Main Menu

Nordyke twins birth announcement found!

Nordyke Announcement

“Inspector” Lucas Smith claimed in comments on YouTube to have examined all newspaper birth announcements from August through December of 1961, not finding the birth announcement of the Nordyke twins (born at the same hospital as President Obama, one day later). Whether not finding was through oversight or fraud, the birth announcement is there in the newspaper on August 16 (Obama’s announcement was on August 13).

Birthers have attempted to discredit the Obama birth announcement claiming, against testimony of the newspaper and the Hawaii Department of Health that such announcements came from the department, that anyone could place such an “ad”. The very newspaper heading does not say “Birth Announcements” but rather “Health Bureau Statistics” if anyone needed further confirmation of what the announcements are. If a contemporary birth were omitted, then one would ask how, if the Health Department submitted the announcements, could one be omitted. It turns out that the objection is a fake, because the announcement is there just as it should be according to official policy. This announcement, just as the original Obama announcement, was found and published by an industrious blogger.

The Nordyke announcement is at the bottom of the column.

,

795 Responses to Nordyke twins birth announcement found!

  1. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 7:05 am #

    It’s a Photoshop job. (IA)

  2. avatar
    aarrgghh January 9, 2010 at 7:05 am #

    the conspiracy continues to grow …

    </birftoon>

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 9, 2010 at 7:29 am #

    And a damned good one!

    But seriously, finding something that should exist according to all evidence, is not extraordinary, and one is not too remiss taking such on face value. The important thing is that the announcement is now easily verified, since we know where to look.

  4. avatar
    sarina January 9, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    Wow doctor a give you A+++!

    Another “surprise” for Lucas Smith. He told me the Nordyke announcement was not in the papers! Of course I didn’t believe him, but I couldn’t prove it.

  5. avatar
    John January 9, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    If this announcement is result of automated process, they it would certianly give more credibility to following media clip.
    OBama – How he got his birth announcement in the paper
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXQHNMlitpY

    This theory has yet to be proven or disproven because neither the State of Hawaii nor Obama will release the derivative of Obama’s COLB.

  6. avatar
    richCares January 9, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    john,john, stop with the BS! the least credible news source on the net is WND!

  7. avatar
    Gordon January 9, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    LMAO! The “retired military commander” has PTSD. He basically made things up as he went along with no factual basis. His entire contention about method of birth registration was pure fabrication. WMD indeed.

  8. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    But WND sells great miracle seeds that will grow a vegetable garden in only 3 sq ft!! Act now before Obama confiscates your property.

  9. avatar
    John January 9, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    What Charles presents, we have no idea on whether it’s true or not. Not until, we see Obama’s derivative of his COLB, that is his long-form birth certificate. I guess Obots and Birthers can advance as many theories as they want but without the long-form birth certificate we really have no idea of which theory is the truth.

  10. avatar
    richCares January 9, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Except for dumb birthers there are no theories, Obama has been president for a year now, time for john to find other BS to cling to, this birther thing is over!

  11. avatar
    John January 9, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    This is a little off topic, but I am wondering how many on this board supported the parents of Terri Schiavo in 2005. I strongly supported the parent’s position in that case and believe the court were dead wrong. I have seen that many birthers seem to be constistent in their conservative positions as the Terri Schiavo of 2005 was a deep conservative and liberal issue in 2005 and that many birthers supported the parents of Terri Schiavo. However, I am willing to bet that many if not all on this board probably supported the husband and courts in the Terri Schiavo case of 2005. This would be constitent with liberal supportive views regarding Obama’s eligiblity problem.

  12. avatar
    richCares January 9, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    “… with liberal supportive views regarding Obama’s eligiblity problem.”

    john there is no need to prove you are an A___hole, we all already know that!

    by the way what did you think of the Schiavo autopsy? The one showing her brain was mulch that meant her life was over fo a long time. Her brain was dead!

  13. avatar
    John January 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    I guess Obama would rather to perpetuate the Birther movement then think about ways of putting people back to work:

    $10,000, no $15,000 for proof of Obama’s birth hospital
    WND founder offers donation to facility on presidential records
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121395

    I think $15,000 dollars could really help out the hospital.

  14. avatar
    John January 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    $15,000 could be substanial help for the hsopital in setting a nice Obama memorial wing or section to honor Obama’s birth. Obama would be proud. The only reason for the refusal is that Obama was not born there:
    Try Kenya:
    http://www.panamalaw.org/images/Obama-Kenyan-birth-certificate.jpg

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    15,000 is nothing to a hospital.

  16. avatar
    richCares January 9, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Kapiolani Hosptital only maintains records for 30 years as prescribed by Hawaiian law, Birth records are State Documents (not maintained by the hospital). Obama’s BC is the same type as my daughter who was born at Kapiolani in 1965. Her souvenir Hospital BC was rejected by US Passport people, she had to get the “short” form that State of Hawaii currently issues. Go back to WND where you can feel safe and delusional and don’t forget WND’s best columnist Chuck Norris believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old which is really strange considering Papyrus was used for writing way before that! Next you will tell us dinosaurs walked with man (as Norris did)

  17. avatar
    Passerby January 9, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    John: If this announcement is result of automated process, they it would certianly give more credibility to following media clip.
    OBama – How he got his birth announcement in the paper
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXQHNMlitpY

    It certainly does not give it any more credibility. I suppose it doesn’t give it any less credibility (than it already had)–that is, there’s nothing in this information that actually contradicts this guy’s theory. But “not contradicting” is a far cry from “supporting.” It’s still nothing but pure speculation.

    It’s pretty obvious at this point (if it wasn’t already) that what you guys have done is start with the conclusion that Obama must not be eligible, and then twisting anything you can find into support for the conclusion. It’s not convincing to anyone but yourselves.

    Side comment: I consider the fact that I immediately knew who the Nordyke twins were, and what was the significance of their birth announcement, to be a sign that I’ve been lurking here waaaaay too much. How many people in the world would have known that?

  18. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    “Chuck Norris believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old which is really strange considering Papyrus was used for writing way before that! Next you will tell us dinosaurs walked with man”

    Palin believes it too. This just in: the earth is flat, and Palin’s church has protected her against witches.

    When I was getting ready to drive back to Philly, one minister in Palin’s church wanted to baptize me, “if you’re killed on the way back, you’ll spend eternity in the torments of Hell.” I replied nothing will happen. Chevrolet protected me. Or was it the Buddhist amulet hanging from my rear view mirror?

    I had a Buddhist prayer for a traveler hanging from the mirror, which my wife gave me. When that minister saw it, he went ballistic.

  19. avatar
    Passerby January 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    For some reason I actually feel like answering this question–I suppose the whole thing can go into that off-topic comment dump.

    I’m a political Independent, and I wasn’t paying very close attention to politics in 2004. I feel a bit guilty about that, and feel that I really should have been paying attention, but there it is.

    I was aware of the Schiavo case, and that there was a controversy about it. I thought it was a damn shame that anyone ever has to make a heart-wrenching decision like that, and a further damn shame that it can cause so many bad feelings within families. Beyond that, it was none of my business or anyone else’s. I assumed the courts would work it out, since that after all is their job.

    The congressional action caught me totally by surprise. My first, and lasting, reaction was “What the hell is Congress doing getting involved with something like that?” I know that just goes to show how out of touch I really was, but I think that reaction wasn’t that uncommon.

    That was one of the events (not the only one) that convinced me that the Republican party had gone out of its collective mind, and led to my vote for Obama.

    I’ve never considered myself much of a liberal, but by your lights I suppose I must be. Your position seems to be that anyone who thinks Obama is the legitimate president must be a liberal.

  20. avatar
    Kevin Bellas January 9, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    John,

    Prove your own point. Why don’t you post your own BC?

  21. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    The courts were correct: it was a matter between her and her spouse. This is not a theocracy, which Palin and her crowd want it to be.

    “In his second term as a Congressman, Anderson introduced a constitutional amendment that would “recognize the law and authority of Jesus Christ” over the United States.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson

  22. avatar
    Gordon January 9, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Doc you need a new class of Birther Troll. This John isn’t even trying. Reinsert him in the Matrix. Fake Kenyan BC indeed.

  23. avatar
    euphgeek January 9, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Of course we know which is the truth. It is an irrefutable fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii and the director of the Department of Health in Hawaii both confirmed that fact. The Nordyke twins’ birth announcement is just one more nail in the coffin of nirtherism.

  24. avatar
    Mary Brown January 9, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    John,John, John. Why the snark? The announcement is there. It comes not from Grandma or Grandpa but from the folks who collect Vital Statistics from the hospitals. Get over this John. It is done. He was born in Hawaii.

  25. avatar
    Mary Brown January 9, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    I thought her mother was treated badly. While I believed and now know the medical conclusions about her condition was correct, I also know as a mom that not one person could convince me of what I believed not to be true about one of my children. The husband should have shown grace and mercy to her mom. I never liked him even though I thought he was right about the facts.

  26. avatar
    Mary Brown January 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    John it is over.

  27. avatar
    racosta January 9, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    “Palin believes it too. This just in: the earth is flat, and Palin’s church has protected her against witches.”

    They actually hanged witches in the colonies; Birthers would love to go back there. They also jailed and beat Baptists and Catholics. Those were the good old days when religion was the foundation of government. Great place for whip and chain sellers!

  28. avatar
    euphgeek January 9, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    Any true conservative would not have gotten involved in the case, as the issue was a private matter between the husband, the parents and the courts. That any Republican politician, let alone the president, got involved in this case by passing legislation specifically targeting it is proof that they have no interest in advocating small government unless it benefits them politically or financially.

  29. avatar
    Bob Weber January 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    euphgeek: Of course we know which is the truth.It is an irrefutable fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.The governor of Hawaii and the director of the Department of Health in Hawaii both confirmed that fact.The Nordyke twins’ birth announcement is just one more nail in the coffin of nirtherism.

    Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the evidence is irrefutable that Obama was born in Hawaii, but the evidence is so strong that it would take something really powerful and direct to cast doubt on it. Something like a BOAC passenger manifest from Aug. 1961 showing “Mr. & Mrs. Barack Obama & infant” departing Nairobi. Or a Customs & Immigration document showing baby Obama entering the U.S. But the birfers have little desire to tear themselves from their computer screens and do actual research; whenever they have, it has been detrimental to the birfer cause, as are the Nordyke birth listings.

  30. avatar
    Scientist January 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    I supported neither Schaivo’s parents nor her husband (though the autopsy proved the husband was correct), but I thought the idea of Congress sticking its nose into the affairs of a single family in a tragedy was obscene beyond belief. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers of Bush flying back to Washington to sign the legislation (ever heard of FedEx?) And Bill Frist diagnosing a patient he had never examined (something you learn in the first week of Med School) was nothing but a joke.

    Nevertheless, your digression points out an indisputable truth about the birthers. Every single one is 100% opposed to evry single position Obama favors. If the birthers were really motivated, as they claim, by the eligibility issue, there would be at least a reasonable sub-group who could say with a straight face, “I support Obama on most of the issues, I just wish there weren’t questions regarding his birth.” But in fact, you can’t show me a single pro-Obama-on-the-issues birthers. The fact that they seriously try to argue (despite the crystal clear language in the Constitution) that there is any possible successor if Obama were removed other than Biden is a dead giveaway. John, if you are honest, you will admit that the birthers started from, “I hate Obama,” and went looking for “facts” (i.e., making things up) in the hope (hopeless) of overturning a free and fair election.

  31. avatar
    Whatever4 January 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    I’m not sure that would cover the HIPPA violation and state privacy law litigation they’d trigger, or the employee’s salary once he/she was fired for releasing it. It’s easy for WND to make those empty gestures since they know no one will risk a career and come forth.

    It used to be Rupublicans valued personal privacy (even if they didn’t find it in the Constitution). All that went out the political window.

  32. avatar
    Whatever4 January 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    $15,000 doesn’t even get you on the brass plaque in the lobby. The wing will set you back millions.

  33. avatar
    Greg January 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    It wouldn’t come close to covering the HIPAA violation:

    Covered entities and specified individuals, as explained below, whom “knowingly” obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information in violation of the Administrative Simplification Regulations face a fine of up to $50,000, as well as imprisonment up to one year. Offenses committed under false pretenses allow penalties to be increased to a $100,000 fine, with up to five years in prison. Finally, offenses committed with the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm permit fines of $250,000, and imprisonment for up to ten years.

    So, John, do you have $250,000 and 10 years of your life to give up for the cause?

  34. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    C’mon John. Post YOUR BC. What are you hiding? I know – you were born on the Vermont/Ontario border.

    You can’t fool me.

  35. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    “BOAC passenger manifest”

    Bring Over American Cash (bada-bing)

  36. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    “So, John, do you have $250,000 and 10 years of your life to give up for the cause?”

    Of course he does not. They are all just a motley crew of armchair warriors.

    Here’s one for John: have you personally patrolled a kibbutz perimeter, all night long, with an Uzi? I’m waiting.

  37. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    “$15,000 doesn’t even get you on the brass plaque in the lobby.”

    That plaque starts at $1M. $15K gets you a handshake.

  38. avatar
    misha January 9, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    When my mother died, I went through her house. I found the hospital bill from my birth, $15, and…

    (look the other way)

    my mother’s diaphram (!)

    Jews are a wild bunch – especially the NY crowd.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 9, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    Last time I checked, there was some question as to whether HIPAA covered information collected before the Privacy Rule went into effect. I think generally health care facilities and workers assume that it does apply just to be safe. I cannot see how a physician who retired before the Privacy Rule went to into effect could be considered a covered entity under HIPAA, but professional ethics would prevent disclosure.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 9, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    I’ve personally had to make that decision in the case of my mother. It was clear that she was not going to recover, and her own wishes were also clear. She lived maybe a half an hour after they turned off the ventilator. I held her hand, trying to keep it warm. I sang a hymn for her. You know, I have never understood the conservative Christian view of keeping people breathing who are in effect already dead. They seem to be devoid of the hope that is at the core of their religion.

    (1 Th 4:13-14 KJV) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. {14} For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 9, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    I assumed anyone hanging out here is hard core enough to know who Nordyke was. But speaking about some of the trivia I carry with me, I find myself saying, “I know things that people really shouldn’t know.” I mean, how many lawyers, even, have heard of Lynch v. Clarke much less that it was 1844?

  42. avatar
    Passerby January 9, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I assumed anyone hanging out here is hard core enough to know who Nordyke was.

    And you were probably right. I hope you didn’t take that as an implied criticism, because it certainly wasn’t meant to be. It just struck me as kind of funny–why do I even know that?

    I’ve learned all kinds of stuff here. Obscure bits of Hawaiian state law, birth certificate procedures, who Vattel is, old court cases that even my lawyer brother has probably never heard of, you name it. It’s been an interesting ride.

  43. avatar
    Greg January 9, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    No, it definitely covers information collected prior to its effective date. It has had a significant impact on retrospective chart reviews, a key type of clinical research.

    The hospital would be at risk if it allowed the information to become public. If it actively participated in its becoming public, they could face criminal charges. If they were simply negligent in allowing the information, they could face civil fines, starting at $100, and going up to $500,000 depending on the severity of the breach.

  44. avatar
    chufho January 9, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    if a child would have been born at home would the vital stats people collect this info also ? or would grandpa and grandma then provide this info

  45. avatar
    Mary Brown January 9, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    I agree about the government intervention in this family matter. I was with a younger brother, who died of melanoma at 32. Decisions are difficult for everyone. My mom wanted to continue treatment even when it meant continuing with no hope and, of course, suffering. She just wanted her child to survive and never, despite facts, ever believed that there was no hope. She read about this person and that who lived because of this treatment or that. I know how we treated my mom in this situation. I will always feel that the husband could have and should have shown mercy and grace to his wife’s mother.

  46. avatar
    Mary Brown January 9, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    I agree.

  47. avatar
    aarrgghh January 9, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    chufho chews over, deeply:

    if a child would have been born at home would the vital stats people collect this info also ? or would grandpa and grandma then provide this info

    what if spartacus had a piper cub?

  48. avatar
    chufho January 9, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    try to answer

  49. avatar
    chufho January 9, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education) – ** it does not say all children are entitled to an education, it specifies “all citizens” **. The Indonesian school record, indicates that Soetoro/Obama’s name is “Barry Soetoro;” his nationality is “Indonesia” and his father “Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958. These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

  50. avatar
    chufho January 9, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    prima facie evidence

  51. avatar
    Mary Brown January 9, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    Adaption papers not inference prove adaption. Let me give you other facts. 1.Under Islam adapted children do not receive the name of their adapted parent. The prophet Mohammed, spoke against that WESTERN custom, and instead wanted the child to be part of their birth family. People do adapt but it is more of a foster child relationship. I believe the late King of Jordan adapted a child and she always retained her family name and her identity as a member of her birth family. 2. Adults cannot by their action deprive an American child of their citizenship. 3. I see no statement in the laws you cite that expressly forbids forein students from attending school. 4. I personally know folks who as children used the name of a step-parent who never legally adapted them. You must produce formal evidence of an adaption. You have not. What Soetero was saying was that President Obama was his natural child which he was not.

  52. avatar
    Mary Brown January 10, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    Oh, recently a story appeared of a young man who had survived the gas bombing of a Kurdish village during Sadam Hussein’s regime. The young man( then an infant) was found alive and taken to live with an Iranian family. Since they could not identify his family he used their name but they NEVER stopped looking for his family-the family they regarded as truly his. Everyone was overjoyed when he was identified through genetic evidence as belonging to a particular family. That family, newly found, was now HIS family and THEIR name his. Different cultures view adaption and its effects differently. That may be why adults cannot make decisions for American children that would rob them of their citizenship.

  53. avatar
    chufho January 10, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    skirting the issue is simple finding the facts seems to have you all scared to death

  54. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- January 10, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    Dear John,

    Myth busted. Again.

    The uppity negro is still your President.

  55. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- January 10, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    130 million votes

    62 court victories (and growing)

    the 44th President of the United States

    It seems to me that we’re not the ones afraid of the facts.

  56. avatar
    Mary Brown January 10, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    Why would I be scared when the evidence consistently shows you to be wrong and deluded? You are not dealing with Western culture here or its and your understanding of adaption and what it means. Again, produce a court record of adaption. If you do not have that you have nothing. Scared, no. Amused and sad that you insist on going on with this fantasy. Yes, I plead guilty to being amused and sad for you. But aside from that it is important to answer with an something other than a remark about someones state of mind. Where is the certificate or court record of an adaption? Produce it for us. Let’s see it.

  57. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    “try to answer”

    Actually, I think he had a Cessna 152.

  58. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 10, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    chufho: (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education) –

    This does NOT mean that non-citizens are prohibited from getting an education.

    Though obviously elementary logic escapes you. I’ll bet you are not so good at math, either, since you apparently believe that if 2+2=4, then the answer to 1+3 must be something else entirely.

  59. avatar
    Lupin January 10, 2010 at 6:45 am #

    What we have here is a perfect example of the pathology of a belief system.

    Belief has been entirely separated from the question of truth, verifiability, etc. Indeed, the pathology is reinforced the more truth you throw at it, because it is like a paranoid delusion. It’s strengthened by resistance to contradictory evidence.

    The birther delusion achieves greater degree of success than some other types because it serves as wish-fulfillment for those people.

  60. avatar
    Greg January 10, 2010 at 7:07 am #

    Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s,

    Untrue.

    See “Indonesian Policies toward the Chinese Minority under the New Order” by Leo Suryadinata, Asian Survey, Vol. 16, No. 8 (Aug., 1976), pp. 770-787

    The decision to let the Chinese establish SNPCs was based on various political considerations. After the closing of Chinese-medium schools [in 1965], some alien Chinese were eager to send their children to Indonesian schools. However places in these schools were limited andpriority was given to Indonesian citizens.

    Foreign students were allowed at Indonesian schools, priority was given to citizens!

    and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education) – ** it does not say all children are entitled to an education, it specifies “all citizens” **.

    The citations here do not prove either that foreigners were excluded from public schools or that the name or citizenship status were checked with the government.

    You don’t have a right to drive a car. It’s a privilege. Does that mean you cannot drive a car? Aliens did not have a right to attend school in Indonesia. That does not mean they couldn’t attend school in Indonesia.

    The Constitution in Indonesia still says that citizens have a right to attend school, yet birthers never argue that foreigners cannot now attend public schools in Indonesia.

    The Indonesian school record, indicates that Soetoro/Obama’s name is “Barry Soetoro;” his nationality is “Indonesia” and his father “Lolo Soetoro, M.A.

    Asian Law Digest, Indonesian Law section 4.02:

    Regional identity cards, family identity cards, birth certificates or official reports regarding taking of oath of allegiance to Indonesia are sufficient evidence to prove Indonesian citizenship.

    Notice anything missing there? Something that isnotlisted as sufficient evidence to prove Indonesian citizenship?

    Yeah. That’s right. If Barry Soetoro took his school application to the Indonesian passport office they wouldn’t issue him a passport. He couldn’t sign up to be in the Indonesian little league! He couldn’t get into the Indonesian military.

    The school application is not sufficient evidence to prove Indonesian citizenship – according to the laws of Indonesia

    These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    Is there anything in the Constitution that says that someone cannot also be the citizen of another country?

    Nope.

    Here’s a clue. When we’re talking about a US President and whether he’s eligible under the US Constitution, you should first look at US law!

    US law says that even if Obama became an Indonesian citizen at age 6, he did not lose his US citizenship.

    Perkins v. Elg – Citizenship cannot be taken away based upon an act committed by another person. Your theory states that because of Obama’s parent’s actions, Obama’s citizenship was taken away. This goes directly against this.

    Afroyim v. Rusk – Citizenship cannot be taken away without the consent of the person. Again, confirming Perkins v. Elg. Your theory is that a 6-year-old can form the legal consent neccessary to satify Afroyim.

    Vance v. Terrazas – The act must be committed with explicitly the intent of taking away citizenship. The evidence of this must be seperate from the fact that he just committed the act. You have no evidence that Barack Obama ever intended to give up his citizenship. Your theory has the potential act itself as the evidence, which it is not.

    Indonesian law may, or may not have considered Obama a citizen, but the United States doesn’t care. He was still a natural born citizen.

  61. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 10, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    chufho: skirting the issue is simple finding the facts seems to have you all scared to death

    True.

    The photograph of Barry’s 2nd grade school record at a private school was taken in 2007 before his records could be sealed. If you’ve ever transferred a child to a different school, the first thing the new school will want is a copy of the complete record from the prior school.

    How is it the private school, using the application from the father and records from Barry’s 1st grade, was able to correctly identify Barry’s place of birth and incorrectly list his nationality? And if their record keeping was so sloppy, why did they keep the record for 40 years?

    And if you got a problem with xenophobia, why doesn’t Barry open up his complete passport record to inspection. An extensive history file will be kept on a minor traveling and living outside the U.S.

  62. avatar
    sarina January 10, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    John

    Don’t you think that Hillary, a lawyer, and McCain exhausted all the resources to beat Obama?.. or maybe it was a cover up involving, the “REPUBLICAN” gov. of Hawaii, Lingle, Congress, SCOTUS, all the federal agencies, also Obama’s family knew he was going to be president someday.. yeah must be that.

    Birthers IQ = doorknob

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    I debunked this theory back in February of 2009 in my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2010 at 8:13 am #

    While it has no bearing on our case, since President Obama was born in a hospital, the primary responsibility for reporting a home birth falls on the attendant at the birth (if that person were a medical professional–MD, nurse midwife), and secondly on the parents otherwise. A registration by a grandparent would have been highly unusual, and I believe would have raised questions: in 1961, there were only 14 home births in all of the city of Honolulu (0.17%), Official statistics for 1961 show zero unattended births; however, that may be the result of a failure to collect the information.

  65. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    “Birthers IQ = doorknob”

    Are you sure? It may actually be a tomato.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    Passerby: I hope you didn’t take that as an implied criticism

    No, I identified with your remark.

  67. avatar
    Lucas Daniel Smith January 10, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Good morning. I am confirming now that, yes, the Nordkye birth annoucement is listed in the August, 16th 1961 edition of The Honolulu Advertiser. This was confirmed on 01.07.2009 at the California State Library in Sacramento where microfilm going as far back as the 1920s for the said newspaper are on file. I will upload a video presentation soon which documents this finding.

    My earlier statement made on youtube, under video comments of the birth certificate video, was in error. I am an objective person and believe that the facts, no matter what direction they lean towards, need to be published and made record of.

    My earlier statement was never posted on my main forum page, which is my youtube profile page. The statement was posted on the video comments of the birth certificate video which runs rampant with misinformation and disinformation comments posted 24-7 by Obama supporters (Obots). In no case would I consider the video comments page (now over 9600 comments in length) as a place that should be locked upon as a Lucas Smith blog. I rarely post there and the comments there are supplied mostly (more than 50%) by Obama supporters which entail fabricated evidence, half truths and more outright lies than can be found anywhere else on the Internet regarding the Obama birth certificate factor.

    I consider my profile page on Youtube.com/inspectorsmith to be the only true Lucas Daniel Smith blog, or forum, anywhere on the Internet. I caution everyone to please not confuse my profile forum with the video comments page.

    Thank you to all.

    Respectfully,
    Lucas Daniel Smith.

  68. avatar
    milspec January 10, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    I say potato.

  69. avatar
    milspec January 10, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    How is the kidney for sale business going Lucas?

  70. avatar
    milspec January 10, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    I wish there was a ventilator I could have had turned off for my mother (cancer victim). Her damn Taurus heart would just not stop even when she didn’t know who she was let alone me.

  71. avatar
    milspec January 10, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    I’m having some significant surgery at the end of this month (knee replacement). I rest easy, I already have a advanced directive on file with the hospital and my sister has a medical POA and is fully aware of my wishes if the operation would go south for some reason.

  72. avatar
    milspec January 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Down clicked your post only for the “mulch” comment. Her brain activity had stopped correct though.

  73. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Thank you for confirming you are a pathological liar.

  74. avatar
    bob January 10, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Irony alert:

    I rarely post there and the comments there are supplied mostly (more than 50%) by Obama supporters which entail fabricated evidence

  75. avatar
    ImaForener January 10, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    One can only assume that describing yourself as an “objective person” is your way of saying you are a “convicted felon”.

  76. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    What? Are you saying WND is just to fricking cheap to get the info they want?~ that was snark~
    I think the medical and vital records professionals in Hawaii are pretty faithful to its medical privacy and vital records laws. We all saw the letter Obama wrote to Kapiolani Medical Center before they took it off their website. He called it “the place of my birth”. He’s been President for 356 days. If there was any proof he was anyone other than who the preponderance of the evidence says he is, someone would have been able to show it by now.
    (Hope you’re recovered Misha!)

  77. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    And of course you are quite familiar with fabricated evidence, aren’t you Lucas!

  78. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Give me a break, it was Indonesia in 1967. On the day little Barry was set to begin school, Lolo walked into the school office and they wrote down what he told them. They simply believed what Lolo told them. Your first clue should be that it is handwritten. Give me a break about transfering and checking the records of a first grader from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967. You people all creamed yourselves when you saw “Barry Soetoro” on that scrap of paper and you haven’t been able to think straight since.

  79. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    “An extensive history file”
    This one gets another “oh please” from me. Anybody’s passport records consist of application data, and the record of when they exited and entered the United States. It probably doesn’t contain a history of where you were in between because even in the days when every country stamped your passport when you entered and exited, that’s only interesting to Customs and Immigration when you re-enter the country. The Customs agent takes your passport and asks where you’ve been, where you’re coming from and thumbs the passport looking at stamps. He doesn’t necessarily record this information. Even when you need to get a visa to enter a particular country, you get that visa from the issuing country. US State isn’t advised you’ve gotten a visa. I don’t know why you people aren’t asking for Obama’s Interpol records instead. That’s what you need if you want to see what countries he visited when he was outside the US.

  80. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Hope it goes well and all progress is nothing but North! Do your therapy diligently! I had two neighbors who had knee replacements in August. One did her rehab religiously, the other not so much. By September, the one was out walking a mile each day. Even today, the other one who filched on her rehab is still using a cane.

    [“the one” and “the other one” not to be confused with “The One” and “That one”!]

  81. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    I remember in particular when they revealed that the autopsy reports showed she was completely blind and would have had no reaction to anyone in the room, it was all reflexes. It reminded me how sometimes we want so badly to believe our loved one might be the miracle we’ll see what we want to see. I felt quite badly for the husband who the parents and their supporters smeared so effectively. When the husband spoke, it was clear he loved Terry and sincerely thought he was trying to do what she wanted. These issues are painful enough when families disagree, it is horrible when they are dragged out into the public square.

  82. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Those felony and misdemeanor convictions are the result of a liberal conspiracy.

    Just like Agnew. When the story first broke, he said it was a conspiracy to destroy him, by the media and liberals. Yeah, right.

  83. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    Lucas: who is Orly schtupping this week?

  84. avatar
    richCares January 10, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    In my travels, the immigraton guy asks for my passport, stamps & intials it then says “next” to get to the next person in line. How can this be translated into “extensive travel records”. Only in the deluded brain of a birther. Or maybe that guy has a fantastic memory and records your travel info later, Sure dipsh_t!

  85. avatar
    Rickey January 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    One gets the impression that most birthers have never traveled outside the United States. The idea that the State Department has an extensive file on the foreign travel of Americans is exaggerated. When I flew into Rome in 1999, I didn’t even have to stop at customs or immigration. All passengers went to baggage claim and then we were waved through to the airport exit. On another trip to Europe I flew into Germany, spent some time in Switzerland and flew home from Paris. There is no record of me entering or leaving Switzerland. At the Zurich border the Swiss glanced at my passport but didn’t scan it or stamp it; I didn’t even have to stop at the French border because it was open.

