Main Menu

More site demographics

I have always been puzzled by the significant presence of Canadian visitors in the Obama Conspiracy Theories statistics. I put together this table of related web sites that shows the Canadian preference for “birther debunking” web sites is strong across the board. (I doubt that it’s attributable to my boyhood love of the voice of Ian MacFarland.)

Site US Visitors Canadian Visitors Balance of world
Obama Conspiracy Theories 65.7% 25.5% 8.8%
Native and Natural Born Citizen Explored 48.5% 43.6% 7.0%
Politijab.com 63.2% 36.8% n/a
The Post & Email 94.0% 1.5% 4.5%
ObamaCrimes.com 85.1% 5.4% 9.5%
Orly Taitz Esq. 93.9% n/a 6.1%
WorldNet Daily 88.5% 2.2% 9.3%
Safeguard our Constitution (Lakin) 97% n/a 3%

Statistics courtesy of Alexa.com.

177 Responses to More site demographics

  1. avatar
    Whatever4 May 9, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    The Canadians feel they have a stake because Obama was born in Canada. (And signed by Dudley DoRight himself!)

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 10, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    It would be interesting to see how this data breaks down for birther vs. debunking sites – it looks like Canadians are much more likely to go to debunking sites than birther sites (unless the total traffic on birther sites is significantly higher). Dr. C, do you have access to the total number of visitors (or page views for all of these sites?

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    Well, WorldNetDaily dwarfs all the other sites listed. OrlyTaitzEsq.com ranks about the same as this one. Lakin has got a lot of boost and is higher than here. I don’t have total visits for anywhere but here, but Alexa.com gives relative ranking.

  4. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 10, 2010 at 4:21 am #

    Wait a minute. Politijab has no visitors from outside the USA or Canada? That cannot be right, I post from Belgium and have posted onto their site from Germany, Ukraine and Russia. And of course they have a number of Australian members too.

    I wonder whether the fact that it is so easy to log in automatically (same applies here, Doc) may not confuse alexa. Checking the internal statistics of a number of Youtube videos I looked at when in Ukraine recently, I saw YouTube was not confused and registered the Ukrainian visit correctly.

  5. avatar
    Mike May 10, 2010 at 7:45 am #

    Actually, Paul, if you look at the chart, it seems that there is a “balance of world” column. Doc’s just being a good American and lumping the world into “not USA or Canada” 😉

  6. avatar
    Mike May 10, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    Doc – it’s also ironic, given the propensity of birfoons to cite the Canada Free Press.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    The Alexa statistics don’t provide a breakdown for the rest of the world when individual country numbers are small. The only web site where I could have given more breakdown was WorldNetDaily.

  8. avatar
    John May 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    I thought this was interesting to imply Obama and his mom has been to Kenya before. Also Obama did find his valut-copy BC. What happen to it and why won’t he release it?
    http://networkedblogs.com/3Hvpf

  9. avatar
    Mike May 10, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    Give us a reason why he should, John.

  10. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 10, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    John,

    This is a perfect example of the kind of over-analysis of comments that is typical of birthers. This was not sworn testimony in a court of law or a highly technical scholarly work, but a book intended for a general audience. The meaning that I (and most people, in my opinion) would take out of the quote saying that the plan was for President Obama and his parents to ‘return to Kenya’ is that President Obama and Dr. Dunham would accompany Barack Obama Sr. when he returned to Kenya after completing his studies. I find it amusing (not to mention extremely intellectually dishonest) that you are amazingly hyper-technical when analyzing prose in popular literature while making convoluted, abstruse arguments about how things like the text of the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn’t mean what it clearly seems to (that Wong Kim Ark, like President Obama, is a natural born citizen of the United States). Double standards make for good propaganda, not good arguments.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Barack Obama’s first trip to Kenya, according to his uncle Sayid Obama (Barack Obama Sr.’s brother):

    Narrator: Barack Obama first came to visit his father’s grave back in 1987

    Sayid Obama: It was his first time in Kenya. I can say it was kind of happiness mixed with some sadness because he was a person coming to see this site of his family and at the same time coming to see where his father was buried.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TldmoSfisKM

    Jerome Corsi says in his book “Obama Nation” on pages 24-25:

    “Obama has been in Africa three times,” Sayid [Obama, the President’s uncle in Kenya] insisted. “The first time was in 1986. Then he came back again in 1992, when he was collecting material for his autobiography…”

  12. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    What are the total number of visits for this site? (If you don’t mind sharing…)

  13. avatar
    John May 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Well, if Obama was born in Kenya and left merely days after being born for the US, I don’t know if you technically say Obama visited Kenya. Nevertheless, these little inferences and slip ups add up to “mounting evidence”. And of course, this is heighted by the fact that Obama won’t release his long-form BC which would claim to show the hospital and attending doc.

  14. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 10, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    John,

    These little inferences don’t add up to a hill of beans (although they do amount to a pretty substantial load of crap). And I sincerely hope that the only thought that President Obama has put into the ‘birther’ issue is the jokes he told at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. The idea that he’s hiding something rather than believing that he’s provided sufficient information for any rational person is just silly.

  15. avatar
    SFJeff May 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Really John?

    “Well, if Obama was born in Kenya and left merely days after being born for the US,”

    How would he have done this? On what passport? Do you think that Ann smuggled newborn Obama into the United States?

    “Nevertheless, these little inferences and slip ups add up to “mounting evidence”.”

    No, John they don’t.

    Definitive evidence: a certified copy of a birth certificate, contemporary birth announcements- definitive and explicit confirmation of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by both the governor of Hawaii, and Hawaii’s Director of Public Health.

    Versus trying to parse what his mom meant when she used the word ‘return’. None of this is mounting ‘evidence’, its more mounting conjecture and innuendo. My god, I hope you never end up on a jury.

  16. avatar
    Jules May 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    At least some of the visitors from Canadian IP addresses will be US citizens living abroad.

    I show up in the “Balance of world” figure even though I was born in the US and spent enough of my life there to have a strong Chicago accent.

  17. avatar
    Scientist May 10, 2010 at 6:34 pm #

    Sarah Palin wouldn’t have had that problem, Jeff. After she was born in Canada, her parents just drove her back across the border. There were no passports required until last year.

  18. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    We can start off by all agreeing that Jerome Corsi is a liar. He will lie to your face. Putting stock in anything published by Corsi is a big mistake.

    “Oyuka is among the villagers who met President Obama when he visited his father’s homestead in 1983, 1995 and in 2006.”
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/21/content_10697498.htm

    “First in 1983, when he had come to mourn his late father, Barack Hussein Obama, who had died in Nairobi in 1982; and again in 1995 when he brought home his young bride to show her his roots.”
    http://allafrica.com/stories/200408160533.html

    Not that details matter when you’re “in love”
    ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ with Obama.

    If you need more links demonstrating a 1983 visit I can provide them.

    I’m so glad I determined the meaning of “return to” before Slartibartfast had a chance to spin it.

  19. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    John,

    Nothing indicates that Obama left for the U.S. shortly after being born. The first account of Obama Jr. after his birth is Spring of 1962.

  20. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    Little inferences?

    Obama’s mother, according to Obama Jr. said “we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies”.

    The Minister of Lands for the Kenyan Parliament said “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”

    A number of Kenyan and African news sources have stated that Obama was “kenyan-born”

    Obama’s wife says that Kenya is Obama’s home country.

    And what do you have? Oh. That’s right, a piece of paper based on a document that could have been filed by any adult who was willing to say that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I get it. Everybody else must be lying. It makes more sense to say that everydoby else is lying than to verify that one person did not. Brilliant! Simply brilliant.

  21. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Sure Slartibartfast 😉

    I talked to my wife. We agreed that we would return to Rome in the Fall of 2012.

    I imagine you think that either my wife or I have never been to Rome before.

    —Why don’t you quote the portion of Ark that is so overwhelmingly convincing, that you can’t possibly see any other interpretation? You just said that “the text of the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn’t mean what it clearly seems to”. You get no breaks. No room to wiggle. Either you can quote that text, or you’re a propagandist.

  22. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 10, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    WTF?,

    Are you serious? You’ve just proven that you don’t actually read any of the posts that totally dismantle all of your arguments – I can’t begin to count the number of times that this particular line has been quoted here:

    The child of an alien, 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.

    And in case you’re not convinced:

    Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.

    Also:

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

    All three quotes are from US v. Wong Kim Ark (which was cited in the Ankeny decision in Indiana which ruled that President Obama was a natural born citizen).

    You should know better than to challenge anyone here – we’ve got the Constitution, the law and precedent on our side and all you’ve got is an over-parsed phrase in a biography and other lies, obfuscations and innuendoes.

  23. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    Great job Slartibartfast! You didn’t manage to get a single quote “exactly” right.

    How can that happen? Is it that hard to cut and paste?

    In your first quote (without quotation marks), you added a hyphen (without indicating that you added a hyphen. Even with the hyphen, that quote only means that someone has the same rights and privileges as another. All U.S. citizens do. Didn’t anybody ever tell you that?

    Your second quote is a fabrication of your own mind! It is not contained in the Court’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark.

    The third is not a direct quote from Wong Kim Ark either.

    No wonder you think you have it all figured out. You don’t even know where to start.

  24. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    Here, Slartibartfast. I’ll make it easier for you. Here are two links to the Court’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

    Now you can cut and paste away.

  25. avatar
    SFJeff May 10, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    “Obama’s mother, according to Obama Jr. said “we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies””

    You are deliberately being obtuse. While I admit your original pretense of ignorance, and your strategy was amusing, only a wilful idiot would try to claim that this is evidence that President Obama was born in Kenya.

    When you read the quotation in context- where Obama’s African grandfather is noted as having written before and after Obama’s birth threatening to have his visa revoked- why would the grandfather have to write that if Obama was born in Kenya?

    Really just intellectually dishonest- you pretend this means something because it supports the conclusion you wish to obtain, but no reasonable, literate person would reach your conclusion.

    The Minister of Lands for the Kenyan Parliament” – is somehow more convincing for you than the Governor of Hawaii? At least the Governor of Hawaii provides some basis for her conclusion- you accept the Ministers statement without any basis.

    “A number of Kenyan and African news sources have stated that Obama was “kenyan-born””

    And even more American papers- and African papers have reported that Obama was born in Hawaii- why do you find certain Kenyan newspapers more credible than the ones that disagree with your conclusion? Why do you think that Kenyan newspapers are even more credible than Fox news, which is in the hip pocket of the Republican party?

