Main Menu

391 Responses to Doc Live

  1. avatar
    richCares May 26, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    Enjoyed the first half, the second half had another show or voices bleeding through,so was hard to hear.

  2. avatar
    DaveH May 26, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    That was a good show last night Doc.

  3. avatar
    Epectitus May 26, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

    Enjoyed the show Doc. You sound like you look. I’ll leave others to judge whether that is good or bad.

    πŸ˜‰

  4. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    I finally had the chance to pull it up and hear the whole thing. Good interview Doc C. I didn’t have any problems with the audio at any point. I do have to say that Doc C sounds just like I expected him to – very calm, measured and knowledgeable.

    It was also great to hear GeorgetownJD & Epectitus add their insights as well, so kudos and major appreciation to all of you for your time and contributions!

    One of the interesting things about radio is you learn things about your fellow posters that you might not have been able to gleen, just from their texts. (For instance, I never knew that GeorgetownJD was a she until now.) It was really good to see her insights and I’m glad she stayed on the show as long as she did, as I haven’t seen as many posts from her in some time.

    Doc C – Reality Check radio mentioned adding another “special” show sometime later this week, since there wasn’t enough time to cover all the planned topics. Can you post about that one too when it happens? Thanks.

  5. avatar
    charo May 27, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    This could be on the de Vattel thread but technically could fit here as an offshoot subject of the radio show spot because the thread was mentioned. I was listening but also looking at other sites (only wingnut ones- just kidding πŸ™‚ )and my computer froze. I didn’t feel like listening all over again from the beginning so I assume the rest of the show was of the same quality as the segment I heard.

    I was actually looking at the following:

    http://www.rcarterpittman.org/essays/documents/Jasper_Yeates.html

    Pennsylvania statesmen knew of De Vattel (the work was not referenced for the citizenship issue). Maybe this link has already been noted elsewhere. I only had a chance to scan the notes, and they were fascinating.

    *See note 21 (referencing Mr. Findley )

  6. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    That was a good find, charo. However, outside of being an interesting general find on Constitutional history, I’m not sure I understand what point you are trying to make, in context of the purpose of this blog site.

    Nobody has claimed that De Vattel wasn’t referenced by the founders. The point is that he was never referenced by them in regards to citizenship; which as you yourself have pointed out, is not the topic at all in any of the references to him in this document transcript.

    Did you actually read the document you sent us, or just search for references to Vattel and then post here? I went to and read your link, so I’m not sure what you find so interesting about note #21, as the whole statement “The Supreme Power is placed in the People”, is in reference to the debated issue about the general roles of power in the new government, as part of the discussion referenced in regards to the three objections to the proposed Constitution which were being discussed at that point, as a continuation of the discussion from the previous day.

    Specifically, per that document they were:

    Mr. Smiley

    1st Objection. Want of a Bill of Rights

    2. The Government is a consolidated one and will swallow up the State Legislature.
    3. The Senate has a dangerous Power of Corrupting by their Offices, the Representatives of the People

  7. avatar
    NbC May 27, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    Vattel surely was known and consulted, with various others on issues of international law. However citizenship is not a international law issue but rather a municipal law issue. No self respecting state would allow other countries to define who are and are not its citizens.

  8. avatar
    charo May 27, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    So hang me. I never said there was a connection but just found all of the notes fascinating (if you would have read the context). I said that because they captured history. I only pointed out note 21 because de Vattel was referenced there and said above it had nothing to do with the citizenship issue. I’ll make sure to never state anything outside the strict confines of birtherhood again. Excuse me for failure to explain that the * did not point out what is fascinating but only the de Vattel reference.

    Just ready to pounce, eh? Scott Brown, come forth. They need you here.

  9. avatar
    charo May 27, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Another point. I suggested the De Vattel thread because Doc hit on the ideas that offend the sensibilities of many (Catholic bashers excepted), including, it seems, the founding fathers who went in the opposite direction of Vattel. I found it interesting that Vattel was integrated to any degree into the debate at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention.

    Now, I expect you to look deep into my motives again. I WAS looking for de Vattel references G, because I was listening to the radio program and surfing. I happened upon the Pennsylvania Convention notes and posted the link, not for a moment of birther fame, as you seem to imply.

  10. avatar
    WTF? May 27, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    NbC: Vattel surely was known and consulted, with various others on issues of international law. However citizenship is not a international law issue but rather a municipal law issue. No self respecting state would allow other countries to define who are and are not its citizens.

    Citizenship is not a international law issue? Not even when 13 nations (states) are looking to form a Union? If not international law, which state’s laws do you expect they were looking to? Was it the superior laws of New York, or the superior laws of Georgia?

    If you want to look to municipal law; you must accept that there was no municipal law of the United States with regard to native citizenship. Native citizenship was determined by the individual state.

    Other than one born a citizen as defined by Vattel, there existed no other uniform rule for native born citizenship.

  11. avatar
    nbc May 27, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Citizenship is indeed not guided by international law but rather by municipal law. What laws were these states looking to? The laws of the colonies which had guided them. In other words, common law.

    There is nothing ‘universal’ about Vattel, he himself admitted as much that the countries themselves get to determine who is a citizen and who is not.

    So let’s not pretend otherwise…

    Wong Kim Ark as well as other courts looked at the Common law practices and found that the colonies had continued common law practices here, which based citizenship on location of birth. And while colonies in the early days were allowed to define naturalization policies, their policies could not run against the Constitution.

    So in other words, you are wrong to state that there was no municipal law in place in the early United States relevant to citizenship.

    Sorry WTF but your position is belied by the facts. So let me walk you through the same fallacies that surrounded the government’s position in Wong Kim Ark.

    Like some today, the Government argued that there was no US Common Law and thus Common Law was irrelevant. However, as the Court observed, the existence of a uniform common law was of little relevance here. Why?

    The issue was: What was the meaning of the term “natural born” citizen, a term left undefined in the Constitution. The WKA court, as many courts before and since, observed that its meaning should be found in how the term was used in Common Law of those days. And the Court found that the term was simple: birth on soil.

    The fact that, as you argue, there was no single municipal law in the early states, has little relevance on the argument that it was indeed municipal law that guided citizenship. In the early days, it was based on the citizenship municipal laws of the states, although the Federal Government did not wait long to define a uniform rule of naturalization in 1790, 1795, 1802 and beyond, it did allow, for a while local state municipal law to guide citizenship.
    With the 14th Amendment, this changed as it was observed that the Constitution clearly defined two sources of citizenship, born in or naturalized in the United States. And the former could not be changed by State or Federal Government and the latter could merely be uniformly applied.
    This did leave Congress with limited abilities to use its powers as the Sovereign to define who could be a non 14th amendment citizen. Those acquired citizenship not because of birth in or naturalization in the United States, but rather they were granted citizenship by statute while abroad.

    Nothing in this undermines the simple fact that citizenship rules are not established by some mythical ‘international law’ but rather by municipal law and no self respecting country would ever abandon its right to define who are its citizens and who are not. Especially not of those born or naturalized in the United States.

    US territory is sovereign and its powers over it are as well.

    Hope this explains.

    After all, who could disagree with Vattel who said

    It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens. The laws have decided this question in several countries and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights the place of birth produces no change in this particular and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him. I say of itself, for civil or political laws may for particular reasons ordain otherwise. But, I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he has become a member of another society at least as a perpetual inhabitant and his children will be members of it also.

    So show us how Vattel played any relevance in citizenship in the United States…

    James Madison himself observed

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    What now, WTF?

    WTF?: Citizenship is not a international law issue? Not even when 13 nations (states) are looking to form a Union? If not international law, which state’s laws do you expect they were looking to? Was it the superior laws of New York, or the superior laws of Georgia?

    If you want to look to municipal law; you must accept that there was no municipal law of the United States with regard to native citizenship. Native citizenship was determined by the individual state.

    Other than one born a citizen as defined by Vattel, there existed no other uniform rule for native born citizenship.

  12. avatar
    nbc May 27, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    WTF?: Other than one born a citizen as defined by Vattel, there existed no other uniform rule for native born citizenship.

    Sure, but these uniform rules were uniform within nations, just not between nations. For obvious reasons as I outlined.
    Even Vattel was well aware of these facts.

  13. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    charo: So hang me.Inever said there was a connection but just found all of the notes fascinating (if you would have read the context).I said that because they captured history. I only pointed out note 21 because de Vattel was referenced there and said above it had nothing to do with the citizenship issue. I’ll make sure to never state anything outside the strict confines of birtherhood again. Excuse me for failure to explain that the * did not point out what is fascinating but only the de Vattel reference.Just ready to pounce, eh?Scott Brown, come forth.They need you here.

    Charo,

    I know you have been through a lot in your personal life, but I think you are reacting to simple feedback way too personally here. Nobody is “hanging you” or attacking you for the info that you provided, merely pointing out that it doesn’t address the citizenship issues under discussion in this blog.

    Please re-read the responses with less feeling of vulnerability. If you read mine, you will see that I congratulated you for the find and said that the overall document *was* fascinating and a good read. So again, in case you missed that critical point, kudos for such a scholarly find!

    However, this isn’t a blog about studying all aspects of the founding of this country and how the Constitution was written – that’s a great topic, of course – but something that broadens things beyond the scope of this forum to such an extent that it can derail the conversation unnecessarily.

    The only challenge we put to you was to ask what relevance it had to the topic of citizenship or Obama’s eligibility and pointed out that we did not find any.

    Furthermore, you explicitly referenced a particular footnote and quote of Vattel in the document, so I asked you for clarification of just what you found so exciting and were trying to point out by that reference, because I failed to see the relevance.

    These are not attacks, charo and I always appreciate your posts and insights here. I do want to give some constructive feedback and let you know that I think you ump to being too defensive at times and sometimes you seem to take critical responses of others posts personally.

    If I challenge you on your statements or positions, I truly do not mean it as a personal attack against you and I hope you can remain open to a constructive dialog, even when you disagree.

    Thanks for listening and I hope you continue to visit and contribute.

  14. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    charo: Now, I expect you to look deep into my motives again. I WAS looking for de Vattel references G, because I was listening to the radio program and surfing. I happened upon the Pennsylvania Convention notes and posted the link, not for a moment of birther fame, as you seem to imply.

    Charo, I’m happy to offer my apologies to you if I over assumed your intent. What you have done is add clarification here, which helps me to understand what you are trying to convey and why, and that is all I am looking for. No need for you to feel attacked, as that was not the intent. There is nothing wrong with being asked to clear up, clarify or explain your position and I appreciate your feedback.

    Again, if my original response came across to strong or accusatory in a way that impugned your motives, I take responsibility and sincerely apologize. I fully accept that I could have wrongly interpreted what you were trying to convey here and I just ask that you don’t need to feel so sensitive and can be comfortable to correct me or clarify without feeling bad about it..

    Regards and thanks for the open and honest dialogue.

  15. avatar
    Greg May 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    WTF?: Other than one born a citizen as defined by Vattel, there existed no other uniform rule for native born citizenship.

    Actually, there was a uniform rule for native born citizenship.

    It had existed since at least 1350. Blackstone described it. Lynch v. Clarke explained that it was universal among the colonies.

  16. avatar
    WTF? May 27, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    Greg:
    Actually, there was a uniform rule for native born citizenship.
    It had existed since at least 1350. Blackstone described it. Lynch v. Clarke explained that it was universal among the colonies.

    Greg, You seem to think we remained “the colonies” instead of acknowledging 13 sovereign states. What existed prior to the Declaration of Independence was not the law of those 13 sovereign states.

  17. avatar
    JoZeppy May 27, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    WTF?: Greg, You seem to think we remained “the colonies” instead of acknowledging 13 sovereign states. What existed prior to the Declaration of Independence was not the law of those 13 sovereign states.

    Perhaps someone should have told that to the Supreme Court justices that have continued to cite to the English common law through out our history…or perhaps you should tell all the law school professors that seem to think we inhereted our common law from the English?

    So you think suddenly on July 4, 1776, we had a blank slate and no legal precident to rely on?

  18. avatar
    WTF? May 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    The common law of England was not the law of the United States. It was never made such by any clause of the Constitution, and it was not imposed on any state of the union.

    nbc doesn’t want to acknowledge the sovereignty of the states either.

    No state, prior to the 14th Amendment was required to consider everyone born on their soil to be a citizen of that state, and nothing in the 14th Amendment was intended to nullify the provision of Article II of the Constitution.

  19. avatar
    WTF? May 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Perhaps someone should have told that to the Supreme Court justices that have continued to cite to the English common law through out our history…or perhaps you should tell all the law school professors that seem to think we inhereted our common law from the English?So you think suddenly on July 4, 1776, we had a blank slate and no legal precident to rely on?

    If you look at the cases in question, I’m sure you will find that they came from states that had made the common law of England part of their law unless it was superseded by statute. That didn’t make it the law of the United States. It was just the law of that state.

    Try this: Provide us with a case (prior to Wong Kim Ark) where you think the common law of England was considered to be the law of the United States (not just the law of a state).

  20. avatar
    WTF? May 27, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    “The doctrine of dual nationality, sometimes called double allegiance, is simplified when we regard it as the logical result of the concurrent operation of two different laws. The most frequent case of it is where a child, due to the sojourn of his parents in a foreign land at the time of his birth, is born a citizen of two countries—a citizen of the country of Ills birth jure soil and a citizen of his parents’ country jure sanguinis. The claim of double allegiance would not arise If the country of birth or the country to which the parents belong should choose not to claim allegiance. The conflict is generally avoided by the rule which makes the child liable for the performance of the duties of allegiance under the laws of the country where he actually Is.

    The claim of double allegiance may be made where one leaves the country of his origin and becomes a citizen of another country through process of naturalization. In the case of Japanese who have come to the United States, no such claim could be made, for the question does not exist. By the acts of 1802 and 1804, ” only free white persons ” were capable of naturalization. By the act of 1870, the benefits of the law were extended to ” aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” The law, as consolidated In the Revised Statutes, thus stands, embracing only ” white persons ” and persons of African descent. Naturalization has been repeatedly refused to Japanese on the ground that they are not “white” persons. (In re Saito, 02 Fed. Rep., 126; In re Yamashita (1902), 30 Wash., 234, 70 Pac. Rep., 482.)

    With respect to Japanese born in the United States, the case is quite different, and the question of dual nationality is an acute one. By the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States ” all persons born or naturalized In the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In the case of In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. Rep., 905, It was held that a child born In the United States to alien Chinese parents who could not themselves become naturalized, was nevertheless a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649, affirmed the principles laid down In the case of Look Tin Sing and settled the question as to the children of domiciled aliens.

    Strange. Isn’t it? The House Committee on Immigration can understand that Wong Kim Ark settled the question as to children of domiciled aliens, but the Obama supporters think it was more. Hmmm.
    http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA166&dq=%22born+a+citizen+of%22&cd=6&id=_R07AAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22born%20a%20citizen%20of%22&f=false

  21. avatar
    SFJeff May 27, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    Try this- find an example of a text book citing Vattel and the two citizen rule defining NBC dated prior to 2008.

  22. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    SFJeff: Try this- find an example of a text book citing Vattel and the two citizen rule defining NBC dated prior to 2008.

    FTW!

  23. avatar
    JoZeppy May 27, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    WTF?: Try this: Provide us with a case (prior to Wong Kim Ark) where you think the common law of England was considered to be the law of the United States (not just the law of a state).

    .
    “It is a sound rule, that whenever a Legislature in this country uses a term, without defining it, which is well known in the English law, it must be understood in the sense of the English law.” McCool v. Smith, 66 U.S. 459 (1861).

  24. avatar
    JoZeppy May 27, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    WTF?: Try this: Provide us with a case (prior to Wong Kim Ark) where you think the common law of England was considered to be the law of the United States (not just the law of a state).

    “The subject is not provided for by any act of Congress; and, therefore, if the right can be maintained at all, it must be as a right derived from the common law, which the Courts of the United States are bound to recognise and enforce. …This is the rule clearly laid by Lord Coke, Lord Hale, and Serjeant Hawkins, and, indeed, by all the elementary writers.” United States v. Marchant, 25 U.S. 480 (1827).

  25. avatar
    SFJeff May 27, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    Oh and for a textbook reference that doesn’t mention Vattel:
    http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3a/fd/96.pdf

    Our Constitution and Government, 1970

    “He must be a natural-born citizen of the United States. This means that a naturalized citizen cannot be president.

  26. avatar
    charo May 27, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    G,

    I know what’s what around the blog at this point. I think you overreacted to my peeved response, but I do appreciate your comment; however, I take issue with this:

    “However, this isn’t a blog about studying all aspects of the founding of this country and how the Constitution was written – that’s a great topic, of course – but something that broadens things beyond the scope of this forum to such an extent that it can derail the conversation unnecessarily”

    I posted the comment while listening to the radio show, which did mention the De Vattel thread. That thread concluded as follows:

    “Therefore, this proves by example that de Vattel is not an authority that can be cited without other support on any particular subject as to what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind or what the laws of the United States are.”

    The thread did not focus per se on eligibility so, I wasn’t derailing anything. What I took from the Vattel thread (and the thread was mentioned on the radio show which is the subject of this post) was that his views appeared to be rejected by the fathers on many fronts. I ran across the Yeates notes that showed his treatise was integrated into the debate by a Pennsylvania statesman. albeit in a small way. And I did find the notes interesting, but I suppose I could have kept that to myself.

    So, perhaps I should have placed my comment on the other thread. I’ll be more careful on placement in the future.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    charo: So, perhaps I should have placed my comment on the other thread. I’ll be more careful on placement in the future.

    Threads get diverted from time to time. I’ve come to expect it. Posting comments related to the articles is a kindness to the community here, but not required.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    WTF?: The Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649, affirmed the principles laid down In the case of Look Tin Sing and settled the question as to the children of domiciled aliens.

    Strange. Isn’t it? The House Committee on Immigration can understand that Wong Kim Ark settled the question as to children of domiciled aliens, but the Obama supporters think it was more. Hmmm.

    No it is not strange at all if you just give it a little thought. The facts of the case as stated in Wong refer to his parents as being domiciled in the United States (although this was only a temporary domicile as they were living in China when the case was heard). For this reason, one may apply the decision to the children of domiciled aliens using Wong without even opening up the case to see how it was reasoned.

    However (and this is the part that requires a little thought) one may read the reasoning in theWong decision and see that in no way depends on domicile, and at least one of its key citations even uses the words “temporary” and the case Wong cites, Lynch v Clark, Julia Lynch was born here and literally whisked away.

    However, if you really think that domicile is relevant to the Wong decision, you are welcome to expound on the text in Wong to explain that view.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    WTF?: Citizenship is not a international law issue? Not even when 13 nations (states) are looking to form a Union? If not international law, which state’s laws do you expect they were looking to? Was it the superior laws of New York, or the superior laws of Georgia?

    If you want to look to municipal law; you must accept that there was no municipal law of the United States with regard to native citizenship. Native citizenship was determined by the individual state.

    Other than one born a citizen as defined by Vattel, there existed no other uniform rule for native born citizenship.

    I’m having a hard time following you. You seem to be saying that citizenship is municipal until presented with evidence that the states adopted the English common law definitions of citizenship, and then say that citizenship is federal until proven that English common law prevails here too, and then say that citizenship is International and presumably will abandon that position when shown that there was no uniform international rule on citizenship.

    The Constitution didn’t originally define citizenship for the native born and the Congress has only power to naturalize. (This is one reason we have the 14th Amendment.) For example, the lack of an explicit definition of citizenship in the South Carolina constitution gave rise to the controversy over seating William Smith in the first Congress. If the definition of citizenship were federal, they would not have had to resort to various acts in South Carolina to try to figure it out.

    Please try to understand the material before commenting.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    WTF?: Citizenship is not a international law issue?

    I want to point out this comment in particular because of its troll smell.

    You will note that WTF? did not say “Citizenship is an international law issue.” That is an assertion that can be discussed and proven false. WTF? would then be shown to be wrong. However, WTF? put it in the form of a question, thereby asking people to go run around, do research, write thoughtful replies and basically waste their time. The person who proves that citizenship is not an international law issue then comes forward to claim victory, only to have WTF? say “I never said it was.”

    Take another example where WTF? says: “Try this: Provide us with a case (prior to Wong Kim Ark) where you think the common law of England was considered to be the law of the United States (not just the law of a state). ”

    What does this mean? Is it an assertion that no such case exists. That would certainly be false. No, it’s more like a teacher assigning homework. Only WTF? is no teacher, and we are hardly his students. It’s just more poking the ant hill just to make the ants run around.

    One mark of a troll is the unwillingness to take a position and defend it.

    The best way to make trolls go away is to stop feeding them, letting them waste your time, and generally have fun at your expense.

    DNFTT.

  31. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    charo: I know what’s what around the blog at this point. I think you overreacted to my peeved response, but I do appreciate your comment; however, I take issue with this:…

    …So, perhaps I should have placed my comment on the other thread. I’ll be more careful on placement in the future.

    Charo,

    Thanks for your reply. I’ll just correct myself and apologize again and simply say thank you for posting that information that you found.

    Yes, I concur that it would have made more sense to find it posted on one of the many Vattel based blog topics on this site and that might have lessened the confusion as to its intent and purpose of being added here (and it also helps from to reduce the continuous problem here of threads getting derailed and off-topic).

    But in the end, better to have this information you shared with us than to not have it at all. So I’ll just simply say thank you and I’ve appreciated the clarifications in your responses, as well as respecting your positions.

  32. avatar
    charo May 27, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    Thanks.

  33. avatar
    WTF? May 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No it is not strange at all if you just give it a little thought. The facts of the case as stated in Wong refer to his parents as being domiciled in the United States (although this was only a temporary domicile as they were living in China when the case was heard). For this reason, onemay apply the decision to the children of domiciled aliens using Wong without even opening up the case to see how it was reasoned.However (and this is the part that requires a little thought) one may read the reasoning in theWong decision and see that in no way depends on domicile, and at least one of its key citations even uses the words “temporary” and the case Wong cites, Lynch v Clark, Julia Lynch was born here and literally whisked away.However, if you really think that domicile is relevant to the Wong decision, you are welcome to expound on the text in Wong to explain that view.

    Doc, Are you just ignorant of the facts or do you enjoy distorting the truth?

    Nobody gives a crap about what Wong’s parents were doing at the time of the trial. The court was concerned with, and it was a stipulated fact of the case, that when Wong was born, his parents were permanently domiciled here. They had established residence and were operating their own business here.

    Jessica Lynch was born in New York. New York had adopted the common law of England as part of their law. The New York Chancery Court had no choice but to recognize the common law of England as controlling. That does not mean the United States had adopted the common law of England.

    Sometimes I think your purpose is obfuscation.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    WTF?: Doc, Are you just ignorant of the facts or do you enjoy distorting the truth?

    Nobody gives a crap about what Wong’s parents were doing at the time of the trial. The court was concerned with, and it was a stipulated fact of the case, that when Wong was born, his parents were permanently domiciled here. They had established residence and were operating their own business here.

    Jessica Lynch was born in New York. New York had adopted the common law of England as part of their law. The New York Chancery Court had no choice but to recognize the common law of England as controlling. That does not mean the United States had adopted the common law of England.

    Sometimes I think your purpose is obfuscation.

    “Crap” triggers the moderation rule too.

    You have not addressed the point I made, that the domicile of Wong’s parents does not figure in the reasoning of the Wong decision. Would you care to address it based on the text of the decision now?

    Further, the reasoning in Lynch v Clarke does not rely on the adoption of common law in New York; Chancellor Sandford’s decision comes from a broad survey of the literature and cases across the country including authorities on the Constitution such as Rawle. He even discusses Emerich de Vattel. Your comment just doesn’t align with the facts.

    You say: “Sometimes I think your purpose is obfuscation.” I will not speculate on your purpose except to say that it is not evidence based well-reasoned argument.

  35. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You have not addressed the point I made, that the domicile of Wong’s parents does not figure in the reasoning of the Wong decision. Would you care to address it based on the text of the decision now?

    Excellent point but probably lost on WTF, hence his insults and name calling. Unable to find evidence in the actual decision, WTF has to look for coincidences which he then extrapolates to requirements.
    Even though the ruling clearly explains that children born on soil are natural born children, he believes that because WKA’s parents were permanently residing in the country that this somehow makes a difference. There is no evidence in common law that would lead to such a conclusion. All that is important is that the child is born under jurisdiction of and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Since his parents were not invading military or foreign dignitaries, the child so born on US soil becomes by common law, a natural born citizen.
    The case is quite clear here.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    as to subject to the jurisdiction

    he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

    and

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

    independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations

    Unable to deal with this dissonance, WTF appears to believe that the ‘fact’ that WKA’s parents were permanently residing in the US to be a relevant aspect of the ruling.

    No wonder he is feeling such strong feelings towards those who expose this fallacy.

    Fascinating.

  36. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 2:21 am #

    WTF?: Jessica Lynch was born in New York. New York had adopted the common law of England as part of their law. The New York Chancery Court had no choice but to recognize the common law of England as controlling.

    You clearly have not read the decision in which the judge rules that it is not common law of NY which is deciding here

    Before the Constitution was adopted, the feeling was generally the other way. Thus in the Colonial Declaration of Rights, adopted unanimously on the 14th of October, 1774, the Congress declared ” that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England.” (Jour, of Congress, 1774, p. 27, iJfc.)

    followed by

    In my judgment there is no room for doubt, but that to a limited extent, the common law, (or the principles of the common law, as some prefer to express the doctrine,) prevails in the United States as a system of national jurisprudence.

    and this one destroys the argument completely.

    The power of naturalization is one of the express concessions from the states to the United States. The right of citizenship, aside from naturalization, was either a known and recognized right, as applicable to the then and future inhabitants of the country, or necessarily, and by the very act of organizing the nation, became a subject of national law and regulation. It could no longer continue a state right in its enlarged sense as applicable to the United States.

    WTF ends with the ironic

    Sometimes I think your purpose is obfuscation.

    So what do we have to conclude here about WTF?

    Well?

  37. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    What?

    Not even the part

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    While states may still consider for themselves who are citizens of the state, the decision who is a citizen of the United States is not one decided by the states.

    You really should read some of the relevant court cases that explain how these courts reached the conclusion that since the term natural born was left undefined, its meaning should be found in common law.

    In Common Law tradition the term was clear: born on US soil.

    The end.

    The question as to whether or not there existed a US Common law (there was none) is of no relevance to answering the question: What is meant by natural born citizen. The courts have gone in depth through history and time to show that invariably the conclusion was: Birth on US soil.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    WTF?: nbc doesn’t want to acknowledge the sovereignty of the states either.

    No state, prior to the 14th Amendment was required to consider everyone born on their soil to be a citizen of that state, and nothing in the 14th Amendment was intended to nullify the provision of Article II of the Constitution.

  38. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    WTF?: Greg, You seem to think we remained “the colonies” instead of acknowledging 13 sovereign states. What existed prior to the Declaration of Independence was not the law of those 13 sovereign states.

    To a certain extent that is true, although many if not all continued to embrace many of the concepts of Common Law they had inherited through England.
    As such, the definition of natural born was well established to be based on said common law as the courts have shown quite conclusively.

    You are making the same logical fallacy that caused the government to lose its case. It’s not the question if there existed a common law of the US, but rather if the term natural born citizen was defined in the common law practices of the early states. It was found that in this aspect, the states continued the tradition of English common law.

    It’s that simple. Even the lawyers for WKA were clear to differentiate between US Common Law and how was the term defined in Common Law.

    Justice Gray cites Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews:

    There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

    It’s part of the wonderful and in depth argument outlined in Wong Kim Ark. From your musings I get the impression that you have not really read it. It’s quite a long decision with many excellent points, addressing many of the same objections raised today and rejecting them.

    No wonder that WKA remains as an oft approvingly cited opinion in the Federal Court system.
    It was based on extensive precedents, legal and scholarly arguments, and addressed in clear detail the many objections raised.
    In addition to the ruling there are the briefs submitted to the Court by the Appellee and Appellant outlining the arguments by the Government and the arguments by the lawyers for WKA.
    The lawyers of WKA explain in quite some detail the same error you seem to be making here about the existence of common law in the US, missing the point.

    Cheers my friend.

  39. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 3:55 am #

    Carlisle v US 83 U. S. 147 (1872)

    [..], Mr. Webster, then Secretary of state, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said:

    “Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”

    And again:

    “Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation. [Footnote 8]”

    The same doctrine is stated in Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, [Footnote 9] East’s Crown Law, [Footnote 10] and Foster’s Discourse upon High Treason, [Footnote 11] all of which are treatises of approved merit.

  40. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 4:19 am #

    Gorefan hits another home-run at my site. I love well informed contributors…

    and in the case of Inglis v. Trustees of Stailor’s (sic) Snug Harbor, Justice Story, in the course of his opinion, said:

    “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

    The whole subject of native citizenship was thoroughly reviewed by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford in his admirable opinion in the case of Lynch v. Clarke18 decided in 1844. This opinion is notable for its common sense and originality as well as for its unusual thoroughness and evidence of wide learning. ”

    and

    “Notwithstanding the decisions of the courts mentioned and others to the same effect, the law of this country concerning citizenship by birth has been misstated by a number of writers on international law, who have assumed that, in order that a person born in the United States of alien parents may have American citizenship, his parents must have been domiciled in this country at the time of his birth. ”

    Richard W. Flourney Jr., Dual Nationality and Election, Yale Law Review, Volume 30 No. 6, April,1921.

    Cheers

  41. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 6:58 am #

    WTF?-Not there was much to the credibility of your “arguments” to begin with, but you don’t help yourself by referring, as you have done several times, to “Jessica Lynch” who was the young soldier from West Virginia captured by the Iraqis in the early days of the invasion, rather than to “Julia Lynch” of the court case on citizenship.

  42. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    WTF?: You seem to think we remained “the colonies” instead of acknowledging 13 sovereign states. What existed prior to the Declaration of Independence was not the law of those 13 sovereign states.

    Instead of continuing to embarrass yourself, why don’t you read Lynch v. Clarke?

    If the law had changed after the Declaration of Independence, Ms. Lynch would have lost her case.

    It is one of the critical cases on this topic, WTF, and the fact that you have not read it is shameful.

    Second, you had claimed there was no … uniform rule defining natural born other than Vattel’s. Even had the rules been changed after the Declaration of Independence, it was a universal rule before. So, your claim is entirely false!

    That’s why I didn’t need to get into the fact that the case continues a broad survey of American law after the Declaration of Independence and finds no change – simply proving that it existed uniformly before disproved your feeble argument!

    In the future, why don’t you try to read what I’ve actually written.

    Provide us with a case (prior to Wong Kim Ark) where you think the common law of England was considered to be the law of the United States (not just the law of a state).

    Another question that proves you haven’t read the case. Wong Kim Ark cited cases showing the importance of English Common Law!

    They ALL came prior to the decision in Wong Kim Ark, which is of necessity, since Justice Gray didn’t have a time machine.

  43. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    [T]he domicile of Wong’s parents does not figure in the reasoning of the Wong decision.

    [T]he reasoning in Lynch v Clarke does not rely on the adoption of common law in New York; Chancellor Sandford’s decision comes from abroad survey of the literature and cases across the country including authorities on the Constitution such as Rawle. He even discusses Emerich de Vattel.

    Doc, You’re confused! It’s probably not your fault.

    The domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, at the time of his birth, was a stipulated fact of the case. I recognize that. Leo Donofrio recognizes that. The House Committee on Immigration in 1920 recognized that.

    “In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”

    It seems that when the facts don’t apply, you choose to ignore them. That doesn’t remove them as facts of the case, and you cannot apply a Court’s ruling to cases that don’t involve a similar set of facts. –Before you try to claim that Obama Sr. was a “resident” of Hawaii, you better think about all the state laws that require those who become residents there to register their vehicles, and change their driver’s license to that state; and then think about how it currently applies to college students. -College students are not required to declare residency in the state where they are attending college.

    In re Lynch: Chancellor Sanford can look at anything he wants. He was required to follow New York Law. That is what controlled his decision. –To think anything different is to consider Judges to have the authority to “wing it”.

  44. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    NbC: Carlisle v US83 U. S. 147 (1872)

    I think you just add irrelevant text to muddy the waters.

    There is not, nor has there ever been, a claim that anyone (except a diplomat) residing in the country for even as little as a minute, is bound by our laws, and owes at least some temporary allegiance to this country. If war should break out, they would even be required to help us defend our country (unless against their own). But this has nothing to do with citizenship. You citation is meaningless to the discussion.

