Main Menu

The Long Form – reconstructed

I may kick myself for this but here it is:

Click to Enlarge

Over the months, bits and pieces of evidence have come forward that provide at a partial view of what President Obama’s original birth certificate must look like.

Starting with the COLB released by Barack Obama himself, we add the recently confirmed Mother’s Usual Address from the newspaper birth announcement, the certificate number from FactCheck.org photographs, the name of the hospital from the President himself in a letter to the hospital on the occasion of their centennial celebration, and some formatting hints from the Nordyke Twin’s certificate.

I took a birth certificate from 1963 and reconstructed a Barack Obama birth certificate with the most accurate content I could. I did not attempt to make a forgery: the fonts don’t match exactly and the security paper background is obviously cut and pasted. But if and when a long form is published, this is the content we should expect to see. The only thing I guessed about was the age of Obama’s father: I put 24, but it could have been 25. If anyone has his date of birth documented, please tell me (and tell the Wikipedia!).

Exhibits:

  1. “Nordyke” long form 1961 (copy printed and sealed in 1966)
  2. Obama COLB 1961 (printed and sealed in 2007)
  3. “Edith” long form 1962
  4. “Alan” long form 1963

Guide to the data:

  • General form: The base document is the Alan certificate from 1963.
  • File Number: “151” is consistent with all exhibits. It indicates that the certificate is from Hawaii. “61” is the year of issue; I used “61” instead of “1961” to be consistent with the Nordyke certificate. The certificate number is “10641” based on the COLB with the leading zero omitted consistent with the Nordyke certificate. The file number is assigned (most probably) by a mechanical numbering machine stamp. Note the imprecise registration of the digits on the Nordyke form that I roughly imitated.
  • Blocks 1a, 1b and 1c. The name is taken from the COLB and presented in all caps per the Nordyke certificate.
  • Block 2. Sex is original on the Alan certificate, with the value consistent with the COLB.
  • Block 3. Single birth is original on the Alan certificate. It is generally known that Obama was not a twin.
  • Block 4. Left blank, not applicable.
  • Block 5. Date of Birth value taken from the COLB and formatted according to the Nordyke certificate.
  • Block 6a and 6b. Place of Birth and Island from the COLB. Image original from the Alan certificate.
  • Block 6c and 6d. Name of hospital comes from an official White House letter to the hospital, read by Congressman Abercrombie at the hospital’s centennial celebration. The exact wording and formatting is from the Nordyke certificate from the same hospital the next day. The Nordyke certificate shows that the hospital is within the town limits.
  • Block 7a, 7b and 7c. Mother’s usual residence taken from newspaper birth announcement (confirmed by city directory). Ann Obama was living with her parents. Image from the Alan certificate.
  • Block 7d and 7e. Mother’s usual residence taken from newspaper birth announcement (confirmed by city directory). Ann Obama was living with her parents. I am assuming at this point that the address is within the city limits (7e), or so it would seem from the map.
  • Block 7f. Mother’s mailing address is left blank, consistent with the Nordyke certificate.
  • Block 7g. The address is not a farm or plantation, rather a residential area.
  • Block 8. Full name of father from COLB, in all caps consistent with Nordyke certificate.
  • Block 9. Race of Father, “African”, from the COLB.
  • Block 10. Obama Sr. was born in 1936 according to the Wikipedia, but the exact date is unknown. He might have been 24 or 25 years old.
  • Block 11. Obama Sr. was born in what we call Kenya today. It is not known what Stanley Ann Obama might have called the place on her paperwork. Options include: Nyang’oma Kogelo Village, Siaya District, Nyanza Province, Kenya Colony, British Protectorate of Zanzibar
  • Block 12a and 12b. Usual occupation of father is stated as “Student” consistent with Obama autobiography. Industry is left blank.
  • Block 13.  Full maiden name of  mother from COLB, in all caps per Nordyke formatting.
  • Block 14. Race of Mother from the COLB, in mixed case per Nordyke formatting.
  • Block 15. Age of Mother 18, from various published reports.
  • Block 16. Mother birthplace from Wikipedia, formatted per Nordyke certificate.
  • Block 17a and 17b. Type of occupation “student” from various sources. Date last worked unknown and left blank.
  • Blocks 18a, and 19a. Unknown name of informant and attendant.
  • Blocks 18b, and 19b. I am assuming the most probable values, that the mother was the informant, and that a doctor delivered the baby (no midwife deliveries were recorded in Honolulu in 1961 per official statistics).
  • Block 20 and 22. The date of registration is taken from the COLB. The same date is used in both boxes consistent with the Nordyke certificate. The Nordyke image suggests that a rubber date stamp was used. For this reason one of the stamps is at an angle.
  • Block 21. The local registrar is unknown, although there is a high probability that it is the same name as is on the Nordyke certificate

, , , , , , , , , ,

107 Responses to The Long Form – reconstructed

  1. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 23, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    You’ve made a mistake; we know from the COLB that the “date filed by registrar” was August 8th,, not August 11th. I think you might have picked August 11th up from the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates, but theirs was delayed because of a delay in signing by the attending physician. There is no reason to think that “date accepted” would be any different from “date filed.”

  2. avatar
    Gordon August 23, 2009 at 2:14 am #

    Does a Hawaiian long form actually use the term Certificate of Live Birth?

  3. avatar
    IngloriousBasturd August 23, 2009 at 8:40 am #

    B.O. Sr. was born in Nyang’oma Kogelo Village, Siaya District, Nyanza Province, Kenya Colony, British Protectorate of Zanzibar

    Zanzibar Historical Events

    1911 December

    Seyyid Ali bin Hamoud visited England to attend the Coronation of His Majesty King George V. Whilst in Europe he abdicated and decided to leave in Paris where he died in 1918.

    Seyyid Khalifa bin Haroub ascended the throne of Zanzibar and his coronation was held at the House of Wonder. He wa the longest Sultan to rule Zanzibar from 1911-1960.

    1913

    Control of Zanzibar Sultanate passed from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

    1914 January

    Control of Zanzibar transferred formally from Foreign Office to Colonial Office. The new post British Resident an Chief Secretary were created. Major F.B. Pearce was made the first British Resident and J. H. Sinclair became the first Chief Secretary.

    1914 August

    The first World War was started. Zanzibar declared war on Germany and the Treaty of Zanzibar with Germany lapsed.

    1963 December

    Zanzibar got its Independence and Mohammed Shamte Hamad became the first Prime Minister.But constitutionally it was declared the Sultan the Head of State and giving him more power to appoint his Successor.

    1964 January

    The Revolution took place to topple not only the ZNP/ZPPP Government but also the monarchy, under the Leadership of late Mzee, Abeid Amaan Karume. With the establishment of of a republic and a new coalition of classes in power, radical changes took places. In fact with the exception of Guinea no country in tropical Africa changed radically in so short time.

    1964 March

    Nationalization of Land and later distributed to the poor. This was a major reform program to change the society and the ownership of Land.