    And as you pointed out, the stamping of passports is very inconsistent. I was in Barcelona in 2000, but you’d never know it from looking at my passport.

  86. avatar
    kimba January 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Yep. Exactly as you say, they don’t seem to have first hand experience with entering or leaving this country or any other. They don’t realize once you’re in the EU, they only glance at your passport.No stamping. That when you re-enter this country no one records where you were. I suspect most of them don’t have passports anyway. They don’t seem to know what documentation is acceptable for getting one. What we need are Obama’s interpol records πŸ˜‰

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    Mr. Smith,

    Thanks for dropping by. I’m always glad to hear from the folks who make the news in our little corner of the Internet.

  88. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    In other words, Mr. Smith sometimes posts careless lies in the comments section on his page. In the profile section, on the other hand, he only posts well-crafted lies.

  89. avatar
    Rickey January 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    No doubt Interpol was keeping a close eye on the six-year-old’s movements!

  90. avatar
    sarina January 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Lucas Smith

    You are lying. You are confirming now that you saw the ad in a California library trying to appear like an “innocent person” who just found out. You told ME you looked from Aug to Dec 1961 and the Nordyke birth announcement were not in the newspaper.

    You are confirming nothing because it was ME who found out the evidence here and I posted it on your video. It was ME who posted yesterday that you were lying or needed glasses because you didn’t found the Nordyke birth announcements. I even posted the address for you to look at the copy of the Honolulu Advertizer with the Nordyke birth announcement.

    “I rarely post there and the comments there are supplied mostly (more than 50%) by Obama supporters which entail fabricated evidence, half truths and more outright lies than can be found anywhere else on the Internet regarding the Obama birth certificate factor.”

    “Entail fabricated evidence” “half truth”
    “outright lies”

    Hypocrite! What about your “fabricated” Kenyan bc that you were trying to sell on Ebay? Your stupid fake “Kenyan video” with light skin people? ( from the Caribbean or S. America)Do you think people are stupid? Why don’t you post a copy of your round trip to Kenya, as evidence you went there?

    You fell in your own trap birther!

  91. avatar
    aarrgghh January 10, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    sarina, rhetorically:

    Do you think people are stupid?

    lucas knows his customers are.

  92. avatar
    Black Lion January 10, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    Sarina, the birthers actually do think people are stupid…You have to be in order to believe in their ridiculous theories…

  93. avatar
    Rita January 10, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    Mr. Smith,

    Whether or not you view the comments section as a “Lucas Smith blog”, you did personally claim that you had looked through every single newspaper from August through December of 1961 and there was nothing there. It was you that typed that, not another YouTube user nor an “Obot” posing as you. You personally posted what was basically a blatant lie, regardless of whether it was posted on your “official blog” or not.

  94. avatar
    Tomtech January 10, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    What part of “the citizenship of a minor child cannot be affected by the parents action” don’t you, and the faithful to Orly, understand?

    Obama’s mother could have moved to Moscow and accepted Russian citizenship for her and her children without effecting Obama’s “natural born citizen” status.

  95. avatar
    Mary Brown January 10, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    The part that has to do with ending welfare by pay pal. The old saying “There’s a sucker born every minute” applies here.

  96. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    Exactly. Did you know Nixon was born with a 5 o’clock shadow?

  97. avatar
    misha January 10, 2010 at 10:00 pm #

    Mario wrote: “The Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union both had perfectly good Constitutioons and they were no barrier to totalitarianism.

    The question is what happened in those constitutional societies to allow totalitarianism to take control? What institutions in those societies did not do their job to allow that to happen?”

    It won’t happen here because we never had a president named Schiklgruber, nor named Dzhugashvili.

  98. avatar
    MsDaisy January 10, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    Actually it’s aboout the same as a box of rocks.

  99. avatar
    chufho January 11, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    dont you have to fill out a form before you land in a foreign country with all your vitals such as why where and when

  100. avatar
    chufho January 11, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    I understand Dr., I myself was in the same situation with my father.It was not in anyway easy. But a better place waits us all.

  101. avatar
    racosta January 11, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    “why doesn’t Barry open up his complete passport record ”
    There isn’t such a thing as passport record! The only place you can see where he has been is to look at his passport & see the visa stamps. There is no other record. My guess is that Whitman never traveled and has no passport just dumb sh_t talking points.

  102. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 11, 2010 at 7:40 am #

    Passport Records for Issuances 1925 – Present
    a.Requesting Your Own Record
    Passport Services maintains United States passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present. These records normally consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United States citizenship, and are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 USC 552(a)). Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit stamps, visas, residence permits, etc., since this information is entered into the passport book after it is issued.
    The Privacy Act allows you to obtain copies of records in your own name and the records of your minor children. To request these records, please submit a typed or clearly printed NOTARIZED request that provides:

    1.Your full name at birth and any subsequent name changes and/or the full name of your minor child or children, if you are requesting their records;
    2.Your date and place of birth and/or those of your minor child or children;
    3.Your current mailing address;
    4.Your current daytime telephone number;
    5.Your current e-mail address, if available;
    6.Your reason for the request;
    7.The dates or estimated dates your passports were issued;
    8.Your passport numbers or any other information that will help us locate your records; and
    9.A copy of requestor’s valid photo identification
    A search for your passport record is free with your notarized request. However, there is a $60.00 search fee for each individual, other than yourself and your minor children, for whom a record search is requested. A check or money order made payable to “Department of State” must be included with your request.

    b.Certified Passport Records
    Certified copies of passport records may be requested. If you would like a certified copy of a passport record, the certification fee is $30.00 for the first certified copy of an individual’s record and $20.00 for each additional authenticated copy of that record. Checks or money orders should be made payable to “Department of State”.

    c.Third-Party Requests
    Third party requests must include one of the following:
    1.Notarized consent from the owner of the passport records,
    2.Proof of guardianship,
    3.Death certificate, or
    4.Court order signed by a judge of competent jurisdiction requesting the Department of State to release passport records.
    The only exception to this requirement is when the owner of the passport records was born 100 years or more ago. Your third party request does not have to be notarized but should include the information described in the section above that covers requesting your own record and a $60.00 search fee for each individual for whom a record search is requested. Checks or money orders should be made payable to “Department of State”.
    d.Mailing Address
    All requests for passport records issued from 1925 to present should be mailed to:
    Department of State
    Passport Services
    Research and Liaison Section
    Room 500
    1111 19th Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20524-1705 (202) 955-0447

    I want to see Barry’s certified copy of his passport record.

  103. avatar
    Scientist January 11, 2010 at 8:17 am #

    “My face is my passport”- Vladimir Horowitz

  104. avatar
    richCares January 11, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    “I want to see Barry’s certified copy of his passport record.”
    why? a non citizen can’t get a passport!

  105. avatar
    Greg January 11, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    I want to see Barry’s certified copy of his passport record.

    Do you have his notarized consent? A death certificate? Proof of guardianship? A court order?

    If not, you’re out of luck!

  106. avatar
    SFJeff January 11, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    John,

    I admit- I am stumped. What on earth does the Terry Schiavo case have to do with President Obama?

    Of course I had an opinion but what does it have to do with presidential eligibility?

  107. avatar
    SFJeff January 11, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    “his father “Lolo Soetoro, M.A.”

    Do you think that Lolo Soetoro was his actual father? That is the glaring thing to me- that Soetoro was declared his father, which seems like it was done purely for expediency.

    Anyway, seems like just another stretch in the multiple theories of why President Obama should not have been eligible to be president. Wish you folks would be honest enough to say that you are just looking for a theory- any theory- that will discredity the President. A person with one whacko theory they truly believed in, I might be able to believe their sincerity- advocating half a dozen theories hoping one of them might be true is just promoting your anti-Obama agenda.

  108. avatar
    Black Lion January 11, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Sven, if you can tell us what other President’s passport records you have seen, we would then see where your request makes sense. Or if you could show us how the President’s passport records matter in regards to the only requirements for President spelled out in the Constutution. I remember it requiring that a President be over 35, live in the US for 14 years,and be a NBC. I don’t remember it stating that the President had to have a passport and it should be inspected by the public. What are you hoping to find? That he does not have one? That he visited Kenya sometime before he stated that he did in his book? That he traveled before he moved to Indonesia? Or that he secretly visited Afganistan in the 1980’s and was a member of Al Queida and was friends with Osama?

  109. avatar
    Lupin January 12, 2010 at 3:43 am #

    Even as a pathological delusion, I don’t get that one.

    If Obama has a US passports (which he does), then he is a US citizen.

    What does it matter which country he visited? Are we back to Clinton being a KGB mole?

  110. avatar
    misha January 12, 2010 at 4:16 am #

    “Are we back to Clinton being a KGB mole?”

    Worse. We’re heading back to John Birch stuff with the birthers. They’re still around, in an Appleton, Wisconsin basement.

  111. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 12, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    Hmmmmm? Only citizens have U.S. passports? Are you sure?

    Section 308 of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

    Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:

    (1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;

    (2) A person born outside the United States and is outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;

    (3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in such outlying possessions; and

    (4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not 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 seven years in any continuous period of ten years –

    (A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and

    (B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

    The proviso of section (301(g) shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section.

    blah, blah, blah … bunch o’stuff from the State Department and then …

    If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of 8 USC 1452(b)(1) and (2), he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.

  112. avatar
    Lupin January 12, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    It’s all explained here:

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_781.html

    which states that “very few persons fall within this category” and none of the categories described apply to Obama.

  113. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 12, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    It could apply to Obama. See if you can follow this theory …

    Lolo and Stanley Ann marry in Hawaii. Lolo adopts BO II. As with the divorce between Stanley Ann and BO Sr., BO Sr. does not respond to a Family Court summons.

    During the adoption process, BO II has his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro with a new BC created. BO II’s BC is sealed. Stanley Ann Soetoro and Barry Soetoro apply for US Passports under their new names.

    Lolo leaves for Indonesia without Stanley Ann and Barry because Indonesia will not allow entry for people with a passport less than 6 months old. Lolo uses the marriage license and adoption papers to begin the process of naturalizing Stanley Ann and Barry to Indonesian citizenship.

    After a few years, the marriage begins to fail. A family friend takes Barry to the US Embassy in Jakarta and tells embassy personnel Barry has been abandoned or orphaned with a US citizen grandmother in Hawaii. After confirming his grandmother is a US citizen and that she’ll agree to take responsibility for Barry, the US State Department expedites travel documents for Barry as an Indonesian Refugee and escorts him back to Hawaii.

    Between parties at his 10 year class Reunion, BO Sr attends a Family Court hearing to contest Barry’s adoption. The court agrees to void Barry’s adoption and changes his name back to BO II.

    Barry’s Indonesian citizenship is voided, as well. BO II is stateless. He is a US National without citizenship who is capable of obtaining a US Passport.

  114. avatar
    richCares January 12, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    what an imagination you have to dream up such an impossible situation. An Idonesion adoption follows muslim guidelines, the child’s name remains as birth fathers name (Obama) so now show us proof of adoption. Just vote against him in 2012 no need to make up crap!

  115. avatar
    Greg January 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    Lolo uses the marriage license and adoption papers to begin the process of naturalizing Stanley Ann and Barry to Indonesian citizenship.

    Which, according to Perkins v. Elg and Afroyim v. Rusk, does nothing to change Obama’s United States citizenship.

    In order to get to court, you have to plead a case. And you have to show facts that plausibly suggest what you’re alleging. It’s not enough that the facts are consistent with the story.

    You’ve got a tiny set of facts which are consistent with an infinite set of explanations. Wake me up when you’ve got a fact that suggests your conspiracy.

  116. avatar
    Scientist January 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    What if a person travelled in space at speeds approaching the speed of light? According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, time slows down realtive to time on a slower moving body such as Earth. That person could pass 10 Earth years in a single year. Then, what if, at the Earth age of 35 they were elected President? From the frame of reference of their space travel, they are only 26. Are they eligible?

  117. avatar
    NBC January 12, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    Barry’s Indonesian citizenship is voided, as well. BO II is stateless. He is a US National without citizenship who is capable of obtaining a US Passport.

    Other than that the US laws and precedent indicate that you are wrong and other than that there is NO supporting evidence, you do have a good point.
    Well, not really…

  118. avatar
    JoZeppy January 12, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    where do birthers come up with this stuff? They’re not even trying to keep one foot in reality any more.

  119. avatar
    Greg January 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    Hey, Scientist, have we calculated what age Obama is using Einstein’s theory of special relativity? We know that Obama has taken lots of plane trips – for example, his trip to Afghanistan. Relativistic effects are felt even at relatively (forgive the pun) low speeds – albeit in extremely small amounts. Assuming most of Obama’s travel was in the Boeing 767, which has a cruising speed of 461 knots, how many flights would it take to make Obama ineligible – relativistically?

  120. avatar
    Scientist January 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    Greg: how many flights would it take to make Obama ineligible – relativistically?

    Roughly speaking, about 10 trillion flights. Nevertheless, I’d rate the odds of him being ineligible on those grounds about equal to those of Sven’s theories (or any other birther theories) being true.

  121. avatar
    SFJeff January 12, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    Possible? Of course its possible.

    It was also possible that GW Bush was actually born in Norway and smuggled into the United States by George Senior’s gardner and then George Senior bribed the hospital into reporting that the birth took place there and slipped Barbara something to make her forget that she never gave birth to George Jr. and then they just covered everything else up. I mean it is possible. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was a Soviet sleeper agent. It is possible. It is possible that Ann Coulter is an alien life form.

    Almost any whacky theory that you spin in your head is possible Sven. Just because you it is possible doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to notice it, or take any time disproving it.

    Provide some proof or just admit this is all just fiction intended to harm the President and the United States.

  122. avatar
    misha January 12, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    “From the frame of reference of their space travel, they are only 26. Are they eligible?”

    What is that in dog years?

  123. avatar
    misha January 12, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    “Roughly speaking, about 10 trillion flights.”

    Well, according to the scenarios spun by the denialists, it is entirely plausible.

    Hercules is the son of Zeus and a human woman. Why not Obama?

  124. avatar
    Mary Brown January 12, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    They come up with it because they will not have this man as their President, period. As each theory is shot down they move to another. As they continue on their theories become more and more fanciful. It won’t stop. They are pathological about this. They cannot and will not stop themselves. Poor babies.

  125. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 12, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    Nice job, Dick. Keep up the good work!

    I’m unimpressed with the theory BO Sr. shows up in Barry’s life after 10 years of ignoring him emotionally and financially and Madelyn welcomes BO Sr. when he can work it into his social schedule.

    Unless, Madelyn needed something from Senior. A complaint from Senior stating he did not consent to the Soetoro adoption would hit the reset button for Barry.

    Unfortunately, as you thoughtfully pointed out, it leaves BHO stateless and unqualified to be POTUS.

  126. avatar
    Greg January 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    Sven, Dick, do you want to rewrite the Constitution? Maybe you should go found your own country. In this country, under this Constitution, a 6-10 year-old cannot have his citizenship stripped away from him by the actions of a third person. This is true if we’re talking about adoption, acknowledgement, or whatever. This is true whether we’re talking about Indonesian citizenship, or Kenyan, or British or the Galactic Empire.

    There’s a word for people who like to strip children. It’s not patriot!

  127. avatar
    aarrgghh January 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    sven, fluffing his own sockpuppet:

    Nice job, Dick. Keep up the good work!

    and birfers call obama narcissistic!

    in the end, all they have is projection.

  128. avatar
    Black Lion January 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Sven/Dick, I guess you have decided to bring back a variation of your infamous “Indonesian refugee status” theory….It didn’t make sense then and it doesn’t now…Mainly because you neglect to take into consideration the Perkins v Elg ruling…

  129. avatar
    misha January 12, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    “SvenMagnussen says:

    Nice job, Dick. Keep up the good work!”

    Good night – Sven is sending notes to himself. That’s really out there.

    You’ll be reading about his breakdown soon.

  130. avatar
    Lupin January 13, 2010 at 7:13 am #

    I see the light now! Obama is his own father as per Robert Heinlein’s ALL YOU ZOMBIES.

  131. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 13, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    Thank you, Sven. Your comment is appreciated.

    Hey, Sven, did you know anyone, and I mean anyone, can renounce their US citizenship?

    Yes, even a 6-year-old can renounce his citizenship.

    What’s that? You’re concerned a 6-year-old would be under duress or incapable of understanding what renouncing their US citizenship entails. Is that your concern, Sven?

    Well, Sven, the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) has a special set of procedures devised to ensure a minor is not being exploited or manipulated when they renounce their US citizenship. There are numerous protections available only to a minor who renounces his citizenship.

    Do you understand, Sven? Anyone can renounce their US citizenship under the right circumstances. If anyone ever tells you a minor cannot renounce their citizenship, then they have an agenda separate from you and are trying to manipulate you.

    Remember, Sven, any US citizen can renounce their US citizenship. Even a 6-year-old.

  132. avatar
    SFJeff January 13, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    So Sven,

    As you pointed out- technically, legally its possible for a 6 year old to denounce his U.S. Citizenship.

    Can you post one example of a 6 year old successfully doing so?

    I am no Consulor officer, but having been the proud parent of a 6 year old at one time, and having spent large amounts of time at our elementary school, I can honestly say I have never talked with a 6 year old who understands the concept of citizenship.

    Again Sven- anything is possible- you may be an agent provocatuer from Romania but its not probable.

    If you just go around making up lists of things that are possible, you will need a team of monkeys to start typing for you.

    Hey- another possibility? The night of the election, every voting mechanism in the United States hiccuped and miscounted the vote.

    I am really surprised we haven’t heard that yet.

  133. avatar
    JoZeppy January 13, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    Well Dick, since you brought up the Foreign Affairs Manual, I thought you might find this intersting:

    7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
    (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
    a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
    (1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) – a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
    (2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) – a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called
    “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

    Oh…and just to prove you wrong yet again (you may want to pay special attention to subsection e, g, i(2) particularly that last sentance about children under the age of 16):

    7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
    (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
    a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization
    subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at
    birth embody two legal principles:
    (1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) – a rule of common law under which
    the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to
    common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to
    the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and
    nationality statutes.
    (2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) – a concept of Roman or
    civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called
    “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

    e. Parents or guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the U.S. citizenship of a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
    g. Age limitations in the INA: INA 349(a)(1), INA 349(a)(2) and INA 349(a)(4) contain specific provisions limiting their applicability to a person “having attained the age of eighteen years.” No finding of loss of nationality may be made for these acts committed by a person under the
    age of eighteen.

    i. Renunciation of U.S. citizenship and minors:
    (1) Consult CA/OCS/ACS: Whenever you receive a request to renounce from a minor you immediately must contact CA/OCS/ACS. CA/OCS/ACS will not approve a Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality (CLN) for a minor without the concurrence of CA/OCS/PRI, and appropriate consultation with L/CA;
    (2) Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental
    inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to
    appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;

  134. avatar
    Greg January 13, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;

    The question is whether this presumption is rebuttable or not.

    In criminal law, the common law is that under age 7, there is an irrebuttable presumption that the child cannot form intent. Ages 7-14, there is a rebuttable presumption that the child cannot form intent.

    I’m sure, Dick/Sven, that you can cite case law telling us which it is.

    Also, are we all agreed that absent some specific, voluntary, intentional act on the part of young Barack Obama, he cannot lose his citizenship?

  135. avatar
    Black Lion January 13, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    Anyone else note the irony of Sven actually talking with himself…Simply amazing….So Sven is under the delusion that even though there is no evidence, that somehow a young Barack Obama was able to renounce his US citizenship, even though his mother did everything to remind him of his American heritige? I guess you have to be somewhat delusional in order to be a birther….

  136. avatar
    Black Lion January 13, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    More Charlton nonsense…

    “(Jan. 12, 2010) — The Post & Email predicts that an Orange Revolution will break out in the United States by July 2011 seeking the ousting of Barack Hussein Obama from power and sweeping his Democrat supporters in the federal government into prison.

    Since his unconstitutional inauguration, more and more U.S. citizens have become aware of his ineligibility to hold the office, and outrage and anger have spread throughout the nation and all social classes at Obama’s numerous decisions which have demeaned, denigrated, and dishonored the nation on the world stage.

    As part of its coverage of the Obama regime, The Post & Email has been featuring regular reports on the impending Orange Revolution. As a thematic device we are predicting a non-violent revolution in the manner of the non-violent revolutions of the Ukrainian and Georgian Republics; however, The Post & Email has no actual knowledge that such a revolution is being planned.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/12/orange-revolution-by-july-2011/

  137. avatar
    Black Lion January 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    aarrgghh, I guess it is better that what Sven is usually fluffing at that time of the evening…

  138. avatar
    Black Lion January 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    Or this paragraph…

    “Since Obama does not hold the office constitutionally and his installation in said office was a collaborative effort of the entire U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, it follows that the American people are no longer obliged in law to either show allegiance or pay taxes to the federal government, which has thereby cut all ties it had to its own legitimacy.”

  139. avatar
    G January 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Yeah…I bet quite a few of these birfoons try to use this excuse to not pay their taxes. This April 15th will be the first year taxes are due from Obama’s term. We know the Tea Party crowd contains a lot of the anti-tax folks already (as well as a mix of birther buffoons) and there definitely seems to be some overlap.

    I suspect some of the anti-taxers will really only be trying to use the birther nonsense as another excuse to try to get out of their tax obligations. I also suspect some of the birthers will be gullible enought to try to avoid their filings or think that doing so will be some form of “protest” as well.

    Of course, they are all just going to get their butts kicked by the IRS and penalized as per the law.

    But I do say we should keep an eye out for this theme as April 15th comes and goes this year – I’m sure there will be some drama around these fools trying to exploit this issue.

  140. avatar
    G January 13, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    Hmmm…I suspect they are just once again dredging up the old kook Russian theory about America’s impending breakup as their basis for this fantasy:

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/12/29/russian-predicts-u-s-breakup-by-2010/

    “Russian professor Igor Panarin has been predicting the eventual breakup of the United States in the year 2010 for more than a decade.”

    Like many crazy predictions, those who desperately want to believe or to convince others of their “pending doom” just keep recycling the old stories and pushing out the dates for “doom” further and further as each “predicted milestone” fails to come to pass. I find it fascinating that aspects of the human condition are so susceptible to this stuff.

    I also find it funny (and extremely ironic) that for a group of people who seem to be so always railing against “socialism” or “communism” and such that they keep looking to “russian sources” as their saviors or their evidence sources to back up their crazy theories – Pravda, Orly Taitz, Igor Panarin, etc.

  141. avatar
    SFJeff January 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    A revolution of oranges? How entertaining.

  142. avatar
    Scientist January 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Just as an aside, I find it appalling that with possibly 100,000 or more dead and complete devastation in a nearby country that anyone feels they have the luxury to waste even a second over an issue that was settled over 1 year ago. All Americans and all human beings should support President Obama and other world leaders in sending aid to Haiti.

  143. avatar
    chufho January 13, 2010 at 5:09 pm #

    then what are doing posting

  144. avatar
    Scientist January 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Think about this, fool. You guys may attack him, but there is no other President. He’s the only game in town until 2012. You birthers cannot tell me who is actually the President if it isn’t Obama. So grow up and put the country and your fellow human beings first and stop wasting time and resources on this crap that doesn’t address a single real problem.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 13, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    It’ll never live up to the Attack of the Killer Tomatos!

  146. avatar
    chufho January 14, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    you can’t

  147. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 14, 2010 at 6:02 am #

    As you pointed out- technically, legally its possible for a 6 year old to denounce his U.S. Citizenship.

    Thank you, SFJeff. I knew we could find common ground and be friends.

  148. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 14, 2010 at 6:16 am #

    Jozeppy;

    Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;

    You’re quoting the FAM publised during a post-racial identity America. Quote the FAM written in 1967.

    Check out the activities of Maya Angelou in the late 60’s. It would have been considered racist to prevent an African American child from renouncing his US citizenship in the late 60’s. It would have been considered especially heinous if they had moved out of the US and into a another country to begin a new life and a bureaucrat from the US government said, “No! We’ve got you. You can’t renounce your US citizenship to become an Indonesian National.”

  149. avatar
    Greg January 14, 2010 at 7:10 am #

    You’re quoting the FAM publised during a post-racial identity America. Quote the FAM written in 1967.

    Burden of proof, man. You made the allegation, you support it with proof.

    Show us the 1967 FAM, or find us an example of a six year-old that renounced their citizenship.

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 14, 2010 at 7:13 am #

    Why don’t YOU quote the 1967 FAM you lazy troll.

  151. avatar
    Dick Whtiman January 14, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    Thank you for helping me put the pieces of the puzzle together, Sven.

    It’s apparent when Barry moved to Indonesia, the US State Department was under a policy not to interfere with African Americans who wished to ex-patriot themselves from the US and become citizens of their host country.

    As with Maya Angelou, Barry and his mother determined after a few years it was a mistake to ex-patriot Barry.

    In a policy reversal (which happens a lot), the US State Department provided Barry with travel documents, a free plane ticket and an escort back to America. A failed policy was successfully being reversed until Barry’s grandmother decided to void his adoption, as opposed to affirmatively re-establishing Barry’s US citizenship.

    Barry’s grandmother incorrectly assumed voiding the Soetoro adoption would void Barry renouncing his US citizenship. Unfortunately, it’s not true. The law is clear. Barry would have to affirmatively pledge his oath of allegiance to an authorized Federal officer of the Executive Branch to re-establish his US citizenship.

    The fatal error was trying to take care of the problem through the Judicial Branch of the government. Thus, the reason the Judicial Branch doesn’t want to deal with this issue at all.

  152. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 14, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    Good morning, Doctor. How are you today?

  153. avatar
    Greg January 14, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    Did you know that policies are written down?

    And that when bureaucrats do things, they make a record of it?

    Until you provide something that even hints of this, you are just spewing your wet-dreams, Dick/Sven.

  154. avatar
    Scientist January 14, 2010 at 8:17 am #

    We are assured by the greatest legal minds of our time (Donofrio, Apuzzo and Taitz) that citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship are two totally different species. Therefore, even if someone renounced ordinary, everyday citizenship, they would retain Natural Born Citizenship. The State Department procedures do not even mention a renunciation of Natural Born Citizenship. It is, it seems, a burden one must carry for life, even into the White House. There is no escape.

  155. avatar
    SFJeff January 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    “Thank you, SFJeff. I knew we could find common ground and be friends.”

    Well I am glad we agree as to what is possible versus what is probable.

    And while I doubt you and I will ever become close buddies, one of my best friends thinks highly of Sarah Palin and while I will never understand or agree, that doesn’t mean that I can’t be friends with someone I disagree with regarding a political issue.

  156. avatar
    SFJeff January 14, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    I think Sven is writing a book:

    “Obama the Ursurper’s Life Story, an Unbiased and Truthy Account as only I Could Imagine it.”

  157. avatar
    Rickey January 14, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    This link provides a helpful summary of citizenship renunciation cases. The bottom line is that the renunciation must be done willingly, knowingly, and with full understanding of the consequences.

    Even if Sven’s fantasy turned out to be accurate, a renunciation by a ten-year old in 1971 would never stand up to judicial scrutiny per the standards set by SCOTUS in Vance v. Terrazas 444 U.S. 25 (1980).

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120533.pdf

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 14, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    Good evening, Sven. I am weary from traveling.

  159. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 14, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    How are you, Rickey? Wouldn’t you agree presenting oneself to a FSO at a U.S. Embassy qualifies as a voluntary act? The FSO must be convinced the minor’s attempt to renounce is voluntary and without undue influence. Extensive reports are generated.

    There is no way Barry can say is Loss of Citizenship is accidental or without intent.

    THE TERRAZAS DECISION

    a) In 1980, in the matter of Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 349(c) INA establishing a rebuttable presumption that a potentially expatriating act was voluntary. The U.S. Government tried to persuade the Court that some voluntary acts are so inconsistent with retention of American citizenship that they may result, automatically, in loss of nationality. The Court disagreed, noting that “it is difficult to understand that assent’ to loss of citizenship would mean anything less than an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in words or is found as a fair inference from proved conduct.

    b. The Court elaborated on its opinion in Afroyim, stating that “the trier of fact must… conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act proscribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship.

    c. Under the Afroyim rationale, the Terrazas court added that “one is not free to treat the expatriating acts specified in (the statutes) as the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen.”

    d. The Court concluded: “In the last analysis, expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct.”

    Furthermore, it is State Department policy to notify a minor who has previously renounced their US Citizenship they have the right to rescind their renunciation until they are 18 years and 6 months with a filed form and an oath of allegiance before a sworn officer of the Executive Branch.

    The fact of the matter is Barry chose not rescind his renunciation. He was rendered stateless when the Soetoro adoption was voided.

  160. avatar
    Miss M January 14, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Dr. C please remove this maniac. Perhaps it is best to not even respond to this crap. Why does he think he NEEDS to see the PRESIDENT’S passport.

  161. avatar
    NbC January 14, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

    I want to see Barry’s certified copy of his passport record.

    what part of “are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 USC 552(a))” do you fail to comprehend…

  162. avatar
    Miss M January 14, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Actually that was the real usurper of POTUS; George W. Bush. He wasn’t elected the first time. He was “appointed” by congress and had his daddy hire a big shot lawyer to make sure he could have the honor of destroying our country and ignore the very constitution he was given (not voted) to uphold and protect. Those birfers have their presidents confused. Silly birfers. So stupid it’s almost cute.

  163. avatar
    Greg January 14, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    Proof that any of this happened? Oh yeah, it’s just your wet dream.

  164. avatar
    Whatever4 January 14, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Dick Whitman: The fact of the matter is Barry chose not rescind his renunciation. He was rendered stateless when the Soetoro adoption was voided.

    You know, I somehow missed the documentation of the Soetoro adoption. Can you provide a link?