  45. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    WTF?:
    Doc, You’re confused! It’s probably not your fault.The domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, at the time of his birth, was a stipulated fact of the case. I recognize that. Leo Donofrio recognizes that. The House Committee on Immigration in 1920 recognized that.“In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”It seems that when the facts don’t apply, you choose to ignore them. That doesn’t remove them as facts of the case, and you cannot apply a Court’s ruling to cases that don’t involve a similar set of facts. –Before you try to claim that Obama Sr. was a “resident” of Hawaii, you better think about all the state laws that require those who become residents there to register their vehicles, and change their driver’s license to that state; and then think about how it currently applies to college students. -College students are not required to declare residency in the state where they are attending college.In re Lynch: Chancellor Sanford can look at anything he wants. He was required to follow New York Law. That is what controlled his decision. –To think anything different is to consider Judges to have the authority to “wing it”.

    What does everyone think of the chances that “WTF” is really only a sock puppet for putzy?

  46. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 10:36 am #

    WTF?: The domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, at the time of his birth, was a stipulated fact of the case.

    It was a stipulated fact, but the court doesn’t point to the fact as determinative!

    At no point does the court suggest that the children of less than domiciled individuals would be less citizens. In fact, it suggests the opposite:

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

    independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

    Since natural born citizenship is dependent on being within the jurisdiction of the US, the fact that Plyler v. Doe put even illegal aliens entirely within the jurisdiction of the US for the purposes of rights, means that they are born natural born citizens.

    Putting that aside, WTF, there is simply no suggestion to be found in Wong or anywhere else that suggests that the child who, born here, fails to become a natural born citizen becomes some kind of lesser citizen.

    It’s like being kinda pregnant.

    If you are born here, you’re either a natural born citizen, or you’re an alien. There’s no sorta citizen.

    Either Obama’s eligible, or he should be deported!

    There’s a reason why even the dissent believed that the court had made Wong eligible for the Presidency!

    and you cannot apply a Court’s ruling to cases that don’t involve a similar set of facts

    You can attempt to distinguish Wong on the grounds that Obama’s father wasn’t domiciled here. We can apply Wong to cases where the parties aren’t Chinese. We can apply it to cases where the parties aren’t named Wong. We can apply it to cases where the parties aren’t domiciled here.

    In re Lynch: Chancellor Sanford can look at anything he wants. He was required to follow New York Law. That is what controlled his decision. –To think anything different is to consider Judges to have the authority to “wing it”.

    So what?

    You asserted that there was no universal rule defining natural born citizenship other than Vattel.

    Lynch v. Clarke showed there was such a universal rule

    Before the Declaration of Independence AND
    After the Declaration of Independence

    He walked through the history of the various states and found nothing in conflict with his universal rule.

    He even evaluated the so-called universal rule of Vattel and found it not shared even among the various authors about “natural law” much less universally held by nations.

    Instead of arguing about the meaning of the cases, WTF, why don’t you actually READ them?

    We could then have a discussion about what the cases actually say, and not what Apuzzo and Donofrio have told you, erroneously, that they say!

  47. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    WTF?: There is not, nor has there ever been, a claim that anyone (except a diplomat) residing in the country for even as little as a minute, is bound by our laws, and owes at least some temporary allegiance to this country. If war should break out, they would even be required to help us defend our country (unless against their own). But this has nothing to do with citizenship.

    On the contrary, it has everything to do with citizenship, which you’d know if you

    READ

    THE

    CASE!

    It is the allegiance, albeit temporary, that a foreigner owes to the country that makes his children citizens:

    His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

    Temporary allegiance + birth = natural born citizenship

  48. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    WTF?: Before you try to claim that Obama Sr. was a “resident” of Hawaii, you better think about all the state laws that require those who become residents there to register their vehicles, and change their driver’s license to that state; and then think about how it currently applies to college students

    Students from another US state may be able to keep their home driver’s licenses. But, when I was in college, I knew a lot of foreign students and they all had to get local driver’s licenses because their foreign licenses were not accepted. They were entitled to those licenses just like anyone else, provided they passed the test.

    You are not seriously arguing that a natural born US citizen can’t marry whomever they choose, give birth to a child in the US and that child would have their right to citizenship questioned? That is down-right un-American.

  49. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    WTF?: The domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, at the time of his birth, was a stipulated fact of the case. I recognize that. Leo Donofrio recognizes that. The House Committee on Immigration in 1920 recognized that.

    And neither Donfrio (who has more time as a professional poker player than attorney), nor a house committee have create any precident. It is also irrelevant that it was a stipuated fact. I’m sure it was also stipulated that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were Chinese, and returned to China. But if the Court does not rely these facts in their reasoning, those facts are of no consequence. The court in Wong Kim Ark made it pretty clear when they said, “Every person born in the United States, and subject ot the jurisdiciton thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturailzation.” 169 U.S. at 702. Again, don’t you find it odd that no real Constitutional scholar has taken up this argument? Isn’t it odd that there is not a single law journal article out there in the past century taking up this argument? Isn’t it odd that those law journal articles out there that have discussed the issue of natural born citizenship take for granted that merely being born on US soil, and not being an ambassador’s child, is sufficient to be a NBC? There is no debate on the subject. It’s junk law.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    WTF?: Doc, You’re confused! It’s probably not your fault.

    The domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, at the time of his birth, was a stipulated fact of the case. I recognize that. Leo Donofrio recognizes that. The House Committee on Immigration in 1920 recognized that.

    I recognize it too and no, I am not in the least bit confused. I see that Greg has weighed in with the long response to this, so I will be short.

    What you seem not to recognize is that the statement of the question of the case is not all there is. The reasoning in the case is what courts (and thoughtful readers) use when deciding how the decision is properly applied. If the Wong decision does not rest on “permanent domicile” in its explanation, in its reasoning, (and indeed it does not), then the decision will be applied by the government and by future courts without regard to the incidental fact of permanent domicile.

    How do I know this?

    Look around. For the last 100 years (since Wong and before for that matter) the children of aliens born in the United States have been citizens without regard for the residential status of their parents. This undisputed fact.

    I have a hard time understanding why you would maintain that the Wong decision narrowly applies to the children of permanently domiciled aliens when the government obviously doesn’t see it that way and this is not public policy. I suppose you could argue that some other court case is responsible for the policy of the government since Wong, but that would be a losing proposition I think.

    Do you intend to say that the children of transient aliens are citizens through some other law or court decision?

  51. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    Let’s carry this “domicile” nonsense a bit further with a quite plausible real-life example:

    Suzie, an Art History major from Dubuque goes to Italy for a junior year abroad and gets knocked up by Marco, a handsome young Italian. She comes home at the end of the sojourn and gives birth in Dubuque. Are you seriously saying that that child is not a US citizen???

    And before you give me unmarried mother, let’s add that Marco did the right thing and took Suzie down to the city hall in Florence and married her. He is awaiting permission to join her in the US, but at the time the child is born he is not only not domiciled in the US, he has never even been here on a visit. Regardless, it makes no difference, the child is a natural born US citizen and can grow up to be President.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    Scientist: Let’s carry this “domicile” nonsense a bit further with a quite plausible real-life example:

    That example has limited applicability. It does not apply in the “birtherverse” alternate reality, nor in the Birther Imagined States of America where there are markedly fewer citizens and Barack Obama is serving a life sentence for “not knowing his place.”

  53. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    Greg:
    It was a stipulated fact, but the court doesn’t point to the fact as determinative!
    At no point does the court suggest that the children of less than domiciled individuals would be less citizens. In fact, it suggests the opposite:

    Since natural born citizenship is dependent on being within the jurisdiction of the US, the fact that Plyler v. Doe put even illegal aliens entirely within the jurisdiction of the US for the purposes of rights, means that they are born natural born citizens.
    Putting that aside, WTF, there is simply no suggestion to be found in Wong or anywhere else that suggests that the child who, born here, fails to become a natural born citizen becomes some kind of lesser citizen.
    It’s like being kinda pregnant.
    If you are born here, you’re either a natural born citizen, or you’re an alien. There’s no sorta citizen.
    Either Obama’s eligible, or he should be deported!
    There’s a reason why even the dissent believed that the court had made Wong eligible for the Presidency!You can attempt to distinguish Wong on the grounds that Obama’s father wasn’t domiciled here. We can apply Wong to cases where the parties aren’t Chinese. We can apply it to cases where the parties aren’t named Wong. We can apply it to cases where the parties aren’t domiciled here.So what?
    You asserted that there was no universal rule defining natural born citizenship other than Vattel.
    Lynch v. Clarke showed there was such a universal ruleBefore the Declaration of Independence AND
    After the Declaration of IndependenceHe walked through the history of the various states and found nothing in conflict with his universal rule.
    He even evaluated the so-called universal rule of Vattel and found it not shared even among the various authors about “natural law” much less universally held by nations.
    Instead of arguing about the meaning of the cases, WTF, why don’t you actually READ them?
    We could then have a discussion about what the cases actually say, and not what Apuzzo and Donofrio have told you, erroneously, that they say!

    Greg, You need to pay attention to the words “residence” and “domicile”. The country in which he “resides” indicates that he has taken up residence.

  54. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    Scientist: Let’s carry this “domicile” nonsense a bit further with a quite plausible real-life example:Suzie, an Art History major from Dubuque goes to Italy for a junior year abroad and gets knocked up by Marco, a handsome young Italian.She comes home at the end of the sojourn and gives birth in Dubuque.Are you seriously saying that that child is not a US citizen???And before you give me unmarried mother, let’s add that Marco did the right thing and took Suzie down to the city hall in Florence and married her.He is awaiting permission to join her in the US, but at the time the child is born he is not only not domiciled in the US, he has never even been here on a visit.Regardless, it makes no difference, the child is a natural born US citizen and can grow up to be President.

    Thank you Judge Scientist! We’ll all be sure to include your opinion. Wouldn’t you also consider the child to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. if born abroad?

  55. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    I should have known that my argument, while quite clear, could have benefited from some additional comments to help WTF overcome his cognitive dissonance.

    Remember how the relevant aspect is ‘allegiance’ and thus it is important to realize that every alien, even residing temporarily on US soil, owe this country full, though temporary allegiance. As such, it is without doubt that unless the child were born to exempted classes, he would be born under jurisdiction of and within the allegiance of the United States.

    Domicile is fully irrelevant to this concept.

    Far from being meaningless the quote shows

    “Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation. [Footnote 8]”

    No wonder you are upset as it contradicts your strongheld beliefs and undermines your ‘argument’.

    I understand.

    WTF?: There is not, nor has there ever been, a claim that anyone (except a diplomat) residing in the country for even as little as a minute, is bound by our laws, and owes at least some temporary allegiance to this country. If war should break out, they would even be required to help us defend our country (unless against their own). But this has nothing to do with citizenship. You citation is meaningless to the discussion.

  56. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I recognize it too and no, I am not in the least bit confused. I see that Greg has weighed in with the long response to this, so I will be short.What you seem not to recognize is that the statement of the question of the case is not all there is. The reasoning in the case is what courts (and thoughtful readers) use when deciding how the decision is properly applied. If the Wong decision does not rest on “permanent domicile” in its explanation, in its reasoning, (and indeed it does not), then the decision will be applied by the government and by future courts without regard to the incidental fact of permanent domicile.How do I know this?Look around. For the last 100 years (since Wong and before for that matter) the children of aliens born in the United States have been citizens without regard for the residential status of their parents. This undisputed fact.
    I have a hard time understanding why you would maintain that the Wong decision narrowly applies to the children of permanently domiciled aliens when the government obviously doesn’t see it that way and this is not public policy. I suppose you could argue that some other court case is responsible for the policy of the government since Wong, but that would be a losing proposition I think.Do you intend to say that the children of transient aliens are citizens through some other law or court decision?

    “The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.”

    Doc, Do you and Greg not understand why it is that the rulings of a court only apply to cases in which the facts are similar? Once the Court states “The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties” they need not revisit those facts in their opinion.

    A case is only precedent if the facts are similar. In Obama’s case, his parents were not permanently domiciled in the U.S.

    In addition, the Supreme Court had plenty of opportunity to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen of the U.S., but the Court stopped short of making such a statement.

  57. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Residence is less restrictive than domicile which is residence with no fixed intention to give up such residence.

    This should not be confused with concepts of residence and non-residence as used in immigration.

    However from a perspective of citizenship, the fact that a person is residing, even temporarily as Julia Lynch’s parents, is sufficient to grant natural born citizenship to the child so born.

    The alternative is that such children are born aliens, which runs counter to US Common Law principles and the 14th Amendment.
    And once born on US soil, they gain natural-born citizenship as opposed to natural-ized.

    Again, domicile has nothing to do with this. Heck President Grant vetoed the Civil Rights Act because it would grant born citizenship status to Chinese, and gypsies.

    Even the dissenting Judge in WKA realized that under the Majority ruling, WKA was a natural born citizen. And it’s good that we observe how WTF is slowly moving his goalposts from WKA was not a natural born citizen to WKA’s parents were ‘domiciled’ in the United States.

    There is still hope but the cognitive dissonance is a heavy burden.

    WTF?: Greg, You need to pay attention to the words “residence” and “domicile”. The country in which he “resides” indicates that he has taken up residence.

  58. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    NbC: Domicile is fully irrelevant to this concept

    Poor example. As I have previously pointed out, a visitor, though owing temporary allegiance to this country, would not be required to take up arms against his own country, the allegiance may said to be full, but is not exclusive.

    Domicile means everything to citizenship. I suggest you search the numerous opinions of the state and federal courts for “temporary sojourn”. Then you will understand “residence” and “domicile”.

  59. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    WTF?: Doc, Do you and Greg not understand why it is that the rulings of a court only apply to cases in which the facts are similar?

    You have failed to show how the argument presented by the Court relies in any manner or form on the domicile status.

    You ignore Lynch v Clarke which was cited approvingly by the Court, as it was another excellent ruling of our Courts which involved a child born on US soil to temporary visiting alien parents.

    Remember the simple argument: What is the meaning of natural born citizen, a meaning which had to be found in Common Law tradition and which was shown to mean born on soil, under its allegiance. The latter requirement was to exclude by the fewest words, children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military, who common law were excluded as their parents and thus the child owed no allegiance to the country of his birth.

    As your refusal to address the issues appears to indicate, you have no rebuttal to these facts.

    Care to try again?

  60. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    NbC: Residence is less restrictive than domicile which is residence with no fixed intention to give up such residence.This should not be confused with concepts of residence and non-residence as used in immigration.However from a perspective of citizenship, the fact that a person is residing, even temporarily as Julia Lynch’s parents, is sufficient to grant natural born citizenship to the child so born.The alternative is that such children are born aliens, which runs counter to US Common Law principles and the 14th Amendment.
    And once born on US soil, they gain natural-born citizenship as opposed to natural-ized.Again, domicile has nothing to do with this. Heck President Grant vetoed the Civil Rights Act because it would grant born citizenship status to Chinese, and gypsies.Even the dissenting Judge in WKA realized that under the Majority ruling, WKA was a natural born citizen. And it’s good that we observe how WTF is slowly moving his goalposts from WKA was not a natural born citizen to WKA’s parents were domiciled’ in the United States.There is still hope but the cognitive dissonance is a heavy burden.

    NBC, Please answer this: Does the New York Chancery Court have the authority to speak for the United States?

  61. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    I am glad that you accept then the Lynch v Clarke where the Court indeed found that even under temporary sojourn the child would be a natural born.

    And you are confusing the allegiance of the visitor with the allegiance of the child. A common fallacy. Allegiance of the child is full and exclusive while on soil, even though, as you argue, the parents’ allegiance may not be. Only if the parents were fully exempt from our laws, would the child be considered to have been born not under allegiance.

    Such were the laws.
    As to these mythical references to cases, I have to assume that you have no relevant citations?

    WTF?:
    Poor example. As I have previously pointed out, a visitor, though owing temporary allegiance to this country, would not be required to take up arms against his own country, the allegiance may said to be full, but is not exclusive.Domicile means everything to citizenship. I suggest you search the numerous opinions of the state and federal courts for “temporary sojourn”. Then you will understand “residence” and “domicile”.

  62. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    NBC said: “Even the dissenting Judge in WKA realized that under the Majority ruling, WKA was a natural born citizen.”

    I have no problem with considering the child of those permanently domiciled here to be a natural born citizen. Unfortunately, that’s not what the majority opinion in WKA declared. Is it? The majority opinion stopped just short of that. Why? Perhaps because it wasn’t a question that had been presented to the Court.

  63. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    Some more helpful references

    The right of citizenship as distinguished from alienage is a national right, character, or condition, does not pertain to the individual States considered. The question is of national and not individual sovereignty and is governed by the of the common law which prevails in the States and became under the Constitution to a limited extent a system of national jurisprudence, was accordingly held in that case that the complainant who was born in New York of alien parents during their temporary sojourn there and returned an Infant being the first year of her birth with parents to their native country and always resided there afterward was a citizen of the United States by birth. This was the principle of the English common law in respect to all persons born within the king’s allegiance and was the law of the colonies and became the law of each and all of the States when the Declaration of Independence was made and continued so until the establishment of the Constitution of the United States when the whole exclusive jurisdiction of this subject of citizenship passed to the United States and the same principle has there remained

    and

    But In Munro v Merchant supra the marginal note is as follows. A child born in this State of alien parents during its mother’s temporary sojourn here is a native born citizen

    In Lynch v Clarke 1 Sandf Ch 583 the question was precisely as here whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents during their temporary sojourn there was a native born citizen or an alien and the conclusion was that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States he was a native born citizen whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case if law would seem to be decisive of the present question.

    Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan, 1836

    Cheers…

  64. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    WTF?: Thank you Judge Scientist!

    What court are YOU on the bench of? You have been asked several times to state your credentials, beyond the ability to cut and paste from Donofrio’s off-again-on-again web site.

    WTF?: Wouldn’t you also consider the child to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. if born abroad?

    If such a child grew up in the US and got elected President I would rate the odds of them being denied the office somewhere around 10% or lower.

  65. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    WTF?: Doc, Do you and Greg not understand why it is that the rulings of a court only apply to cases in which the facts are similar? Once the Court states “The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties” they need not revisit those facts in their opinion.
    A case is only precedent if the facts are similar. In Obama’s case, his parents were not permanently domiciled in the U.S.
    In addition, the Supreme Court had plenty of opportunity to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen of the U.S., but the Court stopped short of making such a statement.

    Actually, it is you who seems to not get that the only facts of consequence are the facts the court relies on in their reasoning. At no time does the Court reasoning rely on the fact that his parents were permanently domiciled in the US. Using your logic, we can only apply WOng Kim Ark to individuals born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and who are laborers, whose father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China. Because, afterall, those were facts stipulated to as well. The only facts that the Court focused on was the fact that he was born in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction. Domicle, they year he was born in, and everything about his parents was not gone into in the Court’s reasoning, therefore, they aren’t facts of consequence.

    As for deciding Wong Kim Ark was natural born, the court discusses the status of natural born citizen/subjects as only requiring birth on within the borders, and the Court affirmed, without condition, the lower court decision, that found him to be a NBC. Therefor the Court put their seal of approval that he was natural born (and you’ll also note the dissent expressed their concern that this decision means Wong can be president…pretty clear that there wasn’t a question in the minds of Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harland that the Court was declaring Wong a NBC).

  66. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    WTF?: I have no problem with considering the child of those permanently domiciled here to be a natural born citizen. Unfortunately, that’s not what the majority opinion in WKA declared. Is it? The majority opinion stopped just short of that. Why? Perhaps because it wasn’t a question that had been presented to the Court.

    It was in fact presented as a question to the Court in the brief filed by the Government.

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen…

    After all, born on US soil, one is either natural-born or alien, there are no other alternatives.

    Funny how fleeting one’s memory can be.

  67. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    The lower court ruling

    “The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Quoting Sandford in Lynch v Clarke

    After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general. understanding of. the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind.

    Cheers my friend

  68. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    WTF?: Obama’s case, his parents were not permanently domiciled in the U.S.

    His mother certainly was.

  69. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    WTF?: Greg, You need to pay attention to the words “residence” and “domicile”. The country in which he “resides” indicates that he has taken up residence.

    Spoken like a true non-lawyer.

    Residence is where a person lives. Domicile is a place where someone lives with the present intention to remain there permanently.

    I can be a citizen of one nation, domiciled in a second, and reside in a third. I can have residences in dozens of different nations. (Black’s law dictionary: “Residence usually just means bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, Domicile usually requires bodily presence plus an intention to make the place one’s home. A person thus may have more than one residence at a time, but only one domicile.)

    Do you and Greg not understand why it is that the rulings of a court only apply to cases in which the facts are similar?

    Define similar.

    You seem to think that the facts need to be the same.

    There is nothing in the case that suggests that the decision was dependent on domicile.

    In other words, there is nothing in the case that suggests that the outcome would be different with a non-domiciliary!

    Do you know what the most important part of a case is?

    The reasoning.

    It lets you know what situations are similar enough to apply the case to. It lets you know what situations are so dissimilar that you cannot apply the case.

    You know what that means? In order to understand what facts you can apply Wong to, you’re going to need to:

    READ

    THE

    CASE

    In addition, the Supreme Court had plenty of opportunity to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen of the U.S., but the Court stopped short of making such a statement.

    This only means something if the court understood there to be a possibility of confusion.

    If I say that John McEnroe played at Wimbledon, I don’t also need to explicitly say that he is a tennis player.

    The US government thought that if Wong was made a citizen, he was made a natural born citizen and was, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. Wong’s lawyers thought that if Wong was made a citizen, he was eligible for the Presidency. Even the dissent understood that Wong was made eligible for the Presidency.

    And the court never once took the opportunity to say, “Oh, no, I meant Wimbledon the soccer tournament. McEnroe plays soccer!”

    Please answer this: Does the New York Chancery Court have the authority to speak for the United States?

    Why don’t you answer this: How many different state courts was Lynch v. Clarke cited in? How many Supreme Court cases? How many courts said that Lynch was wrong?

    Also, answer this question: If Wong Kim Ark doesn’t apply to Obama, then he should be deported, right?

  70. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    That would be an inevitable conclusion. However, even WTF should realizes that such a conclusion appears to be at odds with the facts.

    Lynch v Clarke, Munro v Merchant, US v Wong Kim Ark…

    And the list continues.

    Greg:
    Why don’t you answer this: How many different state courts was Lynch v. Clarke cited in? How many Supreme Court cases? How many courts said that Lynch was wrong?
    Also, answer this question: If Wong Kim Ark doesn’t apply to Obama, then he should be deported, right?

  71. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    WTF?: Poor example. As I have previously pointed out, a visitor, though owing temporary allegiance to this country, would not be required to take up arms against his own country, the allegiance may said to be full, but is not exclusive.

    Not only is domicle irrevant, your discussion about temporary allegiance is also irrelvant. The only thing that matters about the parents’ status is are they subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And with the exception of diplmatic missions, and few other rare catagories, that includes everyone, irrepective of their allegiance, and how long they are in the US, or whether they are citizens of other countries, or what their allegiances are.

    WTF?: Domicile means everything to citizenship. I suggest you search the numerous opinions of the state and federal courts for “temporary sojourn”. Then you will understand “residence” and “domicile”.

    Why don’t you provide the citiations? Prove to us that domicile and residence mean anything. Why should we do your leg work and look for something that does not exist?

  72. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Some additional dicta

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

    and

    Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):

    Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.

    and

    Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):

    The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

    Weird eh WTF… All these cases aligned with clear precedent…

  73. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    “that the rulings of a court only apply to cases in which the facts are similar?”

    So Wong vs Ark only applies to cases where the parents are of Chinese descent?

    Well the lawyers have already shredded your point to pieces but personally i think you are trying to dance on the head of a pin.

    You are squirming to find some small exception that will make President Obama ineligible, when it is more than clear to pretty much everyone that under the commonly accepted definition of natural born citizen, President Obama is eligible.

    How do I know this? Because the voters knew the facts of his father’s citizenship and did not find them relevant. Nor did the Electoral College, or Congress or Chief Justice Roberts. Nor has any constitutional authority- conservative or liberal- not even that nutjob Michelle Bachmann or the windbag Limbaugh, or the stooge Michael Steele.

    For those of us who grew up in the United States, we were taught that to be eligible to be President you needed to be born in the United States. We weren’t taught that Daddy needed to be a citizen or that Mommy had to establish formal residency. We were taught that any kid born in the United States could aspire to be President. That was- and is- amazingly inspirational to our country of descendents of immigrants.

    I find that your efforts to make to try to establish a legal loophole that would change the American concept of what a Natural Born Citizen is in an attempt to remove from office a President who was legally elected, and legally confirmed to be anti-democratic and unpatriotic.

    Really- resting your hopes on being able to remove a President from office on whether or not his father would be considered a resident of Hawaii? Just pathetic. To my mind this is just further evidence of Birthers focus on proving the President not eligible- and damn the facts.

    Instead of harboring what might be considered reasonable suspicions about one facet of the Presidents life that might mean he was not eligible, Birthers embrace any and all theories, and the more tortured the logic to achieve those theories the better.

    First Obama was born in Kenya, then he lost his citizenship as a kid in Indonesia, oh and he couldn’t be a citizen because of Vattel(who?), oh he couldn’t be a citizen because Daddy wasn’t a resident. He is really a British citizen or a Kenyan citizen or a Canadian citizen. His father was a defacto diplomat so he couldn’t be a citizen.

    And when the facts still don’t add up, the answer is that Obama paid people off, or had political connections or everyone in the whole United States was scared of being called a racist or scared of massive riots.

    If anyone of you came forward and actually was intellectually curious about any one theory, I would give that view some consideration. But the birthers embrace any theory that would make the President ineligible. And to me that is clear that Birthers have an agenda irrelevant of facts.

    The President was eligible. The voters knew it. You will see the long form of his BC in his Presidential Library.

  74. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    NbC:
    You have failed to show how the argument presented by the Court relies in any manner or form on the domicile status.You ignore Lynch v Clarke which was cited approvingly by the Court, as it was another excellent ruling of our Courts which involved a child born on US soil to temporary visiting alien parents.Remember the simple argument: What is the meaning of natural born citizen, a meaning which had to be found in Common Law tradition and which was shown to mean born on soil, under its allegiance. The latter requirement was to exclude by the fewest words, children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military, who common law were excluded as their parents and thus the child owed no allegiance to the country of his birth.As your refusal to address the issues appears to indicate, you have no rebuttal to these facts.Care to try again?

    The “common law tradition” was not to make the child of aliens, on temporary sojourn, though born on U.S. soil, citizens of the United States. You managed to find one case, from one state, to support that claim. Can you find any others? How about a federal case where the child of an alien on temporary sojourn was found to be a citizen of the U.S.?

    For an alien to be permanently domiciled here, there must be an express intent to become a member of our society. Our law even recognizes that if the father should die after declaring such intent, the children shall be naturalized by the mere taking of an oath. To completely ignore domicile is to completely ignore common law tradition.

  75. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    In fact, the parents allegiance matters less than the child’s. Only in cases where the parents lack any allegiance because of diplomatic immunity or invasion, do the children lack allegiance.

    JoZeppy: The only thing that matters about the parents’ status is are they subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And with the exception of diplmatic missions, and few other rare catagories, that includes everyone, irrepective of their allegiance, and how long they are in the US, or whether they are citizens of other countries, or what their allegiances are.

  76. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    WTF?: The “common law tradition” was not to make the child of aliens, on temporary sojourn, though born on U.S. soil, citizens of the United States. You managed to find one case, from one state, to support that claim. Can you find any others? How about a federal case where the child of an alien on temporary sojourn was found to be a citizen of the U.S.?

    Haha, this is funny, first WTF is insisting on me citing evidence that at the state level there was indeed a common tradition, and now he asks for federal level. Oh the irony…

    You say that common law tradition was not as I explained and yet, time after time these cases cite common law tradition.

    Town v Town, Lynch v Clarke, Munroe v Merchant all come to the same conclusion and the justices in WKA cite approvingly the more relevant rulings here to show that indeed, by Common Law tradition, (natural born) citizenship status is granted to children, even when the parents reside only temporarily in our Country.

    You’re a funny guy WTF, a bit suffering from cognitive dissonance, which explains your wild and fallacious rejection.

    Remember that you insisted I look at court cases.

    Hilarious.

  77. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    ” You managed to find one case, from one state, to support that claim. Can you find any others?”

    Can you find any case where a child born in the United States to the parent of a non-Resident father was deemed not to be a natural born citizen?

    Because you keep challenging others to disprove you, when in reality, what you propose runs counter to what has been taught in the this country for at least the last 40 years.

    So- prove your point- show us a case where a child born in the United States- not to a diplomat- was declared not to be a natural born citizen

  78. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    SFJeff: So Wong vs Ark only applies to cases where the parents are of Chinese descent?

    Of course… When cognitive dissonance strikes, reason and logic are its first victims.

    Note how WTF is accepting/rejecting in a now almost random fashion concepts, arguments and facts.
    So predictable and we will just have to let him resolve internally these conflicts between belief and facts.

  79. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    The “common law tradition” was not to make the child of aliens, on temporary sojourn, though born on U.S. soil, citizens of the United States. You managed to find one case, from one state, to support that claim. Can you find any others?

    How about you do some research, for a change.

    Find a single case where someone was deported because they were born to aliens temporarily resident.

    Our law even recognizes that if the father should die after declaring such intent, the children shall be naturalized by the mere taking of an oath.

    Not the children born here, who were citizens from birth – natural born citizens!

    Obama has never been naturalized.

    Should he be deported, or not!

    Have the courage of your convictions, WTF, and call him an illegal alien!

  80. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    SFJeff: So- prove your point- show us a case where a child born in the United States- not to a diplomat- was declared not to be a natural born citizen

    That’s too simple… Be careful what you wish for as there are several cases involving Indians, who are born on US soil and yet, due to their ‘nation within a nation’ status, were considered not born under US jurisdiction.

    Elk v Wilkins I believe… The courts have been somewhat inconsistent in their dealings with Indians, as they were with non-whites in earlier days.

  81. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    JoZeppy: Not only is domicle irrevant, your discussion about temporary allegiance is also irrelvant. The only thing that matters about the parents’ status is are they subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And with the exception of diplmatic missions, and few other rare catagories, that includes everyone, irrepective of their allegiance, and how long they are in the US, or whether they are citizens of other countries, or what their allegiances are.

    By WTF’s argument an alien (non-diplomat) could come to our country & immediately commit crimes for which he could not be held responsible unless he intended his domicile to be here. Patently ridiculous! There is no country in the world where this would be true. THIMK!

  82. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    WTF?: The “common law tradition” was not to make the child of aliens, on temporary sojourn, though born on U.S. soil, citizens of the United States. You managed to find one case, from one state, to support that claim. Can you find any others? How about a federal case where the child of an alien on temporary sojourn was found to be a citizen of the U.S.?

    Have you read Kim Ark Wong? The only exception in the common law is embassadors and hostile military. How about your back this up, rather than asking us for proof. How about you show us a case where a court held the child of aliens on temporary sojourn are not NBC? Can’t do it, can you?

    WTF?: For an alien to be permanently domiciled here, there must be an express intent to become a member of our society. Our law even recognizes that if the father should die after declaring such intent, the children shall be naturalized by the mere taking of an oath. To completely ignore domicile is to completely ignore common law tradition.

    Can you provide some citation? Back it up.

  83. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    This is for everyone elses amusement- WTF will not appreciate it.

    In WTF world, the Constitution includes the NBC clause to protect America from foreign influence.

    He is now pinning his hopes onto whether Obama Sr. was a ‘resident’ of Hawaii.

    So think about this
    Scenario A- Obama Sr. gets a Hawaii drivers license, maybe signs a two year lease, and loudly proclaims his intent to stay in Hawaii for the rest of his life. By most standards he would be considered a resident. But then he changes his mind and abandons his wife and child and goes off to Harvard.
    Scenario B- Obama Sr. goes to Hawaii, doesn’t get a Hawaii drivers license, doesnt sign a lease, doesn’t tell everyone he intends to stay. Subsequently abandons his wife and child and goes off to Harvard.

    Assuming that Scenario A made Obama clearly a resident, and Scenario B not clearly a resident- what is there about scenario A that would make a President less susceptible to foreign influence than Scenario B?

    The answer is of course- nothing. Obama Sr’s residency or lack of residency isn’t relevant to eligibility nor should it be. Its not relevant to the whole point of the NBC clause.

  84. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    For an alien to be permanently domiciled here, there must be an express intent to become a member of our society.

    Why do you say things that are legal pronouncements and yet, are demonstrably false?

    There must be an intent, but it need not be express. It can be implied!

    WTF?: You managed to find one case, from one state, to support that claim.

    That’s like saying, “You found one suitcase full of a billion dollars, can you find another?”

    Lynch v. Clarke has been cited dozens, if not hundreds of times. Not a single case has called into question the granting of citizenship to Ms. Lynch, despite the fact that her parents were on a “temporary sojourn” when she was born.

