake information on passport web site

This one really got me. On the web site, PassportsUSA.com (not PassportUSA) , a web site that is purports to assist you in getting a passport, they list these requirements for your birth certificate:

Fake Passport Web Site

Fake Passport Web Site

  • Birth certificate should show a doctor’s signature, a midwife’s signature, the parent’s signature or the signature of a witness who was present at your birth.
  • The name of the hospital you were born at or taken to after your birth at home, in the car or where ever you happened to be born but later seen by a doctor at a hospital.
  • A raised registrar’s embossed, impressed or multicolored seal. Some older birth certificates may not have all of these elements on certificates from the 1970’s or earlier.
  • The paper itself should have a print pattern or emboss style that is sometimes raised again on some olders certificates this may not be present.
  • Birth certificate should have been issued within one year of your birth.

Huh?

On another page, they list the real requirements from the State Department: “*certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for US Passport purposes.”

PassPortsUSA.com is a WordPress blog (just like Obama Conspiracy Theories). I don’t know if this site (which cuts and pastes pretty much all of its information from the Department of State web site) is an entirely fake enterprise, created to host the bogus information above, or whether it’s been hacked or the victim of a rogue employee. I looked up the domain registration, and found that it is “obfuscated” by a company in France. This means, the folks behind the enterprise have chosen to hide their identity. This is highly irregular for a legitimate company, but quite common for individuals.

The gramatically irregular phrase: “Some older birth certificates may not have all of these elements on certificates from the 1970’s or earlier” suggests an amateurish effort. Certainly someone went to a lot of trouble just for a hoax. More likely the site was created for ad revenue, and the page was added for some personal motive.

, , , , ,

235 Responses to Fake information on passport web site

  1. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm #

    It’s an information service of a travel agent that works with the US State Dept to assist people with required documents for foreign travel.

    BO’s COLB is not sufficient primary evidence. Secordary evidence of US citizenship is required.

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/Secondary%20Evidence/Secondary%20Evidence_4315.html

    Somehow I think the US State Dept has been scammed a few times and publishes this interesting note …

    “Early Public Records are not acceptable when presented alone.”

  2. avatar
    glamourdammerung July 23, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    You left out the bit that invalidated your arguement.

    <>

  3. avatar
    glamourdammerung July 23, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    It cut off the quote:

    “If you were born in the United States and cannot present primary evidence of U.S. citizenship, you may submit a combination of early public records as evidence of your U.S. citizenship.”

    A COLB is a primary document.

  4. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    You are incorrect as the page on primary evidence indicates

    Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state

    In fact the page you quote refers to

    Early Public Records are not acceptable when presented alone.

    and mentions

    Hospital birth certificate

    as an example of secondary information

    The site informs us that

    A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

    Some short versions may not be acceptable, which is determined by the States. In case of Hawaii, short versions are acceptable.

  5. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    You are of course correct. Strange how that detail was somehow overlooked

  6. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Yeah, isn’t it such a coincidence?

  7. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    These things can happen. Let’s see how Sven deals with the additional information we provided.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    Sven says: “It’s an information service of a travel agent that works with the US State Dept to assist people with required documents for foreign travel.”

    As Usual Sven talks, but provides nothing in the way of evidence.

    What’s the name of this travel agent?

  9. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Perhaps you should click on the link and find out!!!

  10. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    glamourdammerung:

    Maybe yes, maybe no … but that presupposes a REAL COLD rather that a computer screen (or corresponding PrintScreeen of one).

    And the Vital Stats guy in HI says they’ve never issued one for Obama. If that’s the case, where do you suppose you’ll find a REAL COLB??? Maybe in Obama’s phony “autobiography”???

    BUT – and I repeat myself once more – the issue is not in any respect about any form of BC (assuming he’s born in HI).

    The issue is that the man has never shown that he meets the elibibility requirements under the Constitution to hold the office he now seems to so enjoy occupying.

  11. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    JTX: And the Vital Stats guy in HI says they’ve never issued one for Obama. If that’s the case, where do you suppose you’ll find a REAL COLB??? Maybe in Obama’s phony “autobiography”???

    Nope he did no such thing. More nonsense

    As Polarik reported

    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.

    No statement that no such document had ever been produced.

    Sigh… Keep up the good work my friend, you’re making my life a bit too easy though…

  12. avatar
    NbC July 23, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Again, as usual avoiding to answer the questions.

  13. avatar
    jtx July 23, 2009 at 6:32 pm #

    NBC:

    I guess none of you on this blog can read (or perhaps don’t want to).

    The issue is not the birth certificate or where he may have been born. The issue is that he has never shown he is eligible under the laws of our country to hold the office he now occupies.

    Should I repeat that some more for you???

  14. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    The issue is that he has never shown he is eligible under the laws of our country to hold the office he now occupies.

    What law(s) require Obama to demonstrate eligibility?

  15. avatar
    AdrianinFlorida July 23, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    OK, The $20,000,000 question, JTX. If Obama presents, directly from the State of HI, a COLB that contains the exact same info that is shown on the web (Fight the smears, etc), will that solve the question of his birth in your eyes? Since the state doesn’t provide the “Long Form” anymore, and the one shown is proported to be a photo/scan of the exact document President Obama recieved from the State, then there should be no other questions.

  16. avatar
    NbC July 23, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    JTX: The issue is not the birth certificate or where he may have been born. The issue is that he has never shown he is eligible under the laws of our country to hold the office he now occupies.

    He has and it seems Congress approved. That’s it folks.

    You claim that he is ineligible, present your argument. Of course, you won’t. That’s fine with me. The issue is, contrary to your ‘claims’ whether or not the President is a natural born citizen. His COLB shows him born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen.

  17. avatar
    NbC July 23, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    Bob: What law(s) require Obama to demonstrate eligibility?

    Pray tell us JTX, what laws? And please inform us who rules on whether or not a President is qualified and certifies the electoral results per 12th and 20th Amendents?

  18. avatar
    Epectitus July 23, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    Sven writes:

    It’s an information service of a travel agent that works with the US State Dept to assist people with required documents for foreign travel.

    Wrong as usual. It is the web page of an ex-postal employee named James Coates. He appears from posts on other blogs to be run of the mill Birther.

  19. avatar
    NbC July 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    While most of the WHOIS information was anonymized through a French registrar, the name of the registrant can be found and matches what Epectitus provides

  20. avatar
    NbC July 23, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    Should I repeat that some more for you???

    Sure, tell us what law requires President Obama to demonstrate his eligibility.

  21. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    Care to state where stated that it’s not Sufficient Primary Evidence? I have yet to hear one thing that it’s missing.

    The State Department Application for a passport says this: “A Birth Certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.”

    I’m asking you again. Which one of these is Barack Obama’s missing, where it’s not considered Primary Evidence? Do you have any proof? Or are you just going to contradict the entire Hawaii Department of Health and claim that it’s not a birth certificate?

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” That’s a direct quote from the Hawaii Department of Health.

  22. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 23, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    Mind showing me where he stated that he never issued one for Barack Obama? I’d really like to see you back this up.

    And having him say, “No one in our office confirmed that” doesn’t mean that he said that he stated that they didn’t issue one. All that means is maybe that they’re not allowed to confirm it, and therefore, they didn’t confirm it.

  23. avatar
    nBC July 23, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Dungst And having him say, “No one in our office confirmed that” doesn’t mean that he said that he stated that they didn’t issue one. All that means is maybe that they’re not allowed to confirm it, and therefore, they didn’t confirm it.

    Exactly… You win a free trip to Birfinistan

  24. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    He apparently doesn’t trust photographs, and claims from the State Department of Health. No matter what they do, it won’t be any evidence.

    He takes things and misquotes them. He then refuses to back up his statements, and expects others to accept it at face value.

  25. avatar
    richCares July 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    jtx, all 50 states certified Obama & McCain as being Eligible, here’s link of Hawaii’s signed and notorized certifcation of eligibilty. you can also find that all 50 states did the same. So your argument is moot. Obama was certified as being elegible! Why don’t you file charges against all those notaries

    link:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

  26. avatar
    Passerby July 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    Well, that is an interesting site. It almost looks official or something. Most of it does appear to be straight cut-and-paste from the State Department passport pages, but that page is something that doesn’t appear there. Very different writing style, as well.

    I found these two paragraphs particularly interesting:

    To be truthful people get US Passports everyday with short abstract version’s of their birth certificates that are missing a reference to their original birth “source documents” but the State Department can and does ask for source documents when there are questions or suspicions. You really can’t prove your citizenship without the signature of a witness and a written hospital report of your birth. Obama will not have to provide source documents of his birth but odds are you will be required to produce them if asked.

    Why take a chance on this when anyones birth certificate can easily have this information placed on your birth certificate with a simple request. This data is required to be kept on file by every hospital in the United States. There is no reason for it not to be on every birth certificate.

    My guess? Here it comes. One of the things I saw around the net that sparked my interest in this was a repeated claim that the COLB that was posted “wasn’t even enough to get a passport” because it didn’t have the hospital, doctor’s name, etc. But I flat-out knew that wasn’t true, because I’d gotten my passport with a certified copy of my birth certificate (from West Virginia) that had no more information on it than Obama’s did. (Less, in fact. It has exactly what the State Department requires, no more, no less.) So what on earth were they talking about? It made me skeptical of their claims from the very start.

    How many other people have done the same thing? Lots of people don’t have their original birth certificate, and lots of people must have obtained certified copies like mine and found that there was no problem with them. That undercuts that argument a bit, doesn’t it, that it’s not only false but obviously false to that great a number of people? It always amazed me, in fact, that people still claimed it, because it has to make anyone with this experience–and again, that’s probably a lot of people–immediately doubtful about what they’re saying.

