Main Menu

Hawaii bursts birther bubble

Dr. Fukino

Dr. Fukino

I guess the Hawaii Department of Health has gotten fed up with the birther nonsense, and their attempts to read between the lines of the statement last year from Dr. Fukino.  In a strongly worded, and unambiguous statement today, reported in the Honolulu Advertiser, Dr. Fukino said:

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

The birthers will go ape over that “natural-born American citizen” part, saying she’s not a constitutional expert, and that’s true. But she is an expert as to where Barack Obama’s birth registration says he was born.

Hard core conspiracy theorists speculated that Dr. Fukino is not talking about President Obama, but someone named “Barrack” (two R’s) Hussein Obama (the son of Barrack Obama Sr and Stannley Ann Obama). However, this typo was corrected in the version now posted on the state web site.

, , , , , ,

213 Responses to Hawaii bursts birther bubble

  1. avatar
    John July 28, 2009 at 12:18 am #

    I notice that Dr. Fukino doesn’t say “Original Birth Certificate” but “Original Vital Records.” I am not sure where she’s going with it. The State of Hawaii has already been caught up in numerous lies over this issue and I think this Obot Fukino is full of it.

    It seems no coincidence that the 2 facts that would actually satisfy the birthers (Or at least some of them), the State of Hawaii and the Obama Admin absolutely refuse to give – 1. Name of the hosptial of his birth 2. The identity of the doctor who delivered him. It is also a very fine conicidence, that the Obama Vault Copy Birth certificate Should have this information in yet they absolutely refuse to release it. Obama has spent over 1 Millions dollars to keep his Vault Copy BC sealed up and ever went so far to initiate EXECUTIVE ACTION to Seal it merely only 2 days after being in office.

    Obama! Release your Vault Copy Birth Certificate.

    The American People want to see the original 1961 Typewritten BC.

    Hawaii has it and have even acknowledged that they have it.

    In fact, that document has been the pivotal and focal piece of evidence in a lawsuit that has been raging for months in Hawaiian courts.

  2. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Yes, but there are two r’s in his name in the statement and one on the COLB. Now can you hear the birthers opening another conspiracy.Poor woman. They will demand a grand jury for her too.

  3. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 12:20 am #

    john, you are an idiot, please stop proving it!

  4. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    John , the Constitution does not require the name of a doctor or hospital. It requires you to be born in the US. You can suggest a Constitutional Amendment to your Congressman that requires that information. I really doubt it will be enacted.

  5. avatar
    Greg July 28, 2009 at 12:42 am #

    “Obama has spent over 1 Millions dollars to keep his Vault Copy BC sealed up and ever went so far to initiate EXECUTIVE ACTION to Seal it merely only 2 days after being in office.”

    It’s a shame that both of those claims are made up, because otherwise you might have a point.

  6. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 12:42 am #

    My BC from NY, does NOT have the hospital, nor the doctor’s name. I used it to obtain a passport.

    At the top of the BC it states “Bureau Of Vital Statistics.”

    The only reason I know the hospital, is because my mother told me. I do not know the doctor’s name.

  7. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 12:52 am #

    “They will demand a grand jury for her too.”

    Swensson and his citizen grand jury book club, will be on it right away.

  8. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    Hey John, aren’t you going to scream that a president has to have two citizen parents, per deVattel?

    Your dual citizen BFF, Orly Taitz, says so.

    She’s a mediocre dentist, and an incompetent lawyer. You and Orly should take a trip to Moldova, and stay there. Once you are in Chisinau, you can sell a kidney.

    Have a nice trip.

  9. avatar
    Greg July 28, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    Plus Orly and Michael Steele are now Facebook friends. This spells big trouble for Obama…

  10. avatar
    NBC July 28, 2009 at 1:45 am #

    The American People want to see the original 1961 Typewritten BC.

    Not really, the timing of the House resolution and Fukino’s statement are wonderfully timed to take the wind out of the sails of the birthers. Even the more outspoken republicans were forced to vote for the resolution referring to Obama as born in Hawaii.

    I bet you that for 90% of those ‘skeptical’ the issue has gone away and left them with a bitter taste.
    Of course, tomorrow will be the icing on the cake with Orly and Jon Stewart.

  11. avatar
    NBC July 28, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    “Obama has spent over 1 Millions dollars to keep his Vault Copy BC sealed up and ever went so far to initiate EXECUTIVE ACTION to Seal it merely only 2 days after being in office.”

    One is an unproven claim, the other one is a plain lie.

    The EO applies to presidential documents which are generated during the President’s tenure. In fact, he reversed Bush’s EO which had overturned Reagan’s and made Presidential Documents much harder to get.

    And so the lies continue. How does it feel to be a tool in the hands of those who have convinced you to repeat such nonsense?

    Have you no shame?

  12. avatar
    NBC July 28, 2009 at 1:53 am #

    In fact, that document has been the pivotal and focal piece of evidence in a lawsuit that has been raging for months in Hawaiian courts.

    Hi Andy

  13. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    “Have you no shame?”

    Orly advocates mob rule and a military coup on her site. She makes nice to vicious anti-Semites, and allowed an anti-Semitic tirade to be published on her site. She is petty and vindictive, just like her compatriot Avigdor Lieberman.

    She is trying to hound Obama out of office. Shame? She doesn’t have one ounce.

  14. avatar
    Douglas July 28, 2009 at 2:49 am #

    A new statement supposedly coming from Chiyome Fukino, Director of the State Dept. of Health in Hawaii, now states Obama was born in Hawaii. She stopped short of saying so in a previous statement released in late October of 2008.

    This statement, however, does not appear in the latest Press Releases and official statements to the media for the Dept. of Health. You can view the most current releases, and the last one was on July 13th:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/pressdate.html

    Where is the proof that this statement was not just written up quickly and dispatched? Where is the proof that this is a public statement and press release like the orignal (10/28/08) one was?

    Another indicator of a groundless source is that Obama’s first name is spelled wrong (‘Barrack’).

    Until we see it on the Dept. of Health (HI) website, it won’t be official – just hearsay.

    Here is why you probably won’t see Chiyome Fukino making such a statement. If a Judge (and there are a couple of pending lawsuits) requested Fukino to release the birth certificate, and she is unable to come up with one (or one stating he was indeed born in HI) – then she is in BIG, BIG trouble, as she would be conspiring to commit fraud.

    She is between a rock and a hard place, because if she validates this statement then she has to worry about being tried for fraud if it should go to court. If she denies she said it, then it becomes even more obvious (if that’s possible) that there is a cover-up going on.

  15. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 2:59 am #

    Did the newspaper that interviewed her just make it up?

  16. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 28, 2009 at 3:06 am #

    What was it that birthers said, “Just produce the birth certificate, and it’ll all be over.”

    This proves that wasn’t true. You have the State of Hawaii confirming that Barack Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, and they’re now calling the state liars.

    You have the State of Hawaii calling the COLB “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate” and it still doesn’t satisfy birthers.

    I just have to say, “I told you so” on that you wouldn’t be satisfied with the Birth Certificate, even with the State of Hawaii confirming that Barack Obama was born there.

  17. avatar
    John July 28, 2009 at 4:34 am #

    Dr. Fukino’s statement does open a potential can of worms. How can Dr. Fukino state that Obama was born in Hawaii when contents of the Birth Certificate are suppose to be private? Dr. Fukino also refers to Vital Statistics and not the Birth Certificate. This suggests that Hawaii may have accompanying information besides the Birth Certificate that he was born in Hawaii. I think it is possible that Obama was born in Hawaii but NOT in a hospital. Their contention is based on statements of persons who are now dead, probably Stanely Ann Dunham. If this is true, then there is really no real way to prove Obama was born in Hawaii. Further, this could also mean the Kapaloni Hospital has engaged in fraud by releasing the letter from Obama stating he was born there. The White House can’t confirm the letter because if they do, this would also mean Obama also was in collusion with Kapaloni and has committed fraud as well. Fianlly this would mean that Obama has been caught in a major lie over his records. People will them demand to see Obama’s other records such as his passports and school records to determine how many other lies Obama has purpretrating.

  18. avatar
    MysteryMessiahTheatre July 28, 2009 at 5:53 am #

    Is she sworn to uphold, defend and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, or do her loyalties lie the with the State of Hawai’i?

    If she’ll willfully violate federal HIPPA statutes, then how can she be trusted to make a factual statement concerning BO’s eligibility?

  19. avatar
    MysteryMessiahTheatre July 28, 2009 at 6:11 am #

    “If this is true, then there is really no real way to prove Obama was born in Hawaii.”

    BO’s passport application record at the US State Department has proof of US Citizenship. The file was breeched by “curious” contractors. The State Dept IG investigated and wrote a report. The public has only seen a redacted report.

    BO needs to release his passport application records held at the US State Department.

  20. avatar
    aarrgghh July 28, 2009 at 6:24 am #

    fukino isn’t revealing anything that hasn’t already been made public by obama.

    you’ve built this house of cards out of nothing but air and “it’s p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e obama wasn’t born in a hospital”. you’re gonna need a little more before walking into court calling both the state’s top health authority and obama liars, because something tells me the state’s not gonna fold.

  21. avatar
    MysteryMessiahTheatre July 28, 2009 at 6:41 am #

    Where did Fukino say “Barrack” was born in a hospital? She says she has seen his records (plural, as in more than one).

    Is his name Barrack or Barack or Barry?

  22. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 7:45 am #

    Yep, just like Doc predicted, the birthers immediately parsed Dr Fukino’s statement again to make it mean what they wanted it to mean. For normal people, Dr Fukino’s statement on Oct 31 was completely unambiguous. Yesterday’s statement cannot be parsed and yet they’re here to insist she didn’t say what she said, and give us all the excuses to explain it away. No one can win at trying to explain it to these maroons. The more you say, the more they twist your words. Gibbs was right, there’s no way to talk any sense into them. It’s like the stalker-y boyfriend that anything you say, even if it’s “don’t come here again or I’m getting a restraining order”, means there’s hope because you talked to him.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 8:09 am #

    Sven, it doesn’t matter. Unless you can show Hawaii isn’t a state, it’s over.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 8:10 am #

    Sven, Obama needs to sell his healthcare program. YOU need to get a new conspiracy theory.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 8:13 am #

    Where someone is born is not protected by HIPAA.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 8:18 am #

    Douglas, your objection is reasonable, but unlikely to hold more than a day or so. When the statement gets posted, I would expect it to be here:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-061.pdf

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 8:22 am #

    The state hasn’t been caught in any lies.