    1964 April

    The Republic of Zanzibar united with the Republic of Tanganyika to form the United Republic of Tanzania. Under new setup the late Julius Nyerere became the first President and Karume became the first Vice President of Tanzania respectively.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2009 at 8:51 am #

    Yes, it says “Certificate of Live Birth”. My “long form” is based on a real one from 1963.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2009 at 8:51 am #

    OOOOOOOOOOOOPS. 😳 Of course I used the Nordyke date, when I should have used the Obama date. It’s fixed now.

    The form is really pretty much complete except for nailing down Obama Sr.’s age, the “Date Last Worked” and the signatures and their dates.

  6. avatar
    IngloriousBasturd August 23, 2009 at 9:23 am #

    There is no reason to think that “date accepted” would be any different from “date filed.”

    Also, there is no reason to think a grandmother attesting to a live birth would be any different than an M.D. with privileges at a local hospital attesting to a live birth. After all, if the grandmother is found to have committed perjury, then she could claim she only wanted the best for her grandchild. The M.D. would probably lie because is professional reputation is at stake and reasonable people would understand the situation and forgive.

  7. avatar
    welsh dragon August 23, 2009 at 10:08 am #

    Not quite correct – Nyansa Province was part of Kenya Colony at the time but it had no connection with the Protectorate of Zanzibar.

    Nor was it part of the Kenyan Protectorate which which consisted of the coastal strip and had a seperate legal status to the Colony although it was administered together with it.

    The Kenyan Protectorate itself included areas that had been leased from Zanzibar prior to the establishment of the Protectorate of Zanzibar

    The British Empire was a rather untidy thing.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    I have updated this article to explain why I put the data in it that I did, and why some of the formatting decisions.

    What I really need is a 12-pitch typewriter font, but I don’t have one. I had to adjust the character spacing to emulate it.

  9. avatar
    jtx August 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Why do you indulge in yet more of this Deather nonsense and BS??? You even got the race entry wrong.

    All of this is irrelevant as I’ve indicated 2 or 3 times since the only issue of relevance is the legal eligibility (or lack thereof) of this man to hold the office he now occupies … which he (nor you) have ever been able to show. The BC doesn’t matter even though it will most likely end up showing he was born in Kenya and all of you Flying Monkeys who have been rapidly and repeatedly drafting these forgeries and fraudulent documents in the mistaken belief they mean something will be horribly disappointed to see that your hero has feet of clay.

  10. avatar
    nbc August 23, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    The BC doesn’t matter even though it will most likely end up showing he was born in Kenya and all of you Flying Monkeys who have been rapidly and repeatedly drafting these forgeries and fraudulent documents in the mistaken belief they mean something will be horribly disappointed to see that your hero has feet of clay.

    Even though it does not matter JTX holds to other fallacious beliefs which lack in foundation in reason, logic and/or fact.

    Sadly enough, our pal JTX will continue to ignore facts, insisting that the constitutional requirement of standing will somehow be solved through some magical intervention.

    As to the race entry, african is what the COLB showed, so Dr C is probably correct.

    Poor JTX, all hot air and no substance, but still entertaining.

  11. avatar
    Gordon August 23, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    jtx, how is the race entry wrong. Obama’s short form has the same entries. The information as recorded about the father is garnered from what the birthing mother says.

  12. avatar
    richCares August 23, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    “Poor JTX, all hot air and no substance, but still entertaining”

    yah, kinda feel sorry for him, some advice for jtx, stop believing in flying monkeys before you get commited! Remember Harvey.

  13. avatar
    misha August 23, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    Birthers will now switch to Plan B: Obama’s father precludes him from being NBC.

    We have several eminent Constitutonal lawyers attesting to the fact that a president must be a super NBC, i.e. both parents must be citzens: Taitz, Puzy, and pro poker player Donofrio.

    They are third rate lawyers, with an amen chorus of losers.

    Best cure for DWI/DUI in NJ: pass a law that all defendants can only be represented by Mario Puzo. Problem solved overnight.

    Hey birthers: what is your legal strategy going to be when Booker announces? Secretly born in Canada? I can’t wait to see their legal gymnastics. Popcorn.

  14. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 24, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    Untidy is an understatement. The British East Africa company had indeed established control over parts of Southern coastal “Kenya” (Mombasa region) before 1890, even though the right to establish control over Zanzibar had been given to Germany (at a conference where the Africans whose destiny was being discussed were NOT invited), and the Northernmost part of “Mombasa-land”, the sub-sultatanate of Wituland, had been effectively German-controlled since 1885. In 1890, Germany and Britain exchanged the formerly Danish island of Heligoland with Zanzibar, or better said nominal control of Zanzibar. As a further show of total contempt for the indigenous rulers, after 1905, when East Africa was nominally divided into British East Africa and the Protectorate of Kenya, Wituland seems to have passed to East Africa proper. From 1890 to 1905, British East Africa was actually ruled from Mombasa, not from Nairobi. From 1905 to 1920, the name “Kenya” was only used for the Protectorate of Kenya and for the mountain.

    Funny factoid of history: in 1896, an anti-British, pro-German Sultan inherited the throne but in what is usually called the shortest war in history (38 minutes with more than 500 Zanzibari soldiers killed for one wounded British officer who survived – the kind of war Blackadder Goes Forth preferred) the British drove him out of his palace and into the German embassy and had him replaced with a pro-British relative. That is when Zanzibar officially became a British protectorate. The former Sultan, whom the Germans refused to extradite, made his way to German East Africa (the German embassy was conveniently located on the seaside, so he did not have to step onto British territory). In 1916, he was taken POW by British invading forces in Tanganyika and exiled to the Seychelles. He was not allowed back onto his island, but died in Mombasa.

    In any case, the birfers took the wrong choice in having Obama born in Mombasa, because any Mombasa BC or COLB issued before December 1963 will have to be a Zanzibari one.

  15. avatar
    Greg August 24, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    My comment got eaten by the giant “Natural born citizen: Clarified!” thread, so I’ll repeat it here, briefly.

    At least five of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright. A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father.

    Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”

    Scalia and Thomas in concurrence: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Ibid.”

    Breyer and Ginsburg in Dissent: “I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669—671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)).”

    Sotomayor quoted Wong in a dissenting opinion from a 2nd Circuit opinion that suggested that because Bermudans were not “subjects” or “citizens” of the UK, they were not covered in the alienage jurisdiction of federal courts. Sotomayor wrote that this gave foreign jurisdictions the power to trump our laws in a way that was unacceptable.

    Her view was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2002 in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (in another case that cited Wong Kim Ark) which brings Kennedy into the group of justices that have endorsed Wong.

    Alito and Roberts haven’t been involved in decisions citing WKA, but Alito’s Third Circuit decided a similar case to the one decided by Sotomayor and decided it the way the Supreme Court ultimately did. (Southern Cross v. Wah Kwong)

  16. avatar
    sponson August 24, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    I sincerely hope we never see the “long form” birth certificate. I also suspect that if we ever do, it will happen strategically during a flurry of birther activity during the 2012 re-election campaign of Obama. There is no doubt that birther hysteria is a net political plus for Obama whenever it happens. It sometimes surprises me how easily most people seem to discount the principle, which I consider important, that President Obama would be undermining the reputation of validity of the modernized Hawaii vital statistics system (and recently-modernized systems in other states as well) if he endorses the idea that the “original birth certificate” is somehow required to prove the citizenship of any American at all, not just himself. To give in to demands and release the document would have that disruptive effect, and at that point he could be properly accused of damaging millions of people’s interests for selfish political reasons. I don’t believe any court in the land will ever require the “original” document to be produced from Hawaii’s archives.