    So I think this is meant to be an answer to anyone who would say, “But, but …. mine doesn’t have all that stuff, and it worked!” Sure, he says, maybe it did work but that’s only because you got lucky and they decided to let it pass. Uh huh.

    Sorry, long story. But that’s my theory anyway.

  27. avatar
    nBC July 23, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    But what about JTX, he never received evidence of Obama’s eligibility…

    😉

  28. avatar
    nbc July 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm #

    Very perceptive. Yes, the moving goalposts, the sloppiness in claims and arguments all were early on evidence to me of a ‘crackpot’ theory. Over time, the evidence of this has become stronger while the evidence of a true and legitimate controversy has remained absent.

  29. avatar
    Passerby July 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm #

    jtx-

    BUT – and I repeat myself once more – the issue is not in any respect about any form of BC (assuming he’s born in HI).

    The issue is that the man has never shown that he meets the elibibility requirements under the Constitution to hold the office he now seems to so enjoy occupying.

    Since I’m new here, will you humor me here? If he was born in Hawaii, what is the issue? Does it hinge on the definition of “natural born citizen”? Is your claim that “natural born citizen” means something different from a citizen at birth? Is there documentation that such a difference is legally recognized?

    Or are you saying something else entirely? I’m just not clear on what it is you’re claiming.

    If you’ve answered the question elsewhere, a link would suffice. Just trying to keep up here. Thanks.

  30. avatar
    richCares July 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    All state certifications have the following statement included:
    “…candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under provisions of the United States Constitution:”

    “Legally qualified”, this is much too difficult for jtx to grasp.

  31. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Which is funny, because I used COLB’s issued by the State of California for both mine and my daughter’s passports.

    And the State of Hawaii has said their COLB is accepted by the State Department, so let’s see what their requirements are, shall we?

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html#PrimaryEvCitiz

    * Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
    * Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
    * Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
    * Naturalization Certificate
    * Certificate of Citizenship

    And since the COLB is what the State of Hawaii issues, it meets the State Department requirements for primary evidence.

  32. avatar
    BlackLion July 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    The more telling thing about the site is that of all 50 states in the Union, it decides to use the state of Hawaii COLB as an example. The site seems to be almost official, like it wants you to believe that, but it seems to be set up to discredit the COLB that the President has submitted.

  33. avatar
    Passerby July 23, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Not only that—it’s Obama’s. I just noticed that.

    I find that hilarious. I’m kind of easily amused, though.

  34. avatar
    Jeff R July 23, 2009 at 8:34 pm #

    My wife received a COLB from the state of Louisiana when she applied for a passport. What she got looks almost exactly like Obama’s COLB from Hawaii. The State Department had no problem issuing her a passport, based on it.

    Funny how events in the real world contradict the Birthers’ fantasies, isn’t it?

  35. avatar
    BlackLion July 23, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    It is funny…It smells like a birther set up…To make someone that may not be aware of the actual situation believe that the President’s COLB is somehow insuffcient….

  36. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 23, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    Right of the State Dept website …

    Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

    NOTE: If you do not have primary evidence of U.S. citizenship or your U.S. birth certificate does not meet the requirements, please see Secondary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship.

  37. avatar
    kimba July 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    Just looked at the site. It’s a thinly disguised birther site. They even used Obama’s COLB as their example of what wouldn’t pass muster. Read the last paragraph that talks about Obama’s father, Obama’s race as mulatto. Disgusting.
    Last line, last paragraph:
    “There is no legitimate reason to issue a birth certificate without this vital information other than it cannot be submitted because it does not exist or there is something to hide.”
    Birther propaganda.

  38. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

    And your argument that statement applies to Hawaii’s COLB is…? (What, exactly, does the State Department require that Hawaii’s COLB lacks?)

  39. avatar
    Kansasguy July 23, 2009 at 11:43 pm #

    There is a definite difference between a citizen and a “natural born” citizen. The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born U.S. citizen. It is the only job in this country with that requirement. The founders were concerned about the Commander-in-Chief of the military having absolute allegiance to this nation.

    Unfortunately, the Founders did not define natural born. The only time the definition has been addressed since the writing of the Constitution was in the case Minor v. Happersett. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that a person born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents was natural born. The court stated that there was doubt whether a person born under different circumstances was natural born. That is where we stand today.

    Obama thus has one definite problem – his father was not a U.S. citizen. Another problem is that he has not produced to the public a long-form birth certificate showing the hospital in which he was born and the attending physician. The third problem is that, even if the U.S. Supreme Court somehow held that Obama was a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, he might have relinquished that status when he apparently became a citizen of Indonesia (as is shown in an A.P. photo of his school registration).

    This is why people who claim this issue is settled are either ignorant or dishonest.

  40. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 23, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    A COLB is a short (abstract) version of the birth record kept on file.

    That’s why people (Berg) want to see the long version (non-abstract).

    The State Dept note some COLBs, even if they have a raised seal and signatures, have to have secondary evidence.

    Why? Because COLBs like BO are insufficient to serve as primary evidence.

  41. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2009 at 12:45 am #

    Why? Because COLBs like BO are insufficient to serve as primary evidence.

    Again: What makes a Hawaiian COLB insufficient for the State Department?

  42. avatar
    NBC July 24, 2009 at 12:45 am #

    Sven A COLB is a short (abstract) version of the birth record kept on file.

    That’s why people (Berg) want to see the long version (non-abstract).

    The State Dept note some COLBs, even if they have a raised seal and signatures, have to have secondary evidence.

    Why? Because COLBs like BO are insufficient to serve as primary evidence.

    Not it’s because some states provide for long forms, unlike Hawaii.

    Your arguments are so silly my dear friend and contradicted by your own sources. Some short forms are insufficient because by state law they are not. Hawaii has, per state law, ruled that the short form is the only birth certificate it provides.

    It’s time for Sven to accept the facts rather than live in his imaginary world where he gets to misinterpret the facts.

  43. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 12:48 am #

    “Read the last paragraph that talks about Obama’s father, Obama’s race as mulatto. Disgusting.”

    Mulatto? I thought he was an octaroon – or is it macaroon? (ba-dump)

    Which has been my contention all the time: this is about pigmentation, not documentation. There was a posting about ‘wetback babies infecting the country.’ Excuse me while I vom.

    Whenever someone says ‘this is not about race,’ my reaction is ROTFL.

  44. avatar
    Mary Brown July 24, 2009 at 1:00 am #

    Why do you need to see who the doctor was? If the state took the info from the long form, what is your question? My Trascript of birth from NY has basically the same infor as Obama’s. I can get a passport and run for President. Where does the Constitution say that I need to provide a doctors or hospital name? It does not. Obama has provided all that is legally required. It is the law not your curiosity that counts. Again, I can use my Transcript of birth as proof that I am a Natural Born Citizen and can run for President.

  45. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    misha says:
    July 24, 2009 at 12:48 am

    Whenever someone says this is not about race,’ my reaction is ROTFL.

    “Now I want you to know, I’m not a racist, but . . . .”

    When you hear those words, you already know what the rest of the sentence is going to be.

  46. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    “This is why people who claim this issue is settled are either ignorant or dishonest.”

    Don’t look in the mirror.

  47. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    ““Now I want you to know, I’m not a racist, but . . . .”

    What’s the difference between a fairy tale and a truck driver’s story?

    A fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time…”
    A truck driver’s story begins, “Now, this is no bullshit.”

  48. avatar
    NBC July 24, 2009 at 1:20 am #

    Sven: Why? Because COLBs like BO are insufficient to serve as primary evidence.

    That’s a total misrepresentation of fact. COLB’s like Obama’s can be sufficient when the state only uses COLBs.

    Your comments lack in veracity.

  49. avatar
    myson July 24, 2009 at 1:30 am #

    Kansasguys tell fibs, the Minor case claimed there was doubt but Wong v Kim resolved that doubt. A person born a Us citizen is entitled to ALL rights & privileges without exception.
    Check more on this site as per the cases

  50. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 24, 2009 at 2:43 am #

    There is a definite difference between a citizen and a “natural born” citizen. The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born U.S. citizen. It is the only job in this country with that requirement. The founders were concerned about the Commander-in-Chief of the military having absolute allegiance to this nation.

    Only one difference legally. Natural-Born Citizens are eligible to be President. Naturalized citizens are not. Oh, and there’s one other job with that requirement, it’s called the Vice Presidency. That’s why we get to use people like Charles Curtis, George M. Dallas, Spiro Agnew, as well as Chester A. Arthur as people there.

    My question is Chester A. Arthur a Natural-Born Citizen? Under your definition, both his mother and his father would have to be. Can you prove that his mother was? His mother was a Native American, who at the time, some tribes were barred from even being Naturalized in the United States. So, can you be certain that Charles Curtis’s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth?

    What about Spiro Agnew? Were his parents, who were both Greek Immigrants, U.S. Citizens before Spiro Agnew was born? Do you have positive proof of that at the time?

    What about George M. Dallas, who was born to Alexander James Dallas? Alexander James Dallas was born in Jamaica. Do you have positive proof that Alexander James Dallas was Naturalized before George M. Dallas was born? It would seem that this would be neccessary to prove your little theory.

    What about Chester A. Arthur, who was sworn in as both Vice President and President? His father was not a U.S. Citizen when he was born, and things have shown that this was known at the time that he was being sworn in. My question is why his opponents, who knew about this, didn’t use this against him, when they tried everything else to get him disqualified, if it’s so cut-and dry as it seems?