  28. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia. You can be born anywhere and get one.(that’s the only one anyone has seen)
    She can not be president even if she shows this short form- no matter how you people ridicule “birthers” you and obama haven’t showed proof!(long form) not to mention how a person with dual citizenship can be a “natural born” citizen and qualify for president. cant be done!

  29. avatar
    CousinBill July 28, 2009 at 9:03 am #

    Obama is selling a health insurance payment plan and not a healthcare bill. Healthcare is fine. Paying for healthcare is the problem.

  30. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 9:05 am #

    “We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian Certification ”

    and how do you know this, no she does not, no one has produced such a paper, it exists only in the mind of Polarik (who ever that is) why do you repeat this lie? it’s so easy to lead Birthers, is it ignorance of Hate for Obama? Now dear smart one, show us a link to this non-existant documemnt. It seems the main requirement to be a Birther is to fail the test!

    Are Bither’s proud of their ignorance?

  31. avatar
    Epectitus July 28, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia. You can be born anywhere and get one.(that’s the only one anyone has seen)

    On my personal list, that is Fake Birther “Factoid” # 14.

    With apologies to richCares, though, it was TechDude, not Polarik that came up with the idiotic claim.

  32. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 28, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    Actually, President Obama doesn’t need to release anything. He’s already gone over and aobve by posting a scan of his COLB last year. And for all the birthers that think they’re ‘entitled’ to seeing:
    -President Obama’s school records back to preschool
    -President Obama’s parent’s marriage, divorce, birth and death certs.
    -President Obama’s Passport records
    -President Obama’s full medical record

    Piss off, when Dubya posts the full results of any drug tests he may have had (or skipped) while allegedly on cocaine, maybe I’ll agree with you, ’till then, keep spinning yor tires, you’re doing wonders for the Republican Party.

  33. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 28, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    Nope, she doesn’t. Unless you have proof otherwise, Markcon.

  34. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    Wow….Even after that the birthers won’t die. Dr. Fukino can state that Obama was born in HI because she has seen the BC and the relevant information. Are you questioning her integrity?

    Your birth certificate and relevant records are vital statistics. So you are trying to find a new meaning for what she said. This is what the birthers did for her previous statement. And if by chance there are other records besides his birth information, of what relevance is it? Once she stated that the COLB is correct and President Obama was born in HI, that was it. It does not matter if he was born at home, in a hospital, or a manger. As usual the brithers are changing the goalposts. The issue was the COLB and whether or not it was accurate in saying that he was born in HI, now it is something else?

    You birhters are not engaged in wild speculation. He may not have been born in a hospital, even though there is no evidence to suggest that he was born elsewhere.

    There is no what to prove that he was born in HI. Amazing. The Director just said that he was, and you choose to still question it. Of couse now everyone is engaging in fraud because the results are not what you wanted. You would rather believe a convuluted complicated conspiracy theory rather than what makes sense, that the President was born in HI. Amazing…

  35. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    Sven, she is upholding the US Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. In this case the domestic enemies are you and your birther movement. She did no wilfully violate anything. All she did was confirm what every sane person knew, that the President was born in HI. You and your followers don’t want to believe that. So you come up with wild possibilities, like the Indonesian refugee status, Diplomatic Consular passport, and a 47 year old conspiracy involving faking birth announcements in 2 newspapers to support your dislike for the President. You have basically called the Director a liar. With no contrary evidence whatsoever. You are now grasping at straws.

  36. avatar
    DCA July 28, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    Please provide an example of Maya Soetero-Ng’s Hawaii COLB to back up the claims made. Otherwise stop insisting.
    The Hawaii DoH just sunk the entire BC issue. You got nothing.

  37. avatar
    MysteryMessiahTheatre July 28, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    Certificate sequencing problem

    BO was allegedly born on Aug. 4, 1961 and someone filed (DOH didn’t issued “accepted” COLB) the paperwork on Aug. 8, 1961. BO’s COLB has a number ending with 10641.

    The Nordyke twins were born on Aug. 5, 1961 in Honolulu, HI. The birth was registered on Aug. 11, 1961 and their “Certificate of Live Birth” has the numbers ending with 10637 and 10638.

    Nordyke twins certificate.

    BO’s COLB is out of Sequence for the date of his birth.

  38. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    “We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia.”

    Please provide proof. A link to an image would be acceptable. I’m waiting.

  39. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    You ought to try out for the Tonight Show.

  40. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Produce it. You love to call for documentary evidence for others but not yourself. Produce the documents. Produce a Keyan Birth Certificate, his sisters certificacition. You have a double standard.

  41. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    Celebrities born in: Honolulu, HI- list her and reference wiki–several law suit reference wiki too-ancestry .com too-maybe its wrong- but it doesnt change the fact that foreigner use the colb that way-ie Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, who was born in China has one(Polarik)
    but i see you missed my main point one you cant giggle away “not to mention how a person with dual citizenship can be a “natural born” citizen and qualify for president. cant be done!” ill post this link- see if you can give an honest refutation-
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/#comments

  42. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    he doesn’t have dual citizenzip now, so why do you ask. Keep up will you, the Bither rumors are worthless.

  43. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    I thought you was intelligent-“he doesn’t have dual citizenzip now”-you admit and so does obama-that he had- if you had at anytime your not natural born- -a qualification for being president

  44. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    Cite for us and point us to the law that says if a person ever had or was eligible for dual citizenship they are not a natural born citizen. Obviously, Dr Fukino not only poked the birther hive with a stick, she knocked it out of the tree. Birthers are buzzing and scrambling to salvage something. Hint: the more complicated your “he’s not a natural born citizen” explanations get, the fewer people are going to believe it.

  45. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    “Cite for us and point us ”

    Asking a Birther for a cite is worthless, all they have they pull from their rear ends, so easy to mislead a Birthr. They are unaware that Obama has been president for more than 6 months now.

  46. avatar
    Heavy July 28, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    This is all great stuff. Another carefully worded, ambiguous statement from a Hawaiian official. Even I could not have asked for more!

    Given the timimg and continued ambiguity, this only adds more fuel to the fire. I look forward to when that smarmy idiot Gibbs uses this as a “Gotcha” and gets it crammed down his throat.

    The American people are becoming more aware and more concerned about this issue. ONLY the real deal will settle it.

  47. avatar
    Douglas July 28, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S FUKINO NOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER?

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/hawaii-health-departments-fukino-now-constitutional-lawyer

  48. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    see if you can give an honest refutation

    Already done. (And this is some of the shoddiest lawyering coming from Donofrio. And that’s saying something.)

  49. avatar
    Heavy July 28, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Watch how they try to spin this!

  50. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    “Ambiguous”?

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  51. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Well over at tROSL, the comments are coming fast and furious regarding this article. And most of the responses indicate that the birthers are not happy.

    First of all let’s attack Dr. Fukino…

    “First of all, who gave Fukino permission to make that statement? The record is supposedly sealed. Where’s her court order to view the record? Fukino obviously cannot differentiate a citizen’ from a natural born citizen.’”

    Then lest make claims we can’t substantiate…

    “It was reported that over $600 million was donated to the BO campaign, much of it from foreign sources, as Leo Donofrio asked, is there any surprise that BO could manufacture a fraudulent Birth Certificate”

    Then we make fun of the supporters of the President…

    “Useful idiots, barry and obots sell-out to the dark side and do not realize, their-life’s Costs!”

    And then lets a make the usual media and congress claim….

    “I think we may now be watching Congress, the political parties and pundits, and the MSM beginning to get a little worried about the eligibility issue. If the truth ever comes out that Obama is not an NBC, all of these so called independent news reporters and leaders are going to lose all credibility with the public and there will be a backlash against them.”

    Then attack congress…

    “I didn’t know that Congress had the power to determine where someone was actually born. While they are at it they should vote that Schwarzenegger was born here as well. Maybe they could also vote that Bush was really an alien ….. The possibilities are endless!”

    Then come up with wild conspiracy theories…

    “Whether they know it or not certain eligibility “lawyers” are mere tools in Obama’s psyops campaign. The Obama campaign is cleverly herding them for a fall off into the hole of the DC court system.”

    And then promise to come out with something that will sufficiently attack the statement by Dr Fukino and her statement…

    “I will have a Headliner that more than sufficiently replies to the recent statement by Dr. Fukino due sometime later today.”

    “There’s more to the statement than simply what she said. Headliner due soon.”

    “However, I can most assuredly assure you (!) that a posting will be forthcoming and individuals such as yourself can rant and rave (as long as it stays civil) from now until Kingdom come.”

    Then let’s repeat all of the birther lies, like it is our mantra…

    “What a bunch of BS these congress people are doing. They have no real proof other than a forged document that he was born in Hawaii. Even if he were, it doesn’t make him a natural born because his father was foreign. Then he was adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen. They don’t take all that into consideration. He lost whatever citizenship he might have had when he expatriated.”

    So what does that mean? Probably that things will never change. I do have a question for you. Does anyone know of something that will contradict or somehow impeach Dr. Fukino’s statement? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. But I am not sure what else is out there. We know that the birther movement is a relentless one….

  52. avatar
    Heavy July 28, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    Ambiguous: Obscure, lacking clarity

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what I mean.

  53. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida July 28, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Still waiting, got a link to Maya Soetoro-Ng’s COLB, yet?

  54. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Unless you can show Hawaii isn’t a state, it’s over.

    But Hawaii isn’t a state.

    😉

  55. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    DOH didn’t issued “accepted” COLB

    Then why do the Nordyke twins’ certificates both say “date accepted”?

    (And the fallacy in your “theory” is that birth certificates are sequenced by date prior to being issued a certificate number, rather that being FIFO as received.)

  56. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    shoddy? haha- you belittle a man and think that is an honest refutation? Donofrio gives law and facts- where is yours? your a —- nevermind– i proved my point – well Donofrio did-

  57. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    the web site i listed does exactly that – read instead of spewing— –so you believe a dr. fukino(not a lawyer) over Donofrio (a lawyer) on what constitutes “natural born”? Hint: both parents must be citizen
    clue: obama father was not

  58. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Did you read the link?

    1. Donofrio misreads Minor.
    2. It is not perjury if you certify that you believe something to be true just because someone else believes it to be false.

    Shoddy lawyering.