  165. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    Of course not, there is no scintilla of evidence to support these fantasies. But it does fascinate me to see to what extent people are willing to deny President Obama his rightful place in our history.

    History does seem to repeat itself, doesn’t it?

  166. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    This newspaper clipping with the Nordyke twins came a few days after the Obama announcement ran, which further calls into question how Obama’s alleged certificate number can be higher than the Nordyke twins. A good private detective would contact all those families whose children are listed in the newspaper clipping and see if that certificate number really belongs to one of them. Or, better yet, the state of Hawaii could simply release the original long form, doctor-signed certificate

  167. avatar
    Greg January 14, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    Yeah, we’ve been over the certificate number thing.

    How about, instead of speculating on what a private investigator should do, you could: 1) hire a private investigator; or 2) do it yourself.

  168. avatar
    Jody January 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Anyone who questions why President Obama’s certificate number could be higher than someone born after him, obviously never worked in an office before the advent of computers. They worked with slips of paper that got stacked as they came in. Most likely, the newer ones got stacked on top of the older ones, and they were all given numbers the next week for the previous week. Since the numbers are so close together, I see no reason to doubt it’s authenticity.

  169. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Presuming I do it myself, you’ll accept the results when it’s learned the certificate number belongs to someone else??

  170. avatar
    misha January 14, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    Is this birth certificate the form you are looking for?

  171. avatar
    misha January 14, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    “Presuming I do it myself”

    I would love to see you prove your allegations. Let us hear.

  172. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    Because the numbers ARE so close together and out of sequence, despite being born on different days in a facility that would have averaged about 14 births per day, I find it highly unusual that the certificates of two babies born a day later, signed and filed three or four days later than Obama’s, would be lower in the sequence. Instead of assuming what might have happened, let’s demand that the state of Hawaii show us the original, doctor-signed birth certificate and see if it matches.

  173. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    You haven’t answered the question. Would you accept the findings?? It’s easy to talk tough when you’re not going to be honest about the results.

  174. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    It looks about as genuine as the alleged document posted at Fight the Smears, but, the answer is no.

  175. avatar
    misha January 14, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

    “let’s demand that the state of Hawaii show us the original, doctor-signed birth certificate”

    Honolulu Bureau of Conveyances: 808-587-0147.

    Let us know. I’ll be watching this space for your answer.

  176. avatar
    richCares January 14, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    hey ksdb
    Sure, but we both know you won’t check, birthers never check facts so we know you won’t! the phone number and email contact is on Hawaii gove site. easy to check, dip sh_t!
    (if they did they wouldn’t be birthers)

  177. avatar
    richCares January 14, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    OK, we would love for you to check but we know you won’t accept the results! Every fact or statement by Hawaiin gov has not been accepted by birthers. but go ahead and check, will you admit you are an idiot if you get the wrong answer. No you won’t infact you won’t check, Will You?

  178. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:50 pm #

    Why all the animosity?? Also, I’m a proofer, not a birther. An original, doctor-signed birth certificate should vindicate Barry Soetoro’s integrity, if he has any. Besides, I’ve contacted the spokesbabe at the HI DOH already and she used a very sophisticated technique to assert that Obama’s COLB was real … she said it looked like hers. Later, she recanted when interviewed by Poltifact. The only ‘facts,’ since that time, are that the state of Hawaii has refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged COLB.

  179. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    Why on earth would I contact the Bureau of Conveyances??? What???

  180. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    An original, doctor-signed birth certificate should vindicate Barry Soetoro’s integrity, if he has any.

    You Are a birther not a proofer as you are obviously not interested in the facts.

    The State of Hawaii is on the record that President Obama was born in Hawaii and natural born.

    Don’t you feel stupid now?

  181. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    Show your research my dear foolish friend

  182. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    A good private detective would contact all those families whose children are listed in the newspaper clipping and see if that certificate number really belongs to one of them.

    Well that would rule out 99.9% of the birthers.. You see it’s not really about the evidence, it’s all about the insinuations

  183. avatar
    misha January 14, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

    “Later, she recanted when interviewed by Poltifact. The only facts,’ since that time, are that the state of Hawaii has refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged COLB.”

    Links please.

  184. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    Close but wrong Department… Of course the DOH is on the record that Obama was born on US soil and a natural born citizen.

    Those nasty facts again…

  185. avatar
    ksdb January 14, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    We have no evidence. The director of the DOH made two undocumented statements, neither of which confirmed the authenticity of the alleged COLB. Then she made a statement that was not based on the original birth certificate, so in effect, it has no legal weight, especially her claim that Barry was a natural born American citizen. No documents maintained by her office have the capacity to make such a statement.

  186. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    Yes, it is a good thing to ask for evidence that the original statement was recanted. If it was, how come it is still on the website?

  187. avatar
    misha January 14, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    “Why on earth would I contact the Bureau of Conveyances???”

    What does it matter? You’ll never call.

  188. avatar
    NBC January 14, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    let’s demand that the state of Hawaii show us the original, doctor-signed birth certificate and see if it matches.

    You may demand all you like but you have no standing.

    Bummer eh?

  189. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    We have no evidence. The director of the DOH made two undocumented statements, neither of which confirmed the authenticity of the alleged COLB.

    They confirm the facts on the birth certificate and since the birth certificate had the requisite seal and signature it is prima facie legal evidence.

    And of course, people in her office have all the right to use logic to interpret whether or not President Obama is natural born, all it takes is birth on US soil.

  190. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    Why do you take pride in hiding the most basic form of identification for citizenship for the most public figure in the world?? What could he possibly be hiding that this document can’t be released?? It has historical value too and it should vindicate. If you really believe in him and his pledge of transparency, you should want this document to be out there where everyone can see it.

  191. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    So what does the COLB contain that remains contested?

    Name of the Baby – Check
    Date of Birth – Check
    Hour of Birth – ?? but irrelevant
    Name of mother – Check
    Name of father – Check
    City of Birth – Check
    Sex – Check
    Mother’s race – Check
    Father’s race – Check
    Signature – Check
    Raised Seal – Check
    Date filed – Within range of expectations

  192. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    “An original, doctor-signed birth certificate ”
    Do you know that this is a souvenir BC and is not accepted for a passport or any other legal reason, also the Hospital does not maintain BC records in any State, only State govs keep these records., in fact in Hawai they are only kept for 30 years (that’s all that is required by State law).
    Most birther’s and Proofers’s don’t know this, do you?

    The certificate Obama got is all that Hawai will supply, and it’s good enough for a passport. My daughter was born at Kapiolani in 1965, she had to request a state issued BC (short form was supplied) as her Hospital BC was not legal, it’s a souvenir only.

    You don’t know any of this do you?

    Don’t vote for Obama in 2012, no need to make up crap.

  193. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Why do you lie? The most basic form of identification for citizenship, the COLB has been provided.
    That this has not stopped you from making silly assertions is just evidence that further releases are not going to make any difference.

    You are just not interested in the truth.

  194. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    Fukino wrote:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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….”

  195. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    The original long-form is not simply a ‘souvenir.’ Please. Up until 2001, this was THE official birth document for obtaining passports … Obama’s alleged COLB was stamped with a June 2007 date. He had to use a different form of birth documentation prior to that to get a passport. So let’s see that birth certificate. Also, state law in Hawaii requires the original forms to be preserved and copies MUST BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST. Learn the facts.

  196. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    NBC: So what does the COLB contain that remains contested?Name of the Baby – CheckDate of Birth – CheckHour of Birth – ?? but irrelevantName of mother – CheckName of father – CheckCity of Birth – CheckSex – CheckMother’s race – CheckFather’s race – CheckSignature – CheckRaised Seal – CheckDate filed – Within range of expectations

    It hasn’t been authenticated by the issuing agency. And Obama’s COLB has typo that is inconsistent with database-driven, computer-generated forms. A jpg at a Web site is not acceptable evidence.

  197. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    NBC: Fukino wrote:
    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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 statement of birth in Hawaii is not cited from the original birth certificate. Fukino says it’s from unspecified vital records. What records are more reliable than the original, doctor-signed birth certificate?? And again, NO DOCUMENT MAINTAINED BY THE DOH declares natural born citizenship. This is either an opinion or is based on an unofficial document. It’s a toothless statement.

  198. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:20 am #

    It hasn’t been authenticated by the issuing agency.

    It has, see the signature and raised seal. As to the so called typo, that’s a new assertion. Care to expand?
    That you do not even know that according to the Federal Rules of Discovery this document is admissible in court as prima facie evidence is beyond me.

  199. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    NBC: Close but wrong Department… Of course the DOH is on the record that Obama was born on US soil and a natural born citizen.Those nasty facts again…

    Sorry, but this is what is known as an out of court statement and it carries no legal weight without presenting the alleged vital records that were cited. It’s nice double speak, but it’s certainly not what you want to think it is.

  200. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    I see you are observing the missing space between the day and the year, just like in other COLB’s released by Hawaii…

    Took me 2 minutes…
    Are you just lazy or unable to do research?

  201. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    Presuming you do it yourself, ksdb, I’ll take Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify.”

    Why don’t you go do it yourself, and give us some good proof, and see if we accept it.

  202. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    ksdb: It hasn’t been authenticated by the issuing agency. And Obama’s COLB has typo that is inconsistent with database-driven, computer-generated forms. A jpg at a Web site is not acceptable evidence.

    The document itself is authenticated in that it bears the signature of the state registrar and the seal of the state of Hawaii. It is a “certified copy” if you will. While the State of Hawaii has not commented on the computer image floating around the Internet, they have commented that Barack was born in Hawaii, which is the essential point. To say that the COLB itself hasn’t been authenticated is a distinction without a difference.

    Typo? What, pray tell is this typo?

    A jpg on a web site is not evidence but the document it was scanned from is. Be practical. A million Internet readers are not going to get their hands on any official document like this. We have to delegate that to others. FactCheck.org viewed the original and the State of Hawaii says Obama was born there. There really isn’t any reasonable doubt remaining.

  203. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    No, the document itself is sufficient legal evidence and admissible in court. That the people at the DOH are supporting this with their official statements is just icing on the cake.

  204. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Typo? What, pray tell is this typo?

    In the date filed, there is a space lacking between the day and the ,year.
    However a comparison with other COLBs from Hawaii shows this to be a consistent feature. That by itself strengthens not weakens the veracity of the document.

    Thanks to KSDB…

  205. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    “let’s demand that the state of Hawaii show us the original, doctor-signed birth certificate”

    Check the back of the COLB. There is a stamped signature from the State of Hawaii, Alvin Onaka, in fact, that the COLB is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the original. So, Alvin’s swearing that it does, in fact, match.

    So, you don’t need the original, just depose Alvin Onaka.

  206. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    The statement of birth in Hawaii is not cited from the original birth certificate. Fukino says it’s from unspecified vital records.

    You do not know where the information came from but the fact that it was verified and found that Obama was indeed born on US soil shows that Obama is natural born.

    A toothless statement with a nasty bite to those who keep denying the facts.

  207. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    All we’ve seen is a jpg. No document has been presented to a bona fide reporter, document expert and last of all, not to a court of law.

    The typo is on the date filed. It’s missing a space between the comma and year. Databases have this information stored as separate fields: month, day, year. Certainly all COLBs are pre-formatted and spit out information in the appropriate fields … the code would be something like mmmmm#dd,#yyyy with the # sign being a space between fields. There’s no way for that space to be missing if printed from a database. Other known COLBs don’t have the missing space. Such an error is indicative of being manually typed.

  208. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:29 am #

    If this a Polarik COLB, then it speaks for itself. We have no way of validating the legitimacy of this particular COLB … and these ‘matching’ typos didn’t show up until I pointed them out to Polarik.

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    ksdb, that is all true. But today is not 2001. Today the State of Hawaii issues copies of birth certificates like the one Obama published. He ordered a copy and published what he got, and what he got is official, and prima facie evidence of what it says, namely Obama was born in Hawaii.

    You can cite law, and policy all you want, and you can wave forms around all you want. But in the end, Obama’s published birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, and you cannot make that go away. And if that weren’t enough, the Department of Health web site carries a letter from its head stating that the original records for Obama say he was born in Hawaii.

    Those are the facts.

  210. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    Sorry, but you’re falling prey to double speak. If the original, doctor-signed birth certificate verified that Obama was born in Hawaii, there’s no need to cite so-called ‘vital records’ in the plural. Again, it’s toothless and inconclusive.

  211. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    Up until 2001, this was THE official birth document for obtaining passports

    And, after 2001, this was NOT the official birth document for obtaining passports.

    In 2001, Obama was a state senator. He hadn’t even formed his committee to explore the possibility of running for US Senate.

    And, in 2001, the State of Hawaii decided that the short form was sufficient to serve all its needs.

    Also, state law in Hawaii requires the original forms to be preserved and copies MUST BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST.

    Citation, please?

  212. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    All we’ve seen is a jpg. No document has been presented to a bona fide reporter, document expert and last of all, not to a court of law.

    Moving those goal posts. No, the Courts have rejected discovery based on lack of Constitutional standing. However, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence the documents (COLB) is admissible and prima facie evidence.

    Check: Hawaii Birth Certificate

    You are also misrepresenting that other COLBs do not have the missing space, I linked to one of them…

  213. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:33 am #

    The birthers lied about the COLB. Why should they be given the opportunity to gain publicity by doing the same to the so-called long form?

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    ksdb: The director of the DOH made two undocumented statements

    What do you mean by “undocumented”?

  215. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    You also didn’t answer my question. Was that one of the COLBs posted by Polarik?? There were no other COLBs released by prior to my observation about the typo that included the same typo. Find one that doesn’t have the names covered up.

    And, I’ve moved no goalposts. The Obama COLB at Fight the Smears does not have a seal and signature.

  216. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    A jpg at a Web site is not acceptable evidence.

    Not acceptable evidence where? In court? We’re not in court.

    Do you want Obama to provide you with a personalized copy of his COLB?

    To suspect that Obama put a forged COLB on the web is to enter into conspiracy-land. No one on his staff leaked the info about the forgery? Alvin Onaka didn’t check to see if the doc with his signature was real? The Republican governor and her political appointee, the head of the DOH, didn’t check? None of the many, many Republicans serving on the staffs of these Republicans checked?

  217. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    The ones with “date filed” instead of “date accepted” show a missing space. Seems that during the change-over from showing the date accepted to showing the date filed, the template was messed up and a space was omitted. That this feature is available on other COLBs strengthens the veracity and authenticity of the document.

  218. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    The Nordyke family wasn’t embarrassed to show their long form. What is Obama hiding??

  219. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    NO DOCUMENT MAINTAINED BY THE DOH declares natural born citizenship.

    No, she took the information she had, Obama born in Hawaii, and not a diplomat, and applied what every legal scholar of any importance in the past 200 years has said, and came to a conclusion.

    Anyway, can we agree that Obama was born in Hawaii?

    Why would Fukino lie about that?

  220. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    Unless we see verifiable COLBs, you’re making a baseless assumption NBC.

  221. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:39 am #

    There are various COLBs available, most of them have the info redacted. As I explained on the ones with date filed, the space is missing.

    And yes, according to Dr C this was provided by Polarik.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:39 am #

    ksdb: The statement of birth in Hawaii is not cited from the original birth certificate.

    I consider your statement willful ignorance. What the hell do you think a vital record is?

    You’re not a proofer; you’re a troll.

  223. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    Now that is hilarious. I have shown you that there are at least two with ‘date filed’ which show the same ‘missing space’, caused likely by a formatting error.

    Your assertion is the one truly baseless.

  224. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    “The Obama COLB at Fight the Smears does not have a seal and signature.”

    You can see the seal and signature here:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    I has been established beyond a reasonable doubt Obama was born in Hawaii. You are clinically insane.

  225. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    ksdb: The Obama COLB at Fight the Smears does not have a seal and signature.

    It has a seal (hard to see, but present). The signature is on the back, as indicated by FactCheck.org photos.

  226. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Greg: No, she took the information she had, Obama born in Hawaii, and not a diplomat, and applied what every legal scholar of any importance in the past 200 years has said, and came to a conclusion. Anyway, can we agree that Obama was born in Hawaii? Why would Fukino lie about that?

    Every legal scholar more often concludes that both parents must be citizens or permanent immigrants in order for their children to be natural born citizens. Fukino’s statement that Obama was born in Hawaii was not based on the one document that is strongest evidence of place of birth: the original, doctor-signed birth certificate. There’s no logical reason it should be withheld.

  227. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: ksdb: The Obama COLB at Fight the Smears does not have a seal and signature.It has a seal (hard to see, but present). The signature is on the back, as indicated by FactCheck.org photos.

    The Factcheck photos are laughable. The embedded date that the photos were taken was three months EARLIER than this amateur site claimed they were taken. The document in their photographs is not the same one scanned at Fight the Smears.

  228. avatar
    Ed January 15, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Fukino’s statements’ prove absolutely nothing. She did not stipulate whether Obama’s original certificate of live birth was a delayed registration as outlined by Statute 338. If it is a delayed registration it would mean that the information was as a result of the mother reporting the information to the Registrar of Vital Statistics. There would be no official confirmation of any of the info provided by her so she could make up whatever. But of course there would also not be a hospital named or a delivery doctor’s signature, which would contradict Obama’s claim of being born at Kapi’olani Medical Center. Obama’s mother could easily have given birth out of the country, come home with Barack, and then registered his birth. The only way to be sure that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center is to see the orginal birth certificate with the hospital name and doctor’s signature. Period.

  229. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    On the contrary. You are creating your argument by interpreting statements in odd ways. “Vital records” means “birth certificate” (since in context it couldn’t refer to one of the other vital records like a death certificate). You are being willfully ignorant of normal English usage.

  230. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    “Every legal scholar more often concludes that both parents must be citizens or permanent immigrants in order for their children to be natural born citizens.”

    Name the scholars, and provide links. And we just moved the goalposts.

  231. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    Sorry, but this is what is known as an out of court statement and it carries no legal weight without presenting the alleged vital records that were cited.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but we’re not in court!

    And you won’t get past the COLB if you get into court. It is sufficient evidence, on its own. It has a state seal, it is signed, the registrar has attested that it is a true and accurate copy or abstract.

    It is self-authenticating, and it is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

    As for the statements of DOH, they can be used to impeach the testimony of them if you ever did get into court. So, it’s not like the officials at the DOH are going to be telling lies willy-nilly.

  232. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    Which is why they are so relevant. If the typos were machine generated, one would have noticed a difference between Obama’s COLB and others. I have shown that in fact these COLBs show the same missing space.

    It completely undermines your argument and in fact validates the authenticity of Obama’s COLB.

    For that we should be grateful. Thanks KSDB…

  233. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    Every legal scholar more often concludes that both parents must be citizens or permanent immigrants in order for their children to be natural born citizens.

    That’s a total lie. In fact there are few scholars who have reached this conclusion and certainly even fewer in the early days when the Courts almost consistently held that natural born only requires birth and subject to jurisdiction.

    Your lies are becoming tiresome. Or should we just blame ignorance?

  234. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    The Factcheck photos are laughable. The embedded date that the photos were taken was three months EARLIER than this amateur site claimed they were taken. The document in their photographs is not the same one scanned at Fight the Smears

    Again ignoring the fact that the COLB does show a seal and signature. In fact, the seal is visible even in the scanned version, but requires some enhancements.

    You fool

  235. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    ksdb: I’m a proofer

    So where’s your proof?

    You’re more like the petulant child who keeps responding “why” no matter what you say. Hugely annoying.

  236. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    NBC: Now that is hilarious. I have shown you that there are at least two with date filed’ which show the same missing space’, caused likely by a formatting error.Your assertion is the one truly baseless.

    I’ve asked TWICE if these were COLBs scanned by the infamous Polarik. It makes a difference because no one knows where these alleged COLBs came from or how authentic they are. Polarik showed how easy it was to forge COLBs and he was trying a little too hard to prove his own theories.

  237. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    If the original, doctor-signed birth certificate verified that Obama was born in Hawaii, there’s no need to cite so-called β€˜vital records’ in the plural. Again, it’s toothless and inconclusive.

    Right. Uh huh. They couldn’t have checked both the birth certificate AND the index data?

  238. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    . She did not stipulate whether Obama’s original certificate of live birth was a delayed registration as outlined by Statute 338

    It could not be a delayed one as it was filed a few days after Obama’s birth.

    Such foolishness…

  239. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: ksdb: I’m a prooferWhere’s your proof? You’re more like the petulant child who keeps responding “why” no matter what you say.

    That is entirely the question. Where is the proof that Obama’s COLB is genuine. The state of Hawaii REFUSES to say it is. I don’t claim have the proof … just that I want to see it and not a bunch of double talk and doctored evidence.

  240. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    Don’t feed those two trolls.

  241. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    I’ve asked TWICE if these were COLBs scanned by the infamous Polarik. It makes a difference because no one knows where these alleged COLBs came from or how authentic they are. Polarik showed how easy it was to forge COLBs and he was trying a little too hard to prove his own theories.

    And thus he managed to forge another COLB to validate Obama’s COLB?
    Surely you must understand how incredible you sound.

    At least your claim about the missing space has been shown to be contradicted by the known facts.

    The fact that these COLB’s match in an area so inconspicuous that noone had noticed until recently indicates that the Obama COLB is most like authentic.

    And for that observation we have you to thank.

    I will be dedicating a posting on my site to your discovery…

  242. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    Where is the proof that Obama’s COLB is genuine. The state of Hawaii REFUSES to say it is.

    The DOH has admitted that the data on the COLB is accurate and thus that Obama was born on US soil.

    Too bad that your arguments are so foolish that you have to ignore the logical conclusions.

    As I have shown, all the data shows the certificate to be authentic, including the now discovered ‘missing space’. What a find my friend. Your birther friends surely will admire you for your hard work

  243. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    I want to see it and not a bunch of double talk and doctored evidence.

    And yet, that is all you have to offer…

  244. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:57 am #

    NBC: Again ignoring the fact that the COLB does show a seal and signature.

    This has not been established by credible experts nor even the amateurs at Factcheck.

    NBC:
    In fact, the seal is visible even in the scanned version, but requires some enhancements.You fool

    Oh yeah, if you enhance it and squint, it looks almost real. Please.

  245. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:59 am #

    NBC: That’s a total lie. In fact there are few scholars who have reached this conclusion and certainly even fewer in the early days when the Courts almost consistently held that natural born only requires birth and subject to jurisdiction.Your lies are becoming tiresome. Or should we just blame ignorance?

    Find me one citation that says a child born of ONE citizen parent = natural born citizen. And stop the childish accusations of lies.

  246. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:59 am #

    Every legal scholar more often concludes that both parents must be citizens or permanent immigrants in order for their children to be natural born citizens.

    No, not even close. Schuck and Smith wrote “Citizenship without Consent,” and they’re the only scholars who state anything close to that – they think that illegal aliens shouldn’t be able to grant birthright citizenship. Of course, even they think that the current state of the law is that anyone born here is a natural born citizen. They propose a change to the Constitution to fix that problem.

    Other than those two, the closest you can find in the past 200 years is AP Morse’s 1904 article. He doesn’t say that children of aliens wouldn’t be citizens, just that it would be odd if they would be eligible for the Presidency while those born abroad to US citizen parents would not.

    Other than Donofrio, Taitz and Apuzzo, (who aren’t real scholars) there are NO legal scholars other than the ones I’ve named above that even come close to what you’ve claimed.

  247. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: On the contrary. You are creating your argument by interpreting statements in odd ways. “Vital records” means “birth certificate” (since in context it couldn’t refer to one of the other vital records like a death certificate). You are being willfully ignorant of normal English usage.

    Absolutely wrong. If she meant birth certificate, she would have said THE birth certificate. Also keep in mind, Hawaiian law says it’s illegal to provide any information contained on original vital records such as birth certificates. IOW, if the original birth certificate said Obama was born in Hawaii, Fukino would be breaking state law by making that statement. If she got permission to reveal that information, she could have also got permission to say that it came directly from the birth certificate. So again, there’s no reason to say anything about vital records unless she’s talking about something other than the birth certificate. Also, she makes it a point to separate her statement from the one that she DID make about the original birth certificate … so she is clearly NOT sourcing it to say Obama was born in Hawaii. Therefore, it has no legal or substantive value.

  248. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Wong Kim Ark established the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply, because Ark was born in San Francisco.

    Neither of Ark’s parents were citizens. In fact, they returned to China with their son; they did not intend to stay. When Ark returned, he ultimately was declared a NBC.

    You really should familiarize yourself with the 14th Amendment.

  249. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    The Nordyke family wasn’t embarrassed to show their long form. What is Obama hiding??

    Ever read B’rer Rabbit?

    “Please, oh, please, don’t throw me in that briar patch!”

    Why not release the long form?

    Because you guys are the gang that cannot shoot straight!

    By this time in Clinton’s presidency, the legal-eagles that were ginning up the Whitewater conspiracy had already driven Vince Foster to suicide. They were weeks away from an independent prosecutor.

    You guys, by contrast, are focusing on nonsense, squandering every ounce of legal credibility that the Republicans could possibly have. Want to disqualify Hillary from SOS because of the emoluments clause? Sorry, the birthers have already sucked the air out of the room. Want to sue to challenge the ability of the President to force a bankruptcy through? Hmm. That sounds kinda birthery to me.

    You birthers are a President’s wet-dream! Give me morons for enemies, who will focus on nonsense!

  250. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    Greg: Right. Uh huh. They couldn’t have checked both the birth certificate AND the index data?

    The index data is derived from the original birth certificate … and the only information that can legally be released from index data is name, gender and type of vital event. It doesn’t allow the release of the place of birth. Index data is not a vital record … but a listing of vital records.

  251. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:09 am #

    If she meant birth certificate, she would have said THE birth certificate.

    If she checked the birth certificate AND the index record, wouldn’t that be vital records?

    Couldn’t it be, possibly, the birth certificate PLUS something else?

  252. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    misha: Wong Kim Ark established the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply, because Ark was born in San Francisco.Neither of Ark’s parents were citizens. In fact, they returned to China with their son; they did not intend to stay. When Ark returned, he ultimately was declared a NBC.You really should familiarize yourself with the 14th Amendment.

    The Wong Kim Ark decision was dependent on the parents being PERMANENT immigrants making their domicile and doing business in the United States. Obama’s father was clearly not a permanent immigrant and even Obama’s mother was not what you would a long-term resident of the United States.

  253. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    Since the DOH validated the location to be Honolulu they must have verified the original data.

  254. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    The Wong Kim Ark decision was dependent on the parents being PERMANENT immigrants making their domicile and doing business in the United States.

    The Court clearly indicated that any child born on US soil would be a natural born citizen. As such the logic that the court followed in unescapable.

    You know your talking points but lack any depth or understanding.

    But we do appreciate your help in validating Obama’s COLB due to the missing space…

  255. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 1:17 am #

    Remember your original argument about a missing space and other COLB’s not showing such a missing space. Since you obviously limited yourself to older COLB’s which mentioned date accepted, you missed the simple fact that for ‘date filed’ COLBs the space is indeed lacking.

    As such this validates the Obama COLB even more.

    For that I am incredibly grateful as this independent finding by a birther should lay to rest any doubts.

  256. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    NBC: Since the DOH validated the location to be Honolulu they must have verified the original data.

    There may not be original data … and of course, that might explain why Obama didn’t release an original certificate. Maybe the place of birth was only declared through supplementary documentation. Notice how on the newspaper announcements, a place of birth is not listed, so we are left only to guess or rely on ambiguous statements.

  257. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    Are you a troll, or merely clinically insane?

  258. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:33 am #

    Find me one citation that says a child born of ONE citizen parent = natural born citizen.

    John Guendelsberger, “Access to Citizenship for Children born Within the State to Foreign Parents,” 40 Am. J. Comp. Law 379 (2002).

    Henry Ide, “Citizenship by Birth, Another View,” 30 Am. L. Rev. 241 (1896).

    Bernadette Meyler, “The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship,” 15 Geo. Immigr. L. J. 519 (2000)

    James C. Ho, “Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents,” 17 Const. Comment. 575 (2000).

    Randall Kennedy, “A Natural Aristocracy?” 12 Const. Comm. 175 (1995), “It is important that a formal proposition of American life is that every native-born American child could conceivably grow up to become president.”

    George Collins, “Citizenship by Birth,” 29 Am. L. Rev. 385 (1896)

    Johnathan Drummer, “The Nephews of Uncle Sam,” 9 Geo. Immigr. L. J. 667 (1995)

    Charles Gordon, “Who can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968) (“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.” )

    Warren Freedman, “Presidential Timber: Foreign born Children of American Parents,” 35 Cornell L.Q. 357 (1949-50).

    Van Dyne, “Citizenship of the United States,” p. 32 (1904) (“it is almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English Common Law.”)

    Hon. Pinckney McElwee, “Natural born citizen,” reproduced in 1967 Cong. Rec. 15875.

    Those are just the ones in my google docs. I have a half-dozen or more left.

    Can you cite me a single scholar who has published a real article stating your view?

  259. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    The Wong Kim decision was not premised on his parents being permanent residents. That barely got mentioned in the case.

    Whether Obama’s father was a permanent domiciliary, however, is not determined in retrospect. It’s determined at, in this case, at the instant of Obama’s birth. At that point, Obama Sr. had married a Hawaiian citizen, was being educated at a Hawaiian University and had a fixed address.

    It’s not a cut and dried question whether Obama Sr. had developed a domicile in Hawaii.

  260. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    The index data is derived from the original birth certificate

    You guys are so cute, pretending to know law and stuff. One of the first things they teach you when you get out of law school is to remember common sense. You’ll need it to relate complex information to the jury.

    In common sense, if I’m checking the files to see if there’s an adoption record for Obama (because the birthers have claimed he was adopted either in Hawaii or Indonesia) and checking other files to run down other birther rumors, I might say I checked the “vital records.”