    1. Minor v. Happersett: the decision went into a side-argument on whether or not Minor was actually a citizen. It used de Vattel to argue whether or not Minor was an actual citizen. I hope you’re not arguing that Barack Obama isn’t a citizen because of his parents? Furthermore, that interpretation of citizenship was thrown out and overruled with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Furthermore, the court never stated whether or not the de Vattel interpretation was true in Minor v. Happersett. It just stated that since Minor fit the narrowest version of the definition, it was not neccessary to decide that.

    Obama thus has one definite problem – his father was not a U.S. citizen. Another problem is that he has not produced to the public a long-form birth certificate showing the hospital in which he was born and the attending physician. The third problem is that, even if the U.S. Supreme Court somehow held that Obama was a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, he might have relinquished that status when he apparently became a citizen of Indonesia (as is shown in an A.P. photo of his school registration).

    1. It’s not a problem. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark said that parentage doesn’t matter if you were born in the United States.

    2. He doesn’t need to release a long-form birth certificate. That’s like saying that you need to release your tax return to prove what your social security number is. It’s not neccessary. The COLB, the only document that Hawaii gives out, says that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is primary evidence accepted by the Federal Government that it is true.

    3. That’s not any sort of problem, and if you’re stating that is, you don’t know your case law. Read a case called Perkins v. Elg. This was a case where Elg, a minor and someone born in the United States, having citizenship from the United States from birth, was taken when she was still a minor by her parents to Sweden. There, she was naturalized by the Swedish Government and obtained Swedish Citizenship. She then returned to the United States before she reached the age of Majority, and continued living there. Not only did the Supreme Court say that she never lost her citizenship, they affirmed a ruling from a lower court that called her a Natural-Born Citizen.

    Furthermore, directly in the opinion of the court, the Supreme Court said that parents cannot give up the citizenship of their children. A child who went to Indonesia at 6-years-old, and returned to the United States and continued living since he was 10, would fall under this precedent of not ever giving up his U.S. citizenship, whether or not he ever obtained Indonesian Citizenship. So, tell me again, why whether or not he had Indonesian Citizenship has any bearing on whether or not he’s currently a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen?

  51. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 5:35 am #

    What’s really behind this, cont.

    From obambi.com:

    “What do expect from low class nigga’s”

    “you sawz it on da intanet so et muzz be true!!”

  52. avatar
    Lupin July 24, 2009 at 6:14 am #

    I was hoping, nay, praying that we French could play even a tiny part in that hilarious psychodrama live performance art that lunatic American birthers have created/continue to create…

    The news that one of them has chosen to “anonymize” himself behind some kind of French entity warms the cockles of my heart.

    I say bravo!

    It’s a small part but we’ll do our best to be worthy.

    With photoshop, I’m sure I can produce a jpg of a French birth certificate “proving” that President Obama was really born in France. Any takers?

  53. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 24, 2009 at 7:05 am #

    The State Dept is not advocating a change in Hawaii law. The State Dept requires additional evidence when a state declares a COLB, such as Hawaii’s, to be a valid BC and the only BC available.

    If it the on BC available, then a Hawaii born passport applicant will have to produce additional evidence as proof of citizenship to obtain a passport. Or, in the alternative, the Hawaii born passport applicant can give up and not travel to foreign ports of entry.

    Do I need to explain how the people advocating a COLB was good enough for them to obtain a passport doesn’t change US State Dept requirements for proof of citizenship?

  54. avatar
    Welsh Dragon July 24, 2009 at 7:49 am #

    If anyone is passing this info on you might want to make sure you don’t accidently refer to passportusa.com which may well be a legitimate site but completely irrelevent to our purposes.

    I happened to just stumble across it a few weeks ago while seeking some visa info.

  55. avatar
    IcanChangeMyScreenName? July 24, 2009 at 8:37 am #

    This is interesting … from The Obama File

    Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.

    Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.

  56. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 24, 2009 at 8:42 am #

    Thank you, IcanChangeMyScreenName?.

    You seem to be an astute and intelligent poster with uncompromised opinions on this serious issue of usurpation.

  57. avatar
    IcanChangeMyScreenNameCousinBill July 24, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    I think there are only a few dozen people on this site with many different screen names to appear as if the majority is fine with BO’s COLB.

  58. avatar
    Rita July 24, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    icancangemyscreenname – first, there is no independent description of when it stopped being in effect – i.e. nothing from the State of Hawaii indicating when it stopped being in effect, just random blogs. Also, just taking a look at it on its face, you can’t just walk up and say hello, my son was born here, they must fill out an application and the application is made under oath, and they had to provide affidavits that were made under oath, and then the authorities could grill them under oath as well – notice how many times the words under oath come up? In addition, they likely didn’t have too many hospitals out there in the Territory in 1911, especially considering it wasn’t a state until much later – so they did the next best thing, which is to get people to swear under oath multiple times and be subject to perjury. Notice also the words prima facie evidence, even in the 1911 law – that means a rebuttable presumption that the certificate is valid. You can scream “OMG! They could have lied under oath!” all you want, but it seems like the remedy is not to invalidate a birth certificate that has been created based on information provided under oath multiple times and is valid on its face.

  59. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 9:54 am #

    That’s the whine of the birthers: Wah, there’s only a couple of people who support Obama. Wah, they use multiple screen names so it looks like there’s more. Wah, someone get my binky!
    Take that weak sh!t back to your birther sites Sven.

  60. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 9:55 am #

    Like I said above, it’s not a legitimate site, read the last paragraph. Nice try at pimping the site, but your linky-back no worky.

  61. avatar
    Rita July 24, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    Oh, and even if false information did somehow get into the original document back in 1961, both the original the birthers are screaming about and the COLB will have that same exact information. They are the mirror of each other, except for the removal of irrelevant information in the COLB. The employees and officials of the Hawaii Department of Health simply take the information from the original and put it in the COLB, swearing under oath that it is the same information – so you’re basically saying that asking for the original would be a waste of time, which it is 🙂

  62. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2009 at 10:28 am #

    The State Dept requires additional evidence when a state declares a COLB, such as Hawaii’s, to be a valid BC and the only BC available.

    Look at the State Department’s site, and try again.

    Do I need to explain how the people advocating a COLB was good enough for them to obtain a passport doesn’t change US State Dept requirements for proof of citizenship?

    Yes, because you are making it up as you go.

  63. avatar
    capt July 24, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    When all the states stopped using actual “copies” of birth records (read microfiche) and converted to digital processing – the data is there and bona fide but “copies” are no longer xerox copies of the original. The states also converted to digital before document scanning and automated scanned document reading was cost effective to use.

    There is no other offical “copy” – no such thing as a long form unless someone kept their original (which some people do) or had a copy from before the digital era.

  64. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    I think there are only a few dozen people on this site with many different screen names to appear as if the majority is fine with BO’s COLB.

    The exact same accusation can be lobbed at Taitz and her site.

    If you have evidence that a majority are not, then cite your evidence.

  65. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    Bob says:

    I think there are only a few dozen people on this site with many different screen names to appear as if the majority is fine with BO’s COLB.

    The exact same accusation can be lobbed at Taitz and her site.

    Well, there you have it. Incontrovertible proof from the Obama hater crowd.

    “After careful analysis of the number of screen names, and cross-checked by careful ciphering, one can only conclude that people who can factually debunk bir’fer claims number only one, pretending to be many . . . but we bir’fers, we are legion.

  66. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 10:58 am #

    Saying that someone could have lied, is not the same as proving that they did lie.

    As you claim others are doing here . . .

    YOU could be using many different screen names

    Saying that, however, is not proof that you have done so.

    Why is it that this simple distinction escapes bir’fers?

  67. avatar
    NBC July 24, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    Hahaha…

  68. avatar
    NBC July 24, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    Obama does not have a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

  69. avatar
    NBC July 24, 2009 at 11:04 am #

    The majority is fine with President Obama’s eligibility status. There is a small group of people who seem to want to remove a duly elected president through non-constitutional means.

  70. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    Lupin says:

    Any takers?

    Nah, I’m holding out for when the shape-shifting repto-humanoid Venusians arrive with their JPEG copy of the certificate.

    Sorry.

  71. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    pffffffffffffffffft … dammit, ther went another monitor screen.

  72. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    “Take that weak sh!t back to your birther sites Sven.”

    You took the words out of my mouth.

  73. avatar
    NBC July 24, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    Certificate of Hawaiian Birth

    The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

    Obama’s birth was registered 4 days after he was born.

    Next ‘controversy’ please… Hilarious how the ‘evidence’ so quickly falls apart on scrutiny.
    The efforts some go through to ignore that the COLB shows Obama born in Hawaii and that his birth was registered 4 days later.
    Astute indeed…

  74. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 11:15 am #

    I thought the Venusians would be waaay past jpeg by now. That algorithm is so 2009.

  75. avatar
    Lupin July 24, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    I think the usurper is a commoner who looks just like Obama and…

    Oh, wait, no that’s THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER.

    (Or THE PRISONER OF ZENDA.)

    Speaking of which, would you be interested in buying some prime real estate in Ruritania?

  76. avatar
    Lupin July 24, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Venusians are soooo yesterday.

    For a credible subversive usurper, since the fall of Communism, you need him to be either from Mordor or from France.

    After all, it was THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (scary ooooo), not THE KENYAN CANDIDATE (not so scary).

  77. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    At least Citroen is more reliable than Rootes. (bada-bing)

  78. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972

    You’ve cited the law as it was written in 1911.

    Can you cite the law as it was written in 1961?

  79. avatar
    CousinEsther July 24, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Act 96 …

    “The Secretary, with the approval of the Governor, may make regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, place and manner of hearing, and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application, proof and hearing as to him may appear necessary …” blah blah blah.

    We wuz scammed by a bunch a commies !!!!!