    “Obama’s wife says that Kenya is Obama’s home country.”

    No she doesn’t. Really she doesn’t. Perhaps you don’t under stand tenses- she apparently said that- once. She is not travelling around the country announcing that Obama was born in Kenya.

    It really is a sign of how desperate birthers are- they are willing to accept any mis-statement as the gospel truth- even if the very next sentence rebuts it- they are willing to twist any language to support their foregone conclusion- yet ignore clear specific facts- American documents, statements by American government officials, announcements in newspapers….

    Oh well, I know WTF and the others will believe that their house of cards is built out of concrete, year in, and year out.

    Just look at the people who still believe we never landed on the moon.

  26. avatar
    SFJeff May 10, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    Well I suppose Ann could have left the newborn Obama in Kenya while she flew across three continents to go to school in Washington- probably leaving him with the grandfather who despised the marriage.

    Oh wait- the first accont of Obama Jr. after his birth is that pesky birth certificate- oh and those birth announcements….

  27. avatar
    SFJeff May 10, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    “If you need more links demonstrating a 1983 visit I can provide them.”

    Sure- links to news sites, or perhaps a copy of President Obama’s visa’s while in Kenya?

    Please- I am curious as to the hard facts you have assembled.

  28. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    SF Jeff,

    You wouldn’t make much of an investigator. You make everything fit “your” conclusion. I didn’t determine what “return to” means. The readers of this blog did. They arrived at that conclusion without having a preconceived conclusion. You, on the other hand, used you preconceived conclusion to determine the meaning of the words.

    Jeff said “why would the grandfather have to write that if Obama was born in Kenya?”

    Another conclusion based on a predetermined fallacy. -It is claimed that Obama Jr. was born in Mombasa. Obama Sr’s. father would have been a long train ride away. Letters would have been the expected form of communication. Either way, his father could not pull his student visa. Obama Sr. was an adult.

    Jeff says; “you pretend this means something because it supports the conclusion you wish to obtain”

    I consider all the evidence. You consider the word of one person (Obama) and the COLB which is the result of a birth report of which you do not know the origin.
    Want to take a guess at which one of us is regularly accepted by the courts as an investigator?

    SF Jeff says “The Minister of Lands for the Kenyan Parliament” – is somehow more convincing for you than the Governor of Hawaii?”

    The Governor is not relying on anything she looked at, and Dr. Fukino is only relying on a birth report whose origin remains UNDETERMINED.

    I get it now. The other 50 people must be lying, because it makes more sense that 50 people lie than one person lie.

    I stated ““Obama’s wife says that Kenya is Obama’s home country.”

    SF Jeff says; “No she doesn’t. Really she doesn’t.”

    I’m getting a little sick of the blatant dishonesty. I’ll leave it to the readers to hear what she said. Here’s the link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDHDfPNBME

    “HIS HOME COUNTRY IN KENYA”

    I’ve got your “tense” hangin’

  29. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

    Who said she left him anywhere? She was not on campus in Washington until Spring 1962.

    Instead of cheer- leading for the team, maybe you should find out the facts.

    All it takes is a fraudulently filed birth report to account for the newspaper announcements and the COLB. You might not have figured it out, but all those pieces that have been assembled are enough to rebut the prima facie evidence you rely on. And you wonder why we ask for conclusive evidence.

  30. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    How about Parliamentary records?
    How about a birth certificate, that is signed by the CA of the hospital that goes along with the claims stated in the Parliamentary records?
    How about a quote from Obama’s own mother, presented by Obama himself, that implies that he was in Kenya at some time before he was 10 years old?
    How about that a birth is not considered to be a visit? When you say that someone is visiting for the first time, that sure wouldn’t exclude being born there.

  31. avatar
    Scientist May 10, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    So what do you plan to do with all this fabulous “information”? Have you signed a movie deal yet? You are certainly wasting your talents posting this here.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    WTF? : When you say that someone is visiting for the first time, that sure wouldn’t exclude being born there.

    Sayid Obama did not say that it was his first visit to Kenya, he said “it was his first time in Kenya.” You have to look at what is said, not what you want to have been said.

    The parliamentarian who spoke had no qualification to know where Obama was born. Even WorldNetDaily says the Kenyan certificate looks nothing like the real thing. Obama’s mother did not say they had been in Kenya. “Return” in the context of a group can apply to any member, as the citation from the biblical book of Ruth demonstrates. I might say that I was returning to the home of my ancestors, even though I had never been there myself.

    Sayid Obama is in a position to know, and he spoke plainly. All the rest is hearsay and spin.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    WTF?: All it takes is a fraudulently filed birth report to account for the newspaper announcements and the COLB.

    It is true that a fraudulent registration could account for the COLB and the newspaper account. However, there is no reason to think the registration is fraudulent. You could imagine almost anything, but imagination is not fact.

    And there is the testimony of one person from Hawaii who talked to a doctor at the Kapi’olani hospital in 1961 who mentioned the birth of a baby with an unusual name: Barack Obama. You might say that Barbara Nelson is lying, but I have not been able to disprove any detail she mentioned even to the point that Dr. West really was a member of the club where the luncheon was supposed to have taken place. I even corresponded with the local medical society (Mamiya) historian to get details.

  34. avatar
    Scientist May 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    From your “All Africa” link:

    “A Sunday Nation team that set out to trace Obama’s roots was surprised to find that, unknown to many, Obama has actually been to this village twice. First in 1983, when he had come to mourn his late father, Barack Hussein Obama, who had died in Nairobi in 1982; and again in 1995 when he brought home his young bride to show her his roots.”

    He has been there twice-1983 and 1995. He seems much too old for either of those occasions to have been his birth.

  35. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 10, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    WTF?,

    First off, you haven’t done anything to merit me taking more time to refute your nonsense than I have – hyphens and quotation marks? Give me a break – I put all three quotations in block quotes which should have made it perfectly clear what the quotes were (even without that they were set apart from the rest of the text).

    The first quote (which was the one I was thinking of originally), I quoted from a post on another blog – do you think that the extraneous hyphen changed the meaning of anything? If Wong Kim Ark was not eligible to be president then he would not have been as much as citizen as the natural born child of citizen parents – he would not have had the right (or privilege) to run for the presidency.

    The entire paragraph that the quote was from (Wong Kim Ark page 169 U.S. 665) is:

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, 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. ”

    (Copied from the link you provided.)

    The second quote was my bad – I took it off of the page:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/

    and mistakenly thought that the citation appeared above the quote rather than below. It actually comes from: Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, pg. 4664 (1904).

    The third quote comes from Page 169 U. S. 658 (from the link you provided) – the source that I used (the link above) omitted the section header ‘III.’ from the middle of the quote (I didn’t notice anything else that had changed).

    Let me throw in another quote from Wong Kim Ark (page 169 U.S. 654):

    “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words citizen of the United States,’ and natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….in this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution…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.”

    I understand that all you have is hyper-technicallities because a reasonable reading of the law in general (and the Wong Kim Ark decision in particular) totally destroys your argument, but your nitpicks are laughable in the context of your complete lack of support for your argument.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    WTF?: I didn’t determine what “return to” means. The readers of this blog did. They arrived at that conclusion without having a preconceived conclusion.

    No. What you DID was to ask the question in a false context. The readers of the blog defined “return” in a way appropriate to the context you gave, a question addressed to individuals. We gave the most common definition, not one from a specialized context of a family group. If Stanley Ann Obama had said “we are going to return to Africa with your father”, would anyone ever think that she meant that all three had been to Africa before? No. What Barack Obama remembered his mother saying fits perfectly with this concept of return, the return of a group where one of the group has been there before.

    You just pulled a clever gag to get folks to say what you wanted, so you could call “gotcha”! But gotcha is not how one gets at the truth.

  37. avatar
    richCares May 10, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

    Birthers and their born in Kenya fantasies are really silly, they can’t remove Obama nor can they prove their silly contrived stories so what is their point. It merely reinforces their hate. The one birther I know had his daughter turn 18 then leave, she moved out a few months ago and no contact since,she was tired of her father’s hate. Like I said hating Obama causes severe mental illnees, just read john’s posts for proof.

  38. avatar
    richCares May 10, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    all it takes to be a birther is a bit of brain damage.

  39. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Doc,

    You’re going to have to enlighten me. I have not seen the video where Sayid Obama allegedly makes that claim. I looked but cannot find it. Can you provide a link?

    My searches indicate that it has something to do with Corsi. I recently warned you about Corsi.

    As to the CPGH birth certificate (another thing associated with Corsi), I you had any interest in really exploring the whole “birther” claim, you would have performed your own investigation instead of relying on Corsi. -Go look at the article where he claims the CPGH bc to be a forgery. He presents 8 points of contention. All 8 of the claims of support provided by Corsi are easily debunked with little investigation.

    Look over his article. pick any one of those 8 points and I’ll debunk it for you.

    The question is; are you searching for the truth, or are you more interested in defending a myth?

    Since you brought up the WND “60’s era Kenya Birth Certificate”, may be you noticed that the certificate WND presents is from 1964. It was just after Kenya became a republic. In addition it is just a report of birth. Do you really think they didn’t record the hospital or doctor’s name on the record of an institutional birth? Do you think a hospital birth certificate from 1961 is going to look the same as a 1964 government report of non-institutional birth report.

    I haven’t jacked you around. Please don’t do it to me. The interpretation of “return to” is pretty clear. One has to stretch pretty far to come up with an alternative interpretation.

    I also found it funny that you considered something from Lakin’s attorney to be a Freudian slip, but you can’t see the same thing when it comes to Obama.

    If you interest is in defending Obama, just say so, but don’t bullshit people into thinking that you’re interested in performing an impartial investigation while doing so.

  40. avatar
    nemocapn May 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    He’s not Canadian. I have evidence to prove otherwise:

    From “Barack Obama in His Own Words,” page 116:
    “I was told, people will remember your name and won’t like it. You can have one African name, but not two. You can be Barack Smith or Joe Obama—but not Barack Obama.”