  17. avatar
    sponson August 24, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    In other birther news, a member of the US Congress has told a “town hall” crowd in an Arizona church, that he “may” file a suit against Obama over his birth certificate. I seriously doubt his sincerity, and also think the suit will be dismissed like all the others. The Congressman voted for the recent resolution that states that Hawaii is the President’s birthplace.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    The states are firmly committed to electronic birth registrations. No long form from Obama is going to change that.

  19. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 24, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    I’d also note that Alito is a first generation American, the son of an Italian immigrant father. At his confirmation hearing, he said:

    Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

    See: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/

  20. avatar
    Sally Hill August 25, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    You amaze me that you are so intent on trying to defame and demoralize a group of people that are only standing up for what they believe. Why? To what end? It doesn’t change, diminish, or negate the issue. Why would you want to do that to fellow Americans based solely on the fact that you disagree with them?

    Do you honestly believe ALL birthers are illiterate, and lack any substance as sub-humans? (I don’t view myself as a birther – as I have NEVER believed it had anything to do with the Birth Certificate – yet, I continually get lumped in with the ‘birthers’) Can you not even fathom that I might be an intelligent human being and am capable of holding down a high level job with decent family morals and values – that I just happen to have a different view on a subject than you do? Really – I just don’t get it.

    I totally understand your point of view. I see where the issue could go either way. I see just as many pros as cons to both sides. But isn’t this what makes America the greatest nation – the fact that we allow free speech and the right for our fellow Americans to vocally stand up for what they believe, no matter what the issue and no matter what the major/minority believe? Perhaps I have it all wrong – maybe it has been a fairytale vision that we are the UNITED States.

    I understand there is a different view to Obama’s eligibility than I have, but I would never stoop so low as to call you names or wish ill for you – simply because you have a different opinion. Of course, I want my viewpoint to win, but it would appear that I’m on the loosing side…Obama IS president and in most likelihood will remain so until he is voted out of office (if he every allows that to happen). I can’t tell you how many times I have read: “He is President, when will you believe that, so get over it – end of story – period”. I KNOW he is President and while I do not hope his policies succeed, I do not wish him ill or that his presidency is a failure, for that means we fail as a Nation.

    Why must you rag on Donofrio, Taitz, or Puzzo? Do you not think they are real people with real families, lives and just as entitled to an opinion as you? Why do you feel so superior to those you disagree with? I can’t speak for Taitz and Puzzo as I don’t follow them – but regardless of whether Donofrio is a successful lawyer, I feel he is a man of integrity with morals and values. He insists that the discussion only be constructive, no name calling, no defamation, and no conspiracy theories. Yet you want to publicly demean a person simply because they disagree with you? It would appear that you are very threatened by these people, yet, from my point of view – they should pose NO threat to you whatsoever – Obama is sitting squarely in the Oval Office.

    I do think the NBC is an issue that needs to be discussed on a national level – not left to the blogs to gossip about. It is an issue that needs a definitive answer to – least it continue to tear this country apart at a time when it can least afford it.

    I know some think I’m a racist because of my opinion; however, I think that is a cop-out. I’m sure that while I have had racist thoughts and have even acted in a racially charged way at times in my life (I believe we ALL have at times) – I am not a racist by nature or in my heart. I have very dear friends of many races – many with whom I disagree politically.

    Rather than both sides continuing to spout legalize and names at each other – how about if we come together as Americans and tell our government that we want an end to all this, rather than continuing to ignore and sweep it under the rug…..that is never a good way to deal with any issue.

  21. avatar
    Heavy August 25, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    Sally. you just don’t get it! THE ONE or his worshippers CANNOT be questioned. At least not without the aid of a teleprompter.

    There are many people whose sole job is to make sure that their messiah is not questioned by REAL citizens.

    Even those in Congress think they are above reproach while their messiah occupies the Oval Office. Have you seen the townhall meetings? People are starting to rise up and these pieces of shit call them unAmerican for speaking their mind.

    Yes, anyone who does cast doubt upon THE ONE is a racist. Plain and simple. The race card is the only weapon they have left and they use it at will and without provocation.

    The govenor of NY recently played it and was slapped down by THE ONE. You see, even he knows that the race card has a limited shelf life. It’s only a matter of time before the American people are sick of being guilted.

  22. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    You amaze me that you are so intent on trying to defame and demoralize a group of people that are only standing up for what they believe.

    Because they believe in removing the lawfully elected president by using extraconstitutional means. (And some are not shy about the threat of resorting to violence if need be.)

    All ideas are not created equal. Believe in something stupid, and people will call you stupid for believing in it.

    [Donofrio] insists that the discussion only be constructive, no name calling, no defamation, and no conspiracy theories.

    Not only is he rather one-sided about the application of those rules, he censors people who can abide by them yet have temerity to disagree with him. Dr. Conspiracy demonstrates a more firm commitment to the First Amendment than Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz, tRSoL, FR, etc.

    we come together as Americans and tell our government that we want an end to all this

    We did exactly that, on November 4, 2008, January 8, 2009, and January 20, 2009. Nothing can be done to appease the tiny minority that can’t accept this, so nothing will be done. Nothing the government can do will put “an end to all this,” so it is doing the next best thing by ignoring the child demanding a second dessert.

  23. avatar
    BlackLion August 25, 2009 at 12:26 pm #

    Bob is exactly right. Why do the blogs for Apuzzo, Donofrio, tatiz, and tROSL all moderate the comments? Have you ever wondered that? While Dr. C and others do not. It is because when Leo or Mario are provided with evidence that is contrary to what they believe, they edit or delete the comment so that to their followers they seem brillant and that they know what they are talking about. The birthers are not interested in the Constitution. They want to remove a lawfully elected President that meets all requirements that the Constitution sets forth because they don’t like him or his politics. For some it is about race. Sure the birthers will deny that. But all one needs to do is read the comments on any of those blogs or on repubx or rise up America to see what is the real issue.

  24. avatar
    Epectitus August 25, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Why would you want to do that to fellow Americans based solely on the fact that you disagree with them?

    Someday, a Birther will say something that is not ironic, and I will throw a party.

  25. avatar
    Epectitus August 25, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    Does a Hawaiian long form actually use the term Certificate of Live Birth?

    So, by the way, did Hawaiian short forms prior to the data being digitized.

    So, by the way, will Hawaiian short forms moving forward,

  26. avatar
    TRUTH August 25, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    LMAO!! This is classic, and funny. I have to imagine for a moment, “what if a birther(or conservative) did this same thing, make a possible sample”. Obamaniacs would use that sample as more material to slam the birthers, accusing them of multiple things.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/25/ST2009082501309.html

    THe above link is unrelated to this post. But after you read it just keep telling yourself “at least we have an Authentic Verification of Birth. We have the COLB and them silly Birthers can just stew on it.” Meanwhile, keep an eye on how the Federal Withholding column of your paystub takes a sharp upturn….and smile to yourself KNOWING you were right, that COLB was ALL we needed.