  59. avatar
    John July 28, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Depending on how confident the State of Hawaii is sure that Obama’s Vault Copy BC will never be released, Dr. Fukino can pretty much say anything. I think is highly likely Fukino and most all of those at the DOH voted for Obama. Surely, Fukino, since she voted for Obama, wouldn’t want to say to say anything that would endanger Obama’s position as POTUS. If Hawaii is confident enough to be sure that the Vault Copy BC will never be seen except by them, I think they pretty say whatever they want.

    Obama! Show Your Birth Certificate!

    The fact that Obama is NOT showing his Birth Certificate and having third parties vouch for his Hawaiian Birth is extremely suspicious.

  60. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    bob-
    shoddy? haha- you belittle a man and think that is an honest refutation? Donofrio gives law and facts- where is yours? your a —- nevermind– i proved my point – well Donofrio did-
    kimba —
    -the web site i listed does exactly that – read instead of spewing— –so you believe a dr. fukino(not a lawyer) over Donofrio (a lawyer) on what constitutes “natural born”? Hint: both parents must be citizen
    clue: obama father was not

    for people who want decide for themselves the law- read this site- wont find in msm discussions
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/#comments

  61. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    “…verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    It is not Fukino that is being obscure.

  62. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm #

    I believe Dr Fukino miles ahead of Donofrio. Why would Donofrio’s opinion carry any weight. Oh, I see, it’s because Donofrio says things that you think might lead to removing from office the legally elected President, that you don’t like for whatever reason. So you think his words are magic. Donofrio’s 2 parents argument is a theory he invented in June 2008. He even admits that it is not the law, it is what he wishes were the law. You should ask yourself how you were so easily led to put aside what you learned in civics class and so easily convinced that a one year old theory is the law and the “way it’s always been.” You should be asking yourself how you can be so easily conned.

  63. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Hint: both parents must be citizen
    what is your legal source for this, Donofrio not valid, thrown out.
    since you claim it, support it!

  64. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    Donofrio gives law and facts- where is yours

    1. Cited to an article all about Minor. Can you read?
    2. Where does Donofrio give the legal definition of “false swearing”? Therein was his first mistake.

    so you believe a dr. fukino(not a lawyer) over Donofrio (a lawyer) on what constitutes “natural born”?

    I don’t believe Dr. Fukino; I agree with her because she is right, and Donofrio is wrong (as he has been in the past).

    Hint: both parents must be citizen

    Hint: You don’t have a case that says that, (and it also directly contradicts English common law).

  65. avatar
    NBC July 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    The fact that Obama is NOT showing his Birth Certificate and having third parties vouch for his Hawaiian Birth is extremely suspicious.

    Obama released his Hawaiian Birth Certificate

    Nufff said. The rest is just whining.

  66. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Dr. Fukino can pretty much say anything

    The ole you-are-a-liar-because-I-say-you-are defense.

    Do you have anything besides baseless accusations and fact-free speculation?

  67. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    Fukino, a Republican was appointed by Linda Lingle Republican govoner, give it up, your horse died. He dis show the only BC Hawaii currently supplies. Same one as my daughter born in 1965.

  68. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    See? This is exactly what happens anytime anyone gives them more information. “It’s a lie! She was coerced! She’s a flaming Obot! She has been paid off!” It doesn’t matter what anyone says or what anyone releases, they will find a way to dismiss it. After this one though, they just sound like Apollo moon landing denyers. They had some Republicans cow-towing to them, but now the folks can just say “Hawaii says he was born there.” Put a fork in them, they’re done, and they know it, this is their last desperate throes.

  69. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    markcon says:
    July 28, 2009 at 12:21
    pmbob-
    “shoddy? haha- you belittle a man and think that is an honest refutation? Donofrio gives law and facts- where is yours? your a —- nevermind– i proved my point – well Donofrio did-”

    Belittle Donofrio? He does it himself with his filings. How did you prove your point and facts? You are citing one person’s opinion. Can you provide us with links or cite the actual law that your esteemed hero Donofrio is using that backs up his statements? You do know that most of his conclusions have been refuted.

    kimba –
    “-the web site i listed does exactly that – read instead of spewing— –so you believe a dr. fukino(not a lawyer) over Donofrio (a lawyer) on what constitutes “natural born”? Hint: both parents must be citizen
    clue: obama father was not”

    Can you point out to us Markcon where in the US Constitution or in any Supreme Court rulings that the requirement for a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens? Donofrio has made that claim for almost a year now and he incorrectly cites laws and ignores other relevant laws. Dr. Fukino has just stated that President Obama was born in Honolulu, just like his COLB states. She doesn’t need to be a lawyer or a constitutional expert. There are only 2 kinds of US citizens, born on the soil of the US, and naturalized or born in another country. Yes born of the soil of the US has been updated to include children of US service personnel, but never to include that both parents had to be citizens.

    For instance the SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark case specifically defined that the citizenship status of an individual born in the US is not affected by the citizenship status of the parents.

    for people who want decide for themselves the law- read this site- wont find in msm discussions

    Reading Donofrio’s site won’t allow you to decide for yourself. Just look up relevant laws and decide for yourself. There is a reason that Donofrio has been unsuccessful.

  70. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    thats wrong native and natural are not the same thing- you can be native but not natural but if natural of course your native too and that is what citizen is referred to there-
    point- requiring the plural of parents as citizen

    obama is native citizen at best– sorry-even i saw thru your post – who ever wrote it

  71. avatar
    Joe Horn July 28, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Listen,

    All you Obama Zombies just have to wait until August 3, 2009. If the Judge in Camden grants the Motion to Dismiss in the case filed by Mario Apuzzo, this matter is over. I really never thought the guy was not born in Hawaii, but there is something he doesn’t want people to see in the original document. I supposed you are entitled to some privacy, even when President. The question is what did the Founders mean when they said “natural born citizen.” For my part I think you have to be born in the US and have two citizen parents, which is really the point of the Apuzzo lawsuit. If no one hears it, it won’t matter, and that is how Republics die, with a wimper and a sigh.

  72. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    show me where he admits this? he quotes law– you? what? dr. whatever has no standing in the field at all? you believe cuz why- woman? i asked to shown the precedent – to prove and instruct me in the law- he does? you- you show me how flippant a lib can be but no substance

  73. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    native and natural are not the same thing

    1. Says who? Donofrio?
    2. Donofrio is still wrong about the false swearing because he can’t prove that Obama “knows” that Minor prevents him from being president.

  74. avatar
    Joe Horn July 28, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    Actually it is an open question, and you seem well enough voiced in the law to know that. No one will confuse me with Clarence Darrow, but I have read the Supreme Court cases, and the rulings would seem to indicate that if you are born on US soil and have two US citizen parents, you are a “natural born citizen” without a doubt. If you are born on US soil and have two parents that are not US citizens, you are a “native born citizen”. I could find a case that settled the middle ground, being born on US soil with one US citizen parent. It really looks like an open question. I rely on Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 among other case to reach this conclusion. Of course if the Courts never hear the case it is not an open question because he is President and without a Court ruling, he will remain so until the end of his term.

  75. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    Oh please. Apuzzo’s case is poorly written, Kerchner doesn’t have standing, no American does. The case will be dismissed. You can whine and cry and wimper and sigh. Instead, why don’t you get to work and find a guy who can get more votes than Obama in 2012. Every 4 years you get a chance to refresh the Republic so stop with your dire predictions, get out of the easy chair and pound the pavement for your candidate like 3 million Americans did last year for Obama. What a bunch of fricking cry-babies.

  76. avatar
    MysteryMessiahTheatre July 28, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    I should have been exactly clear.

    BO’s Certification was “filed.”

    Nordyke twins’ Certificate was “accepted.”

    The Nordyke twins were born after BO, but their Certification number is before BO’s in the sequence.

    Why is that?

  77. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    Actually it is an open question, and you seem well enough voiced in the law to know that.

    It is only “open” to Donofrio, and those who want to believe him. There is no reputable scholar that will say it is open, which is why this is being litigated by a lawyer/dentist (with a thrice disbarred ghost writter), a twoofer, and a semiprofessional poker player.

    If you are born on US soil and have two parents that are not US citizens, you are a “native born citizen”

    And which case says that?

    I rely on Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 among other case to reach this conclusion.

    Try rereading Wong Kim Ark, without the Donofrio filters.

  78. avatar
    markcon July 28, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    not getting standing does not mean unsuccessful- sorry all the relevent case law is quoted on his site- and frankly- to much work-lazy- for me to do your homework for you- just go read– he backs it all up with the law and common law(bob) –and plural words mean more than one person-people—-
    take 15 min to read site-duh parents –

    restate-
    #
    markcon says:
    July 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    thats wrong native and natural are not the same thing- you can be native but not natural but if natural of course your native too and that is what citizen is referred to there-
    point- requiring the plural of parents as citizen

    obama is native citizen at best– sorry-even i saw thru your post – who ever wrote it
    #
    Bob says:
    July 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    native and natural are not the same thing

    1. Says who? Donofrio?
    2. Donofrio is still wrong about the false swearing because he can’t prove that Obama “knows” that Minor prevents him from being president.
    ——————————————————————————
    obama being harvard law review constition professor would certainly be evidence that he did know beyond a shadow of doubt

  79. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    Why is that?

    How does that disprove Obama was born in Hawaii?

    As to why: Here’s the very obvious answer: Certificates are likely assigned numbers in the order they are received.

  80. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    Call and ask.
    Chiyome Fukino, M.D.
    Phone (808) 586-4400

  81. avatar
    nbc July 28, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    Kerchner’s suit will be dismissed after the judge denies the motion for the second amended complaint to be accepted.
    There is nothing much in the case to warrant further hearing, due to lack of standing.

    And that’s the end of it.

  82. avatar
    nbc July 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    native and natural are not the same thing

    They surely are

    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

  83. avatar
    nbc July 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    Or

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:

    Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

    Cheers

  84. avatar
    nbc July 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Close enough. Thanks for providing further evidence that support the facts that Obama was born in Hawaii

  85. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    not getting standing does not mean unsuccessful

    No standing means suit dismissed.

    he backs it all up with the law and common law

    The English common law looked solely to place of birth. Even Donofrio acknowledges that.

    plural words mean more than one person-people

    It can also be a modifer for another word. But if this two-parent citizenship is sooooo obvious, why can’t you (or Donofrio) cite it?

    obama being harvard law review constition professor would certainly be evidence that he did know beyond a shadow of doubt

    How would Obama being a “harvard law review constition professor” prove that Donofrio is correct in his reading of Minor?