    Here’s a newspaper article from the St. Petersburg, Florida, Evening Independent from June 20, 1924, mentioning Joe Obama:
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XaILAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2lQDAAAAIBAJ&dq=joe-obama&pg=3610%2C6558619

    And here’s an article from Fox News about Obama bowing to Mayor Iorio of Tampa, Florida at MacDill AFB:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02/tampa-mayor-dismisses-flap-obama-bow-calls-president-gracious/

    I have a sneaking suspicion Obama is hiding his birth certificate because it shows his father’s real name is Joe Obama, and he was born at MacDill AFB in Tampa, Florida. He’s too embarrassed to admit he’s a Tampan.

  41. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    You’re bring dishonest, Doc.

    “We are going to return” is much different that “we are going to return with him”.

    As to your deficient memory claim; Obama’s mother was still alive when Obama published “Dreams from my father”.

    You’ve got to start doing your own investigations. Being sucked in by an anonymous poster, and then repeating their un-researched drivel is not very becoming.

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

    Scientist: He has been there twice-1983 and 1995.

    That’s a problem. It contradicts Sayid Obama who said the “first time” was in 1987 (in a YouTube video) and 1986 (quotation in Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation.) The Wikipedia says: “In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time in Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time. He returned in August 2006 in a visit to his father’s birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya.” Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father talks about the trip extensively starting on page 299 but a quick scan didn’t turn up any dates.

    The 2006 date is fully documented.

    Given the importance of the subject, I would tend to give high credibility to the Wikipedia.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    WTF?: Dr. Fukino is only relying on a birth report whose origin remains UNDETERMINED.

    I think a more accurate (and less misleading) term would be “undisclosed.” Obviously Dr. Fukino knows where the document came from because she looked at it. If it came from a hospital, it would say so, and if not it would say so.

  44. avatar
    G May 10, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    Dear WTF,

    You seem to be trying to come off like a total douche-bag on here with your smarmy little game of references to the “return” comment from Obama’s mother, like you tried on the “I demand to see the birth certificate” blog thread of May 8.

    I noticed that all of a sudden, you’ve become completely silent on that thread and scampered off to here, after I posted further research which took the air out of the tires of that particular argument of yours over there.

    So, I’ll re-post the gist of it over here for you, to remind you that the usage of return doesn’t necessarily imply what you think it does:

    Just to be clear, you are earning a point for pointing out that I was WRONG to say that “Using the word return’ always implies that you have been there before.”

    Based on what you’ve provided and what I found upon further introspection, I was WRONG to say ALWAYS instead of SHOULD. .

    I still hold that it is clearer and more proper to use a term like “go with” instead of “return” in a situation where at least one of the parties involved has not been there before.

    However, as your example seems to indicate, as well as other English sources, sometimes “return” is used interchangeably in situations where “go” would be more apt and a much clearer description. I personally agree that this can be confusing.

    However, as even Biblical translations to English of the same phrase shows, “go” and “return” ARE used interchangeably in situations where the implication of “we will return with you” actually only means “we will go back with you”, as this example illustrates:

    Different English translations of the Bible – Ruth 1:10

    New International Version (©1984)
    and said to her, “We will go back with you to your people.”

    English Standard Versionn (©2001)
    And they said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.”

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    They said to her, “We are going back with you to your people.”

    American King James Version
    And they said to her, Surely we will return with you to your people.

    Bible in Basic English
    And they said to her, No, but we will go back with you to your people.

    http://bible.cc/ruth/1-10.htm

    Literature also seems to bear this out, as per this example, from “A Prisoner of the Metropolis” by Clarence M. Boutelle.

    In the story, which I’ve excerpted the full relevant context below for you, the protagonist is writing to his nephew that he has never met to come visit him, with the promise that he will return with him afterwards. As the nephew comes from the west, where the protagonist has never been, it would have been more proper for him to say he would “go” with his nephew when it is time for the nephew to return from whence he came:

    NEW YORK, May 20th 1883. DEAR NEPHEW:- You may think it remarkable to receive a letter from the uncle have never seen. But I think your father will tell you that the fault is as much his as that silence has fallen between us all these years. One brother in the busy city, following fortune along the busy avenues of trade, and another finding peace and content on the prairies of the West, surely it is no thing that the letters grow shorter, fewer-cease, and that the years have come and gone before either has paused in his own path of life to realize it. But I find myself growing sentimental; I only meant to write facts to you, I must change my thoughts and feelings at once. Twenty-five years ago your father, my senior by a year moved West. One year later I came to New York. For two years we corresponded. After that I heard nothing from him.

    Yesterday I saw your name in the list graduates from the Western college which you have just left. The brief notice spoke of your father, and it was my brother’s name he bore. The years fell away from between us. I was young again in heart, and a strong came upon me to see my brother’s face again. The old time love was not dead-it was sleeping-and I was startled to find how strong and fresh it was still, in its silent resting-palce under the dust of the past.

    But a strange desire came to me for which I will not try to account. I will simply state the fact. Possibly you, with your strong young head, full of the philosophy which college training has given you, can explain it. I want to see my brother, but I have an unconquerable desire to go to him; I do not wish to ask him to come to me. Strange, isn’t it?

    My dear nephew, do you know what wealth means? It means care-confinement-slavery. I am worth-but never mind that-it is an immense sum. But my golden chain binds me here. Much as I desire to see my long lost (and with true shame I say it) my long-forgotten brother, it would be weeks possibly months before my business could be so arranged as to make it possible for me to leave.

    Meantime there are thousands of questions I want to ask. And I cannot be content to have them answered by the slow and unsatisfactory medium of pen and ink. I want to sit and listen to the living voice of some one who has seen my brother-some one bound to him by ties of blood-some one who is a link between us. In a word I want you. Come and visit me. Come prepared to stay until early winter and I will return with you when you go home

    http://books.google.com/books?id=OS4ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=%22i+will+return+with+you%22&source=bl&ots=ueNxVtGzKd&sig=018ObRI6mV86Q7PM2N_K0Pk9YoU&hl=en&ei=O3_nS_D0I8L48AbI7aGGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22i%20will%20return%20with%20you%22&f=false

    Therefore, your quote from Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father”, is likely using the term “return” in that same interchangeable manner with “go”, in consideration of the broader context tof the quote you provided:

    Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies.

    Thank you for providing that link. I did want to point out a correction that you referred me to page 126, when page 190 is where the quote actually appears, according to the link you provided.

    I have now had time to read the pages leading up to that quote and just after it to get a better understanding of the context involved. Unfortunately, the site you provided does not allow me to cut/paste, otherwise I would have provided that for everyone, starting near the top of page 189, where Obama starts off saying “My mother noticed a letter addressed to my father in my hand…” and continuing through her story throughout page 191. I would have liked to read past that point, but the preview link you provided does not provide pages 192-194.

    From what I could gather from the story, it is at this point in Obama’s life, when his mother notices the letter, that she decides to explain to Barack Jr. why she & his father split up and share a bit of information about their relationship.

    I saw nothing in the story that indicated his mother or Barack Jr. were ever in Kenya before. Nor does it say that they weren’t. I’m sure reading the whole book would give a lot broader context, but on a much broader level, we’ve heard him speak a synopsis of his life story and we know both Obama and his COLB have stated he was born in HI.

    Therefore, as the research I’ve provided above shows, the quote you’ve provided could definitely be interpreted in more than one way in the English language.

    Obviously, your interpretation is that you think the mother meant that all of them (her, Obama Sr. & Obama Jr.) have been to Kenya prior to that and would return there.

    However, as I have demonstrated, her words and use of grammar could simply mean that Barack Obama Sr. has been there (obviously) and that the rest of them (her & Jr.) would go with him to Kenya if Sr. returned back there after he finished with his studies at Harvard. That interpretation seems more likely, as it is consistent with the data we already know.

    Perhaps of greater value to all the readers of this site is the other information his book states right there on page 190, just a bit above what you quoted, where his father’s original marriage status is discussed:

    And then there was a problem with your father’s first wife…he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce…

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    WTF?: The Minister of Lands for the Kenyan Parliament said “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”

    And US Senator Lyndsey Graham of South Carolina said he was born in Hawaii.

    What do these two statements have in common? Neither one knows any more about it than you or I.

    Even if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, you’d have to be seriously delusional to think Michelle Obama would say so in public.

  46. avatar
    G May 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm #

    Smugly, WTF? tries to gloat on the clever little trick he pulled on another post…

    You wouldn’t make much of an investigator. You make everything fit “your” conclusion. I didn’t determine what “return to” means. The readers of this blog did. They arrived at that conclusion without having a preconceived conclusion. You, on the other hand, used you preconceived conclusion to determine the meaning of the words.

    However, your little trick didn’t last long, did it? The only thing you got me or others on was arriving at an initial conclusion on grammar usage, which I then went back, researched and corrected, within a matter of hours.

    Therefore, your slick little game failed, as I posted proof, from both different english translations of the bible and from literature showing that even though it sounds improper and confusing, “go with” and “return” are used interchangeably within english grammar. Therefore, an english phrase indicating I or we will return with you turns out NOT to necessarily imply that any more than one member of the total group had ever been to the location they are “returning” to.

    What I find telling is that as soon as I posted that, which renders your entire smug argument meaningless and inconclusive, you suddenly stopped posting on that thread and then popped back up here, on a completely unrelated topic, to try to spew the same crap argument I just dismantled.

    Therefore, I’ve posted it again at the bottom of this post for you to either respond to or to go run and hide from again.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    WTF?: I have not seen the video where Sayid Obama allegedly makes that claim. I looked but cannot find it. Can you provide a link?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TldmoSfisKM

    Sayid Obama is mentioned in Dreams from My Father (p. 373).

  48. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Doc,

    Undetermined is the same as undisclosed in the instant case. Not even you can keep a straight face while claiming that the source of the birth report is a hospital. You have nothing but Obama’s word to support a claim that his birth report was generated by a hospital.

  49. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    Sorry G,

    I didn’t find you reliance on biblical translations to be of importance. I endeavored to find the common usage of the term “return to”. That is what I presented, and that is what was clarified.

    Do you think I’m foolish enough to think that you wouldn’t do everything you could to backpedal? You did exactly what I expected you to do. You Obama Defenders are extremely predictable. You will interpret everything in a way that supports your conclusion. Even when it makes no sense to do so.

    Tell me. Why do you think the Minister of Lands said that Obama was not a native of America? Why do you think he said that Obama was not born in this country? Do you think he’s a birther? Do you think he’s a racist? Do you think he doesn’t know that if Obama’s story was true, that Obama could prove it in a heartbeat, and make him look like a fool?