  27. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 25, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    Truth, couple of things…

    1. Tax law doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not Obama’s constitutionally eligible to be President. You just inadvertently revealed the real reason for the birthers to be proposing this sort of stuff. Frankly, you don’t care whether or not Obama’s actually constitutionally eligible. You disagree with his policies. Instead of owning upto the fact that the majority of Americans voted for his policies, it’s easier for you to believe that the entire country was hoodwinked.

    If you disagree with his policies, there’s a constitutional remedy coming in a little over 3 years, which will take effect on January 20th, 2013. It’s called the vote.

    2. I have no doubt that birthers would not claim in the article that this is fake. They’d make something up, and say that it’s real, just as TechDude did, just as Ron Polland did.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    Spending has consequences. That is a lesson that Republicans never learned. Republicans perhaps correctly label Democrats as “tax and spend”, but fail to truthfully label themselves “spend”.

  29. avatar
    misha August 25, 2009 at 2:12 pm #

    “You amaze me that you are so intent on trying to defame and demoralize a group of people that are only standing up for what they believe.”

    Trying to remove a president by extra-constitutional means is vile. Trying to remove the first black president by circulating rumors, is evil at its root. I hold in equal contempt people who believe in UFOs, poltergeists, and old wives tales.

    “Why would you want to do that to fellow Americans based solely on the fact that you disagree with them?”

    Read the threats on Orly’s blog, or Stormfront. We already saw Knoxville, Oklahoma City, Pittsburg, the Holocaust Museum, Dr. Tiller and Dr. Slepian. BTW, I knew Dr. Slepian. We went to the same synagogue.

    “Do you honestly believe ALL birthers are illiterate, and lack any substance”

    Amazingly, some birthers are college graduates. G. Gordon Liddy was a lawyer and FBI agent, before he got several Watergate felonies. I guess it doesn’t take much to get a degree anymore. Anyone who falls for pseudo-science is shallow.

    “Can you not even fathom that I might be an intelligent human being and am capable of holding down a high level job with decent family morals and values”

    Let me guess: you’re a Christian – right?

    “I see where the issue could go either way.”

    The only way to remove a president is by impeachment. Swensson and his mob are threatening bloodshed. It’s on the web.

    “maybe it has been a fairytale vision that we are the UNITED States.”

    I once spent a week in Cobb Country, Georgia, where Leo Frank was lynched. The place is filled with monuments to the Confederacy. I said to my wife: “Have you noticed we haven’t seen one black person this week? And we’ve only seen two Asians: you and the Korean who owns the dry cleaner.”

    “most likelihood will remain so until he is voted out of office (if he every allows that to happen).”

    Yeah, Obama is going to declare the War Powers Act means he can stay in office indefinitely. And FEMA is building concentration camps.

    “but regardless of whether Donofrio is a successful lawyer, I feel he is a man of integrity with morals and values. He insists that the discussion only be constructive, no name calling, no defamation, and no conspiracy theories.”

    You cannot be serious. Donofrio and his coterie are the ones harping on conspiracies. Donofrio earns a living as a pro poker player. And Donofrio is the one who started the lawsuits trying to prove that a president must be a super NBC. Puzzo is a fifth rate lawyer, whose stock-in-trade is DWI. Taitz is a malcontent, making an unholy alliance with anti-Semites.

    “I do think the NBC is an issue that needs to be discussed on a national level…It is an issue that needs a definitive answer”

    It was discussed on a national level, and given a definitive answer on November 4, 2008.

    “and have even acted in a racially charged way at times in my life (I believe we ALL have at times)”

    Sorry, not me – ever. The N word was banned in our household. At one time I dated a black woman. My step-father treated her like a daughter.

    “tell our government that we want an end to all this”

    As happened on Election Day. Taitz and her coterie are the ones keeping it alive.

  30. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    Sally Hill wrote:

    I see where the issue could go either way. I see just as many pros as cons to both sides.

    An argument can be made either way, but the “issue” can only be decided one way, because courts are bound by legal precedent, and ALL the precedent points in one direction.

    There’s a distinction. Anyone can frame an argument, but not all arguments have equal validity. I could argue that the world is flat… but I would be wrong, and I wouldn’t get very far in a world when transcontinental flights are commonplace.

    Why must you rag on Donofrio, Taitz, or Puzzo?

    Because they purport to be professionals and put forth specious claims, misleading lay people such as yourself into beliefing, falsely, that there is a valid legal argument to be made. They are either exceptionally incompetent in the field that they claim to be trained in, or else they are being deliberately misleading in order to garner public attention or financial rewards.

    Those of us who have a legal background recognize that these arguments are false. Again, its not a matter of there being 2 legitimate points of view. Law is all about the application of rules and in this case the rules are clear, as is the way they would inevitably be applied.

    If you wanted to sue someone, but you didn’t have a case with any chance of winnng — you would be served well by lawyers who honestly advised you to save your money. You would be smart to seek a second opinion and even a third, but you would also want to make sure that you consulted reputable lawyers. Somewhere along the line you would probably run into someone not so reputable, who would paint himself as a crusader against injustice, and take your case for a large initial retainer. He’d go through the motions, but he’d be a scoundrel who was preying on your hopes in order to steal your money. There are, unfortunately, too many such scoundrels in the legal professions — they give all lawyers a bad name, and those of us who are ethical and capable “rag on” them for good reason.

  31. avatar
    kimba August 25, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    An intelligent person who has looked at the evidence of Pres Obama being born in Hawaii would have nothing to do with this birther stuff. Doubting that he is a natural born citizen is the stuff of fools and racists, Sally. I agree it’s time to put an end to this. And the way to do that is for people like you need to accept that there is more than enough information to show Barack Obama is as eligible to be President as the 43 who preceded him and go back to your normal lives. You could have all saved yourselves a lot of trouble if you had bothered to go to the library, or go to your local junior high and pick up a standard US Civics text and see what it says is a natural born citizen. You learned in the the 7th grade Sally, you have just chosen to forget.

  32. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida August 25, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Expelliarmus wrote:
    If you wanted to sue someone, but you didn’t have a case with any chance of winnng — you would be served well by lawyers who honestly advised you to save your money. You would be smart to seek a second opinion and even a third, but you would also want to make sure that you consulted reputable lawyers.

    This isn’t about ‘winning’ or prevailing, to the Birthers, it’s all about keeping this crap in the ‘limelight’ to cast doubt on the legally elected President, Barack Obama. To them, November ’08 didn’t really happen, the election was ‘stolen’ from them and they will do whatever they can to smear the President, anyone remember the crap that was strewn at President Clinton from day 1 in office?

  33. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida August 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    That and the fact that, unless President Obama has his “Long Form’ stored in a shoebox or bible still, there isn’t one that the state will issue or print. The COLB present last year is it, that’s all, nothing else, no long form, etc.