  86. avatar
    nbc July 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    The Nordyke document is a Certificate Of Live Birth, and shows when it was accepted by the registrar, not when it was filed. Would be interesting to see their COLB as well

  87. avatar
    slimslowslider July 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    ahhh, one of my fave birther retorts when backed into a corner, “do your own research!” bhahah!

  88. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    People unless the folks in Hawaii refute this it is over. As you keep adding conditions you become less believable. The reason for all of this is that you did not like the results of an election.

  89. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    (Call and ask.)

    Hello, this is Sven Magnussen calling from Gowanda State Hospital in New York. I want written proof sent to me, by registered mail, that Barry Soetoro was born in Hawaii, to two US citizens. If you can’t do so, I want your assistance in having him removed from office.

    Click.

    Hello, hello…

  90. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    I want to see proof from every one of the birthers that they were born on US soil, to parents that were both US citizens.

    If they can’t, they are impostors.

    Help me send dual citizen Orly back to Moldova. She can use her legal skills to broker kidney sales.

  91. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    “Donofrio’s 2 parents argument is a theory he invented in June 2008.”

    And amplified by dual citizen Orly, a mediocre dentist with several dental malpractice suits pending. And she is a poseur lawyer.

    I hope this crowd keeps it up. I am having fun watching what is left of the GOP self-destruct.

    Crazy Eileen is a taste of what is coming. Popcorn and remote, please.

  92. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm #

    “I will have a Headliner that more than sufficiently replies to the recent statement by Dr. Fukino due sometime later today.”

    One can predict Phil’s “headliner”:

    “Fukino is not authorized (or even qualified) to state that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Therefore, it is still OK for us to ask the same inane questions.”

  93. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    Actually it is an open question

    It is “open” only in the eyes of Donofrio, and those who want to believe him. It is technically unresolved, but such lack of resolution doesn’t not mean all opinions on the subject are reasonable. Which is why these cases are being litigated not by someone with gravitas, but rather by a dentist/lawyer (with a thrice disbarred ghostwriter), a twoofer, and a semiprofessional poker player.

    if you are born on US soil and have two US citizen parents, you are a “natural born citizen” without a doubt.

    No one is disputing that.

    If you are born on US soil and have two parents that are not US citizens, you are a “native born citizen”.

    And which case says that? And which case distinguishes between a natural-born citizen and a native-born citizen?

    I rely on Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325

    Donofrio’s reading of Minor is wrong (that case has been discussed extensively on this site), and Wong Kim Ark and Elg support rather than diminish the argument that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

  94. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    “you believe cuz why- woman?”

    Please. (eye roll)

  95. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    misha they’re here because Fukino broke their little birther hive and they are out buzzing looking for comfort, validation. Whack them hard, is what I say.

  96. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    It’s even better than that…He is using the shoddy analysis contained at the site “the ObamaFile regarding the race issue, why does it say “African” and not Negro. Secondly he is using Donofrio’s response regarding his misreading of the Minor case. He claims that that was the reason that the state of HI came out with their statement. And his third reason to discount the statement is the subtle differences in the statements made by Dr. Fukino. Of course no rebuttal would be complete without an article from World Net Daily.

    In other words, the reason to discount the statement by Dr. Fukino is because of the analysis done over at the ObamaFile, Leo Donofrio, and comparing the statements made by Dr. Fukino. So you are right, for the birthers this is a reason to “continue fighting for truth, justice, and the American way.”

    Any thoughts? Are they getting desparate or what?

  97. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    And his third reason to discount the statement is the subtle differences in the statements made by Dr. Fukino.

    My favorite Philian line:

    “It is unfortunate that individuals such as myself must go through the process of parsing the dear Director’s statement, but since the opposition (isn’t it a shame, incidentally, that there has to be opposition regarding the American Constitution?) has shown absolute and sheer intellectual dishonesty on this story, we must.”

    1. It is unfortunate. For those who chose to read it.

    2. Disagreeing with Phil means opposing the U.S. Constitution? (And if you disagree with Donofrio, you are commiting a crime!)

    3. Unironic accusation of “intellectual dishonesty” results in a lengthy post attempting to refute the unambiguous “Obama was born in Hawaii” statement.

    Of course no rebuttal would be complete without an article from World Net Daily.

    Giving credit to Phil and WND(!), CNN was wrong when it said the original birth certificate had been destroyed.

  98. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    From rTOSL as supporting info to discredit the statement by Dr. Fukino by examining her statements…I don’t see the difference but I the birthers obviously do….

    “Thirdly, TheObamaFile.com performs a great comparative analysis of the different statements that Dr. Fukino is using:

    Now this is a subtle change from Fukino’s previous statement. In the original statement, Fukino says that she has personally seen the original birth certificate. OK, lets’ take her at her word. Hawaii has the original document.

    Now, watch the language Fukino uses in her latest declaration — “I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file…”

    Those are two completely different statements. In the first, she is describing a document — a piece of paper. In the second she is describing an electronic data set — data stored on a disc. Fukino is carefully parsing her words and clearly dissimulating, but why?

    Now let’s examine what USA Today is reporting: “Hawaii’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.”

    That statement is false. It is not what Fukino said. Fukino did not say, “she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives” — and USA Today even put their made-up statement within quotes.”

  99. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    And regarding the race issue….

    “In fact, the same site goes on to point out quite the glaring inconsistency regarding the certification of live birth, the electronic document being bandied about by “illegitimizers” on the blogosphere:

    In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the “Vital Statistics of the United States — Volume I — Nativity.”

    The “Standard Certificate of Live Birth” contains the father’s race in block #8 and the mother’s race in block #13. Hawaii’s “Certificate of Live Birth” contains the the father’s race in block #13a and the mother’s race in block #12a.

    Now, here comes the good stuff. Page 231 contains the requirements for “Race and color.”

    “Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”

    Do you see a classification for “African?” I certainly don’t.

    Now, let’s look at the document that Obama has provided for certifying his eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States and that is displayed on Annenberg FatCheck.org.

    FATHER’S RACE is “African” — an incorrect entry for that data field. Just a typo? I don’t think so. The Obot who created the bogus Certification of Live Birth just couldn’t type the word “Negro.” Negro is just not politically correct, don’tcha know.

    Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

    Interesting research until you realize that the document is referencing the race for births, not the parents. And secondly you can see they lose any credibility by making the following statement…

    “This information was provided by Steve Cee, a genealogist, who has also authored this new analysis (graphics-heavy MS Word document) of the Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB). Steve’s contribution adds to Dr. Ron Polarik’s extensive forensic examination.”

    Quoting the research of the so called “Dr. Ron Polarik” is a quick way to lose any credibility.

  100. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    Donofrio couldn’t help himself…Look at him still pushing his theory that the SCOTUS defined what a natural born citizen was in the Minor case.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/hawaii-health-departments-fukino-now-constitutional-lawyer/

    Look at the claim he makes from his faulty misreading of the case…

    “SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:

    1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition

    2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President”

    He also makes the following statement…

    “SCOTUS expressed their doubts about Obama’s eligibility in Minor. The current court should have clarified the issue with a decision. Obama should have asked them to clarify such an important doubt by bringing the Arizona sworn affirmation to them and asking whether he could sign it without committing perjury.”

    He doesn’t address the fact that the Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg cases exist and they address this issue also.

  101. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 28, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    Joe Horn wrote:

    For my part I think you have to be born in the US and have two citizen parents,

    Joe, I want to commend you for your direct and candid wording. You wrote “I think ……” – and that is true – that is what you think, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Others think differently — and it happens that the majority of legal scholars who have written about it, are of the opinion that “natural born citizen” means “born in the US” regardless of the citizenship status of the parents.

    If the legal question were put to a vote, you would lose, simply because you are asserting a minority opinion.

    This doesn’t mean the death of the Republic, however — it is actually evidence of the life of the Republic. Keep in mind that the ultimate aim of the Constitution was to create a framework for a democracy, where laws and policy would, for the most part, reflect the will of the majority.

  102. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    The official statement…

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

  103. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    I can’t believe any of them thought the statement was “made up”. Idjits.

    Paranoia strikes deep.
    Into your life it will creep.
    It starts when you’re always afraid….

  104. avatar
    richCares July 28, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    I knew a few foreign exchange students in the 60’s while at the University of Hawaii. The African students never rererred to themselves by American terms (Negroe, Nigga, black,brother, etc) They all claimed their race as African. Thtat’s the way is was!

  105. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Wait, look at the document. It’s a summary of 1961 US birth statistics, it’s not the “this is how birth certificates must be filled out” rule book. They explained how they classified and reported race in the report. How did someone derive “see, African was not a proper designation” from that document?

  106. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    Actually it is an open question

    It is only “open” to Donofrio, and those who wish to believe what he says. The question is technically unresolved, but the law has many unresolved questions and that does not mean all opinions on the subject are equal, or even reasonable. There is a minority opinion that natural-born citizenship requires two citizen parents, but that belief is not widely held. Which is why these cases are not being litigated by people with gravitas, but rather by a lawyer/dentist (with a thrice disbarred ghostwriter), a twoofer, and a semiprofessional poker player.

    if you are born on US soil and have two US citizen parents, you are a “natural born citizen” without a doubt.

    Not disputed, but not the exclusive definition either.

    If you are born on US soil and have two parents that are not US citizens, you are a “native born citizen”.

    Which cases support that concept? And which cases distinguish between natural-born and native-born citizens?

    I rely on Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325

    Minor has been discussed on this site, and Wong Kim Ark and Elg support rather than diminish the argument that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

  107. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    As we all know there is no situation in which these people will accept President Obama. I do think, though, that some Conservatives may be ready to put this to bed. Senator DeMint said “he is my President.” I would like to see more of them show some courage as the Representative from Arizona did yesterday. And let’s hope that people of all political views are more vigilant in watching for this kind of craziness wherever it occurs.

  108. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Actually it is an open question

    It is “open” only to Donofrio, and those who wish to believe what he says. Yes, the question is technically unresolved, but there are many unresolved legal questions, and not all opinions are equal (or even reasonable). There is the minority opinion that natural-born citizenship requires two parents, but no scholar of note has endorsed that position. Which is why these cases are being litigated not by lawyers with gravitas, but rather by a lawyer/dentist (with a thrice disbarred ghostwriter), a twoofer, and a semiprofessional poker player.

    if you are born on US soil and have two US citizen parents, you are a “natural born citizen” without a doubt.

    Undisputed, but not the only definition.

    If you are born on US soil and have two parents that are not US citizens, you are a “native born citizen”.