    Sometimes you have to look if you expect to see. Closing your eyes to everything that tells you otherwise is blind faith. You might think faith is enough, but it sure isn’t fair to tell me to do the same.

  50. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    (1) Doc. Where’s the video? I searched YouTube.

    (2) Besides the fact that it’s Corsi again, what makes you think this statement “he traveled for the first time in Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya” means it was his first time to travel to Kenya. I’m sure it means that it was his first time in Europe, but it does not say that it was his first time in Kenya.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    WTF?: As to the CPGH birth certificate (another thing associated with Corsi), I you had any interest in really exploring the whole “birther” claim, you would have performed your own investigation instead of relying on Corsi.

    You have piqued my curiosity because when I did my independent study published September 6, 2009, I also came up with 8 points. Actually I haven’t read the WND investigation of the certificate except the one liner that where they say it looks nothing like they one they had. I do not know what his 8 points are, but if they are the same as mine, he must have copied me. You’re welcome to answer my points, though, and I’m happy to discuss them. The following are things I remember from looking at the Smith certificate.

    First, no one has published any other authentic birth certificate from 1961 (or any other year) that looks like the CPGH certificate. One would think this would be a first step in authenticating the thing, and that hasn’t happened. Contrast that to many COLB’s (short and long) that were collected and shown on the Internet.

    I’ve worked around government health and vital statistics forms for over 40 years and the thing that stuck me as totally wrong about the CPGH is what parts of the form were supposedly pre-printed and what parts were filled in. Too much was pre-printed.

    The third rather bizarre feature of the Lucas Smith certificate is that the date and time of birth is the same, to the minute, as what is on the COLB. It’s simple to explain how Smith could have gotten the date and time from the Internet copy, but how does that work in reverse, and why? Try to fit that into the birth in Africa, relayed by telegram to America where the grandmother was standing by to register the birth on Monday morning. If Obama was born in Africa, why report the day correctly. It would make much more sense to date the birth later to give mother and baby time to return to Hawaii and file the paperwork without having to ask pesky questions about “why isn’t the mother filing this?” since the law at the time obligated the parents to file an unattended birth registration if the hospital didn’t.

    A fourth curious thing, and one I think is a dead giveaway, is the fact that the full date of birth is given for Obama’s mother, but only the year of birth for Obama’s father. This corresponds to what information is available on the Internet about them. One would reasonably think that if the Obamas were in Kenya reporting information for the birth certificate, they would know both dates of birth. The only plausible explanation for this is that Obama Sr. didn’t know his own birth date, and didn’t have a birth date that he used.

    A fifth minor point is that the name of the doctor is one readily available on the Internet, although we do not know that he was delivering babies at the time.

    My final comment is that of all the places in Kenya where baby Obama would be born, Mombasa makes about the least sense. The Obama family village is on the far western border of the country. The only international airport at the time was in Nairobi, in the center of the country. Mombasa is on the east coast. What was a very pregnant Obama doing traveling the whole width of the country just to give birth in Mombasa?

  52. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    Doc said “Given the importance of the subject, I would tend to give high credibility to the Wikipedia.”

    Sure, Doc 😉 I’m sure you give high credibility to a lot of web pages that have changed over 500 times in the last three months.

    I don’t think you want the truth. It’s pretty evident when you sell BS to support you claims.

  53. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    Why has my comment been left in moderation for over an hour?

    WTF? says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm WTF?(Quote)

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    WTF?: Why has my comment been left in moderation for over an hour?

    Because I was busy reading other comments, looking up that YouTube link you asked me for, and then writing the reply you see below. On other occasions, I sleep, eat, mow grass, go to church, and go to work.

  55. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    Yeah, Doc. To think she would intentionally disclose that information would be pretty hard to believe. To do it by mistake; not so hard to believe.

    (1) Lindsay Graham would be called a racist if he even questioned Obama’s birth place. Everyone who has questioned it has been called a racist. I know why Graham would not look at the evidence.

    (2)What does the Minister of Lands have to gain by saying it? What is his motivation? If you determined that he could not have had any interest in telling the truth, you must think he intended to lie. Again, what is his motivation?

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    WTF?: I’m sure you give high credibility to a lot of web pages that have changed over 500 times in the last three months.

    I say that because I actually changed the “Barack Obama” page once. The Wikipedia police came down on me like a ton of bricks, and it took days to actually get the change to stick and required negotiation and meticulous documentation. And you might say it was changed 500 times, but if you look closely you will see nearly half of those were rejection of the other half. I had to change it 3 or 4 times before one stuck.

    The Wikipedia isn’t perfect, but they are downright anal on the important pages. But if you think the Wikipedia is wrong on this point, go change it. As I have written before: Any Fool can change the Wikipedia.

  57. avatar
    G May 10, 2010 at 11:46 pm #

    WTF says:

    Sorry G,I didn’t find you reliance on biblical translations to be of importance. I endeavored to find the common usage of the term “return to”.

    Well, since I used both literature AND the bible (and if you really want, I could keep bringing other examples, but the two suffice in demonstrating my point), it wasn’t a reliance on only one source.

    A more correct translation of what you are saying is that because my findings make your conclusions meaningless, you simply choose to discount them.

    You will interpret everything in a way that supports your conclusion. Even when it makes no sense to do so.

    Oh the irony! Boy, that sure is the pot calling the kettle black, now isn’t it?

    Tell me. Why do you think the Minister of Lands said that Obama was not a native of America? Why do you think he said that Obama was not born in this country? Do you think he’s a birther? Do you think he’s a racist? Do you think he doesn’t know that if Obama’s story was true, that Obama could prove it in a heartbeat, and make him look like a fool?

    No, I simply think he’s an idiot talking out his *ss, just as many of our politicians in congress do when they posture and pontificate in congress. Just like you, he’s spouting off and his words have no value without anything to back them up.

    Sometimes you have to look if you expect to see. Closing your eyes to everything that tells you otherwise is blind faith. You might think faith is enough, but it sure isn’t fair to tell me to do the same.

    Actually, that is exactly the advice I would give to you.

    Let’s look at the difference between you & me on this issue. Here’s the evidence I have:

    1. A President serving, who claims he was born in Honolulu, HI.
    2. A COLB that he produced that states just that, which has the proper seal and signature on it, as factcheck has shown.
    3. The DOH, which is the authoritative department on birth documents corroborating that he was born there.
    4. The Governor of HI, directly stating he’s had the matter looked into and corroborating that Obama was born there.
    5. Two HI newspapers from 1961 showing him in their birth announcement listings.

    And you have:

    -some verbal or written statements, most of which you have to be very creative and twisting in your interpretation to help support you.

    So, I would say that I’ve got all real evidence that matters on my side, and therefore, my conclusions are based on likely facts.

    Whereas you’ve got nothing but “blind faith” and nothing at all that a court could use to back you up.

  58. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:50 pm #

    Doc,

    Can you remember the details of a conversation you had almost 50 years ago? Especially about something so insignificant? Give me one hour to depose her and you’ll see just how good a witness that old lady will make.

    Doc said; “However, there is no reason to think the registration is fraudulent.”

    You have been given plenty of reasons to think it could be fraudulent. You just don’t want to look at any of them. I told you the CPGH bc has not been proven to be a forgery. Are you willing to write about how Corsi deceived the public about it?

  59. avatar
    WTF? May 10, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Nice try, G.

    Obama’s mother did not say she would return with him. She said “we agreed that we would return to Kenya, after he finished his studies”.

    I knew you would backpedal, but I didn’t think you would throw in extra words.

  60. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Never trust Corsi. He’s a liar. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence, Corsi will maintain his lies. I’m not the kind of person who would make a claim like that without being able to defend it. -You have my email address if you want the truth.

    I’ll watch the video in the AM. I don’t feel like watching 10+ minutes of video in order to hear a few words.

  61. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 12:07 am #

    I’m not throwing in extra words.

    As my examples above demonstrate:

    In usage of the word “return”, where multiple people are involved (demonstrated by “I” or “we”), all that is necessarily indicated is that one of those people originated in the place they wish to “return”; not all parties.

    So, based on this, all you have to do is replace the word “return”, with “go”, as they can be used interchangeably in this situation. All “go” means in this usage is to “go with” the person who is returning.

    Original quote:

    Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies.

    Becomes:

    Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would go to Kenya after he finished his studies.

  62. avatar
    nbC May 11, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    Updates on Walter Fitzpatrick and Darren Huff’s Conditions of release

  63. avatar
    nbC May 11, 2010 at 12:17 am #

    There is a third option which you conveniently ignored. Both are really ignorant of the facts as they were not there at the time and place of birth.
    That’s why the COLB is so relevant.

    Why would a Kenyan politician want to inflate Kenyan standing in the world?

    Surely you were jesting that you could not imagine why people say the darnest things?

  64. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:26 am #

    Doc,

    Who are these supposed “Wikipedia police”? Aren’t they just other users?

    You can look at every revision made, and who undid their changes and why.

  65. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    Did you also notice the height of 18 inches? That seems short since Obama is 6′ 1″ in adulthood.

    According to this calculator an 18 inch male would be predicted to be 5′ 5.1 in. tall as an adult. That’s at the 5th percentile.
    http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/yahtpredictor.html

    Obama’s adult height is at the 88th percentile. Does anyone know if it would be typical for a kid in the 5th percentile of height to jump to the 88th percentile as an adult? It seems to me that Obama as a baby should be around 21 inches.

  66. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 1:30 am #

    Dr. C, have you seen this PDF of what a current Kenyan “Register of Birth” looks like?

    http://www.births.go.ke/PDF%20forms/form_b1_pt_1.pdf

    It asks for “surname or tribal” name. It also has a note to not enter the father’s name if the mother isn’t married.

  67. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2010 at 1:46 am #

    There is absolutely no correlation — short babies grow up to tall adults and long babies grow up to be short adults all the time.

    You can’t know the gestational age at birth in any case — a baby that arrives 3 weeks ahead of the expected due date is considered full term, but is a full month younger than a baby that arrives 1 week after the due date. Maternal nutrition during pregnancy plays a large role as well, and back in the 60’s everyone was a lot less sophisticated about those issues — it was very common for women to smoke during pregnancy, for example — which correlates to having significantly smaller babies.