    Of course, common sense says that “vital records” sounds better than “vital record,” so I might say that even though I’d only checked the birth certificate.

    Of course, you and common sense have had a falling out, haven’t you? You want Fukino’s statement to have zero weight, except, of course, where she says she checked plural records.

  261. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:44 am #

    Oh, and the division within the DOH that handles birth certificates? Vital Records. Plural.

  262. avatar
    nbc January 15, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    There may not be original data … and of course, that might explain why Obama didn’t release an original certificate.

    Nonsense, the info was filed a few days after Obama was born.
    There is no evidence to support your ignorance.

    But I do thank you for certifying the authenticity of Obama’s COLB.

    Don’t be desperate, you meant well.

  263. avatar
    nbc January 15, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    Ouch, that must sting…

    Shows you how ill prepared these birthers really are.

    But accuracy is not their goal really…

  264. avatar
    Lupin January 15, 2010 at 2:20 am #

    Actually that’s exactly what it says in Vattel. I’m surprised you didn’t check.

  265. avatar
    JoZeppy January 15, 2010 at 2:23 am #

    ksdb: The Wong Kim Ark decision was dependent on the parents being PERMANENT immigrants making their domicile and doing business in the United States. Obama’s father was clearly not a permanent immigrant and even Obama’s mother was not what you would a long-term resident of the United States.

    When I read claptrap like this I have to wonder, have birthers even read Wong Kim Ark, do they assume we haven’t, or both? Please, quote exactly where the court stated that you are required to have permanent immigrant parents to be a natural born citizen (and I thought birthers claimed they had to be citizens, not just residents).

  266. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    every time ksdb is shown his error he comes back with another birther talking point, he has a severe learning disabilty caused hating Obama. (common among birthers) He avoids showing proof because he has none, answering him is a waste of time, it’s time to ignore the troll. No more responses to an idiot please!

    he said ” A good private detective would contact all those families whose children are listed in the newspaper clipping and see if that certificate number really belongs to one of them.” when he said he may do it, he lied, he won’t do it, birthers lie and are idiots!

  267. avatar
    Lupin January 15, 2010 at 2:26 am #

    Misha: “Are you a troll, or merely clinically insane?”

    A perfect example, two examples in fact, of what I wrote before about pathological beliefs.

    Belief is disconnected from truth, and contrary evidence actually reinforces the belief.

    There is absolutely nothing anyone here could say or do that could change these people’s minds. Nothing.

    Their pathological refusal to accept that Obama could legitimately be the President obviously has its source in some kind of deep-seated racism, but you’d need hours of treatment to ferret it out.

  268. avatar
    Lupin January 15, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    As an aside, when President Obama visited France last year, much bally-ho was made by our local press of the fact that he had visited Provence during his student years and according all verifiable evidence, he identified himself and/or was identified as an American student.

    And as ashamed as I am to admit it, he would have been treated very much differently by the authorities, to begin with, if he’d been from a so-called third-world country such as Indonesia, a Kenyan, or some kind of refugee with dubious documents. An American passport, especially back then, made you one of the Masters of the Universe. Women would show you their titties, etc. (I’m joking.)

    There really is a preponderance of evidence to indicate that Obama was exactly what he claimed to be: an American tourist.

  269. avatar
    chufho January 15, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    you nor I have seen a birth certificate for BOH anything spoken is only by DOH is hear say and not fact or proof

  270. avatar
    chufho January 15, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    sir i feel sorry for your shallowness

  271. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 2:49 am #

    I got sucked into his game at first. Then I realised he’s pathological.

    They always start out asking a semi-plausible question, and then half way down the page…uh, oh.

    That’s when I realised I was a fool for even looking into the rabbit hole, much less putting my foot into it.

    I have to fix my radar.

    We put up with 8 years of someone with a criminal record, and none of these people said a word. Look at their CV:

    GWB: misdemeanor conviction
    Agnew: felony conviction
    Nixon: resigned in disgrace
    Cheney: told Senator Leahy to ‘go f… yourself’

    And of course making a case for war with Iraq, out of whole cloth. No wonder European progressives look at us, and wonder what went wrong. Bush said he does not believe in evolution.

    True story: when President McKinley was told the US had won the Philippines, he was asked what he wanted to do. He actually had to look at a map, to find out where it was. He then said an angel appeared, and told him it was our duty to Christianize them. The fool didn’t even know that Catholic missionaries had baptized just about everyone there.

    And don’t get me started on the home schoolers…

  272. avatar
    nbc January 15, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    The truth does hurt, doesn’t it?

    Mission Failed

  273. avatar
    nbc January 15, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    Obama’s birth certificate was available for inspection and scanned and photographed. What more do you want…

  274. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 2:55 am #

    so make him do this or are you shallow?

    he said ” A good private detective would contact all those families whose children are listed in the newspaper clipping and see if that certificate number really belongs to one of them.” when he said he may do it, he lied, he won’t do it, birthers lie and are idiots!

  275. avatar
    Mary Brown January 15, 2010 at 3:44 am #

    She’s not “the babe.” She runs the place. If you refer to the President by his step father’s name you are nothing but a birther in proofer disguise. Get a life. I personally know people who used the name of a step parent and were never legally adapted. He was in an Islamic country where name change is not accepted and birth family identity is extremely important. I know it is tempting to believe that western values and customs prevail everywhere when they do not. For some reason, his step father tried to pass the President off as his own son. Why? I do not know.

  276. avatar
    Mary Brown January 15, 2010 at 4:02 am #

    ksdp, my Transcript of Birth from the State of New York contains less information than the COLB. It does not even name the city I was born in. Yet, it is an official document with which I can get a Driver’s License, a passport and yes, ksdp, run for President of the United States. The information on it verifies the information on my origingal Birth Certificate which I lost. New York, like Hawaii does not hand those out. My grandson, born in Oregon in August, has a certificate much like the COLB. He will never need or see a certificate like the one you demand for the President. The hospital did prepare very pretty documents with footprints and signatures. These were carefully labeled so they could not be used for legal purposes. While I was at the hospial I checked, and the information from the delivery was taken and sent to the State of Oregon. They then processed it and sent our little guy’s parents an Oregon document. That’s the way it is done now. It is called reality. I’ll say it again. All the information on the COLB came from the original information given by the hospital. It was then sent to the State of Hawaii to keep. He was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. He is old enought to be President. He resided in the US for 14 years. My dad always told us there were needas, wantas and dreamas in life. You don’t need, you only want to fulfill a dream that this man is not your President. He is. Get a life.

  277. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 15, 2010 at 4:43 am #

    Fukino is the Director of the Hawaii Dept of Health, which is the agency charged with maintaining vital records. She does not have to provide information about any underlying facts — the name of the hospital is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the official record, and whatever information is required by law to be maintained as the official record.

    The “official” confirmation is Fukino herself — because she is the “official” whose job is to maintain the records.

  278. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 8:13 am #

    There is no question Fukino would have consulted the Certificate of Live Birth. I think most likely Fukino was using the “bureaucratic records” sort of like the “royal we”. For example, someone had a background check; the police might say: “we have reviewed his records and found no serious offenses” when all that existed was a single parking ticket. In data systems everyone has “records” whether it be one or many: that’s just how folks talk.

  279. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    ksdb: If she meant birth certificate, she would have said THE birth certificate.

    You just made that up. You don’t have a clue what she would or would not have said. I on the other hand am on a first name basis with several state registrars and I work with vital records staff on a daily basis. What they hold in their databases are “vital records” and what the print and give to people are “birth certificates.” Now we all know that technically what the hospital provides the state is a birth certificate, but that’s not the way it’s described in normal conversation. That’s even more true today when hospitals report births electronically and there IS no Certificate of Live Birth beyond what states print out of their databases.

  280. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    ksdb: Oh yeah, if you enhance it and squint, it looks almost real. Please.

    Flatbed scanners tend to hide wrinkles and imprints. It’s the nature of the device.

    I give you leave to keep posting your nonsense, but I recognize the futility of replying to someone with their fingers jammed in their ears and babbling so as not be able to hear what others say. The observation that you’re better informed that the average birther makes your willful misinterpretations all the more offensive.

    DNFTT

  281. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    Can you provide a link to a story about that trip to Provence?

  282. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    you nor I have seen a birth certificate for BOH anything spoken is only by DOH is hear say and not fact or proof

    The word is hearsay – one word. Why don’t you take a look at the rules that govern hearsay.

    First, the statement by the DOH can’t be hearsay, because we’re not in court.

    “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

    If you brought a case and then put Fukino on the stand, her testifying about what she had done to verify Obama’s birthplace would also not be hearsay – she would be the declarant. It would be testimony – fact and proof.

    You might also look at the things that are exceptions to the hearsay rule:

    (13) Family records. Statements of fact concerning personal or family history contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.

    and

    (19) Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

    So, when Obama’s sister says he was born in Hawaii, when his grandmother says he was born in Hawaii, that’s admissible evidence.

    Also, any statement by Obama, such as the entire book he wrote, or his 2004 DNC Keynote Speech, are admissible evidence.

  283. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    Speaking of dubious documents … if Barry visited France as a student, where’s the birth certificate he used to obtain a passport?? His alleged COLB is dated June 2007 so he had to have used something else to travel or obtain a passport prior to 2007. Where is that certificate and why not show it??

  284. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    misha: “Later, she recanted when interviewed by Poltifact. The only facts,’ since that time, are that the state of Hawaii has refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged COLB.”Links please.

    Here’s Okubo’s recant:

    “Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

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

    So she goes from the highly scientific document-authentification technique of ‘it looks like mine’ to ‘I don’t know.’

  285. avatar
    Whatever4 January 15, 2010 at 10:07 am #

    Have you ever had a passport? You don’t need to reshow your documents to renew it, you just send in the old passport and new photos. Obama hasn’t needed to show that BC to get a passport since his first over-age-16 one.

  286. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 10:12 am #

    Did you miss that the election is over? These “issues” have irrelevant been for over a year. Try to keep up.

  287. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    NBC: And thus he managed to forge another COLB to validate Obama’s COLB?Surely you must understand how incredible you sound.

    I’m not concerened about perceived credibility from people who justify the un necessary hiding of one of the most basic identification forms. When you focus on personality rather than the facts, it shows you lack a strong foundation and confidence in your own argument. There were no COLBs posted prior to my observation that contained that typo. Within a few days, Polarik suddenly had three that were not posted anywhere else.

    NBC: At least your claim about the missing space has been shown to be contradicted by the known facts.

    We don’t have ‘known facts,’ just some jpgs from a guy trying to prove his own theories based on pixellation and halos, etc.

    NBC: The fact that these COLB’s match in an area so inconspicuous that noone had noticed until recently indicates that the Obama COLB is most like authentic?

    How about if we find an authentic COLB first that comes from an independent source and not from someone who overanalyzes pixels and halos. If you’re certain about the facts, tell me the names of the people these COLBs belong to.

    NBC: And for that observation we have you to thank.I will be dedicating a posting on my site to your discovery…

    Instead of snarky belittlement, how about using a little common sense and seeking truth?? Raise your game.

  288. avatar
    Black Lion January 15, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    Young Obama had his first passport when he was about 6, since he needed one to leave Hawaii and move to Indonesia….Since he traveled he renewed his passport when it became due so he never had to reshow his documents…Nice try though…

  289. avatar
    Black Lion January 15, 2010 at 10:35 am #

    KDSB addresses the President as Barry Soetero, which shows she is a birther. Because anyone that is not a birther would never address someone by a name where there has been no legally admissible evidence that the person ever went by that name. Besides when Leo and Miss Tickly contacted the state of HI, they verified that there was never a Barry Soetero but there was a Barack Obama II that was born in HI…

  290. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    “I personally know people who used the name of a step parent and were never legally adapted.”

    President Ford was born Leslie Lynch King Jr. Mitt Romney’s full name is Willard Mitt Romney. His father, who ran for president, was born in Mexico at a Mormon polygamist compound.

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html

  291. avatar
    Black Lion January 15, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    Ed, and you have some sort of proof that happened, right? You guys come up with the most ridiculous theories and think that anyone with any common sense would believe in that nonsense. Which is more plausible…That Obama was born in HI as his COLB states, which was filed 4 days after his birth (so it cannot be a delayed filing) and the newspaper report supports it. And the director of vital statistics states that her records show he was born in HI. Or that somehow Barack Obama’s mother was in Kenya near the time of his birth, even though there is no evidence to support that, had a baby, was able to somehow make it from Kenya to HI even though there were no direct flights no jet travel, snuck the baby past immigration, and was able to force the state of HI to file his birth as a birth in Honolulu….Really? And that makes sense to you?

  292. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    “I personally know people who used the name of a step parent and were never legally adapted.”

    When my mother re-married, I legally took my step-father’s last name, but he never adopted me.

  293. avatar
    Lupin January 15, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    The official white house transcript is here:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/transcript-of-the-interview-of-the-president-by-laura-haim-canal-plus-6-1-09/

    The relevant graph is:

    Q What do you love about France, if I may ask?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, let’s see. We got the food. We’ve got the — we’ve got Paris. We’ve got the south of France — Provence — the wine.

    Q The wine? Did you go to Provence?

    THE PRESIDENT: You know, I have traveled through the south of France when I was in college. I haven’t been back for a long time. And so I need to — I need to get back there.

    And right he is. He should come back for a second visit.

  294. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    “He should come back for a second visit.”

    Would he be admitted with a misdemeanor conviction?

  295. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    You are not interested in the truth. You have shown you will do anything, including the torture of logic, to avoid addressing the facts.

    You made an important observation of a missing space and now we have independent data that shows that instead of this being evidence of a forgery, it strengthens the authenticity of the document.

    That you now desperately are moving the goalposts is fascinating but it’s too late.

    As I have pointed out, the truth and facts show that President Obama was born on US soil.
    Let the moving of goalposts begin…

    I do appreciate your contribution to establishing the veracity of these facts, even when you were aiming for the opposite. That by itself makes the evidence so powerful.

  296. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    remember you are writing to a birther, you have to write more slowly!

  297. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 11:30 am #

    It doesn’t matter when he last needed his birth certificate to get a birth certificate … at some point he had one before June 2007, so why didn’t he show the earlier document??

  298. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    Remember the argument of our friend ksdb? (2008/07/15)

    Second, there’s a typo under the date filed. There’s no space between the comma and the year. Contrast that to the space with the date of birth. The large amount of space between all the first, middle and last names suggests that the state of HI prints certificates from a database with a template and field codes. (If you’ve printed address labels through a database merge, you’ll know what I’m talking about.) There’s no reason the spacing on the dates would be inconsistent … and they aren’t on three other known HI birth certificates

    I have shown that:

    1. There is a reason for the missing space, when the template changed to printing date filed instead of date accepted.
    2. There is in fact a known birth certificate which does show a missing space.

    This of course not only totally undermines your argument but also establishes the authenticity of Obama’s COLB. Which combined with the statements from DOH, shows him indeed born on US soil.

    You then observed

    I don’t necessarily think the Obama certificate is an outright forgery, but there are enough anomalies to suspect tampering. This could easily be cleared up if Obama releases unaltered scans of the frong and back of his certificate.

    And indeed such photographs exist.
    Bummer…

  299. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    This is very misleading since Obama could have been traveling on his mother’s passport and not his own. Plus when traveled BACK to the United States, evidence shows he may have been an Indonesian citizen. To get his own U.S. passport … regardless of when he did and how old he was, he had to have one prior to June 2007 … plus he says in one of his own books that he had an older birth certificate. It’s time to stop making lazy excuses.

  300. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Show me a photograph that shows the full back of the birth certificate so that you can see if Obama’s name bleeds through on the same document that contains the seal and signature. I’ll wait … and wait … and wait.

  301. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Because he submitted it with his application? Again, your torture logic and reason.

    And what is wrong with showing the latest COLB? Nothing….

  302. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    NBC: You are not interested in the truth. You have shown you will do anything, including the torture of logic, to avoid addressing the facts.

    I have addressed all alleged facts and explained when there are no facts. Most of what you consider to be ‘facts’ are just careless assumptions and wishful thinking.

    NBC:You made an important observation of a missing space and now we have independent data that shows that instead of this being evidence of a forgery, it strengthens the authenticity of the document.

    You haven’t shown any independent data. I’ve directly challenged your Polarik COLBs as being unverifiable and you’ve FAILED to prove that they are.

    NBC:That you now desperately are moving the goalposts is fascinating but it’s too late.

    I haven’t moved goalposts. Please focus.

    NBC:As I have pointed out, the truth and facts show that President Obama was born on US soil.Let the moving of goalposts begin…

    There are no facts showing that Obama was born on U.S. soil. We have an alleged COLB, a few ignorant claims and a statement that was not based on an original birth certificate. Sorry, but even bigfoot is better documented than this.

    NBC:I do appreciate your contribution to establishing the veracity of these facts, even when you were aiming for the opposite. That by itself makes the evidence so powerful.

    As soon as we establish any facts, I’ll let you know. So far we have undocumented claims and a few photoshopped jpgs.

  303. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    This is very misleading since Obama could have been traveling on his mother’s passport and not his own. Plus when traveled BACK to the United States, evidence shows he may have been an Indonesian citizen.

    There is no such evidence, but there is evidence that when he returned to the US, he used his own passport.

    You are still denying the simple fact that he provided his latest COLB which shows him born on US soil, that you thus are now torturing the meaning of natural born or moving to the ‘he was an indonesian citizen’ shows that you have no interest in the truth, just an interest in one outcome only.

    And yet rather than showing evidence of Obama’s COLB being a forgery, we now have evidence to the contrary and it is up to you to show how Obama’s COLB with the ‘missing space’ is unique, as the evidence so far suggests that COLB’s from the same period, show the same missing space.

  304. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Expelliarmus: Fukino is the Director of the Hawaii Dept of Health, which is the agency charged with maintaining vital records. She does not have to provide information about any underlying facts — the name of the hospital is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the official record, and whatever information is required by law to be maintained as the official record. The “official” confirmation is Fukino herself — because she is the “official” whose job is to maintain the records.

    The single, most reliable record for proving a claim of birth is an original, doctor-signed birth certificate. Fukino says her state holds one for Obama. She has not cited that document as the source for her statement that Obama was born in Hawaii … and she has not in any capacity confirmed that the alleged COLB is authentic. Statements based on secondary documentation, that isn’t even identified, has diminished legal capacity. Why accept a second-best claim when it should be able to verified with an original, doctor-signed birth certificate??

  305. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    And thus the denial continues…

    You haven’t shown any independent data. I’ve directly challenged your Polarik COLBs as being unverifiable and you’ve FAILED to prove that they are.

    In other words when these documents supported your argument, you accepted them without any problem but now that they undermine your claims, they are suddenly ‘unverifiable’.

    You do a great job at further undermining your own argument and credibility.
    As to the facts of Obama’s birth on US soil:

    1. The COLB provided by Obama shows him born on US soil.
    2. The DOH of Hawaii has verified his birth in Honolulu.
    3. The COLB is a prima facie, legally admissible document with a signature and seal.

    As to careless assumptions may I remind you that it is you who are the guilty party… Such as your claims about Natural Born, the Indonesian citizenship claims, and so on.

    As I observed, you are not interested in the truth, you are interested in being right and up to now you did not even know of the existence of the 2007 COLB which shows a similar missing space.

    Fail…

  306. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    There’s nothing in Hawaiian law that says a delayed certificate would prevent a birth announcement from being included on the list of births published in the paper. I don’t think Obama’s certificate fit the ‘delayed’ category, but it may have required supplementary information, thus a possibility for whatever ‘vital records’ were used by Fukino to make her Hawaiian birth claim … except that such records would be protected from public disclosure by law, just like the original birth certificate.

  307. avatar
    NBC January 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    The single, most reliable record for proving a claim of birth is an original, doctor-signed birth certificate

    It’s as reliable as the its shortform version which is prima facie legally admissible evidence.

    The Courts would accept the COLB, why won’t you.

    Fukino is on the record as saying that based on her data Obama was born on US soil. That is far more credible than your tortured claims.

  308. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Maybe he lost it? I’ve had to write to the State of Kansas at least twice to replace lost birth certificates.

  309. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    The COLB, if it is submitted to the court as it appears online, with seal and signature, would suffice to prove his birthplace.

    You would then have to produce real evidence that called that birthplace into question. Not speculation, not supposition based on “vital records” versus “vital record.” You’ve got nothing.

  310. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    a statement that was not based on an original birth certificate.

    Will you concede that the birth certificate is a vital record?

    So, if Fukino checked the birth certificate and one other document, then she checked the vital records (plural), right?

    You cannot claim, then, that she didn’t check the birth certificate.

  311. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: ksdb, that is all true.

    Finally, someone with integrity … better be careful or you’ll be accused of being a birther too.

    Dr. Conspiracy: But today is not 2001. Today the State of Hawaii issues copies of birth certificates like the one Obama published. He ordered a copy and published what he got, and what he got is official, and prima facie evidence of what it says, namely Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Yes, the COLB is the default certificate that is issued when requests come in. This is sensible and expedient … BUT, if you want copies of your original documents you are legally entitled to get copies and the state must comply with such requests, at reasonable expense to the requestor. Such documents are requested frequently by people doing genealogical and/or adoption research, in the latter case to help track down birth parents or other types of family information.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You can cite law, and policy all you want, and you can wave forms around all you want. But in the end, Obama’s published birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, and you cannot make that go away.

    I’m not trying to make anything ‘go away.’ The so-called published birth certificate has not been confirmed as an authentic legal document by the very agency that would have been responsible for issuing it. There’s no compelling practical or even legal reason not to do so. Sorry, but I expect better proof than ‘it looks real’ or ‘the state says that other vital records say Obama was born there.’ If your kid wanted to play in the Little League, a jpg on a Web site isn’t going to do it. And the State Department doesn’t accept jpgs as proof for securing a passport.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And if that weren’t enough, the Department of Health web site carries a letter from its head stating that the original records for Obama say he was born in Hawaii.Those are the facts.

    Except we don’t know what original records these are and what legal weight said records carry. We do know she’s not talking about a birth certificate.

  312. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: ksdb: The director of the DOH made two undocumented statementsWhat do you mean by “undocumented”?

    She didn’t show any documents to the public to backup her statements.

  313. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    nbc: Obama’s birth certificate was available for inspection and scanned and photographed. What more do you want…

    This isn’t true. Reporters had been asking for the birth certificate for several months and were never invited to inspect the birth certificate. Factcheck inexplicably posted photographs, but only AFTER the DOH made public statements indicating that the previously redacted certificate number was harmless and that they were prevent from disclosing any information about birth records. IOW, once it was clear the DOH wasn’t going to verify the COLB, they could release a false certificate number without fear of being exposed.

  314. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    She didn’t show any documents to the public to backup her statements.

    Was she lying? A Republican appointee?

  315. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    Black Lion: KDSB addresses the President as Barry Soetero, which shows she is a birther. Because anyone that is not a birther would never address someone by a name where there has been no legally admissible evidence that the person ever went by that name. Besides when Leo and Miss Tickly contacted the state of HI, they verified that there was never a Barry Soetero but there was a Barack Obama II that was born in HI…

    Your posted is filled with inaccuracies. A) I am a male, B) I’m a proofer, not a birther, whatever the hell that is, C) Obama evidently went by the name Barry Soetoro and Obama has not disputed this fact, D) Leo and MT did not verify that Obama never went by the name Soetoro, only that the state denied having any vital records under that name, E) they also did not verify that Obama was born in Hawaii … nobody has … all requests for such specific information have been denied.

    Learn the facts. Accept them.

  316. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    BUT, if you want copies of your original documents you are legally entitled to get copies and the state must comply with such requests, at reasonable expense to the requestor.

    Citation please?

    We do know she’s not talking about a birth certificate.

    She’s talking about vital records. A birth certificate is a vital record. If she checked that and one other document, she’s checked vital records (plural). If she’s checked the birth certificate and confirmed there are no other documents (fetal death certificate, for example) then she’s checked the vital records (plural).

  317. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    ksdb: Permit me to cut to the chase here. Obama is the President until January 2013, whether you like it or not and you shouldn’t delude yourself that any of your “questions” will change that. There are plenty of serious problems in the US and the world. Obama’s birth documents are not one. Grow up and try to use your time on earth wisely.

  318. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    NBC: The DOH has admitted that the data on the COLB is accurate and thus that Obama was born on US soil.

    No, they made two CLAIMS: one claim is not contained in ANY vital record for which the DOH has official capacity and the other claim was not sourced from a verifiable document. This means whatever ‘accuracy’ you have faith in is legally infirm.

    NBC:
    Too bad that your arguments are so foolish that you have to ignore the logical conclusions.

    Yes, you’re real good at trying to argue by intimidation with namecalling and belittling, but I’ve challenged you on every point you’ve brought up. If logic was really on your side, you wouldn’t resort to such childishness.

    NBC:

    As I have shown, all the data shows the certificate to be authentic, including the now discovered missing space’. What a find my friend. Your birther friends surely will admire you for your hard work

    All you’ve shown is some unverified jpgs and unverified claims … none of which could be admitted in a court or accepted by the state department or even the Little League.

  319. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    they also did not verify that Obama was born in Hawaii … nobody has … all requests for such specific information have been denied.

    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    He was born in Hawaii. So sayeth Fukino. So sayeth the COLB.

    You’re right that a jpeg isn’t admissible in court, but we’re not in court. The jpeg was considered acceptable to the majority of Americans – he was elected to the Presidency. You guys missed your opportunity to sue to disqualify Obama from the primary elections or from the state ballots. That was your only chance. Now you’ve missed your shot. You’re not going to get a personalized copy of OBama birth certificate.

    If you don’t like it, convince like-minded Americans in 2012 that he’s not a loyal American.

  320. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    Greg: Will you concede that the birth certificate is a vital record?

    Of course, never said it wasn’t.

    Greg:
    So, if Fukino checked the birth certificate and one other document, then she checked the vital records (plural), right?

    The key word is ‘IF,’ because she refused to say what vital records she’s referring to. IF it was the birth certificate, that one vital record would be sufficient for the claim, so there’s no need talk about any other vital records, unless the original birth certificate does not contain that information. If not, the question is why not and what information is on it??

    Greg:
    You cannot claim, then, that she didn’t check the birth certificate.

    She obviously checked if the state has one, but we don’t know if she checked to see what information is on it. There should be no need to settle for an ambiguous statement.

  321. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    misha: “I personally know people who used the name of a step parent and were never legally adapted.”

    Using anything but your legal name on official paperwork would constitute fraud. And if you aren’t ‘adapted’ then you would still need to legally change your name.

  322. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    one claim is not contained in ANY vital record for which the DOH has official capacity

    As I pointed out, there’s not a single legal authority out there, other than Taitz, Donofrio and Apuzzo, that thinks Obama’s citizenship is in doubt if he was born in Hawaii. If you think his father’s citizenship disqualifies Obama, the BC is irrelevant to that argument.

    the other claim was not sourced from a verifiable document. This means whatever accuracy’ you have faith in is legally infirm.

    You’re not familiar with the law, are you? Her statement has legal significance and if she testified the same way in court, it would be admissible.

  323. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Scientist: ksdb: Permit me to cut to the chase here. Obama is the President until January 2013, whether you like it or not and you shouldn’t delude yourself that any of your “questions” will change that. There are plenty of serious problems in the US and the world. Obama’s birth documents are not one. Grow up and try to use your time on earth wisely.

    Why aren’t you offering this advice to the host of this Web site. I’m responding to its posts that are trying to support the veracity of Obama’s alleged birth documents. Why are you here?? Couldn’t your time be used more wisely??

  324. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Using anything but your legal name on official paperwork would constitute fraud. And if you aren’t adapted’ then you would still need to legally change your name.

    Wrong and wrong the way you think.

    1. It cannot be fraud unless it was done with the intent to defraud.

    2. You don’t have to do anything other than use a name to legally change it.

    Google “common law name change.”

  325. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    The key word is IF,’ because she refused to say what vital records she’s referring to. IF it was the birth certificate, that one vital record would be sufficient for the claim, so there’s no need talk about any other vital records, unless the original birth certificate does not contain that information.

    Would the one vital record really be sufficient? Maybe she wanted to make sure there were no supplemental documents that dispute the birth certificate.

    What’s her motive to lie?

  326. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    Greg: I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.He was born in Hawaii. So sayeth Fukino. So sayeth the COLB.

    No document maintained by the DOH contains any statements about persons being a ‘natural born American citizen.’ This statement on its face is an outright lie. Therefore I can’t place full value on the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii, especially when Fukino refuses to verify that the alleged COLB is authentic. Neither should you.

    Greg:
    You’re right that a jpeg isn’t admissible in court, but we’re not in court. The jpeg was considered acceptable to the majority of Americans – he was elected to the Presidency. You guys missed your opportunity to sue to disqualify Obama from the primary elections or from the state ballots.

    Right. Obama didn’t release his alleged COLB until after he’d won the primaries. We had no reason to sue because we thought Mr. Transparency would do the right thing. Lawsuits, as you’re probably well aware, did eventually get filed, but unsuccessfully. As of this week, at least one legislator (in Arizona) is pushing to add a requirement on their state ballots for presidential candidates to prove they are Constitutional eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    Greg:
    That was your only chance. Now you’ve missed your shot. You’re not going to get a personalized copy of OBama birth certificate. If you don’t like it, convince like-minded Americans in 2012 that he’s not a loyal American.

    I don’t want a ‘personalized’ copy, just a copy that can be corroborated as authentic by an appropriate authority. Amateur factchecking Web sites are not an appropriate authority.

  327. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    I don’t like to speak for others, but I suspect Dr C would be happy to shut his web site down if you guys would accept simple reality and move on. And what caused you to show up all of a sudden? You certainly aren’t bringing any new information.