  85. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    SFJeff: “that the rulings of a court only apply to cases in which the facts are similar?”So Wong vs Ark only applies to cases where the parents are of Chinese descent?Well the lawyers have already shredded your point to pieces but personally i think you are trying to dance on the head of a pin.You are squirming to find some small exception that will make President Obama ineligible, when it is more than clear to pretty much everyone that under the commonly accepted definition of natural born citizen, President Obama is eligible.How do I know this? Because the voters knew the facts of his father’s citizenship and did not find them relevant. Nor did the Electoral College, or Congress or Chief Justice Roberts. Nor has any constitutional authority- conservative or liberal- not even that nutjob Michelle Bachmann or the windbag Limbaugh, or the stooge Michael Steele.
    For those of us who grew up in the United States, we were taught that to be eligible to be President you needed to be born in the United States. We weren’t taught that Daddy needed to be a citizen or that Mommy had to establish formal residency. We were taught that any kid born in the United States could aspire to be President. That was- and is- amazingly inspirational to our country of descendents of immigrants.
    I find that your efforts to make to try to establish a legal loophole that would change the American concept of what a Natural Born Citizen is in an attempt to remove from office a President who was legally elected, and legally confirmed to be anti-democratic and unpatriotic.
    Really- resting your hopes on being able to remove a President from office on whether or not his father would be considered a resident of Hawaii? Just pathetic. To my mind this is just further evidence of Birthers focus on proving the President not eligible- and damn the facts.
    Instead of harboring what might be considered reasonable suspicions about one facet of the Presidents life that might mean he was not eligible, Birthers embrace any and all theories, and the more tortured the logic to achieve those theories the better.First Obama was born in Kenya, then he lost his citizenship as a kid in Indonesia, oh and he couldn’t be a citizen because of Vattel(who?), oh he couldn’t be a citizen because Daddy wasn’t a resident. He is really a British citizen or a Kenyan citizen or a Canadian citizen. His father was a defacto diplomat so he couldn’t be a citizen.
    And when the facts still don’t add up, the answer is that Obama paid people off, or had political connections or everyone in the whole United States was scared of being called a racist or scared of massive riots.
    If anyone of you came forward and actually was intellectually curious about any one theory, I would give that view some consideration. But the birthers embrace any theory that would make the President ineligible. And to me that is clear that Birthers have an agenda irrelevant of facts.
    The President was eligible. The voters knew it. You will see the long form of his BC in his Presidential Library.

    This is the first time I ever heard of a case styled as Wong vs. Ark. Maybe you’re just in over your head. I like the fact that you picked up on the term “shredded”. It is typical troll vernacular, and commonly used to declare victory by oneself and his ilk.

    I’m glad you feel that it works well for you.

    If you would pay attention, I have not declared Obama to be inelligible. I have only stated that the question has not been settled by SCOTUS. In fact, I doubt that it will be settled by SCOTUS in the near future.

    My primary concern is to determine if Obama was actually born in Hawaii. I would be satisfied by the reporting of his birth by an independent party. Show me that his birth was filed by a hospital, and I’ll lose interest.

    You see, unlike those who think the birth certificate is just a distraction, I think it is the object of deceit. I think the NBC issue is the real distraction.

  86. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    In many states, such students have to change over to have the car registered locally and in case of foreign students, most are encouraged or required to obtain US drivers’ licenses. Which is trivial.

    Furthermore, such students have to pay taxes to the state in which they are resident, and in case of foreign students, they also have to pay federal taxes.

    Residency laws differ from state to state and for the purpose of residency in a state and tuition, many states have ruled that non-resident (sic) aliens cannot become residents for that sole purpose.
    However, that does not mean that one cannot become resident or domiciled for other legal purposes.
    For instance divorce…
    The concept of residence and domicile are quite confusing as they may be different under different assumptions.
    From a municipal law perspective residence is merely the place one lives, while domicile requires the location to be not temporary. However, it is far from clear that a student’s residence is temporary as there is no clear intent to leave.
    In case of a birth two a resident and domiciled citizen and a non-immigrant status alien, there appears to be little doubt as to the citizenship status of the child so born. After all, if born abroad, such a child would be, under most circumstances be considered a citizen as well and it would simply be illogical that a child born on US soil to the same people would have a lesser status.
    Which is why WTF refuses to answer the question about whether or not Obama has any citizenship at all… Opening the door to citizenship would lead to the inevitable natural born citizenship status because of birth on US soil.
    That needs to be avoided, apparently at all ‘cost’.

    Scientist: WTF?: Before you try to claim that Obama Sr. was a “resident” of Hawaii, you better think about all the state laws that require those who become residents there to register their vehicles, and change their driver’s license to that state; and then think about how it currently applies to college students

  87. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    WTF?: You see, unlike those who think the birth certificate is just a distraction, I think it is the object of deceit. I think the NBC issue is the real distraction.

    Perhaps you shouldn’t opine about things you don’t care about and which you are unwilling to do the basic things to become familiar with (actually reading WKA and Lynch v. Clarke)?

    I would be satisfied by the reporting of his birth by an independent party.

    The Republican governor of Hawaii, the head of the DOH, appointed by her (in other words, a Republican-appointed head of the DOH), and the registrar of the state of Hawaii, who has been in his job for years under different administrations aren’t “independent” enough for you?

  88. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Greg:
    Why do you say things that are legal pronouncements and yet, are demonstrably false?
    There must be an intent, but it need not be express. It can be implied!That’s like saying, “You found one suitcase full of a billion dollars, can you find another?”Lynch v. Clarke has been cited dozens, if not hundreds of times. Not a single case has called into question the granting of citizenship to Ms. Lynch, despite the fact that her parents were on a “temporary sojourn” when she was born.

    OK. Show me Obama Sr’s “implied intent” to become a permanent resident of the U.S.

    He married Obama’s mother. Did he apply for a green card?

    The temporary residence of a student has never been considered an intent to remain at that location, expressed or implied.

  89. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    WTF?: My primary concern is to determine if Obama was actually born in Hawaii. I would be satisfied by the reporting of his birth by an independent party. Show me that his birth was filed by a hospital, and I’ll lose interest.

    Doubtful… The latter…
    As to independent reporting, the Hawaiian DOH has reported such, as supported by his COLB and contemporaneous newspaper announcements.

    But somehow people will always find a reason…

  90. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    I assume that WTF does believe in State Rights and sovereignty?

    NbC: As to independent reporting, the Hawaiian DOH has reported such, as supported by his COLB and contemporaneous newspaper announcements.

  91. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    Greg: The Republican governor of Hawaii, the head of the DOH, appointed by her (in other words, a Republican-appointed head of the DOH), and the registrar of the state of Hawaii, who has been in his job for years under different administrations aren’t “independent” enough for you?

    Obviously not. Seems to me that WTF has a somewhat dissonant position towards state rights and sovereignty.

  92. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    WTF?: I have only stated that the question has not been settled by SCOTUS. In fact, I doubt that it will be settled by SCOTUS in the near future.

    You’re right on one point. SCOTUS will probably never give a birther suit cert, because they don’t grant cert on issues that have been long since settled. There is no controversy in the legal community. No genuine Constitutional scholar believes that you need anything more than being born in the US and being subject to its jurisdiction to be a natural born citizen.

    WTF?: My primary concern is to determine if Obama was actually born in Hawaii. I would be satisfied by the reporting of his birth by an independent party. Show me that his birth was filed by a hospital, and I’ll lose interest.
    You see, unlike those who think the birth certificate is just a distraction, I think it is the object of deceit. I think the NBC issue is the real distraction.

    Considering the total lack of evidence showing he was born anywhere but Hawaii, and the sheer improbability of him being born in Africa, and sprinkle that with the pronouncements of the State of Hawaii…I would think any reasonable person would feel far more comfortable with the evidence of his birth than any past president.

  93. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    OK. Show me Obama Sr’s “implied intent” to become a permanent resident of the U.S.

    He married Obama’s mother. Did he apply for a green card?

    The temporary residence of a student has never been considered an intent to remain at that location, expressed or implied.

    Never ? That’s somewhat of a hazardous assertion…

    He married Obama’s mother, as to his application for a green card, that’s less relevant but worth pursuing. Marriage itself, combined with studies and continued studies after graduation as a postdoc, certainly does imply that there was an open ended decision to stay in the United States.
    Realize that YOU have to prove otherwise… Assuming that we accept your position on domicile and residency, a position which appears to be poorly supported so far.

  94. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    WTF, you have said far more than that…
    But I understand..

    WTF: I have only stated that the question has not been settled by SCOTUS. In fact, I doubt that it will be settled by SCOTUS in the near future.

  95. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    Greg:
    Perhaps you shouldn’t opine about things you don’t care about and which you are unwilling to do the basic things to become familiar with (actually reading WKA and Lynch v. Clarke)?The Republican governor of Hawaii, the head of the DOH, appointed by her (in other words, a Republican-appointed head of the DOH), and the registrar of the state of Hawaii, who has been in his job for years under different administrations aren’t “independent” enough for you?

    Greg, You know as well as I do that the only formal statement to come out of Hawaii is that the have Obama’s birth records on file. NOTHING has been officially presented that would declare that Obama’s birth was reported by a hospital.

    Why not just tell the truth? You know that the Gov. did not state that she viewed the original vital records. And you know that Dr. Fukino did not state that Obama’s birth report was filed by any hospital. Why not just acknowledge the facts?

  96. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    What you’re claiming is roughly equivilant to me claiming that the Police can bust down your front door with a battering ram, because SCOTUS hasn’t specifically said that they can’t use a battering ram to bust down my front door.

    You’re going from “This is an open question.” to “Obama is a usurping MF who usurped the White House.” You’re being disengenous with your argument.

    For instance, according to the Supreme Court, U.S. Territory isn’t considered part of the United States for 14th Amendment Questions. Does that mean that someone born, say, in Arizona before Arizona was a state is ineligible for the Presidency? No. We’ve had Presidents and Vice Presidents that don’t fit your white-washed definition of Natural Born Citizen that only came to being 2 years ago when Obama decided to run for the Presidency. Chester A. Arthur was elected, and sworn in as Vice President, despite the fact that his father was a foreigner at the time of his birth. Furthermore, it can be reasonably assumed that his political enemies (mainly Arthur P. Hinman) knew that his father was a foreigner when he was sworn in, and yet there is absolutely no record that he argued that Arthur was ineligible on that basis.

    You’re trying to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with your definition. SCOTUS will never hear the case because it’s already settled law, and has been for over 110 years now. It takes 4 Supreme Court Justices to vote to hear a case for the case to be heard. This means that cases only reach the Supreme Court where they either want to overturn the case holding, or where there’s an active question. Your definition fits none of those two definitions. In fact, if (and it’s a pretty large IF) it was ever heard by the Supreme Court, I’d guarentee a 9-0 decision holding that Obama is constitutionally eligible for the Presidency based solely upon the fact that he was born in Hawaii.

    The reality is that you don’t like Barack Obama. Therefore, instead of dealing with the fact that your side lost, you decide to go, “It can’t be that the majority of Americans disagree with me. It must be that they’ve been duped into believing that they could elect this Usurper to be President.” It fits your narrative much better than dealing with the side that your side lost in 2008.

  97. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    NbC: WTF, you have said far more than that…
    But I understand..

    Yes. I have stated that I believe an unsettled controversy does exist, and I have presented the reason why I think it could be determined in favor of either party.

    I have nothing to lose. I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain. I’m what you would call, an impartial observer. -Something tells me that you, Dr. Con, and the rest here could not say the same. πŸ™‚

  98. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    Greg, You know as well as I do that the only formal statement to come out of Hawaii is that the have Obama’s birth records on file. NOTHING has been officially presented that would declare that Obama’s birth was reported by a hospital.

    Again that short memory syndrome…

    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.

    Hilarious…

    You know that the Gov. did not state that she viewed the original vital records.

    See above

    And you know that Dr. Fukino did not state that Obama’s birth report was filed by any hospital

    And again missing that:

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

    Hilarious…

  99. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    WTF?:
    Greg, You know as well as I do that the only formal statement to come out of Hawaii is that the have Obama’s birth records on file. NOTHING has been officially presented that would declare that Obama’s birth was reported by a hospital.Why not just tell the truth? You know that the Gov. did not state that she viewed the original vital records. And you know that Dr. Fukino did not state that Obama’s birth report was filed by any hospital. Why not just acknowledge the facts?

    Are you saying that if Obama was born in a Hospital, he is an Natural Born Citizen, but if he was born outside a hospital, he’s not?

    Are you saying that if you’re born in the taxi cab on the way to a hospital, you’re not an American?

    This is where you get redicilous. Hawaii has directly stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has directly stated that the form of document that he put on the Internet is a “valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” Hawaii has directly stated that you cannot get a birth certificate that says that you were born in Honolulu, when you weren’t born there.

    Hawaii has directly confirmed that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.

  100. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    “This is the first time I ever heard of a case styled as Wong vs. Ark. Maybe you’re just in over your head. ”

    Ooooh I misquoted the title of the court case.

    “I like the fact that you picked up on the term “shredded”. It is typical troll vernacular, and commonly used to declare victory by oneself and his ilk.”

    Just an observation. Every one of your points has been countered to my satisfaction and I note the President is still the President, so its all working out for me just fine.

    “If you would pay attention, I have not declared Obama to be inelligible. I have only stated that the question has not been settled by SCOTUS. In fact, I doubt that it will be settled by SCOTUS in the near future.”

    Trolling. Really- to say it hasn’t been settled by the Supreme Court is ignoring my whole point- the voters knew that President Obama met the definition of NBC, and so did Chief Justice Roberts. It is settled in everyones mind but yours and a few malcontents.

    “My primary concern is to determine if Obama was actually born in Hawaii.”

    Then why do you embrace the two citizen parents argument?

    “I would be satisfied by the reporting of his birth by an independent party. Show me that his birth was filed by a hospital, and I’ll lose interest.”

    I think you live to be disappointed. The President has no obligation to show you anything, and frankly at this point I support him ignoring you and the others.

    “You see, unlike those who think the birth certificate is just a distraction, I think it is the object of deceit. I think the NBC issue is the real distraction.”

    You are of course welcome to your opinion. In my opinion most birthers are either closeted racists who just can’t stand that a black man was legally elected President, or dupes of the far right Lee Atwater/Whitewater/Swift Boat slander machine.

    Of course that is just my opinion.

  101. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Cognitive dissonance I tell you… But what would I know πŸ™‚
    Could be that there is more than one WTF posting here…

    SFJeff: “My primary concern is to determine if Obama was actually born in Hawaii.”

    Then why do you embrace the two citizen parents argument?

  102. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Show me Obama Sr’s “implied intent” to become a permanent resident of the U.S.

    Determining domicile is a fact-intensive matter that is not a fraction as easy as you think. Take Arakaki v. Arakaki, 502 P.2d 380 (HI 1978)

    Our reading of the record compels us to find that prior to leaving for Japan in June, 1965, appellant was a domiciliary of the State of Hawaii. In Blackburn v. Blackburn, 41 Haw. 37, 40-41 (1955) we stated that:

    Domicile is proved by evidence of two facts: physical presence at a particular place and intention of the party to reside there permanently; or, as is sometimes said, to make the place his home with no present intent to leave at any foreseeable future time.

    A person’s intention is usually determined by his acts viewed in their totality. Baltuch v. Baltuch, 29 Misc.2d 282, 210 N.Y.S.2d 54 (Sup.Ct. 1960).

    We conclude that because appellant had a job, home, family and financial obligations in this state, there is sufficient evidence to show that he was domiciled in Hawaii prior to his removal to Japan in June, 1965.

    Obama Sr. had
    Marriage
    Son
    Apartment
    Two more years of schooling

    (“[T]he length of actual residence is immaterial to the acquisition of a domicile. A day or an hour will suffice.”) (citations omitted); Powell, 40 Haw. at 630 (“Length of residence is not a factor where the act and intention to acquire a domicile concur…. No definite period of time is necessary to create a domicile and one day is sufficient provided the animus manendi exists.”) (citation omitted).

    Now, let’s pretend, for a second, that this came before a court.

    You would be asking the court to find Obama either a non-citizen, or a lesser citizen. The courts have said that there is a very high burden to prove that someone is a non-citizen and that every presumption is to be made in the benefit of keeping citizenship.

    There is some evidence that Obama Sr. intended to stay in the state.

    What significant evidence do you have that in 1961 Obama did not intend to stay?

    Did he apply for a green card?

    I don’t know. Has someone done a FOIA on this?

  103. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    dunstvangeet: You’re going from “This is an open question.” to “Obama is a usurping MF who usurped the White House.” You’re being disengenous with your argument.

    How dare you? I have never said Obama was this or that. You can look thru the many comments I have left, and you will not find me calling Obama any names. I do not refer to him as a usurper. I never have.

    Now grow up, and learn how to argue without putting words in someone else’s mouth.

  104. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm #

    Of course, we could make a similar claim to yours. But why be so foolish as to deny what is obvious.

    You claim an unsettled controversy exists and yet you insist that Common Law did not consider children born during a temporary sojourn to be citizens and yet, the facts show otherwise. What you call a controversy need not, and in this case, is no real controversy other than when carefully ignoring all the contradictory facts.

    You claim you have no ’emotional’ investment in the issue and yet I see evidence which clearly contradicts your claims.

    One moment you claim that your interest is all about the birth in Hawaii but then you spend a lot of time arguing that children born on US soil, during a temporary sojourn are not US citizens.

    So, if this is the case, you should take the next logical step and call Obama an alien because he was, in your words, born during a temporary sojourn.
    Or state clearly what your argument is because legal jurisprudence and common law practices show you to be wrong.

    When you say you have no emotional investment and then ignore the COLB, the official statements by the DOH of Hawaii, one may start to wonder about what by any and all reasonable standard appears to be an example of cognitive dissonance.

    WTF?: Yes. I have stated that I believe an unsettled controversy does exist, and I have presented the reason why I think it could be determined in favor of either party.

    I have nothing to lose. I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain. I’m what you would call, an impartial observer. -Something tells me that you, Dr. Con, and the rest here could not say the same.

  105. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    “I’m what you would call, an impartial observer. ”

    I have seen no evidence of that. Let me more specific- I have seen no evidence of impartiality nor no evidence of observance.

    What i see is someone with a pre-determined opinion, who is looking for evidence which fits that opinion, and willing to accept as plausible almost any theory that would support that opinion.

  106. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    Excellent find.

    Be prepared for WTF to return to his ‘primary concern’.

    In three, two, one…

    Greg: A person’s intention is usually determined by his acts viewed in their totality. Baltuch v. Baltuch, 29 Misc.2d 282, 210 N.Y.S.2d 54 (Sup.Ct. 1960).

    We conclude that because appellant had a job, home, family and financial obligations in this state, there is sufficient evidence to show that he was domiciled in Hawaii prior to his removal to Japan in June, 1965.

    Will this be a two-edged sword?

    WTF?: Now grow up, and learn how to argue without putting words in someone else’s mouth.

  107. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Fair enough I would agree with you.

    SFJeff: “I’m what you would call, an impartial observer. ”

    I have seen no evidence of that. Let me more specific- I have seen no evidence of impartiality nor no evidence of observance.

  108. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    SFJeff:You are of course welcome to your opinion. In my opinion most birthers are either closeted racists who just can’t stand that a black man was legally elected President, or dupes of the far right Lee Atwater/Whitewater/Swift Boat slander machine.Of course that is just my opinion.

    Yep. I talked with a few over at PatriotsHeartMediaNetwork, and they claimed that this quote isn’t racist: “It is common knowledge that African men, coming from the continent of Africa — especially for the first time — do diligently seek out white women to have sexual intercourse with. Generally the most noble of white society choose not to intercourse sexually with these men. So it’s usually the trashier ones who make their determinations that they’re going to have sex.” mainly because it was offered by a black man. They’re attitude was that if their side said it, it’s not racist, it’s just observing what he observed.

    I’ve given up on trying to put another reason behind it other than racism, mainly because they won’t call the ones who are racist out for what they are.

  109. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Greg: What significant evidence do you have that in 1961 Obama did not intend to stay?

    Excellent point…

    WTF, any comments here?

  110. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Greg: Two more years of schooling

    “Two more years of schooling”

    There you go, Greg! Did Obama Sr. apply for a green card? There would be your intent.

    Marrying the woman you knocked-up is not the demonstration of intent to become a citizen of the U.S anymore than it demonstrated Stanley Ann’s intent to become a citizen of the UK or Kenya.

    You have nothing to establish an intent of Obama Sr. to become a citizen. His status as a student, and remaining on a student visa easily demonstrate the contrary.

  111. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    You have nothing to establish an intent of Obama Sr. to become a citizen. His status as a student, and remaining on a student visa easily demonstrate the contrary.

    And yet, despite all this, the Courts would appear to disagree with you.

    Is application for a green card evidence of intent to stay or is lack of such an application evidence of the contrary? Logic would not lead one to such a discussion.

    Still struggling I see.

    I understand.

  112. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    You have nothing to establish an intent of Obama Sr. to become a citizen.

    Domicile does not depend on an intent to become a citizen.

    Sigh…

  113. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    WTF?: You know as well as I do that the only formal statement to come out of Hawaii is that the have Obama’s birth records on file.

    1. The State of Hawaii confirmed they had Obama’s records on file.
    2. The State of Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu.
    3. The COLB states that it is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the documents on file. It is signed by the Registrar of the State of Hawaii. It has a raised seal of the State of Hawaii.

    Assuming the COLB is not a forgery, there are 3 official statements here. They prove that the records that Hawaii has confirm Obama was born in Hawaii.

    We knew already that the files the state has would say that, since the newspaper records are generated by the contents of the files.

    Birth in a hospital is not required for Obama to be a natural born citizen. Even if Grandma signed the application for a home birth, you would still need to prove that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

    And, it had better be good evidence, to overcome the strong presumption that the government does a good job on Vital Statistics.

  114. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    WTF?: Marrying the woman you knocked-up is not the demonstration of intent to become a citizen

    This is why you should stop talking about the law. You are clearly unversed in it. As NBC has pointed out, an intention to become a citizen is distinct from an intention to live somewhere permanently.

    I can have:

    1. 13 residences each one in a different country.
    2. Citizenship in countries A, B, C, and D; and
    3. Domicile in country E!

    You can have multiple residences, multiple citizenships, but only one domicile!

    Don’t you think you should at least know the terms you’re arguing about? What they mean?

  115. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    I would personally find it helpful if the terms I used were at least familiar to me. But in addition to familiarity one would hope a more extensive foundation in relevant legal precedents would help.

    For that I thank you for your excellent contributions

    Greg: Don’t you think you should at least know the terms you’re arguing about? What they mean?

  116. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    WTF, we’ve given you time and time again, court case after court case, that is directly on point for the Natural Born Citizenship that can leave you with no other answer than anybody born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. But let’s take a look at Ankeny v. Daniels (2008). The Indiana Court of Appeals directly said that anybody born in the United States is constitutionally eligible, subject to the following minor exceptions:

    1. Family has Diplomatic Immunity
    2. Family is part of an invading army, occupying American Soil (for instance, if, during the War of 1812, a British Soldier had a child while they occupied an American City, then that child would not be an Natural Born Citizen)
    3. Native American not taxes (Elk v. Wilkins)

    Let’s take a look at Lynch v. Clarke, which said that anybody born inside the land is a Natural Born Citizen

    Let’s take a look at Perkins v. Elg. The district court said that Elg was an Natural Born Citizen because she was born on U.S. Soil. The U.S. Supreme Court directly said that they agreed with the District Court’s assessment. This case also cuts out all of the crap about Obama giving up his citizenship in Indonesia.

    Even just a few years ago, during oral arguments, mutliple Supreme Court Justices agreed with the jus soli path to Natural Born Citizenship, and in fact, some of the Justices seemed willing to declare anybody who had citizenship at birth to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    There is no open question. The only way this reaches the inside of a Supreme Court Room is if either a State Supreme Court, or a Federal Circuit Court goes against these rulings and declares that someone who is born here is not a Natural Born Citizen. Then it will be a quick oral argument, with a 9-0 decision reversing that court.

    What you’re saying is a akin to me saying that it’s an open question whether the Police can use a Battering Ram to break down your door without a warrant. After all, no Supreme Court decision has directly said that they can’t.

  117. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    And the fact is that you actually put out “intent to become a citizen” as a neccessary requirement is completely at odds with the ruling of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    Ark’s parents were forbidden from being a citizen, so I’d argue that they didn’t have the intent, because they could never become citizens in the first place. So, if intent to become a citizen is neccessary for being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, then there is no way that Wong Kim Ark was subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and then the Supreme Court should have ruled differently.

  118. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    WTF?-Why are you ducking the question? I gave you a simple scenario:

    Suzie, an Art History major from Dubuque goes to Italy for a junior year abroad and gets knocked up by Marco, a handsome young Italian. They get married in Italy. She comes home at the end of the sojourn and gives birth in Dubuque. Marco remains in Italy when the child is born-he has no possible claim to US residence, domicile or anything else.

    The question is very simple-is the child a US citizen? Yes or no.

  119. avatar
    Black Lion May 28, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    WTF?: Greg, You know as well as I do that the only formal statement to come out of Hawaii is that the have Obama’s birth records on file. NOTHING has been officially presented that would declare that Obama’s birth was reported by a hospital.Why not just tell the truth? You know that the Gov. did not state that she viewed the original vital records. And you know that Dr. Fukino did not state that Obama’s birth report was filed by any hospital. Why not just acknowledge the facts?

    WTF, not quite. If I recall the HI DoH Dr Fukino also said that President Obama was “BORN IN HAWAII”. Now unless the definition of born has changed since I last looked it up she stated specifically he was born in the state of HI. The Constitution does not require that a birth report be filled out or that he needed to be born in a hospital. That is a definate red herring. I

    f we are to acknowledge facts as you said the fact is that Dr. Fukino said the President was born in HI. The governor has stated that he was born in HI. The COLB, signed and sealed by the state of HI states that he was born in HI. There are 2 birth announcements in newspapers back in 1961 announcing his birth in HI. These facts are not in dispute by any rational human being.

    You however are intending to troll by bringing up irrelevant issues such as a hospital birth record and the intent of Obama Sr. regarding whether or not he intended to stay in the US. Most people would acknowledge that by Obama Sr. marrying Obama’s mother that would be intent. It just seems like you are attempting to grasp at straws, focusing on the most minute detail in an attempt to cloud the issue.

    If you don’t think that Lynch is applicable, how about citing some case law that shows otherwise. Greg and the others have shown you that Lynch was cited by Federal and Supreme court justices in relation to citizenship so legal experts must think differently than you. Your position is untenable at best because you have no case law that supports your position nor do you have any admissible evidence that even comes close to refuting the COLB or Obama’s birth in HI.

  120. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Greg:
    This is why you should stop talking about the law. You are clearly unversed in it. As NBC has pointed out, an intention to become a citizen is distinct from an intention to live somewhere permanently.
    I can have:
    1. 13 residences each one in a different country.
    2. Citizenship in countries A, B, C, and D; and
    3. Domicile in country E!You can have multiple residences, multiple citizenships, but only one domicile!Don’t you think you should at least know the terms you’re arguing about? What they mean?

    Just a question: What is the legal situation as regards domicile for homeless individuals? Or for the “hobos” who used to live their life in boxcars crisscrossing the country?

  121. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    Even assuming Domicile were relevant, it would be your responsibility to prove that Obama Sr. was not domiciled, which would be a tough one.

    The voters have already spoken- they werent’ concerned about domicile or that Obama Sr. was not a citizen.

    What I really don’t understand about Birthers- if they really are so convinced that there is a real issue regarding whether President Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya why are they not there beating the bushes looking for evidence?

    Seriously- even I could rationalize a trip to Hawaii to see if I could find evidence that President Obama was not born there, if I had any doubts.

    If they really, really believe the Kenya thing- then why are they not in Kenya actually looking for evidence?

  122. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    SFJeff: Even assuming Domicile were relevant, it would be your responsibility to prove that Obama Sr. was not domiciled, which would be a tough one.The voters have already spoken- they werent’ concerned about domicile or that Obama Sr. was not a citizen.
    What I really don’t understand about Birthers- if they really are so convinced that there is a real issue regarding whether President Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya why are they not there beating the bushes looking for evidence?Seriously- even I could rationalize a trip to Hawaii to see if I could find evidence that President Obama was not born there, if I had any doubts.
    If they really, really believe the Kenya thing- then why are they not in Kenya actually looking for evidence?

    In any case this domicile discussion is totally irrelevant since the only thing of importance is that Obama was born in HI. WTF’s silence on Suzie’s little trip to Italy speaks volumes. Now if the trip had been to Africa or to an Islamic country I think WTF would have responded more quickly. Whether it’s race, religion, or something else the birthers’ entire point is “He’s not like me”.

  123. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Sef: Just a question: What is the legal situation as regards domicile for homeless individuals? Or for the “hobos” who used to live their life in boxcars crisscrossing the country?

    Speaking in a very general sense, your domicile is where you intend to make your permanent home…that is until you decide to move it…and then you have only moved your domicile when you arrived there. So in that sense, a homeless individual sets up his domicile where he intends to live, and return to (i.e., under a particular bridge), until he decides to “set up camp” elsewhere. As for hobos, I would think if they are in transit to a particular location where they intend to get off the train, they would establish their domicile there, until they decide to move on to the next location. However, I’m saying this without having done the research, so I’m basing this on just a general knowedge of the law, and how I would apply it to the case, and without a knowledge of any case law or statutes in particular, so I may be entirely wrong.

  124. avatar
    yguy May 28, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Yep.I talked with a few over at PatriotsHeartMediaNetwork, and they claimed that this quote isn’t racist: “It is common knowledge that African men, coming from the continent ofAfrica — especially for the first time — do diligently seek out white women to have sexual intercourse with. Generally the most noble of white society choose not to intercourse sexually with these men. So it’s usually the trashier ones who make their determinations that they’re going to have sex.” mainly because it was offered by a black man.

    There’s nothing patently racist about it no matter who offered it. It’s probably overly generalized WRT “African men”, but that doesn’t make it racist.

  125. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Speaking in a very general sense, your domicile is where you intend to make your permanent home…that is until you decide to move it…and then you have only moved your domicile when you arrived there.So in that sense, a homeless individual sets up his domicile where he intends to live, and return to (i.e., under a particular bridge), until he decides to “set up camp” elsewhere.As for hobos, I would think if they are in transit to a particular location where they intend to get off the train, they would establish their domicile there, until they decide to move on to the next location.However, I’m saying this without having done the research, so I’m basing this on just a general knowedge of the law, and how I would apply it to the case, and without a knowledge of any case law or statutes in particular, so I may be entirely wrong.

    Thanks for your insight.

  126. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Sorry Kids. Too many players. I give up.

    A report of birth means that someone reported it. Was it reported by an independent party or one of Obama’s relatives? I don’t know, and neither do any of you.

    We have too many items that indicate Obama may have been born in Kenya, and nothing that would indicate that his birth was reported in Hawaii by an independent party.

    Squeal all you want. Those are the facts.

    All Dr. Fukino did was verify that a someone reported Obama’s birth in Hawaii. She made no statement about what hospital he was born in, or that the birth report even indicates that he was born in a hospital (as Obama claims). That’s the fact, Jack!

    The Governor’s word is meaningless, as she did not look at the record herself.

    NEwspaper announcement are based on birth reports -no matter who filed them! They are meaningless except to establish that SOMEONE filed a birth report.

  127. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    Still ducking the question I see……

  128. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:10 pm #

    Sorry Kids. I’m not the Shell Answer Man. You kids want to go off on too many tangents.

    Things like “Even assuming Domicile were relevant, it would be your responsibility to prove that Obama Sr. was not domiciled, which would be a tough one” are the arguments of children. I’ve got better things to do than engage in childish games.

  129. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    WTF?: Sorry Kids. Too many players. I give up.

    But yet you continue to post. I can see that your word means nothing.

  130. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Still ducking the question I see……

  131. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Art History major from Dubuque

    Maybe you are unaware of the fact that Ark’s parents were prevented from becoming citizens by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

  132. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    “We have too many items that indicate Obama may have been born in Kenya, and nothing that would indicate that his birth was reported in Hawaii by an independent party”

    Well at least you admit that there are no facts that indicate Obama was born in Kenya- because there aren’t any.

    And there are no facts that support that his birth was not reported by an independent party. There is the usual spin and slander. The closest you can come up with to an actual statement is by the Kenyan Legislator- and he never defines what means, says where Obama was supposed to have been born, or how he is qualified to say where Obama was born. Every other statement has been debunked by the actual person who made the statement.

    But you know all of this, yet you still think that statements from Kenyan politicians are more substantive than statements by Dr. Fukino.

    “All Dr. Fukino did was verify that a someone reported Obama’s birth in Hawaii. She made no statement about what hospital he was born in, or that the birth report even indicates that he was born in a hospital (as Obama claims).”

    no thats not accurate

    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.

    Dr. Fukino says the document verifies he was born in Hawaii and that she believes he is a natural-born American citizen. Whether he was born in a hospital or not isnt’ relevant, whether or not he was born at home and his grandmother registered his birth is not relevant either. What is relevant is that in the opinion of Dr. Fukino, the document verifies he was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.