  68. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 1:49 am #

    In Google books there’s a book, Population growth and economic development in Africa, Volume 1969 By Simeon Hongo Ominde, Charles N. Ejiogu. It was published in 1972. It appears to have a Kenyan “Register of Birth in it on page iii. It’s the same form number, A1 that is used today.

    Unfortunately, it’s not full or limited view, only snippet. I did a search for “surname or tribal name” and came up with a snippet of what looks like a birth certificate.

    Based on what I’ve found, I’d expect “surname or tribal name” to appear on a Kenyan birth certificate.

  69. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 11, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    nemocapn said:

    “Based on what I’ve found, I’d expect “surname or tribal name” to appear on a Kenyan birth certificate.”

    When the next fake Kenyan birth certificate has ‘surname or tribal name’ on it, I’m blaming you! 😉

    WTF?,

    I guess you have no answer to the Wong Kim Ark decision – but I knew that already…

  70. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 2:14 am #

    Thank you, Expelliarmus. I was hoping somebody would know if the height difference was significant or not. It stood out for me because I was about the same percentile at birth as I am in adulthood. In my family, 18 inches is a short baby.

    One web site I read said children usually stay near their growth curve line or move up or down one or two major percentile lines for height. I stayed close to my curve in height, but I take it from your response that it’s not unusual to go up nearly 5 growth channels.

  71. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    Slartibartfast: nemocapn said:“Based on what I’ve found, I’d expect “surname or tribal name” to appear on a Kenyan birth certificate.”When the next fake Kenyan birth certificate has ’surname or tribal name’ on it, I’m blaming you!

    Yeah, that’s the one thing I worry about. The information I’ve provided will make it easier for the next forger.

    Paper size could also be a tipoff. Kenya probably puts their certificates on A4 size paper. It’s 8.3 x 11.7 in. If you’re trying to fax a copy of the birth certificate as in the CPGH image, shouldn’t some of it be trailing off the page lengthwise?

  72. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 11, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    Why don’t you just include a template in your next post? 😉

  73. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 11, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Well the Smith birth certificate is obviously fraudulent, for a number of reasons … but I think the more important issue in terms of growth curves would be correlation of height & weight. Again, size at birth is going to be influenced heavily by the factors of gestational age and maternal health & nutrition. See http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/growth/grownewborn.htmlhttp://www.babycenter.com/average-fetal-length-weight-chart

    18 inches in relation to the purported birth weight does seem to be a little on the short side, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. I think arguing based on that claim is the same sort of sloppy thinking that birthers engage in, along the same lines as birthers arguing that the COLB is suspect because they think Obama Sr. wouldn’t have listed his race as “African”.

    I think the fact that the Smith fake purportedly comes from the wrong agency is far more dispositive. (Birth records in Kenya apparently are public, as Dr. C has pointed out, an they are maintained by civil authorities, not hospitals)

  74. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    (Correction to a previous post. The new birth form says B1, not A1.)

    I don’t have a template but I do have a Kenyan application to register a birth abroad:
    http://www.kenyahighcommission.net/pdfs08/birthabroadform.pdf

    It’s only 5 pounds.

  75. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 3:17 am #

    The wrong agency is definitely a big tipoff. I’ve seen birth certificates with fingerprints on them, but not footprints unless it’s a souvenir certificate.

    I found this about Kenya’s birth registrations:
    “Registration of births and deaths was introduced for the first time in Kenya(then East African Protectorate) in 1904. At the time, the regulations only applied to Europeans and Americans. In 1928 the current Act CAP .149 was enacted.

    “It provided for the compulsory registration of the births and deaths of Europeans and Americans and Indians throughout Kenya and deaths of all persons of whatever race dying within a municipality. Section 9 and 15 of the Act are enabling provisions, which empowers the Minister to extend compulsory registration to other areas and communities in Kenya.

    “In pursuance of the powers the Minister extended compulsory registration to other communities in stages beginning with Nairobi and Nyeri on 1st March 1963 until the whole country was covered on 1 st September 1971.

    “Although the registration of the births of Africans was not compulsory in any area before 1963, many of the enlightened Africans working or living in District headquarters voluntarily registered the births of their children. This was done at the District Commissioner’s office as the District Commissioner was doubling as the District Registrar of Births and deaths in most districts.”
    http://www.communication.go.ke/kenya.asp?cat_id=13

  76. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 6:53 am #

    WTF says “Can you remember the details of a conversation you had almost 50 years ago?”

    Yet WTF insists that a quotation in a book published in 1995 of a conversation that took place at least 10 years previously must absolutely, positively be verbatim.

    One may indeed ask WTF???

  77. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 11, 2010 at 7:37 am #

    Return can also refer to going to the country where your ancestors came from. Or you think your ancestors came from.

    Every time I cross the old border between the two Germanies, I feel like “returning home”. I was not born in that country. The country I then feel I return to is not the German “Democratic” Republic either.

    “return to Shangri-La” actually wins a google fight against “go to Shangri-La”.

    The “imaginary” country I was talking about was Prussia, of course. Historians still debate whether it stopped existing in 1945 or in 1871.

  78. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 11, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    Scientist,

    In case you missed my comment on another thread, my name is Kevin Kesseler and you can send me email at:

    (first name)@(last name).net

  79. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    Give me one hour to depose her and you’ll see just how good a witness that old lady will make.

    I’ll take the same hour to depose your side’s fake Kenyan minister (who signed an affidavit that misstated his own name), or the forensic document examiner who falsified his credentials, or the convicted felon who claims to have gone to Kenya to “investigate” the birth. Or, an hour to depose any of the Constitutional law scholars who think the founders were so stupid they used a 400-year old phrase to mean the exact opposite of what it had meant without ever mentioning the change to anyone. (“You never thought or wrote a word about citizenship until Obama was the nominee? And you call yourself an ‘expert?'”)

    All those “pieces” of shite you guys have “assembled” couldn’t rebut the prima facie value of a wet paper bag, WTF.

  80. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 9:10 am #

    You have nothing but Obama’s word to support a claim that his birth report was generated by a hospital.

    You really need to go memorize the Federal Rules of Evidence, WTF. FRE 803.19, FRE 804.b.4.

    I get it now. The other 50 people must be lying, because it makes more sense that 50 people lie than one person lie.

    Selective attention. You notice the 1 time that someone misspeaks and says that Obama was born in Kenya and ignore the 50 times that someone says that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, for every 50 people you find that say, in passing, that Obama was born in Kenya, there are at least 2,500 that have written or said, with the same conviction, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  81. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    Expelliarmus,

    You just said a whole lot of nothing. You started off calling the CPGH bc fraudulent, and ended with calling it a fake, but provided absolutely nothing to support that conclusion.

    Care to try again?

  82. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 9:39 am #

    I wasted my time watching the video provided by Dr. Con. The one he provided that would clearly state that 1987 was Obama Jr’s. “first time in Kenya”.

    Nothing in the video supports that claim. It is void of any “first time” reference.

  83. avatar
    Dave May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    WTF? lamented:

    I wasted my time watching the video provided by Dr. Con.

    Well, if we’re honest, we all probably have more productive things we could do with our time that spending it on the birther nontroversy. I tend to put it more in the category “entertainment.”

  84. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    G,

    You either lack the ability to perform an unbiased investigation, or you just can’t figure out how to stop swallowing. Let’s look at your argument.

    A President serving, who claims he was born in Honolulu, HI.

    So? The liar got the job based on that lie

    2. A COLB that he produced that states just that, which has the proper seal and signature on it, as factcheck has shown.

    A COLB based on a fraudulent birth report is no different than any other COLB

    3. The DOH, which is the authoritative department on birth documents corroborating that he was born there.

    The DOH did not examine the veracity of the birth report. All they did was ensure that it was on file.

    4. The Governor of HI, directly stating he’s had the matter looked into and corroborating that Obama was born there.

    Governor Linda Lingle is a she, not a he. The fact that she had someone look to see if there was a record on file, still does nothing to determine the veracity of that record.

    5. Two HI newspapers from 1961 showing him in their birth announcement listings.

    Also the result of a birth report that could have been fraudulently filed.

    When everything you use for support is based on the information from one filing, it adds absolutely nothing.

    Here’s how you can support the original filing.
    (1) The results of a pre-natal and post-natal gynecological exam.
    (2) Enduring that the report was filed by an independent party.
    (3) A hospital record demonstrating that the mother was admitted during that period of time.

  85. avatar
    richCares May 11, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    was it Houdini that taught you how to get out of your straight jacket.

  86. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    1. The President did not get the job based on his COLB. He was ahead in the polls before he released it and was ahead by the same margin after. He had already beaten Hillary and all the polls from at least a year before showed that whoever won the Democratic nomination was the odds on favorite to win. Lehman Bros. made it a lock. All 42 predecessors got elected without showing a birth certificate (most didn’t have one, since they didn’t exist broadly until the late 19th century). The COLB was a non-factor in the election and is in fact a non-factor today.

    As for “supporting the filing”:

    Medical and hospital records are not kept for 50 years. They no longer exist. Dr West is long dead. You will just have to live with the filing as it stands.

  87. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 10:35 am #

    Let me address Dr. Conspiracy’s reasons for determining that the CPGH birth certificate for Barack Obama Jr. cannot be a legitimate record:

    Doc said; “First, no one has published any other authentic birth certificate from 1961 (or any other year) that looks like the CPGH certificate. One would think this would be a first step in authenticating the thing, and that hasn’t happened. Contrast that to many COLB’s (short and long) that were collected and shown on the Internet.”

    Pretty lame, Doc. I haven’t seen any other birth certificates posted on the web from the hospital I was born in, but that would hardly lead me to believe that my hospital issued birth certificate is a fake.
    This rebuttal gains you zero points

    Doc said; “I’ve worked around government health and vital statistics forms for over 40 years and the thing that stuck me as totally wrong about the CPGH is what parts of the form were supposedly pre-printed and what parts were filled in. Too much was pre-printed.”

    Sorry Doc. You gonna have to be more specific. What was pre-printed on the Caast Province General Hospital birth certificate that you wouldn’t expect to be pre-printed? I think your comment was intended to be ambiguous.

    I’ll continue in my next post.