  34. avatar
    jtx August 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    misha:

    You’re rong again in a NY minnit!! There has always only been ONE plan. Since the man has told everyone bright enough to have a 2 or more digit IQ that he was not eligible for the office he now holds, the only thing required to end this nightmare is to get him into a proper court of law and require that he prove his eligibility.

    Simple enough, right?? What sort of Anerican History do they teach you Noo Yawkezahs???

  35. avatar
    jtx August 25, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    Greg:

    You don’tr seem to realize that all you are saying is that WKA did not define the term NBC … and it didn’t. Within the category of “birth” there are additional classifications; one of them being “natural born citizen”. WKA says NOTHING about the meaning of NBC – it merely says there are citizens of different types.

    If any WKA citizen were considered a NBC then Osama Bin Laden’s son if born here could be president (if elected) – or any of the various wetbacks that it frequently covers.

    I’d suggest you do some serious study of the legal treatises on Mario Apuzzo’s site and the ones on Leo Donofrio’s so that you can have a better idea of what the discussion is all about.

    It’s not about WKA (which is bad law anyway) nor is it about the 14th Amendment.

  36. avatar
    Greg August 25, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    Well, he didn’t say that he wasn’t eligible, he said that Britain considered him to be one of their citizens. He ALSO stated that he was a natural born citizen.

    Now, can you show me the court case that says that British law, passed by their parliament, trumps our Constitution? Can you show me a Federal Statute that says that British “Federal” law, unenacted by treaty, trumps our Constitution?

    Can you show me anything that says that a law passed by a country we fought a war to be separate from has any more relevance to our citizenship than the price of tea in China?

    In what fantasy land do you live that says Britain gets to pass judgment on who can be our President by simply amending their citizenship laws?

  37. avatar
    jtx August 25, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    sponson:

    Since the state of HI has stated that they indeed have the original BC on file that means that it will be subpoenaed when the case comes at trial. It is called “evidence”.

    No “giving in to demands” will be involved; it’s called complying with the law and the officials in HI have already said they would honor such a request.

  38. avatar
    jtx August 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    sponson:

    That’s just a softshoe dance; he’ll never do that as he’s as cowardly as the rest of the Beltway Bastards. You seem to have missed the widespread corruption that exists there.

  39. avatar
    nbc August 25, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    JTXSince the man has told everyone bright enough to have a 2 or more digit IQ that he was not eligible for the office he now holds, the only thing required to end this nightmare is to get him into a proper court of law and require that he prove his eligibility.

    Still repeating your ignorant and foolish comments?

    Sigh.
    Since Congress qualified the President per 20th Amendment and since he was duly elected and sworn in, he has no obligations to further ‘prove’ his eligibility, nor do plaintiffs have standing because of our Constitution.

    As such, it seems rather foolish to suggest that someone who is born on US soil is not a natural born person, a position which is well supported and poorly contradicted by rulings of law, common law, legislative and judicial precedent etc.

  40. avatar
    nbc August 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Since the state of HI has stated that they indeed have the original BC on file that means that it will be subpoenaed when the case comes at trial. It is called “evidence”.

    Since no plaintiffs in any of the few remaining lawsuit will be granted standing, the issue of discovery and subpoenas seems rather foolish and premature.

    Poor JTX, still battling the windmills…

  41. avatar
    nbc August 25, 2009 at 6:16 pm #

    That’s just a softshoe dance; he’ll never do that as he’s as cowardly as the rest of the Beltway Bastards

    Sure, anyone who disagrees with JTX must be a beltway bastard and a coward.
    Makes sense.

  42. avatar
    Gordon August 25, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    Have to agree with you jtx. He’s just talking to his base.

  43. avatar
    jtx August 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Tax law is indeed influenced by the profligate spending policies of the Obama mafia. If you think not, compare it to the prior few administrations who were horrible enough but this one is far worse. To pretend that the Executive influences neither tax policy nor spending merely means you are naive.

    Also, there’s an even quicker and simpler remedy should the man not be able to show that he’s eligible to hold the occupies. Perhaps you can figure out what that might be even though none of you Deathers have EVER stated what your opinion would be were his lack of eligibility to be proven. What would all of you say then??? Who cares??? Doesn’t matter??? We like him??? You just SAY he’s not eligible??? The Judicial brance are a bunch of ninnies and who lestens to them anyhow??? Having a court-proven criminal as President won’t hurt anything (using your Bush, etc. nonsense)??

    That all would be very entertaining. Maybe Dr. Conspiracy could change his nick to something like Dr. Felonious??? And you??? … perhaps “cellmatevangeet” or “donevangeet”??

  44. avatar
    Greg August 25, 2009 at 6:49 pm #

    If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. If she had wheels, she’d be a bus.

    What would I do if beggars would ride, if my aunt were, in fact, my uncle, or a bus?

    Who knows and, frankly, who cares!

    Obama is eligible and will always be eligible and the only court that will find him ineligible is the crack-fueled confab going on in your brain!

  45. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 25, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    And also, jtx, they have to prove why it’s relevant to the discussion. They have to prove what information is on there that relates to their claim.

    Frankly, there is absolutely no information on the long form that relates to constitutional eligibility that isn’t on the short form. Therefore, I doubt that the supoena would be granted.

  46. avatar
    nbc August 25, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Tax law is indeed influenced by the profligate spending policies of the Obama mafia. If you think not, compare it to the prior few administrations who were horrible enough but this one is far worse. To pretend that the Executive influences neither tax policy nor spending merely means you are naive.

    Once again JTX shows why he opposes President Obama and wants to have him removed through un-Constitutional means.

    Sore loser indeed.

    See ya in 2012 my friend….

  47. avatar
    SFJeff August 25, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

    “If any WKA citizen were considered a NBC then Osama Bin Laden’s son if born here could be president (if elected) – or any of the various wetbacks that it frequently covers.”

    First of all- what if Osama Bin Laden was a citizen? Would being a citizen mean that his son couldn’t commit to the destruction of the United States? Conversely, would a son of Osama Bin Laden automatically want the destruction of the United States?

    Secondly- passing quickly over once again your use of the racist term- what is problematic about a citizen born to parents who were here illegally? Should a child suffer for the sins of his parents? Personally I don’t think so. A child of illegal aliens is not a criminal, simply because they were criminals.

    To continue with the ridiculous line of reasoning- here are some stalwart NBC’s:
    Adam Yahiye Gadahn- An American al Qaeda propagandist indicted on treason charges
    Jonathan Pollard- conficted of spying for Israel on the United States
    Timothy McVae- the Oklahoma City Bomber
    All three of these stalwarts were eligible for President. Apparently they are all better risks than the children of ‘wetbacks’ as your so derisively call them.

    Oh where in the Constitution does it define all the different types of citizens there are?

  48. avatar
    SFJeff August 25, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    So Truth disagrees with Obama policies- what a shock.

    In 4 years, if the recession is over, the Conservatives will say that it would have been over faster without Obama’s policy.

    If the recession is still going on, they will blame Obama’s policies.