  80. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    Act 96 reads as passed in 1911

    Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii

    SECTION 1 The Secretary of Hawaii may whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. The Secretary with the approval of the Governor may make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates the method of proof kind of evidence and time place and manner of hearing and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application proof and hearing as to him may appear necessary and such regulations when so approved and published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Territory shall have the force of law and such publication shall be deemed legal notice to all persons The Secretary may furnish the form of such applications and certificates All applications shall be by sworn petition in which the party shall set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which his application rests and shall be accompanied by sworn affidavits of witnesses The Secretary and such persons as he may designate and appoint may examine under oath any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application and for that purpose he and they are hereby authorized and empowered to administer oaths subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books1 and papers punish for contempts and generally to exercise the same authority with regard to their special jurisdiction as is by law conferred on District Magistrates

  81. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    re: Venusians are soooo yesterday.

    I stand corrected.

    However, it still cannot be France.

    It has to be Britain.

    That is the only country possible, since the BNA somehow trumps the laws of other sovereign nations.

  82. avatar
    glamourdammerung July 24, 2009 at 12:23 pm #

    “You seem to be an astute and intelligent poster with uncompromised opinions”

    There is a lot of difference between opinion and fact.

  83. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    I am selling real estate in Tunisia, Threenesia, Teflondia, and Souvlakia. Birfistan is all built out – no more lots available.

    My company’s attorneys is the firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. Transportation to any of these countries is on the Lionel and American Flyer Railroad, tickets available at the gate, from our feline conductor.

  84. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    de Vattel is passe: “The basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Torah.”

  85. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    Again, I asked a specific question. I gave you a list of what the State Department requires on their birth certificates. My question is very simple. What does the Hawaii COLB lack that is required by the State Department to issue a passport? Why would you say that it doesn’t comply with that list?

    Oh, and look up the definition of SOME. SOME is a subset of ALL. The fact that they used SOME also means that not every short-form is ineligible to be used as primary evidence. Therefore, my question still stands. What exactly does the Hawaii COLB lack that would lead you to believe that it can’t be used as primary evidence?

    By the way, I used my short-form birth certificate and got a passport just last month. I didn’t have to submit one ounce of secondary evidence. The State Department accepted it as Primary Evidence.

  86. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    From your lips to God’s ear.

  87. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 24, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    I did it from Oregon just last month to apply for a passport. I only used my short-form birth certificate that was issued 10 years ago. State Department accepted it as Primary Evidence.

  88. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    My birth certificate is written in Yiddish. Is that kosher? (ba-dump)

    There are several anti-Obama radio stations mentioned here. I can’t listen to them because the string between the tin cans is broken. (bada-bing)

    I lived in Taiwan for several years. My wife’s family adopted me. Did I lose my US citizenship? (ba-dump)

    Most urologists are Jewish. They get good tips. (bada-bing)

  89. avatar
    Welsh Dragon July 24, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    Kimba

    Read my post more carefully – passportsusa.com is clearly a birther scam but passportusa.com – note passport not passportS – may be a legitimate site for healhcare professionals wanting to work in the USA!

    And whats with the ‘your linky-backy no worky’ ? Don’t we get enough racist language from the birthers without the rational side of the argument joining in!

  90. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Well, that covers me.

  91. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    Yeah, Orly is a refusenik, and she is advocating mob rule. The irony.

  92. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    Oh, get over yourself.

  93. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    HAHAHA!! misha is on a roll today!

    As far as the Taiwan thing, I think it only cancels out your US citizenship if it’s a predominately Muslim country.

    Here’s my favorite anti-Obama sign evah:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/broccoli/2856705696/

    Funny, I imagine him more as a high-thread-count combed cotton: soft to the touch, but holds up well.

  94. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    An American woman goes to France, and sees a Jewish man who she thinks is French. She starts speaking to him in poor French. He replies, “Lady, do me a favor. Speak English.”

    A Jewish man goes to a bullfight ring in Spain. He goes to the back of the arena, and sees a man say to the doorkeeper “toreador.” The doorkeeper lets him in. Then another man walks up and says “matador.” The doorkeeper lets him in.

    The Jewish man walks up to the doorkeeper and says “Isadore.” The doorkeeper replies “Izzy, was machst du?”

  95. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    I always thought he was a wool blend. Wait – muslin? I never knew Obama worked in a photography studio.

  96. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    “the BNA somehow trumps the laws of other sovereign nations.”

    Amazing coincidence.

  97. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    I might get scolded for this, but:
    http://www.probackdrops.com/backdrops/muslin_backdrops/traditional/69_10_x12__black_muslin.html

  98. avatar
    Black Lion July 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Interesting article on the so called players in the birther movement. It is worth a read…

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200907230036

    As an aside it is interesting how a lot of the birhters and loons on the right have focused on the whole Professor Gates and the Cambridge police incident and President Obama’s remarks as him trying to focus on race and take the focus off the birhters and the healthcare issue. Some of the comments over at the rTSOL are humorous, and not in a good way.

  99. avatar
    Black Lion July 24, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    This site should be shut down. I can see someone that has no clue about this entire issue believing the crap that they are putting on here. The focus on attempting to discredit the COLB by Hawaii and posting selective information has gone beyond the “show us the BC” crowd. As we have seen that even if some sort of long form was created, although we know it can’t as per HI law, the birthers would move the goalposts by saying either it is a forgery or that it doesn’t matter by making up the phony 2 parents have to be citizens requirements or somehow the British Nationality act carries more weight in America than the US Constitution and US law. Remember any judges that rule against them are part of the conspiracy. So nothing will ever satisfy them and we will all be here a year from now after 30 more cases have been thrown out.

  100. avatar
    Black Lion July 24, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    Another interesting article from regarding this issue. You know how the birthers claim that if this issue had been raised or if McCain had been aware of it during the election then maybe they would have used it to defeat then Senator Obama. Well the Mccain / Palin campaign was aware of the issue regarding the birthplace of President Obama.

    An interesting quote from the article states…

    “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

    Or this quote…

    “But the flawed conception of the many “birther” lawsuits, coupled with the inexperience and foul-ups of “birther” lawyers, have only fed the frenzy over Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president of the United States. A survey of the lawsuits filed against Obama reveals a reliance on widely debunked rumors, bogus stories sourced back to web sites, affidavits from “experts” who refuse to provide credentials or even their real names, and frequent and blatant misunderstandings of basic constitutional law. The dismissal of “birther” lawsuits has allowed conspiracy theorists to believe that the information in those suits is accurate–a belief that manifests itself in the emails, phone calls, and town hall meeting rants that have pushed the theories into the mainstream media and the halls of Congress.”

    So the question is that if the lawyers for the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t want to go near this issue with a 10 foot pole, why now does some fringe GOP Congressman, Lou Dobbs, FOX, and the other people suddenly giving this crap and credibility at all.

  101. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    OT: for a washable, cheap, heavy duty backdrop I use two flat king sized sheets.

    After the shoot, I put them in the washer and dryer. Or, I can use them to make a costume. (Ow, stop hitting me)

    This is not a joke: When Harry Truman and his Jewish partner Eddie Jacobson co-owned their store, Klan members would buy the fabric to make their costumes from them. Why would the Klan buy from a Jewish merchant? Because he had the best prices in Kansas City. It’s in Plain Speaking.

  102. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Rounding third and headed for home:

    http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=390

  103. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    Because Viewers = Advertisers = $

    It’s summer, people are out enjoying the weather now. But the 3rd quarter ratings don’t come out until the end of Sep. What the networks can charge for advertising is based on their quarterly ratings. These networks love having a story they might be able to get some mileage out of.

  104. avatar
    FlameThrowerExtraordinaire July 24, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    “This site should be shut down.”

    – Black Lion

    We are starting to find common ground and have found something we can agree on.

  105. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    Even if WND reporter and Polarik were led to the “vault”, allowed to observe as gloved technicians removed the original Birth Certificate, allowed to examine and photograph said original, the birthers would find something wrong with it. By the way, CNN’s President Jon Klein says that Hawaiian officials told CNN that after the data from the old hard copy originals were entered into the database in 2001, they were destroyed.
    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp#more

  106. avatar
    misha July 24, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    G Gordon Liddy was on Hardball.

    Liddy is a convicted felon, for his part in the Watergate break-in. Liddy also plotted to assasinate Jack Anderson, but never got past the talking phase.

    You can google it.

  107. avatar
    BlackLion July 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    I hope you realize that I meant that fake USA Passport site owned by the birther. It is an obvious scam to fool people…As far as Dr. C’s site, it should go one for as long as possible…

  108. avatar
    BadAssMoFoTooOld4Arguendo July 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    McCain = Liddy = Too Old to take on Obama

    How about J.D. Hayworth or Joesph Farah? Let’s get someone on the MSM to argue the case that doesn’t have take their heart meds during the interview.

  109. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Actually – you’re wrong. There’s nothing at all interesting about that article.

    In addition it means nothing at all about Obama’s eligibility for the office he now occupies. Zip, zilch, zero, nada.

    Great waste of electrons, though.

  110. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    kimba:

    If your analysis is correct then they should be honestly be covering the eligibility issue instead of cooperating with Obama Kool Air drinkers (aka Forgers) about the COLB and such phony “documents” that are merely computer screen images.

    Now THAT would really draw attention.

  111. avatar
    milspec July 24, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    I’m afraid the good Dr.s site will have to go on after I’m dead, nothing will stop this madness, and I’m still sort of young.

  112. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    capt:

    It’s not nice of you to call the good folks running the HI vital statistics operation LIARS.

    They said, in writing, that the had Obamas original BC retained in their files. I’d believe them rather than Obama since he’s shown himself to be a serial liar.

  113. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    kimba:

    CNN’s Klein has either a hearing problem or a cognition problem since those in charge of the HI vital statistics have stated that they have Obama’s ORIGINAL bc on file.