    Rather than talking about what you intend to investigate, you would be wiser to do the investigation first and then report the findings (if any).

  328. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    @ksdb:

    My cat was born in Philadelphia, but I don’t have his original birth certificate.

    I want to register him to vote. So do you think I could get an absentee ballot for him?

    He’s waiting for your advice.

  329. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    ksdb: As of this week, at least one legislator (in Arizona) is pushing to add a requirement on their state ballots for presidential candidates to prove they are Constitutional eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    Any state document such as a COLB would suffice. The “Full faith and credit” clause requires any state to accept birth documents from any other state in whatever form they are furnished. Any attempt to oppose some “two citizen parent” standard or some other such nonsense would be overturned.

    ksdb: Right. Obama didn’t release his alleged COLB until after he’d won the primaries. We had no reason to sue because we thought Mr. Transparency would do the right thing.

    Baloney! He released the COLB in July 2008. You guys waited until the election was over to sue. You snoozed, you lose…

  330. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Greg: Wrong and wrong the way you think.1. It cannot be fraud unless it was done with the intent to defraud. 2. You don’t have to do anything other than use a name to legally change it. Google “common law name change.”

    Really … ??

    When a name change is sought for a minor, any parent or adult who retains parental or custodial rights over a minor has a right, based in statute, to be notified and must provide consent or waiver of consent to legal actions regarding the minor. The actual law will vary from state to state, but the general rule is that both parents must consent to a name change for a minor. As a result, there could be controversy over whether the minor’s name should be changed, and a hearing in front of a judge is more likely. Ultimately as stated above, the judge will decide what is in the best interest for the child. Therefore, the reason for the change should be significant, such as adoption or bringing a stepchild into a family.

    link to source

  331. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    No document maintained by the DOH contains any statements about persons being a natural born American citizen.’

    No document maintained by the DOH asserts that Obama was born on earth either. But, since it is universally accepted that Hawaii is on Earth, it’s not a lie that she can confirm he was born on Earth.

    Your (Taitz/Donofrio/Apuzzo’s) legal theory is accepted by zero legal authorities. It is as accepted in the legal community as much as the theory that Hawaii is on the moon is accepted in the astronomical community.

    Right. Obama didn’t release his alleged COLB until after he’d won the primaries. We had no reason to sue because we thought Mr. Transparency would do the right thing. Lawsuits, as you’re probably well aware, did eventually get filed, but unsuccessfully.

    If you seriously thought that Obama’s father’s citizenship could make Obama a non-citizen, you knew all the relevant facts as soon as Obama left the stage in 2004. Actually, you knew the relevant facts when his first book was published.

    Your group was circulating rumors before the primaries were over. Why didn’t you file a lawsuit then?

    The law doesn’t reward those who sit on their rights.

  332. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Scientist: Any state document such as a COLB would suffice.

    Except, not a jpg of an alleged COLB.

    Scientist: The “Full faith and credit” clause requires any state to accept birth documents from any other state in whatever form they are furnished.

    Not so much, especially not a jpg. If the state department requires an original certified copy of the birth document, then there’s no reason the same expectation would not apply to any state requesting same.

    Scientist:
    Any attempt to oppose some “two citizen parent” standard or some other such nonsense would be overturned.

    Or not. We won’t know until it actually goes to court.

    Scientist:Baloney! He released the COLB in July 2008. You guys waited until the election was over to sue. You snoozed, you lose…

    He released the alleged COLB on June 12, 2008, AFTER Hillary had conceded. No one knew Obama was going to be so defiant about producing an original document or that it would necessitate legal action for something so basic. What a pathetic creep.

  333. avatar
    brygenon January 15, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    ksdb: I’ll wait … and wait … and wait.

    You’ve waited much too long already. Next Wednesday completes one year of Obama’s Presidency.

    You can see nine high-resolution photographs of Obama’s Hawaiian certification of live birth at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. If the particular view you want is not among them, cry hard.

  334. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Greg: Would the one vital record really be sufficient?

    Certainly as long as it doesn’t have any red flags on it, such as unnecessarily redacted information or inexplicable typos.

    Greg:Maybe she wanted to make sure there were no supplemental documents that dispute the birth certificate.

    We shouldn’t have to guess what else she would have looked at. That’s what transparency is all about. Show it all. He’s a public figure. He does not have a legal expectation of privacy.

    Greg:
    What’s her motive to lie?

    My guess is to protect Obama, but again, we shouldn’t have to guess because these documents should have been released outright.

  335. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    link to source

    You don’t actually link to the source. What you cite doesn’t contradict what I wrote:

    When a name change is sought for a minor, any parent or adult who retains parental or custodial rights over a minor has a right, based in statute, to be notified and must provide consent or waiver of consent to legal actions regarding the minor. The actual law will vary from state to state, but the general rule is that both parents must consent to a name change for a minor. As a result, there could be controversy over whether the minor’s name should be changed, and a hearing in front of a judge is more likely. Ultimately as stated above, the judge will decide what is in the best interest for the child. Therefore, the reason for the change should be significant, such as adoption or bringing a stepchild into a family.

    Anyway, I’m sure you’ve gone to the Hawaii newspapers and found the publication of Obama’s name change to Soetoro, right?

    In order for Hawaii to recognize a change, it must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. So, if Obama did, in fact, change his name to Soetoro, you should be able to find that publication.

  336. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

    NBC: Because he submitted it with his application? Again, your torture logic and reason.And what is wrong with showing the latest COLB? Nothing….

    So you’re thinking Obama submitted an original birth certificate and didn’t get it back?? Talk about tortured logic. There would be nothing wrong with the ‘latest’ COLB as long as it can be properly authenticated.

  337. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    The State of Hawaii has its own laws. It has read those laws to forbid it to release more information than they have released so far. His lack of an expectation of privacy (he can still have sex in private, right? so your assertion that he has no expectation of privacy is obviously false) doesn’t override Hawaiian privacy laws.

  338. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    ksdb: Except, not a jpg of an alleged COLB

    Of course Obama and all other candidates would provide an original. But it will be whatever form of document their birth state currently issues. And just how would you like a candidate to make documents available to the voters? Order 150 million official copies?

    Just out of curiosity can you provide me the original birth documents for all previous Presidents and major candidates for the Presidency? And please no b.s. None of them provided it so they are all usurpers. That’s what the term “equal under the law means”, my friend.

  339. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Scientist: I don’t like to speak for others, but I suspect Dr C would be happy to shut his web site down if you guys would accept simple reality and move on. And what caused you to show up all of a sudden?

    This post about the Nordyke twins birth announcement. It fortifies the suspicion that the certificate number on the Factcheck COLB is fraudulent.

    Scientist:
    You certainly aren’t bringing any new information.

    I’ve simply been responding to old criticisms that are flawed. Blame the faithers who illogically justify the hiding of a basic birth document.

    Scientist:Rather than talking about what you intend to investigate, you would be wiser to do the investigation first and then report the findings (if any).

    First, I don’t think you or any of the other faithers would accept my report. Most responses here have been various types of personal attacks. Second, I would like to see an independent third party do the research … someone who would be credible to proofers or to faithers.

  340. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    I don’t want a personalized’ copy, just a copy that can be corroborated as authentic by an appropriate authority.

    We’re not in court. He wasn’t submitting the document to a court. The appropriate authority was the voting public. They took a look at the document and found it sufficient to confirm Obama’s citizenship.

  341. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

    This post about the Nordyke twins birth announcement. It fortifies the suspicion that the certificate number on the Factcheck COLB is fraudulent.

    Nordyke has said that her labor was very long.

    Occam’s razor still says that we take the simple explanation – she got her certificate when she checked in – over the much more complicated explanation. (Someone forged Obama’s birth certificate, Obama forged his COLB, the DOH conspired to cover up this forgery, and no one noticed this in a billion dollar Presidential campaign.)

  342. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    misha: @ksdb:My cat was born in Philadelphia, but I don’t have his original birth certificate.I want to register him to vote. So do you think I could get an absentee ballot for him?He’s waiting for your advice.

    Make him a jpg. It worked for Obama.

  343. avatar
    Greg January 15, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    He released the alleged COLB on June 12, 2008, AFTER Hillary had conceded.

    He told that his father was a foreign student in his book which was published in 1995. He reiterated this in his DNC Keynote Address in 2004.

    If his father’s citizenship could call his citizenship into question, nothing in the birth certificate could change that, and you’ve known about it for 22 years!

  344. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    ksdb: Second, I would like to see an independent third party do the research … someone who would be credible to proofers or to faithers.

    The reality is nobody other than the birthers cares. There is nothing one could do with the information.

    And really, suppose you came up with some discrepancy in the numbers, so what would that prove? There is no one alive who could testify as to the specifics of how birth records in Hawaii were handled in 1961 and what possible errors could have been made.

    Besides, I am a scientist and I require a control in any study to be believeable. In this case, the control would be to examine the birth records of a sampling of other Presidents and see if they stood up any better than Obama’s. Now stop wasting time here and get busy-you have a lot of work to do!

  345. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    What an idiotic person ksdb is, his tortured posts prove that. He appears to be severely mentally challanged. He should just go back to WND ____ off Chuck Norris.

  346. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    This post about the Nordyke twins birth announcement. It fortifies the suspicion that the certificate number on the Factcheck COLB is fraudulent.

    This Alice in Wonderland speak is tiresome. The fact that these certificate numbers are so close would be seen by any reasonable person as confirming evidence.

    But not someone who is invested in not finding the truth…

  347. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    So you’re thinking Obama submitted an original birth certificate and didn’t get it back??

    There is no such thing as an original birth certificate. All are copies. The long form typically is a xerox-like copy while the short form is computer generated.

    Stop sounding so foolish.

    The latest COLB was properly authenticated through the seal and the signature.

    But you already know this.

  348. avatar
    Rickey January 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    ksdb says:

    plus he says in one of his own books that he had an older birth certificate.

    Ah, one of the more enduring birther attempts at misdirection.

    The operative word is he had an older birth certificate – when he was in high school, more than thirty years ago. It’s on page 26 (paperback edition) of DREAMS FROM MY FATHER. He mentions that he found a newpaper article about his father among his vaccination records and his birth certificate. These obviously were things which were being kept by Obama’s mother.

    Like Obama, I saw my birth certificate when I was in high school. I used it to apply for a Social Security Number, and later I used it when I enlisted in the Navy. Then I gave it back to my parents. Years later, when I decided to apply for a passport, my mother had moved and she couldn’t find my birth certificate, so I applied for and received another. When my mother died 13 years ago, my sister found my birth certificate while going through my mother’s papers. However, it is torn and the signature of the registrar has been obliterated by a water stain, so it probably would not be accepted in its current condition.

    The fact that Obama saw his birth certificate more than thirty years ago in no way establishes (or even suggests) that he still has that copy. The greater likelihood is that since he has held a U.S. passport continuously since he was a child, over the ensuing years he had no need to produce his birth certificate until his political opponents started circulating rumors that he was not born in the United States. His older birth certificate likely was lost or damaged, just as mine was. So he applied for a new copy from the State of Hawaii, which in turn issued the COLB which he posted on his website.

  349. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    ksdb: First, I don’t think you or any of the other faithers would accept my report.

    For the record, I am not a “faither”. I am firmly in the “I don’t care because the election is over” camp.

  350. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    You can see the seal bleed through to the front on the documents.
    I am surprised you are unfamiliar with these facts.

  351. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    See this

  352. avatar
    Rickey January 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    By all accounts it would appear that Obama has held a U.S. passport continuously since he was a child. His “older” birth certificate would have been submitted with his very first passport application. That certificate likely is the same one which he refers to in his book, which he observed among some other papers when he was in high school. He likely had no occasion to need his birth certificate in the ensuing 30+ years, since it isn’t required to produce one again when renewing a passport.

    What happened to that particular birth certificate is anyone’s guess, but I know that my original one was missing for three decades until it was found among my mother’s papers after she died. I probably wouldn’t have been able to use it anyway, because it is tattered and water-stained.

  353. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    I’m responding to its posts that are trying to support the veracity of Obama’s alleged birth documents. Why are you here?? Couldn’t your time be used more wisely??

    That’s somewhat ironic… However, the veracity of Obama’s documentation is beyond a reasonable doubt. All that remains is rebutting some persistent rumors and myths.

    64 lawsuits, 18 appeals and 10 Supreme Court cases later and all were decided in favor of the Constitution.

  354. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 15, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Whatever4:
    You know, I somehow missed the documentation of the Soetoro adoption. Can you provide a link?

    How do you link to an adoption that was contested by the birth father and voided by a State of Hawai’i Family Court?

    For that matter, when Dr. Fukino views Obama’s Vital Records (plural) and then refuses to provided index data for an amendment, wouldn’t that be indicative of a record ordered sealed by the Court.

  355. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Greg: Maybe he lost it? I’ve had to write to the State of Kansas at least twice to replace lost birth certificates.

    We shouldn’t be left to wonder if it’s lost or not. When Tommy Vietor sent out the jpg of the allgeged June 2007 COLB he offered no explanations that the original certificate was lost or why a recent COLB was being used in place of a copy of the 1961 doctor-signed certificate. The Fight the Smears site even called this ‘original,’ which would suggest Obama didn’t have a birth certificate prior to June 2007.

  356. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    How do you link to an adoption that was contested by the birth father and voided by a State of Hawai’i Family Court?

    By showing the documents of the adoption or the case where Obama’s father contested the adoptions.

    For that matter, when Dr. Fukino views Obama’s Vital Records (plural) and then refuses to provided index data for an amendment, wouldn’t that be indicative of a record ordered sealed by the Court.

    Again fully speculative and lacking any reasonable foundation. The suggestion that Fukino refused to provide index data for an amendment that may or may not exist ignores the privacy laws involved.
    Even if Obama had been adopted, this does not make him lose his natural born citizenship status.

    I appreciate you admitting that you have no evidence.

  357. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    ksdb: We shouldn’t be left to wonder if it’s lost or not

    So, stop wondering. Is someone else’s birth certificate really your greatest worry in life? If so, rejoice in your good fortune.

  358. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    NbC: There is no such thing as an original birth certificate. All are copies. The long form typically is a xerox-like copy while the short form is computer generated.Stop sounding so foolish.

    The only foolishness is for people like yourself to carry water for someone who chooses to hide the truth despite his hypocritical claim to demand transparency from everyone else. Plus you seriously ducked the question. Do you believe an original copy of the long-form was submitted for a passport application and not returned??

    NbC:
    The latest COLB was properly authenticated through the seal and the signature.But you already know this.

    This is an outright false and you already know this. The alleged seal and signature have not been authenticated by the issuing agency.

  359. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    Scientist: So, stop wondering. Is someone else’s birth certificate really your greatest worry in life? If so, rejoice in your good fortune.

    Oh boy, darn me for expecting proof of Constitutional eligibility for the highest office in our government.

  360. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    See

    ksdb: Oh boy, darn me for expecting proof of Constitutional eligibility for the highest office in our government.

    See if you can answer this question-what proof have previous Presidents provided? Focus now. Come on…

  361. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    Greg: The State of Hawaii has its own laws. It has read those laws to forbid it to release more information than they have released so far.

    Wrong. State law says the public’s right to know outweighs privacy interests. See the Uniform Information Practices Act. Second, who exactly is going to file a complaint if the state releases the original birth certificate, especially when they could do so by obtaining Obama’s permission??

    Greg: His lack of an expectation of privacy (he can still have sex in private, right? so your assertion that he has no expectation of privacy is obviously false) doesn’t override Hawaiian privacy laws.

    Obama is a public figure by legal definition. In the eyes of the law, he has no right to privacy. And let’s keep focused, we’re talking about basic birth documentation, not his sex life (although that hasn’t stopped any Democrats from going after Republicans before).

  362. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 15, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    ksdb: She didn’t show any documents to the public to backup her statements.

    You obviously don’t understand what a birth certificate is.

    Births are registered with the public agency in the jurisdiction where the birth occured, which is charged with maintaining those records. In some jurisdictions it is simply an entry in a log or registration book.

    For purposes of documentation of the time and place of birth, the agency will issue a certificate — or certification — attesting to its own records. This is what is commonly referred to as a “birth certificate” and it is written statement that attests to what is in the records of the public agency.

    In Obama’s case, you have a statement issued directly to the press and posted on the web site of the public agency, made by its director. You do not need more “documentation” — the director’s statement IS the documentation. All a birth certificate would do is provide written evidence of what the Director of Public Health would be able to testify to, if called to testify in a court of law.

  363. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    Scientist: SeeSee if you can answer this question-what proof have previous Presidents provided? Focus now. Come on…

    How many presidents claimed to be the sons of foreign nationals whose citizenships at birth were subsequently governed by another country?? The context makes a difference. Besides, have you forgotten that Obama with other Democrats created a resolution blessing John McCain to run for president? Are you forgetting that John McCain was also taken to court over his eligibility??

  364. avatar
    Rickey January 15, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    The Fight the Smears site even called this original,’ which would suggest Obama didn’t have a birth certificate prior to June 2007.

    Wrong. The Fight the Smears site calls it “official,” not “original.”

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

  365. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Sorry. That doesn’t wash. Equality under the law means equality. If Rodriguez has to show papers, then Smith does too.

    And for all I know half the Presidents were sons of foreign nationals and didn’t bother to mention it. Now there’s a wide-open field for your inquiries. But you would rather waste time here.

    And yes, the fact that you are expending that much effort over the birth records of someone who has already been in office for a year IS strange, no matter how you slice it. Surely, when 2012 rolls around voters will be able to judge Obama on his record in office rather than events 50 years in the past?

  366. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    Greg: You don’t actually link to the source.

    I embedded a link but it doesn’t look like the code worked.

    http://uslegal.com/namechange/

    Greg:
    What you cite doesn’t contradict what I wrote:

    You said a person doesn’t have to do anything. What I quoted says you have to get consent from the parents involved. We’re talking about Obama/Soetoro when he was a minor.

    Greg:Anyway, I’m sure you’ve gone to the Hawaii newspapers and found the publication of Obama’s name change to Soetoro, right?

    No, actually I don’t have an expectation that name changes per adoptions would be listed. Do you??

    Greg:In order for Hawaii to recognize a change, it must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

    Wait, you said you don’t have to do anything … now you’re saying a name change has to be published to be legal?? You’ve just undermined your own argument.

    Greg:
    So, if Obama did, in fact, change his name to Soetoro, you should be able to find that publication.

    Unless there was an intent to defraud … and we can’t rule that out with the information that is currently available.

  367. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    Do you believe an original copy of the long-form was submitted for a passport application and not returned??

    Hard to tell. As far as the ‘copy’, not the original birth certificate is concerned, an important distinction you seem to gloss over, which Obama described having found 30 years ago, I have no idea what happened to it. It may very well have been lost. Furthermore, for a passport the copy cannot be older than 1 year so Obama’s parents, when applying for the passport on which he traveled to and from Indonesia must have submitted the required evidence which is most likely a short or long form copy.
    Once Obama had obtained his first passport, renewals are more straightforward.
    It does not really matter, Obama submitted his COLB for inspection and with the raised seal and signature it is indeed prima facie and legally admissible evidence.

    When putting side by side your case and Obama’s case, it is clear that there exists no support for your side other than a continued appeal to moving the goal posts, when in fact from Obama’s side we have the following corroborating evidence

    1. Obama’s COLB, with seal and signature shows him born in Honolulu
    2. Obama’s birth city was verified by the Department of State of Hawaii
    3. Obama’s birth was reported in two newspapers
    4. The missing space, once seen by you as evidence of doctoring now agrees with other 2007 COLB’s

    There is just not really much out there now is there that supports your claim.

    Which explains why you are now moving to “let an independent source verify the data”. I doubt that your definition of independent source would be reasonable.

  368. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    Wong Kim Ark lays to rest any concerns about dual nationality and natural born status.

    Next.

    As to McCain, now there is some reasonable doubt which was patched by a non binding resolution of Congress. No such need exists for a child born on US soil.

    None

  369. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    Rickey: The Fight the Smears site even called this original,’ which would suggest Obama didn’t have a birth certificate prior to June 2007.Wrong. The Fight the Smears site calls it “official,” not “original.”http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    I stand corrected, although calling it ‘official’ is pretty sketchy since the HI DOH won’t authenticate this alleged document.

  370. avatar
    chufho January 15, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    this is not true

  371. avatar
    chufho January 15, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    sounds like a consession

  372. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Of course it is true. But perhaps you can present an actual coherent argument as to why you disagree.
    You do realize that the COLB as Hawaii’s official BC is the prima facie evidence, admissible in court and sufficient to obtain a passport?

  373. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    “Make him a jpg.”

    Thanks. I’ll start working on it. I have another dilemma: I’m in my car, traveling at the speed of light. If I turn on my headlights, do they glow?

  374. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    To someone in a desperate position like yours, anything may sound like a concession.

    How foolish….

  375. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    The DOH cannot comment on this by law but in spite of this the DOH has verified the date and location of birth, the name of the child. Since the DOH applied the raised seal and signature to the COLB, it has in fact been authenticated by the DOH.

    Bummer…

  376. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    NbC: Hard to tell. As far as the copy’, not the original birth certificate is concerned, an important distinction you seem to gloss over, which Obama described having found 30 years ago, I have no idea what happened to it. It may very well have been lost. Furthermore, for a passport the copy cannot be older than 1 year so Obama’s parents, when applying for the passport on which he traveled to and from Indonesia must have submitted the required evidence which is most likely a short or long form copy.Once Obama had obtained his first passport, renewals are more straightforward.

    The only problem is that we don’t know whether the information submitted by Obama for his first passport matches the information contained on his alleged COLB. He doesn’t have to have been born in the United States to obtain a U.S. passport.

    NbC:
    It does not really matter, Obama submitted his COLB for inspection and with the raised seal and signature it is indeed prima facie and legally admissible evidence.

    Posting a jpg is not the same as submitting a physical document for inspection. No legal authority has declared the document represented in the jpg as being legally admissable evidence … in fact, just the opposite … that they don’t know what it represents.

    NbC:
    When putting side by side your case and Obama’s case, it is clear that there exists no support for your side other than a continued appeal to moving the goal posts, when in fact from Obama’s side we have the following corroborating evidence

    My so-called case is that Obama has failed to provide proof that can be recognized or corroborated by the official agency. They’ve said a few things, but nothing to support that the COLB is authentic or legal.

    NbC:1. Obama’s COLB, with seal and signature shows him born in Honolulu

    You mean alleged COLB. Still not authenticated more than 570 days later.

    NbC:2. Obama’s birth city was verified by the Department of State of Hawaii

    Haven’t seen this verified period and especially not with corroborating evidence.

    NbC:3. Obama’s birth was reported in two newspapers

    Except that neither the child’s name was included nor the location of birth.

    NbC:4. The missing space, once seen by you as evidence of doctoring now agrees with other 2007 COLB’s

    Said COLBs have not been corroborated as being authentic and were presented by a self-described photoshop expert.

    NbC:
    There is just not really much out there now is there that supports your claim.

    Wrong, you’re actually proving that there is by absence of physical evidence.

    NbC:
    Which explains why you are now moving to “let an independent source verify the data”. I doubt that your definition of independent source would be reasonable.

    Your doubt is misplaced and your comment is simply being dismissive because you can’t disprove my points.

  377. avatar
    chufho January 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    hog wash, obama is hiding something, your denial is easily seen as a sign of ignorance
    or why would obama have a BC czar. This all can be put to rest if you would see that the release of the records BHO sits on would answer all our questions. What he hides from me he also hides from you. you blindly follow.

  378. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    NbC: The DOH cannot comment on this by law but in spite of this the DOH has verified the date and location of birth, the name of the child.

    No, they’ve made a claim but have not provided an official verification of any of these alleged facts, and especially not with any documentation to support the claim. Also, explain why they can apparently break their law to claim a location of birth but can’t straight out declare the COLB to be authentic. Weird.

    NbC:
    Since the DOH applied the raised seal and signature to the COLB, it has in fact been authenticated by the DOH.Bummer…

    We have no proof the DOH applied a seal or a signature to the alleged COLB. I’m still waiting for the photograph that shows the entire back side of Obama’s alleged COLB. It’s time to expose Obama’s backside to the world!!

  379. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    NbC: Wong Kim Ark lays to rest any concerns about dual nationality and natural born status.

    As long as the parents are permanent immigrants. Barak Sr. was not. However, I’ll concede that Obama qualifies as an NBC if his marriage to SAD was voided by the previous marriage to Kezia, which it would be under British and U.S. law without formally dissolving the first marriage. This means Obama was illegitimate at birth and would be a citizen at birth no matter where he was born. So, yes, the little bastard might be a natural born citizen under those circumstances.

    NbC: Next.As to McCain, now there is some reasonable doubt which was patched by a non binding resolution of Congress. No such need exists for a child born on US soil.None

    Except when that child might be a dual citizen with divided loyalties. The founders of the United States generally believed a child’s citizenship followed his father’s allegiance, despite being born on U.S. soil. Barak had no allegiance to the United States, thus his son, if legitimate, would be a natural born subject and not a natural born citizen. But as I said, if Barak was a bigamist, then his little bastard could indeed be a natural born citizen.

  380. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    The only problem is that we don’t know whether the information submitted by Obama for his first passport matches the information contained on his alleged COLB. He doesn’t have to have been born in the United States to obtain a U.S. passport.

    Since he however was born in the US, the question is somewhat moot.

    Still ignoring the facts with moving the goalpost ‘objections’.

    As I said before, you are not interested in the truth.

    I have no interest in disproving your points as they have no foundation in fact or reason. What I present is the existing evidence which all show that President Obama was born in the US. You can be dismissive of all this but the facts are on my side, even if not presented under oath they are an infinite level more relevant than your musings which are based on a lack of evidence or contradicted by evidence.

    Your ‘arguments’ are unraveling quickly and even your ‘best argument’ the ‘missing space’ has turned against your position.

  381. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Scientist: Sorry. That doesn’t wash. Equality under the law means equality. If Rodriguez has to show papers, then Smith does too.

    I don’t disagree, however, I didn’t create the system. As a voter, I’m within my rights to point out flaws and to raise questions. If you believe Obama is legit, then you should have no objection that he present verifiable proof.

    Scientist:
    And for all I know half the Presidents were sons of foreign nationals and didn’t bother to mention it. Now there’s a wide-open field for your inquiries. But you would rather waste time here.

    It’s a free country, no??

    Scientist:
    And yes, the fact that you are expending that much effort over the birth records of someone who has already been in office for a year IS strange, no matter how you slice it.

    It’s only strange because Obama continues to hide a basic birth document.

    Scientist:
    Surely, when 2012 rolls around voters will be able to judge Obama on his record in office rather than events 50 years in the past?

    I respect the Constitution and am doing my part to uphold it. Ignoring this part can only lead to further abuses. No thanks.

  382. avatar
    ballantine January 15, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    “As long as the parents are permanent immigrants.”

    Wong Kim Ark limited its holding to the facts, which dealt with permanent resident parents. However, it based its decision on the fact that both “natural born citizen” and the 14th amendmnet sere based on the english common law rules which had no such limitation. Thus, there is no basis to read such a disctinction into th ruling.

    “The founders of the United States generally believed a child’s citizenship followed his father’s allegiance, despite being born on U.S. soil.”

    You simply have not done the research as there is simply no early authority to support such claim. I suggest you go to Doc’s or NBC’s quotation page to see the multitude of early authority contrary to such assertion.

  383. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    I don’t disagree, however, I didn’t create the system. As a voter, I’m within my rights to point out flaws and to raise questions. If you believe Obama is legit, then you should have no objection that he present verifiable proof.

    Again, you are placing the burden of proof on the President who has in fact managed to convince the only Constitutionally relevant bodies of his eligibility, the voters, the electoral college, and Congress (most importantly per 12/20th Amendments).

    I can point you to the evidence which you are rejecting out of hand as insufficient while claiming that there are inconsistencies where there are none.

    You are of course free to make yourself look foolish and there is nothing I personally can do about it but as far as the facts are concerned, you have no case.

    Hence the moving of the goalposts to now require us to prove President Obama’s eligibility to your liking.

    That of course would be a foolish venture as you have shown yourself to be impervious to fact and reason.

  384. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    There would be nothing wrong with the latest’ COLB as long as it can be properly authenticated.

    Well, then we agree, and since it was properly authenticated through a seal and signature, what do you now intend to argue?

  385. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    NbC:
    The latest COLB was properly authenticated through the seal and the signature.But you already know this.

    This is an outright false and you already know this. The alleged seal and signature have not been authenticated by the issuing agency.

    You are of course familiar with the concept of self authentication?

    You fool… It’s not a lie, it’s a fact that the seal and signature are the official authentication of the data on the COLB.

  386. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    NbC: Since he however was born in the US, the question is somewhat moot.

    This claim has yet to be proven. I choose not to go on blind faith over unsupported and undocumented statements.

    NbC:Still ignoring the facts with moving the goalpost objections’.

    Not in the least.

    NbC:As I said before, you are not interested in the truth.

    False.

    NbC:
    I have no interest in disproving your points as they have no foundation in fact or reason. What I present is the existing evidence which all show that President Obama was born in the US.

    All you’ve presented are unsubstantiated jpgs and undocumented statements. Bernie Madoff would be proud.

    NbC:

    You can be dismissive of all this but the facts are on my side, even if not presented under oath they are an infinite level more relevant than your musings which are based on a lack of evidence or contradicted by evidence.

    Your level of evidence is nothing more than hearsay. I’m asking for very basic documentation and you act like I kicked your puppy. And let’s not talk about dismissiveness unless you’re prepared to do some apologizing.

    NbC:Your arguments’ are unraveling quickly and even your best argument’ the missing space’ has turned against your position.