    What cases say that? What cases distinguish between natural- and native-born citizens?

    I rely on Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325

    Minorhas been discussed on this site, and Wong Kim Ark and Elg support rather than diminish the argument that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

  109. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Rich, you are 100% correct…Even now Africans do not acknowledge any of the American terms for Africans…They either call themselves Kenyan or Nigerian or African…

  110. avatar
    Greg July 28, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    Minor does seem pretty clear about the first situation, that born to two citizen parents = natural born citizen. Where the arguments go off the rails is the conclusion that the court talks about some lesser citizenship status, “native born citizen.” In fact, Minor v. Happersett appears to use “natural” and “native” interchangeably:

    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    No court has ever adopted this natural-born/native-born distinction. None. In over 200 years of American jurisprudence and over 700 years of British common law experience, I can’t find a single case that makes this fine-grained distinction.

    There are lots of “open” questions that aren’t really open.

  111. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    World Net Daily is still at it. They have through their Western Journalism Center sent out the following e-mail rehashing the usual crop of birther lies…

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/graphics/wjcbirth2.pdf

    One part of the e-mail that I find really funnny is when it makes the following statement…

    “Obama’s mother was only 19-years old when Obama was born… she was much too young to bestow her citizenship on him for the purpose of satisfying Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.”

    I guess they forgot about the following…

    SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

  112. avatar
    Black Lion July 28, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Also WND has a new scam to exploit the birthers. They are allowing you to send letters to President Obama demanding not only his BC, but all pertinent documents…
    And only for $6.95, I guess that would be considered a bargin…

    http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3136

    Of course the e-mail contains lies like the following…

    “The problem with the short-form certification is that it could easily be obtained for a birth that took place out of the state or out of the country. All it would take is the word of one parent.”

    Really? I guess his own website did not get this message…

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=2686

    An interesting section from this article…

    “In discussing the Certification of Live Birth that the Obama campaign claims was posted on the web, Orly Taitz also asserts that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates.” What she is referring to here is the 1982 amendment of the vital records law. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, state policies and procedures could accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original birth certificate on record. But though Act 182 does provide children born out of state with a birth certificate it does not provide them with birth certificates that say that these children were born in Hawaii or at a specific location in Hawaii. Consequently these birth certificates cannot engender Certifications of Live Birth which state that the subject was born in Honolulu, as the purported Obama Certification of Live Birth does. So if the Obama Certification of Live Birth was not forged, it could not have been engendered by an Act 182-authorized birth certificate for “children born out of state”. And if it was forged, the false information on it was not based on anything that could be on an Act-182 authorized birth certificate. So Orly Taitz’ assertion that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates” is irrelevant.”

    Wow…I wonder if Farah realizes that his people wrote this…But then again WND did authenticate the COLB..

  113. avatar
    Greg July 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Couldn’t a constitutional law professor be allowed to rely on the judgment of every other law professor who has ever looked at this issue? For example, in her law review article written in 1988, 21 years before Obama took office, Jill Pryor wrote in the Yale Law Review that it is “well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” For that proposition, she cites five other law review articles dating back as far as 1904, and several legal cases.

    If she’d gone back farther, she could have found the exact same sentiment (born here = natural born, regardless of parent’s citizenship) dating back to as early as 1810, a decade and a half after the writing of the Constitution!

    But, the fact of the matter is that Donofrio misreads Minor. It doesn’t say that children born of aliens are not natural born citizens. It says that children born of citizens ARE natural born citizens and DOESN’T answer the question as to the children of aliens.

    Wong Kim Ark answered that question. It recognized that there are ONLY two types of citizen – natural-born and naturalized.

    Other than the HINT in Happersett, no court has ever endorsed the natural/native distinction that Donofrio wants us to believe in.

    So, on one hand, Obama has EVERY scholar that has ever looked at this issue and on the other, he’s got Donofrio, who is a better poker player than lawyer.

  114. avatar
    Mary Brown July 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    Perhaps WND has decided to go on to the next money maker now that their revenue stream based on the COLB may dry up.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    The important distinction is between the reporting of the race of the parents, and the reporting of the race of the child. The document refers to the latter.

  116. avatar
    kimba July 28, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    They don’t realize they can go to http://www.whitehouse.gov and send all the email they want? For free! And it doesn’t have to go through the anthrax sorting center in Maryland.

  117. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm #

    Hmmm….. “Steve Cee” seems to be a new player in the game. Assuming the Hun didn’t make him up as a sockpuppet that is.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    If memory serves me right, Jill Pryor was a law student when she wrote that.

    http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

  119. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 28, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Actually Polarik got it from the long-since discredited TechDude. 🙂

  120. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 28, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    N comes before O. Since Obama was born on a friday and the Nordyke twins on a Saturday, the forms were more than likely given to the clerk on monday and sorted into alphabetical order.

  121. avatar
    BlackLion July 28, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    And WND will find enough suckers that will fall for this scam…PT Barnum did say that “there is a sucker born every minute”…And the birthers seem to make that saying true every day…

  122. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 28, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    No, read Perkins v. Elg.

    Elg, was born a citizen in the United States. She was then taken in her minor status to Sweden, where she obtained Naturalized citizenship there. The United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s assertion that Elg was “a natural-born citizen”.

  123. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    “…verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    How much more specific can you get, Heavy?

  124. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    She was then taken in her minor status to Sweden, where she obtained Naturalized citizenship there.

    The (circuit) court assumed she had acquired Swedish citizenship (due to her living with her father in Swedish while a minor). Do you know if she affirmatively obtained Swedish citizenship?

  125. avatar
    misha July 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    Don’t be so darn rational.

  126. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 3:56 am #

    I would like to see you go to his site and argue your case- but as far as you seem to making a point in this one comment – i dont see it

  127. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:00 am #

    I seem to recall reading what you just posted as the law as now -not in 1961(5 years then not 2) but the only date you have is 1952 for that one provisio.I have seen the law posted– much as yours is posted– I cant say who is correct

  128. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:10 am #

    Wong Kim Ark-If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’

    is as much—->a distinction-not same-so if not natural and not naturalized- then native!(like i said before native and natural not the same)
    citizen —> not natural

  129. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:11 am #

    Wong Kim Ark-If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’

    is as much—->a distinction-not same-so if not natural and not naturalized- then native!(like i said before native and natural not the same)
    citizen —> not natural

  130. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:26 am #

    The Supreme Court in Minor rejected the notion that natural born citizen was defined in the Constitution – therefore not even citizens born on US soil and given 14th Amendment citizenship are deemed – according to SCOTUS in Minor – to be natural born. If it was as simple as you are misleading us to believe, then the Constitution would define natural born citizens as any person acquiring their citizenship by being born here. Had the SCOTUS in Minor bought your line, then they would have said the definition of nbc is that part of the 14th Amendment which discusses native born citizens. But they did not say that… they said the Constitution does NOT define nbc and they also indicated that native born persons with foreign parents have doubts surrounding their nbc status.

  131. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:28 am #

    Vattel said : “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    SCOTUS in Minor said: it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    “natives, or natural-born citizens” – that is the common phrase

    Vattell first stated it, and SCOTUS in Minor repeated it

  132. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:57 am #

    in reference to what? regardless your own words show the difference -and what is in the law is what matters – even obama when passed the bill for mccain – he was sponsor shows that the definition of natural born is not covered under the 14th minor or ark

  133. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 4:59 am #

    Since the Supreme Court has stated in Minor that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution, then 14th Amendment citizenship does not establish that any of us are natural-born citizens eligible to be President. The Supreme Court makes it clear as the sun that we have to look beyond the Document for such a determination. Not just for Obama, but for any of us seeking to be President. The natural born citizen requirement was meant to protect the nation from foreign invasion and influence.

    The Minor case also tells us that doubts exist as to whether native born persons of foreign parents can be natural-born citizens. And with that SCOTUS decision is supposed to come legal precedent and respect. But apparently the great legal oracle Fukino thinks because she maintains a database of birth records, she is now an authority on Constitutional law.

  134. avatar
    aarrgghh July 29, 2009 at 5:01 am #

    markon says:

    is as much—->a distinction-not same-so if not natural and not naturalized- then native!(like i said before native and natural not the same)
    citizen —> not natural

    (2 + 3) “is as much” as (1 + 4)

  135. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 6:36 am #

    is 2 a 3? 2 different numbers

  136. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 6:37 am #

    The court unequivocally stated in Minor that we should look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen of the US. If the child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are doubts which were clearly expressed by SCOTUS in Minor. Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen. Obama also admits that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. Obama chose the word “governed”

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 7:56 am #

    markcon, there are some problems with citing Minor.

    First and most important is that it is taken out of context. The context in which the “doubt” language in Minor v. Happersett appears is in a section analyzing the the law before the adoption of the 14th amendment. Even if Obama were 119 years old (as Orly Taitz argues from Social Security number evidence), he would still be born under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment makes parentage of no account for citizenship.

    Further Minor also says that there are exactly two kinds of citizen: native or natural born citizens and naturalized citizens (note the equivalence of natural born and native). There is no special class for those born citizens but natural born citizens. As long as anyone is born a citizen (and Barack Obama undoubtedly is one of these) then they are a natural born citizen. This is certainly true since the passage of the 14th amendment even though the court in Minor had some unexplained doubts that it was the case before.

    Finally one notes that Minor cites no authority for its doubts, and that the the comment is part of the dicta (commentary) of the case, and not the decision.

    See my longer discussion here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/minor-v-happersett-88-u-s-162-1874/

  138. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 8:06 am #

    A careful reading of Minor shows that it uses “natural born citizen” to mean precisely those who are native born citizens. The context of the comment about the “Constitution not defining” is preceded by “to determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment,”

    Any doubts the Minor court had would have been settled by the amendment, and fully resolved by US v Wong Kim Ark.

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    McCain’s birth was not covered by Minor or Ark because he, unlike Obama, was not born in the United States.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 8:12 am #

    And we should follow some Swiss philosopher rather than our own Constitution, common law and court decisions? I think not!

    You take Minor out of context. Their doubts were expressed in a section on the state of the law before the 14th amendment, and throughout it is clear that Minor considers native born and natural born equivalent, that is, whoever is born a citizen is a natural born citizen.

    See also:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/minor-v-happersett-88-u-s-162-1874/
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

    By the way, your Swiss philosoper’s book did not have the phrase “natural born citizen” in it until an English translator inserted it a decade ofter the Constitution was ratified. Did you know that?