    Versus you- who just is looking for convoluted reasons Obama must not have been born in America.

  133. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    WTF?: A report of birth means that someone reported it. Was it reported by an independent party or one of Obama’s relatives? I don’t know, and neither do any of you.
    We have too many items that indicate Obama may have been born in Kenya, and nothing that would indicate that his birth was reported in Hawaii by an independent party.
    Squeal all you want. Those are the facts.

    No, you have no facts at all. We haveseen no credible evidence what so ever indicating a Kenyan birth, the time line is implausible, as well as the facts surrounding it defy reason. So on the one hand, you have no facts whatsoever, no documentary evidence, a series of bad forgeries of Kenyan birth certificates, that don’t look anything like a Kenyan birth certificate, and on the other, you just squeal because despite the fact you have a document that has been attested to by the state of Hawaii, and contemporaneous birth announcements, you don’t know who reported it? I can see how an unbaised person would have doubt.

    WTF?: All Dr. Fukino did was verify that a someone reported Obama’s birth in Hawaii. She made no statement about what hospital he was born in, or that the birth report even indicates that he was born in a hospital (as Obama claims). That’s the fact, Jack!

    And how does that matter? Are you less an American citizen if you weren’t born in a hospital? And do you have any evidence that we wasn’t born where he claims? Of course not. So lacking even an iota of evidence that would point to being born in Kenya, you quibble about hospitals?

    Looks like you have a serious lack of facts, Jack.

    WTF?: The Governor’s word is meaningless, as she did not look at the record herself.
    NEwspaper announcement are based on birth reports -no matter who filed them! They are meaningless except to establish that SOMEONE filed a birth report.

    Again, considering the total lack of evidence supporting a Kenyan birth, why you should be so concerned.

  134. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    Who was it that said the permanent domicile of Ark’s parents wasn’t something the court relied on for their decision? I guess that person didn’t bother to read the opinion of the Court where the Court said; “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”

    How many times is domicile mentioned in the Court’s opinion? I count 22!

    22 times and it’s not relevant! You’re high, dude!

  135. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    yep, he is still ducking the question.

  136. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    yguy:There’s nothing patently racist about it no matter who offered it. It’s probably overly generalized WRT “African men”, but that doesn’t make it racist.

    Are you joking?

    You should have your racism meter rechecked. You might have an argument if the speaker had stopped with the offensive generalization about African men, but then to go on and explain that the “most noble of white society” don’t associate with them and only trashy women have sex with them?

    Not racist?

    I guess if you live on Mars.

    WTF?: Things like “Even assuming Domicile were relevant, it would be your responsibility to prove that Obama Sr. was not domiciled, which would be a tough one” are the arguments of children.

    No, it’s an argument of law.

    Who has to prove what is the first question any good lawyer will ask herself about a case.

  137. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Yep. I talked with a few over at PatriotsHeartMediaNetwork, and they claimed that this quote isn’t racist: “It is common knowledge that African men, coming from the continent of Africa — especially for the first time — do diligently seek out white women to have sexual intercourse with. Generally the most noble of white society choose not to intercourse sexually with these men. So it’s usually the trashier ones who make their determinations that they’re going to have sex.” mainly because it was offered by a black man. They’re attitude was that if their side said it, it’s not racist, it’s just observing what he observed.
    I’ve given up on trying to put another reason behind it other than racism, mainly because they won’t call the ones who are racist out for what they are.

    Actually, that’s a quote from the oh so respectable Rev. Manning. Not sure what motivates his hate.

  138. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    WTF?:
    Maybe you are unaware of the fact that Ark’s parents were prevented from becoming citizens by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    WTF?????

  139. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    WTF?: How many times is domicile mentioned in the Court’s opinion? I count 22!
    22 times and it’s not relevant! You’re high, dude!

    How many times did they mention he was Chinese? Are you saying WKA only applies to Chinese people? It doesn’t matter how many times it is mentioned. What matters is how was the subject treated in the reasoning. Since it is not discussed in the reasoning, it played no part in the decision. Learn a little about how the law works, and you’ll get a whole lot further.

  140. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    Actually I understand why WTF? is ducking the question. It puts him in a real box. You see, if he says, “No, Suzie’s little baby, born in Dubuque to an American mother is not a US citizen and should be deported (assuming Italy would even accept him)” then he looks foolish and heartless, as well as having no law to back him up. On the other hand, if he gives the correct answer, the answer every court in the land would give, “Yes, Suzie’s little baby is a US citizen, even though his father never even visited the US”, then how can he deny Obama, whose father was certainly present in the US?

    Yes, WTF? has dug himself a very deep hole.

  141. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    No, you have no facts at all.We haveseen no credible evidence what so ever indicating a Kenyan birth, the time line is implausible, as well as the facts surrounding it defy reason.So on the one hand, you have no facts whatsoever, no documentary evidence, a series of bad forgeries of Kenyan birth certificates, that don’t look anything like a Kenyan birth certificate, and on the other, you just squeal because despite the fact you have a document that has been attested to by the state of Hawaii, and contemporaneous birth announcements, you don’t know who reported it?I can see how an unbaised person would have doubt.
    And how does that matter?Are you less an American citizen if you weren’t born in a hospital?And do you have any evidence that we wasn’t born where he claims?Of course not.So lacking even an iota of evidence that would point to being born in Kenya, you quibble about hospitals?Looks like you have a serious lack of facts, Jack.
    Again, considering the total lack of evidence supporting a Kenyan birth, why you should be so concerned.

    Don’t tell me something is implausable without provided facts to support it. You cannot account for the whereabouts of Obama’s mother from Feb. of 1961 thru Spring of 1962. Can you? Stop making stuff up.

    “a series of bad forgeries of Kenyan birth certificates”

    You cannot provide any evidence to support a claim that the CPGH bc is a forgery. And don’t try to rely on lies that have been spread. Come up with something that you can use to demonstrate proof of your claim.

    Play your silly games of “less of a citizen because you weren’t born in a hospital” with someone else. Is that the best you can do? Do you understand the importance of independent reporting? I guess not.

    Plenty of things support a Kenyan birth! The only thing supporting a Hawaiian birth is that SOMEONE (who Obama doesn’t want anybody to know) filed a birth report in Hawaii.

  142. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    Scientist: Yes, WTF? has dug himself a very deep hole.

    And he’s just about to pop out in China.

  143. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    WTF?: How many times is domicile mentioned in the Court’s opinion? I count 22!

    Instead of using the Ctrl-F function in your browser, why don’t you take the next few hours and

    READ

    THE

    CASE

    Chinese is mentioned 33 times. Does the case only apply to people of Chinese descent? Allegiance is mentioned 65 times.

    There is a reason Wong Kim Ark is a citizen. Let me sum up:

    1. Citizenship is granted to anyone born here who is within the allegiance of the US

    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

    2. People domiciled here are within the allegiance of the US

    he Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    However, it is NOT the domicile that makes the citizen, it is the ALLEGIANCE (Again, my Ctrl-F says Allegiance is almost 3 times as important than domicile.)

    Can allegiance be limited to domicile?

    No, the case continues:

    It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

    independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

    The domicile was not material to the case, the question was whether the presence of the alien in the US gave rise to an allegiance that ‘although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;'”

    I’ll repeat, WTF, READ THE CASE!

  144. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    “22 times and it’s not relevant! You’re high, dude!”

    China and Chinese is mentioned over 50 times….so is China relevant?

    Your essential argument is that anyone born in the United States of non-citizen parents who are not permanently domiciled in the United States is not a citizen. But there is no requirement that such children prove their citizenship- they are indeed assumed citizens.

    Do you advocate citizenship tests, where children of non-citizen parents must prove not only that they were born in this country, but that at the moment of their birth their parents were permanently domiciled here?

    I hope you aren’t a believer in small government, because you are advocating clogging our courts with people born in the United States that will have to prove the intentions of their parents. And if we have to worry about the intentions of the parents, then the child will have to prove who their parent is. So you are essentially advocating DNA testing of everyone.

    Not just people whose parents are shown on their BC as good American Citizens but all people born in the U.S.. Because only if you have DNA testing will you be able to establish whether the actual parents were domiciled in the U.S.

  145. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    WTF?: You cannot account for the whereabouts of Obama’s mother from Feb. of 1961 thru Spring of 1962.

    I can barely account for my OWN whereabouts last week!

    Ever heard of a “statute of limitations?” The reason we have them is because facts get fuzzy after a while. Witnesses die, get alzheimers, records get thrown out.

    But, in your world, the fact that we cannot account for the day to day movements of a teenage girl means it’s totally probable that she spent a week flying (just the flying took a week) to Kenya to have her baby.

    You are clearly a conservative. I can tell because common sense and facts don’t get in the way of your beliefs!

  146. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    WTF?: Don’t tell me something is implausable without provided facts to support it. You cannot account for the whereabouts of Obama’s mother from Feb. of 1961 thru Spring of 1962. Can you? Stop making stuff up.

    Coming from the person that has not provided an itoa of evidence to support a Kenyan birth? Where is the evidence of her being in Kenya? You say “Plenty of thing support a Kenyan birth” but where is your evidence? You have NOTHING. Just like you legal arguments, you want everyone to disprove you wholly unsupported claims.

    WTF?: You cannot provide any evidence to support a claim that the CPGH bc is a forgery. And don’t try to rely on lies that have been spread. Come up with something that you can use to demonstrate proof of your claim.

    Besides it looking nothing like a kenyan birth certifiate and being produced by a convicted forger. And since you put such a high demand on independent reporting, where is your independent reporting on this birth certificate? How about you provide any evidence that this is authentic? No one in the Kenyan government has vouched for it. Where is your proof of it being authentic. Again, you have NOTHING!!!

    WTF?: Plenty of things support a Kenyan birth!

    Like?????

  147. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    SFJeff: “22 times and it’s not relevant! You’re high, dude!”China and Chinese is mentioned over 50 times….so is China relevant?
    Your essential argument is that anyone born in the United States of non-citizen parents who are not permanently domiciled in the United States is not a citizen. But there is no requirement that such children prove their citizenship- they are indeed assumed citizens.
    Do you advocate citizenship tests, where children of non-citizen parents must prove not only that they were born in this country, but that at the moment of their birth their parents were permanently domiciled here?
    I hope you aren’t a believer in small government, because you are advocating clogging our courts with people born in the United States that will have to prove the intentions of their parents. And if we have to worry about the intentions of the parents, then the child will have to prove who their parent is. So you are essentially advocating DNA testing of everyone.Not just people whose parents are shown on their BC as good American Citizens but all people born in the U.S.. Because only if you have DNA testing will you be able to establish whether the actual parents were domiciled in the U.S.

    Another hallmark of birthers: they never recognize the full consequences of their arguments.

  148. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    WTF?: Plenty of things support a Kenyan birth! The only thing supporting a Hawaiian birth is that SOMEONE (who Obama doesn’t want anybody to know) filed a birth report in Hawaii.

    Given that you think that Ctrl-F is a good way to evaluate caselaw, I guess we shouldn’t expect you to evaluate the quality of the evidence supporting Obama’s birthplace.

    Evidence of Kenyan birth: inadmissible hearsay, inadmissible forgeries, inadmissible hearsay of people speaking with no possibility of direct knowledge, statements made 40 years after the alleged birth.
    Evidence of Hawaiian birth: A state certified, verified document, filed at the time of the event in question.

    So, you go into a court of law and present your open, empty hands and say, here’s the admissible evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth.

    You and I have different definitions of “plenty,” then.

    Go get me a copy of Stanley Ann’s plane ticket to Kenya. Go get me a record of the telegraph she sent to Hawaii from Kenya telling of the glorious event. Go out and find a witness who helped a very pregnant Stanley Ann onto the plane. Go find me the telegraph operator who took the message. Go find me the doctor in Kenya who delivered Stanley Ann. A white woman from the United States delivering a baby in Kenya, there are probably fewer of them than white women from the US delivering in Hawaii. It might be more memorable. Find me the people from the Hawaiian community who will talk about the well-known fact that Obama was born in Kenya.

    In short, go get yourself a copy of an evidence handbook and figure out what is really evidence!

  149. avatar
    yguy May 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Greg:
    Are you joking?

    Nope.

    You should have your racism meter rechecked.

    I didn’t even know I was supposed to have one. 8)

    You might have an argument if the speaker had stopped with the offensive generalization about African men, but then to go on and explain that the “most noble of white society” don’t associate with them

    The quote referred specifically to sex.

    and [usually the trashier] women have sex with them?
    Not racist?

    Usually it’s the trashier women who have sex with men they’re not married to, regardless of race; so no, not racist.

  150. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    WTF?: I’m done responding to you, partner. You claimed birth in Kenya was implausable, but when challenged ran away, and presented another question.
    No more from me.

    No, I didn’t run away…it is implausible for an 18 year old white woman, with limited means, to make the mutli-day, very expensive flight to Kenya (where is other wife is residing) to give birth in a third world nation.

    But we’re also supposed to accept your total lack of evidence to your purported claims. Again, you put the burden on us to disprove you wholly unsupported claims and legal arguments.

    so please do run away. Hide from those who confront you with real questions. The only way you can keep going is to avoid answering questions, and refusing to support anything you say.

  151. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Greg: Go out and find a witness who helped a very pregnant Stanley Ann onto the plane.

    That’s the kind of C R A P the cries of desperation. You, like your friends, can’t place Stanley Ann in Hawaii between Feb. and Aug of 1961. Can you? Yet you claim she would have had to have been “very pregnant”. Why is that?

  152. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    WTF?: That’s the kind of C R A P the cries of desperation. You, like your friends, can’t place Stanley Ann in Hawaii between Feb. and Aug of 1961. Can you? Yet you claim she would have had to have been “very pregnant”. Why is that?

    And where is your evidence that she was in Kenya?

  153. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    Greg: Go find me the doctor in Kenya who delivered Stanley Ann.

    Go find me a doctor in Hawaii who deliver Obama! Can’t do it? Awww.

  154. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    WTF?:
    That’s the kind of C R A P the cries of desperation. You, like your friends, can’t place Stanley Ann in Hawaii between Feb. and Aug of 1961. Can you? Yet you claim she would have had to have been “very pregnant”. Why is that?

    Well, there is the “Stanley had a baby” quote which you seem to have ignored.

  155. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    WTF?: Go find me a doctor in Hawaii who deliver Obama! Can’t do it? Awww.

    You see the difference is, we have something called “Prima Facie Evidence” on our side. You have NOTHING.

  156. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Greg: Find me the people from the Hawaiian community who will talk about the well-known fact that Obama was born in Kenya.

    What are you talking about? Mrs. Nordyke was reported to have been in the maternity ward at the same time that Stanley Ann was supposed to be there. Yet she doesn’t remember her. In 1961, an 18 year old white woman was with a 25 year old black man, and nobody remembers? Where you alive in 1961? I was, and I can tell you the couple would have stood out like a sore thumb.

    Nobody remembers baby Barack in Hawaii. Nobody! No pictures of infant Barack! The norm would have been to have infant pictures taken in the hospital in 1961. (well, maybe not in Kenya.)

  157. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    WTF?: don’t care if I look foolish and heartless. I’m not the one who wrote the laws. You are clearly a liberal. How do I know? Your whole life is controlled by emotion, and is void of consequence.
    That’s why I avoid engaging you. You don’t care about the law. You care about what makes you feel good.

    Well, what does the law say about Suzie’s baby? What do you say? There are only 2 possibilities-either he is a citizen or he isn’t. Surely a noted judicial mind such as yours can rule on a simple yes or no and give a cogent reason for your ruling. Why are you ducking, Your (Dis) Honor?

  158. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    WTF: Greg said; “Evidence of Hawaiian birth: A state certified, verified document, filed at the time of the event in question.”

    You say that isn’t evidence? You may not accept it but not only will any court, but apparently the voters disgree with you.

    Basically its WTF opinion vs 67 milion voters, the entire Congress, Chief Justice Roberts and me. I am okay with my company

  159. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    WTF?: What are you talking about? Mrs. Nordyke was reported to have been in the maternity ward at the same time that Stanley Ann was supposed to be there. Yet she doesn’t remember her. In 1961, an 18 year old white woman was with a 25 year old black man, and nobody remembers? Where you alive in 1961? I was, and I can tell you the couple would have stood out like a sore thumb.

    How do you know? Did you ask her? She’s convinced president Obama was born in Hawaii, why don’t you ask her why?

  160. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    WTF?: Nobody remembers baby Barack in Hawaii.

    Barbara Nelson does.

  161. avatar
    NbC May 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    That meets exactly my expectations and predictions.

    Fascinating how you appear to follow the playbook of cognitive dissonance so carefully.

    WTF?: Sorry Kids. Too many players. I give up.

  162. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    You see the difference is, we have something called “Prima Facie Evidence” on our side.You have NOTHING.

    God forbid somebody look for conclusive evidence instead of prima facie evidence when it involves a national security interest.

    The first thing to look at is the fact that no Hawaiian law makes the abstract certification of birth, prima facie evidence. Look at the laws identified by the COLB. It is neither typewritten, a photostatic copy, or a micro-graphic copy.

    Trust me. The COLB posted on FactCheck will never be presented in a court of law.

  163. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    “Nobody remembers baby Barack in Hawaii. Nobody! No pictures of infant Barack! The norm would have been to have infant pictures taken in the hospital in 1961. (well, maybe not in Kenya.)”

    I was born in 1958. There are no pictures of me in the hospital. Oh you say that was 1958, not 1961, well there are no pictures of my younger sister in hospitical either.

    Other than myself and my parents, nobody has any baby pictures of me. Does that mean that there is a presumption I was not born in the United States?

    You keep missing the point but I know you don’t care. President Obama was already legally elected President. The assumption at this point is that he did establish his eligiblity.

    It is the responsibility of you doubters to present actual evidence refuting that eligiblity, not just guesses and speculation. You can’t and you won’t.

  164. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    How do you know?Did you ask her?She’s convinced president Obama was born in Hawaii, why don’t you ask her why?

    I don’t need to ask her if she remembers Obama’s mother or father from the maternity ward. She already answered that question.

    Like you, she is convince because that’s the popular thing to do. I know of a way to convince me: Show me the original filing. If Obama has the DOH release it, I won’t question them. As long as it coincides with Obama’s claim of being born in Kapiolani, I’ll accept it.

  165. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    Come on Judge WTF? We await your ruling on Suzie’s baby. Surely such a great mind can dispose of this simple matter without straining yourself. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  166. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    yguy: Usually it’s the trashier women who have sex with men they’re not married to, regardless of race; so no, not racist.

    Except it wasn’t conditioned on marriage. It was conditioned on race.

    But, you continue to rationalize this racist dreck all you like.

    WTF?: Nothing indicates that the document filed at the time of Obama’s birth was verified or certified.

    No, but the COLB is a self-authenticating document.

    Let’s recap.

    I go into court with the COLB. It is admissible evidence. It is prima facie evidence.

    You go into court with…

    Open, empty hands.

    The first thing to look at is the fact that no Hawaiian law makes the abstract certification of birth, prima facie evidence. Look at the laws identified by the COLB. It is neither typewritten, a photostatic copy, or a micro-graphic copy.

    Boggle.

    Really, you, who don’t even know the definition of domicile, are going to presume to tell the State of Hawaii that their document is illegal?

    Mrs. Nordyke was reported to have been in the maternity ward at the same time that Stanley Ann was supposed to be there. Yet she doesn’t remember her.

    She doesn’t remember her, or she knows that she wasn’t there. There’s a difference.

    God forbid somebody look for conclusive evidence instead of prima facie evidence when it involves a national security interest.

    So, we can’t prove it was more likely than not, or beyond a reasonable doubt, we’ve got to prove it to a moral certainty?

    Embedded in our core values and in our Constitution is a sense of fairness that says that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and that the person who brings a suit has to prove his case.

    And you would so callously shift that burden onto Obama and claim to care about the Constitution?

    Alligator tears!

  167. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    SFJeff: “Nobody remembers baby Barack in Hawaii. Nobody! No pictures of infant Barack! The norm would have been to have infant pictures taken in the hospital in 1961. (well, maybe not in Kenya.)”I was born in 1958. There are no pictures of me in the hospital. Oh you say that was 1958, not 1961, well there are no pictures of my younger sister in hospitical either.
    Other than myself and my parents, nobody has any baby pictures of me. Does that mean that there is a presumption I was not born in the United States?You keep missing the point but I know you don’t care. President Obama was already legally elected President. The assumption at this point is that he did establish his eligiblity.
    It is the responsibility of you doubters to present actual evidence refuting that eligiblity, not just guesses and speculation.You can’t and you won’t.

    People don’t take pictures of the really ugly babies. πŸ™‚ Just kidding!

    Where you born in the hospital of a major city?

    “President Obama was already legally elected President.”

    Again we resort to squatter sovereignty. If Obama is not a citizen of the U.S., could he be legally holding the office? The answer is no. As such your reliance on him currently holding office does nothing but establish the fact that he is the de facto President of the United States.

  168. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    WTF?: Again we resort to squatter sovereignty. If Obama is not a citizen of the U.S., could he be legally holding the office? The answer is no. As such your reliance on him currently holding office does nothing but establish the fact that he is the de facto President of the United States.

    He proved his bona fides to the only people that matter, the 69 million people who voted for him.

    Now, if you want to oust him, YOU have to prove that he is illegitimate!

    Do you imagine that every day the President wakes up and proves his eligibility to get into the office?

    You are the one holding the burden, WTF!

    It’s the American way!

  169. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    I can only conclude from WTF?’s silence that he admits that Suzie’s baby is a US citizen under the law. And if that is the case where his father never even set foot in the US, it is manifestly so for Barack Obama whose father not only was present in the US for years both before and after the birth, but also married and conceived his child in the US.

    Case closed!!!

  170. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Greg:
    Except it wasn’t conditioned on marriage. It was conditioned on race.
    But, you continue to rationalize this racist dreck all you like.No, but the COLB is a self-authenticating document.
    Let’s recap.
    I go into court with the COLB. It is admissible evidence. It is prima facie evidence.
    You go into court with…Open, empty hands.Boggle.
    Really, you, who don’t even know the definition of domicile, are going to presume to tell the State of Hawaii that their document is illegal?She doesn’t remember her, or she knows that she wasn’t there. There’s a difference.So, we can’t prove it was more likely than not, or beyond a reasonable doubt, we’ve got to prove it to a moral certainty?
    Embedded in our core values and in our Constitution is a sense of fairness that says that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and that the person who brings a suit has to prove his case.
    And you would so callously shift that burden onto Obama and claim to care about the Constitution?
    Alligator tears!

    Greg, Why don’t you demonstrate how the COLB complies with the Laws of Hawaii? Maybe then you can say that it is self authenticating.

    I’ll save you some time, and paste the laws:

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]

    You’re going to have a hard time convincing a federal judge that a document that doesn’t even comply with the laws that it references is anything but a piece of paper with words on it. Even if it says that it is prima facie evidence.

    No federal court is going to consider it to be self-authenticating anything. Maybe that’s why it has never been submitted to any court.

  171. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    “I doubt that you would make the same claim to college students throughout the country who are not considered to have established domicile wherever they attend school.”

    Now i am no expert like you are on domicile. But when I was a student in College, I registered to vote in the city i was in. I had a bank account there. I paid utility bills there. My mail including my tax forms went to that address.

    Was I not domiciled there?

  172. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    For those who don’t think it was possible form Obama’s grandparent to file the birth report, here’s the Hawaiian Law that was last modified in 1959.

    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

    Looky there! The local registrar is required to “file” the birth report. Hence the “Date Filed by Registrar”, and then the local registrar gets the “supplementary report”. Guess what happens if a supplementary report is never filled out? Do you think extremely poor women might not get the supplementary report filled out? Do you think the child can’t get a birth certificate? Doc would try to make you believe that is the case, but common sense dictates that the birth report would still be on file, it just would not be “Accepted by the State Registrar”. Funny how that works.

    Try to get the DOH to explain the difference between date filed and date accepted. I can tell you this, the DOH violated their own UIPA laws rather than let that out.

  173. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    “Where you born in the hospital of a major city?” We did have cameras.

    WTF you made the claim that it was a normal picture to take photos of babies in hospitals when they were born and I just pointed out that that wasn’t my families case. Either admit that the claim that it is suspicious not to produce a baby picture in the hospital is purely speculative or back it up. I don’t know- do we have pictures of the Nordyke twins in the hospital?

  174. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    SFJeff: “I doubt that you would make the same claim to college students throughout the country who are not considered to have established domicile wherever they attend school.”Now i am no expert like you are on domicile. But when I was a student in College, I registered to vote in the city i was in. I had a bank account there. I paid utility bills there. My mail including my tax forms went to that address.
    Was I not domiciled there?

    Nothing like providing relevant details. Were you required to change your driver’s license? Did you register to vote anywhere else? –There’s a difference between doing something because you want to, and doing it to comply with laws. –There is no requirement form college students to change their legal residence.

  175. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    SFJeff: “Where you born in the hospital of a major city?” We did have cameras.WTF you made the claim that it was a normal picture to take photos of babies in hospitals when they were born and I just pointed out that that wasn’t my families case. Either admit that the claim that it is suspicious not to produce a baby picture in the hospital is purely speculative or back it up. I don’t know- do we have pictures of the Nordyke twins in the hospital?

    OK. Keep trying to wiggle out. It’s my fault, I left you with wiggle room.

    It was normal for babies born in the hospitals of major cities to have pictures taken shortly after birth. Obama was allegedly born in a hospital in the biggest city in Hawaii.

    There are no pictures of infant Obama. None.

  176. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    Scientist: I can only conclude from WTF?’s silence that he admits that Suzie’s baby is a US citizen under the law.And if that is the case where his father never even set foot in the US, it is manifestly so for Barack Obama whose father not only was present in the US for years both before and after the birth, but also married and conceived his child in the US.Case closed!!!

    Maybe you should try reading the comments.

  177. avatar
    yguy May 28, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    Greg:
    It was conditioned on race.

    That doesn’t make it racist.

  178. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    SFJeff: “Where you born in the hospital of a major city?” We did have cameras.WTF you made the claim that it was a normal picture to take photos of babies in hospitals when they were born and I just pointed out that that wasn’t my families case. Either admit that the claim that it is suspicious not to produce a baby picture in the hospital is purely speculative or back it up. I don’t know- do we have pictures of the Nordyke twins in the hospital?

    Excellent question. I’ll check into it. Not that most here wouldn’t just dismiss it as not being relevant, but it would be interesting to see if Mrs. Nordyke was to say that the hospital photographer took pictures of all newborns.

  179. avatar
    WTF? May 28, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    Sorry Kids. I’ve got to stop playing. Time to drink beer and watch movies.

    I hope everybody gets to enjoy their long weekend. Take a minute to thank those who paid the ultimate price; I know I will.

  180. avatar
    Scientist May 28, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Well, Judge WTF?, here is, verbatim, what real, actual judges said:

    “we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    No disrespect intended (well, maybe just a smidge), but I will go with the real judges, rather than an internet “expert”, such as yourself.

  181. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    WTF?: Sorry Kids. I’ve got to stop playing. Time to drink beer and watch movies.</P

    Might want to lay off the former. I’m told things become much clearer, then.

  182. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    “For those who don’t think it was possible form Obama’s grandparent to file the birth report, here’s the Hawaiian Law that was last modified in 1959.”

    Until there is some evidence that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, I just don’t care.

  183. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    “Nothing like providing relevant details. Were you required to change your driver’s license? Did you register to vote anywhere else? –There’s a difference between doing something because you want to, and doing it to comply with laws. –There is no requirement form college students to change their legal residence.”

    Explain to me how this is relevant to my domicile?

  184. avatar
    SFJeff May 28, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    WTF- you seem to be adverse to proving your assertions:

    It was normal for babies born in the hospitals of major cities to have pictures taken shortly after birth. Obama was allegedly born in a hospital in the biggest city in Hawaii.”

    So show that it was a normal practice at hospitals in Hawaii in 1963- you know provide something more than your unqualified assertion that this was normal.

    “There are no pictures of infant Obama. None.”

    The only thing you know of for sure is that you haven’t seen any pictures of infant Obama. You have also never seen any pictures of me as an infant.

    I am really curious by what standards you establish your level of suspicion.

    Or actually produce some proof that Obama was actually born somewhere else besides Hawaii.

  185. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    WTF?: No federal court is going to consider it to be self-authenticating anything. Maybe that’s why it has never been submitted to any court.

    You keep living in that world of delusions. Every federal, and state judge will considering self-authenticating, prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. If you really think any court is going to quibble over whether something is “typewritten” or printed on a modern printer, then you’re really grasping for straws….but then again, so has every other arugment of yours, so it is par for the course.

  186. avatar
    JoZeppy May 28, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    WTF?: Like you, she is convince because that’s the popular thing to do.

    Or, like me, that there is a vast body of evidence in support of him being born in Hawaii, and not a shred of evidence for him being born anywhere else.

    WTF?: know of a way to convince me: Show me the original filing. If Obama has the DOH release it, I won’t question them. As long as it coincides with Obama’s claim of being born in Kapiolani, I’ll accept it.

    I hate to break it to you, you just aren’t special enough to demand what level of proof you get. And to be honest, what you think is suffient to convince you and what you would accept doesn’t matter in the least. The fact that you choose to ignore the realities of what state of law is, and the very one sided facts in the matter are your own business. Your opinions don’t change the fact that President Obama is president, and all you can do is fume about it, and stomp your feet, and have little tantrums.

    If a case ever did arise with standing, the facts as they stand would result in Summary Judgment for Obama. There is not a single piece of admissable evidence out there that undermines his Hawaiian birth.

  187. avatar
    nbc May 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    Not a very convincing argument. I guess you believe, like some others, that ‘national security interests’ are somehow sufficient to abandon constitutional rules…

    WTF?: God forbid somebody look for conclusive evidence instead of prima facie evidence when it involves a national security interest.

  188. avatar
    nbc May 28, 2010 at 6:24 pm #

    As expected WTF has abandoned his failed arguments and is back to the Hawaiian birth.

    Predictable, fascinating.

  189. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    yguy: There’s nothing patently racist about it no matter who offered it. It’s probably overly generalized WRT “African men”, but that doesn’t make it racist.

    American Heritage Dictionary defines Racism as: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”

    So, he believes that people, grouped together2 solely upon their race (African), came over here just to have sex with white women, and only the trashiest of these women allow it to happen. So, he’s basically denegrating these people.

    And for your information, my grandfather got my grandmother pregenant before they were married. Are you calling my grandmother Trashy?

  190. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    WTF?: No federal court is going to consider it to be self-authenticating anything.

    Federal Rules of Evidence 902 – Self Authenticating documents.

    (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

    Do you see anything in there about micrograph, or typewritten, or any of that?

    I could present a handwritten note on the back of an envelope and if it has a State seal, it is self-authenticating under FRE 902.

    Want more?

    (2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.

    Same paper napkin, but now it’s signed instead of sealed, and the state is willing to certify under seal that the signer is official and the signature is genuine.

    Self-authenticating.

    Hawaii’s Rules of Evidence are the same.

    WTF?: Don’t claim that I don’t know the definition of “domicile”. Remember, it’s you who thinks Obama Sr. was domiciled in Hawaii. I doubt that you would make the same claim to college students throughout the country who are not considered to have established domicile wherever they attend school.

    Do you want to continue to look foolish? I’ve quoted Black’s Law Dictionary. I’ve quoted cases. You think that college students cannot establish domicile where they attend school? Prove it. I’ve shown my work, WTF. Show me yours.

    Okay, one more source. This from the University of Hawaii explaining to students how to get in-state tuition:

    A person’s domicile is the place where that person lives permanently and returns to after any absence. To be a bona fide resident of Hawaii you must be physically present in the State and demonstrate you intent to make Hawaii your permanent home.

    3. How would I demonstrate my intent to make Hawaii my permanent home?

    No single action will demonstrate your intent. The University will look for a combination of actions when evaluating your residency status.

    Of all the possible actions you might take, the most important are: (1) filing a Hawaii resident personal income tax form; and (2) registering to vote and voting in Hawaii.

    Other actions may be considered. These include: (1) ownership or continuous lease of a home in Hawaii; (2) permanent or continuous employment in Hawaii; and (3) presence of spouse, children, and other close relatives in Hawaii.

    Of course, you may report any other actions that you wish to have considered.

    Presence + an intent to remain = domicile, even for students!

    There may be a presumption that they are in the state temporarily, but that presumption can be overcome by the totality of the person’s actions!

  191. avatar
    Greg May 28, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    yguy: That doesn’t make it racist.

    I think you’re going to have to define terms. What do you think racism is? What is a racist comment?

  192. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    In comments which you did not see because of the obscenity filter, WTF? has been growing more belligerent, abusive and obscene. The last straw was a threats of violence against my person.

    WTF? has been banned.