    Not at all. I questioned Polarik when he posted those jpgs last year and he promptly ignored the questions and has since disappeared from Algore’s Internets. Nobody is around to vouch for those alleged COLBs. Nobody even knows who they belong to.

  387. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    The Fight the Smears site even called this original,’ which would suggest Obama didn’t have a birth certificate prior to June 2007.

    Or that they just requested a recent one to avoid the ‘well this is an old one’. However original merely means that this was a real copy of the document not a scan…

    Logic my friend, pure logic.

  388. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    Constitutional Eligibility is guided by the Constitutional amendments which require Congress to find the President to be qualified.

    The Constitution does not state that KSDB shall be convinced beyond an unreasonable doubt before a president shall be elected and sworn in…

    Ridiculous…

  389. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    As long as the parents are permanent immigrants.

    That is an incorrect reading of the Wong Kim Ark case which does not focus on the status of the parents and in fact reject that the status of the parents makes any impact.

    Your claim about what the founders believed has no foundation in evidence.

    Barack by virtue of being born on US soil, had allegiance to the United States, and in fact a stronger one than to the country of his parent’s citizenship which was by statute only.

    Your dislike of Obama shines through marvelously (his little bastard) and let’s spell his name correctly.

    You’re quite a fool my friend and your own words betray you.

    Mission Failed

  390. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    NBC: There is no such evidence, but there is evidence that when he returned to the US, he used his own passport.

    There is evidence that Obama was claimed to be an Indonesian citizen. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about … and where praytell is your evidence he returned to the U.S. on his own passport??

    NBC:
    You are still denying the simple fact that he provided his latest COLB which shows him born on US soil, that you thus are now torturing the meaning of natural born or moving to the β€˜he was an indonesian citizen’ shows that you have no interest in the truth, just an interest in one outcome only.

    Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong. I don’t deny that Obama show an alleged COLB. I only deny that anyone has authenticated it. I’ve said nothing about Obama’s Indonesia citizenship having an impact on being a natural born citizen. Maybe you have a guilty conscience. Like everything else in Obama’s life, there is a dearth of documentation, in this case to show what passport he traveled on and what birth certificate he used to obtain one … or if he even used a birth certificate to obtain a passport.

    NBC:
    And yet rather than showing evidence of Obama’s COLB being a forgery, we now have evidence to the contrary and it is up to you to show how Obama’s COLB with the missing space’ is unique, as the evidence so far suggests that COLB’s from the same period, show the same missing space.

    The state of Hawaii has not admitted they have made any format errors on their COLBs. No COLBs have been presented that can be vouched for in authenticity to show that the error is definitely a mistake by the vital records office.

  391. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    This claim has yet to be proven. I choose not to go on blind faith over unsupported and undocumented statements.

    It is supported by his COLB which was authenticated by the DOH through the seal and signature and it is supported by the DOH which has stated that Obama was born on US soil.

    You fool

  392. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    There is evidence that Obama was claimed to be an Indonesian citizen. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about … and where praytell is your evidence he returned to the U.S. on his own passport??

    In his own words. After all you believe him when he stated that he saw his birth certificate 30 years or so ago. The same book outlines his description of when he returned.

    . I don’t deny that Obama show an alleged COLB. I only deny that anyone has authenticated it.

    And thus you are wrong since it was authenticated through seal and signature, making it by law a self authenticating document. Which is why courts and the Department of State accept such forms as prima facie evidence.

  393. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    It’s also fascinating how you accept the unconfirmed form where his name is mentioned with nationality Indonesian when you reject officially certified documents.

    Furthermore, per Indonesian law, Obama could not have become a citizen of its country until reaching the age of 18. And per US law and legal precedent a child cannot denounce his citizenship.

  394. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    ksdb: As a voter, I’m within my rights to point out flaws and to raise questions

    Raising questions about one but not another is hypocrisy. But you do have a right to be a hypocrite.

    ksdb: It’s only strange because Obama continues to hide a basic birth document.

    No more than every other President and candidate. Once again you are a hypocrite.

    ksdb: I respect the Constitution and am doing my part to uphold it.

    The entire document or 3 words? Can you show me other Constitutional issues where you’ve been active? Once again you are a hypocrite.

  395. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    ksdb: Obama is a public figure by legal definition. In the eyes of the law, he has no right to privacy

    Can you please cite the law that says public figures have no right to privacy? Please???

  396. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    NbC: That is an incorrect reading of the Wong Kim Ark case which does not focus on the status of the parents and in fact reject that the status of the parents makes any impact.

    Read the decision. There’s no reason to mention that the parents were permanent immigrants except if it has relevance and it obviously does.

    ” … the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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.”

    As you can see, permanence was a key factor in the decision.

    NbC:
    Your claim about what the founders believed has no foundation in evidence.

    It absolutely does. Read Shanks v. Dupont.

    “All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. “

    NbC:
    Barack by virtue of being born on US soil, had allegiance to the United States, and in fact a stronger one than to the country of his parent’s citizenship which was by statute only.

    Vattel says that a child’s natural allegiance follows that of his father and the place of his birth does not change that. To be a natural born American citizen, Obama’s parents (plural) would both need to be citizens.

    NbC: Your dislike of Obama shines through marvelously (his little bastard) and let’s spell his name correctly.

    Bastard is the correct term for an illegitimate child and his father’s name was spelled as ‘Barak’ in his 1965 article, “Problems facing our society.”

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

    NbC:

    You’re quite a fool my friend and your own words betray you.Mission Failed

    Nonsense. All you have is insults and derision. Facts?? Not so much.

  397. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    We shouldn’t have to guess what else she would have looked at. That’s what transparency is all about. Show it all. He’s a public figure. He does not have a legal expectation of privacy.

    Total nonsense. The right of privacy may be reduced to a public figure but the same laws that protect you and me, protect such public figures.

    That’s just plain wrong. Guess we will never see any further backing of this claim…

  398. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    NbC: Again, you are placing the burden of proof on the President who has in fact managed to convince the only Constitutionally relevant bodies of his eligibility, the voters, the electoral college, and Congress (most importantly per 12/20th Amendments).

    The success of a lie does not improve its truthfulness. The current system puts a burden of proof on candidates when filing to have their names placed on ballots … it just happens to be limited proof … a signature and self-declaration. As a voter, I, and others whom are dismissively labeled as birthers, simply ask for a slightly stronger burden of proof, but one which is within the same reasonable bounds as having your child play Little League baseball, so spare me the whining.

    NbC:

    I can point you to the evidence which you are rejecting out of hand as insufficient while claiming that there are inconsistencies where there are none.

    Knock yourself out.

    NbC: You are of course free to make yourself look foolish and there is nothing I personally can do about it but as far as the facts are concerned, you have no case.

    So your M.O. so far is to try to intimidate me instead of back up your claims??

    NbC: Hence the moving of the goalposts to now require us to prove President Obama’s eligibility to your liking.

    Little league, man, Little League. This shouldn’t be like pulling teeth out of crocodile.

    NbC: That of course would be a foolish venture as you have shown yourself to be impervious to fact and reason.

    Not at all. I’ve backed up my points every step of the way and am met with very little logic, but instead a great deal of baseless derision.

  399. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    The success of a lie does not improve its truthfulness. The current system puts a burden of proof on candidates when filing to have their names placed on ballots … it just happens to be limited proof … a signature and self-declaration. As a voter, I, and others whom are dismissively labeled as birthers, simply ask for a slightly stronger burden of proof, but one which is within the same reasonable bounds as having your child play Little League baseball, so spare me the whining.

    Then lobby your state legislature or the federal legislature for stricter laws.

    Obama provided his COLB which is also sufficient for playing in the little league.

    Not at all. I’ve backed up my points every step of the way and am met with very little logic, but instead a great deal of baseless derision.

    You have done nothing of the kind you fool. Do you really believe that the reader cannot see through this baseless claim?

    You merely summarily dismiss any fact, reason or logic.

  400. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    B

    ksdb: I’ve backed up my points every step of the way

    Like that public figures have no right to privacy?

  401. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Of course he cannot

  402. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    NbC: You are of course familiar with the concept of self authentication?You fool… It’s not a lie, it’s a fact that the seal and signature are the official authentication of the data on the COLB.

    It’s not self-authenticating at all. The Obama jpg barely shows one and not the other. The Fact Check photos do not show enough of the back of the alleged COLB to conclusively prove the seal and signature are on the same document as photographed from the front. Obama, expose your back side to America!

    And again, the state of Hawaii REFUSES to authenticate any alleged COLBs … period. IOW, you got nothing.

  403. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    It’s not self-authenticating at all.

    Again, a COLB is self authenticating and the raised seal is clearly visible from the front, however the signature is not but can be seen from the back. If you imply some falsification of evidence then it would be helpful to provide some coherent argument. In this case, nothing but a miracle would convince you of the truth.

    DOH has in fact authenticated the document and validated his birth in the US.

    Nothing you say has disproven this.

  404. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    And again, the state of Hawaii REFUSES to authenticate any alleged COLBs … period. IOW, you got nothing.

    The DOH is prohibited by law. However, in spite of this they have validated all the information but the hour of birth.

  405. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    NbC: It’s also fascinating how you accept the unconfirmed form where his name is mentioned with nationality Indonesian when you reject officially certified documents.

    It was photographed and written about by legitimate members of the press. This has not happened with Obama’s alleged COLB. One is obviously much more compelling than the other.

    NbC:
    Furthermore, per Indonesian law, Obama could not have become a citizen of its country until reaching the age of 18. And per US law and legal precedent a child cannot denounce his citizenship.

    Wrong. If adopted under age 5, Obama would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen. According to a story written about Obama when he was at Harvard, his mother remarried sometime when he was between the ages of 2 and 4 years old. I realize the more recent version of the story is age 6 … but, like everything else in Obama’s childhood … the stories are not consistent … so it is easily within the realm of possiblity that Obama was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen.

  406. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Scientist: BLike that public figures have no right to privacy?

    Answers.com and ye shall receive:

    “Public figures, such as politicians lose most of their rights to privacy. In the United States, their finances are usually public. When they are away from private time with their families, their lives are closely examined. The difference concerns their family members. Their non campaigning family members have a right to privacy. Other than that, politicians, and other celebrities, have lost their right to privacy. If they are going to use the press and be presented by the press, the press has the right to present them in situations other than their own choosing.”

  407. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    NbC: Again, a COLB is self authenticating and the raised seal is clearly visible from the front, however the signature is not but can be seen from the back. If you imply some falsification of evidence then it would be helpful to provide some coherent argument. In this case, nothing but a miracle would convince you of the truth.DOH has in fact authenticated the document and validated his birth in the US.Nothing you say has disproven this.

    Sorry, but the same statement making this claim and so-called validation included a claim that falls outside the authority of Fukino’s office. That statement qualifies as hearsay only.

  408. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    It was photographed and written about by legitimate members of the press. This has not happened with Obama’s alleged COLB. One is obviously much more compelling than the other.

    The COLB was fotographed and written about, however unlike your ‘evidence’ the COLB is self authenticating and there is no way to authenticate the photo of the page.

    Indeed, you are right, reason would dictate that one is more compelling than the other. But I am not convinced that you are guided by reason.

  409. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    misha: “Make him a jpg.”Thanks. I’ll start working on it. I have another dilemma: I’m in my car, traveling at the speed of light. If I turn on my headlights, do they glow?

    If you can’t tell whether your own headlights are on or not, I’ll take a cab.

  410. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    Wrong. If adopted under age 5, Obama would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen.

    Nope, even under age 5 he would not have become an Indonesian citizen automatically, but there is just no evidence that Obama ever was adopted or naturalized in Indonesia.

    Of course, in your world devoid of reason, anything is possible, just not plausible.

  411. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    NbC: Total nonsense. The right of privacy may be reduced to a public figure but the same laws that protect you and me, protect such public figures.That’s just plain wrong. Guess we will never see any further backing of this claim…

    You guessed wrong:

    “No Supreme Court decision supports privacy claims of public figures seeking political office who object to the disclosure of information that some voter might find relevant to their fitness to serve in office.”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/privacy


    [Note to readers: the preceding citation out of context is misleading. Read further comments for a more complete context. Dr. C.]

  412. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    As Dr C explained

    (1)A child outside a marriage of a mother who is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia or a child out of a legal marriage, but who has in a case of divorce been assigned to the care of its mother, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, who follows the nationality of the father, a foreigner, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if, after, having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, it possesses no other nationality or states at the same time to have released another nationality according to the procedure stipulated by the legal provisions of the country of origin and/or according to the procedure stipulated by the agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question.

    Of course there is no “legal provision” of the United States whereby a minor could release his US Citizenship. This is similar to 5h which also restricts citizenship to those for which it would create dual citizenship.

  413. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    ksdb is a complete idiot, do not respond to him please, that allows him to take over this thread (his real goal)

    Responding to him makes no sense at all, his brain is locked on “stupid”, being stuck with an idiotic troll is not fun, don’t respond(especially you nbc, no response is the best response)!

  414. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    NbC: Nope, even under age 5 he would not have become an Indonesian citizen automatically, but there is just no evidence that Obama ever was adopted or naturalized in Indonesia.Of course, in your world devoid of reason, anything is possible, just not plausible.

    You make it so easy to prove you wrong:

    (1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.

    http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,LEGISLATION,IDN,4562d8cf2,3ae6b4ec8,0.html

  415. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    You claimed ‘automatically’ when in fact the code shows that it requires approval.

    I told you to read and use reason before making your claims. Now you have to make up your usual excuses,

  416. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    I refuse to let his nonsense remain unrebutted. It serves as a good example for those who believe his nonsense.

  417. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    You have dishonestly quoted out of context. Here is the entire paragraph:

    “It is clear that the Constitution protects newspapers that publish truthful information, however “private,” about “public figures”—including candidates for office. Whether or not such figures entirely surrender any “right to privacy” they might otherwise have, as a practical matter newspapers and other media need not worry that they will face legal sanctions if they reveal indelicate truths. No Supreme Court decision supports privacy claims of public figures seeking political office who object to the disclosure of information that some voter might find relevant to their fitness to serve in office. Recognition of any such privacy rights would disserve the democratic process itself by depriving the public of salient information. “[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has reiterated, “cannot convincingly cry Foul’ when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts to demonstrate the contrary,” even if the demonstration involves scrutiny of what might be regarded as one’s “private” life (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 1988, pp. 46, 51, quoting from Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 1971).”

    What that means is that if you do your famous “investigation” and publish the truthful results, Obama can’t sue you for libel. It doesn’t require him to help you in your digging though, nor does it require him to release anything beyond what the law requires (Financial disclosure forms for example).

    Quoting out of context shows your dishonesty.

  418. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    You forgot

    OIP further notes that, pursuant to statute, DOH itself discloses certain information in the vital records it maintains, and, therefore, individuals would not have a significant privacy interest in that information. Specifically, the statute provides that β€˜[i]ndex data consisting of name and sex of registrant, type of vital event and other such information as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.’ Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18 (Supp. 2006).

  419. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    NbC: You claimed automatically’ when in fact the code shows that it requires approval.I told you to read and use reason before making your claims. Now you have to make up your usual excuses,

    The citizenship part IS automatic. The child has no requirement to do anything. The authorities only check to see if the adoption is legal. If it weren’t automatic, it would require taking an oath which might also be accompanied by naturalization classes.

  420. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    And

    §92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:

    (4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure; and

    See HRS 338-18

  421. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    NbC: I refuse to let his nonsense remain unrebutted. It serves as a good example for those who believe his nonsense.

    Everything you’ve posted has been shot down like balloons at a carnival. And Obama’s birth certificate is still being held hostage … Day 582.

  422. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    You are now misinterpreting or misrepresenting the actual law. Automatic means without any further action. In fact, the father has to apply for approval from the “Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child”

    As I pointed out before, you have no interest in the truth. Let alone the application of logic or reason.

    Pwned…

  423. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    Everything you’ve posted has been shot down like balloons at a carnival. And Obama’s birth certificate is still being held hostage … Day 582.

    Denial, the first step towards recovery, however you already show some signs of anger so you are making good progress and even some bargaining…

    Good job my dear friend, there is hope

  424. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    NbC: You are now misinterpreting or misrepresenting the actual law. Automatic means without any further action. In fact, the father has to apply for approval from the “Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child”As I pointed out before, you have no interest in the truth. Let alone the application of logic or reason.Pwned…

    All ‘automatic’ citizenship is accompanied by further action … that’s what the filing of a birth certificate does, for example. No action is required on the part of the recipient. Sorry, but you’ve been shot down again. Don’t make it so easy.

  425. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    What part of acquires Indonesian citizenship if… do you fail to comprehend?

    Furthermore, Indonesian Constitution prohibits the acquisition of Indonesian nationality when the child retains his original birth right citizenship and since the child is unable to denounce his citizenship or have it denounced for him, Indonesia could never have naturalized Obama.

  426. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    How do I hail a cab in outer space?

  427. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    It was early recognized in this country that a minor has no right of his own accord to expatriate himself and is “totally incapable of making any election in regard to his citizenship.” Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356, 376, 84 Am. Dec. 193. This limitation has been reaffirmed recently in U. S. ex rel. Baglivo v. Day (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 44, where it is said: “A native-born citizen [of the United States], who has not attained the age of 21 years, cannot renounce allegiance to the United States.”

  428. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    People like ksdb are not driven by facts (obvious!), they are driven by hate (hate for Obama), him and all the other birthers will not change course. They are actually unaware that Obama is president and has been for a year. They are pushing this birther nonsense in hopes of getting Obama out of office, though the chances of that are less than 0, poor birthers are nothing more than hateful, racist dipsh_s! They want the Ni__er out, but birthers are on a losing battle, the wrong side of history.

  429. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    How can it be automatic when it involves the parent having to petition and the Pengadilan Negeri has to declare it legal…

    That’s just plain illogical.

    I do notice you have still got a tendency that prevents you from admitting to your errors. Which combined with your propensity to make errors is quite unfortunate.

  430. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Again, that applies to information someone digs up about a public figure. Nothing compels them to disclose information, other than legally required financial disclosures. Presidential candidates are not legally required to release medical records, school records or anything else. Some release a few selected bits of information and some don’t. None that I know of have released even 10% of what you birthers have “demanded” from Obama. And once in office previous sitting Presidents have released their tax returns and that’s it. Obama already released his 2008 return and I’m sure he will do the same with future ones.

  431. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    NbC: How can it be automatic when it involves the parent having to petition and the Pengadilan Negeri has to declare it legal…That’s just plain illogical.

    It’s no different than filing a birth certificate. Once the adoption is declared legal (or a birth certificate is accepted as valid), citizenship is automatic. What action is required by the recipient for his or her citizenship??

    NbC:
    I do notice you have still got a tendency that prevents you from admitting to your errors. Which combined with your propensity to make errors is quite unfortunate.

    I admitted that the Fight the Smears site says ‘official’ birth certificate, not “original.” Now are you going to admit to being wrong??

  432. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    NbC: What part of acquires Indonesian citizenship if… do you fail to comprehend?Furthermore, Indonesian Constitution prohibits the acquisition of Indonesian nationality when the child retains his original birth right citizenship and since the child is unable to denounce his citizenship or have it denounced for him, Indonesia could never have naturalized Obama.

    Feel free to cite the statute. I have a feeling your misunderstanding it.

  433. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    It’s no different than filing a birth certificate. Once the adoption is declared legal (or a birth certificate is accepted as valid), citizenship is automatic. What action is required by the recipient for his or her citizenship??

    So Obama was adopted in Indonesia? That would place him older than 5 years by most any credible account. So no go there. So perhaps you meant, adopted in Hawaii, but such an adoption would not lead to automatic citizenship.

    If adopted and found that the adoption was legal by the local Pengadilan Negeri…

    And citizenship could not be automatic if it would create a dual citizenship conflict.

  434. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    Furthermore

    (2)Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.

    So adoption can happen without automatic acquisition. You were wrong

  435. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Scientist: Again, that applies to information someone digs up about a public figure. Nothing compels them to disclose information, other than legally required financial disclosures. Presidential candidates are not legally required to release medical records, school records or anything else. Some release a few selected bits of information and some don’t. None that I know of have released even 10% of what you birthers have “demanded” from Obama. And once in office previous sitting Presidents have released their tax returns and that’s it. Obama already released his 2008 return and I’m sure he will do the same with future ones.

    Candidates release tax returns and medical records all the time. Obama posted an alleged COLB … why do you think he would he have a different right to privacy over the long-form certificate??

  436. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    Now that is ironic given your misinterpretation of automatic citizenship after adoption… When in fact, a child can be adopted and the “declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.”

    Within one year after such adoption… So adoption precedes the request for declaration of legality.

  437. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    NbC: Now that is ironic given your misinterpretation of automatic citizenship after adoption… When in fact, a child can be adopted and the “declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.”Within one year after such adoption… So adoption precedes the request for declaration of legality.

    What??? Are you trying to say a child should be able to be declared as a citizen before it’s adopted?? Please … try again … and make sense this time.

  438. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Article 5(h)

    h.have no nationality, or have lost his nationality if the petitioner acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia or states at the time to have released another nationality according to the legal provisions of the country of origin or according to the legal provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country concerned.

    Article 4.

    (1)Aliens born and domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia whose father or mother, in case they have no legal family relationship with the father, is also born in the territory of the Republic in Indonesia and is a resident of the Republic of Indonesia, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, have no other nationality or at the time that they present a petition they also make a statement as to having released another nationality which they may possibly possess, in accordance with the legal provisions prevailing in the country of their origin or according to the provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question.

  439. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    The statute cited by Dr.C applies when the mother is Indonesian and the father is a foreigner … SAD was not Indonesian and Lolo was not a foreigner.

  440. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 6:38 pm #

    NBC stop wasting your time!

  441. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    “When it comes to the citizenship of individuals in other countries, we are prevented from interfering, Hague Convention 1930. Speaking of Indonesia, during the late 60’s all the way up until 2006 Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. In 2006 they changed their laws to permit dual citizenship, however, Indonesia has had its battles with enforcing their new law permitting dual citizenship.”

    Source: Here

  442. avatar
    Scientist January 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    OK. Let me summarize the conclusion of the discussion:

    THE ELECTION IS OVER AND OBAMA WON

  443. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    NbC: Article 5(h)h.have no nationality, or have lost his nationality if the petitioner acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia or states at the time to have released another nationality according to the legal provisions of the country of origin or according to the legal provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country concerned.Article 4.(1)Aliens born and domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia whose father or mother, in case they have no legal family relationship with the father, is also born in the territory of the Republic in Indonesia and is a resident of the Republic of Indonesia, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, have no other nationality or at the time that they present a petition they also make a statement as to having released another nationality which they may possibly possess, in accordance with the legal provisions prevailing in the country of their origin or according to the provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question.

    Articles four and five do not apply to adoptions of children under age 5.

    Article 5: (2)In order to present a petition for naturalization, the petitioner shall: a.have reached the age of 21;

    Article 4 refers to Aliens born and domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia …

    Are you trying to say Obama was born in Indonesia to foreign parents??

  444. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    In July 2006, the Indonesian Parliament passed new legislation allowing children under age 18 to maintain a foreign nationality as well as Indonesian citizenship.

    US Department of State

  445. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    No I am saying that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, only in 2006 was a law passed that allowed minors to hold a dual citizenship status. Since Obama could not renounce his citizenship, he could not become an Indonesian citizen.

    Furthermore, there is no evidence that Obama was less than 5.

    If Indonesia does not allow for a dual citizenship and if Obama as a minor could not reject his US citizenship then there is but one conclusion.

  446. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    NbC: Source: Here

    Right … under Indonesian law, Obama, if adopted under age 5, would have been considered an Indonesian citizen exclusively. IOW, if Lolo wanted to fight for Barry Soetoro’s custody, it would have been a very ugly international battle to see whose laws superceded the others. At the time Obama would have been adopted, U.S. nationality laws wouldn’t have protected Obama’s U.S. citizenship … certainly the SCOTUS would have then overturned those laws, but as written, the laws did not prevent the loss of citizenship through adoption.

  447. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 15, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    A delayed birth certificate has a very defined meaning. It means a birth certificate that is filed over a year after the birth of the person.

    Barack Obama’s birth certificate was filed 4 days after he was born, on August 8, 1961. By definition, this cannot be a delayed birth certificate.

  448. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    NbC: No I am saying that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, only in 2006 was a law passed that allowed minors to hold a dual citizenship status. Since Obama could not renounce his citizenship, he could not become an Indonesian citizen. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Obama was less than 5.If Indonesia does not allow for a dual citizenship and if Obama as a minor could not reject his US citizenship then there is but one conclusion.

    Yes, there is evidence, thanks to the Honolulu Advertiser:

    At UH, she [SAD] fell in love with a Javanese candidate for a master’s degree in geography named Soetoro Martodihardjo, who went by the Javanese nickname, “Lolo” Soetoro. They married in 1965, and Soetoro took Dunham and first-grader Obama back to Indonesia at a time of political unrest following the overthrow of President Sukarno.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Sep/12/ln/hawaii809120379.html

    Obama, if born in 1961, would have been three or four years old in 1965 when Lolo married Stanley. I understand the ‘official’ story NOW is that they didn’t marry until 1967 … which would have made Obama 6 and ineligible for citizenship by adoption … weird. Admittedly we don’t have proof of adoption or if Lolo got the adoption approved, but we do see that Barry Soetoro was listed as an Indonesian citizen at school in Indonesia. It’s hard to explain that one away.

  449. avatar
    ksdb January 15, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    NbC: US Department of State

    If Obama was adopted after 2006, this might mean something.

  450. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    Most sites place the marriage at 66 or 67 so you need something better here to ‘prove’ your point.

    So you rely on one discrepancy in reporting and consider that the fact.

    As I stated before, you have no interest in the truth.

    It’s hard to explain that one away.

    Not at all

    1. The parents lied to get Obama into school
    2. The school assumed

    If you like the source however, you should also accept that it shows Obama born in Honolulu.

    But I doubt you appreciate the logic of that

  451. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 6:56 pm #

    birthers on the “adoption” rumor!
    no proof that Obama was adopted, but the rumor goes on.
    Muslim’s require an adopted child to retain name of birth father(so no Barry Soetoro would exist)

    Birhers are losers, the election concluded a year ago, an idiotic birther myth can’t change that!

    go away Troll!

  452. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    Yes, it means that before 2006 Obama could not have been adopted since Indonesia did not allow a minor to keep dual citizenship status and thus since Obama as a juvenile could not renounce his citizenship, Indonesia could not have granted him one.

  453. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 6:58 pm #

    Right … under Indonesian law, Obama, if adopted under age 5, would have been considered an Indonesian citizen exclusively.

    That has no foundation in law as SCOTUS has accepted that a minor cannot renounce his US citizenship and thus Obama, in the eyes of US law, remained a US natural born citizen.

    Simple really

  454. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    you miss out on a a key word: ADOPTED … please provide documentation that Obama was adopted Soetoro.

  455. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    They married in 1965, and Soetoro took Dunham and first-grader Obama back to Indonesia at a time of political unrest following the overthrow of President Sukarno.

    Which would have been 1967…

    First grade place Obama in the 5-6 year range

  456. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

    The registration at the Assisi schools shows 1/1/1968 again making it somewhat hard to continue the foolish claim that he was 2-4

  457. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    The Maui News reported that Obama attended kindergarten at Noelani Elementary School on Oahu during the school year 1966-67. It released a photo of two teachers, Katherine Nakamoto and Aimee Yatsushiro, with five students. The teachers claim one of the children is Barack Obama.

    And more and more evidence that renders your musings the fantasy they were from the start

  458. avatar
    NbC January 15, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    Have you had enough already? Ready to admit defeat πŸ™‚

  459. avatar
    racosta January 15, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    I don’t under stand this “adoption” discussion. There is no proof that Obama was adopted, merely speculation, speculation that can’t past the smell test. So all these “what ifs” are useless. There is speculation only by birthers, but birthers being idiots, have no creditability. It would be wise to just dismiss ksdb, just ignore him, he has taken too much space already.

  460. avatar
    aarrgghh January 15, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    birfers are still waiting for the answer to “who’s stronger — tarzan or flash gordon?”

    unfortunately, mr hood is dead.

  461. avatar
    misha January 15, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    @ksdb:

    My cat licks his bottom. Do you think the bacteria can make him sick?

  462. avatar
    racosta January 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    “we do see that Barry Soetoro was listed as an Indonesian citizen at school in Indonesia. It’s hard to explain that one away.”

    No need to explain it away, in Muslim Indonesia, if adopted, he would have been Barry Obama, so that throws out your sick theory! Remember Indonesia is a Muslim country, and they follow Muslim ideas on adoptions, not your western view! There an adpopted child retains the name of the father, but an idiot like you would not know that. So if he was adopted that registration would say “Barry Obama”!

  463. avatar
    Randy January 15, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    We fought a war so that other countries could not tell us what to do. Indonesian law does not supercede U.S.law.

  464. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    “This post about the Nordyke twins birth announcement. It fortifies the suspicion that the certificate number on the Factcheck COLB is fraudulent.”

    How so? sorry, but its quite the opposite. It proves that the Nordyke Twins, like Obama, were born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii’s Newspapers had announced their births.

    How dos this prove that Fact Check’s COLB is fraudulent. NOW MIND YOU, I have a COLB from Hawaii, dated from 2006 (which is when I moved to CA) – It is the EXACT format as Obama’s, looks the same and uses the same template, along with the SEAL and the stamp and signature on the back.

  465. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    ksdb:
    No document maintained by the DOH contains any statements about persons being a natural born American citizen.’

    Please show us your BC where it says on it “natural born”. None right? Mine certainly doesn’t say anything about being a Natural born citizen. It only says that I was born in Honolulu, HI.