  141. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 8:14 am #

    “is as much as” means equal.

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 8:16 am #

    As birther sites almost universally moderate and censor comments made by those who disagree, it is seldom worth the trouble to try to carry on a conversation there.

  143. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    [Ed. The dude is desperate. He’s trying to tell you black is white and white is black. The quote speaks for itself. Furthermore, this entity relies heavily on the SCOTUS case of Wong Kim Ark. In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray discussed Minor and stated:

    [169 U.S. 649, 655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ …

    There you have it, the hero of the Obama eligibility movement, SCOTUS Justice Horace Gray stated unequivocally in Wong Kim Ark that Chief Justice Waite (writing for a unanimous court) was construing – “in behalf of the court” – the very provision of the 14th Amendment.

    Dr. Conspiracy is an Obama shill. he’s not trying to get to the truth. He’s trying to confuse people. But he really stuck his foot up his own this time. Word up.]

  144. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    Is 2 as much as 3? Is 1 as much as 1,000,000?

    The Supreme Court is very smart. They know how to write clearly. If they believed there were THREE types of citizens (natural-born, native-born, naturalized) then they would have said so. In some case. Somewhere.

    But, over 200 years of our nation’s history and there’s not a SINGLE case saying so.

    I can, however, find a few dozen saying there are only TWO types of citizens: Natural-born (or the SYNONYM native) and naturalized.

  145. avatar
    richCares July 29, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    “Dr. Conspiracy is an Obama shill. ”
    Doc’s research is impectable, especial compared to your BS, you just lost all credibilty making such an inane statement, does hating Obama make your brain athrophy?

  146. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    Markcon, the general rule is that you cite cases for what they decide, not what they don’t decide. The court EXPLICITLY said they would NOT address the question of children born to alien parents. To cite it for what it did NOT decide is a violation of good legal practice.

    The doubts the court talked about were whether children born to alien parents became citizens AT ALL. PERIOD.

    The court clearly did NOT have a third class of citizen (native-born but not natural-born) in mind when it said this:

    “These [children born to citizen-parents] were NATIVES, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    In the court’s mind then, native = natural born which are different from alien or foreigner.

    Wong Kim Ark answered the question. Children of aliens = citizens.

  147. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    does not mean that the definition of natural born citizen = all citizens other those naturalized. The Supreme Court in Minor rejected the notion that natural born citizen was defined in the Constitution – therefore not even citizens born on US soil and given 14th Amendment citizenship are deemed – according to SCOTUS in Minor – to be natural born. If it was as simple as you are misleading us to believe, then the Constitution would define natural born citizens as any person acquiring their citizenship by being born here. Had the SCOTUS in Minor bought your line, then they would have said the definition of nbc is that part of the 14th Amendment which discusses native born citizens. But they did not say that… they said the Constitution does NOT define nbc and they also indicated that native born persons with foreign parents have doubts surrounding their nbc status.

  148. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 29, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    This was confirmed last night on the Colbert Report. As much of a comedy show it is, did anyone else notice that the most important question Steven Colbert asked of “Our Lady Liberty” was if there was anything Obama could do to satisfy her and her “followers?” At that point he even distanced himself from the question, after stating that he was in fact a proud birther, and I believe stepped out of character and asked a legitimate jounalistic question. Of course the answer was that the only thing Obama could was to raise his father from the grave and make him a citizen BEFORE Obama was born. In other words – no. There is nothing he can do and these people will never believe anything else.

  149. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 9:50 am #

    citizen only and only if perm residence-does not apply to definition of natural born

  150. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    Yes, native = natural. In over 200 years of jurisprudence, you can’t find a single court case saying (outside of dissent) any of these things:

    1. Vattel is right on his definition of citizenship.

    2. There are three classes of citizen – natural born, native born and naturalized.

    3. Children born of aliens are granted some, but not all, rights of the natural born.

    Newton described the law of gravity. He was also an alchemist. To claim that Vattel, cited extensively for his work in international relations had some influence on our country’s definition of citizenship is to argue that we must all believe in alchemy because Newton’s theory of gravity is so great!

  151. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 9:54 am #

    no hate- whats wrong? does the fact he was proved wrong upset you so much?

  152. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 9:58 am #

    The Minor case tells us there were doubts that a child of foreign parents can be CITIZENS. Period. Full Stop. End of story.

    The Court did NOT think that children of aliens were some lesser class of native-born, but not natural-born citizen. It noted doubts that they could become citizens AT ALL!

    Follow along with the argument:

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, CITIZENS also.”

    1. Citizen parents, born here = CITIZEN

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    2. Alien parents, born here = some doubts as to CITIZENSHIP

    Wong Kim Ark answered those doubts. Alien parents = citizen.

    In neither Minor, nor Wong is there ever considered a third class of citizen.

  153. avatar
    kimba July 29, 2009 at 10:05 am #

    You keep parsing and re-parsing a single sentence that appeals to you, but only supports your case when you narrowly parse it and take it out of context. Now you’re down to sentence fragments. Give it up dude, you’re not going to persuade anyone, you’re showing us all you’re either obtuse or extremely stubborn.

  154. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    The court did not express doubts about the “natural born citizen” status of children born to aliens, they expressed doubts about the CITIZEN status of children born to aliens. They clearly did not conceive of a distinction between native and natural, using them as synonyms.

    But, you’re right that the definition of NBC is not found in the Constitution. You have to look to British and American Common law to find that. British Common Law, as far back as 1368 held that anyone born in the country was a natural subject, without regard to parentage. They tried to change that in 1580, but that attempt failed. As the NY Court found in Lynch v. Clarke and as the Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark nothing in American history hints at any attempt to supplant the notion of birth place alone conveying citizenship.

    The author in Lynch is clear that if the writers of the Constitution wanted to make such a fundamental change to citizenship as to make a THIRD class of citizen (native, but not natural-born) they would have said so. The court in Minor makes the same point about assuming that voting is a right of citizenship:

    “So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared.”

    So, how is it that the universal understanding of British and American common law up until the founding of the country was that citizenship was granted irrespective of one’s parental citizenship, but the Founders wanted to create a new, third category but were too stupid to write it explicitly?

    And how are the Supreme Court justices too stupid to write, in over 200 years of decisions, clearly and plainly that there are three classes of citizen?

  155. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    It answers the only question left open in Minor. Are children of aliens CITIZENS?

    Minor didn’t make a distinction between natural born or native born. It used the terms as synonyms:

    “These [children born to citizen-parents] were NATIVES, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  156. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    what i state no matter if you think is parsed is still valid- and trumps what they stated. as for you kimba you havent stated anything worth commenting on

  157. avatar
    kimba July 29, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    Insult me if it makes you feel better. What you are saying is not valid. A number of people have tried to explain to you very politely why you are wrong. You are taking out of context a piece of a sentence in a minor part of a case decision and trying to make it mean what you want it to mean. Repeating it over and over, in spite of being corrected, isn’t goin t change that your argument isn’t standing up here. It wouldn’t stand up in court either.

  158. avatar
    aarrgghh July 29, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    markcon says:

    is 2 a 3? 2 different numbers

    is as much as

    “la la la la la i can’t hear you …”

  159. avatar
    kimba July 29, 2009 at 11:15 am #

    Two ten dollar bills is as much twenty dollars as four five dollar bills.

  160. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    It is soooo cute that you have to run to Donofrio, so he can tell you what to think.

    Why doesn’t Donofrio come here to debate Dr. Conspiracy? Unlike Donofrio, Dr. Conspiracy doesn’t censor his site.

  161. avatar
    kimba July 29, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    HAHAHA!! And he copied it word for word, bracket for bracket. “Help me Leo”

    Gold star to Bob! Nice work.

  162. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    “Dr. Conspiracy is an Obama shill.”

    And markcon is a Donofrio toadie.

    A fair exchange of insults, no?

  163. avatar
    misha July 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Give Kimba a gold star. (bada-bing)

    Next question: What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  164. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    of course I copied it- he is consistent and makes more sense than any of you- I understand it but cant put it in my own words-
    your statement –“Minor didn’t make a distinction between natural born or native born. It used the terms as synonyms:

    “These [children born to citizen-parents] were NATIVES, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
    ————————————
    in my opinion seems wrong your assumption that they are synonomis is the error.

    and your quote “These [children born to citizen-parents] were NATIVES, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” i dont believe is accurate especially the[or natural-born]

  165. avatar
    Heavy July 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    It’s REALLY starting to take root now. Won’t be long!

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/07/29/obama-is-making-a-birther-out-of-me/

  166. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    of course I copied it

    Thanks for admitting you have no ability to think independently.

    he is consistent

    Yes — consistently wrong.

    in my opinion seems wrong your assumption that they are synonomis is the error.

    And your opinion is wrong. Minor did not use the terms in manner that distinguishes them, but together, indicating they mean the same thing.

    Again: What is the difference between the two? Cite the language from a court case that supports your position.

    And go run to Donofrio if you need help.

  167. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    “I’m not a birther, myself”

    …off to a flying start.

  168. avatar
    Heavy July 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    Why do liberals think they are the only ones with original ideas? No opposite is true. That’s how this criminal got control of this country. Because liberals are void of thought.

  169. avatar
    Heavy July 29, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Did you have a point?

  170. avatar
    kimba July 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    HA! Well, I couldn’t resist using my new phrase “is as much” in a sentence.

  171. avatar
    misha July 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    And you’re suppose to say: An African or European swallow?

    Next question: What’s your favorite color?

  172. avatar
    misha July 29, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    “Because liberals are void of thought.”

    OK, tell me what to do next.

  173. avatar
    Heavy July 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    I just can’t understand why ANYONE would question his NBC status! Just a refresher.

    http://discovertexarkana.com/2009/07/birthers-are-citizens-of-idiot-america-dan-kennedy/

  174. avatar
    Heavy July 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    And..

    http://pnwcc.info/node/106

  175. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Why do liberals think they are the only ones with original ideas?

    Whoever said that?

    Donofrio’s ideas are somewhat original. And still wrong.

    markcon, however, literally went to Donofrio and asked how to respond. Which demonstrates no original thought.