  193. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    WTF?: It was normal for babies born in the hospitals of major cities to have pictures taken shortly after birth. Obama was allegedly born in a hospital in the biggest city in Hawaii.

    There are no pictures of infant Obama. None.

    Since WTF? has been banned, he will not have an opportunity to back up that rather remarkable comment about hospital photographs.

    Nor will he have the opportunity to explain how he knows that there are no pictures of infant Obama. Since he doesn’t have access to all the family photos, the claim would seem impossible to verify.

    See:

    http://chictrib.image2.trb.com/chinews/media/photo/2008-11/43136836.jpg

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    WTF?: For those who don’t think it was possible form Obama’s grandparent to file the birth report, here’s the Hawaiian Law that was last modified in 1959.

    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    A careful reading points out the fallacy; it is the phrase: “If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended…is able…” The law requires the parents to file the report of an unattended birth. Making a grandmother filing work will require a whole new level of implausibility to the born in Africa story. How exactly is grandma going to explain how it is that neither parent is able?

    Introduction of grandma into the myth just causes unnecessary problems.

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    WTF?: Greg, Why don’t you demonstrate how the COLB complies with the Laws of Hawaii? Maybe then you can say that it is self authenticating.

    I’ll save you some time, and paste the laws:

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]

    You’re going to have a hard time convincing a federal judge that a document that doesn’t even comply with the laws that it references is anything but a piece of paper with words on it. Even if it says that it is prima facie evidence.

    No federal court is going to consider it to be self-authenticating anything. Maybe that’s why it has never been submitted to any court.

    Anyone who would like to view current Hawaiian vital statistics law will likely find this index very handy.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/hawaiian-vital-statistics-law/

    The problem with what WTF? supplied is that it omits the part of the law. Here is the complete section with an important addition highlighted:

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    further:

    §338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

    A certified copy of this evidence, therefore, is provided by the computer printed COLB.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    WTF?: The first thing to look at is the fact that no Hawaiian law makes the abstract certification of birth, prima facie evidence. Look at the laws identified by the COLB. It is neither typewritten, a photostatic copy, or a micro-graphic copy.

    Not so.

    §338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated….

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0012.htm

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

    [Emphasis added]

  197. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    WTF?: Nobody remembers baby Barack in Hawaii. Nobody! No pictures of infant Barack! The norm would have been to have infant pictures taken in the hospital in 1961.

    I banned WTF?, but perhaps someone else can take up this challenge:

    Find 10 photos on the Internet of ANY infants taken in a hospital in 1961 (and not your own kids). If it was the “norm” I would expect this to be easy.

    The fallacy, of course, is that just because there are no hospital photos of Barack Obama on the Internet doesn’t mean there were no photos taken.

  198. avatar
    nbC May 29, 2010 at 1:13 am #

    Greg: WTF?: No federal court is going to consider it to be self-authenticating anything.

    Now that shows a misunderstanding of the FRE. Color me surprised.

  199. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    WTF?: You cannot provide any evidence to support a claim that the CPGH bc is a forgery. And don’t try to rely on lies that have been spread. Come up with something that you can use to demonstrate proof of your claim.

    I think we’ve been over this ground already. I provided my list of objections, and I don’t recall that they were ever responded to.

    But anyone would think that if the CPGH (Mombasa) certificate were real, then somebody could come up with a verifiable certificate for somebody that looks like it. If this has happened, I certainly haven’t seen it. I don’t think this certificate is even a real FORM, much less an authentic document. For more see:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/

  200. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    WTF?: Maybe you are unaware of the fact that Ark’s parents were prevented from becoming citizens by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    A Google search on “Chinese Exclusion Act” on this blog returns 77 hits.

  201. avatar
    nemocapn May 29, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    I found a baby picture for Barack, but it doesn’t look like it’s from the hospital:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-081102-obama-all-dupe3-pg,0,3912577.photogallery

  202. avatar
    G May 29, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    nemocapn: I found a baby picture for Barack, but it doesn’t look like it’s from the hospital:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-081102-obama-all-dupe3-pg,0,3912577.photogallery

    Cool photos! Thanks for the link!

    For those who haven’t checked it out, there are a total of 106 photos covering lots of his youth & life. Interesting stuff.

  203. avatar
    G May 29, 2010 at 4:52 am #

    yguy: Greg:
    It was conditioned on race.

    yguy’s responseThat doesn’t make it racist.

    wow…just…wow.

    Uh, yes, it totally was a racist statement and for exactly the reasons stated. Bigotry is all about negative conditional stereotyping, and when such bigotry is based on race, the statement is racist.

    yguy is totally in denial, or worse.

  204. avatar
    Sef May 29, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think we’ve been over this ground already. I provided my list of objections, and I don’t recall that they were ever responded to.But anyone would think that if the CPGH (Mombasa) certificate were real, then somebody could come up with a verifiable certificate for somebody that looks like it. If this has happened, I certainly haven’t seen it. I don’t think this certificate is even a real FORM, much less an authentic document. For more see:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/

    A dead giveaway for a reason that the CPGH “document” is a forgery is the month/day order in the dates. Most other places in the world use day/month/year. We are one of the few that use month/day/year. Clearly, this was forged by someone from the U.S. who hadn’t been out much. LOL.

  205. avatar
    WhoDat? May 29, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Sef: A dead giveaway for a reason that the CPGH “document” is a forgery is the month/day order in the dates. Most other places in the world use day/month/year. We are one of the few that use month/day/year. Clearly, this was forged by someone from the U.S. who hadn’t been out much. LOL.

    Here’s a link to the Office of Public Communications for the Republic of Kenya.
    http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?media_type=8

    As clearly demonstrated by the “Calendar of Events”, Kenya continues to use both date formats.

    CPGH – 1
    Sef – 0

    Please try again.

  206. avatar
    yguy May 29, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    Greg:
    I think you’re going to have to define terms. What do you think racism is?

    The belief harbored by a person that someone of another race is, ipso facto, inferior to him or herself in any respect.

    What is a racist comment?

    One made to justify the above belief.

  207. avatar
    yguy May 29, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    G: Bigotry is all about negative conditional stereotyping, and when such bigotry is based on race, the statement is racist.

    Perhaps you’d like to give Jesse Lee Peterson a call and explain to him why his claim that most black people in America are immoral is racist.

  208. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Sef: A dead giveaway for a reason that the CPGH “document” is a forgery is the month/day order in the dates. Most other places in the world use day/month/year. We are one of the few that use month/day/year. Clearly, this was forged by someone from the U.S. who hadn’t been out much. LOL.

    When WorldNetDaily raised this objection, Smith replied; “Kenya uses both date formats, i.e., dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy.”

    For someone inclined to believe Smith, this is an easy out. I mean, how could anyone prove that the mm/dd/yyyy format was NEVER used in Kenya. We all know the virtual impossibility of proving a negative. The main objection is that no one has produced a verifiable birth certificate from Kenya from 1961 that looks like the one that Lucas Smith is promoting and there is no document from that period I have seen that uses the US date order.

    However, while researching this item I found an absolute gem. This is from KCA University in Kenya, describing the requirements for application:

    Required Documents for Bachelors degree
    Original O level certificate with 3 clear copies of it.
    Original A level certificate with 3 clear copies of it.
    Original Birth Certificate/ID/Passport with 3 clear copies of it. (showing dd/mm/yy of birth)

    http://www.kca.ac.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=295

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    WhoDat?: As clearly demonstrated by the “Calendar of Events”, Kenya continues to use both date formats.

    I went to the web site specified and looked at the Calendar of Events. All of the dates but one were either dd/mm/yyyy or ambiguous. There was one, specifically 5/15/2008 (and the only date from 2008 on the site) which didn’t make sense except as mm/dd/yyyy. It is most peculiar that they would use two different date formats on the same web site, since it creates an impossible situation with a date like 8/4/1961. Is that August the 4th or July the 8th?

    This could be a typo, or it could be a system-generated field from the initial setup before the date format was defined. One would need more examples, and one that was clearly human generated before it may be accepted that Kenya sometimes uses the mm/dd/yyyy date format.

    I did a Google search for: date yy site:go.ke to see if any documents talked about a mm/dd/yyyy format. Here are some pages that have date formats:


    National Guidelines Medical Management of Rape/Sexual Violence
    : data entry forms in dd/mm/yy format
    City of Nairobe Business Registration Form: Signature date given in format dd-mmm-yy
    Public Service Commission Ethics Act. Date of birth to be entered in dd/mm/yy format.
    Local Government Inspection Manual dd/mm/yy
    PSCK Manual dd-mm-yyyy
    CENTRAL BANK OF KENYA JOB APPLICATION FORM signature date dd-mm-yyyy
    Research and Innovation Grants For Women format Date specified as dd-mm-yyyy
    Nairobi Cancer Registry Incidence Report (Page 53) Birth dates in dd-mm-yyyy format.

    There were many other documents, particularly grant applications. All have the day before the month on the official forms.

  210. avatar
    Sef May 29, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I went to the web site specified and looked at the Calendar of Events. All of the dates but one were either dd/mm/yyyy or ambiguous. There was one, specifically 5/15/2008 which didn’t make sense except as mm/dd/yyyy. It is most peculiar that they would use two different date formats on the same web site, since it creates an impossible situation with a date like 8/4/1961. Is that August the 4th or July the 8th? This date, however, is a “last updated” date which may be software generated (and perhaps by formatted by the web site software that is detecting the local system preferences of the web browser).I think that we would need to see something clearly human generated before it may be accepted that Kenya sometimes uses the mm/dd/yyyy date format.So

    I think it is reasonable to assume that an official government document would not have formatted the date so that there was any question. They would have spelled out the month, either in full or abbreviation. The person creating this “document” didn’t really think things through.

  211. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When WorldNetDaily raised this objection, Smith replied; “Kenya uses both date formats, i.e., dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy.”For someone inclined to believe Smith, this is an easy out. I mean, how could anyone prove that the mm/dd/yyyy format was NEVER used in Kenya. We all know the virtual impossibility of proving a negative. The main objection is that no one has produced a verifiable birth certificate from Kenya from 1961 that looks like the one that Lucas Smith is promoting and there is no document from that period I have seen that uses the US date order.However, while researching this item I found an absolute gem. This is from KCA University in Kenya, describing the requirements for application:http://www.kca.ac.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=295

    Dr. C, indeed that’s an absolute gem of a find. However, a question remains in my mind and that is… why do we have to keep parsing Lucas Smith’s KBC? I think that Lucas got us where he wanted us to be while he seats laughing, drinking his cheap beer. He thrives and finds delight at his document being parsed and debated. Before we scrutinize the validity of this document, should we not look at who Lucas is as a person to give credence to his claim? He has not shown proof that he even went to Kenya . He has been challenged to show his visa, plane ticket; gas, lodging, restaurant receipts, etc., to prove that he went to Kenya. He hasn’t done so yet. Oh yes, he has shown pictures with him whose background was a slum area purportedly in Kenya but was easily debunked to be from the Dominican Republic. I’ve come across comments in his youtube video accusing him as a sociopath. While a person to be officially diagnosed as such needs to undergo a battery of test by qualified psychiatric professionals, the comments written lead me to believe that the poster knew what he wrote about.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KLYJV9262U&feature=related

  212. avatar
    G May 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    yguy:
    Perhaps you’d like to give Jesse Lee Peterson a call and explain to him why his claim that most black people in America are immoral is racist.

    Such a statement, if that is an exact quote and the correct context, would definitely be a racist statement.

    And yes, black people can be racist and hold racist views against other blacks. Manning is definitely one such type of racist.

    I did think your replies to Greg was pretty good:

    yguy: Greg:
    I think you’re going to have to define terms. What do you think racism is?

    yguy response: The belief harbored by a person that someone of another race is, ipso facto, inferior to him or herself in any respect.

    Greg: What is a racist comment?

    yguy response:One made to justify the above belief.

    I would like to add that “inferior” can mean a number of things – weaker, less intelligent, less moral, less trustworthy, less “worthy”, etc.

    So again, since you seem to understand that basic definition of racism, I don’t see how you don’t see the original statement that started this discussion as being racist. It clearly was making such an “inferior” stereotyping implication.

  213. avatar
    WhoDat? May 29, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    From the Office of Public Communications Calendar

    Moscow International Travel and Tourism Exhibition (MITT) March 18th 2009 to Saturday, March 21st 2009

    Clearly that is not dd/mm/yyyy

    Mtandariko 8/29/2008

    Click on the link below and you will find that it is mm/dd/yyyy format
    It cannot be simply dismissed as a type-o when it is repeated on another page
    http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=692&media_type=8

    And here is another that is representative of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible situation”.

    Regional Conference on Constitutionalism in Africa to be held between August 19th – 22nd, 2008 8/6/2008

    Here is the corresponding website that further demonstrates that what Dr. Conspiracy was quick to call “an impossible situation” is an everyday occurence in Kenya.
    http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=673&media_type=8

    So we now have multiple examples, including an example of the existence of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible event”. To make it better, all of these examples are from a Kenyan Government Website.

    Not even Dr. Conspiracy can see what he refuses to look at. Will Dr. Conspiracy have the courage to declare that Kenya uses both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats.

    Maybe Dr. Conspiracy (seeker of truth) will have the courage to post an article dedicated to declaring that Kenya uses both date formats (as the government communications site and Wikipedia demonstrate).

  214. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    WhoDat?: From the Office of Public Communications CalendarMoscow International Travel and Tourism Exhibition (MITT) March 18th 2009 to Saturday, March 21st 2009Clearly that is not dd/mm/yyyyMtandariko 8/29/2008Click on the link below and you will find that it is mm/dd/yyyy formatIt cannot be simply dismissed as a type-o when it is repeated on another pagehttp://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=692&media_type=8And here is another that is representative of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible situation”.Regional Conference on Constitutionalism in Africa to be held between August 19th – 22nd, 2008 8/6/2008Here is the corresponding website that further demonstrates that what Dr. Conspiracy was quick to call “an impossible situation” is an everyday occurence in Kenya.http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=673&media_type=8So we now have multiple examples, including an example of the existence of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible event”. To make it better, all of these examples are from a Kenyan Government Website.Not even Dr. Conspiracy can see what he refuses to look at. Will Dr. Conspiracy have the courage to declare that Kenya uses both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats.Maybe Dr. Conspiracy (seeker of truth) will have the courage to post an article dedicated to declaring that Kenya uses both date formats (as the government communications site and Wikipedia demonstrate).

    Does it really matter if it’s mm/dd/yyyy or dd/mm/yyyy formats…before looking into the…

    Saint James: Dr. C, indeed that’s an absolute gem of a find. However, a question remains in my mind and that is… why do we have to keep parsing Lucas Smith’s KBC? I think that Lucas got us where he wanted us to be while he seats laughing, drinking his cheap beer. He thrives and finds delight at his document being parsed and debated. Before we scrutinize the validity of this document, should we not look at who Lucas is as a person to give credence to his claim? He has not shown proof that he even went to Kenya . He has been challenged to show his visa, plane ticket; gas, lodging, restaurant receipts, etc., to prove that he went to Kenya. He hasn’t done so yet. Oh yes, he has shown pictures with him whose background was a slum area purportedly in Kenya but was easily debunked to be from the Dominican Republic. I’ve come across comments in his youtube video accusing him as a sociopath. While a person to be officially diagnosed as such needs to undergo a battery of test by qualified psychiatric professionals, the comments written lead me to believe that the poster knew what he wrote about.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KLYJV9262U&feature=related

  215. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    WhoDat?: From the Office of Public Communications CalendarMoscow International Travel and Tourism Exhibition (MITT) March 18th 2009 to Saturday, March 21st 2009Clearly that is not dd/mm/yyyyMtandariko 8/29/2008Click on the link below and you will find that it is mm/dd/yyyy formatIt cannot be simply dismissed as a type-o when it is repeated on another pagehttp://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=692&media_type=8And here is another that is representative of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible situation”.Regional Conference on Constitutionalism in Africa to be held between August 19th – 22nd, 2008 8/6/2008Here is the corresponding website that further demonstrates that what Dr. Conspiracy was quick to call “an impossible situation” is an everyday occurence in Kenya.http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=673&media_type=8So we now have multiple examples, including an example of the existence of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible event”. To make it better, all of these examples are from a Kenyan Government Website.Not even Dr. Conspiracy can see what he refuses to look at. Will Dr. Conspiracy have the courage to declare that Kenya uses both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats.Maybe Dr. Conspiracy (seeker of truth) will have the courage to post an article dedicated to declaring that Kenya uses both date formats (as the government communications site and Wikipedia demonstrate).

    Why in the world should Dr C declare that Kenya uses both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats? That is not the bone of contention here. Lucas KBC IS A FORGERY. We don’t need to parse that document until Lucas
    Shows proof that he went to Kenya. Show his visa,plane ticket; gas, lodging, restaurant receipts, etc….HE HAS NOT DONE THAT YET! Please don’t interject that he has shown pictures with him showing a Kenyan slum for a backgound. Those pictures had been debunked as being shot in the Dominican Republic!

  216. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    WhoDat?: From the Office of Public Communications Calendar
    Not even Dr. Conspiracy can see what he refuses to look at. Will Dr. Conspiracy have the courage to declare that Kenya uses both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats.Maybe Dr. Conspiracy (seeker of truth) will have the courage to post an article dedicated to declaring that Kenya uses both date formats (as the government communications site and Wikipedia demonstrate).

    Why even ask Dr C. to do what you’re asking. That’s not the bone of contention here. Lucas sa yet to prove that he actually went to Kenya!

  217. avatar
    WhoDat? May 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Here’s a link to a school application form. They designate the format of mm/dd/yyyy to be used.

    http://www.isk.ac.ke/dt/FormApplication.pdf

    And here’s one for another school using mm/dd/yyyy

    http://www.stmarys.ac.ke/uploads/downloads/Application_Form.pdf

  218. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    WhoDat?: Here’s a link to a school application form. They designate the format of mm/dd/yyyy to be used.http://www.isk.ac.ke/dt/FormApplication.pdfAnd here’s one for another school using mm/dd/yyyyhttp://www.stmarys.ac.ke/uploads/downloads/Application_Form.pdf

    Let me reiterate this… even if you prove that both format is used in Kenya, Lucas Smith has yet to prove that he went to Kenya. Up until that time will I even argue about the validity of his KBC.

  219. avatar
    WhoDat? May 29, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    Saint James,

    If Lucas Smith demonstrates that he was in Kenya on Feb. 19th 2009 will you be satisfied?

  220. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    WhoDat?: Saint James,If Lucas Smith demonstrates that he was in Kenya on Feb. 19th 2009 will you be satisfied?

    If you will show me pictures with Lucas on the foregound of a slum area purportedly that from Kenya, then you’re deceived. Those pictures were shot in the Dominican Republic. Show me proof of his visa, custom stamp on his passport ,gas, lodging and/or restaurant receipts, a picture with him before that hospital…then we’ll debate!

  221. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    WhoDat?: Saint James,If Lucas Smith demonstrates that he was in Kenya on Feb. 19th 2009 will you be satisfied?

    Why don’t you ask Lucas himself? These things were asked of him but he can’t come up with the answer. He was even accused of being a sociopath, but did not come up with an answer for his defense. check out the post (page 7) on this video…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KLYJV9262U&feature=related

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    WhoDat?: So we now have multiple examples, including an example of the existence of what Dr. Conspiracy calls “an impossible event”. To make it better, all of these examples are from a Kenyan Government Website.

    Not even Dr. Conspiracy can see what he refuses to look at. Will Dr. Conspiracy have the courage to declare that Kenya uses both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats.

    Maybe Dr. Conspiracy (seeker of truth) will have the courage to post an article dedicated to declaring that Kenya uses both date formats (as the government communications site and Wikipedia demonstrate).

    Well what you have is multiple examples all from 2008 from one web site where the date format is mm/dd/yyyy. This could just well be explained by the software being misconfigured in 2008 when it was first set up (I say first set up since there are no 2007 dates that I saw).

    I take issue with your example: “March 21st 2009 Clearly that is not dd/mm/yyyy” since this is a text date, not a formatted date. It’s not relevant to the discussion.

    I don’t print articles without a lot more evidence than what you’ve given. A “gotcha” on some web site might be good enough for a birther, but it is not good enough for me.

    And I continue to assert that mixing two date formats on a web site has to be a mistake, otherwise how could anyone know which was which? The answer is that there is no way to tell 7/6 from 6/7 and so no one would intentionally do that.

    I diligently searched the government of Kenya web site and found every single example of an official form in dd-mm-yyyy format. Before I would go so far as to write an article I would need a hell of a lot more confirmation (things like: birth certificates, licenses, edited publications or something beyond a few anomalies from 2008 on one web site).

    This is what’s wrong with the birthers. If they get anything that looks like confirmation, they stop. On this blog, I double check my work.

    That said, if it turns out that Kenya uses both date formats, or used mm/dd/yyyy in 1961, I will write a very thorough article proving it.

  223. avatar
    tv711 May 29, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    Why pick on Lucas, WTF? & WhoDat? Why ask them to prove anything? They are not in or running for a powerful office. Maybe you should be asking omaba to prove his claims. That’s who I want the proof from. Questions have been raised and answers need to be given……
    Why spend nearly $2 million fighting the lawsuits when a long-form copy of the original bc would settle it? Maybe.
    Why did Grandma Sarah state in several interviews that she witnessed bho’s birth in Mombassa?
    Why have the newspapers in Africa keeping referring to him as “Kenyan-born obama”?
    Why should we believe the colb says anything legit when bho’s sister was born in Jakarta & has a colb with her name on it stating she was born in Hawaii?
    On his application for his Illinois bar application, & his registration’s to run for both the state senate & the presidency, he swore he was never been known by another name. Why when we know & he admitted he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and renamed Barry Soetoro?
    Why did he get a grant reserved for foreign students when he went to Ocidental College?
    In many speeches, he said,”I was born under British Rule.” (Kenya was a British Protectorate in 1961.) Is that what he meant?
    Or was he referring to his father being a Kenyan citizen, making him a dual citizen & therefore ineligibile to be POTUS?

    I think you are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Ask obama to answer these questions and maybe the controversy will end.

  224. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    WhoDat?: Here’s a link to a school application form. They designate the format of mm/dd/yyyy to be used.http://www.isk.ac.ke/dt/FormApplication.pdfAnd here’s one for another school using mm/dd/yyyyhttp://www.stmarys.ac.ke/uploads/downloads/Application_Form.pdf

    I congratulate you on your industry! Neither school is a state school, however. The first, The International School of Kenya was established under co-sponsorship of the United States Embassy — no marvel that the date format is USA. The second is a Catholic school. Keep going and see if you can come up with a government usage. After all, we are talking about a birth certificate here.

    I did a Google search for: “mm/dd/yyyy” site:ke

    That should return every instance of that string on all Kenyan web sites. 37 hits, including the ones you mentioned, one for an oil company, some from MIT. Nothing official. Changing it to just YY, I got 7 more including this interesting web page on a Kenyan support web site:

    Can i change the date format in gmail from mm/dd/yy to dd/mm/yy? in Managing Settings and Mail.
    When I open an email, right next to “hide details” there is this mm/dd/yy format that gets me very confused.

    ROFL.

    Compare this to the results from dd/mm/yyyy, I get nearly 600 hits including government sources.

  225. avatar
    tv711 May 29, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    It occurs to me that you are asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. Why ask Lucas to prove anything. He is not running for or in a powerful office. obama is & that is who I want the proof from. I have questions for obama…

    Why spend approx $2 million fighting the lawsuits when showing the long-form vault copy bc could clear everything up?

    Until the law was changed last year, Hawaii did not recognize the colb as definative proof of anything. To get a job with the gov of Hawaii, you had to have more proof of birth & citizenship.

    Why did Grandma Sarah state in several interview that she witnessed bho’s birth in Mombassa?

    Why do several African news outlets refer to bho as “Kenyan-born obama”?

    Why does the Kenyan Parliment refer to bho as “Kenyan-born”?

    Why does his sister, Maya, who was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, have a colb from Hawaii like his?

    On his application for admission to the Illinois bar & on his registration to run for the Illinois Senate & the presidency, he signed & swore to, never been known by another name? We know, & he has admitted he was adopted & renamed Barry Soetoro. Why the false swearing to “no other names?”

    In speeches, he stated, “I was born under British rule.” Explain please. (Kenya was a British Protectorate in 1961.)

    As you can see, we are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.

  226. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That said, if it turns out that Kenya uses both date formats, or used mm/dd/yyyy in 1961, I will write a very thorough article proving it.

    Why bother to do that? Instead, I’d suggest that an article be written about LUCAS SMITH’s credibitlity as a person. If you’ve noticed, he has not been in the lime light for quite sometime and that is because he bask at the fame he’s got while all of us are parsing his fake KBC. A sociopath will only respond if his persona comes under attack.

  227. avatar
    WhoDat? May 29, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Here is the Wikipedia page for calendar date formats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date

    If you scroll down you will see that it shows Kenya to use both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy.

    Wasn’t it you who recently boasted about how the Wikipedia police make sure that the data is accurate? I have watched that page for nearly a year and it always shows that Kenya uses both date formats.

  228. avatar
    tv711 May 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Over the last year plus, I have gone all over the net reading comments on many threads concerning the birth/eligibility issue. The one common factor is that every time anyone sides with the birthers or even just ask questions, they are viciously attacked. They are insulted, demonized, & frequently cursed. Why?
    It seems to me that a man who promised transparency and has been accused of being ineligible would jump at the chance to clear the air. Why all the quarreling over something a simple long-form, or vault copy, of the bc would clear up? If his refusal to do so doesn’t raise more questions, I don’t know what would. I was watching a press conference when a reported asked a question about the bc and he was told never to bring up the subject again if he wanted to stay on the wh press corps. That response raised questions in my mind.
    You have to show all kinds of proof to get a driver’s license, register your kids for school, register them for little league, get even a small loan, even get insuranse. But not to be POTUS? More questions in my mind.
    You have more than one Quo Warrento filed to get the proof but it is being ignored. Why? I know I have a lot of questions but I don’t like arguments. I want answers.

  229. avatar
    Sef May 29, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    tv711: Over the last year plus, I have gone all over the net reading comments on many threads concerning the birth/eligibility issue. The one common factor is that every time anyone sides with the birthers or even just ask questions, they are viciously attacked. They are insulted, demonized, & frequently cursed. Why?
    It seems to me that a man who promised transparency and has been accused of being ineligible would jump at the chance to clear the air. Why all the quarreling over something a simple long-form, or vault copy, of the bc would clear up? If his refusal to do so doesn’t raise more questions, I don’t know what would. I was watching a press conference when a reported asked a question about the bc and he was told never to bring up the subject again if he wanted to stay on the wh press corps. That response raised questions in my mind.
    You have to show all kinds of proof to get a driver’s license, register your kids for school, register them for little league, get even a small loan, even get insuranse. But not to be POTUS? More questions in my mind.
    You have more than one Quo Warrento filed to get the proof but it is being ignored. Why? I know I have a lot of questions but I don’t like arguments. I want answers.

    Oh, goody. Another sock puppet.

  230. avatar
    G May 29, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    tv711: I have questions for obama…

    Why spend approx $2 million fighting the lawsuits when showing the long-form vault copy bc could clear everything up?

    Well tv711, the problem is, most of your questions are based on nothing but fictional and false info you probably read online somewhere. That could be why you are have such questions.

    First of all, what $2 million? That’s a complete and bogus made up lie. Try finding any proof for such a number. You won’t, because its bunk. The only place you will find such statements is on the birther sites which all lie and copy each other saying the same bogus info.

    tv711: Until the law was changed last year, Hawaii did not recognize the colb as definative proof of anything. To get a job with the gov of Hawaii, you had to have more proof of birth & citizenship.

    Again, where do you get your info? That is another bogus lie. The COLB has been their standard and only form provided, in the format as Obama’s, for well over a decade now.

    Why don’t you actually go to the HI DOH website yourself, where you can get all your questions answered, instead of relying on bogus rumors:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    tv711: Why did Grandma Sarah state in several interview that she witnessed bho’s birth in Mombassa?

    She didn’t. Again, more long debunked lies. Why don’t you actually listen to the full version of the tape, where she clearly states that it was her son (Barack Obama Sr.) who’s birth she witnessed and that her grandson (Barack Obama II – our current president) was clearly born in Hawaii. She is quite adamant about him being born in HI and says it several times to correct the record of the interviewer, who is trying to get her to say Mombassa, but she doesn’t fall for his tricks.

    Listen for yourself:

    http://s16v.com/americasright/8167169.wma

    tv711: Why do several African news outlets refer to bho as “Kenyan-born obama”?

    Why does the Kenyan Parliment refer to bho as “Kenyan-born”?

    Of course, this is just a bunch of misinformation, mistaken attribution and misunderstanding of terms peddled around as “evidence” in the birtherverse to try to make something out of nothing. These issues have been covered and addressed here in detail.

    Here are some links where these topics have been covered already to answer these questions for you:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/nairobi-paper-declares-barack-obama-was-born-in-kenya/#more-6900

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/kenyan-cover-up/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/kenyan-official-says-american-president-born-in-kenya/

    tv711: Why does his sister, Maya, who was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, have a colb from Hawaii like his?

    Um, because she doesn’t & that is just another myth & lie.

    Go ahead, show me the actual birth document of his sister that looks lie this, I challenge you. You won’t find one, except maybe some bad joke or forgery.

    tv711: On his application for admission to the Illinois bar & on his registration to run for the Illinois Senate & the presidency, he signed & swore to, never been known by another name? We know, & he has admitted he was adopted & renamed Barry Soetoro. Why the false swearing to “no other names?”

    Really, where do you get this crazy stuff? What do you mean “we know” he was adopted? BS. Now you are repeating a lie yourself, instead of just passing on bogus information. There is absolutely no evidence to support or indicate that Obama was ever adopted & renamed Barry Soetoro.

    I challenge you to come up with any, which you can’t. You need to be more careful with your choice of words, because by stating “we know” when you don’t and there is no such information, ruins your own credibility.

    tv711: In speeches, he stated, “I was born under British rule.” Explain please. (Kenya was a British Protectorate in 1961.)

    Source(s) please? Until you can provide the links & evidence of this text, I have no idea what you are talking about.

    tv711: As you can see, we are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.

    No, as you can now see, you have been relying on the wrong people for the wrong information. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been duped by all the bogus misinformation out there and I hope this has helped.

    Next time you have such questions, go to actual official websites, like the HI DOH I provided you, or even call them directly. They can help you out and explain most of these issues to you. Wherever you’ve been getting your info up until now has not served you well.

  231. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    tv711: It occurs to me that you are asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. Why ask Lucas to prove anything. He is not running for or in a powerful office. obama is & that is who I want the proof from. I have questions for obama…Why spend approx $2 million fighting the lawsuits when showing the long-form vault copy bc could clear everything up? Until the law was changed last year, Hawaii did not recognize the colb as definative proof of anything. To get a job with the gov of Hawaii, you had to have more proof of birth & citizenship.Why did Grandma Sarah state in several interview that she witnessed bho’s birth in Mombassa? Why do several African news outlets refer to bho as “Kenyan-born obama”?Why does the Kenyan Parliment refer to bho as “Kenyan-born”?Why does his sister, Maya, who was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, have a colb from Hawaii like his?On his application for admission to the Illinois bar & on his registration to run for the Illinois Senate & the presidency, he signed & swore to, never been known by another name? We know, & he has admitted he was adopted & renamed Barry Soetoro. Why the false swearing to “no other names?”In speeches, he stated, “I was born under British rule.” Explain please. (Kenya was a British Protectorate in 1961.)As you can see, we are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.

    1…You can ask Obama anything you want, but the fake KBC came from Lucas, therefore…LUCAS HAS TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTION!
    2….You can’t even prove that Obama spent $2 million…..show me the proof!
    3…I have my mother’s COLB that’s the same as Obama’s even before he showed his on the internet.
    4….You’re wrong…listen to the unadulterated interview!
    5….Judge Carted even stated that we have the best record keeping system in the world…what makes you think that a statement from Kenya will cancel out an evidence that comes from the USA?
    6…Why does the Kenyan [Parliment] refer to bho as “Kenyan-born”?…HERE IS THE ANSWER….Judge Carted even stated that we have the best record keeping system in the world…what makes you think that a statement from Kenya will cancel out an evidence that comes from the USA?
    7….That COLB has born in Indonesia on it!
    8…he did not have an “AKA”
    9..Obama was never born under British rule…he was born in 1961 in Hawaii.

    “As you can see, we are asking the wrong people the wrong questions.”….You’re definitely asking the the wrong people the wrong questions….THE QUESTION IS…CAN LUCAS SHOW PROOF THAT HE WENT TO KENYA? LOL!

  232. avatar
    SFJeff May 29, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    Ah TV711 with the usual litany of Birther misrepresentations. I should call them lies but I don’t want you to think I am calling you a liar- because you are probably just cutting and pasting from another website. But every single one of those questions has been refuted here before.