    Sorry, but by the CONSTITUTION, anyone born on US SOIL is an automatic Natural Born citizen.

    No one needs more than a 4th grade education to know this.

  466. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Anyway, I’m sure you’ve gone to the Hawaii newspapers and found the publication of Obama’s name change to Soetoro, right?
    In order for Hawaii to recognize a change, it must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. So, if Obama did, in fact, change his name to Soetoro, you should be able to find that publication.

    correct. When I looked to changing my name (I didn’t however) this was the standard that I needed to follow. and of course notify the SS office of the name change.

  467. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    that is a crazy demand. There are 10 major hospitals on Oahu alone;

    Castle Medical Center
    (3) Kaiser Medical Centers and Hospitals
    Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children
    Kuakini Hospital
    Queens Hospital
    Straub Hospital
    Tripler Army Medical Center
    Wahiawa General Hospital

    each one getting pads of certificates that the hospital would tear out and fill out. How do we even know that the hospitals received consecutive numbered pads; that the ER or Neo Natal ward in each hospital received consecutive numbered pads. How would contacting those born, in those announcements, prove that the “numerical” order would be “off” if they were born at the hospitals above?

    What if 1000 babies were born in one month in 1961 at one hospital, and the other hospital only had 10 babies born?

    this comment is purely stupid

  468. avatar
    Mary Brown January 15, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    This is like the speculation that the long form birth certificate was being created on some sort of machine somewhere. I forget where. It will go on and on because these people cannot believe a person of Obama’s background could or would be elected. They never will. They are sad.

  469. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    ksdb:
    Yes, the COLB is the default certificate that is issued when requests come in. This is sensible and expedient … BUT, if you want copies of your original documents you are legally entitled to get copies and the state must comply with such requests, at reasonable expense to the requestor.

    Absolute bollocks. The only form that Hawaii is required to give their residents is the SHORT FORM COLB. the LONG form is no longer accepted nor GIVEN. NOT even in hospitals.

    YOU should stop commenting on what Hawaii does or does not do since YOU were never born in HAWAII, nor lived there.

    I lived there for 30 years. I KNOW what they do and what is accepted.

  470. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    ksdb: U.S. nationality laws wouldn’t have protected Obama’s U.S. citizenship

    What you say is absurd on the face of it. You seem to be under some delusion that other countries decide who is and who is not a US citizen and the US is powerless to determine the status of its own citizens.

    I mean, listen to yourself!

  471. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 15, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    My BC was filed 6 days after I was born (the Monday following my Tuesday birth). I had no birth announcement in any of the newspapers.

  472. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    You dwell in irrelevancies. Indonesian citizenship (if it existed) could not erase the natural born citizen status of Obama. See the US Supreme Court decision in Perkins v Elg.

  473. avatar
    Mary Brown January 15, 2010 at 10:29 pm #

    He was under 6. Indonesian law could have said anything. He, as an American Citizen, could not lose his citizenship. Supposing my baby grandson went to live with his mom in Indonesia and she married there. Supposing the husband adapted him. He still could not lose his right to American Citizenship. He would still be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. The law very wisely would not allow a foreign nation and a foreign step or adaptive parent to make that choice for him. Why? Laws are created to serve justice. Justice does not serve the law and the framers of the laws of this country knew that and wisely prevented this form of injustice to be perpetarated on young children. Got it.

  474. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    Which means that if the Press found out (or reasonably believed) that Obama was born in Kenya, or that the COLB were forged, then they could freely publish it without fear of a libel suit.

    Hmmm.

  475. avatar
    richCares January 15, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    “absurd” is a birther characteristic! I think this troll has “absurted” enough. Beside proving his ignorance he is wasting space here.

  476. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    ksdb: same statement making this claim and so-called validation included a claim that falls outside the authority of Fukino’s office.

    To the extent I understand this statement, it is nonsense and false on its face.

  477. avatar
    Mary Brown January 15, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    Again, please listen. Under Islamic law and custom adapted children do not take the surname of the adaptive parent or parents. Family identity defined as the birth family, is of utmost importance. Again, children do not take the surname of an adaptive parent. When Soetero registered him as Barry Soetero, he was saying that Obama was his son when the President was not. This is an Islamic society not a western society. This society views adaption in the same way we view a close foster care situation. Families raise children they do not adpat for various reasons. Remember you have to go by Islamic custom and rule. A name change would not occur. And adaption would be regarded as a guadianship and duty not as a formal calling of a child into a family not his or her own. Get over it. He is a citizen and he is President. Get a life.

  478. avatar
    aarrgghh January 15, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    “adopt”

  479. avatar
    Whatever4 January 16, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    It seems to me that the easiest explanation for taking the Soretoro name would have been safety. Indonesia in the mid 1960s was a hotbed of anti-communist, anti-chinese, anti-Old Order violence. The September 30 (1965)Movement led to a bloody purge, with .5 to 1 million dead, 1 million imprisoned. 1967-68 was power change from the Old Order to the New Order. Hundreds of thousands were imprisioned or killed by military and religious groups. Lolo Soetoro had been conscripted to fight communest rebels. What mother would want to take a small child into that?

    I can see Lolo Soetora saying, “Come on honey, we’ll be safe. We can call Barry by my last name. He even looks Polynesian/Indonesian. No one will question it, I work for the government. A bribe here, a bribe there, it’s how things are done. He’ll be safe as a Soetoro. There’s a fine Catholic school he can go to and blend in.”

    I think the odds against adoption are huge.

  480. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    See also Native Born Citizen website
    The Honolulu Advertisers wrote

    They married in 1965, and Soetoro took Dunham and first-grader Obama back to Indonesia at a time of political unrest following the overthrow of President Sukarno.

    First grader would have put Obama at the age of 5-6 or 1966-1967. The overthrow of Sukarno happened in early 1967. So the 1965 is not the year they moved to Indonesia. Did they get married in 1965 or was it 1966-1967 as the other sources suggest?

    Barack himself explains the timeline:

    For two years, from the time I was four until I was six, he endured endless hours of chess with Gramps and long wrestling sessions with me. When my mother sat me down one day to tell me that Lolo had proposed and wanted us to move with him to a faraway place, I wasn’t surprised and expressed no objections. I did ask her if she loved him-I had been around long enough to know such things were important. My mother’s chin trembled, as it still does when she’s fighting back tears, and she pulled me into a long hug that made me feel very brave, although I wasn’t sure why. Lolo left Hawaii quite suddenly after that, and my mother and I spent months in preparation-passports, visas, plane tickets, hotel reservations, an endless series of shots.

    Source: Dreams from My Father, 2004 ed., p.20-21

  481. avatar
    nbc January 16, 2010 at 1:02 am #

    This places Obama in Indonesia in middle to late 1967, close to his 6th birthday.

  482. avatar
    nbc January 16, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    I agree but it was fun rebutting his claims, especially his typo argument which ended up authenticating Obama’s COLB.

    Mission Failed….

  483. avatar
    Lupin January 16, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    As I’ve commented several times, this is a clear case of pathological belief.

    In such cases, contradictory evidence actually reinforces the belief, because it’s totally unconnected to the truth, but finds its source in some deep rooted complex or trauma.

    Assuming “ksdb” isn’t merely a troll out to get your goat, he is a disturbed individual, and the more you irrefutably try to show him the truth, the more you reinforce his delusion.

    There’s been a lot of articles and studies on the subject.

  484. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 2:21 am #

    Yeah, and he won’t answer my questions about space travel, or my cat voting in an election, or cat hygiene.

    What a stick in the mud.

  485. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 16, 2010 at 3:19 am #

    NbC: Of course it is true. But perhaps you can present an actual coherent argument as to why you disagree.
    You do realize that the COLB as Hawaii’s official BC is the prima facie evidence, admissible in court and sufficient to obtain a passport?

    Yup. Passport agency approved my COLB when I applied for one in 1996. I used it to also get a copy of my SSN card. And used it to establish to get a Drivers License.

  486. avatar
    chufho January 16, 2010 at 3:33 am #

    your wrong
    Dingle Barry didn’t register for Selective Service in 1980 because he was an Indonesian citizen on a student visa at the time. He probably still is an Indonesian illegal alien.

  487. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 3:58 am #

    NbC: Which would have been 1967…First grade place Obama in the 5-6 year range

    Do you have a point?? Are you thinking Soetoro would have married SAD in 1965 but wait two years to adopt Obama??

  488. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:00 am #

    NbC: The registration at the Assisi schools shows 1/1/1968 again making it somewhat hard to continue the foolish claim that he was 2-4

    Foolish is ignoring that the Soetoros are said to have been married three years earlier. Now you’re claiming they waited until Barry enrolled for school before adopting him??

  489. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: ksdb: U.S. nationality laws wouldn’t have protected Obama’s U.S. citizenshipWhat you say is absurd on the face of it. You seem to be under some delusion that other countries decide who is and who is not a US citizen and the US is powerless to determine the status of its own citizens.I mean, listen to yourself!

    When you marry an American, adopt her child and move both overseas to your home country, it would have the effect of severing the legal tie to the United States. The U.S. has no power over what an Indonesian citizen does with his family in Indonesia. Think!!

  490. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:05 am #

    richCares: “absurd” is a birther charateristic! I think this troll has “absurted” enough. Beside proving his ignorsnce he is wasting space here.

    ignorsnce?? – You faithers make it so easy.

  491. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:07 am #

    Mary Brown: Again, please listen. Under Islamic law and custom adapted children do not take the surname of the adaptive parent or parents. Family identity defined as the birth family, is of utmost importance. Again, children do not take the surname of an adaptive parent. When Soetero registered him as Barry Soetero, he was saying that Obama was his son when the President was not. This is an Islamic society not a western society. This society views adaption in the same way we view a close foster care situation. Families raise children they do not adpat for various reasons. Remember you have to go by Islamic custom and rule. A name change would not occur. And adaption would be regarded as a guadianship and duty not as a formal calling of a child into a family not his or her own. Get over it. He is a citizen and he is President. Get a life.

    Mary, you’re making a remarkable claim, but you’ve shown nothing to support it … plus, you have a terrible time spelling the word ‘adopt.’ Sorry, but this is not a convincing argument in any respect.

  492. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:16 am #

    NbC: Most sites place the marriage at 66 or 67 so you need something better here to prove’ your point.

    It helps if you read what I wrote. I’ve already acknowledged that this detail is inconsistent … and that the later date for the marriage was convenient toward making Obama old enough not to have been adopted … as if someone were trying to misdirect curious voters. At this point, I see no reason to suspect the Honolulu Advertiser of lying about the 1965 marriage date.

    NbC:
    So you rely on one discrepancy in reporting and consider that the fact.

    No, I notice one discrepancy and consider neither date to be factual without proper documentation.

    NbC: As I stated before, you have no interest in the truth.

    And as I stated before, this is absolutely wrong.

    NbC: Not at all1. The parents lied to get Obama into school2. The school assumedIf you like the source however, you should also accept that it shows Obama born in Honolulu.But I doubt you appreciate the logic of that

    A) They could be lying about everything B) They could be truthful about everything or C) The person who provided the information had some of the facts and was misled about the other facts. All the more reason to demand original birth records, school records, passport records, etc.

  493. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:19 am #

    nbc: This places Obama in Indonesia in middle to late 1967, close to his 6th birthday.

    But it doesn’t preclude an earlier visit in 1965 to get the proper authorities to recognize the adoption of Barry Soetoro had taken place.

  494. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    NbC: That has no foundation in law as SCOTUS has accepted that a minor cannot renounce his US citizenship and thus Obama, in the eyes of US law, remained a US natural born citizen.Simple really

    You read the part I said about overturning the law?? It’s like you’re three or four points behind my arguments and you’re not comprehending all the details. The Soetoros filed for divorce in 1980 and it wasn’t finalized, I believe, until 1988. Unless a legal change had been made in Barry Soetoro’s status, he could have potentially remained an adopted Indonesia citizen until age 27, well over the age for renouncing his U.S. citizenship.

  495. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 4:35 am #

    @ksdb:

    George HW Bush vomited on the Japanese prime minister.

    Do you think the white wine came up with the fish?

  496. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:42 am #

    NbC: So Obama was adopted in Indonesia?

    Maybe, maybe not.

    NbC:
    That would place him older than 5 years by most any credible account.

    IOW, you just ignore the accounts you don’t want to believe. Sorry, but you need to prove why the account in the Honolulu Advertiser is not a credible account. Obama would have been 3 or 4 years old.

    NbC:So no go there. So perhaps you meant, adopted in Hawaii, but such an adoption would not lead to automatic citizenship.

    Ummmm, wrong. Remember, the law says they have up to a year to get the adoption filed. At that point, citizenship is automatic.

    NbC:
    If adopted and found that the adoption was legal by the local Pengadilan Negeri…And citizenship could not be automatic if it would create a dual citizenship conflict.

    That’s absolutely wrong. There is no dual citizenship conflict for adopted children. Indonesia simply refuses to recognize other citizenships. We’ve been over this several times and you’re ignoring the wording of the law and trying to apply sections that have nothing to do with how adoptions are handled.

  497. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:44 am #

    racosta: I don’t under stand this “adoption” discussion. There is no proof that Obama was adopted, merely speculation, speculation that can’t past the smell test. So all these “what ifs” are useless. There is speculation only by birthers, but birthers being idiots, have no creditability. It would be wise to just dismiss ksdb, just ignore him, he has taken too much space already.

    We have a bona fide news photograph of a school document listing Barry Soetoro as an Indonesia citizen. Are you going to whine that the news photographer was ‘speculating’ or that he or she was a so-called ‘birther.’

  498. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:45 am #

    misha: Yeah, and he won’t answer my questions about space travel, or my cat voting in an election, or cat hygiene.What a stick in the mud.

    This is false misha. I answered your silly questions. You just ignored my answers.

  499. avatar
    ksdb January 16, 2010 at 4:46 am #

    misha: @ksdb:My cat licks his bottom. Do you think the bacteria can make him sick?

    No, just the kitty’s owner.

  500. avatar
    Lupin January 16, 2010 at 4:50 am #

    Honestly, I think you guys should stop.

    Either “ksdb” is making fun of you, or he is clearly deranged (not incompatible). If so, you are only reinforcing his delusion by engaging with him.

    This reminds me of a tragedy which happened a few days ago at the University of Perpignan near where I live, where a Chinese foreign exchange student who’d been here since 2005 and had begun to exhibit clear symptoms of paranoid delusions (and was being treated for it) finally snapped and stabbed the dean’s secretary to death and wounded two more persons before he was disarmed and apprehended.

    The testimonies of those who knew him are telling: the man had concocted a seemingly airtight fantasy about a university conspiracy directed against him, and no amount of evidence could convince him otherwise; on the contrary, it only reinforced his sense of alienation.

    Obviously the health professionals seeing him severely underestimated how close he was to the breaking point, and it is tragic that he actually killed a person before he could be stopped.

    What you’re dealing with here is either a “faker” or a deranged person, and I see no point in engaging him. We can only hope that he won’t harm anyone else.

  501. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 4:58 am #

    I think having a illegal alien in the White House is exotic. Much better than the white bread occupants of the past. Or vapid children like Sarah Palin, whose base is white nationalists. I know that the descendants of slaves living in the White House is eating at you, but that’s progress.

    I’ll vote for him again in ’12, just to give malcontents like you conniption fits.

    Then in ’16, I’ll vote for Cory Booker. Better watch your blood pressure.

    Here is a press conference you should watch:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_cdbByTeNE

  502. avatar
    Greg January 16, 2010 at 6:39 am #

    So what if the document shows Obama as an Indonesian citizen? So what if he was an Indonesian citizen?

    It is clear that according to US law, Obama would not lose his citizenship because of adoption in another country. Perkins v. Elg.

  503. avatar
    Greg January 16, 2010 at 6:42 am #

    You’re conceding, chufho? Good for you. There’s hope then.

  504. avatar
    racosta January 16, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    you are 100% correct!
    here’s confirmation of his ignorance:

    We have a bona fide news photograph of a school document listing Barry Soetoro as an Indonesia citizen. Are you going to whine that the news photographer was ’speculating’ or that he or she was a so-called birther.’

    how silly!

  505. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    ksdb: But it doesn’t preclude an earlier visit in 1965 to get the proper authorities to recognize the adoption of Barry Soetoro had taken place.

    The point being that you are asking folks here to prove the theoretical impossibility of highly implausible historical events. Why would anyone want to waste their time on such a mission, when you have already demonstrated that you will deny the proof, or try to wheedle out of sound arguments against you.

    Because you haven’t contributed anything of a factual or evidential nature to the discussion and because you are posting so prolifically that you have basically taken over the discussion and made it difficult for others to follow anything else (this software has limited capability to manage discussions), I am treating you as a troll.

    What I do with trolls is to moderate them, so that their comments do not appear immediately. I further edit all the comments into a single comment and post it once a day, thereby reducing disruption.

    If you ever present some documented evidence of something or make a worthwhile argument, I’ll approve it as soon as I see it.

    Dr. Conspiracy

  506. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    ksdb: When you marry an American, adopt her child and move both overseas to your home country, it would have the effect of severing the legal tie to the United States.

    Prove it.

  507. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    “the kitty’s owner”

    I am not his owner; I am his legal guardian. Don’t you support animal rights?

  508. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    ksdb: Are you thinking Soetoro would have married SAD in 1965 but wait two years to adopt Obama??

    Adoption? You have provided no evidence of an adoption apart from a surname on a school record, which is at best ambiguous. Prove it or move on.

  509. avatar
    racosta January 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    ksdb wrote
    “We have a bona fide news photograph of a school document listing Barry Soetoro as an Indonesia citizen. Are you going to whine that the news photographer was ’speculating’ or that he or she was a so-called birther'”

    I said that was really silly and an example of the troll ksdb’s ignorance! OK!

  510. avatar
    Mary Brown January 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    Thank you Lupin. You are correct. There is nothing that will change this person. Please everyone stop engaging him.

  511. avatar
    Greg January 16, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    When you marry an American, adopt her child and move both overseas to your home country, it would have the effect of severing the legal tie to the United States.

    Nope.

    The actions of the husband in marrying an American, adopting her child and moving both overseas has no effect on the citizenship of either mom or child. Your citizenship cannot be taken away by any action of a third person.

    You could argue that Mom’s actions are inconsistent with continued citizenship, but that’s not enough to lose citizenship. You would have to show that she had taken the actions with the intent to renounce her citizenship. Most people get married because they’re in love, not to lose their citizenship.

    And if the evidence is equivocal, the court will find for citizenship.

    The child here took no affirmative actions of his own that could even plausibly be argued were inconsistent with citizenship. He took no affirmative action on his own.

    At the end of the day, we’re left with, “Maybe he convinced a consular official that he was able to renounce his citizenship.” Which is no better than, “Maybe he was put here by space aliens.”

    That’s the problem with conspiracy theorists, they see any gap in the timeline and fill the gaps with conspiracy – like grout. Then they leave it up to everyone else to disprove their grout, I mean, theory.

  512. avatar
    Greg January 16, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Maybe we should just come up with counter-conspiracies.

    Obama was born in Iowa to Ronald Reagan in his first marriage to an African-American woman. Since it was 1961, six years before Loving would make interracial marriage 100% legal across the land, their marriage broke up. Reagan, being a devout Catholic, wanted the marriage annulled so that he could marry again. Problem: the child. This was 1971. He created the fiction of Obama’s childhood, using his skills from Hollywood. The 4 years in Indonesia were convenient because Stanley Ann’s parents had had a car crash that left holes in their memory, specifically anything earlier than 1970. Stanley could claim that she had had Obama in 1967 and her parents wouldn’t be any wiser.

    Reagan paid off Stanley Ann Dunham to claim that Obama was her child. She put the child with the grandparents, who only learned of the ruse a decade later. Reagan paid all of Obama’s school bills and hired someone to ghost-write his memoirs.

    Obama bore a grudge against the man who had really fathered him. He swore that he would be more charismatic than Reagan, and would win the Presidency with less experience, but more skill. He would then dismantle the entire Reagan legacy. Obama’s final revenge, then, started to come to life when he was elected President.

    Prove me wrong!

  513. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    Ronald Reagan was a dual national, holding citizenship in the Netherlands as well as the US. That’s why they called him “Dutch Reagan” when he was in Hollywood.

  514. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    Obama is also a Flying Dutchman, named after Dutch Reagan.

  515. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    I asked ksdb: “George HW Bush vomited on the Japanese prime minister. Do you think the white wine came up with the fish?”

    He never answered. It is traditional to serve white wine with fish. I think it is competely reasonable to ask if the corollary is true.

  516. avatar
    G January 16, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    Ohhhh misha…LOL! That is sooo gross and yet I can’t stop laughing! Good one! Ba-da bing, ba-da zing!

  517. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    Click on the red button: (bada-bing)

  518. avatar
    misha January 16, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    @Lupin: OT, but European progressives are dismayed at the States. Here: “Sterilized for Being Poor?”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-16/sterilized-for-being-poor/

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis

  519. avatar
    Lupin January 17, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    I can’t pretend to speak for “European progressives” (excluding the UK which is more than ever in the US orbit).

    I would say that, so far, the European consensus across the board is that Obama has been somewhat of a disappointment. (My own opinion is more extreme, but I’m trying to genuinely report what I see or hear or read.)

    The shorter version would be:

    — Most Europeans aren’t aware of the finer points of your health care reform, but give him points for trying.

    — Most Europeans don’t really follow the DOJ’s actions re civil rights, torture, Gitmo, etc. so in that area, he still gets a pass (wholly undeserved IMHO), if only by contrast with GWB.

    — The biggest disappointment here is his perceived inability or unwillingness to come to grips with “Wall Street”, compared to steps taken by France, Germany and even the UK, or historically by FDR. Gethner’s management of the crisis has received no praises as far as I can tell.

    — Obama still gets thumbs up on foreign policy (eg: the Nobel), but again the contrast with GWB is, I think, a powerful factor; his recent decision to go in deeper in Afghanistan has however tarnished this somewhat; our “frame” on “terror” remains substantially different from yours, so a huge gap remains. OTOH, Obama’s Haiti response has been widely praised.

    We do get tidbits of the US’s general lunacy — from Pat Robertson’s insane Devil Pact claim to accusations of Obama being a socialist by the teabaggers to Sarah Palin’s or Glenn Beck’s latest rant — but I think this is discounted as colorful or freakish eccentricities, just as news of a Frenchman eating his weight in cheese or the latest pics of La Bruni in a bikini are perceived in America.

    I don’t think most people here realize there IS a difference, and some (even many) Americans are dead serious about their craziness.

  520. avatar
    ksdb January 17, 2010 at 2:11 am #

    [Compilation of ksdb comments:]

    Scientist: Ronald Reagan was a dual national, holding citizenship in the Netherlands as well as the US. That’s why they called him “Dutch Reagan” when he was in Hollywood.

    Please show your proof.


    Greg: Nope. The actions of the husband in marrying an American, adopting her child and moving both overseas has no effect on the citizenship of either mom or child. Your citizenship cannot be taken away by any action of a third person.

    Actually, there was nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time Obama was born that would have prevented it.

    Greg:You could argue that Mom’s actions are inconsistent with continued citizenship, but that’s not enough to lose citizenship. You would have to show that she had taken the actions with the intent to renounce her citizenship. Most people get married because they’re in love, not to lose their citizenship.

    SAD married two foreign nationals, neither of whom showed any interest in being U.S. residents, and she moved away with one of them. At some point, there had to be some consideration over citizenship issues about whether to retain her own or apply for her husband’s. Being in love shouldn’t make a person that oblivious.

    Greg:And if the evidence is equivocal, the court will find for citizenship. The child here took no affirmative actions of his own that could even plausibly be argued were inconsistent with citizenship. He took no affirmative action on his own. At the end of the day, we’re left with, “Maybe he convinced a consular official that he was able to renounce his citizenship.” Which is no better than, “Maybe he was put here by space aliens.”

    This is a strawman argument that doesn’t have particular bearing on the situation. We’re looking at what appears to be an intercountry adoption into a country that didn’t recognize dual citizenship and wasn’t party to any releveant international conventions. The only real saving grace for the child’s citizenship is moving back to the United States to be under the guardianship of the grandparents. What we don’t know is if Barry Soetoro was still legally Lolo’s child and if he affirmed adopted citizenship in some form as an adult, since the Soetoro divorce was not finalized until well into Barry’s adulthood.

    Greg:

    That’s the problem with conspiracy theorists, they see any gap in the timeline and fill the gaps with conspiracy – like grout. Then they leave it up to everyone else to disprove their grout, I mean, theory.

    This is false on two counts. No conspiracy is suggested by these cirucmstances. And nobody is leaving antyhing up to everyone else’ to disprove anything. There’s really only one person who is saddled with a burden of proof and so far, he’s provided very little.


    Obamaphysics 101: For every criticism of the Messiah, there’s an opposite and unequal overreaction.


    Whatever4: It seems to me that the easiest explanation for taking the Soretoro name would have been safety. Indonesia in the mid 1960s was a hotbed of anti-communist, anti-chinese, anti-Old Order violence. The September 30 (1965)Movement led to a bloody purge, with .5 to 1 million dead, 1 million imprisoned. 1967-68 was power change from the Old Order to the New Order. Hundreds of thousands were imprisioned or killed by military and religious groups. Lolo Soetoro had been conscripted to fight communest rebels. What mother would want to take a small child into that? I can see Lolo Soetora saying, “Come on honey, we’ll be safe. We can call Barry by my last name. He even looks Polynesian/Indonesian. No one will question it, I work for the government. A bribe here, a bribe there, it’s how things are done. He’ll be safe as a Soetoro. There’s a fine Catholic school he can go to and blend in.”I think the odds against adoption are huge.

    How would the name Obama not have been safe under this same scenario?? It doesn’t sound Chinese or communist, does it??


    racosta: “we do see that Barry Soetoro was listed as an Indonesian citizen at school in Indonesia. It’s hard to explain that one away.”No need to explain it away, in Muslim Indonesia, if adopted, he would have been Barry Obama, so that throws out your sick theory! Remember Indonesia is a Muslim country, and they follow Muslim ideas on adoptions, not your western view! There an adpopted child retains the name of the father, but an idiot like you would not know that. So if he was adopted that registration would say “Barry Obama”!

    So why didn’t it say Barry Obama?? Why wasn’t he listed as an American citizen??


    Greg: So what if the document shows Obama as an Indonesian citizen? So what if he was an Indonesian citizen? It is clear that according to US law, Obama would not lose his citizenship because of adoption in another country. Perkins v. Elg.

    Perkins v. Elg (nor any other SCOTUS case I’m aware of) didn’t address a child who had been adopted by a foreign national, particularly in a country that does not recognize dual citizenship. Plus, if Barry Soetoro was still legally Lolo Soetoro’s adopted son up until the divorce to SAD was finalized in 1988 … then Barry was well past the age where his U.S. citizenship would have been protected. Like everything else, it’s just one more murky area that could be cleared up through the release of his personal records.


    misha: “the kitty’s owner”I am not his owner; I am his legal guardian. Don’t you support animal rights?

    Like a divorce … of course. Looks mental abuse where this kitty is involved.

  521. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2010 at 4:22 am #

    I’m not even sure that I’m the legal guardian of my cats. More like their housekeeper.

  522. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2010 at 4:35 am #

    Sorry, but you need to prove why the account in the Honolulu Advertiser is not a credible account.

    Would you care to provide a link to that story?

    Obama would have been 3 or 4 years old.

    Impossible. Obama’s mother graduated the University of Hawaii in 1967. Lolo Soetoro was called by to Indonesia after Sukarno was deposed in March, 1967. Obama’s mother stayed behind to finish her studies and make the preparations necessary to move her and Barack to Indonesia. So it almost certain that Obama had already reached his sixth birthday by the time he arrived in Indonesia.

  523. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2010 at 4:36 am #

    That should be called BACK to Indonesia.

  524. avatar
    Mike January 17, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    I think I’d disagree with the comment re the UK – while national opinion on the US has improved since the 2008 elections, the mood remains substantially skeptical with most people regarding American policy and so on.

    The actions and beliefs of HM Gov are an entirely different matter, of course; while there is probably more impetus in Govt circles to preserve the “special relationship”, I think by and large public opinion in the UK favours the following optimal solutions, in this order: 1. Being left alone by everyone (people increasingly look to a more isolationist foreign policy); 2. Remaining part of the EU, begrudgingly; 3. maintaining special relations with the US.

    I think the pervasive attitude of Euroskepticism has softened somewhat in recent years, albeit with the occasional resurgence around events like the constitutional treaty (deservedly so, IMO), and the pro-American attitude has withered a little in consequence.

  525. avatar
    Lupin January 17, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    I entirely agree with what you wrote; I was referring more to the official government position (Blair especially, then Brown).

    I think seeing the pound reach parity with the euro was a powerful factor in convincing many ordinary Brits that maybe they should embrace Europe more. πŸ™‚

  526. avatar
    Mike January 17, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Definitely, although patriotically, I must point out the current exchange rate :p

    I think the very widespread and public dissatisfaction in the UK with the fact that we were misled into the Iraq war has strengthened pro-European tendencies.

    As to the EU – I conceptually support it myself, but in practice, it needs some fundamental changes, particularly in the area of the democratic deficit.

  527. avatar
    NbC January 17, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Poor K, still void of any understanding of law, precedent legal cases relating to children being able to renounce their citizenship, or Wong Kim Ark which ruled that any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of its parents, is a natural born with minor exceptions.

    And of course he is still licking his wounds after his missing space argument ended up strengthening the authenticity of Obama’s COLB

    Mission Failed

  528. avatar
    NbC January 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    This is false on two counts. No conspiracy is suggested by these cirucmstances. And nobody is leaving antyhing up to everyone else’ to disprove anything. There’s really only one person who is saddled with a burden of proof and so far, he’s provided very little.