  176. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    no need- your the one parsing-that quote was from children of citizen parents!!!–SCOTUS in Minor said: it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    they did not mix the words and meanings-

    ” Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that,
    to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person
    must be a natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
    Whereas the term natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears
    in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;April 30, 2008 S. RES. 511.(obama Leahy, McCaskill, Coburn, Clinton and Webb)
    If in minor- citizen = natural and native then there would be no reason for s res 511

    likewise minor 6 years after the 14th confirms that the 14th does not confirm nbc status on all citizens.the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.
    In the Minor case, the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status. (citizen does not =nbc)
    If all citizens were allowed nbc status then there would be no need to require the President to be something different -but they did -otherwise there would be no distinct requirement to qualify. other than citizen-citizen can be a native with foreign ties unacceptable for the position.
    further more-
    in ark
    quote from Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    So, here we see that Gray believed the Minor Court to be making direct reference to the 14th Amendment when it said that the Constitutions does NOT define natural-born citizen. Gray also states that the Minor Court had to look elsewhere and in doing so they used the common law as an “aid”.
    If the citizenship was natural, it wouldn’t need to be codified. If you’re born on the soil to two US citizen parents no statute is necessary, hence the term NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. If you need a statute codify your citizenship then your citizenship is not natural. It may exist but doesn’t meet the strict requirements to be President-
    The case holding- Wong Kim Ark-only confers “citizenship”, not natural born citizenship and only to children of person’s “permanently domiciled” in the US.
    Had the Court intended to say such a person is as much a “natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” then that’s what the Court would have said. But that’s not what Gray said. He said “is as much a citizen”, he did not say “is as much a natural-born citizen.

  177. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    Except for the stuff in the brackets [] which I added to clarify what “these” was refering to, it’s an accurate quote. In fact, if you look at the quote you’ve copied and pasted, you’ll find my quote in there.

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. THESE WERE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS.”

  178. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    they did not mix the words and meanings

    Again: Cite the cases where the phases are given distinct meanings. Donofrio is very long on what Minor doesn’t say, but very short on what other cases do say.

    If in minor- citizen = natural and native then there would be no reason for s res 511

    The rationale behind S.R. 511 is different, primarily politcally motivated, and all about exactly one person: John McCain.

    minor 6 years after the 14th confirms that the 14th does not confirm nbc status on all citizens

    Minor “confirms” nothing of the sort. Listening to someone else besides Donofrio might be educational for you.

    otherwise there would be no distinct requirement to qualify.

    There are many citizens who are not natural-born citizens. There are also a few who are born in the United States but not citizens.

    Had the Court intended to say such a person is as much a “natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” then that’s what the Court would have said.

    The dissent in Wong Kim Ark disagrees with you:

    “I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency….”

    The dissent in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged the majority’s position leads to the conclusion that those in the born in the United States are natural-born citizens. Why can’t you?

  179. avatar
    Greg July 29, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    Not only did Gray not have a distinction between natural born citizen and native born citizen in mind when writing Wong Kim Ark, the dissent in that case thought he was deciding the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Go ahead, read Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark, I’ll wait:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

    And, you’re lucky, the point I’m talking about is near the top. It starts out:

    “The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was…”

    Fuller concludes that:

    “And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and GOVERNED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ‘CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES’ AND ‘NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN’ used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

    (I’ll let you look at the case to figure out what “this rule” is. Hint: it even applies to people born to parents who are only here a few days.)

    So, if even the author of the dissent in Wong Kim Ark believes that it decided the definition of NBC, why should we be expected to think otherwise?

  180. avatar
    Jody July 29, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    I have to agree, this is an excellent article explaining the controversy. This is my favorite part:

    “The Birthers are ignorant hatemongers, spouting nonsense about Obama’s roots as a proxy for their profound disgust that a black man was elected president.”

  181. avatar
    markcon July 29, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    your right- needed help sorting out your convoluted bogus statement- but this is why im a fan of donofrio

    [Ed. The dissent does not acknowledge that the majority position grants NBC status. The majority holding states unequivocally that the the holding is strictly limited to the question before the court. Here is what was held, everything else is dicta. And Dicta is not controlling law, it’s just reasoning. Just as the Dicta in Minor is not firm law to be followed by stare decisis on the nbc the issue, the Dicta in WKA is also not stare decisis on the issue of NBC. Here is the question decided and precedent set in WKA, straight from the horse’s mouth:

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Notice the phrase “single question”. There’s no wiggle room. The question presented is stated… is WKA a citizen or not? That’s the single question. It doesn’t say the single question presented is whether WKA is a natural-born citizen.

    Additionally, the single question assumes the person was born of parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama’s father NEVER met that criteria so WKA does NOT apply to the question presented by Obama’s eligibility.

    Moving on to the dissent. The dissent does not say anywhere that the “holding” pertained to the definition of NBC. The dissent makes note of the DICTA – which is not law – and takes issue with the DICTA as being wrong. It makes an extreme example of asking whether the Constitution bars a person like McCain, born of US parents abroad, from being President while allowing somebody like Wong Kim Ark, a person born in the US to Chinese Empire subjects to be President? He’s going to an extreme example in reference to the reckless DICTA in WKA which makes reference to NBC. So the dissent also makes reference to it.

    But the last paragraph of the majority opinion where the “single question” presented is discussed does not make reference to it.

    And for our purpose it proves that the issue of who is NBC and who isn’t is not so clear even to fighting SCOTUS judges. So at the very least, those saying the issue is cut and dry who at the same time quote from the dissent in WKA are being rather two faced by mocking the importance of the issue. The dissent makes clear the danger WKA posed to the nation by its reckless dicta.

    The dissent does not say that WKA can be President, the dissent uses the extreme of WKA being eligible to be President to counter the DICTA issued by Gray in the majority opinion.

    Do you have any idea how much DICTA exists in the history of US SCOTUS jurisprudence? If every word of every case was considered controlling law it would be a total mess. WKA is one of the longest most loquacious decisions in US history. But the only part which is considered precedent is the holding which by its very own wording is strictly limited to the exact circumstances and questions presented.

    Furthermore, WKA ought to be reversed. It’s crap and it was written by a man appointed by a usurper. The case sees Justice Gray going schizo on his own decision in the Elk case. Now that we know the President who appointed him was a usurper, a British subject at birth, history demands that we question why Justice Gray would make such an ass of himself trying to equivocate his correct opinion in the Elk case with his idiotic opinion in Wong Kim Ark. The two cannot co-exist. What happened that made Gray go schizo? Enquiring minds want to know.]

  182. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 9:15 pm #

    but this is why im a fan of donofrio

    Because he tells you what you want to hear?

    Just as the Dicta in Minor is not firm law to be followed by stare decisis on the nbc the issue

    Do you understand that Donofrio is conceding that his entire “analysis” of Minor is based on dicta? (Minor involved whether women had the right to vote.) So, in Donofrio’s world, the Minor dicta is good dicta, but the Wong Kim Ark dicta is bad, bad dicta that is totally unreliable.

    Hence the frequent criticism that Donofrio is cherry-picking.

    Additionally, the single question assumes the person was born of parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama’s father NEVER met that criteria so WKA does NOT apply to the question presented by Obama’s eligibility.

    A false distinguisher. There’s absolutely no case that states Wong Kim Ark applies only to those permanently domiciled.

    He’s going to an extreme example in reference to the reckless DICTA in WKA which makes reference to NBC. So the dissent also makes reference to it.

    Because the dissent acknowledges under the majority’s rationale, those born in the United States (with few very exceptions) are natural born citizens. The dissent can see that; why can’t you *or Donofrio)?

    So at the very least, those saying the issue is cut and dry who at the same time quote from the dissent in WKA are being rather two faced by mocking the importance of the issue.

    But the issue is cut-and-dry. Name a reputable scholar who thinks it isn’t.

    Furthermore, WKA ought to be reversed. It’s crap and it was written by a man appointed by a usurper.

    Here’s Donofrio’s real problem with Wong Kim Ark: He doesn’t like it. It kills his whole “analysis.”

    Still the law.

    The case sees Justice Gray going schizo on his own decision in the Elk case.

    Says Donofrio, and no one else.

    Now that we know the President who appointed him was a usurper, a British subject at birth, history demands that we question why Justice Gray would make such an ass of himself trying to equivocate his correct opinion in the Elk case with his idiotic opinion in Wong Kim Ark.

    Of course: Chester Authur’s ghost haunted Justice Gray! Any first-year law student knows that argument.

    And p.s. to Donofrio: Stop talking through your toadie; just come over to Dr. Conspiracy’s site. Can you handle a debate where you can’t censor people?

  183. avatar
    Bob July 29, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    markcon–

    Here’s some “big picture” thoughts for you:

    Let’s look at the cases that birfers like to cite:

    Dred Scott: Black people aren’t citizens.
    Minor: Women can’t vote.
    Elk: Native Americans can’t vote.

    First off, the holdings of those cases all have been reversed (by constitutional amendment or changes to the law). So their precedential value is questionable, at best.

    But, more importantly, are those your values? Are those the values of this country now? To deny people of color and women basic rights, such as the right to participate in the democratic process?

    Think for a moment about who might cite Dred Scott — widely believed to be the worst decision that SCOTUS ever made — as the legal reasoning as to why Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

  184. avatar
    richCares July 29, 2009 at 10:01 pm #

    well heavy is definitely a bigot and he has severe anger management problems, poor guy all he has is hate and fear. Can anybody suggest a therapist or paster for him? Maybe he can get himself together. More than likely he will just write 100000 times
    that he hates liberals and blacks!

  185. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 29, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    The [Ed.] I assume is Donofrio, who uses that identifier when replying to items on his blog.

  186. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 30, 2009 at 1:08 am #

    Not only that, Bob. But most of the citations of Dred Scott in the Birther world, don’t even come from the Opinion of the Court. It comes from a concurring opinion.

    Dred Scott, said that citizenship was left upto the states. The opinion I see cited the most often is the Opinion of Justice Peter Vivian Daniel, which was not the opinion of the court, but was a concurring opinion.

  187. avatar
    Joehorn July 30, 2009 at 8:39 am #

    Now I know one exists, lets have a look!!!!

  188. avatar
    kimba July 30, 2009 at 8:46 am #

    Dr Fukino told you what you wanted to know. He was born here. Wanting to see any of the other information is just being nosey. Nothing else matters. He was born in Hawaii in 1961. Eligible.

  189. avatar
    Bob July 30, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy’s rebuttal.

  190. avatar
    Bob Weber July 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    “HAHAHA!! And he copied it word for word, bracket for bracket.”

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

    As previously mentioned, birfers are big on copy-and-paste. Much easier than logical argument. I’ve found my own writing in the middle of jumbled birfer copy-and-paste jobs, the birfer apparently unaware I’m debunking birferism.