    Are you going to try to pretend that means they only have its ashes in the vault???

  114. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Actually you are the one making [ad hominem deleted by management] comments in the post I’m responding to. You and the other Forgers seem to think that others are buying your pretense to help protect Obama that it’s a “birth certificate” issue.

    Several have pointed out, correctly, that is is an eligibility issue which Mr. O. has never shown (his eligibility under the Constitution, that is). I’d think all of you Forgery Fans would like to know that the man is legally Prez – or not, as the case may be.

    Perhaps, though, you really don’t give a rat’s ass whether the laws of the country are being violated or not but I’ll have to tell you that you are decidedly in the fringe because of that – and the issue is growning as your Forger’s Spin is wearing off.

    You misstate almost all in your post (but that’s not new) but especialy the bit about the BNA since it was your hero’s own website that put forward that information. Are you calling your boss a liar???

  115. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    Rita:

    Actually it is onlyt you Forgers that are screaming about the BC/COLB.

    As I’ve repeatedly pointed out the de facto fellow could have been born in Muleshoe, TX and he STILL would not be eligible … but he’d certainly have a shot at proving it in a court of law. It is, after all, a free country and one of laws also.

  116. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    NBC:

    You’ve either contradicted yourself or intentionally lied at least once in consecutive posts,

    But it really doesn’t matter since by this time most people with at least a double digit IQ realise that the issue is that the man has never shown himself to be eligible for the office hi how holds.

    You should be happy and relieved as an upstanding American (aren’t you?) that the man will get the chance to prove that in a court of law … right?

  117. avatar
    kimba July 24, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Don’t know. Actually, I double-checked, Klein says they were “discarded”, so no, there’s no ashes either. Sorry, the data in the data base that’s put into the fields on the Certification of Live Birth is all that’s left. Guess you guys are going to have to start asking for the Barack Obama data in the database. What a shame, ” show us the birth certificate” was so much catchier than “show us the Barack Obama data in the database.” And it doesn’t fit as well on a bumper sticker.

  118. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    IcanChangeMyScreenName?:

    Right – and I assume you know and have seen the “Hawaiian birth certificate” issued for the “founder of modern china” Sun Yat Sen???

    It’s widely available on the web.

    Keep in mind, though, that the real issue is eligibility for office – which has never been shown by Mr. O.

  119. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    IcanChangeMyScreenNameCousinBill:

    You’re probably right on target there – and that’s why they’re beginning to be known as “forgers”. Sort of like “birthers” but heedlessly illegal in what they do instead of wishing for the truth.

  120. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    misha:

    Certainly someone should have!!!

  121. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    NBC:

    Wrong-o!! Most people are genuinely – and rightly – beginning to wonder about Obama’s eligibility. The number is getting larger all the time and he will be required by the courts to show concl;usively that he is eligible … which he actually have done well before the election.

    The Beltway Bastards had a chance to give him “cover” when they tried to do so with McCain in HR511 but didn’t even though Obama was one of the sponsors and voted for HR511.

    Or perhaps you’ve not read the resolution>

  122. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:36 pm #

    NbC:

    As usual, spouting nonsense to try to avoid the eligibility issue.

  123. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:39 pm #

    And Liddy fumbled around unaware of the facts version the fiction

  124. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Just for JTX I have done some more research

    The Steinkauler case, which I discussed before, is very relevant. First it established that the term native born’ is equivalent to the term natural born’ and that a native born American citizen … can become President of the United States’. Furthermore, his native born nationality can be supplemented with an acquired nationality without him losing his native born status as long as he decides when reaching the age of majority to take his nationality of birth. The logical consequence is that since Obama was born on US soil, he was a native/natural born citizen of the United States, even though his status was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Since Obama chose to not pursue his secondary nationality which he acquired’ through his father and since noone can deny him his birthright, Obama had the right to determine when reaching the age of majority, if he wanted to continue his birthright US citizenship. In addition, even if Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship, in contradiction of Indonesian laws, his parents cannot deprive him of his birthright US citizenship and since Obama returned to the US well before reaching the age of majority, his never abandoned his birthright citizenship.

    In Steinkauler’s case (15 Op Atty Gen 15 12 Alb L.J. 23) in an opinion by Mr Pierrepont Attorney General of the US we have the following .Young Steinkauler who was born in St Louis after his father had been naturalized in the United States the father subsequently returning to Germany and taking the boy with him is a native born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty one and in due time if the people elect he can become President of the United States but the father in accordance with the treaty and the laws has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority and receiving the German protection where he has an acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of his intention of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here

  125. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    JTX: Several have pointed out, correctly, that is is an eligibility issue which Mr. O. has never shown (his eligibility under the Constitution, that is). I’d think all of you Forgery Fans would like to know that the man is legally Prez – or not, as the case may be.

    Obama has shown that he is a native and natural born citizen of the United States.

    What that means can be read here

  126. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    On the contrary, I have done my homework, while you have done nothing than assert…

    What that means can be read here

  127. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    JTX: Wrong-o!! Most people are genuinely – and rightly – beginning to wonder about Obama’s eligibility.

    Note the absence of any supporting data or evidence.

    Typical

    JTX: The Beltway Bastards had a chance to give him “cover” when they tried to do so with McCain in HR511 but didn’t even though Obama was one of the sponsors and voted for HR511.

    Unlike McCain, there was no controversy surrounding Obama’s eligibility

  128. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    JTX: Right – and I assume you know and have seen the “Hawaiian birth certificate” issued for the “founder of modern china” Sun Yat Sen???

    Since Obama never had a Certification of Hawaiian Birth, not a Hawaiian birth certificate, which was available per statute for children older than 1 year.

    Of course, Obama’s BC was dated 4 days after his birth and was not what you inappropriately describe as Sun Yat Sen’s “birth certificate”.

    Research the facts, for goodness sake.

  129. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    Dr C has a good article on this.

  130. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    NBC:

    You quite misstated what was said – but that’s the way with you “Forgers”.

  131. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    JTX: As I’ve repeatedly pointed out the de facto fellow could have been born in Muleshoe, TX and he STILL would not be eligible … but he’d certainly have a shot at proving it in a court of law. It is, after all, a free country and one of laws also.

    Still no argument to support his vacuous statement. Is that not hilarious…

    As to why Obama, as a native born citizen is eligible to be President see ths Case involving Steinkauler

  132. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    JTX: You quite misstated what was said – but that’s the way with you “Forgers”.

    How can I misstate Polarik’s own words?

    The facts speak for themselves, your interpretation runs counter to know facts. I can understand your confusion as Polarik made the same logical error.

    You’re welcome my friend.

  133. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

    Florida currently uses electronic only record of birth for newborns.

    I imagine, in 35 years or so, when bir’fers are still arguing this issue, that anyone wanting to run for President and also a Florida resident should, first, check to see if their parents retroactively inserted a birth announcement in a Florida newspaper and, secondly, whether or not the BNA still supercedes U.S. sovereignty.

    Making sure one is absolutely and incontrovertibly from the appropriate race and/or religion probably would be a good idea also.

  134. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    I liked jd better as a local weatherman.

  135. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    Seems JTX has gone quiet again 🙂
    I understand… Don’t worry my friend, I do understand.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    Reminds me of the fake Soetoro profile on classmates.com.

  137. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 9:16 pm #

    AdrianinFlorida:

    You’re barking up the wrong tree … I’ve never said he was born elsewhere but the state of HI as stated that they have his original BC in their files. Are you thinking that the HI officials are liars???

    I’ve also said – so frequently that it’s hard to believe you haven’t noticed – that even if he were born in Pocatella, ID that would STILL not prove he were eligible under our country’s laws.

    But I guess you “Forgers” think it’s just fine to have a criminal as Prez??? Must fit right in with the rest of you guys and girls I guess.

  138. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    JTX: But I guess you “Forgers” think it’s just fine to have a criminal as Prez??? Must fit right in with the rest of you guys and girls I guess.

    This is not about Bush, it’s about our current President JTX.
    Of course, you have yet to show that the president is ineligible. A task which you seem to be unable to accomplish

  139. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    Passerby:

    Yes, what I’m saying that birth in HI is not at all sufficient. The terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are not the same thing. The Constitution specifies “natural born citizen” and Obama has never shown that he meets that requirement.

    In fact, his own website for over a year (but now “disappeared”) had the following statement:

    “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.”

    Note that last sentence, That makes the man anything other than a “natural born citizen” BUT he’s welcome to prove it in a court of law. After all, he’s sworn in signed statement that he is both a NBC and eligible under the Constitution. Soon he’ll have a shot at proving it in court.

    The courts cannot let the issue go unresolved mush longer since far too much is at stake for our country. Can you imaging the damage that will have been caused if Obama is found to be ineligible? Or if he’s ineligible and remains in office??

    Or perhaps you are one of those who think that laws don’t matter if the “right” guy is elected?

  140. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    JYX: Yes, what I’m saying that birth in HI is not at all sufficient. The terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are not the same thing. The Constitution specifies “natural born citizen” and Obama has never shown that he meets that requirement.

    In fact, Steinkauler shows that indeed Obama is a native and natural born citizen. Of course, there is no law which requires Obama to prove this in court and plaintiffs who are trying to abuse the legal system to get a duly elected president removed are finding out the hard way about the Constitutional Doctrine of standing.

    Citizen: Natural/Native born citizens and naturalized citizens.
    Obama is not a naturalized citizen but rather by virtue of his birth on US soil a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President.

    Simple facts.
    I am glad that you finally got the quote corrected.