    Oh and Democrats are really no better. But for better or worse, Obama put forth a plan to deal with the recession and it will either work or it won’t. I will judge him on the end results.

  49. avatar
    SFJeff August 25, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    “To pretend that the Executive influences neither tax policy nor spending merely means you are naive.”

    I didnt’ read anyone suggest that. They were just pointing out that your fear of Obama and his policies is the real reason for the eligibility witchhunt.

    “Also, there’s an even quicker and simpler remedy should the man not be able to show that he’s eligible to hold the occupies”

    The remedy to remove any President is Impeachment and conviction. Anything else would be non-constitutional- i.e. a Coupe.

    “though none of you Deathers have EVER stated what your opinion would be were his lack of eligibility to be proven”

    I have stated several times that I would support the impeachment of any President who committed high crimes and misdeamenors against the United States. If a President would be found to knowingly have lied about eligibility I would support impeachment.

    And maybe at some future date, a candidate will manage to avoid all the scrutiny and vetting and convince the public to vote for him even though he isn’t eligible. But in the meantime, you still haven’t proven any of your various theories. They are all wild speculation, based upon racism, fear and frankly just parroting the talking points of the far right whackos.

  50. avatar
    Mary Brown August 25, 2009 at 10:14 pm #

    Heavy you have threatened people here. So spare me your moral outrage.

  51. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    Mary, that is a VERY serious charge. Please provide some proof or STFU! You KNOW that I have never threatened anyone here. Have you ever heard of libel?

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 26, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    One can make the distinction between saying “I will hurt you” and “you will be hurt”. Both are threats, but only one is an assault.

    Reading back through Heavy’s comments over the last 3 months, I was frankly surprised at the general lack of explicitly threatening language. Here is an example that is characteristic of several:

    This criminal will be brought to justice along with his minions. And those who support him (That would be you and most traitors on this site) will have hell to pay.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/violence-threatened-against-the-usurper/comment-page-1/#comment-15691

    In normal face-to-face conversation, “traitor”, or a “liar” or “trying to destroy the country” are fighting words. I personally find strong negative language to be threatening even though no explicit threat is present.

  53. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    TRUTHMeanwhile, keep an eye on how the Federal Withholding column of your paystub takes a sharp upturn….and smile to yourself KNOWING you were right, that COLB was ALL we needed.

    Seems that the eligibility issue is nothing more than a guise for Truth’s dislike of Obama’s policies. What a surprise.

  54. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Thanks, Doc.

    As they say, sticks and stones…But I have noticed that liberals DO scare easily. I suspect this is due to their “Passive” nature and lack of desire and/or ability to defend themselves or their country.

  55. avatar
    SFJeff August 26, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Sally,

    I appreciate that you posted in a non-derogatory fashion. But I am perplexed by why you didn’t point to JTX and Heavy and Truth and almost every anti-Obama poster who posts here, who insult the President, and those of us who have the temerity to proclaim “he is our legal president- don’t like it- vote him out of office”.

    JTX calls the President the Ursurper and worse, and his mother “that dame that got knocked up”. Heavy calls anyone who supports the President a traitor and warns ominously that bad things will happen to all Obama supporters. Orly doesn’t post here, but she is basically calling for a coupe- for the military to remove the President from office. Merely ridiculing someone trying to overthrow our legally elected government seems rather mild to me.

    “I totally understand your point of view. I see where the issue could go either way. I see just as many pros as cons to both sides.”

    Sally- you say pros and cons- what actual evidence have you seen to support that he is not a ‘native born’ citizen? Other than speculation(was he born in Kenya? a NBC needs two citizen parents, etc) what evidence that would be acceptable to any court have you seen?

    Or do you think that any doubts by any citizen means a sitting President is obligated to address that doubt? Because if that is the case, no President will have time to do any leading in the future- they will be spending time trying to convice Heavy that they didn’t kill Vince Foster or convince JTX that they didn’t order the Twin Towers to be blown up.

    We reply to this stuff because the President doesn’t and shouldn’t, but the lies and misrepresentations shouldn’t be allowed to sit out there unanswered by anyone.

    So tell me why you think he might not be our legally elected President?

  56. avatar
    SFJeff August 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    JTX- still parroting the birthers talking points.

    Ever find anyone with any gravitas to support your theory? I ask every time, but you never reply- but how could you?

  57. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    As they say, sticks and stones…But I have noticed that liberals DO scare easily. I suspect this is due to their “Passive” nature and lack of desire and/or ability to defend themselves or their country.

    Is Heavy declaring himself once again to be a liberal, or at least his ill informed caricature thereof?

    Guess, it’s too hard to defend against the facts presented on Dr C’s site?

  58. avatar
    SFJeff August 26, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    “that liberals DO scare easily. I suspect this is due to their “Passive” nature and lack of desire and/or ability to defend themselves or their country.”

    Yeah if only we had had a good conservative during WWII instead of that cowardly and passive FDR.

  59. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    So “You” are working for THE ONE? Nice try. He needs to answer the charges becuase there is REASONABLE doubt. HE HAS NOT commented on the issue. This adds fuel to the fire.

    It’s real simple. Provide the document, just like McCain has, and end the speculation. He has not therefore we WILL NOT give up the fight.

    Where there is smoke, there is fire and this thing is now ablaze. The emperor has no clothes!

  60. avatar
    SFJeff August 26, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

    “And those who support him (That would be you and most traitors on this site) will have hell to pay.”

    And Heavy when asked to elaborate of course clammed up. Nothing much more cowardly than implying a threat and then when actually confronted about it, running away.

  61. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    FDR was a CONSERVATIVE by today’s standards…NEXT!

  62. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    I see you don’t refute my assertions, limpwristed, yellow coward

  63. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    Are those “Fighting” words also, Doc?

  64. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    Let me put it this way, coward. My momma used to say that you were late for dinner, there would be hell to pay. She DID NOT mean physical harm.

    But you cowards know that you are wrong and that some day you will run into a patriot, face to face. Then you will shit yourself and beg for mercy.

  65. avatar
    Nullifidian August 26, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Apparently Heavy wants to branch out from dismissed civil suits about Obama to dismissed libel suits.

    Assuming you could get over the hurdle of how it is impossible to libel someone who doesn’t exist, for all intents and purposes, except as an internet pseudonym, and the fact that your reputation is already at its nadir thanks to your own statements, there is still the problem that any reasonable person would interpret your “hell to pay” statement as a threat against Obama supporters. Truth is an absolute defense against libel in the U.S.

  66. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    HeavySo “You” are working for THE ONE? Nice try. He needs to answer the charges becuase there is REASONABLE doubt. HE HAS NOT commented on the issue. This adds fuel to the fire.

    It’s real simple. Provide the document, just like McCain has, and end the speculation. He has not therefore we WILL NOT give up the fight.

    The document has been provided and as expected shows Obama born on US soil.

    End of the matter. No charges, nothing…

    Poor Heavy

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    And he was also a dual French / American citizen at birth.

    🙂

    By the way, did you hear the Reagan clip on the radio this morning where he called Medicare “socialized medicine”?