  88. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Dr. Con said; “The third rather bizarre feature of the Lucas Smith certificate is that the date and time of birth is the same, to the minute, as what is on the COLB. It’s simple to explain how Smith could have gotten the date and time from the Internet copy, but how does that work in reverse, and why? Try to fit that into the birth in Africa, relayed by telegram to America where the grandmother was standing by to register the birth on Monday morning. If Obama was born in Africa, why report the day correctly. It would make much more sense to date the birth later to give mother and baby time to return to Hawaii and file the paperwork without having to ask pesky questions about “why isn’t the mother filing this?” since the law at the time obligated the parents to file an unattended birth registration if the hospital didn’t.

    You’ll never make a good investigator if you only look at evidence in a way that conforms to your preconceived conclusions.

    Let’s have a little mock phone conversation:

    Mom, this is Ann. Well, little Barack Jr. was born last night.
    Toot says; I’ve got the form in front of me. What day was he born on? What time?

    Grandma Toot collects the information over the phone and subsequently files the report.

    Doc seems to think they would change the child’s birthday, or change his time of birth. Why? That wouldn’t make any sense.

    And why a telegram Doc? Don’t you think they had a phone in 1961? Not that it matters. Either method would have worked.

    Doc seems to think it makes more sense to change the childs actual date of birth. I don’t. The whole intent of the filing in Hawaii on Tuesday was to get little Barack U.S. citizenship. It was a little white lie, not an all-out attempt to deceive.

    As to Doc’s “give the mother time to return to Hawaii” theory. What were they going to do? She sure wasn’t going to make it back by the 8th. Heck, she probably didn’t leave the hospital in Mombasa until the 8th.

    Now this one from Doc just pisses me off! Doc said “since the law at the time obligated the parents to file an unattended birth registration if the hospital didn’t.”

    More obfuscation,Doc? You should look at Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii. It was in effect in 1961. Any adult could have filed the birth report.

  89. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    More crap from Dr. Con.

    Dr. Con says; “A fourth curious thing, and one I think is a dead giveaway, is the fact that the full date of birth is given for Obama’s mother, but only the year of birth for Obama’s father. This corresponds to what information is available on the Internet about them. One would reasonably think that if the Obamas were in Kenya reporting information for the birth certificate, they would know both dates of birth. The only plausible explanation for this is that Obama Sr. didn’t know his own birth date, and didn’t have a birth date that he used.”

    Really Doc? You think that’s a dead giveaway? Truth is, nobody knows Obama Sr’s. date of birth. Just like nobody knows former Kenya President Jomo Kenyatta’s date of birth.

    Do a little research, Doc, and you’ll find that many people who were born in tribal communities do not know their exact date of birth.

    Here’s some information about the Sudanese refugees in Unganda that was recently published. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ah-D0UzLmxkC&pg=PA76&dq=Kenya+%2B%22exact+date+of+birth%22&as_brr=3&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Kenya%20%2B%22exact%20date%20of%20birth%22&f=false

  90. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    Doc said; “A fifth minor point is that the name of the doctor is one readily available on the Internet, although we do not know that he was delivering babies at the time.”

    Ooh. The doctor’s name is available on the net. That must mean he didn’t deliver Obama, even though he was running the hospital 8 miles away.

    Don’t you know that doctor’s often cover for other doctors in the evening and on weekends? Don’t you know that all doctors know how to deliver a baby?

    You must have spent too much time in the world of “specialized care”.

    Fact is, it is very conceivable that a doctor who was running a nearby hospital would have been covering at a nearby hospital on a Friday evening. It is also extremely plausible that he would have delivered Obama Jr.

    After all, Dr. James Ang’awa was the co-author of “Rupture of the Uterus in East Africa” which was published in 1951.

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

    And Doc’s final piece of irrefutable evidence he used to attack the CPGH birth certificate:

    Drum roll please.

    “My final comment is that of all the places in Kenya where baby Obama would be born, Mombasa makes about the least sense. The Obama family village is on the far western border of the country. The only international airport at the time was in Nairobi, in the center of the country. Mombasa is on the east coast. What was a very pregnant Obama doing traveling the whole width of the country just to give birth in Mombasa?”

    That’s it? You bring your U.S. wife to Kenya and you expect him to bring her to his tribe? Just how irresponsible do you think Obama Sr. was?

    Sr. worked in Mombasa before he went to school in Hawaii. Tom Mboya, his close friend was there and could get him a job. You act like Mombasa is on the other side of the planet. It was exactly where Obama Sr’s father sent him when he was kicked out of school.

    Further, it was on the beach! This was the summer after they got married. Where’s your sense of romance?

  92. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    I wonder what kind of scientist you are. Does burning ants with a magnifying glass count?

    scientist said; “The President did not get the job based on his COLB. He was ahead in the polls before he released it and was ahead by the same margin after. He had already beaten Hillary and all the polls from at least a year before showed that whoever won the Democratic nomination was the odds on favorite to win. Lehman Bros. made it a lock. All 42 predecessors got elected without showing a birth certificate (most didn’t have one, since they didn’t exist broadly until the late 19th century). The COLB was a non-factor in the election and is in fact a non-factor today.”

    Listen, you unconstitutional piece of troller trash. The polls mean nothing! The election means nothing! If the President-Elect shall fail to qualify! Just how dense are you? Do you not understand the purpose of a written constitution?

    Hospital births did not become the norm until the mid twentieth century.

    People were driving before driver’s licenses existed. Are you saying that no one should produce a driver’s license because there was a time when they didn’t exist?

  93. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    WTF?: The election means nothing!

    Obviously to you it does mean nothing (unless your guy wins).

    WTF?: If the President-Elect shall fail to qualify!

    The President-Elect did qualify as determined by the body that decides-Congress. If you’re unhappy with your Congressional representatives actions, don’t vote for them next time. By the way, the 20th Amendment is clear that the decision on qualification is made one time and one time only, in the joint session right after the election. After that, it’s over until next time.

    WTF?: People were driving before driver’s licenses existed. Are you saying that no one should produce a driver’s license because there was a time when they didn’t exist?

    Since birth certificates became common there have been quite a few Presidents. How many showed theirs? Only one-Barack Obama.

    Now see if you can answer a question:

    You have said that the SCOTUS must rule, even though they have never ruled any President eligible or ineligible. So, why don’t you taqke up a collection and hire a lawyer to appeal the Ankeny decision? I can only conclude that you are pretty confident what their answer will be and you don’t expect that you will like it.

  94. avatar
    BatGuano May 11, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    WTF?:
    (1) The results of a pre-natal and post-natal gynecological exam.

    (3) A hospital record demonstrating that the mother was admitted during that period of time.

    hospitals are only required by law to keep medical records for 7 years. i couldn’t find hawaii’s policy but new york keeps the obstetrical reports till the child turns 21. even if hawaii waited 7 years after the child’s 18th birthday that still only puts us at 25. no presidential candidate would be able to supply this information.

  95. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    WTF? Let’s see if you duck this question. A newborn Barack Obama would have needed a passport to enter the US if he had been born in Kenya. If his mother got the supposedly fraudulent b.c. mailed from Hawaii and went to apply for a passport at the US embassy in Nairobi, they would have wanted to know how the infant got to Kenya in the first placed without a passport. If she said she lost the passport they would cable the State Dept (they had cable and phone in 1961) to find out if one had ever been issued. And don’t tell me they would have treated the whole thing as routine. 18 year old Americans giving birth in Kenya in 1961 were not exactly an everyday occurrence. I would bet the correct # is 0.

    Your story has more holes than an aged Gruyere.

    And just to rub your nose in it, the President is qualified. Congress said so. They can’t change their mind (and wouldn’t even if they could). Suck it up!!!

  96. avatar
    Jody May 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Or the ‘Right of Return’ to Israel for Jews. Does this mean that all Jews have been to Israel?

  97. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    scientist, Do you always just make stuff up? (much like calling yourself a scientist)

    Do you not know that the courts can review a ministerial act of Congress? That’s what prevents them from overriding the Constitution. It is only discretionary acts that cannot be reviewed. If you think otherwise, you’ve been sold a bunch of lies.

    Maybe you should take the time to read the writings of de Toqueville. Maybe then you will learn the intricacies of our system of checks and balances.

    This shows the depth of analysis performed by “scientist”.

    scientist said; “Since birth certificates became common there have been quite a few Presidents. How many showed theirs? Only one-Barack Obama.”

    OK brainiac. Since birth certificates, that are the result of institutional births (those originating from an independent party are the most reliable) became common (which was the 1940s), how many Presidents attained the age of 35?

    Here’s the equation: 1940 +35 =1975. How many Presidents have we had since 1975? The answer is 6.

    How many of those Presidents were military officers that would have held a security clearance, and would have, therefore, had a background check performed before they ran for President? 4 of them.

    Only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama didn’t serve in the military, and should be able to provide conclusive evidence. Bill Clinton didn’t make the fact that his parentage was in question public knowledge. Did he? Try to find an article before he was in office. Obama sure hasn’t been forthcoming with his evidence. The only thing that makes Factcheck and Politifact apolitical are their own claims. Once you look into their origins, you can easily see just how politically controlled they are.

  98. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Where does it say Congress qualifying a President is a ministerial act? Twice in history Congress (the House) has actually chosen the President. Had the Democrats controlled Congress in 2000, they might have thrown out the Florida results and declared Gore the winner. Congress’ discretion in qualifying the President and decideing whether the Electoral College vote is in fact absolute, as is its discretion in removing one.

    And b.c.’s were standard legal dociments well before 1945. Those from non-hospital births are 100% valid.

    And what the hell does Bill Clinton’s parentage have to do with anything? We have an adversarial system. The Republicans has a team of at least 20 opposition researchers digging yp every possible poece of dirt on Clinton. Are you suggesting they didn’t look into his parents? They decided, correctly, that it was a non-issus. Only you are such an A-Hole that uyou think we should judge adults on the indiscretions of their parents.

    By the way, if you want to attack my professional credentials (I have over 20 peer-reviewed piblications and am an inventor on about a dozen patents-US and foreign), then enlighten us as to who the hell are you? What are YOUR credentials MORON???

  99. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    The birth records of John Adams and John Quincy Adams are on file:
    http://www.wickedlocal.com/braintree/fun/entertainment/books/x1822773758

    “Braintree — Rarely, if ever, do birth records get a police escort, but these were no ordinary records.

    “They documented the birth of John Adams, the first vice president and second president of the United States….