  141. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    JTX: The courts cannot let the issue go unresolved mush longer since far too much is at stake for our country. Can you imaging the damage that will have been caused if Obama is found to be ineligible? Or if he’s ineligible and remains in office??

    Your reasons as to why the courts must address the issue lack in legal foundation. The courts typically refuse to address hypothetical questions and observe the lack in standing to raise them.

    Sorry my friend… Obama is eligible, as he is a natural born citizen. Best of luck in 2012.

  142. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    Sorry Mary Brown but no rational Federal court would accept that sort of reasoning in such an adversarial proceeding.

    That’s like saying “trust me” – and we’ve already seen what THAT gets us to. A real document in the courts hot little hands (and certified appropriately by the state) would most likely do the trick.

    But – pay attention once again now. The BC is a necessary but not sufficient bit of fact in a set of facts require to prove eligibility. No matter where he was born (Scuitate, MA pronbably) he would still not be a natural born citizen per the Constitution. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

  143. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    NbC:

    The law that governs is the United States Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Nor did Congress accepting the EC results “cetify” the man’s eligibility in any was. Read your Constitution. They did not follow the procedure required by the Constitution in any event but he’s never been “certified” by anyone or anything EVER.

  144. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    JTX: But – pay attention once again now. The BC is a necessary but not sufficient bit of fact in a set of facts require to prove eligibility. No matter where he was born (Scuitate, MA pronbably) he would still not be a natural born citizen per the Constitution. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    It’s not hard to understand what you are saying, it’s the lack of a logical, credible, comprehensive argument. In fact, the lack of any kind of argument. good thing that the courts have a different opinion than your wishful dreams.

  145. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    JTX: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Hmmm, nothing about President Obama being required to show his eligibility. Of course, we do know that Amendment 12 and 20 corrected this oversight and granted certification and qualification to Congress, where it of course should belong.

    Let me help you out here

    Afterwards however in Convention the words natural born citizen were stricken out and the word native was substituted as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention for natural born citizen might have had some reference to the manner of birth while the word native would refer more particularly to the place of birth

    Source: Debates and proceedings in the New-York state convention By New York (State). Constitutional Convention, Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, 1846

    Cheers my friend

  146. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    NbC:

    He most likely IS ineligible but what I have actually pointed out is that the man has never shown himself to be eligible as required by law. He’s the one that panted and lied for the job and all its perquisites … now he gets to prove conclusively (that does not mean “trust me!” of “would I lie?”) – it means prove it definitively in a Federal court of law with public knowledge of what’s going on.

    Stop trying to put your Forger’s words in my mouth.

  147. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    JTX: He most likely IS ineligible but what I have actually pointed out is that the man has never shown himself to be eligible as required by law.

    A few problems. First of all there is no such law that requires the President to show himself to be eligible. That’s just your imagination and no ” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ” does not say anything to that extent. Furthermore, the mere likelihood that he is ineligible is no foundation for stating that he is.

    JTX: He’s the one that panted and lied for the job and all its perquisites … now he gets to prove conclusively (that does not mean “trust me!” of “would I lie?”) – it means prove it definitively in a Federal court of law with public knowledge of what’s going on.

    No such requirements exist as the courts have continued to rule when rejecting the standing issue.

    Bummer, interesting idea though but it failed many months earlier and you have no chance to get standing on this issue. None at all. Such is the Constitution.

  148. avatar
    jtx July 24, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    Passerby:

    States differ greatly in what they do and what various entities within the states will and will not allow. I doubt is helps much to genralize since we’re talking about a specific state here – HI.

    Over and above all that, though, is the fact that no matter what the real BC might show (unless it shows him to NOT be US born … which I doubt will be the case) the man is STILL not eligible or at least has not proven himself to be so. THAT’S the issue – not the BC.

    Remember that Obama himself had stated on his website that he was governed by the same laws as his father – the British Nationlity Act of 1948 which in and of itself makes him not eligible.

  149. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    JTX: Over and above all that, though, is the fact that no matter what the real BC might show (unless it shows him to NOT be US born … which I doubt will be the case) the man is STILL not eligible or at least has not proven himself to be so

    Well, we are moving away from ‘not eligible’ to ‘not proven to be so’. Of course, there is no law which requires the President to show himself to be eligible. The article cited by JTX does not make any such statements and indeed later amendments clearly suggest that such powers reside in Congress.

  150. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    As to who decides

    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.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    jtx, exhibiting his willingness to speak authoritatively about things he knows nothing about, said: “States differ greatly in what they do and what various entities within the states will and will not allow. I doubt is helps much to genralize [sic] since we’re talking about a specific state here – HI.”

    This is not true. Generally states are quite uniform in their birth registration processes because there is national “model legislation” that the vital statistics community lobbies their state legislatures to adopt. For example you can see Hawaii adopt foreign born adoption registration about 4 years after it was added to the model legislation.

  152. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 10:31 pm #

    McCAIN CAMPAIGN VETTED BIRTHER RUMORS

    Found … nothing of substance

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2009/07/24/mccain_birthers/

    Oooooh, I bet that hurts

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    And jtx has never told us what law requires a president to show himself eligible. JTX is required, however, by the law of this blog to show himself credible or waste his time.

  154. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    I see an essential contradiction in what jtx is saying. On the one hand he repeats over and over again that it is NOT the birth certificate, which I take to mean that he is not arguing Barack Obama was born outside the US. But then on the other hand JTX harps on the assertion that Barack Obama must prove that he is eligible. However, if the birth certificate is not the issue, then the facts are undisputed: that Barack Obama was born in the US and that both his parents were not American citizens. Since all the facts are known and undisputed, what is there for Barack Obama to “prove”?

    Is he supposed to sue himself to make the Supreme Court give an opinion? If it’s not the birth certificate, what is Barack Obama supposed to do in a concrete sense to meet jtx’s demands?

  155. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    The hopes by JTX that the courts can try the title of the President was resolved in 1887 when a bill was introduced to try the title of President Hayes.

    April 15 1878 Mr Kimmel introduced a bill which was never finally acted upon to provide a mode for trying and determining by the Supreme Court of the United States the title of the President and Vice President of the United States to take their respective offices when their election to such offices is denied by one or more of the States of the Union The question of the title of President was finally settled June 14 1878 by the following report of the House Judiciary Commitee

    Your committee are of the opinion that Congress has no power under the Constitution to confer upon the Supreme Court of the United States the original jurisdiction sought for it by this bill.

    Ouch

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    JTX, you have it backwards. The Birth Certificate is not necessary, but it is sufficient.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    JTX, you’re right. Birth in Hawaii is not sufficient. A president has to be 35 years old and have been a resident of the US for 14 years. Oh, and Obama Sr. must not have been the British Ambassador to the US.

    I continue to be amazed that the birthers still haven’t tried to turn Obama Sr. into some kind of heretofore unknown kind of Ambassador.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    JTX: The law that governs is the United States Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    I thought you said it was the British Nationality Act of 1948.

  159. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    Oh my. That is a serious complaint. I never listen to Dobbs myself.

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    Loved the movie (with Frank Sinatra).

  161. avatar
    Lollie July 24, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    jtx says:
    Perhaps, though, you really don’t give a rat’s ass whether the laws of the country are being violated or not

    So … what laws have been violated? Be sure to be specific.

    but I’ll have to tell you that you are decidedly in the fringe because of that – and the issue is growning as your Forger’s Spin is wearing off.

    After the McCain campaign has said that they vetted birther rumors and found nothing, I’m pretty sure Americans will know who’s in the fringe and who ain’t.

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    While you guests cannot see it, I can view the IP address of all the commenters. With the exception of a flurry of birther comments a few months ago from one person using several screen names, the folks who post here are distinct.

    Oh, and Sven is ICanChangeMyScreenName.

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    I know that some states, Illinois Ohio for one, are scanning digital images of the old forms.

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    Sven, if you get the proper documentation, you can register anybody in any state. In New Jersey, a local registrar slipped a couple extra into the stack coming from the hospital. There is always the remote possibility of fraud. BUT, there is no evidence whatever to contradict the reasonable and plausible truth that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Probably the only argument that exists that Obama was not born in Hawaii is that he is black, and that argument won’t get you very far with most people.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:41 pm #

    Thanks, WD. I added an extra note to the main article to clarify.

    I have also filed a complaint with the Office of the Inspector General, with the US Department of State about the bogus web site.

  166. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:42 pm #

    No Sven, you are the only one faking it.

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    Agnew’s parents were both US citizens when he was born. I researched that one. I’m not sure about Charles Curtis on his mother’s side.

  168. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    Some of my best friends are racists.

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    NBC: Not it’s because some states provide for long forms, unlike Hawaii.

    The days of the long form are numbered. I suspect they will all be gone for contemporary births before Obama is out of office.

    I got my birth certificate a dozen years or so ago. It was a “long form” and appeared to have been a microfilm record photocopied onto security paper, signed with seal affixed. What was interesting was that one of the two copies was slightly misaligned and showed a fraction of an inch more that it should, including a bit of the heading of the medical information that comprises the REAL long form, which nobody EVER gets to see. The “long form” is a fiction. The COLB and the “Alan” so-called long form from Hawaii are both abstracted records, and not the complete hospital report.

  170. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 12:16 am #

    Dobbs is a windbag. I watched his performance on the web.

  171. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 12:25 am #

    That’s exactly what Kimba figured out. Thanks for confirming it.

  172. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 12:30 am #

    “If it’s not the birth certificate, what is Barack Obama supposed to do in a concrete sense to meet jtx’s demands?”

    Have two white parents.

  173. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 12:39 am #

    “JTX is required, however, by the law of this blog to show himself credible or waste his time.”

    You mean this is not a democracy??

    jtx, egged on by Orly and Donofrio, is insisting that because of Obama’s father, he can never be NBC, and none of them will budge.