    Times change, and as societies worldwide become more liberal, naturally old-style liberals seem more conservative by contrast.

  68. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Then we need more ‘conservatives’ like FDR… Of course, today’s conservatives are nothing like FDR.

  69. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    I see you don’t refute my assertions, limpwristed, yellow coward

    Hahaha. This from the person who has no facts… Fascinating projections.

  70. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    But you cowards know that you are wrong and that some day you will run into a patriot, face to face. Then you will shit yourself and beg for mercy.

    Is that your understanding of ‘patriotism’?

    I am not surprised my friend.

  71. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    Who?

  72. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    Hahaha

  73. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    NBC has lost his/her mind.

  74. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    Heavy NBC has lost his/her mind.

    Is that your best response? I am not surprised

  75. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Who? FDR of course.

    Foreign descendants of Huguenots lost the automatic right to French citizenship in 1945 (by force of the ordonnance du 19 octobre 1945, revoking the 1889 Nationality Law).

    Hahahaha

  76. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    What a ‘lightweight’ this ‘Heavy’ 🙂

  77. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    In normal face-to-face conversation, “traitor”, or a “liar” or “trying to destroy the country” are fighting words. I personally find strong negative language to be threatening even though no explicit threat is present.

    Perhaps this is what Heavy believes so called ‘patriots’ should hide behind?

  78. avatar
    Gordon August 26, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    Pretty much the language of the far Right. Along with “Real American”, Nazi, Hitler, Stalin, Socialist. And my favorite rallying cry, “I want my country back”.

  79. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    Exactly! My enemie’s enemy if my friend.

  80. avatar
    Nullifidian August 26, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Provide the document, just like McCain has….

    “Just like McCain has”? Okay, then you get nothing because McCain never produced any birth certificate. The alleged birth certificate that was introduced into evidence in Hollander v. McCain was debunked as a fairly obvious forgery.

    Since you asked for nothing, you should be happy with nothing.

  81. avatar
    nbc August 26, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    You have no friend my dear friend.

  82. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    So, based on yor statement, you don’t exist. Hmmm…

  83. avatar
    Greg August 26, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Doubts shared by only 20% of the population are, by definition, not “reasonable doubt.”

    The fact that some think that we didn’t land on the moon doesn’t mean there’s reasonable doubt that we did so.

  84. avatar
    Greg August 26, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    Wong Kim Ark isn’t bad law because you don’t like it. It’s been cited hundreds of times in later cases, including by 7 of the 9 sitting justices on the Supreme Court.

    Yes, Osama bin Laden’s son or daughter could be President if he/she was born in the United States. All he/she would have to do is live here for 14 years, then convince enough voters to constitute a majority of the electoral college that their relationship to their father doesn’t mean anything!

    You act as if everyone who is a natural born citizen is going to be President one day and so we have to prevent those evil foreigners from being president!

    If you don’t want Osama bin Laden’s son to be President, don’t vote for him! If you can convince enough people that having illegals for parents is a disqualifying characteristic, then that person won’t become President!

    I’ve read what Donofrio has written, and what Apuzzo has written. I’m not impressed.

    For example, both press the claim that there is some type of citizen that is native-born but not natural-born. This is not found in any Supreme Court decision. Minor, Elk, Wong, all of these, the question was citizen or not citizen, there was no native-but-not-natural born. Yesterday, Donofrio put up an article from 1884 which he called the “holy grail.” In it, the author used native and natural born interchangeably! This author, George Collins, was the lawyer for the losing side in Wong Kim Ark. Everything that George Collins said (while using native and natural as synonyms) was before the Supreme Court and rejected.

    Every brief before the court in Wong used native and natural-born as synonyms.

    Even the dissent, reading the same decision Donofrio is reading, says that it decides the issue of natural-born citizen.

    How is it that Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan misread Wong, but Leo Donofrio, poker player and sometimes lawyer, got it right?

  85. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    20% Greggie? Better check those facts.

    BTW, you sick people want to socialize the whole medical system because you CLAIM that 14% (Which is WAY over the truth) are uninsured. THAT is a FACT!

    You were saying…

  86. avatar
    sarina August 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    Doc

    Do you want to see birthers having heart attacks?
    Post that long form bc on YT announcing:
    “Long Form Produced”!

    I bet you this is going to be the most watched videos of all!! haha

  87. avatar
    kimba August 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    Sentient people know that what is being proposed is not “socialized” medicine. Socialized medicine is when the Govt owns the hospitals, medical centers, doctor’s offices and the doctors, nurses, pharmacists work for the govt. What is being proposed is a reform of health care such that private insurance cannot deny you insurance because you use it, provide a means for people who do not have insurance to obtain it, and introduce competition so that insurance companies stop raising premiums and co-pays at a rate of 15-20% per year. Govt run health INSURANCE is not socialized medicine. That’s one of the AHIP lies to make you afraid of health care reform.

  88. avatar
    Heavy August 26, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    Ok. You keep telling yourself that.

  89. avatar
    misha August 26, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Hey, lay off Crazy Eileen. She’s a patriot – Art Bell says so.

    Someone could write an entire textbook about CE.

  90. avatar
    Greg August 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    I’ve read Apuzzo and Donofrio. I’m not impressed. Donofrio, for example, wants to argue that it’s obvious to anyone looking at Wong that the Court decided Wong was not a natural born citizen. Not only is it not obvious to anyone reading the decision, the dissent read the decision to be deciding Wong WAS a natural born citizen.

    Not only have I read Donofrio and Apuzzo, I’ve also read extensively into the source materials that they intend to distort. For example, Leo posted an 1884 article yesterday from the guy who submitted a brief for the losing side in Wong. He claimed that it made no argument about natural born citizen, just citizenship. It did make such a claim, the conclusion of the article was that someone not born of a citizen father was not natural born. (The Supreme Court rejected every argument that Collins made in his brief.)

    No court has recognized this third category of citizen that Donofrio wants to create out of whole cloth – the native-born but not natural-born citizen – someone who is subject to our laws (under WKA) but somehow is still not eligible to be President.

    The funny thing is that Donofrio is recycling the arguments made by the losing side in Wong, and doesn’t realize that those arguments were rebutted in the briefs submitted in that case. (You can find them if you google “Wong Kim Ark Briefs.”)

    (By the way, can anyone find the oral arguments in WKA? I think they might be in a publication called “Landmark Briefs and Arguments” I’m also looking for Mr. Binney’s pamphlet quoted in WKA – I’ve got the article published the next year which is, apparently, from an earlier version of the pamphlet.)

  91. avatar
    Bob August 26, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Greg’s comments on Donofrio’s site are here and here and here and here and here.

  92. avatar
    Greg August 26, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    I had several other comments which Leo didn’t post.

    I think there’s a good argument to be made that even IF pre-14th Amendment law was that natural born citizenship descended only to children of citizen fathers (and if illegitimate to children of citizen mothers) the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause requires earlier clauses to be read in such as way as to not implicate equal protection issues (both gender and illegitimacy get heightened scrutiny under 14th Amendment jurisprudence).