    “…. the birth records of Adams and John Hancock, another Braintree native, were on public display in a reception room.”

    Here’s Ronald Reagan’s birth certificate obtained in 1991. It wasn’t filed until 1942:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=q3C7DjGP7BkC&lpg=PP1&dq=%22Ronald%20Reagan%3A%20The%20Presidential%20Portfolio.%22&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q=birth%20certificate&f=false

  100. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    “If the President-Elect shall fail to qualify! ”

    But the President was eligible, by any standard except your own.

    You may question the evidence, but there is no evidence- actual evidence- to show there is anything incorrect with the birth certificate that has been presented.

  101. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    And why would military security clearances be somehow sufficient? Even given your wild speculation as to the President’s birth certificate being because his grandmother committed fraud- the military would have accepted the certified BC just like any other agency would.

    In other words- if George Bush was born in Kenya, and his grandmother fraudantly registered his birth in Hawaii, he still would have passed the military security clearance.

  102. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    This isn’t the first time a president has been implicated in an alleged birth certificate scam.

    According to the Straight Dope message boards from 2002:
    “A reference here says…
    ‘For the truth of the matter, you have to either look at the birth records for Lamar Missouri
    (there is only one Truman born there on May 8 1884 – ‘Harry Sergei Truman.’ Read the autobiography of Allen W. Barkley (Truman’s VP) or read the superlative ‘an Underground Education’ by Richard Zacks. It is for this reason alone that Harry Truman’s birth certificates are not on display at his presidential museum.'”

    Mysteriously Missouri’s Secretary of State has published only a transcription of an abstract of Truman’s birth certificate, not a digital image. What are they trying to hide?
    http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/birthdeath/births.asp?id=60131

  103. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    If you can’t figure out that the determination of one meeting the constitutionally mandated provisions is a ministerial act, you’re too stupid to participate.

    Do you think Congress would be permitted to say that 34 and a half is close enough to 35, so we’ll let him have the office? After all, he was SO popular.

    Or do you think 13 years resident is “close enough”, that Congress can give their OK.

    If you do, you’re an idiot. Then again, I can pretty much guarantee that you think close is good enough, as long as he’s popular. DA

  104. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    Jeff, It’s not that the security clearance alone is sufficient. It’s that there has been a background check performed prior to entering the office.

    “In other words- if George Bush was born in Kenya, and his grandmother fraudantly registered his birth in Hawaii, he still would have passed the military security clearance.”

    If members of the Kenyan Parliament were saying that George Bush was born in Kenya, and all George Bush was willing to produce was a COLB, you’re damn right I’d want further investigation.

    The President has so much immediate destructive power, that requires only his word and minutes to have the effects desired, that I find it shameful to leave any questions unresolved. Especially when those questions can be resolved so easily.

    As Sir Walter Scott once said “Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.”

  105. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    If you can’t figure out that the determination of one meeting the constitutionally mandated provisions is a ministerial act, you’re too stupid to participate.

    Do you know what standard the court applies when they review Congressional ministerial acts, WTF? And, please point us to the case-law.

  106. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    “Jeff, It’s not that the security clearance alone is sufficient. It’s that there has been a background check performed prior to entering the office.”

    And if you think that should be the requirement, the time to implement that is prior to an election, not after the fact.

    And you didn’t answer my question- what would a background check have revealed that would be any different- they would have looked at the same BC and accepted it.

    “If members of the Kenyan Parliament were saying that George Bush was born in Kenya,”

    But Birthers were making the same claims even prior to statements by Kenyan politicians. Basically you are saying that if any foreigners want to start an investigation of a sitting U.S. President all they have to do is state he was born in their country. Wow.

    “The President has so much immediate destructive power, that requires only his word and minutes to have the effects desired, that I find it shameful to leave any questions unresolved.”

    Then you should have been asking these quetions prior to his election. And prior to Bush’s.

    There are no real questions- there is speculation, there is innuendo- but all evidence- actual evidence shows that the President was born in Hawaii.

  107. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    Greg,

    Maybe you should take the time to look into Mandamus.

    If Congress decided to ignore the provisions mandated by Article II, it would be an usurpation of a power reserved to the people.

    If you want case law, may I suggest you start with Marbury v. Madison.

    You don’t seem to understand that the Congress has absolutely no discretion when it comes to the qualifications mandated by the Constitution for the Office of President and Vice President.

  108. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    You don’t seem to understand that the Congress has absolutely no discretion when it comes to the qualifications mandated by the Constitution for the Office of President and Vice President.

    So, the standard is…

    Arbitrary and capricious
    Clearly erroneous
    De novo

    Or did you not learn about standards of review in your on-line 1L class?

  109. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Please tell me what exactly I need to worry about. I’ve been sleeping too well lately and missing Conan.

    So Kenya goes to war with Tanzania and all because his bum of a farher who abandoned him had a Kenyan pasport he orders missiles lainched on Dar Es Salaam? And of course the Joint Chiefs just say yes, sir and fire away? Uh huh. And what if a Jewish President launches some when Israel and Syria go to war? Or a Catholic one when Spain and Morocco square off? Or what about the Bushes going to war to protect their financial interests in Saudi Arabia?

    Money is far more potent than a parent’s passport.

  110. avatar
    Greg May 11, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    Do you think Congress would be permitted to say that 34 and a half is close enough to 35, so we’ll let him have the office?

    Since WTF refuses to enlighten me about what standard the court would use to judge such issues, I have to do my own research. Here’s an article on the justiciability of McCain’s eligibility:

    owell v. McCormack is the political question case that presents the closest analogy to the presidential eligibility issue. In that case, the Court held that the House of Representatives’ decision to exclude a congressman who undisputedly met the qualifications set forth in Article I of the Constitution did not present a political question. The power to exclude a qualified representative did not belong to Congress. Powell suggests, however, that a dispute over whether a member of Congress really did meet the constitutional qualifications would be a nonjusticiable political question. Suppose, for example, there were a controversy over whether a newly elected congresswoman were really twenty five years old, as the Constitution requires. Such a dispute would probably present a political question because the Constitution confers on the House, not the federal courts, the power to judge whether its members meet the qualifications for service. If the same reasoning applies to presidential eligibility, then the determination whether McCain, Obama, or any other presidential candidate meets the constitutional requirements would be a nonjusticiable political question.

    Is it cut-and-dried that Obama is not a natural born citizen? Since the vast majority of legal scholars think it’s an entirely uncontroversial issue that Obama is Constitutionally eligible, it is clearly NOT cut-and-dried.

    Powell seems to say, if there’s a debate, the courts cannot decide the issue.

    Is this another case, WTF, of how you know better than the Supreme Court?

    I guess all you have to do is convince the Supreme Court that you know better than they do about whether this issue is something they can decide, then convince them that you know better than they do about the meaning of the term – natural born citizen!

    Easy-peasy!

  111. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    A bit off topic, but WTF asked:

    “Do you not understand the purpose of a written constitution?”

    Let me note that the folks across the pond have managed quite nicely for centuries without a written constitution. What just happened in Britain? They had a close, hard-fought election. In 5 days they resolved things. Gordon Brown just checked out of 10 Downing and David Cameron will be in by this evening. No judges, no hanging chads, no birthers. Kind of says that being grown up might be more important than a written constitution.

    And in case you want to tell me, “Why don’t you move there, then?”, when I think of the fact that WTF seems to be American (who knows, really?), well, other than the lousy weather in Britain, it’s bloody tempting, mates.

  112. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    WTF,

    Here is the honest difference between you and I:

    I start with a base assumption that the information presented before me is true, until credible evidence comes forward that contradicts it. The law works the same way – the burden is on the ACCUSER.

    My motive: I simply have no legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of taking the evidence at face value, particularly when ALL authoritative bodies that would have a say or knowledge of such matters are standing behind it.

    YOU, however start with a base assumption that ALL of the evidence MUST be false or faked and that everyone involved must be lying.

    You struggle desperately to try to parse words and twist statements and grasp at whispers and straws for anything you can to support your position. Yet what ACTUAL evidence do you have? NOTHING. At best, you have speculation, which is purely meaningless.

    To support your speculation, you IGNORE or discount EVERY statement people have made that says he was born in HI, so you can desperately cling to a few statements by people that you chose to interpret in a way that supports your pre-conceived notions. Yet NONE of these people you try to quote are authoritative bodies on the matter, so they too fall short of being of any true tangible to “your cause”.

    To support your position requires concocting a string of elaborate implausible conspiracy scenarios endlessly from the time of his birth until this very day.

    It requires somehow placing Ann Dunham in Kenya at the time of his birth, for which there is not a single scrap of evidence to back that up and the scenario for that pregnant woman to be flying there to do so just doesn’t make sense. The combination of twists and turns required in a chain of events to support your assumptions are a high burden to assemble and to date, your scraps of innuendo, rumor and parsed statements don’t back up that picture at all.

    Therefore, I must question your motivations for taking such an untenable position in the first place.

    HOWEVER,

    To support the DEFEAUT position that the evidence presented is what it is is fairly straightforward, as it lines up cleanly with everything that was actually known:

    Obama was born in Honolulu, HI in 1961. His mother was living there at the time. Birth announcements in newspapers state that. When he leaves his mom to go back and live with his grandparents, he returns to HI in 1971 and completes all of his schooling there, before finally leaving HI for college. He writes a book about his full life story in the early 90’s, which all says the same thing. The book covers his life up to that point and so far, I haven’t heard anything credible come forward that contradicts anything in it. Then he starts his political career in IL in 1996. By the time he starts his widely publicized and followed run for US president in 2007, he has been in a position of public politics for over a decade. He’s owned cars and property. He has a wife and kids. He has a passport. Therefore, that means just like all of us, he’s had to provide his BC and other info when needed countless times and there would be a long paper trail of records. Public candidates go through a lot of vetting, both by party bosses and by opposition opponents, so if there was any “dirt” or problems with his background story, it could have been found. Yet, nothing has ever come forward to contradict his story. He posts a copy of the COLB in 2008 online. When further questioned, factcheck.org looks at a physical version of the same document and writes a detailed report with photos, which clearly show that all the info matches what was posted online and that the seals & signatures are there. Statements are made by the HI DOH on several occasions. The HI governor backs it up. There is not a single objection made by anyone in congress preventing him from being smoothly sworn in. We don’t live in a “kumbuya” world here – there has been a deep partisan divide for years now. If there was the slightest flaw that the GOP or Obama’s opponents could have found to exploit and invalidate him anywhere along the process, they would have milked it for all its worth. Even Fox News, which is as anti-Obama as you can get won’t touch the birther claims with a ten foot pole.