    Trying to argue with any of these fools is hitting your head against a brick wall.

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2009 at 12:46 am #

    I embarrassed to see someone of Dobb’s celebrity mouthing words that belong to the likes of JTX and Orly Taitz. Maybe he should be evaluated for dementia.

  175. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 25, 2009 at 12:49 am #

    Why shouldn’t he. You call them liars all the time, jtx.

    “It’s a valid state birth certificate.” Direct quote from the State Department of Health. Are you calling them liars?

  176. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 25, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    But does it cover the 4 people who might not have been born to American Citizens?

    Does it cover Spiro Agnew? Do you know when exactly his parents were naturalized? He could have been born to foreigners? His father was born in Greece.

    Does it cover Charles Curtis, who was born to a Native American mother, and actively was a part of an Native American Tribe. He was born at a time that many Native Americans were barred from having citizenship, so his mother could have very well not been a citizen. Do you have positive proof that Charles Curtis’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time that she gave birth to him?

    Does it cover Chester A. Arthur, who was born to someone who wasn’t a U.S. Citizen?

    Does it cover James Buchanan? His father was born in Ireland.

    Does it cover Andrew Johnson, who’s father was born in England, and mother was born in Ireland?

    Does it cover Woodrow Wilson, who’s mother was born in England?

    Does it cover Herbert Hoover, who’s mother was born in Canada?

    Does it cover George M. Dallas, who’s father was born in Jamaica?

    Does it cover Hubert Humpfrey, who’s mother was born in Norway?

    Gee, there’s a lot of people who were born to immigrants to this country who are considered Natural-Born Citizens.

  177. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 1:29 am #

    “Gee, there’s a lot of people who were born to immigrants to this country who are considered Natural-Born Citizens.”

    They were white, so it never came up before.

  178. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 1:52 am #

    “Some of my best friends are racists.”

    Not to argue with you, but the N word was forbidden in my home.

    In your free time, you might want to explore liberal Judaism. Since you are in South Carolina, you know about Reuben Greenberg.

  179. avatar
    Lupin July 25, 2009 at 3:27 am #

    According to the Jefferson Davis-Scarlett Taitz Act of 1879:

    Art. 1: No n*gg*r shall be eligible to become President.
    Art. 2. That’s it.

    I think that clinches it.

  180. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 25, 2009 at 4:01 am #

    Well, Sven did post a dead giveaway. (“You seem to be an astute and intelligent poster”)

    I would imagine that birthers sometimes get lonely and find it comforting to carry on conversations with themselves. Especially with that inconvenient internal email leaked from CNN this week.

  181. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 25, 2009 at 4:27 am #

    I’d also point out that the underlying issue of race is why the alternate theories that Obama was fathered by Malcolm X and/or Frank Marshall Davis also resonate with the birther crowd, even though either theory completely negates their “natural born citizen” claim, given that Malcolm X and Davis both American born.

    Logically, you would expect the birthers to be quick to rebut such a theory… but their level of cognitive dissonance doesn’t allow them to see a black militant or communist as being “American”.

  182. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 7:07 am #

    “Scarlett Taitz”

    OMG, they are related! Do they have the same SS number?

    You betcha.

  183. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 7:19 am #

    “but their level of cognitive dissonance doesn’t allow them to see a black militant or communist as being “American”.”

    Exactly. As I posted before, when my grandfather first came here, he read Der Tag, a Yiddish communist paper. I was raised in his house, and he subscribed to The Forward until he died in 1970.

    So when people scream ‘communist,’ my reaction is big deal. Meet my grandfather.

  184. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 7:31 am #

    “______________”

  185. avatar
    kimba July 25, 2009 at 7:42 am #

    After the ” let’s get together, have a beer and talk this over all civilized-like” talk, now I think he’s more like a Snuggie. All warm, and soothing and fleecy! 😉

    https://www.getsnuggie.com/flare/next?tag=os|af

    (Honestly, people, just put your robe on backwards!)

  186. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 8:31 am #

    “After the ”let’s get together, have a beer and talk this over all civilized-like” talk…”

    Then all three are going to sit around the campfire and sing “Kumbaya.” (bada-bing)

  187. avatar
    BlackLion July 25, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    Here is the new piece of so called “supporting documentation” regarding the birthers. According to Phil over at the rTSOL, this so called report from the site WesternJournalism.com.

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

    An interesting read until you start to see his conclusions. I guess they think it will carry more weight if they claim it came from some retired CIA agent. If I recall isn’t the Western Journalism Center the entity that owns World Net Daily? If it is then I am not surprised by the findings. I mean is is discussing 4 types of BC’s in 1961 and making conclusions and supposdly not discounting the research of our buddy Polarik. Once you see that you know where this is going. The same place as this supposdly new Passport website.

  188. avatar
    kimba July 25, 2009 at 9:21 am #

    Oh dear, that will set them over the top…singing one of them Afircan slave songs in the Oval Office!

    (Oh, for those halcyon days of the 70s Catholic folk mass. )

  189. avatar
    BlackLion July 25, 2009 at 9:23 am #

    Does anyone else see that when JTX has noting informative to say (which is always) he responds with personal attacks? He doesn’t make any types of sense, makes claims that he cannot source, and rants like a loon off his meds. He continually brings up the infamous British Nationality Act but as usual never explains to us how a foriegn law can superceed the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS rulings on citizenship.

    I guess he is a bit upset that the rest of us are using his fasicnaton with the BNA as a punchline for all of our jokes.

    It seems like every time an article is posted that supports the COLB, President Obama, and disparages the Birthers he gets his panties in a bunch. So I guess personal attacks is his way to feel good about himself.

    Of course he still makes claims that he can’t substantiate, and still repeats them even when contrary evidence is presented. And to cap it off he says “you misstate almost all in your post”. Really? I think he is looking into the mirror. JTX is the person that cannot support his ridiculous claims.

  190. avatar
    kimba July 25, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    The “About the Center for Western Journalism” page is all you need to read:

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2

    -Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WorldNetDaily.com website)
    -It first made its mark following the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster

    And if that’s not enough for you, you can take a cruise with them next Jan! Gary Kreep is one of the speakers!

  191. avatar
    BlackLion July 25, 2009 at 9:44 am #

    Kimba, that is what I figured. Of course this article is not objective. What led me to believe that is like the so called other birther experts like Polarik and TechDude, the guy is only identified as a former CIA intelligence officer. Like that is supposed to give it some sort of respectibility. We all know that Farah and WND have a hard on to discredit President Obama and anyone that doesn’t believe in their brand of politics. All you need to know about WND is that they authenticated Obama’s COLB and then have pretended that they never did it, but have not retracted that story. And if you read ConWebWatch.com, most WND articles are debunked with little effort, mostly by their own words.

  192. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    “(Oh, for those halcyon days of the 70s Catholic folk mass.)”

    I was one of five Jewish students at Canisius College, a Jesuit school, and I went to those folk masses. I also volunteered with St.Vincent de Paul. We set up a house on Buffalo’s East side, as a place where black children could have help with their homework, and a good lunch.

    If it were not for the Jesuits, I would not have a degree – double major,English/photography, BTW. Several Jesuits were active in the Catholic peace movement, and used the Berrigan brothers as examples in their lectures.

    I know exactly what you are talking about. I even miss it.

  193. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    “He continually brings up the British Nationality Act but as usual never explains to us how a foriegn law can superceed the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS rulings on citizenship.”

    Because we’re still a colony, silly.

  194. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    OT: Jewish humor

    A Jewish woman in Brooklyn was 30, and still living at home. Her mother said to her, “put an ad in the paper. How could it hurt?”

    “OK, mama, OK”

    She placed a personal, “Orthodox woman, 30, never married, wishes to meet a like minded man, for matrimony.” Every day she rushed home from work, to the mailbox. Finally, one day she opened the mailbox – a letter forwarded from the paper.

    She rushed upstairs, and burst into their apartment. “Look mama, a letter forwarded from the paper!”

    “Well, open it already.”

    She tore open the envelope, and burst into tears. “Darling, what’s wrong?” asked her mother.

    “It’s from daddy.”

  195. avatar
    kimba July 25, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    I was right up front with my guitar. Today when I go to the Teen mass and they have the drum combo and electric guitar, I smile and think, well, the old folks put up with us trying to get them to sing ‘A-A-men” with feeling, so I’ll do my part now.(SVdP is one of my favorite charity groups, the nicest most generous people in our parish) and nothing like a Jesuit education, no matter what your persuasion!

  196. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    Love folk mass! I am Episcopalian myself – you know, Catholic without the guilt! We still have folk mass in several parishes. The one I’m at leans toward a little bluegrass with guitar, banjo, mandolin and upright bass. Reminds me of growing up missionary baptist in the Appalachians – but in a good way!

  197. avatar
    Bob Weber July 25, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    Citroens are really cool. Peugeots also, but Renaults pretty much suck.

  198. avatar
    Bob Weber July 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    IcanChangeMyScreenNameCousinBill says:

    “I think there are only a few dozen people on this site with many different screen names to appear as if the majority is fine with BO’s COLB.”

    Actually, “Bill” the deal is that we’re all paid by the Conspiracy. I can’t reveal what the others get, but my deal is $250K / year, plus expenses, plus a dazzling red-haired secretary with a long, lithe, supple body and a keen interest in trying new sexual positions. (Hey, I can dream, can’t I?) [:^)

  199. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Remember the Le Car, AKA the Renault 5?

    Basically an automotive joke. You bought what?! hahahahahahaha You’ll be back for a new car in 2 years.

    I didn’t think anything could be worse than fix it again tony. The 5/LeCar proved it.