    I also took issue with Donofrio’s assertion that Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the US, since domicile is determined by intention.

    Finally, I took issue with his attributing Binney’s quote in Wong to Justice Gray and asked how, if it was so obvious to a lawyer like Donofrio that Gray was denying NBC-status to Wong, did the dissent come to the opposite conclusion.

    Leo doesn’t like dissent. If you push back against his arguments, he’ll delete your post.

  93. avatar
    Bob August 26, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    I also took issue with Donofrio’s assertion that Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the US, since domicile is determined by intention.

    Donofrio believes Wong Kim Ark applies only to those permanently domiciled — a position no court has taken. (Which mirrors the Federalist Society’s argument against the so-called “anchor babies.”)

    Leo doesn’t like dissent.

    Quel surprise.

    If you push back against his arguments, he’ll delete your post.

    Join the club!

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 26, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    Wong’s parents returned to China prior to the case being heard. (rim shot)

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 26, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    “Landmark Briefs and Arguments” is like two hundred and seventy something volumes. I couldn’t find a copy online.

  96. avatar
    Bob August 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    HistorianDude (on tRSoL) has found an amazing source on the fall of George Collins (Donofrio’s source).

  97. avatar
    Greg August 26, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    Yeah. I think I’m going to have to go to the library and hit the fiches. Or call the Supreme Court library.

  98. avatar
    TRUTH August 27, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    OOOPSS… don’t forget.. 2010. Its called CONGRESS Slick.

    I didn’t inadvertently do anything, I’m not your Birther boy. And I don’t hide the fact I think your Empty Suit has BAD Policies. So your fantasies of me not owning up to anything are a bit shallow. See, I defend things like…ohhh.. The FIRST AMENDMENT, you may have heard of it before??

    As for the “majority” of Americans voted for your boy, ya GOT me THERE. I can’t get anything past YOU. Oh yeah, is that the same Americans that didn’t know who Joe Biden was on the day of election? And the AMericans that thought Republicans ran Congress as of Election day Nov.08? THOSE Americans? Yeah Buddy, they are some BRIGHT VOTERS! You must be proud to be part of that group. HOPE n’ CHANGE!! I hope they pass an Amendment you have to have an IQ more than your Smartest Pet in the house and they Change the voting process to Live People Only.

  99. avatar
    Gordon August 27, 2009 at 11:54 pm #

    I’m trying to figure out what’s going to happen 2010. In off year elections, the party out of power (Republicans) generally pick up seats. In 1982 when Reagan was President, Dems picked up a net gain of 25 House seats. The average is around 20-24. Democrats have a plus 70 majority. Pundits think Rep. will pick up the average, 20-24. Still leaves you down by 50.

    As for the Senate, the sad (for Republicans) reality is that not only are the majority of Senate seats up for reelection already Republican, but five Senate Republicans announced they were retiring after the Obama tsunami in Nov. Republicans may end up with a net loss in the Senate.

  100. avatar
    TRUTH August 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    You failed Math didn’t you Gordy? Poor thing, it’s ok, I’m sure you have a lotta friends no matter what your education level.

    First, I’ll admit, IF the numbers go as you say they will, historically, 24 would not be enough. But, and this is GOING to confuse you, but..(round figures for your simplicity).. 20 from 70 is not 50 down still. NOW, your thinking, IT IS TO!! Your forgetting that is 20 MORE for (R), and 20 LESS for (D), so if the gap were 40 it would then be Even. Follow me? Like if it were 30 R and 70 D, and R’s gained 20, don’t forget D’s lose 20, making it 50-50. Just round numbers so you’ll know the formula when it comes time to start worrying….which would begin..ohhhh. NOW! Because that 20-24 “Historically” number is about to get blown OUT OF THE WATER Gordy!

    I luv the Navys First Ensign Jack slogan…”Don’t Tread On Me”. cuz Gordy, this isn’t about Republicans…its about Conservatives and other Great American Citizens that want their country back and off this path to ruin.

  101. avatar
    richCares August 29, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    “that want their country back and off this path to ruin.”

    as they wave their confederate flag, then they put on their sheets!

  102. avatar
    TRUTH August 30, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    thats your ignorant opinion richyC, which your entitled to no matter how foolish you are. I’m not a Confederate, and frankly am ashamed of the Civil War. Also I despise groups such as the KKK and more so asswipes like you for accusing me of being in the same class as them, or yourself.
    The ONLY thing you have going for you is your team Won one, so enjoy it for the next 1237 days, it won’t go beyond that. The rest of us have to fight however to try and preserve the country from your idiot and his minions. But your far to ignorant to understand any of that due to your head buried deep up the backside of the donkeys rearend.

  103. avatar
    TRUTH August 30, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    GORDY.. have you called up your 5th grade math teacher yet and gotten that problem explained to you? I just wanted to know you have it straight before you ramble off some more senseless numbers.

  104. avatar
    ADR Productions September 1, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    U.S. Senate Candidate, Andy Martin
    Has Lost Another Battle in His Claim
    to “National Conference Tapes”

    It didn’t take long for the Montgomery County, Maryland Office of Consumer Protection to determine that Illinois Senate candidate, Andy Martin, is up to his old tricks filing frivolous claims which he obviously had no right to file in the first place.

    In the case which Mr. Martin claimed that Maryland business owner, Scott Shirley of ADR Productions had stolen the tapes where the company had filmed Martin during his so-called “National Conference on Barack Obama’s Missing Birth Certificate and College Records”, the complaint was dismissed as having no merit to constitute fraud. Martin had claimed fraud by Shirley and demanded that the tapes, which are the property of ADR Productions, be given to Martin for free. Martin claimed to have been a customer of the production company but it was determined that he actually had never been a customer. “We never had a contract with Mr. Martin and we never had offer and acceptance of any money. The real fraud is Mr. Martin lying about being our customer, which he had claimed, to Consumer Protection and the Better Business Bureau.” Shirley stated.

    It seems Martin continues to be on the short end of the stick as his conspiracy theory flames seem to be burning out. It was one week ago today that ADR Productions had won a victory in court when they granted a final protection order against Martin for harassment. I’d say it’s a 0 and 2 count with only one more strike ’til your out Mr. Martin.

    Shirley says he will be glad to offer a sync license for use of the footage contained in the tapes. He estimates that the total cost for the full three hours of tape would run in the area of $10,000. He has also considered just destroying them due to the content contained within the tapes.

    Here’s a short clip of Martin in the tapes:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLq0rP4QXWE&feature=channel_page

  105. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 1, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    Next, Andy will sue whomever posted the above press release for not using his ‘proper, legal name’: “Internet Powerhouse, Andy Martin”(tm)

  106. avatar
    ADR Productions September 9, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    Adrian in Florida,

    That is hilarious what you posted. I bet you are correct except Mr. Martin now knows that my company is no push over and we will not be intimidated by his antics.

    Sorry you all had to suffer through him awhile back, there in Florida.

    As we say here in Maryland, thank God Martin is not living here!

  107. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 13, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Antonin Scalia is the son of an Sicilian Immigrant, an the grandson of 2 Itilian Immigrants.