  191. avatar
    Bob Weber July 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    ” BO’s COLB has a number ending with 10641.”

    The Nordyke twins were born on Aug. 5, 1961 in Honolulu, HI. The birth was registered on Aug. 11, 1961 and their “Certificate of Live Birth” has the numbers ending with 10637 and 10638.”

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

    While birfers love baseless speculation, I try to stick with hard fact. But here I’m going to speculate. So call me crazy, or whatever, but here goes:

    The HI Health Dept. received birth data in the mail, and then processed the certificates in alphabetical order, not by time of birth. This would make it easier to file – files are usually alphabetized. The HI Health Dept. would have no reason to arrange each days filings by time order. Look at the names – “Nordyke” then “Obama”. Could it be that the deep-dark secret of the filing numbers is that there are three other names alphabetically between “Nordyke” and “Obama”. Hmmm?

  192. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 30, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    No, that’s not how it works. Here is what happens.

    1) Step one: for each birth, 2 worksheets are completed by hand. One by the medical staff with all sorts of info related to the birth and medical history — for example, if the birth was by cesarian or a breech birth, it would be noted there. The other worksheet is completed by the mom.

    2). The 2 worksheets are taken to someone who types the information on a form and issues the birth certificate number at the time the form is typed up. It is possible that this happens at the health department, but the information I have received is that this is done at the hospital.

    3) The completed forms then need to be taken back to the mother and the doctor for their signatures. They sign and date the forms.

    4) Once the form has the required signatures, it is taken to the health department where, if all is in order, it is accepted for filing. The dates of such acceptance/filing would be noted on the form.

    So the numerical order is determined by the time that the worksheets are completed and submitted to whoever types up the certificate. The filing order is determined by the time that all signatures are on the form.

  193. avatar
    Bob July 30, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    Markcon–

    I will say you the effort of responding, as Donofrio has gone to great lengths to “explain” that SCOTUS didn’t mean what it said.

  194. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 30, 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    It’s interesting that the same decision referenced COMMON LAW, specifically, English Common Law, instead of de Vattel.

    Of course, Minor v. Happersett got Common Law wrong. Common Law held that anybody born within the country was a “natural-born subject”, not just what the court claimed. The whole reason that the birthers are trying to state that they used de Vattel, is that they know that Common Law defies them on this definition.

    I still have yet to hear an adequate reason why the following happened:

    1. The framers of the Constitution abandoned the commonly known Common Law, and instead went with a Swiss Philosopher to define a term that didn’t even appear in his book until 10 years after the constitution.

    2. The framers, knowing that Common Law defined this term and that they were rejecting the common-law definition of the term, decided to not define it, when they knew that the common law definition would be more widely known.

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 30, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Why do you think the hospital numbers the forms?

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 30, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Remember that Minor, when it talked about “doubts”, was reviewing the law before the 14th Amendment. They may well have had the question of the slaves in mind. Citing no authorities, nor offering any explanation, it’s difficult to know just what they meant.

  197. avatar
    BlackLion July 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    Bob, what is your opinion of Donofrio’s reasoning? I think he goes to great lengths to find an issue with the Wong case because it undermines his argument in Minor. The court may have been using citizen and natural born citizen interchangibly. Who knows. Donofrio knows he is speculating. He wants us to think that he knows something the rest of us don’t.

  198. avatar
    Bob July 30, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    Donofrio excessive reliance on Minor always has been plagued by Wong Kim Ark, as that’s really what’s at issue. I think Donofrio is realizing he’s going to have to take Wong Kim Ark directly. His problem, of course, is that he thinks the dissent got it right and the majority got it wrong. And, actually, he’s not alone in that belief. But it is (to use a Phil-ism) “intellectually dishonest” to pretend Wong Kim Ark says what he wants it to say.

    As for his “analysis,” it is typical Donofrio cherrypicking. Wong Kim Ark plainly says:

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    Since the majority relies upon this (and not de Vattal, as the minority did), Donofrio’s hairsplitting isn’t all that impressive.

  199. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 30, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    Not quite. Minor came up after the passage of the 14th Amendment, when a female, Virginia Minor, got the idea that the 14th Amendment applied to her. She brought a lawsuit arguing that, as she was a “person”, the privileges & immunities clause of the 14th Amendment applied to her and gave her the right to vote.

    The Minor court rejected her claim, saying that citizenship did not equate with a right to vote. Eventually, that holding was superseded by the passage of the 19th Amendment.

  200. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    I don’t know who numbers the forms, but another poster said that Kapiolani Hospital apparently has a different series of numbers than other Hawaii hospitals –which, if true, would suggest that the hospitals were issuing the numbers. One way for the department of health to avoid overlap with numbers would be to authorize each hospital to issue a separate sequence. For example, all certificates from Kapiolani are #10xxx – whereas another hospital issues #07xxx.

    Its equally possible that the health department issued the numbers — but there is the logistical problem of entering the data from worksheets onto the forms — this had to be done BEFORE the forms are signed, and the signature was needed before the certificate could be filed. It had to be done quickly, to ensure that the mother would sign before being discharged from the hospital. So it could have entailed a daily messenger run back and forth to the health department, or it could involve an office of the hospital performing an administrative function related to vital record certificates.

    Obviously, these days it can be done electronically — I don’t know how it is done, but technically there should be a way that the hospital staff can log in and enter data directly into the system, including generation of a file number for each new file created.

    But I’m trying to figure out the logistics of the paperwork back in 1961.

  201. avatar
    Bob July 30, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    So it could have entailed a daily messenger run back and forth to the health department

    This seems likely. Very easy for the hospital to delivery all necessary vital documents, for the department to return the necessary copies, etc.

    technically there should be a way that the hospital staff can log in and enter data directly into the system, including generation of a file number for each new file created.

    My guess who would the hospital had a separate number for each patient, which was then cross-referenced with the certificate number (once it became known).

  202. avatar
    FTE July 30, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    I think you’re wong (sic) on the certification/certificate numbers.

    Susan Nordyke (10637) was born on Aug 5, 1961 at 2:12 pm and Gretchen Nordyke
    (10638) was born on Aug 5, 1961 at 2:17 pm. If the worksheets were alphabetized, then Gretchen would have the lower number.

    Mother Nordyke said she was in labor for twenty hours and offered the theory she checked into the hospital before Stanley Ann, so her twin with receive lower Cert Numbers.

    The problem with the theory is that Baby Obama was allegedly born on Aug 4, 1961 at 7:24 pm. Twenty hours before Susan Nordyke was born is 6:12 pm on Aug 4, 1961. If true, Stanley Ann checked in and delivered an hour and twelve minutes later.

    Teenager, first baby and under an hour and a half labor at the hospital … FAIL.

    Next.

  203. avatar
    Bob July 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    LIFO.

    Later completed forms on top of stack, which in turn receive lower certificate numbers.

    The closeness in numerical sequencing supports the conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii, just like Hawaii says he was.

  204. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 30, 2009 at 11:42 pm #

    Sven (pretending to be FTE). But of course Nordyke did not know when Stanley Ann checked in. FAIL.

    Anyway, your conclusion is inane. You have no information about how long Stanley Ann was in labor before going to the hospital. The labor clock does not START when someone gets to the hospital.

    You don’t deserve a “next”.

  205. avatar
    markcon July 31, 2009 at 7:45 am #

    rereading these post- cant go into deep argument till i memorize the cases referenced- may take awhile-new to me-being a donofrio toadie takes to long to figure out the rebuttal to your twisting the facts-so i will just have to learn more and keep my post short

    what are you trying to prove by ref. Perkins v. Elg.?
    proves nothing- she was born usa of “permanent domiciled parents”! (obama was not)

  206. avatar
    markcon July 31, 2009 at 7:59 am #

    obscure and safe- until she defines what she means by natural born. as a official by making such a statement without collaborating evidence is high handed and misleading. the records are sealed and she had no right to make any kind of statement especially an official proclamation of nbc knowing legally she would not be required to show proof.
    hmm i wonder if by making a public official statement if under Hawaii statue she will be required to show proof or rescind– just a thought

  207. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2009 at 8:01 am #

    Typically Perkins v Elg is cited by the Obama eligibility denialists because Elg, the child of two naturalized US citizens and born in the US, is described as a “natural born citizen.” This coincidence from the facts of the case is fallaciously twisted to make the parents’ citizenship a requirement.

    Those who support Obama’s eligibility use the case appropriately to show that having dual citizenship (which Elg had) does not preclude one from being a natural born citizen of the United States. The difference between Elg and Obama is that she became a dual citizen after she was born, not at the time of birth as was Obama.

  208. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    And if some state legislator or journalist said Obama was not a natural born citizen, would you condemn them equally?

    The records are not “sealed”. Anyone with a tangible interest can get a copy.

  209. avatar
    Bob July 31, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    your twisting the facts

    The next time you accuse someone of twisting facts, it would help if you actually cited facts, and then explain how they were twisted.

    Did Elg retain her Swedish citizenship? (I’m not fully sold she ever actually had Swedish citizenship; although it is a fair presumption that she did, as she originally thought to be an alien.)

  210. avatar
    Bob July 31, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    until she defines what she means by natural born

    You mean other than as term is commonly used, such as in Wong Kim Ark, i.e., born in the U.S.?

    as a official by making such a statement without collaborating evidence is high handed and misleading.

    Why is corroboration needed? And there’s absolutely nothing misleading about saying Obama was born in Hawaii (and, thus, the U.S.)

    the records are sealed

    By her. She director of the department in charge of such privacy.

    she had no right to make any kind of statement

    The First Amendment doesn’t apply to her?

    especially an official proclamation of nbc knowing legally she would not be required to show proof.

    Funny; that’s exactly what Donfrio wanted in lawsuit against the New Jersey Secretary of State.

    hmm i wonder if by making a public official statement if under Hawaii statue she will be required to show proof or rescind– just a thought

    Back up your thought with some cites.

  211. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 31, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy, it also states that U.S. Nationality Law works independantly from other country’s nationality laws. So, there is no reason that the U.S. cares one lick about what the British Nationality Act of 1948 says. That’s usually why I bring up Perkins v. Elg, is it directly refutes the “He was governed under the British Nationality Act, and therefore is not a Natural-Born Citizen” response.

  212. avatar
    Welsh Dragon July 31, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    Great cartoon at Tulsa World:

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=20090729_63_A16_tworld670637

  213. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    That was funny. I added the link to my Media page:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/media/