  200. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    “we’re all paid by the Conspiracy. I can’t reveal what the others get, but my deal is $250K/year, plus expenses”

    Ha! That’s nothing. The International Jewish Conspiracy™ pays me much more. I agreed to give a cut to Obama’s bag man.

  201. avatar
    Lollie July 25, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    misha says: Because we’re still a colony, silly.

    rotflmao . . . one can only surmise he was out a’doin’ his “I was a judge before I wasn’t” civic duty and therefore missed that day in school when teacher talked about declarin’ independence, and revoltin’ and whuppin’ redcoat ass, and becomin’ a brand new SOVEREIGN nation.

    That term “sovereign” must be terribly hard for him to conceptualize.

  202. avatar
    Lollie July 25, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    BlackLion says: He continually brings up the infamous British Nationality Act but as usual never explains to us how a foriegn law can superceed the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS rulings on citizenship

    It’s a lot like “National Treasure” —

    you cannot see the real text of the Constitution, US Code, and SCOTUS decisions without having a pair of genuine, “Made in USA” Bir’fer Visible Spectrum Fractionating 3D Goggles.

    Available at WalMart, right next to tin foil.

  203. avatar
    misha July 25, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    “That term “sovereign” must be terribly hard for him to conceptualize.”

    And don’t forget perky “Canada.” Can you believe they have their own Parliament? And their own laws? Who do they think they are? Independent? The nerve of that icebox.

    Well, wake up guys.

  204. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

    I believe the theory is that if the father’s name on the birth certificate is wrong, then there is no valid birth certificate, and without that there remains no documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to be president.

  205. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 25, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    ?? That’s still cognitive dissonance, because the argument doesn’t make sense. A birth certificate is evidence of a fact, not a prerequisite to being President. An overwhelming majority of US Presidents never had birth certificates… and a significant percentage of all birth certificates misidentify the father. I don’t think any person’s birth certificate has even been deemed invalid when a subsequent paternity test revealed a different story — I mean, it happens all the time but I doubt that many birth certificates are amended or corrected to reflect the findings in paternity suits.

  206. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    The game is “gotcha” and anything that can be said negative about Obama becomes true, not because it is rational, but because it aligns with the denialist desire. For the conspiracy theorist everything that remotely sounds like it supports the conspiracy is “confirmation” (even if it’s a lie).

  207. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 26, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    You are right in that if a DNA test proves that the father listed on the birth certificate is incorrect – then the BC would only be changed at the request of the parent or child and would require a court order. Most states still have a law that says it is presumed the husband is the father, and in 1961 this would have been the case. For some reason these people seem to think that if it can be proved that President Obama’s father is someone else, then he will be forced out of the White House for lying to the American people, as if he had any control over what was written on his BC at the tyime it was created.

  208. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    BlackLion:

    You Forgers seem to think the BC/COLB is some sort of issue since it gives you something to prattle endlessly about.

    Sad (for you) to say, however, the issue is not the BC but the man’s eligibility to hold the office he now occupies. He’s never shown in any conslusive fachion that hs is eligible – and I think many of you flying monkeys know that.

  209. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    misha:

    Actually, that’s as funny as Obama claiming he’s eligible to be President.

  210. avatar
    Bob Weber July 26, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    My neighbor bought one, much to his regret.

  211. avatar
    Bob Weber July 26, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    Another neighbor was a German engineer who owned two Citroens, one for him, one for the Mrs. He’d sit you down and explain to you, in the manner of a professor helping a dimwit student, just why the Citroen was the best-engineered car on the road. A really smart guy, but rather arrogant. I kinda liked him.

  212. avatar
    Bob Weber July 26, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    “So when people scream communist,’ my reaction is big deal. Meet my grandfather.”

    My Grampa was convinced that wars and other sorrows were because people spoke different languages and didn’t understand each other.
    He thought if everyone spoke Esperanto, then we could have World Peace.

  213. avatar
    Mary Brown July 26, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    As I receive a preschool teacher’s salary I really need my 50k. Couldn’t survive without it.

  214. avatar
    kimba July 26, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    Shoot, I always used to say that Rahm gives me smokes and place to crash when I’m in DC, but I guess if everyone else is coming clean…yeah, it’s a lot, not as much as Bob Weber, he’s “bonefied”. But it’s a lot.

  215. avatar
    richCares July 26, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    Actually, that’s as funny as Obama claiming he’s eligible to be President.

    so does electoral college, so does congress, so does the senate, so did 50 state cerifiers of election, so does most Americans, except for little ol’ judge jtx the liar. was it you were a judge for 50 yrs or just a liar for 50 yrs. You are learning impaired.

  216. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    richCares:

    One of us may be learning impaired, but it’s not me.

    Congress never has said that the Big Zero is eligible under the Constitution …. NEVER. If you think they have be sure to let us know the exact statement. Nor, in fact, did the states …

    But, hey, what are more of your inane statements to help out your criminal president?

  217. avatar
    richCares July 26, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    all states certified eligibility, here’s the one from Hawaii:
    “…candidates for President and Vice-President are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constituion”
    signed and notorized (all 50 states signed a similar form).
    see the form at you don’t say exits at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

    like I said, you are learning impaired (and a liar)

  218. avatar
    misha July 26, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    “your criminal president?”

    Like W and Cheney?

  219. avatar
    misha July 26, 2009 at 11:13 pm #

    I guess the lobotomy affected your ability to laugh.

  220. avatar
    misha July 26, 2009 at 11:43 pm #

    “why the Citroen was the best-engineered car on the road.”

    Except for the SM. There was a story in the NYT. Someone had a SM at an auto show. He could not GIVE it away. An optometrist I worked with had a Citroen DS. He carried cans of hydraulic fluid in the trunk.

  221. avatar
    misha July 26, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    “these people seem to think that if it can be proved that President Obama’s father is someone else, then he will be forced out of the White House for lying to the American people”

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. (ba-dump)

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    I guess the JTX Constitution only has 19 Amendments.

  223. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 12:05 am #

    jtx and his coterie have a Constitution without the 13th Amendment.

  224. avatar
    Black Lion July 27, 2009 at 10:16 am #

    JTX, you forgot to mention the British Nationality Act of 1948 in your rant. So the BC/COLB is not the issue? Of course you make no sense. The real issue is that the birthers are looking for some way to undo the results of the election. The COLB states that he was born in HI. He is a native US citizen. By that he is eligible to be President. The citizenship of parents does not matter on whether or not someone born in the US is a native citizen.

  225. avatar
    Mary Brown July 27, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Jtx, He is your president too. Produce a Kenyan Birth Certificate, a Port of Entry Birth Certificate, give me court decisions that can support your claim he needs 2 US parents. Let your annonymous sources come forward with their credentials. You see I was taught very early by my dad, a Marine vet, that you NEVER believe anyone who is questioning another if they refuse to give their name. He called them cowards with a few descriptors in front. And so they are.

  226. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    “The citizenship of parents does not matter on whether or not someone born in the US is a native citizen.”

    Well, that depends on which camp you are in. Orly, Donofrio and their coterie feel that deVattel influenced the Constitution, so both parents have to be US citizens for a president to be NBC. Anyone born here lacking one/both citizen parent is a citizen per the 14th, but not enough of a citizen to be president. I’ll bet you did not know there are two classes of 14th citizenship. Yep, there’s native born and natural born.

    Now, with Corey Booker it gets more complicated. Corey Booker’s father and mother were citizens per the 14th, but 3/5 parents per the SCOTUS in 1857. Therefore, Booker is native born, but not NBC.

    Put another way, Booker’s parents are 100% native born citizens, but 60% parents. Therefore, Booker is a 14th citizen, but cannot be president.

    Where were you in school? I’ll have to send you to the Taft Law School diploma mill.

  227. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    “jtx and his coterie have a Constitution without the 13th Amendment.”

    Correction: jtx and his coterie have a Constitution without the 13th and 14th Amendments.

  228. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    The Organic Constitution crowd thinks there’s only 10.

  229. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    The Organic Constitution crowd thinks there are three types of citizens: naturalized, natural and artificial. (bada-bing)

  230. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    Good Gravy. Can you imagine if they tried the old: descendants of African slaves aren’t natural born citizens argument? Holy cow. We know they’d have some proponents because we have learned that some of them still have the word octaroon in their vocabulary. They couldn’t do that to Pres Obama because his father was a free African. And if you remember your history, the old segregation laws didn’t apply to foreign blacks. If they could show the proper identification of course. Sounds awfully familiar…..

  231. avatar
    misha July 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    “some of them still have the word octaroon in their vocabulary”

    But is Obama a macaroon? (bada-bing)

  232. avatar
    kimba July 27, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    well, since we’re into the British Nationality thingie, in the 18th century, when the young british would wear the most modern fashions they called it “macaroni”. (Stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni.)

    Is our President macaroni when he wears his regular jeans to throw out the first pitch? Or wears his shorts and saddle shoes to golf?

  233. avatar
    Bob Weber July 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    “Ha! That’s nothing. The International Jewish Conspiracy™ pays me much more. I agreed to give a cut to Obama’s bag man.”

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

    You probably get a discount at all the department stores, too.

  234. avatar
    sponson July 28, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    I did some reading within the PassportsUSA site. Check out this particular page: This page gives the game away, “PassportsUSA” just happens to pick Obama’s COLB as their textbook example of a “birth certificate that will give you trouble” in obtaining a passport. I conclude that this is a disinformation website, meant to be referenced as “objective” and “authoritative” by conspiracy bloggers.

  235. avatar
    sponson July 28, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    Some additional googling produced this in a few seconds: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=160909The purported author of the web site reveals his motivation, complete with an anti-immigrant rant against John McCain. Note the irrelevant and incorrect references to “negro” and “bastard.”