    Why ask Lucas anything? Sure- why ask a convicted forger for some proof that the Kenyan BC he presented is real? The only reason not to ask him for proof is if we assume its a forgery until shown otherwise.

    No he hasn’t spent 2 million dollars on this- just lies from WND

    Grandma didn’t say in several interviews- she said once in one interview and immediately corrected herself when she realized they were speaking of Obama Jr. not Sr. She is also quoted in at least one American paper as remembering when she got the letter from American announcing Obama Jr.’s birth.

    Several Kenyan papers did indeed call him Kenyan born- several others called him American born and if we are going for quantity I can show you dozens of American papers that have called him American born. Why did the Kenyan papers do it? Don’t know, don’t care. Why should I assume they are correct and all the other newspapers are wrong?

    “Why does the Kenyan Parliment refer to bho as “Kenyan-born”?”

    I may be wrong here, but I believe the Parliament didn’t, but several politicians did. Why did they? You would have to ask them, but I somehow am willing to rely upon the Governor of Hawaii confirming Obama was born in Hawaii more than some Kenyan politicians.

    “Why does his sister, Maya, who was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, have a colb from Hawaii like his?”

    Show me a copy of Maya’s BC or admit you are just going on what someone else told you. i haven’t seen that she has one.

    Prove that Barrack Obama ever identified himself legally as Barry Soetero as an adult. Prove to me that he was ever adopted. You can’t.

    And I don’t know what we need to explain about what Obama said- he was born under British rule. What about that don’t you understand?

    See, for me its simple.

    Barrack Obama is the first presidential candidate ever to produce his birth certificate for public scrutiny.

    The State of Hawaii has confirmed he was born in Hawaii and therefore is a natural born citizen.

    69 million voters- who knew his father was a foreign citizen- voted him into office, the electoral college voted him in, Congress confirmed him, and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in.

    Birthers keep on coming up with new theories on why the black guy couldn’t possibly be President- but never any proof- just speculation and innuendo.

  233. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    tv711: Over the last year plus, I have gone all over the net reading comments on many threads concerning the birth/eligibility issue. The one common factor is that every time anyone sides with the birthers or even just ask questions, they are viciously attacked. They are insulted, demonized, & frequently cursed. Why?It seems to me that a man who promised transparency and has been accused of being ineligible would jump at the chance to clear the air. Why all the quarreling over something a simple long-form, or vault copy, of the bc would clear up? If his refusal to do so doesn’t raise more questions, I don’t know what would. I was watching a press conference when a reported asked a question about the bc and he was told never to bring up the subject again if he wanted to stay on the wh press corps. That response raised questions in my mind.You have to show all kinds of proof to get a driver’s license, register your kids for school, register them for little league, get even a small loan, even get insuranse. But not to be POTUS? More questions in my mind.You have more than one Quo Warrento filed to get the proof but it is being ignored. Why? I know I have a lot of questions but I don’t like arguments. I want answers.

    HEY, YOU CAN ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS IF YOU ASK LUCAS SMITH PROOF THAT HE WENT TO KENYA!

  234. avatar
    WhoDat? May 29, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    SFJeff,

    Do you think that because Lucas Smith filled-out and signed someone elses check 10 years ago, that he now has the capability of creating a document that is so good the whole Obot team has not been able to discredit over the past year?

    I think you’re giving Lucas Smith credit for possessing a lot more smarts than he has demonstrated.

  235. avatar
    SFJeff May 29, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    “has been accused of being ineligible would jump at the chance to clear the air.”

    Funny that. No previous candidate has been asked to prove their NBC eligibility, but when Barrack Obama was, he provided a Hawaii issued certified copy of his birth certificate, posted it online, and made it availible to be inspected by any media that wanted to.

    Birthers response? They called it a forgery- mind you they never sent anyone to look at the original, like Politifact did- Birthers declared the copy posted online a forgery without ever examining it. With integrity like that why should President Obama waste his time providing additional evidence? If I was him i wouldn’t.

    Why do many birthers get mocked? Because they keep giving the same list junk as supposed evidence. They ignore the real evidence- you know the birth certificate, birth announcements in Hawaii, statements by Hawaiin government officials- and the Republican governor of Hawaii and go in search of wild speculation and any hint of a mystery. And they accept pretty much any theory as likely as long as that theory concludes that the President must be ineligible.

  236. avatar
    Saint James May 29, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    WhoDat?: SFJeff,Do you think that because Lucas Smith filled-out and signed someone elses check 10 years ago, that he now has the capability of creating a document that is so good the whole Obot team has not been able to discredit over the past year?I think you’re giving Lucas Smith credit for possessing a lot more smarts than he has demonstrated.

    HA HA HA HA….That assertion only comes from you! NOT FROM ME!…Now you go on and ask LUCAS to show proof that her went to KENYA! ha ha ha haha

  237. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    tv711: The one common factor is that every time anyone sides with the birthers or even just ask questions, they are viciously attacked. They are insulted, demonized, & frequently cursed. Why?

    Because birthers tend to say a bunch of stuff with authority that turns out to be completely without any factual basis or real evidence behind it. That doesn’t make them look to bright, which invokes ridicule. Some of the info is completely made up and most of it has been long-since thoroughly debunked. Further more, some of the speculative scenarios are extremely “out there” and outlandish.

    Therefore, when people put themselves out there, boldly claiming stuff that is easily disproven, wrong, or just plain off-the-way, they have invited all the ridicule directed at them. Many birthers get adamant, defensive, and even sometimes outright hostile when they are confronted with corrections to their misinformation or asked for evidence to back up their claims or when their ideas are debunked.

    Therefore, they often invoke hostility in return.

    Simple rule – asking questions or stating mere opinions is fine and usually just leads to a normal discussion. Proclaiming nonsense as the utter truth just makes one look bad and brings on deserved ridicule.

    People are accountable for their own statements and actions, which includes spreading misinformation knowingly. One can’t go crying the victim card that people don’t take them seriously, unless they can carry on a serious and responsible conversation and have evidence to back up their statements.

    tv711: It seems to me that a man who promised transparency and has been accused of being ineligible would jump at the chance to clear the air. Why all the quarreling over something a simple long-form, or vault copy, of the bc would clear up? If his refusal to do so doesn’t raise more questions, I don’t know what would. I was watching a press conference when a reported asked a question about the bc and he was told never to bring up the subject again if he wanted to stay on the wh press corps. That response raised questions in my mind.

    Here is a basic misconception you need to understand:

    Transparency refers to government actions & records, not personal ones. The president’s personal info is protected by the same privacy laws that protect you and me. You may not like that answer or wish to know more about the details of his personal life, but that is the law and how things work and we are not entitled to that info.

    tv711: You have to show all kinds of proof to get a driver’s license, register your kids for school, register them for little league, get even a small loan, even get insuranse. But not to be POTUS? More questions in my mind.

    And why would you assume that he hasn’t shown all of that proof in all of those situations in the past as well? What evidence do you have of that and why would you even draw such an illogical conclusion? That is what is so ludicrous about the entire birther belief system – you have to suspend belief to think that somehow, one person, who grew up and lived here just like everyone else, except they were in the public eye and under more scrutiny than either you or I will ever experience, somehow never did or showed the types of documents anywhere along the line.

    tv711: You have more than one Quo Warrento filed to get the proof but it is being ignored. Why? I know I have a lot of questions but I don’t like arguments. I want answers.

    Except that Quo Warranto doesn’t work that way and again, you’re being misinformed. I’d sure love to know where you get your information, because you’ve been had, hook, line & sinker on this stuff. You should challenge the con artists who have been selling you these stories, as they are the ones who are giving you false information.

    The lawsuits, including the Quo Warranto cases are not being “ignored”. The law receives the cases and they have been processed and addressed according to the law. They get tossed out, because they have no legal basis to go forward. Simple as that.

    You asked for answers and I have given them. This isn’t an argument, but a set of explanation and a challenge for you to provide the sources, evidence or reasoning behind your questions. That is how legitimate dialogue works.

  238. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    tv711: Over the last year plus, I have gone all over the net reading comments on many threads concerning the birth/eligibility issue. The one common factor is that every time anyone sides with the birthers or even just ask questions, they are viciously attacked. They are insulted, demonized, & frequently cursed. Why?

    It seems to me that a man who promised transparency and has been accused of being ineligible would jump at the chance to clear the air. Why all the quarreling over something a simple long-form, or vault copy, of the bc would clear up? If his refusal to do so doesn’t raise more questions, I don’t know what would. I was watching a press conference when a reported asked a question about the bc and he was told never to bring up the subject again if he wanted to stay on the wh press corps. That response raised questions in my mind.

    You have to show all kinds of proof to get a driver’s license, register your kids for school, register them for little league, get even a small loan, even get insuranse. But not to be POTUS? More questions in my mind.

    You have more than one Quo Warrento filed to get the proof but it is being ignored. Why? I know I have a lot of questions but I don’t like arguments. I want answers.

    Did WTF? send you over here?

    Well first, there are hundreds of web sites where birth/eligibility doubts are applauded, and any disagreement is censored. Why is that?

    Generally folks with birth/eligibility doubts simply argue from false premises. When they do that arrogantly, they evoke derisive responses. We certainly get enough of that around here!

    You suggest that Obama should clear the air, but that’s impossible. The denialists have ignored the proof presented to them so far. Why would they suddenly change their stripes? The scientific literature tells us that contrary proof only strengthens the beliefs of conspiracy theorists. Why would the President want to strengthen the beliefs of conspiracy theorists?

    I cannot think of anything involving more intense scrutiny than an American presidential race. That you think Obama has gotten by without any examination points out to me the futility of adding more to the pile of examination already done.

    As for Lucas Smith, it doesn’t matter whether he went to Kenya or not. Anybody can go to Kenya. Smith’s birth certificate is objectively a fake. Kenya and Hawaii both have open birth indexes. Hawaii’s says Barack Obama was
    born there. What does Kenya’s say?

  239. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    “Do you think that because Lucas Smith filled-out and signed someone elses check 10 years ago, that he now has the capability of creating a document that is so good the whole Obot team has not been able to discredit over the past year?”

    Lets look at what we know:

    President Obama provided a certified copy of his BC, which was viewed in person and which appeared authentic to Politifact, and the state of Hawaii has confirmed he was born there.

    Versus a copy of a BC posted on the internet, which has never been viewed by any one in person, posted by a convicted forger, who hasn’t even demonstrated that he has been to Kenya

    Frankly, I haven’t spent much time worrying about debunking Lucas’ posted BC- it is one of three foreign BC’s that I know of that have been posted, and since the state of Hawaii is saying Obama was born there, I am pretty much assuming all the other BC’s are forgeries unless they put up a bit more proof.

    “I think you’re giving Lucas Smith credit for possessing a lot more smarts than he has
    demonstrated.”

    I think he is not a very good forger, but a pretty good scam artist.

  240. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    See what I mean? I ask questions & I am attacked. You say I need to prove. No! Only obama has to prove anything. I am not accusing. Just asking questions.
    The money he spent on lawsuits is in public records.
    Grandma Sarah did give several interviews. In one, another person was there stating she didn’t ,mean he was born in Kenya. She didn’t change her statement, the other guy said she meant differently.
    You can’t ask Lucas about something that may or may not have happened in Hawaii.
    He said he was adopted by his step-father.
    He was not the 1st to show anything of his birth, John McCain was. McCain showed his long-form bc to Congress.bho put his (in fact 4 different ones) on the internet.Fair disclosure, I am not & was not a fan of McCain. I wanted Colin Powell to run.
    Maya’s was also posted on the net.

    One said if I want answers, I should get Lucas for proof he went to Kenya. What does that have to do with the questions obama needs to answer? If he cares for America and wants unity, he should answer these questions. It would put a stop to much of the division we see.

    Talking to you folks here is like a blade of grass blowing onto an anthill. All the ants come out of the anthill and viciously attack it for no reason other than to remove it because of some imaginary threat to the anthill.

  241. avatar
    Rickey May 30, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    tv711: I was watching a press conference when a reported asked a question about the bc and he was told never to bring up the subject again if he wanted to stay on the wh press corps.

    I don’t believe you. Prove me wrong by providing a link to the transcript of this supposed press conference. Please identify the reporter who allegedly was threatened.

  242. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    SFJeff,

    That’s twice now that you said Barack Obama provided a “certified copy of his birth certificate”.

    I’m reasonably sure that you know that isn’t a true statement.

    Why say something that you know isn’t true? Why not just say that; “According to FactCheck.org, the Obama campaign provided them with a scan of his Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii and they posted it on their website. A Certification of Live Birth is an abstract of the data on file with the Hawaii DOH. Though it is not conclusive proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, I don’t feel that anyone has presented evidence sufficient for me to question it? That would be a completely honest statement.

  243. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    “See what I mean? I ask questions & I am attacked.”

    If by being attacked you mean being asked to provide some proof of what you say- then I guess I am guilty of attacking you.

    ” You say I need to prove. No! Only obama has to prove anything. I am not accusing. Just asking questions.”

    No President Obama doesn’t have to prove anything. He provided enough evidence of his eligiblity to satisfy the voters and is now President. He doesn’t owe any additional evidence of his eligibility

    “The money he spent on lawsuits is in public records.”

    Oh good- then prove it.

    “Grandma Sarah did give several interviews. In one, another person was there stating she didn’t ,mean he was born in Kenya. She didn’t change her statement, the other guy said she meant differently.”

    Oh good- then prove it.

    “You can’t ask Lucas about something that may or may not have happened in Hawaii.”

    Umm since Lucas is claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, I think it might be logical to ask him to prove that claim.

    “He said he was adopted by his step-father.”

    I don’t remember that- prove it.

    “He was not the 1st to show anything of his birth, John McCain was. McCain showed his long-form bc to Congress.”

    No he did not- god don’t you check anything out yourself? Show me the congressional record that shows McCain presented his long form BC- because I looked and its not there.

    “Maya’s was also posted on the net.”

    then give us a link

    ” If he cares for America and wants unity, he should answer these questions.”

    67 million voters didn’t care. I don’t care. You care.

    ” It would put a stop to much of the division we see.”

    No, it wouldn’t.

    “Talking to you folks here is like a blade of grass blowing onto an anthill. All the ants come out of the anthill and viciously attack it for no reason other than to remove it because of some imaginary threat to the anthill.”

    You want respect? Come here with something more than a list of disproven theories. Come here with some evidence that the President wasn’t elgiible- real evidence. I will gladly discuss anything other than wild speculation. Provide me with some evidence that Lucas’ BC is real. Provide me with evidence that Ann Dunham was ever in Kenya.

    Thats all I ask- some real evidence, not demands that the President respond personally to the paranoid fantasies of each and every person who is against his presidency.

  244. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    SF Jeff
    I have not given Lucas credit for anything. I have simply said that he isn’t the one who should be answering the questions concerning eligibility. bho should.

    This is my biggest complaint is following the fact that bho has kept his past completely hidden.

    It seems there are 3 camps on the subject…
    . The bho defenders whoe will not believe anything he does or has does should be questioned. They follow him blindly without regard for the truth and attack all who might not wholeheartedly agree.

    The birthers who believe in their ideas and try to convince others of their way of thought.

    Then you have those who question and sincerely want to get to the truth. They will never get the truth because know one knows what the truth is. All public information has been muddied to the point no one knows what to think.

    I stand on my original claim that bho needs to answer the questions and put the matter to rest for the good of the country.

  245. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Did WTF? send you over here? As for Lucas Smith, it doesn’t matter whether he went to Kenya or not. Anybody can go to Kenya. Smith’s birth certificate is objectively a fake. Kenya and Hawaii both have open birth indexes. Hawaii’s says Barack Obama wasborn there. What does Kenya’s say?

    With all due respect, anybody can go to Kenya and Lucas claimed to have been there personally to retrieve that KBC. Therefore, he has to prove that he went to Kenya before we can even discuss the validity to the claim. Judge Carter even said that we have the best record keeping system in the world then therefore any claim that the Kenyan BC is valid will be mute.

    I still stand by my assertion that for us to discuss anything further about the KBC, LUCAS has to prove that he went to Kenya.

  246. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    I didn’t come here with theories, just questions that you should be asking the correct person.

    Rickey, The reporter was Major Garrett and I don’t have a transcript. I watched the press conference live.

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    Saint James: With all due respect, anybody can go to Kenya and Lucas claimed to have been there personally to retrieve that KBC. Therefore, he has to prove that he went to Kenya before we can even discuss the validity to the claim.

    I guess the problem here has to do with what would constitute proof that Lucas Smith went to Kenya. If he would forge a birth certificate, then he could forge a hotel bill, or an airline receipt or even a passport stamp. This is the Internet and I’m no document examiner.

  248. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    Ooooh Whodat is challenging my facts! What I find funny about that, is that I am about the least versed facts on this site. G, NBC, Doc and some others(sorry guys can’t remember everyone) have this stuff down really good.

    That said- did you even bother to check your facts before you challenged me? I don’t think so. I believe I said Politifact, but you instead cite Factcheck.org- which I went to and typed two words “Obama” and “birth”- took me less than 10 seconds to show you wrong

    “That’s twice now that you said Barack Obama provided a “certified copy of his birth certificate”.”

    Yep- announced it at a press conference too. If you want to quibble is a ‘certicate of live birth” but I think grownups can call it a BC.

    “I’m reasonably sure that you know that isn’t a true statement.”

    Did you check before calling me a liar?

    “Why say something that you know isn’t true? Why not just say that; “According to FactCheck.org, the Obama campaign provided them with a scan of his Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii and they posted it on their website.”

    Because thats not what Factcheck says?

    “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The article goes on in quite some detail with some really good photos’ of the original. You should really give it a look-see.

    ” A Certification of Live Birth is an abstract of the data on file with the Hawaii DOH. Though it is not conclusive proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, I don’t feel that anyone has presented evidence sufficient for me to question it? That would be a completely honest statement”

    I quote again from Factcheck. org

    “The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. ” and “The document is legal proof of citizenship, and it’s the only type of birth record the state issues. Nevertheless, some wanted more. So Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the state health director, issued a statement saying that she has seen the original vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii and “is a natural-born American citizen.” But that hasn’t stopped the inquiries.”

    I won’t go look for other places but you will find citations showing that this BC is sufficient to request a passport, and is indeed very similar to the BC I used to request my own passport 30 years ago.

    “Though it is not conclusive proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, ”

    69 million voters felt it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is more proof than we had for Bush or Clinton. You can ask your questions, you harbor doubts about President Obama’s eligiblity, but he has no obligation to provide one speck of additional proof to you. I wouldnt’ if I was him.

    If I was him, I would be offended that I had provided a certified copy of my BC and people still were questioning my eligiblity. I would be going “how come Bush wasnt’ asked for proof of his eligiblity? How come Clinton wasn’t asked” and I would come up with a pretty obvious answer.

  249. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy has stated “Smith’s birth certificate is objectively a fake.”

    Don’t you mean subjectively? I mean, nobody in their right mind would consider you to be objective when it comes to a birth certificate indicating that Obama was born in Kenya.

    SFJeff: I think he is not a very good forger, but a pretty good scam artist.

    For not being “not a very good forger”, he seems to have presented a document that no one has been able to prove a forgery.

    Wasn’t Smith in court in California; ready to testify about the provinance of the Kenyan birth certificate in his possession? Didn’t he submit a document under penalty of perjury?

  250. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    tv711: SF JeffI have not given Lucas credit for anything. I have simply said that he isn’t the one who should be answering the questions concerning eligibility. bho should. This is my biggest complaint is following the fact that bho has kept his past completely hidden. I stand on my original claim that bho needs to answer the questions and put the matter to rest for the good of the country.

    1. LUCAS came up with the Kenyan birth certificate then he has to prove that it was valid by proving that he actually went to Kenya to retrieve it.

    2. BHO qualified and is the legitimate president of the USA. He has shown his COLB from Hawaii. Any other record he has will not disqualify him from being the President of the USA. Will you disqualify him if it’s proven that he is a MUSLIM?…(i WANT YOU TO TRY THAT)

    3. Obama does not have to prove anything to you …other than that he is an NBC, was of age when he became the president and that he was physically present in the US for 14 years.

  251. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    tv711: It seems there are 3 camps on the subject…
    . The bho defenders whoe will not believe anything he does or has does should be questioned. They follow him blindly without regard for the truth and attack all who might not wholeheartedly agree.

    The birthers who believe in their ideas and try to convince others of their way of thought.

    Then you have those who question and sincerely want to get to the truth. They will never get the truth because know one knows what the truth is. All public information has been muddied to the point no one knows what to think.

    That’s not how I would break it down and I certainly object to your categories. You don’t allow for someone who doesn’t like Obama, but have no concerns about his eligibility. That’s probably half the country plus or minus!

    I would break it down this way into three camps:

    1) Folks who don’t care whether Obama is eligible or not, but care very much about preventing him from governing effectively or having a second term (the political operatives).

    2) Folks who for whatever reason have either believed misinformation, or who have problems handling the ambiguity of real life (the birthers).

    3) Folks who have looked at the issue and found that the doubts raised are so wildly implausible as to be unworthy of consideration (normal people).

    You might not like that breakdown any more than I like yours. I look at the historical perspective:

    1) Folks on the Internet demanded a birth certificate. Obama provided a current birth certificate. Denialists went crazy with conspiracy theories, dozens of them, based on a standard legal document.

    2) The State of Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Denialists went crazy calling the health director a criminal.

    3) Announcements of Obama’s birth were found in two 1961 newspapers. Denialists made up stories about how they were really ads placed by the families,

    Conspiracy theorists are immune to proof. Read the literature or this prophetic article from 2008:

    Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, but experts on conspiracy theories say that won’t ever matter to those who believe otherwise.

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate

  252. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    SFJeff: “The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. ” and “The document is legal proof of citizenship, and it’s the only type of birth record the state issues.

    Why didn’t FactCheck.org acknowledge that Obama has the ability to view and copy his original vital records? Do you think the DOH would not certify any of his records that he copied?

  253. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    TV711:
    “SF Jeff I have not given Lucas credit for anything. I have simply said that he isn’t the one who should be answering the questions concerning eligibility. bho should. ”

    TV, you are welcome to your opinion. I agree-we can ignore Lucas and his BC- he has no credibility. But President Obama did settle his eligiblity before his election

    “This is my biggest complaint is following the fact that bho has kept his past completely hidden.”

    Exactly how do you come to this conclusion?

    Barrack Obama wrote 2 autobiographies prior to running for President. He presented his BC for public scrutiny. Politicact has looked at copies of his drivers license, marriage certificate and other public documents. No previous president has been as up front about his past as Barrack Obama has.

    “It seems there are 3 camps on the subject…”

    Suffice it to say I disagree with your definition of the camps.

    “Then you have those who question and sincerely want to get to the truth. They will never get the truth because know one knows what the truth is. All public information has been muddied to the point no one knows what to think. ”

    How do you come to this conclusion?

    Fact: President Obama presented a copy of his BC which was verified in person by Factcheck.

    Fact: 2 newspapers posted birth announcements of his birth

    Fact: The Governor of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    What facts are obscure?

    “I stand on my original claim that bho needs to answer the questions and put the matter to rest for the good of the country.”

    You do realize that no one I know in real life- as opposed to the web- even knows that birthers exist? There is no huge hue and cry about this. The country is not clamoring for an answer. The day the long form of the BC is unveiled at the Obama Presidential Library, there will be birthers saying it is a forgery.

  254. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Folks who for whatever reason have either believed misinformation, or who have problems handling the ambiguity of real life (the birthers).

    You dare to call yourself objective?

    “1) Folks on the Internet demanded a birth certificate. Obama provided a current birth certificate. Denialists went crazy with conspiracy theories, dozens of them, based on a standard legal document.”

    Don’t you mean that the Obama campaign allegedly provided a copy to a website that has been demonstrated to have provided the country with a lot of false information?

    “2) The State of Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Denialists went crazy calling the health director a criminal.”

    Was the information provided Dr. Fukino information that she could legally provide?

    “3) Announcements of Obama’s birth were found in two 1961 newspapers. Denialists made up stories about how they were really ads placed by the families,”

    Birth reports in the newspapers only indicate that a birth report was filed. They do nothing more.

  255. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    “Why didn’t FactCheck.org acknowledge that Obama has the ability to view and copy his original vital records? Do you think the DOH would not certify any of his records that he copied?”

    Why won’t you acknowledge that you called me a liar without checking the source, and that I was able to quickly demonstrate with actual evidence that you were wrong?

    And why should or would Factcheck acknowledge that? It wasn’t the question and is totally irrelevant. You said that the BC they examined wasn’t sufficient- but both Hawaii and Factcheck says it is. The long form is irrelevant.

  256. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is the Internet and I’m no document examiner.

    Then don’t call the Kenya BC a fake. You called the use of a date format “an impossible situation”. You were wrong then too.

  257. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    “Don’t you mean that the Obama campaign allegedly provided a copy to a website that has been demonstrated to have provided the country with a lot of false information?”

    So much wrong with that statement its hard to know where to begin. Lets review this- Obama posted a copy of his ‘supposed’ BC, McCain did not, Hillary did not, Bush did not, Clinton did not. Therefore you question Obama’s BC?

    “Was the information provided Dr. Fukino information that she could legally provide?”

    Way to try to throw a red herring in. Whether she legally could provide it or not doesn’t change the fact that Dr. Fukino confirmed in her official capacity that Obama was born in Hawaii. Birthers keep trying to obfuscate this simple fact- the person responsible for Birth certificates in Hawaii confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii.

    “Birth reports in the newspapers only indicate that a birth report was filed. They do nothing more.”

    Yeah- that nothing more is confirmation that there was an official filing of the birth certificate. By the way- this is called evidence that could be presented in court.

    By the way- President Obama is the legally elected President of the United States.

    I still enjoy writing that.

  258. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    Saint James..
    #3 of your post is exactly what I want bho to prove…that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Nothing more.
    Dr Conspriacy..In your previous post, #1 & #2 are one & the same camp.
    he did not provide a bc but read the top of it. It says “Certification of Live Birth.” By Hawaii law that simpoly means a live birth was registered with the info printed on the form. it does not give the source of the info. According to the laws od Hawaii at the time, info could have come from a doctor, a hospital, or a family member bringing a signed form to the registrar’s office. In the final case, no proof of any birth needed to be shown & it could be brought in by a family member or mailed in.
    The “State of hawaii” has not made any statements. Dr Fukino has and she has made 3 different statements. She also said his vault copy has been amended. From what to what? Maybe a name change because of the adoption? I don’t know.
    As American citizens we do have the right to know that he is eligible to be potus. That’s all. pure & simple.
    I didn’t start out asking questions. I was gfine with him. However, the more he refuses to be the open, transparent prez he claimed he would be, the more i believe we should ask.

  259. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    WhoDat?: Why didn’t FactCheck.org acknowledge that Obama has the ability to view and copy his original vital records? Do you think the DOH would not certify any of his records that he copied?

    Let me reiterate this to you. You can ask all these questions and I’m sure that there are those who will give you the answers. Let us not lose track of the premise though…AND THAT IS….

  260. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 1:27 am #

    ….LUCAS HAS TO PROVE THAT HE WENT TO KENYA!!!!

  261. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:27 am #

    SFJeff: Birthers keep trying to obfuscate this simple fact- the person responsible for Birth certificates in Hawaii confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii.

    What did she rely on?

  262. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 1:32 am #

    “Then don’t call the Kenya BC a fake. You called the use of a date format “an impossible situation”. You were wrong then too.”

    Oh I am sorry- which Kenyan BC are you talking about? I know of at least 3. I am pretty confident that using logic, at least two of those are forgeries.

    I will go further and give my very subjective opinion.

    Looking at the fact that Lucas who posted the BC is a convicted forgerer, and considering he has never shown the original to anyone, and considering he has never shown any evidence to support his story of his trip to Kenya, I think the likelyhood of the document being as much a forgery as the other two Kenyan BC is pretty high.

    I think if I have to choose between believing Dr. Fukino or Lucas, I would put big money on Dr. Fukino.

    I would be willing to put good money that Lucas will never produce the original BC.

  263. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    WhoDat?: What did she rely on?

    The question is…. What did LUCAS rely on?????

  264. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    WhoDat?: What did she [Dr. Fukino] rely on?

    She relied on the original vital records held by the Department of Health. For the uninitiated, that means in this case, the “long form.”

  265. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    Wow! A whole lot of Obots joined the party as soon as the legitimacy of the Kenyan birth certificate started to surface.

    Now that we have the date format out of the way, maybe we should look at whether Mombasa was part of the East African Protectorate in 1961, and whether it was called Coast Province.

    I turn your attention to a movie from Columbia Pictures. The movie “Beyond Mombasa” hit the screen in 1956. Here’s a link to the first 10 minutes.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/mocorrupt#p/a/f/1/WIQ3bnA69hg

    At 1:21 into the clip you will see:

    “THE PRODUCERS Gratefully acknowledge the cooperation extended to them by the authorities in British East Africa, especially in the Coast Province of Kenya where most of the film was photographed”

    Do you see that? That is the result of objective analysis. Objectivity relies on digging for the truth, no matter where it takes you. Of course, for the Obots that would seriously interfere with business.

  266. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: She relied on the original vital records held by the Department of Health. For the uninitiated, that means in this case, the “long form.”

    And who submitted that long form to the DOH? (Remember, this is based on facts that can be supported by evidence.)

  267. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    tv711: he did not provide a bc but read the top of it. It says “Certification of Live Birth.” By Hawaii law that simpoly means a live birth was registered with the info printed on the form. it does not give the source of the info. According to the laws od Hawaii at the time, info could have come from a doctor, a hospital, or a family member bringing a signed form to the registrar’s office. In the final case, no proof of any birth needed to be shown & it could be brought in by a family member or mailed in.
    The “State of hawaii” has not made any statements. Dr Fukino has and she has made 3 different statements. She also said his vault copy has been amended. From what to what? Maybe a name change because of the adoption? I don’t know.

    By Hawaiian law, by vital records practice in the United States and in common language, what Barack Obama produced is a “Birth Certificate.”

    Second, what you describe as the registration process in Hawaii is essentially the process in the whole country. Hawaii is no more or less immune to vital records fraud than any other state. But what you fail to realize is that it doesn’t matter whether Obama was born in a Hospital or whether he was born at home. The long form you are asking for must say he was born in Hawaii because the certified copy says so. And so, an I hope you will see this, the long form tells you nothing of use that the short form didn’t already tell you. And if you agree here, then you must agree that your demand for the long form is not based on the reasons you claim.

    Dr. Fukino is an official of the State of Hawaii, appointed by the Governor. Her statement is on a state of Hawaii web site. She is the person, by law, responsible for vital statistics in the State. So when she says Obama is born in Hawaii, it is the State talking.

    Finally, Dr. Funkino NEVER said that Obama’s vault record was amended.

  268. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    This is too important to just let it be passed over by our host. So I’ll report it

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Here is the Wikipedia page for calendar date formats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date

    If you scroll down you will see that it shows Kenya to use both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy.

    Wasn’t it you who recently boasted about how the Wikipedia police make sure that the data is accurate? I have watched that page for nearly a year and it always shows that Kenya uses both date formats.

  269. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    WhoDat?: Wow! A whole lot of Obots joined the party as soon as the legitimacy of the Kenyan birth certificate started to surface.Now that we have the date format out of the way, maybe we should look at whether Mombasa was part of the East African Protectorate in 1961, and whether it was called Coast Province.I turn your attention to a movie from Columbia Pictures. The movie “Beyond Mombasa” hit the screen in 1956. Here’s a link to the first 10 minutes.http://www.youtube.com/user/mocorrupt#p/a/f/1/WIQ3bnA69hgAt 1:21 into the clip you will see:“THE PRODUCERS Gratefully acknowledge the cooperation extended to them by the authorities in British East Africa, especially in the Coast Province of Kenya where most of the film was photographed”Do you see that? That is the result of objective analysis. Objectivity relies on digging for the truth, no matter where it takes you. Of course, for the Obots that would seriously interfere with business.

    1. the date format is not material to this discussion
    2. Mombasa as part of the protectorate is also not part of this discussion.

    “Objectivity relies on digging for the truth, no matter where it takes you. Of course, for the Obots that would seriously interfere with business”

    ha ha ha ha…WHY DON’T YOU ASK LUCAS TO SHOW HIS VISA…ETC,,,,,ALSO TELL LUCAS THAT HE IS ACCUSED OF BEING A SOCIOPATH!

  270. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    TV711- would you just actually prove anything you state? Please- just go to the actual site- and copy and paste- is that so hard?

    “According to the laws od Hawaii at the time, info could have come from a doctor, a hospital, or a family member bringing a signed form to the registrar’s office. In the final case, no proof of any birth needed to be shown & it could be brought in by a family member or mailed in”

    a) provide proof of your statement
    b) And so?