    Don’t be too hard on yourself…

    You are facing the task of having to rebut a prima facie legal document that shows Obama, by any standard born on US soil.

  529. avatar
    NbC January 17, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    Actually, there was nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time Obama was born that would have prevented it.

    I see you are unfamiliar with SCOTUS precedents in this area.

    I am not surprised.

  530. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    ksdb: That’s why they called him “Dutch Reagan” when he was in Hollywood.
    Please show your proof.

    “”Dutch” Reagan
    By Jane Runyon

    Jack Reagan looked at his second son when he was born. He laughed and said that he looked like a “fat little Dutchman.” That was all that it took for a nickname to be attached to the boy. Ronald Wilson Reagan was known as Dutch throughout his growing years.

  531. avatar
    NbC January 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    That’s about the extent of KSDB’s ‘proof’…

    Hilarious

  532. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    Nothing a person does at the age of 7 or 8 counts against them in adulthood, not even murder. So, ANYTHING that happened while Obama was in Indonesia before the age of 10 is simply irrelevant. Not even worth discussing.

    We are a year into Obama’s Presidency now. Surely, we should be discussing actual policies rather than events that ocurred when he was a child?

  533. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    If it actually were the case that a US Citizen, born in the United States, could lose their citizenship merely through the process of being adopted by a foreign national, then one would expect those promoting such a theory to produce an example or evidence, such as one of the following:

    • An example of someone who lost such citizenship and sued to get it back
    • A textbook or other book on the topic of citizenship that says this can happen
    • A newspaper account of it happening
    • A government regulation saying what to do when it happens (e.g. if such a person should apply for a US passport.

    I’ve read extensively in these areas, and never seen any such thing.

  534. avatar
    Whatever4 January 17, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    ksdb: How would the name Obama not have been safe under this same scenario?? It doesn’t sound Chinese or communist, does it??

    It’s not so much the sound of the name as what goes along with it — like 8 aunts and uncles, a horde of cousins (some who lived next door), a Grandmother, a stepfather, a mother. As an Obama, Barry would be different. As a Soetoro, he’d be one of many. Which is more obvious?

    Interesting article (from a Wikipedia link)
    http://www.jawapos.com/halaman/index.php?act=detail&nid=34068

    Pretty bad Google Translation, though. Interesting to note that the article refers to Barry Soetoro. It also says: “Although only a stepchild, aka Barry Soetoro Obama was treated like a son by Soetoro.” Interviews with other relatives.

  535. avatar
    Black Lion January 17, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    That is a great conspiracy….It could be possible…Who knows? It is more plausible than the theory that somehow Stanley Ann flew 3 days to Kenya to have Barack in 1961…

  536. avatar
    ksdb January 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If it actually were the case that a US Citizen, born in the United States, could lose their citizenship merely through the process of being adopted by a foreign national, then one would expect those promoting such a theory to produce an example or evidence, such as one of the following:An example of someone who lost such citizenship and sued to get it backA textbook or other book on the topic of citizenship that says this can happenA newspaper account of it happeningA government regulation saying what to do when it happens (e.g. if such a person should apply for a US passport.I’ve read extensively in these areas, and never seen any such thing.

    Outgoing adoptions from the United States are evidently rare .. I saw an estimate of about 500, I assume per year. Check this out:

    A child being adopted from the United States to another Convention country retains his/her U.S. citizenship. He or she may also acquire the citizenship of the prospective adoptive parents depending on the citizenship status of the parents and the laws of the other Convention country. In other words, the child may become a dual citizen. The Convention requires that the emigrating child be authorized to reside permanently in the receiving country.

    http://adoption.state.gov/hague/outgoing/citizenship.html

    Here it suggests most countries would recognize dual citizenship … but nothing about those which are not Hague Convention countries, such as Indonesia that we know does not recognize dual citizenship. Notice too, that is says the child retains its citizenship if adopted to a Convention country … it doesn’t say ALL countries … which suggests that in an international court, U.S citizenship for an adopted minor may not be protected. The question isn’t just about Barry Soetoro being an Indonesian citizen as a child but whether he voluntarily acted as an Indonesian citizen as an adult, still being the legal child of Lolo Soetoro.

  537. avatar
    ksdb January 17, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    Whatever4: It’s not so much the sound of the name as what goes along with it — like 8 aunts and uncles, a horde of cousins (some who lived next door), a Grandmother, a stepfather, a mother. As an Obama, Barry would be different. As a Soetoro, he’d be one of many. Which is more obvious?Interesting article (from a Wikipedia link)http://www.jawapos.com/halaman/index.php?act=detail&nid=34068 Pretty bad Google Translation, though. Interesting to note that the article refers to Barry Soetoro. It also says: “Although only a stepchild, aka Barry Soetoro Obama was treated like a son by Soetoro.” Interviews with other relatives.

    Thanks for engaging in an open, civil and logical discussion … when this story was written they may have been repeating the ‘official’ story about Obama being a stepchild. The publication date looks like it was right at the time Obama was elected — it’s not like this is being written as an investigative piece. What is unclear is if in reality, Barry was treated like Lolo’s son because he legally was.

    If Barry was given the Soetoro surname for protection, one would think it would be an interesting side story for Obama to talk about somewhere, such as in one of his books. Instead, no mention of an alternate surname is ever brought up, leaving an unexplained footnote after the school registration was found by the press.

  538. avatar
    Greg January 17, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    This is false on two counts. No conspiracy is suggested by these cirucmstances. And nobody is leaving antyhing up to everyone else’ to disprove anything. There’s really only one person who is saddled with a burden of proof and so far, he’s provided very little.

    1. You’re right, no conspiracy, just an agreement to lie about his alleged adoption by his mother, step-father and grandparents.

    2. The 0-67 record confirms that the person with the burden has consistently failed to meet it. Obama, on the other hand, has proved his bona fides to the satisfaction of 69 million Americans.

  539. avatar
    ksdb January 17, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    NbC: Don’t be too hard on yourself…You are facing the task of having to rebut a prima facie legal document that shows Obama, by any standard born on US soil.

    If it’s such good evidence, one would think Obama’s legal team would simply show it in a courtroom to get a quicker dismissal of any lawsuits. Instead, the best they do is to point to an unofficial Web site as if it has any legal authority to authenticate the COLB, when the amateur ‘investigators’ couldn take clear pictures of the alleged document nor even set the right date on a digital camera. Jpgs and digital photos are not prima facie evidence. Sorry, but you have nothing.

  540. avatar
    Greg January 17, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    Perkins v. Elg (nor any other SCOTUS case I’m aware of) didn’t address a child who had been adopted by a foreign national, particularly in a country that does not recognize dual citizenship.

    So, you’re saying that when the court said that no third party could take away the citizenship of a minor, they weren’t talking about adoptions?

    Why don’t you actually read the case now. Tell me what the case says that leads you to believe that it should be limited only to its facts. You might also want to read Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas. That last case said this:

    The Court today unanimously reiterates the principle set forth in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , that Congress may not deprive an American of his citizenship against his will, but may only effectuate the citizen’s own intention to renounce his citizenship.

    How does Obama being adopted prove that he, personally, intended to renounce his US citizenship?

  541. avatar
    Greg January 17, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    And before you get to the nonsense about how none of the cases have gotten to the merits, read Iqbal and Twombly. The birther cases wouldn’t survive the pleading standard set forth in those cases, even if you could prove standing.

  542. avatar
    Greg January 17, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    Whoops, meant to reply to my post below.

  543. avatar
    ksdb January 17, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Just an extra couple of notes: Why Obama didn’t lose his original birth certificate that was written about in his book. First, Obama was a Harvard lawyer … record keeping would be very important and routine. Second, he was a community organizer where record keeping would be very important and routine. Third, he was a state politician where record keeping would be very important routine. Fourth, he was a frequent international traveler, where keeping personal records would be very important and routine. Fifth, he kept his grandfather’s paspport as a personal memento(and used it??) and he apparently places great value on personal documents. Sixth, he’s an obvious metrosexual. So, we’re to think Obama might have lost his original copy of his birth certificate?? No way.

    Next, the Nordyke twins newspaper announcement casts some doubt that Barry was born in the same hospital, and perhaps not in a hospital at all. Barry was born after the close of normal business hours on a Friday. The Nordyke twins were born Saturday from the same weekend. Logically, these two births would have been documented and registered with the state at the same time. Instead, Obama’s is registered the following Tuesday, while the Nordyke certificate isn’t registered until Friday. Why the delay?? Mother Nordyke signed the certificate Monday, but the doctor didn’t sign it till Friday. The reason might have been that doctors don’t sign the certificate until releasing the patients from the hospital. Nordyke’s doctor signed it on Aug. 11 and it was accepted that same day by the registrar. If similar procedures were followed for Obama, his certificate wouldn’t have been filed until Aug. 10, not Aug. 8. This leaves open the possibility that Obama wasn’t born in the hospital at all. Instead, the birth may have been unattended and was reported by persons unknown on Aug. 8 directly to the registrar. This scenario also helps explain why Obama has a higher certificate number than the Nordykes. The Nordyke number could have been issued when the mother signed the certificate on Aug. 7 and the Obama number could have been issued when the birth was registered with the state on Aug. 8. Having a birth certificate submitted and signed by the grandmother – with no attending physician – would create a lot of questions that Obama doesn’t want to answer — probably because he can’t, and maybe he doesn’t really know for sure where he was really born. Seeing a certified copy of the original birth record would help clear up any questions.

  544. avatar
    misha January 17, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    “I’ve read extensively in these areas, and never seen any such thing.”

    Facts have never gotten in the way of denialists.

  545. avatar
    Joseph January 17, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    “Scientist” erroneously stated, “Nothing a person does at the age of 7 or 8 counts against them in adulthood, not even murder.”. That proves that he does not know or understand anything concerning the operation of law. In 1997, Michigan ruled a child, no matter how young, can be tried and sentenced as an adult (the law still stands and is regularly enforced) – and when a child of any age is tried as an adult in any state, the criminal record that is created is not sealed or expunged when the child reaches the age of majority. “Scientist” is a typical delusional Obama supporter, he, like all the rest, simply makes up imaginary laws to support the fables he posts and hopes that no one comes along and discovers that he is lying.

  546. avatar
    Joseph January 17, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    Who has PROVEN that Obama ever possessed U.S. Citizenship? Don’t give me the b/s about how “69 million” voted for him, that has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen” or whether or not he meets the required Constitutional qualifications to hold office. The U.S.A. is NOT a “democracy” (which equates to little more than mob rule), it is a “REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC”, which is governed by the rule of law. “Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253” is by no stretch of the imagination applicable to Obama’s situation and you should know better than to post such bold faced lies. If you are a licensed Attorney at Law, you will soon be disbarred for malpractice and misapplication of citations. Any client of yours will be robbed and ruined before his case ever gets to trial!

  547. avatar
    Joseph January 17, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    “Scientist” – The law must be upheld! You very foolishly stated, “Surely, we should be discussing actual policies rather than events that ocurred when he was a child?”. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG – your comment proves beyond all reasonable doubt you have no respect for the rule of law!

  548. avatar
    NbC January 18, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    Excellent point. Those poor birthers have no understanding of Constitutional Law.

    Suckers.

  549. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    Now that Obama is in office, the burden falls on your side to prove that he is not. Since you have no evidence, your side is still born.

  550. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    ksdb seems to think that a self-registration is quicker than a hospital registration. This is not the case.

  551. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    ksdb: This has been discussed at length here before. Go back and read the history. The “short form” is that no birth certificate will satisfy those determined to maintain the smear campaign for political purposes.

  552. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    So are you admitting that your “legal theory” of loss of citizenship through adoption has left no tracks in the law, the courts, government regulation or the news? If all this is the case, then where did YOU come up with it from?

  553. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    Why would Indonesia being a Hague signatory or not have anything to do about whether the United States considered him a citizen?

  554. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    Joseph, simply saying that Afroyim is not applicable is not an argument. It is a conclusory statement. Read the case and tell me how, exactly, it is not applicable. I’d wager you haven’t read the case, and are simply parroting the so-called analysis of “lawyers” like Taitz.

    As for my skill as a lawyer, that’s rich coming from a group that is 0-67 in legal cases. If your clients were paying for their legal services, they’d be as monetarily bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt!

  555. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    The quickest dismissal is one based on jurisdiction. If Obama were to dispute the facts, he could not get summary judgment. You guys are completely ignorant of the law.

    Maybe you should learn something about the law before you start a debate about it!

  556. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    Let’s apply Occam’s razor – which is more likely? Obama lost his birth certificate, or Obama forged a COLB?

    And a much simpler possibility for the differing signature dates is that the physician delivering Obama was a weekday physician and the one delivering Nordyke was a weekender.

    Iqbal and Twombly say that you cannot simply string together facts into a conspiracy tale. You have to give facts that, on their face, are more than just consistent with your tale, but suggest a violation of law.

    As for Obama’s grandmother, even if Obama’s grandmother signed an affidavit to get the birth certificate, it would have the same legal effect. It would still be a legal document attested to by the State of Hawaii. Grandma’s signature would be admissible hearsay under FRE 803.19. In fact, you would now have two pieces of evidence of Obama’s birth you would have to disprove rather than one.

  557. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2010 at 9:52 am #

    Joseph: The U.S.A. is NOT a “democracy” (which equates to little more than mob rule), it is a “REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC”

    Actually the Constitution mentions Republican form of government only with regard to the states (Article 4) and not the Federal government. And I don’t think most Americans would like a Republic without democracy-see the Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS or the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran.

    What you birthers neglect is that Article 2 lays out clearly that the President is required not just to be a naturally born citizen over 35 years of age. If that were the case, about 250 million people would be President. The President must also be elected. In fact, the manner of the election comes before natural born citizen in the Constitution. So whoever you wish to install in the Presidency in place of Obama would be illegitimate, since they would not have been elected.

  558. avatar
    Rickey January 18, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Notice too, that is says the child retains its citizenship if adopted to a Convention country … it doesn’t say ALL countries … which suggests that in an international court, U.S citizenship for an adopted minor may not be protected.

    Even in the unlikely event that your conclusion is true, it is irrelevant. For purposes of “natural born citizen” status, the only relevant law is United States law.

    Of course, “suggests” and “may” are weasel words used when there are no actual facts to back up your theories. Show us one case where someone was born in the U.S., adopted by someone in a foreign country, and was subsequently ruled by an international court to no longer be a U.S. citizen. You can’t do it, because it has never happened.

    The question isn’t just about Barry Soetoro being an Indonesian citizen as a child but whether he voluntarily acted as an Indonesian citizen as an adult, still being the legal child of Lolo Soetoro.

    No, the question is – where is your evidence that Obama was EVER the legal child of Lolo Soetoro? Incidentally, I noticed that you never responded to an earlier note where I pointed out that Obama could not possibly have been “3 or 4 years old” when he moved to Indonesia, as you have claimed. Lolo was called back to Indonesia when Sukarno was deposed in March of 1967, and Obama and his mother stayed behind while she finished her studies at the University of Hawaii (Class of 1967). Obama was almost 6 years old when his mother received her degree.

    I have also noticed that the birthers never mention this passage from Obama’s book, where he talks about his relationship with Lolo while the lived in Indonesia:

    “So it was to Lolo that I turned for guidance and instruction. He didn’t talk much, but he was easy to be with. With is family and friends he introduced me as his son, but he never pressed things beyond matter-of-fact advice or pretended that our relationship was more than it was.”

    That doesn’t sound like someone describing his adoptive father. In fact, it sounds like a fairly typical stepfather-stepson relationship.

  559. avatar
    NbC January 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    which suggests that in an international court, U.S citizenship for an adopted minor may not be protected.

    I notice all uncertainties in your ‘argument’ combined with an appeal to international court rather than US Court.

    What a fool.

  560. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    Maybe he has his original BC and he simply can’t be bothered to look for it and release it. And frankly, why should he? There is no legal requirement to release anything, including the COLB. None. Zero. Most of his predecessors in the Oval Office released nothing at all in the way of personal info. They left their papers to be studied by scholars long after they left office.

    Where required by state law, Obama cerified under penalty of perjury that he met the requirements to be President. And that oath by itself has presumptive standing that has to be overcome by some evidence. And what actual evidence (as opposed to speculation) do the birthers have to rebut the presumption that he was born in Hawaii? None. Zero. The depositions of Pastor McRae and the Kenyan “Reverend’ are valueless, since they were not present at the birth. When you have a sworn deposition from someone who actually claims to have been present at a birth in Kenya or anywhere else outside the US, let me know. The bottom line is that past and current laws do not require a presidential candidate to show a darned thing and few of them have. You want to change the law? Go ahead and try, but nothing can be applied ex post facto to the 2008 election.

    So there is no legal reason for Obama to show his original BC (assuming he has it). There is no political reason either. Showing the COLB made zero impact on the campaign. Simply a non-factor in the polls. There are no votes to be won or lost over this birther stuff. You birthers wouldn’t support Obama if there was video of his being born in Times Square and proof from DNA testing that his Dad was Wilt Chamberlain (not out of the question given his reported sexual exploits).

    Nope. Obama has already released more than the law requires. If I were he, I probably wouldn’t have even done that much. He is 100% justified in ignoring the issue from that point forward. You may not like it, but that is the reality, both legally and politically.

  561. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    My understanding is that the Obama campaign ordered a number of copies of the COLB to meet state filing requirements. Even if Obama still has the certificate mentioned in his autobiography, it may be a hospital souvenir and not a certified copy. If it is a real state-certified copy, it is what one might call “obsolete”. Obama published the current version.

    I see no evidence to suggest that whatever document Obama came across when he was in high school is either lost or not.

  562. avatar
    SFJeff January 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    What a wierd bunch of assumptions. I want to comment on just this one:

    “Fourth, he was a frequent international traveler, where keeping personal records would be very important and routine”

    I started travelling internationally 30 years ago and am on I think my third passport. I have no ‘personal records’ kept regarding my travel and have no idea where my BC is.

    And that ‘metrosexual’ thing is just bizarre.

  563. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 18, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    The only “personal records” that frequent international travelers need to have readily available are their current passport and their vaccination records. In some cases they may also need other information for travel to some countries, such as proof of medical insurance — but these requirements tend to be focused on current information, not historical personal data.

  564. avatar
    ksdb January 18, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: ksdb: This has been discussed at length here before. Go back and read the history. The “short form” is that no birth certificate will satisfy those determined to maintain the smear campaign for political purposes.

    Sorry, but you’re making excuses based on a strawman argument so you don’t have to admit there are several holes in Obama’s ‘official’ story and that there are legitimate questions that can’t be answered by the presentation of an unauthenticated jpg.

  565. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Notice too, that is says the child retains its citizenship if adopted to a Convention country … it doesn’t say ALL countries … which suggests that in an international court, U.S citizenship for an adopted minor may not be protected

    This is referring to the Hague Convention on Adoption, which was written in 1993 and went into force in the US in 2008. The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions of Nationality has this to say about citizenship:

    Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State.

    I don’t see anything in the newer Hague Convention that suggests that Obama would have lost his citizenship in the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court has been clear that the Constitution trumps treaties, even the Hague Convention. The right to citizenship is a Constitutional Right, so no treaty can take it away without the consent of the person involved.

  566. avatar
    ksdb January 18, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So are you admitting that your “legal theory” of loss of citizenship through adoption has left no tracks in the law, the courts, government regulation or the news? If all this is the case, then where did YOU come up with it from?

    I’ve explained quite clearly where I came up with it and have cited the relevant laws. I don’t expect a United States court to rule that Obama lost his U.S. nationality unless a court case revealed records indicating that Obama maintained and acted with singular Indonesia citizenship into his adulthood. An absence of similar legal cases prior to this is irrelevant. It would be, as Obama likes to say, unprecedented.

  567. avatar
    ksdb January 18, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Greg: Why would Indonesia being a Hague signatory or not have anything to do about whether the United States considered him a citizen?

    It’s not about what the United States would recognize IN the United States, but what protection the State Department would be able to provide for an adopted former citizen in another country. For example, a former U.S. citizen might violate the law in his new country and want U.S. protection, but without dual citizenship being recognized in that country, the U.S. would be unable to provide much help. It might affect whether someone could travel on a U.S. passport after being adopted or whether the U.S. could legally issue a passport to such a person in another country. The Hague Convention gives more legal protections for member countries.

  568. avatar
    ksdb January 18, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    NbC: I notice all uncertainties in your argument’ combined with an appeal to international court rather than US Court.What a fool.

    Nonsense. This isn’t about uncertainties, but where the dispute takes place and if another nation’s law have precedence and must be considered. Under a legal adoption with another country, there’s not really another way around it.

  569. avatar
    ksdb January 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    Greg: This is referring to the Hague Convention on Adoption, which was written in 1993 and went into force in the US in 2008. The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions of Nationality has this to say about citizenship: I don’t see anything in the newer Hague Convention that suggests that Obama would have lost his citizenship in the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court has been clear that the Constitution trumps treaties, even the Hague Convention. The right to citizenship is a Constitutional Right, so no treaty can take it away without the consent of the person involved.

    The section prior to what you quoted says:

    It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.

    This suggests that if Indonesian law made Barry Soetoro a singular Indonesian citizen, then the U.S. would recognize this under international law. Part 17 says:

    If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of adoption, this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.

    Certainly someone would have recognized that an adoption to Indonesia would result in a potential loss of U.S. citizenship, which could have been prevented by simply disallowing such an adoption. Once formalized, then any dispute would technically need to be referred to an International court.

    If there should arise between the High Contracting Parties a dispute of any kind relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention and if such dispute cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, it shall be settled in accordance with any applicable agreements in force between the parties providing for the settlement of international disputes.

    In case there is no such agreement in force between the parties, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration or judicial settlement, in accordance with the constitutional procedure of each of the parties to the dispute. In the absence of agreement on the choice of another tribunal, the dispute shall be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, if all the parties to the dispute are parties to the Protocol of 16 December 1920 relating to the Statute of that Court, and if any of the parties to the dispute is not a party to the Protocol of 16 December 1920, the dispute shall be referred to an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts.

  570. avatar
    Bovril January 18, 2010 at 5:15 pm #

    The only vaccination record people USED to keep was the old bright yellow UN vaccination booklet that was used particularly if you had to keep having the 6 monthly cholera jabs……Oh happy days…I haven’t seen those is 25 years

    My God that’s it…..Birther proof that is all a UN/NWO plot……yippee

  571. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    If it’s such good evidence, one would think Obama’s legal team would simply show it in a courtroom to get a quicker dismissal of any lawsuits.

    The quickest way is a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing my confused friend. Why should the legal team, which has only been involved in a handful of cases, present a document when there are much quicker ways to resolve these issues?

    SO far it’s 64-0 and you claim I have nothing πŸ™‚

    You’re so funny. What I have is a certified COLB with raised seal and signature with all relevant items confirmed. Furthermore, the document is prima facie legal evidence.

    You on the other hand, had an accusation of forgery based on a missing space, which turned out to strengthen the authenticity of the document.

    Good job pal…

  572. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    GregMaybe you should learn something about the law before you start a debate about it!

    KSDB is not interested in facts, just insinuations. Ignorance is his weapon and denial his retreat.

  573. avatar
    Rickey January 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    Even if Obama still has the certificate mentioned in his autobiography, it may be a hospital souvenir and not a certified copy.

    Good point. My “original” birth certificate, which was found in my mother’s records after she died, is signed by the local registrar but is not certified and has no raised seal. The copy which I obtained in 1988 is signed by the registrar and has a raised seal.

    The “original” was universally accepted forty years ago, but likely would not be accepted today.

  574. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    ksdb: I’ve explained quite clearly where I came up with it and have cited the relevant laws.

    I suppose one might say finally you have explained your rationale. But I see your reading of the Hague Convention on Adoption as faulty. The main problem is that Indonesia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, so however it is read is moot, and you still don’t have a scrap of law to back up your theory.

    However, if the Hague Convention were in effect, your reading is still defective. For your contention to be valid based on the very treaty you cite, there would have to be some provision in US law that supports it. Until you cough up such US law, those provisions are not in effect, even if Indonesia were a signatory to the Hague Convention on Adoption, which it isn’t.

    One cannot gloss over major defects like that.

  575. avatar
    racosta January 18, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    man, that idiot ksdb has a vivid imagination, he continully makes up crap to support a silly idea. Is he aware that the election is over and Obama has been president for over a year.

  576. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    This suggests that if Indonesian law made Barry Soetoro a singular Indonesian citizen, then the U.S. would recognize this under international law.

    They would recognize that he was an Indonesian citizen. That’s not the question. The question is whether they would recognize that Obama lost his United States citizenship.

    They would not recognize that.

    Article 1 would permit Indonesia to refuse to recognize Obama’s US Citizenship, but it does not require the United States to revoke Obama’s citizenship.

    Which is good, because if it did, it would conflict with the Constitution (see cases cited above), and according to the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, it is the Supreme Law of the land, trumping even multilateral treaties like the Hague Convention.

    If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of adoption, this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.

    The United States does NOT recognize that its citizenship can be lost by adoption alone. Unless we’re talking about the adoption of an adult, there is no voluntary act on the part of the adoptee. There certainly isn’t inherent in the act of BEING adopted that evidences a clear intention to renounce one’s US Citizenship!

    Once formalized, then any dispute would technically need to be referred to an International court.

    And, how would this dispute come up? Theoretically, Indonesia doesn’t recognize Obama’s US citizenship, but the US doesn’t believe he ever lost that citizenship. According to Article 2 of the Convention, you don’t go by Indonesian law to determine US citizenship, you use US LAW.

    And do you have any evidence that Indonesia expressed any reservations to Article 2? As far as I can tell, no country has ever expressed any reservations about Article 2.

  577. avatar
    Greg January 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    It’s not about what the United States would recognize IN the United States, but what protection the State Department would be able to provide for an adopted former citizen in another country.

    So, Obama shouldn’t rely on the State Department when he’s in Indonesia. He should rely on the Secret Service instead.

    We’re not arguing about whether Obama is a citizen of Indonesia, but whether by dint of that citizenship he lost his US citizenship.

    He could not, because US Constitutional law is SUPREME – it’s in the title of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution!

    The Constitution trumps international treaties.

    Just like the Hulk can beat up Spiderman, the Constitution always wins in a fight against treaties.

    Citizenship is a Constitutional right, which cannot be taken away without the actual consent of the person. Afroyim v. Rusk.

    It can’t be taken away by the Congress.

    It can’t be taken away by treaty.

    It certainly can’t be taken away by Indonesia!

    The adoption, then, without more, did nothing to Obama’s citizenship. It could not do anything to Obama’s citizenship.

    As for an action later in Obama’s life, simply continuing to be Indonesian would not be enough. You’d have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Obama took an affirmative act with the intent to renounce his US Citizenship. Vance v. Terrazas.

    In other words, you cannot simply prove an expatriating act, you have to separately and distinctly prove an intent to renounce US citizenship.

    Let’s see.

    Obama returned to the US at age 10, lived here continuously until the present day. He traveled briefly abroad in 1981 for, what, a couple of months? On this trip, he was identified in France as a US student. He then returned to the United States where he got a law degree, ran for office and then ran for the Presidency.

    I’m not sure where you’re going to find the intent to expatriate there.

    Do you understand what I’m talking about when I say “intent?”

    Just to be clear, we’re talking specific intent here. You have to prove not that Obama intended to get an Indonesian passport (or whatever expatriating act you’re alleging) but that he intended to renounce his citizenship. Or, as the court put it, “the trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship.”

    John Yoo of the Justice Department wrote a memo on how to prove denaturalization. Here’s what Yoo says about expatriation:

    In sum, expatriating an individual on the ground that, after reaching the age of 18, a person has obtained foreign citizenship or declared allegiance to a foreign state generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. An express statement of renunciation of U.S. citizenship would suffice.

  578. avatar
    Greg January 19, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    Hague CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

    Where’s the part there that deals with citizenship or nationality?

  579. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 2:53 am #

    I’m a good example. I was born in NYC. In Israel, I was asked to serve in the IDF. So I went to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and talked with a legal affairs officer. I asked, if I served in a foreign army would I lose my US citizenship, because there is that proviso.

    He told me “no.” I was told in order to lose my US citizenship, I would have to renounce it in writing. Which of course I would never do. So here is someone who served in a foreign army, and came back to the States on his US passport.

    Sorry birthers.

  580. avatar
    Dick Whitman January 19, 2010 at 6:22 am #

    If Barry does not have a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) on file with the U.S. State Department, then he never lost his U.S. Citizenship.

    There should also be a Statement of Understanding with witness signatures, an Oath of Renunciation and a complete record of US State Department contacts with Barry because he was a minor when he renounced.

    Let’s see the file.

  581. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2010 at 6:30 am #

    John Walker Lindh not only fought in a foreign army, he fought against US forces. Not only did he retain his citizenship, but the US government agreed to feed and shelter him for the next 20 or 30 years

  582. avatar
    Greg January 19, 2010 at 7:05 am #

    If Barry does not have a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) on file with the U.S. State Department, then he never lost his U.S. Citizenship.

    Exactly! And, of course there’s no evidence of any such Certificate.

  583. avatar
    northland10 January 19, 2010 at 7:48 am #

    Mr Whitman,

    Let me see if I get this straight. You want, I assume the President, to prove that he did not renounce by showing you a file that does not exist. Yet if he, or the State Department, showed you this, the claim would be that the filed was sealed or scrubbed.

    So, your results would be:

    1. File with information on his renouncing US citizenship when a youth

    or

    2. Empty file, which will be claimed as sealed or scrubbed, thus, he still renounced.

    What would be his motivation here?

  584. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Sven: please crawl back under your rock.

    Thank you.