    “The “State of hawaii” has not made any statements. Dr Fukino has and she has made 3 different statements. She also said his vault copy has been amended”

    Come on- prove it. Show me where she said it had been amended- because I have never seen such a statment from her- I have seen wierd Birther theories that come to that conclusion but no such statement from her.

    But here is her official statement on state of Hawaii letterhead writing in her official capacity that is pretty clear and concise:

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

    Since she is the official charged with maintaining these records and answered in her capacity and the Governor of Hawaii has confirmed her statement, I would stand by my statement that the state of Hawaii has confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii

  271. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    WhoDat?: And who submitted that long form to the DOH? (Remember, this is based on facts that can be supported by evidence.)

    I don’t know. Does it matter? Fukino knows and she felt she could say that Obama was born in Hawaii (link under bookmarks above).

    I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about who has to report a president’s birth.

  272. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: By Hawaiian law, by vital records practice in the United States and in common language, what Barack Obama produced is a “Birth Certificate.”

    It’s your statement Dr. Conspiracy. I challenge you to back it up by referencing reliable sources. Try to stay away from any of the political sites, or any that were created after the Summer of 2008.

    1. Show me where Hawaiian Law calls an abstract or a certification of live birth a “birth certificate”.
    2. Show me where U.S. Law calls an abstract or a certification of live birth a “birth certificate”.
    3. Demonstrate how you arrived at the conclusion that a COLB is a birth certificate as used in the “common language” of the citizens of the United States.

  273. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    tv711: See what I mean? I ask questions & I am attacked. You say I need to prove. No! Only obama has to prove anything. I am not accusing. Just asking questions.

    You have a funny definition of being “attacked”.

    If by that you mean you’ve asked questions and been given answers….

    If by that you mean that you’ve restated nothing but long-debunked myths & misstatements and you were informed of such, often with links proving and explaining why….

    If by that you mean that every single question you posed was totally unsubstantiated and you were asked to back up your statements with proof or evidence…

    So, sorry, but it sounds like another disingenuous poster with no real curiosity nor desire to get any answers and who is here really with a direct agenda to intentionally spread misinformation and do some “concern trolling”.

    Prove me wrong by starting to back up your statements instead of just playing the victim card to dodge the truth.

  274. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    WhoDat?: Now that we have the date format out of the way, maybe we should look at whether Mombasa was part of the East African Protectorate in 1961, and whether it was called Coast Province.

    I turn your attention to a movie from Columbia Pictures. The movie “Beyond Mombasa” hit the screen in 1956. Here’s a link to the first 10 minutes.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/mocorrupt#p/a/f/1/WIQ3bnA69hg

    At 1:21 into the clip you will see:

    “THE PRODUCERS Gratefully acknowledge the cooperation extended to them by the authorities in British East Africa, especially in the Coast Province of Kenya where most of the film was photographed”

    Do you see that? That is the result of objective analysis. Objectivity relies on digging for the truth, no matter where it takes you. Of course, for the Obots that would seriously interfere with business.

    My article on the Smith fake is here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/

    I have never raised any objection about “Coast Province.”

    I may be behind in reading comments, but think I am still waiting for a Kenyan government document that puts the date in mm/dd/yy format.

  275. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know. Does it matter? Fukino knows and she felt she could say that Obama was born in Hawaii (link under bookmarks above).I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about who has to report a president’s birth.

    That’s right. You don’t know, and I don’t know. Please don’t tell me what Fukino “knows” or “felt”. You don’t know that. All that anyone can reliably assume is that she saw the vital record for Obama and concluded that the fact that it exists means that she must declare that he was born in Hawaii.

  276. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    “And who submitted that long form to the DOH? (Remember, this is based on facts that can be supported by evidence.)”

    Don’t know, don’t care.

    I don’t even know who presented my Birth certificate to my state. Does that mean I should be suspicious of my birth certificate.

    Let us suppose for one moment that President Obama’s long form Birth certificate shows that it was filed by a doctor. Would that stop the controversy? No- someone would demand that we see the doctors own records to show that he actually delivered President Obama.

    Or that the birth certificate was filed by a family member- does that make it any less valid? Nope. Dr. Fukino looked at the original document and to her experienced eye, she felt that not only was it valid, but confirmed Obama was a natural born citizen.

    Not just that he was born in Hawaii- but she felt that it proved he was a natural born citizen.

    But you- you want me to show that Kenyan BC #3 is a forgery. I say, I don’t care about how many Kenyan BC’s are produced- the more produced the more suspicious all of them all- when we have such firm, unconditional statements that support the information that is on the BC Obama provided.

    i will go further and say that there is a far greater chance that either Bush or Clinton was born out of the United States than Obama. I say that because I have firm proof that Obama was, and I got nothing to show that Bush or Clinton were born here.

  277. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    WhoDat?: You dare to call yourself objective?

    I’d put myself in the 95th percentile on objectivity. Yes. I work very hard at it.

  278. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I may be behind in reading comments, but think I am still waiting for a Kenyan government document that puts the date in mm/dd/yy format.

    I did one better. I sent an email to a guy in Mombasa. I asked him:

    “Is it common for both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy to be used in Kenya (in particular Mombasa)?

    If so, how do you know if 8/6/2009 is the 6th day of August, or it is meant to identify the 8th day of June?”

    He hasn’t responded yet, but when he does, I’ll let you know. I’ll even provide a link to show you how I got his email address. If he responds, I may be able to get him to find some documents for me.

  279. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 2:04 am #

    “I challenge you to back it up by referencing reliable sources.”

    You haven’t read much of what Doc has written have you? I leave it to him, but here is my bet:

    a) Doc will provide complete references and
    b) you will then obfuscate, challenge the real meaning to those references, or switch to another eligiblity topic.

    It will be fun to watch

  280. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    tv711: The money he spent on lawsuits is in public records.

    Then you should have no problem producing a source to back up your claim. Until then, I call BS.

    tv711: Grandma Sarah did give several interviews. In one, another person was there stating she didn’t ,mean he was born in Kenya. She didn’t change her statement, the other guy said she meant differently.

    Sorry, you’re wrong. Sounds like you didn’t actually listen to the tape. I gave you the link to the whole tape.

    tv711: He said he was adopted by his step-father.

    No he didn’t. Provide a source to back up your claim. Otherwise, I call BS again.

    tv711: He was not the 1st to show anything of his birth, John McCain was. McCain showed his long-form bc to Congress.bho put his (in fact 4 different ones) on the internet.Fair disclosure, I am not & was not a fan of McCain. I wanted Colin Powell to run.
    Maya’s was also posted on the net.

    Again, not a single thing you’ve said so far is accurate nor true. So, I’ll ask you to provide your evidence for each of these, as they are all wrong:

    A. Provide proof that McCain showed his “long form” to Congress. Congress debated & made a statement on McCain’s eligibility, but other than a reporter who claims McCain showed him his BC personally, there is no public record of McCain’s BC that I am aware of.
    B. Provide proof of “4 different” BCs for Obama. I’ve only seen one.
    C. Show us Maya’s BC…the one you claim is real and looks like Obama’s. Still waiting…

    tv711: Talking to you folks here is like a blade of grass blowing onto an anthill. All the ants come out of the anthill and viciously attack it for no reason other than to remove it because of some imaginary threat to the anthill.

    If by that you mean you ask questions and multiple people give you detailed answers, often with sources and references to back them up and you don’t like it because you don’t really want the truth…if by that, you mean.

    So again, time for you to back up your claims. All I’ve seen so far from you is 100% untrue myths with no evidence behind them.

  281. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    SFJeff: Dr. Fukino looked at the original document and to her experienced eye, she felt that not only was it valid

    Now you too know how Dr. Fukino felt? Laughable! Her experienced eye? How many 1960s birth certificates has Dr. Fukino looked at? Are you going to tell me you don’t know, but she has an experienced eye because that is what you need to present your argument?

  282. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    In Dr Fukino’s 1st statement, she said the state of hawaii had a birth certificate on file for bho. That meant nothing as to the place of birth.

    In Dr Fukino’s 2nd statement, she said, “I have seen the vault copy of obama’s birth certificate and is in compliance with the laws in effect in Hawaii at the time.” That statement means nothing since anyone could get a birth registered by simply walking in & signing a form or mailing one in. The same with the announcements in the papers.

    In her 3rd statement, She simply said he was born in Hawaii. In view of her first 2 statements, I have questions. What was the source of the info on the long form? If it came from any other than a doctor or a hospital, you can see the reason for questions.

    Why does he not simply show it. McCain did to Congress. After that, it was posted on scribd.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

  283. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:09 am #

    WhoDat?: Was the information provided Dr. Fukino information that she could legally provide?

    Birth reports in the newspapers only indicate that a birth report was filed. They do nothing more.

    Yes of course Dr. Fukino could legally provide the information she provided. She did it under the authority of HRS §338-18 (d). What an odd question.

    Birth reports in the newspapers mean a little more than that. For the birth to appear in the newspapers it has to be registered according to the procedures and regulations governing vital statistics. This means that the registrar has to be satisfied that the document is accurate.

    Part of denying the proof from Hawaii has always been to distort vital records process and to paint the State of Hawaii as some kind of a hick backwater, too unsophisticated to deal with fraud. It isn’t.

  284. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    WhoDat?: SFJeff,That’s twice now that you said Barack Obama provided a “certified copy of his birth certificate”.I’m reasonably sure that you know that isn’t a true statement.Why say something that you know isn’t true? Why not just say that; “According to FactCheck.org, the Obama campaign provided them with a scan of his Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii and they posted it on their website. A Certification of Live Birth is an abstract of the data on file with the Hawaii DOH. Though it is not conclusive proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, I don’t feel that anyone has presented evidence sufficient for me to question it? That would be a completely honest statement.

    Well, you are completely wrong on this.

    Per Factcheck.org’s own words:


    We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

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

    Sorry, you lose.

  285. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    “That’s right. You don’t know, and I don’t know. Please don’t tell me what Fukino “knows” or “felt”. You don’t know that. All that anyone can reliably assume is that she saw the vital record for Obama and concluded that the fact that it exists means that she must declare that he was born in Hawaii.”

    And that is all any birth certificate will tell us about anyone.

    Her statement is that she saw the original autheticating documents that confirm Obama was born in Hawaii. Absent actual evidence proving otherwise, I am fairly certain that her statement could be used as evidence in a court of law. Frankly, I am not certain what else you expect.

    Lets say the long form is published- the one she saw- thats what birthers want right? Since you are saying we can’t rely upon that document- what is the point of asking for the long form to be published?

    If the short form is not sufficient, and the long form is not suffiicient, what exactly is supposed to be sufficient? Because there are millions of Americans wandering around with passports based upon short form birth certificates just like Obama’s and if all of those are suspicious we better get busy rescinding all of our passports.

  286. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’d put myself in the 95th percentile on objectivity. Yes. I work very hard at it.

    You don’t get to call birthers names and still be considered objective.

    Do you think, based on your comments on the various threads here, that you could serve as judge in a case involving Obama without being required to recuse yourself? Do you think the court of appeals would agree with you?

  287. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    Oh yes Wat- how come you can’t acknowledge that you were completely- completely wrong about calling me a liar about the birth certificate?

  288. avatar
    Lupin May 30, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    Regarding the date thing — for what it’s worth I did an internship in the UK in 1974 at a large timber company and I was taught that you spell out the month first, e.g.: March 22nd, 1974, but that if you write the date in digits, then it’s supposed to be 22/03/(19)74. That was the professional secretarial standards of the times.

    I had never heard of writing it 03/22/74 until I came across American-generated letters or documents.

  289. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    SFJeff: “That’s right. You don’t know, and I don’t know. Please don’t tell me what Fukino “knows” or “felt”. You don’t know that. All that anyone can reliably assume is that she saw the vital record for Obama and concluded that the fact that it exists means that she must declare that he was born in Hawaii.”And that is all any birth certificate will tell us about anyone. Her statement is that she saw the original autheticating documents that confirm Obama was born in Hawaii. Absent actual evidence proving otherwise, I am fairly certain that her statement could be used as evidence in a court of law. Frankly, I am not certain what else you expect. Lets say the long form is published- the one she saw- thats what birthers want right? Since you are saying we can’t rely upon that document- what is the point of asking for the long form to be published? If the short form is not sufficient, and the long form is not suffiicient, what exactly is supposed to be sufficient? Because there are millions of Americans wandering around with passports based upon short form birth certificates just like Obama’s and if all of those are suspicious we better get busy rescinding all of our passports.

    I’m guessing that you are pretty young. Am I right? Under 20? Under 30?

    Do you think a COLB is all that is looked at before someone is granted a top-secret clearance? Do you think COLB’s are reliable?

    http://pameno.com/news/184-id-theft-behind-puerto-ricos-birth-certificate-recall.html

  290. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    Lupin: Regarding the date thing — for what it’s worth I did an internship in the UK in 1974 at a large timber company and I was taught that you spell out the month first, e.g.: March 22nd, 1974, but that if you write the date in digits, then it’s supposed to be 22/03/(19)74. That was the professional secretarial standards of the times.I had never heard of writing it 03/22/74 until I came across American-generated letters or documents.

    The Wikipedia is pretty clear. It says that Kenya uses mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy. I know Dr. COnspiracy will vouch for Wikipedia.

  291. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    WhoDat?: The Wikipedia is pretty clear. It says that Kenya uses mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy. I know Dr. COnspiracy will vouch for Wikipedia.

    ASK LUCAS TO PROVE THAT HE WENT TO KENYA! HA HA HA HA

  292. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:20 am #

    Saint James: HA HA HA HA….YOU have actually succeded in having everyone argue about everything…but you’ve not proven point “A” …anfd that is….ASK LUCAS TO PROVE THAT HE WENT TO KENYA! HA HA HA HA

    Take it easy Kim. This isn’t your blog yet.

  293. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 2:21 am #

    WhoDat?: Take it easy Kim. This isn’t your blog yet.

    ASK LUCAS IF HE WENT TO KENYA!

  294. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    Saint James: ASK LUCAS IF HE WENT TO KENYA!

    I asked Lucas if he went to Kenya. He said “Yes”. He entered from the Congo. He first went to Nairobi. Then he went to Mombasa.

    This is not hearsay. This is what he told me.

    You know you really should get better control of the English language before you continue. You’re too easy to spot.

  295. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:27 am #

    WhoDat?: The Wikipedia is pretty clear. It says that Kenya uses mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy. I know Dr. COnspiracy will vouch for Wikipedia.

    Hey, I didn’t see the hyperlink in your previous comment. Thanks for repeating it. It brought back fond memories and gave me a good laugh.

    To get a sense of what I mean, check out this article I wrote:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/any-fool-can-change-the-wikipedia/

    If you go to the Wikipedia RIGHT THIS MOMENT you will not see mm/dd/yyyy for Kenya, only dd/mm/yyyy. (I didn’t change it.)

    That’s right. The birthers have been playing with the Wikipedia again. For a little behind-the-scenes look at this specific question among the folks that maintain that calendar page, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calendar_date and search for “Kenya uses both?”

  296. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:27 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Do you do anything about trolls? It’s pretty obvious that “Saint James”, aka GreatKim, aka MikTaerg is not interested in doing anything but fill up your blog.

  297. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:32 am #

    WhoDat?: Dr. Conspiracy,Do you do anything about trolls? It’s pretty obvious that “Saint James”, aka GreatKim, aka MikTaerg is not interested in doing anything but fill up your blog.

    Over time I am sometimes forced to ban trolls, 3 in the year and a half the blog has been running.

  298. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Hey, I didn’t see the hyperlink in your previous comment. Thanks for repeating it. It brought back fond memories and gave me a good laugh.To get a sense of what I mean, check out this article I wrote:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/any-fool-can-change-the-wikipedia/If you go to the Wikipedia RIGHT THIS MOMENT you will not see mm/dd/yyyy for Kenya, only dd/mm/yyyy. (I didn’[t do it.)That’s right. The birthers have been playing with the Wikipedia again. For a little behind-the-scenes look at this specific question among the folks that maintain that calendar page, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calendar_date and search for “Kenya uses both?”

    We all know who Mystylplx is. The good news is that the image has not changed. The Obots (primarily Mystylplx) keep changing the text, but can’t change the graphic.

  299. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    tv711:
    This is my biggest complaint is following the fact that bho has kept his past completely hidden.

    Again, you seem to have the strangest usage for words, which seem to mean the exact opposite of what they are supposed to mean.

    So by “kept his past completely hidden”, I guess you mean:

    A. He published 2 best-selling, prize-winning autobiographies (including audio books on them) that were both available during the election campaign. In fact, his original autobiography was published back in the early 90’s…so that’s quite a long time frame of being “hidden” right in public! LOL!

    B. He is the only presidential candidate ever to have posted his birth certificate on the internet for the entire world to see.

    C. He took place in a record-setting almost 2-year non-stop presidential campaign that was the most covered & discussed campaign in history.

    tv711:
    It seems there are 3 camps on the subject…

    The bho defenders whoe will not believe anything he does or has does should be questioned. They follow him blindly without regard for the truth and attack all who might not wholeheartedly agree.

    Well, I don’t know who those people are and they sound like just another myth you made up to me. Over here, I don’t know of anyone who agrees with all of his policies & actions. I sure have my areas of disagreement, as does everyone else that I’m aware of.

    Over here, our focus is on investigating and debunking conspiracies & myths, specifically those that deal with the birther claims. If we come across less than patient, that is because there is nothing new that we haven’t heard before and deeply looked into a long time ago and there is to this date, not a single credible scrap of evidence that contradicts the COLB. End of story.

    tv711:
    The birthers who believe in their ideas and try to convince others of their way of thought.

    Yes, the birthers, who after nearly 2 years have not come up with a single credible piece of evidence or plausible scenario to back up “their way of thought”. Yes, those folks that go off of their gut-dislike of him as a presumption of guilt and then try to find any scraps of rumor or innuendo to back them up. Yes, those birthers that blindly ignore and deny all facts & logic that contradict them.

    I think you fall in this category, based on your responses to date.

    tv711:
    Then you have those who question and sincerely want to get to the truth. They will never get the truth because know one knows what the truth is. All public information has been muddied to the point no one knows what to think.

    Ah, the unicorns! By how you have defined them, such do not really exist. Public information isn’t “muddied”. Only birther sites & certain right-wing sites peddle this stuff.

    I agree that there are some folks who will come across these myths in their emails or who might visit certain right-wing or conspiracy sites that peddle the birther myths and might legitimately get confused for awhile.

    But if they are sincerely then looking for “the truth”, they won’t try to deny all actual evidence available in order to hold onto unsubstantiated myth. Anyone truly who falls in this category and spends actual effort investigating it with an open and logical mind will not remain in this camp for long.

  300. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 2:42 am #

    “Now you too know how Dr. Fukino felt? Laughable!}”

    Oh you caught me! I don’t know what Dr. Fukino was feeling. All I really know is what Dr. Fukino said. She said as the Director of health she had seen the original documents and that they verified that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. As you can see, I erred in implying that this was an emotional statement by Dr. Fukino, instead of a unequivocal statement.

    “Her experienced eye? How many 1960s birth certificates has Dr. Fukino looked at? Are you going to tell me you don’t know, but she has an experienced eye because that is what you need to present your argument?”

    I made big assumptions. When she claimed to have statutory authority over ‘these type of statutory records” I was willing to accept that she does have that kind of statutory authority. I assumed since she has had that authority since 2002, when she makes a statement that she has viewed the documents verifying his NBC status, I assumed that if there was any obvious discrepancy such as a statement that he was really born in Kenya, she would notice it.

    Do I think that means she is a document expert who ran the document through a series of scientific tests? No. But then again we are already way passed beyond a reasonable doubt

  301. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Did you notice that the source for the use of both date formats is the Office of Public Communications?

    If you want to claim the dates were entered as a type-O you’re going to have to explain the associate web pages too.

  302. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    WhoDat?: I asked Lucas if he went to Kenya. He said “Yes”. He entered from the Congo. He first went to Nairobi. Then he went to Mombasa.This is not hearsay. This is what he told me.You know you really should get better control of the English language before you continue. You’re too easy to spot.

    Asking is not enough…let him show you his visa, custom stamp on his passport, picture in fornt of that hospital, receipts of his gas , food, lodging accomdation, etc….That will suffice!

    Please don’t question me about my English! I don’t come from the Dominican Republic like LUCA SMITH!

  303. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:46 am #

    tv711, you’re double counting Fukino’s statement, I think. If you really think there were three, please provide links to all 3. I think you will find only 2.

  304. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 2:50 am #

    tv711: he did not provide a bc but read the top of it. It says “Certification of Live Birth.” By Hawaii law that simpoly means a live birth was registered with the info printed on the form. it does not give the source of the info. According to the laws od Hawaii at the time, info could have come from a doctor, a hospital, or a family member bringing a signed form to the registrar’s office. In the final case, no proof of any birth needed to be shown & it could be brought in by a family member or mailed in.
    The “State of hawaii” has not made any statements. Dr Fukino has and she has made 3 different statements. She also said his vault copy has been amended. From what to what? Maybe a name change because of the adoption? I don’t know.
    As American citizens we do have the right to know that he is eligible to be potus. That’s all. pure & simple.
    I didn’t start out asking questions. I was gfine with him. However, the more he refuses to be the open, transparent prez he claimed he would be, the more i believe we should ask.

    You would have a lot less credibility if you didn’t constantly make statements in the definitive, when you are wrong and don’t know what you are talking about.

    I’lve already told you, if you “really” want the answers (which I doubt you actually do), then go to the official source directly and read their site or call them and ask your questions. I’ll provide you a direct link with all this info, yet again: Their number & contact info is posted in the FAQ.

    You obviously haven’t been there or talked to them, otherwise, you wouldn’t have posted all the incorrect statements you just made:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

  305. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    WhoDat?: Now you too know how Dr. Fukino felt? Laughable! Her experienced eye? How many 1960s birth certificates has Dr. Fukino looked at? Are you going to tell me you don’t know, but she has an experienced eye because that is what you need to present your argument?

    That was totally uncalled for.

    Fukino is the head of the department of health and she had with her Dr. Onaka who is chief of vital statistics (and by the way someone well-respected among his peers being elected president of NAPHSIS a few years back). Those two individuals have the necessary expertise to tell whether the document meets their regulations and to read the location of birth.

    I think you should do a little better with your comments.

  306. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    WhoDat?: Wow! A whole lot of Obots joined the party as soon as the legitimacy of the Kenyan birth certificate started to surface.Now that we have the date format out of the way, maybe we should look at whether Mombasa was part of the East African Protectorate in 1961, and whether it was called Coast Province.I turn your attention to a movie from Columbia Pictures. The movie “Beyond Mombasa” hit the screen in 1956. Here’s a link to the first 10 minutes.http://www.youtube.com/user/mocorrupt#p/a/f/1/WIQ3bnA69hgAt 1:21 into the clip you will see:“THE PRODUCERS Gratefully acknowledge the cooperation extended to them by the authorities in British East Africa, especially in the Coast Province of Kenya where most of the film was photographed”Do you see that? That is the result of objective analysis. Objectivity relies on digging for the truth, no matter where it takes you. Of course, for the Obots that would seriously interfere with business.

    Seriously??? A fictional action/adventure movie with “Beyond Mombassa” is your proof? You mean this movie?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049005/

    LMAO!!!!!!

    So, does that mean I should assume that parts of Canada and Bulgaria and other foreign places are really parts of the US because filmmakers chose to film over there for cheaper cost and have those areas “represent” places here in the US?

    Hahahahahahahahahaha! Well, you gave me a good laugh at least. That has to be one of the weakest connect-the-dots arguments I’ve ever seen someone trot out boldly & proudly!

    I’d give you the PUMA award for that one, if I could.

  307. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 3:00 am #

    WhoDat?:
    I did one better. I sent an email to a guy in Mombasa. I asked him:“Is it common for both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy to be used in Kenya (in particular Mombasa)?If so, how do you know if 8/6/2009 is the 6th day of August, or it is meant to identify the 8th day of June?”He hasn’t responded yet, but when he does, I’ll let you know. I’ll even provide a link to show you how I got his email address. If he responds, I may be able to get him to find some documents for me.

    What would turn the tide would be for you find a birth certificate that looks anything like the Smith certificate, date format and all. I realize that’s no easy task but don’t you think it a worthy quest?

  308. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    WhoDat?: All that anyone can reliably assume is that she saw the vital record for Obama and concluded that the fact that it exists means that she must declare that he was born in Hawaii.

    That’s an utterly ridiculous statement. The document has written on it the place of birth. I think we have found our troll.

  309. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    “I’m guessing that you are pretty young. Am I right? Under 20? Under 30?”

    I am guessing that you are trying to insult me. How about you tell me your age, and I will make some speculations about you?

    “Do you think a COLB is all that is looked at before someone is granted a top-secret clearance? Do you think COLB’s are reliable?”

    I am thinking that the last two Presidents provided less than President Obama has. I think that Obama’s BC is as reliable as mine or yours or Clintons or Bushes.

    You can be as paranoid as you wish. But as I have said before, I have more evidence that President Obama was born in the United States than I have that Bush or Clinton was. born here. Since there is no evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery or that Dr. Fukino is a idiot, I am comfortable with assuming that the by the standards of any reasonable person, the evidence shows that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

  310. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 3:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That was totally uncalled for.Fukino is the head of the department of health and she had with her Dr. Onaka who is chief of vital statistics (and by the way someone well-respected among his peers being elected president of NAPHSIS a few years back). Those two individuals have the necessary expertise to tell whether the document meets their regulations and to read the location of birth.I think you should do a little better with your comments.

    Stop telling me how someone feels, and I won’t find the need to point out that you don’t know how other people feel.

    Are you an empath?

  311. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 3:15 am #

    SFJeff: “I’m guessing that you are pretty young. Am I right? Under 20? Under 30?”I am guessing that you are trying to insult me. How about you tell me your age, and I will make some speculations about you?“Do you think a COLB is all that is looked at before someone is granted a top-secret clearance? Do you think COLB’s are reliable?”I am thinking that the last two Presidents provided less than President Obama has. I think that Obama’s BC is as reliable as mine or yours or Clintons or Bushes. You can be as paranoid as you wish. But as I have said before, I have more evidence that President Obama was born in the United States than I have that Bush or Clinton was. born here. Since there is no evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery or that Dr. Fukino is a idiot, I am comfortable with assuming that the by the standards of any reasonable person, the evidence shows that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Thanks for answering my question. When you get older you’ll be able to figure out how I knew how old you were.

  312. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 3:28 am #

    tv711: In Dr Fukino’s 1st statement, she said the state of hawaii had a birth certificate on file for bho. That meant nothing as to the place of birth.In Dr Fukino’s 2nd statement, she said, “I have seen the vault copy of obama’s birth certificate and is in compliance with the laws in effect in Hawaii at the time.” That statement means nothing since anyone could get a birth registered by simply walking in & signing a form or mailing one in. The same with the announcements in the papers.In her 3rd statement, She simply said he was born in Hawaii. In view of her first 2 statements, I have questions. What was the source of the info on the long form? If it came from any other than a doctor or a hospital, you can see the reason for questions.
    Why does he not simply show it. McCain did to Congress. After that, it was posted on scribd.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

    Hey, let me start by giving you credit for actually posting a link to something!

    Thanks for the link to the McCain BC. I hadn’t seen that before.

    Now, onto the rest of your arguments, I’m sorry, but these just sound like “sour grapes” type of birther arguments to me. The officials have come forward a number of times to back up & say that they have the documents, which privacy laws put a bunch of limits on exactly how much info they can publicly state. Only birthers seem to want to over-parse their words and try to twist them to be anything other than repeated confirmation.

    Sorry, I just see this as another red-herring non-issue and in my view, you have to be starting with a deep-seated close-minded need to want to somehow discredit the BC in order to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to take all of these statements together along with the existing evidence of the COLB and conclude that it totals up to anything other than born in Honolulu, HI.

    Again, that is the real reason that birthers have to always change the subject and try to create straw-man arguments and distract to other red-herrings and haggle over parsed nuance that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans:

    Because in the end, you can’t legally get around his COLB stating born in Honolulu, HI and that this COLB document, by law, must be accepted at face value not only by the courts, but by every licensing authority within the entire US. It is by nature & definition, “self-authenticating”.

    The only way to even challenge it would be to have solid credible evidence that disputes its authenticity. You can’t just be suspicious or have wild theories or doubts. That doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. No “witnesses” are even required to testify to it, as it is self-authenticating. Nor would any “experts” be allowed to even examine or challenge it, without there already being solid credible evidence that would dispute it.

    So, until you can cross those bridges, you’re sort of up the creek without a paddle and doing nothing but tilting at windmills, without any chance of success. Sorry, but that’s just reality.

  313. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 3:33 am #

    kimbo..tell bho to prove he was born Hawaii. That’s all the proof anyAmerican citizen needs.
    Why do you insist on following others around just to argue with them? I saw you do this at Free Republic and you were effectively expesed.

  314. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 3:37 am #

    tv711: kimbo..tell bho to prove he was born Hawaii. That’s all the proof anyAmerican citizen needs.Why do you insist on following others around just to argue with them? I saw you do this at Free Republic and you were effectively expesed.

    NOW, YOU TELL LUCAS SMITH THE MARICON FROM THE DOMINICA REPUBLICANA TO SHOW PROOF THAT HE WENT TO KENYA!

  315. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 3:50 am #

    tv711: kimbo..tell bho to prove he was born Hawaii. That’s all the proof anyAmerican citizen needs.Why do you insist on following others around just to argue with them? I saw you do this at Free Republic and you were effectively expesed.

    I post at the free republic, I get ganged up but I haven’t lost an argument yet…NOW TELL LUCAS SMITH TO PROVE THAT HE WENT TO KENYA! HA HA HA HA

  316. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 3:58 am #

    You guys just don’t get it, do you?
    No one has to prove anything except obama. He is the one who has to prove Constitutional eligibility. I don’t, you don’t, Lucas doesn’t, just bho. I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t have to prove what I say and neither do you. Only bho does.
    I don’t have to prove why I question, I just ask the question. he has to prove himself & he doesn’t. The colb proves nothingexcept a birth is registered there, not that it happened there. Here is a pretty informative article about Hawaiian colbs.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/25/original-certificate-of-live-birth-from-hawaii-is-different-from-obamas-colb/

    Until June of 2009, Hawaii Home Lands program did not accept colbs as a reliable test of Hawaiian birth. They required a long-form certified copy. It was changed In June 2009 because of all the dis-satisfaction over bho’s colb.

    I don’t say I know where he was born. I say he hasn’t proved anything as yet.

  317. avatar
    tv711 May 30, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    Look up Quo Warrento. Several have been filed and he ignores them. You will find we have the right to question. he has the responsibility to answer. We do ask & he doesn’t answer. That says something to me.
    I didn’t get into this with the idea he was not born In Hawaii & to tell the truth, I still don’t know. But I watched as one after another, he refused to answer questions. I had to wonder. I still do.

  318. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 4:11 am #

    tv711: You guys just don’t get it, do you?No one has to prove anything except obama. He is the one who has to prove Constitutional eligibility. I don’t, you don’t, Lucas doesn’t, just bho. I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t have to prove what I say and neither do you. Only bho does.I don’t have to prove why I question, I just ask the question. he has to prove himself & he doesn’t. The colb proves nothingexcept a birth is registered there, not that it happened there. Here is a pretty informative article about Hawaiian colbs.http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/25/original-certificate-of-live-birth-from-hawaii-is-different-from-obamas-colb/Until June of 2009, Hawaii Home Lands program did not accept colbs as a reliable test of Hawaiian birth. They required a long-form certified copy. It was changed In June 2009 because of all the dis-satisfaction over bho’s colb.I don’t say I know where he was born. I say he hasn’t proved anything as yet.

    You just don’t get it, do you?….IF I ACCUSE YOU OF MOLESTING YOUR NEIGHBOR’S CHILD….DO YOU PROVE THAT YOU DID NOT? OR SHALL i PROVE THAT YOU DID?

    THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS IN THE ACCUSER.

    SO TELL…LUCAS SMTH TO SHOW PROOF THAT HE WENT TO KENYA! HA HA HA HA

  319. avatar
    Lupin May 30, 2010 at 4:17 am #

    WhoDat?: Lupin

    I honestly don’t care. I was taught in the UK in the 70s and the only two acceptable ways of writing a date were:

    (1) March 22nd, 1972 (the month being spelled out, and the date being followed by st or nd or th)

    or

    (2) 22/03/72

    That’s it. That’s a fact. I was there.

    I surmise that by mm/dd/yr wiki MIGHT mean (1) above which indeed places the month first BUT ONLY IF SPELLED OUT.

    A date written as 03/22/72 * WAS * NOT * PROPER. Not in the UK.

  320. avatar
    Lupin May 30, 2010 at 4:22 am #

    tv711: No one has to prove anything except obama. He is the one who has to prove Constitutional eligibility.

    Actually he already has.

    To his party’s satisfaction. Then to the voters’. Then to the Electors’. Then to Congress’. And arguably to the Supreme Court’s, depending on whether you count the oath taking.

    The fact that he has proven his eligibility to the satisfaction of all those august bodies — but not yours should be something of a clue that there’s a chasm between reality where the rest of us live and the section of Fantasy Island where you dwell.

  321. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    tv711: and kim, you have been exposed on free republic many times. You don’t discuss. You just keep posting the same thing over & over like you have here. That’s not winning. That’s proving you have nothing intelligent to say but don’t want to admit defeat.

    It’s not a proof of intelligence to actually pretend that you know things as facts when all you do is nothing but rhetoric. You can accuse me of being KIM which sounds like a Korean, or MIK which sounds like from Ireland or Saint James which sound like a holy man LOL! Dr.C can tell you if we are one and the same through the IP address that we use. He can also tell you if we have the same e-mail address. ASK HIM!

    BUT, WHY CAN’T YOU SHOW ME PROOF THAT LUCAS THE MARICONA DE REPUBLICA DOMINICANA ACTUALLY WENT TO KENYA. SIMPLY SHOW ME HIS VISA OR A CUSTOM STAMP THAT SHOWS HE ACTUALLY ENTERED KENYA? HA HA HA HA

    HE CAN’T BECAUSE HE LIED!

  322. avatar
    Saint James May 30, 2010 at 4:46 am #

    tv711: Look up Quo Warrento. Several have been filed and he ignores them. You will find we have the right to question. he has the responsibility to answer. We do ask & he doesn’t answer. That says something to me.I didn’t get into this with the idea he was not born In Hawaii & to tell the truth, I still don’t know. But I watched as one after another, he refused to answer questions. I had to wonder. I still do.

    Obama DID NOT ignore anything…You did not have standing…that’s why you lost. HA HA HA HA..THE ACCUSER HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION! Let me tell you the truth…We will round you up, like the diaspora, we will send you to the FEMA concentration camp near area 51 in Nevada. There, you will face the death panel. Like “reverend” Manning’s trial, you will be found guilty (I’m sure of it), then you’ll be processed into monosodium glutamate to be exported to China. USA will experience an economic boom because this MSG production.

  323. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 6:08 am #

    Oh TV, you continue to disappoint me.

    “In Dr Fukino’s 2nd statement, she said, “I have seen the vault copy of obama’s birth certificate and is in compliance with the laws in effect in Hawaii at the time.” That statement means nothing since anyone could get a birth registered by simply walking in & signing a form or mailing one in. The same with the announcements in the papers.”

    Show me that this was possible in 1963. Show me one person that did just that. One person who registered a birth just by walking in and signing a form. Show me.

    “In her 3rd statement, She simply said he was born in Hawaii.”

    No she said she had reviewed the original documents and they verified that Obama was born in Hawaii and was a natural born citizen. What else matters?

    ” In view of her first 2 statements, I have questions. What was the source of the info on the long form? If it came from any other than a doctor or a hospital, you can see the reason for questions. ”

    No, frankly I don’t. After Fukino says she saw the documents and that he was born in Hawaii, I don’t see what else you care about.

    “Why does he not simply show it. McCain did to Congress”

    Show me a citation in the Congressional record that McCain presented his birth certificate. I can’t find it. Show me a newspaper article that reports it. I bet that you will not find such, because it didn’t happen.

  324. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 6:12 am #

    “No one has to prove anything except obama. He is the one who has to prove Constitutional eligibility. ”

    You don’t get it. President Obama already proved his eligiblity and he is already elected, and confirmed. He is not required to prove it again to you, or to whatever degree of whimsy you want.

    “II don’t have to prove why I question, I just ask the question. he has to prove himself & he doesn’t. The colb proves nothingexcept a birth is registered there, not that it happened there”

    This is your opinion and belief- which of course is fine. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the law, but you are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you wish.

    President Obama was duly elected by 69 million voters, and is our legally elected President.

  325. avatar
    northland10 May 30, 2010 at 6:47 am #

    tv711: and kim, you have been exposed on free republic many times. You don’t discuss. You just keep posting the same thing over & over like you have here. That’s not winning. That’s proving you have nothing intelligent to saybut don’t want to admit defeat.

    And yet again, I am having the flashbacks of the middle school trying to get out of detention. The line “you have been exposed” is the key line. I never quite figured out what they meant by that.

    Really, I would have hoped the kids grew out of that.

  326. avatar
    northland10 May 30, 2010 at 7:00 am #

    tv711: It seems to me that a man who promised transparency

    Birther Definition:

    Transparency – Obama providing evidence to what the birthers already believe. Proper transparency requires that the anything he releases must incriminate himself.

    Thus, if Obama releases his college Financial Aid records (which, of course, he kept handy after 25 years), and all they show is federal loans held by Sallie Mae and some academic scholarships from Hawaii and the colleges, he is not being transparent because there must be more. If he releases a 7th grade essay describing his plan for a Kenyan citizen leading a communist takeover of the US, he would be transparent.

    So, if he releases the “long form” and it shows a Honolulu Hospital with the signature of a doctor and 3 witnesses, that is not being transparent. He would be presenting a forged “long form” and obviously hiding something.

  327. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 30, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    tv711: Look up Quo Warrento. Several have been filed and he ignores them.

    Quo Warranto is an action that can only be brought by the US Attorney or Attorney General. No such lawsuit has been filed, ever.

    I suggest that you look things up. Of course frivolous filings are ignored.

  328. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Saint James: Dr.C can tell you if we are one and the same through the IP address that we use. He can also tell you if we have the same e-mail address. ASK HIM!

    I don’t have access to this “Kim” person’s IP address with which to make a comparison. Posted email addresses are not verified, and folks may have multiple email addresses (and IP addresses if they take the trouble).

    I remember going over to a birther blog once and I was immediately accused of being somebody they had banned.

    Now let’s stop this conversation. It’s off topic. Personal attacks are banned here, and it looks like I need to get my whack-a-mole mallet out again.

  329. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 9:17 am #

    tv711: Look up Quo Warrento.

    Why don’t you look it up and then you could start spelling it right. πŸ™„

  330. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    tv711: No one has to prove anything except obama. He is the one who has to prove Constitutional eligibility. I don’t, you don’t, Lucas doesn’t, just bho.

    I don’t think you appreciate where you are. This blog is here to investigate the veracity of conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. Those who participate here are expected to support whatever position they take with evidence and argument.

    President Obama is not a participant here, and so is not expected to do anything. What President Obama ought to do is beyond the scope of this forum.

    The discussion of where the burden of proof lies is pointless and nothing more than a wasted of time and a diversion. It’s probably an effective way to waste people’s time, but of no value.

  331. avatar
    Mike May 30, 2010 at 9:27 am #

    WhoDat?: This is too important to just let it be passed over by our host. So I’ll report itDr. Conspiracy,Here is the Wikipedia page for calendar date formats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_dateIf you scroll down you will see that it shows Kenya to use both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy.Wasn’t it you who recently boasted about how the Wikipedia police make sure that the data is accurate? I have watched that page for nearly a year and it always shows that Kenya uses both date formats.

    No, it does not state that Kenya uses both forms, only the date first format; and I don’t believe for a second that you’ve been watching it for a year… Recent revisions show no change to the section on Kenya, in case you were about to spin off into conspiracy land.

  332. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    Saint James: HA HA HA HA HA…The birthers are going to throw some temper tantrums about what you said…NOW LET’S HEAR FROM LUCAS SMITH! ha ha ha ha…IWANT HIM TO PTOVE THAT HE WENT TO KENYA….SHOW US PROOF LIKE VISA, ETC.

    I’m going to start deleting these repetitive comments. Also, please get to know the proper operation of the Caps Lock key.

    Thanks, Doc.

  333. avatar
    Mike May 30, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    A further note on dates – As the only person who frequents this site who is actually British (that I know of), I can tell you that the normal usage in the UK and Commonwealth countries is dd/mm/yyyy.

    Occasionally in speech and much more rarely in print, you will see a date written in the format of “May the 30th, 2010”. It is rarely used, as it is is viewed as somewhat old-fashioned.

    What you will never see in the UK is mm/dd/yyyy, and this is true across most Commonwealth countries as well. A search via Google using the search string mm/dd/yyyy through sites ending in .au reveals, broadly, a number of sites for computer programmers showing how to format dates in a locale sensitive way, and a few sites offering services to US residents; a similar situation pertains to using the same search on site:.nz and site:.in.

    In short – there’s no there there.

  334. avatar
    Sef May 30, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I may be behind in reading comments, but think I am still waiting for a Kenyan government document that puts the date in mm/dd/yy format.

    I still think the jury is out on how some people in Kenya might format dates, but I think it strange, very strange, that an official government document on which dates are very important would be ambiguous in how a date could be interpreted. I am reasonably certain that if we ever do get to see a real Kenyan birth certificate that the dates on it will be presented in an unambiguous fashion, ie the month will be spelled out.

  335. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 10:16 am #

    WhoDat?: Dr. Conspiracy,Did you notice that the source for the use of both date formats is the Office of Public Communications?If you want to claim the dates were entered as a type-O you’re going to have to explain the associate web pages too.

    Since this is the only government web site in all of Kenya that seems to exhibit this anomaly, that the dates in question are restricted to one time period, and the web site itself is inconsistent, it is most reasonable to assume that something is wrong with the site. These dates are “change dates” on articles (i.e. structured data, not free text).

    If the site were set up wrong in 2008 because of a mm/dd/yy default in the software (the earliest change dates) and then corrected, then all the existing dates in the database could be misinterpreted under the new format. It almost has to be significant that all the mm/dd dates are exclusively from 2008. At least this is the only thing I can figure out that is plausible.

    Again, no one intentionally uses two date formats in the same list of dates, since it is impossible to tell what the dates mean. This fact rules out your interpretation of the Communications web site.

  336. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    @ WhoDat?

    You said: “We all know who Mystylplx is.”

    I don’t. I know who Mxyzptlk is, but not Mystylplx.

  337. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    WhoDat: This is not hearsay. This is what he told me.

    What somebody told you is hearsay here. But even if Smith posted it here himself, it would be meaningless without some proof. And even if he had proof that he went to Kenya, that says nothing about the validity of his document. The internal problems in that document are sufficient to discredit it.

    By the way, you haven’t addressed my other 8 objections to that document.

    For starters what reason can you give for the missing month and day of Obama Sr’s birth (besides the fact that you can’t look it up on the Internet)?

  338. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    tv711 Why does he not simply show it. McCain did to Congress. After that, it was posted on scribd.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

    You have your facts wrong.

    The “birth certificate” you linked to was not shown by McCain to Congress or anybody else. It was filed by Fred Hollander in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit. It is a transparent forgery. See here for details:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

    A McCain staffer showed one reporter, Michael Dodd of the Washington Post, his “birth certificate.” That certificate, according to Dodd was from the CoCo Solo submarine base and signed by the base commander. The “birth certificate” you linked to shows McCain born at a hospital in Colon, off the base. So either the McCain staffer showed Dodd a fake (and that is hardly credible) or the one you point to is a fake (which it obviously is).

  339. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    WhoDat? Do you think, based on your comments on the various threads here, that you could serve as judge in a case involving Obama without being required to recuse yourself?

    I’m much too tied up in this stuff to qualify as a judge. Articles on this site range from objective to wise cracking. However, when it comes to the facts about Obama conspiracy theories, I consider this web site objective. If you find something that is not objective, just comment on it. If you have a valid point, I’ll change the article. I’ve done this many times. It is called being objective.

  340. avatar
    Sef May 30, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    tv711: Why does he not simply show it. McCain did to Congress. After that, it was posted on scribd.

    You will notice that even on this fake McCain BC the birth month is spelled out.

  341. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    SFJeff:
    “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The article goes on in quite some detail with some really good photos’ of the original.

    Actually the original is not pictured at all, and for factcheck to call it the original is a brazen lie.

  342. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    Let’s pretend we had 2 investment proposals that seemed legitimate on their face. One was from Warren Buffet and one was from Bernie Madoff. Now a birther may try to tell you that the fact that Mr Madoff was convicted of a closely-related crime is not relevant, but, that is simply ridiculous. tv711 can put his money with Bernie, but I will invest with Warren.

    Similarly if I see 2 birth certificates, one put forward by a convicted forger and vouched for by no official and one put forward by someone who has never been convicted of a crime and is vouched for by the on-the-record statements of officials directly charged with records, the choice is easy. Want to change the equation? Come back with an on-the-record statement from the Kenyan officials charged with maintaining birth records vouching for the Kenyan BC.

    By the way, in the extremely unlikely event that Lucas Smith did obtain his piece of paper by bribing a Kenyan official (which wouldn’t necessarily mean it’s real), then he is guilty of a felony in the US under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He is also likely guilty of a felony in Kenya as well. He might make a great cellmate for Bernie

  343. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    G: And yes, black people can be racist and hold racist views against other blacks. Manning is definitely one such type of racist.

    I did think your replies to Greg was pretty good:

    More to the point, my definition excludes the idea of blacks holding racist views against blacks.

  344. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: For starters what reason can you give for the missing month and day of Obama Sr’s birth

    Why don’t you answer that question yourself? You must know the date of Obama Sr’s birth. Maybe you can provide the needed citation for Obama Sr’s Wikipedia page.

    Dr. Conspiracy, before you question why only a year is identified on the birth certificate, maybe you should be able to tell others what his exact date of birth is.

    Maybe you just don’t understand that jungle births are remembered by the closest item of interest (i.e. the great flood of 1937).

    Don’t complain about only having a year unless you can provide some credible evidence of an exact date of birth for Obama Sr.

  345. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    yguy: Actually the original is not pictured at all, and for factcheck to call it the original is a brazen lie.

    It’s not a lie. FactCheck looked at the original document issued by Hawaii. What FactCheck said is in accordance with normal English usage to describe an original document, as opposed to a copy. What they saw had the raised seal of the state.

    What FactCheck did not see was the original document filed with the state when Obama was born. That document, if it still exists on paper, has only been seen in modern times by Dr. Fukino and Dr. Onaka.

    To call this a “brazen lie” is a brazen smear.

  346. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    WhoDat?: Maybe you just don’t understand that jungle births are remembered by the closest item of interest (i.e. the great flood of 1937).

    “jungle births” ?? You show your ignorance not just of what America is about, but of geography and climate. The region of Kenya inhabited by President Obama’s paternal forbearers is not jungle (tropical rainforest) at all, but grassland or savanna. There is way too little annual rainfall to be jungle.

  347. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Sef: I am reasonably certain that if we ever do get to see a real Kenyan birth certificate that the dates on it will be presented in an unambiguous fashion, ie the month will be spelled out.

    At least from Kenya in 1961 I agree because that’s with I have seen in other documents. However, I don’t think there ever was any ambiguity in official date formatting in Kenya. It’s always dd/mm/yyyy, or spelled out or dd-mon-yyyy.

  348. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: At least from Kenya in 1961 I agree because that’s with I have seen in other documents. However, I don’t think there ever was any ambiguity in official date formatting in Kenya. It’s always dd/mm/yyyy, or spelled out or dd-mon-yyyy.

    How many 1960s era Kenyan hospital birth certificates have you see?

    You (Dr. Conspiracy) are not an authority on anything. You may play one on a blog, but that is the extent of your expertise.

    When presented with evidence, you dismiss it as a type-O. The CPGH birth certificate is a hospital birth certificate. Why don’t you show us a CPGH birth certificate from 1961 that uses the alternative dd/mm/yy format?

  349. avatar
    Mike May 30, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    WhoDat? You (Dr. Conspiracy) are not an authority on anything. You may play one on a blog, but that is the extent of your expertise.

    Given that you consistently render typo as “type-O” and have noting to offer bar minor quibbling over a date format used by a tiny minority of Kenyans, I find this statement somewhat ironic.

  350. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    WhoDat? Why don’t you answer that question yourself? You must know the date of Obama Sr’s birth. Maybe you can provide the needed citation for Obama Sr’s Wikipedia page.

    Dr. Conspiracy, before you question why only a year is identified on the birth certificate, maybe you should be able to tell others what his exact date of birth is.

    Maybe you just don’t understand that jungle births are remembered by the closest item of interest (i.e. the great flood of 1937).

    Don’t complain about only having a year unless you can provide some credible evidence of an exact date of birth for Obama Sr.

    So would you then agree that if I just happened to have a documented specific date of birth for Obama Sr. that the Smith certificate is a forgery?

  351. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s not a lie.

    Yes, it is.

    FactCheck looked at the original document issued by Hawaii.

    No they didn’t, because that would have been created in 1961.

  352. avatar
    Sef May 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    At least from Kenya in 1961 I agree because that’s with I have seen in other documents. However, I don’t think there ever was any ambiguity in official date formatting in Kenya. It’s always dd/mm/yyyy, or spelled out or dd-mon-yyyy.

    Here is a link from the OFFICIAL Kenya site for the form to register a birth. Note the form of dates o be entered! http://www.births.go.ke/PDF%20forms/form_b1_pt_1.pdf

  353. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So would you then agree that if I just happened to have a documented specific date of birth for Obama Sr. that the Smith certificate is a forgery?

    You’re going to have to provide something more that just a document you happen to have with a specific date on it.

  354. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    WhoDat?:
    You’re going to have to provide something more that just a document you happen to have with a specific date on it.

    Not just “a document.” Suppose I had conclusive proof (not birther-style proof) that Barack Obama Sr had a definite date of birth, would you concede that the Smith certificate is a fake? You know, something like a certified copy of his MARRIAGE LICENSE. That kind of thing? Would you concede it?

  355. avatar
    Bob Ross May 30, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That’s an utterly ridiculous statement. The document has written on it the place of birth. I think we have found our troll.

    they really come out of the woodwork dont they? This one seemed to have popped up after a certain someone got beligerent with you.

  356. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    yguy More to the point, my definition excludes the idea of blacks holding racist views against blacks.

    Sorry, I didn’t catch your definition. You do know that there is discrimination based on skin color among those who self-identify as African American?

  357. avatar
    WhoDat? May 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not just “a document.” Suppose I had conclusive proof (not birther-style proof) that Barack Obama Sr had a definite date of birth, would you concede that the Smith certificate is a fake? You know, something like a certified copy of his MARRIAGE LICENSE. That kind of thing? Would you concede it?

    Why the need to be so ambiguous? A marriage license from where? Can the document be verified?

  358. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    SefHere is a link from the OFFICIAL Kenya site for the form to register a birth. Note the form of dates o be entered! http://www.births.go.ke/PDF%20forms/form_b1_pt_1.pdf.

    Bravo! Well done! (Of course, one from 1961 is what we really need, but that will come in time.)

  359. avatar
    Sef May 30, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bravo! Well done! (Of course, one from 1961 is what we really need, but that will come in time.)

    The metadata of the PDF file file says it was created March 13, 2007.

  360. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    yguy

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s not a lie.

    Yes, it is.

    FactCheck looked at the original document issued by Hawaii.

    No they didn’t, because that would have been created in 1961.

    Look carefully at what I said: “original document issued by Hawaii.” The 1961 certificate was issued, not by the State of Hawaii, but by a hospital and subsequently registered by the state. The only originals issued by Hawaii are certified copies, such as the COLB.

  361. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    WhoDat?: CPGH birth certificate is a hospital birth certificate. Why don’t you show us a CPGH birth certificate from 1961 that uses the alternative dd/mm/yy format?

    The “look” of the certificate, the date format, all are irrelevant. Bernie Madoff’s statements looked beautiful-people used to marvel at how professional they were. But they were pure fiction.

    All anyone needs to know is: Lucas Smith is a convicted forger and his own story is an admission of a felony (bribery of a foreign official). The “certificate” is useful only as toilet paper.

  362. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The only originals issued by Hawaii are certified copies

    IOW, originals aren’t “issued” at all, which means factcheck claimed to have examined something it never had access to.

    Had they meant to do anything but deceive, they’d have called it a Certification of Live Birth, or even an “actual” birth certificate, rather than an original birth certificate.

  363. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    yguy: Had they meant to do anything but deceive, they’d have called it a Certification of Live Birth, or even an “actual” birth certificate, rather than an original birth certificate.

    Google “original copy” and “birth certificate”. There was no intent to deceive. The COLB on the Internet is a copy. The COLB FactCheck looked at was an “original.”

  364. avatar
    Sef May 30, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    yguy:
    IOW, originals aren’t “issued” at all, which means factcheck claimed to have examined something it never had access to.Had they meant to do anything but deceive, they’d have called it a Certification of Live Birth, or even an “actual” birth certificate, rather than an original birth certificate.

    The COLB paper document is an original, the information on it is a copy.

  365. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Google “original copy” and “birth certificate”. There was no intent to deceive. The COLB on the Internet is a copy. The COLB FactCheck looked at was an “original.”

    They didn’t call it “an original copy”, they called it “the original birth certificate”, which can only be reasonably taken to mean the first one that ever existed; which means they lied.

  366. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    yguy They didn’t call it “an original copy”, they called it “the original birth certificate”, which can only be reasonably taken to mean the first one that ever existed; which means they lied.

    However, since no one ever sees an original birth certificate, there was no possibility of misunderstanding and they didn’t lie.

    It could be that they could have worded it in such a way that the hypercritical literal-minded birther would be satisfied, but the general public knew exactly what they meant.

    This unwillingness to accept multiple meanings of words and to read things in context is, I think, one of the mental defects that leads to birtherism.

  367. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    “Had they meant to do anything but deceive, they’d have called it a Certification of Live Birth, or even an “actual” birth certificate, rather than an original birth certificate.”

    If they had meant to deceive, they wouldn’t have explained in some detail exactly what they had examined and how.

    The fact that you do not accept what they have as an original is your choice, but to me its clear that they examined the original certified copy of the certificate of live birth issued by the state of Hawaii. A document that by the way would be accepted to issue a passport, for a drivers license or in a court of law.

    The fact that you don’t accept it as an original is really pretty irrelevant.

  368. avatar
    SFJeff May 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    “They didn’t call it “an original copy”, they called it “the original birth certificate”, which can only be reasonably taken to mean the first one that ever existed; which means they lied.”

    Taken directly from the Factcheck article:

    The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

    The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details

    So Yguy- either you didn’t read the entire article, or you chose not to understand plain Engiish. How exactly is Factcheck lieing when clearly identify the document within the article? And by the way include photo’s of it?

  369. avatar
    Sef May 30, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    Sef:
    The COLB paper document is an original, the information on it is a copy.

    “It isn’t fake anything. It’s real Dynel”

  370. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    However, since no one ever sees an original birth certificate, there was no possibility of misunderstanding

    On the contrary, the very creation of misunderstanding was likely the whole point, and I think it not coincidental that so many Obama partisans insist on equating the COLB with the original for all practical purposes, as if the idea of an abstract of a document created decades earlier eludes them.

    This unwillingness to accept multiple meanings of words and to read things in context is, I think, one of the mental defects that leads to birtherism.

    That’s one way to look at it. Another is that the proclivity for convenient equivocation is what enables leftists to indulge in the abject credulity that sets them apart from normal people.

  371. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    yguy:
    More to the point, my definition excludes the idea of blacks holding racist views against blacks.

    Can you explain why?

    I’ll grant you that you personally view racism by a vary narrow definition of the term. However, I am sure that you realize and understand that many people view the issue in a much broader context that you do.

  372. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sorry, I didn’t catch your definition. You do know that there is discrimination based on skin color among those who self-identify as African American?

    Sure, but discrimination isn’t racist of itself.

  373. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    yguy:
    On the contrary, the very creation of misunderstanding was likely the whole point, and I think it not coincidental that so many Obama partisans insist on equating the COLB with the original for all practical purposes, as if the idea of an abstract of a document created decades earlier eludes them.
    That’s one way to look at it. Another is that the proclivity for convenient equivocation is what enables leftists to indulge in the abject credulity that sets them apart from normal people.

    Wow! You better stock up on that tin-foil, yguy! LMAO! That is such a ludicrous position to take, hahahaha! Well, you gave me a good laugh.

    So, because you have reading comprehension issues and have difficulty understanding how people commonly speak and write, you see “vast conspiracy” now with Factcheck “deliberately” intending to deceive you…LOL!

    Well, what can I say. Yeah, the gig is up. This is all a vast conspiracy against *you* yguy! We know that you are actually the secret supreme ruler of the universe, as had been foretold in the annals of Atlantis. That is why it was “sunk” after all, wasn’t it? To protect you and your birther bretheren’s final arrival, which we need to herald in the second coming of Jesus and the Age of Aquarius or something like that, right? LOL!

    So, yes, generations upon generations of all “obots” have been bred and trained for one special purpose – to create and foster Obama on you and build factcheck.org so we can cleverly use slight variations of english speech to confuse and disrupt your plans and eventual assent to the galactic throne!

    Yes, you and those 1% or so of the population like you are the “normal” folks. Because the majority of us can’t be wrong over you birthers, it must be a well-thought and well-crafted plot against you. Obama is just our puppet. Our real agenda for millennium has been to thwart the awesomeness of the birthers from achieving your true destinies and ushering in galactic peace!

    ROTFLMAO!!!

  374. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    yguy On the contrary, the very creation of misunderstanding was likely the whole point

    And here we get back to the basic conflict between rationality and fantasy, between normal thought and conspiracy thought. Why would FactCheck.org, an organization funded by the foundation of a prominent Republican McCain contributor (and personal friend of Reagan) try to mislead folks about the birth certificate? I do know the next step on the argument, having seen it many times before, and this leads us to the second defect of birtherism, the willingness to expand the conspiracy without limits in order to preserve the beliefs of the conspiracy theory.

    You’re welcome to the last word, as I doubt I will have anything more to say on this topic.

  375. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    yguy: o

    Discrimination based on racial bias is by its very definition an expression of racism. So yes, it is a race-based action, and therefore a racist act.

    Such discrimination is also wrong and should not be tolerated.

  376. avatar
    yguy May 30, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Why would FactCheck.org, an organization funded by the foundation of a prominent Republican McCain contributor (and personal friend of Reagan)

    Irrelevant.

    try to mislead folks about the birth certificate?

    In all likelihood it wasn’t conscious, but rather a consequence of the emotional investment made by the author in Obama, as with everyone who voted for him, and consonant with Brokaw’s infamous admission around election day that we didn’t know much about Obama.

    Moreover, factcheck demonstrated similar dishonesty when, having revised its article on John Kerry’s medals two days before WND reported that Kerry’s own book said his crew had yet to encounter enemy fire 9 days after the incident for which he received his first purple heart, it subsequently failed to update the article, which remains innocent of any mention of that glaring contradiction to this day.

    [Follow-up to this off-topic comment have been moved to the Great Mother of all Off Topic Dumps article]

  377. avatar
    G May 30, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    yguy, you have totally entered Twilight Zone territory. Congratulations.

  378. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    yguy: In all likelihood it wasn’t conscious,

    Well make up your mind. Was it an unconscious choice of the wrong word as you say here, or a “brazen lie” as you said before. Take your time and get your story straight.

    Consistency is not required, but it sounds better.

  379. avatar
    Rickey May 31, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    yguy:
    Moreover, factcheck demonstrated similar dishonesty when, having revised its article on John Kerry’s medals two days before WND reported that Kerry’s own book said his crew had yet to encounter enemy fire 9 days after the incident for which he received his first purple heart, it subsequently failed to update the article, which remains innocent of any mention of that glaring contradiction to this day.

    I’m glad that I have a substantial personal library of books, because it affords me the opportunity to fact-check spurious claims by birthers.

    First of all, it is not “Kerry’s book.” It is a book about Kerry by historian Douglas Brinkley, called “Tour of Duty.”

    Second – and more important – the passage about Kerry writing in his notebook that “we hadn’t been shot at yet” is true, but Kerry never claimed that his crew was shot at during the incident which earned him his first Purple Heart. That incident occurred on December 3, 1968. Kerry was in charge of a small boat which came upon a group of Vietnamese men who were unloading sampans (boats) at a river crossing in a free-fire zone after curfew. The men began to run when they saw Kerry’s boat, and Kerry and his men commenced firing at the sampans, destroying them. Kerry was struck by a piece of shrapnel in the left arm, but the shrapnel almost certainly came from friendly fire. Not that it matters – the Purple Heart is awarded for any wound in combat, regardless of its source. But Kerry never claimed that he or his men were fired upon.

    It’s all in Brinkley’s book, which you obviously have not read. The incident with the sampans is covered on pp. 147-19 of the original hardcover edition. Kerry’s comment about his crew not having been shot at is on p. 189. Another WND fail, and another birther fail for not fact-checking WND,

  380. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 31, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    Chickenhawks.

  381. avatar
    tv711 May 31, 2010 at 3:46 am #

    The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writings on the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), (Note..REMAINS A RIGHT UNDER THE NINTH AMENDMENT)

    Notes on Quo Warranto proceedings:
    http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/q-w_cases.htm

  382. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 31, 2010 at 6:54 am #

    In other words, after you manage to get the US Supreme Court to overturn 87 years of established decisional law, you are going to argue that a common law writ that historically was brought by public prosecutors in the name of the sovereign — somehow establishes a personal “right” reserved by the 9th amendment.

    Good luck with that.

  383. avatar
    Mike May 31, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    I have to say, I always chuckle about people trying to invent that kind of right under the 9th – they’re generally the same people who will protest loudly about Roe v Wade as having “invented” a right to abortion.

  384. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 31, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Dear tv711

    You wrote:
    “The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, ”

    You’re too late to bring another quo warranto suit against Obama – Reverend Manning has already conducted a 9th Amendment trial and found Obama guilty of usurpation. Obama cannot be found guilty of the same crime by the same procedure more than once – that would be double jeopardy and therefore unconstitutional! He’s been tried and convicted under the 9th Amendment. It’s not Obama’s fault that no sentencing took place after the trial that Manning so Constitutionally conducted. I suppose Orly will soon charge that Manning is just another Obama stooge who tried Obama just to create the insulation of double jeopardy and Reverend Manning will be accused conspiring with Obama. Birthers will now claim that to two arranged a quid pro quo warranto!

  385. avatar
    Sef May 31, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    Benji Franklin: Dear tv711
    You wrote:
    “The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, ”You’re too late to bring another quo warranto suit against Obama – Reverend Manning has already conducted a 9th Amendment trial and found Obama guilty of usurpation. Obama cannot be found guilty of the same crime by the same procedure more than once – that would be double jeopardy and thereforeunconstitutional! He’s been tried and convicted under the 9th Amendment. It’s not Obama’s fault that no sentencing took place after the trial that Manning so Constitutionally conducted. I suppose Orly will soon charge that Manning is just another Obama stooge who tried Obama just to create the insulation of double jeopardy and Reverend Manning will be accused conspiring with Obama. Birthers will now claim that to two arranged a quid pro quo warranto!

    ROTFLMAO!!! Another birther fail!!

  386. avatar
    yguy May 31, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well make up your mind. Was it an unconscious choice of the wrong word as you say here, or a “brazen lie” as you said before. Take your time and get your story straight.Consistency is not required, but it sounds better.

    There is no inconsistency, since a lie which is obvious to the listener is not necessarily obvious to the teller whose paramount interest is the avoidance of an unpleasant reality, and who can believe his own lie if sufficiently motivated, no matter how preposterous it may be.

  387. avatar
    Sef May 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    yguy: There is no inconsistency, since a lie which is obvious to the listener is not necessarily obvious to the teller whose paramount interest is the avoidance of an unpleasant reality, and who can believe his own lie if sufficiently motivated, no matter how preposterous it may be.

    And we have a perfect definition of a birther characteristic told by one who should know.

  388. avatar
    yguy May 31, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Mike: I have to say, I always chuckle about people trying to invent that kind of right under the 9th

    There’s no need to invent it, as it is a natural consequence of elected officials being servants of the people rather than monarchs who rule by divine right.

  389. avatar
    Sef May 31, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    yguy:
    There’s no need to invent it, as it is a natural consequence of elected officials being servants of the people rather than monarchs who rule by divine right.

    Could you provide the specific examples of rights which were not enumerated in the Constitution under which Manning’s “trial” would have been conducted?

  390. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    yguy:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well make up your mind. Was it an unconscious choice of the wrong word as you say here, or a “brazen lie” as you said before. Take your time and get your story straight.Consistency is not required, but it sounds better.

    There is no inconsistency, since a lie which is obvious to the listener is not necessarily obvious to the teller whose paramount interest is the avoidance of an unpleasant reality, and who can believe his own lie if sufficiently motivated, no matter how preposterous it may be.

    Look up “brazen” in the dictionary and then make up another excuse.

  391. avatar
    yguy June 1, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Look up “brazen” in the dictionary

    –adjective
    1. shameless or impudent: brazen presumption.

    and then make up another excuse.

    Since a lie can be told to a credulous audience without shame, and since such an audience will more readily believe an outrageous lie than an innocuous one, I fail to see why I need any excuses.