    And sorry, but you seem to pooh-pooh factcheck and the HI DOH and the HI Governor’s statements. (yes, I made a type and left off the “s” and meant to say she), but the evidence provided and shown which matches their statements is about as authoritative as you can get.

    The HI DOH after all is the one who keeps, maintains and provides these records.

    Your dismissiveness of the GOP HI Governor, Linda Lingle, tries to claim that nobody in authority actually saw his actual birth certificate. Once again, you are wrong! She explicitly had her health director examine and confirm the actual document. I’m sorry, but the health director personally confirming to the Governor is about as authoritative and definitive as you are going to get. Here are Lingle’s own words saying so:

    You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And 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. … It’s been established. He was born here.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  113. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    So WTF,

    Why don’t you be honest for once and face the truth. You are not following any “scientific method” here. Yours is not just a healthy skepticism.

    At some emotional, visceral level you are opposed to Obama and his very election violates your personal “world view” of the way of things. You discount all real evidence and desperately look for loopholes because you can’t face reality.

    Be honest, you did not vote for Obama, never would have voted for Obama and never will. Whatever your true reasons for such, they actually have nothing to do with the eligibility issue at all; but reflect your opposition to the man and what you think he stands for in your mind.

    Until the moment of his election, you probably convinced yourself it wasn’t possible that he would actually become president. It was inconceivable to you, wasn’t it?

    Therefore, you are having difficulty reconciling his successful election with your pre-conceived feelings and views and your personal ego can’t handle having your notions shattered.

    Let’s look at the only point of smug accomplishment you’ve been able to cling to lately – the whole “return” ruse that you pulled.

    It shows your actions – you had to resort to trickery, requiring elaborate deception and intentional misleading in order to try to score even a weak point.

    It shows the nature of your character, and sadly why you probably view the world as you do.

    Because you have to resort to lies & deception and games to make a point, you view the world and others actions from the way you do things.

    It is sad, really. All your skepticism really amounts to nothing more than projection.

    You assume that others words, including official statements and documents must be fraudulent or misleading, because that is what YOU would do.

    You have to resort to lies and deception to live your life and make your arguments, so you can only conceive of a world based on lies and deception.

    I don’t hate you WTF. Even though you lied to me and everyone here and made up that whole elaborate storyline about not knowing the english language, I’m still not calling you an idiot. I do feel some pity for you and those like you.

    I realize that you were just trying to do it because you think you were playing some clever little game.

    It only shows that you are a mere fraud and have nothing to back up your points, but have to resort to twisting words and using tricks and dishonesty to support any of your views.

    It only proves that you have no real arguments but strawmen and smoke and mirrors and that you are a clever sham artist at best and not someone who can be taken seriously or who has any credibility from which to make an argument.

  114. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    That’s a load of crap.

    I didn’t question Obama’s COLB until I was given reason to question it. (and that wasn’t until I discovered that WND lied about the CPGH birth certificate). I performed my own research. I found that all 8 points WND presented were unsupported lies.

    Start to figure it out yet? I have.

    Two people have look at Obama’s original vital records. Neither of them has the authority to question the veracity of that record, no matter who filed it. As such, your reliance on the word of Dr. Fukino, or the hearsay of Gov. Lingle holds little water.

    You’re so dishonest, that you will backpedal with regard to “return to”.

    You’re an Obot, pure and simple. You will defend Obama because you’re in love with Obama. That’s not natural. It’s what the people do with Kim Jong Il.

  115. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    How about strict scrutiny?

  116. avatar
    Black Lion May 11, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    WTF, you are delusional. You respond to lucid rebuttals to your ridiculous statements with crap. I like that we are all “in love with Obama”. When you don’t have a real argument, lets fall back on ridiculous notions….To counter we would say that you are in love with George Bush. Ok. Secondly your so called “return to” scenario was ill advised and acomplished nothing. It was a best an idiom, which a lot of the English language is based on. And as much as you want to diminish Dr. Fukino, the fact of the matter is that she is the ONLY PERSON alive right now that can verify that Obama was born in HI, and she has. She has viewed the record, which is the birth records from the hospital, and has said he was BORN IN HAWAII. It us unbelievable that the birthers refuse to belive her, instead requiring that she prove what documents she used to make her statement. In the real world that is now how it works. She is the authority and she has spoken. I like how you try and imply that there could be fraud by the family, or some other chicanery going on, but never supply any sort of proof other than a theory. This is a country of laws. And the law states that you have to prove that there was fraud. You have to prove that he was born in Kenya. So far not one shred of admissible evidence has ever been presented. Yet you continue to hang on to your delusions. So lets be honest. It was not about the COLB, because any questions have long been put to rest by the state of HI saying “Born in HI”. It is about your extreme dislike for OBama, and that leading you to want to believe in the worst. Period.

  117. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    If you provided me with a certified certification of your birth in Hawaii on paper with a seal, I’d have to accept that you were born in Hawaii because it’s legally prima facie evidence of that. I could be suspicious. I could theorize about where you were really born, how you obtained the certificate, but it would do no good until I had solid proof like a certified copy of a birth certificate indicating you were born in another state. It’s only then that I could go to the authorities to claim government documents fraud.

    The alternate birth certificates that have been provided so far are fakes. One of them has been shown to be copied from an Australian birth certificate.

  118. avatar
    joeymac May 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    @WTF?

    Even if BO’s birth was registered by his Grandmother, third cousin, a neighbor, or Frank Marshall Davis, it was accepted by the State and is, therefore, legally binding.

    Anyway, since you birthers claim that BO is iherently unqualified for the office due to his paternal ancestry, why are you concerned with birth records at all? The COLB clearly shows that he is the son of Barack Obama, sr.

    While we’re at it, kind explain to me how the infant BO could have entered the US without a passport? Of course, a foreign-born birth might have been registered at consulate, but that would have left a paper trail, name the venue of the birth, and precluded registering
    it anywhere else in the US.

  119. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    “Neither of them has the authority to question the veracity of that record, no matter who filed it.”

    Says who? Really- if either of them saw any evidence of fraud or malfeasance what law says that they could not investigate further? Show me!

    “As such, your reliance on the word of Dr. Fukino, or the hearsay of Gov. Lingle holds little water.”

    It holds little water to you- yet even though I am not a lawyer, I feel confident in saying that the testimony of Dr. Fukino verifying that she had seen the original BC and it verified that Obama was born in Hawaii would be accepted by a court as expert testimony, whereas an unverified Kenyan BC.

    “You will defend Obama because you’re in love with Obama.”

    I defend Obama because I believe in Democracy and the Constitution, and don’t take kindly to people making up crap to try to unseat an elected President for political reasons.

    “That’s not natural. It’s what the people do with Kim Jong Il.”

    Funny, I don’t remember Kim Jong Il ever being elected in a free election.

    Provide some real evidence of fraud. Provide some real evidence that the President wasn’t eligible.

    Real evidence- not National Enquirer headlines or made up documents.

  120. avatar
    JoZeppy May 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Perhaps you should learn what the phrase means and to what it applies rather than throwing it out, and reinforcing the fact that the extent of your knowledge of the law comes from what you’ve read on the internet?

  121. avatar
    JoZeppy May 11, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    JoZeppy: Perhaps you should learn what the phrase means and to what it applies rather than throwing it out, and reinforcing the fact that the extent of your knowledge of the law comes from what you’ve read on the internet?

    this was in reply to WTF’s “Strict scrutiny” comment.

  122. avatar
    nemocapn May 11, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    @WTF–Voting is a discretionary act. The framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College with discretionary powers. It’s only with the increased power of political parties, which George Washington opposed, that we have electors in about half the states required by law to cast a vote for his party’s nominee. Until all states have these requirements, I’d argue that some electors still are exercizing their discretionary powers that were granted by our founding fathers.

    You’re asking the courts to overturn the discretionary acts of the majority of the electorate because a minority of the electorate think the President is unqualified. Under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution the Senate has the power to remove the Presdent from office and to disqualify him from office. If they have the sole power to disqualify him from office, then logically they have the sole power to qualify him for office.

  123. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    WTF whines:

    That’s a load of crap.I didn’t question Obama’s COLB until I was given reason to question it. (and that wasn’t until I discovered that WND lied about the CPGH birth certificate). I performed my own research. I found that all 8 points WND presented were unsupported lies.Start to figure it out yet? I have.

    Wow, WTF you are so defensive and full of yourself! You just don’t like it when you get called out and shown that you are nothing but a biased person desperately struggling to find ways to support your pre-conceived personal prejudices and conclusions.

    Since your only method of making a point until now has required you to resort to lying and deception, you do realize that you’ve thrown your credibility out the window, right?

    I don’t believe you that you suddenly gained interest in this issue later on. Do you expect any of us to honestly believe you ever had any intention of voting for Obama? Give me a break!

    Face up to it – you never would have voted for him and never will. Your whole quest is a personal mission to somehow explain away his election for yourself. You are just a bitter sore loser living in the past, unable to accept reality and move on.

    Your own research, eh? And how long have you been at this “research” might I ask? And for all that effort, what credible evidence do you have that supports your claims more strongly than the evidence that he was born in HI?

    Oh yeah, that’s right, all your research amounts to little more than a wet fart and wouldn’t quickly get shot down in a court of law, if anyone was foolish enough to introduce it.

    So, you’ve got…not much and nothing that disproves the birth certificate or other evidence or statements from HI officials. Yeah, good luck with that. Keep telling yourself how “awesome” and “smart” you are, because obviously, your ego and insecurity need you to constantly fluff them, since no one else will vouch for you. Sad.

    Two people have look at Obama’s original vital records. Neither of them has the authority to question the veracity of that record, no matter who filed it. As such, your reliance on the word of Dr. Fukino, or the hearsay of Gov. Lingle holds little water.

    LMAO! Ok, on one hand, we’ve got you, a proven huckster who has to rely on lies and deceit to make even little, weak points.

    On the other hand, we have actual government officials looking at and talking about the veracity of government documents under their charge, that they are tasked with creating and maintaining.

    That’s your whole defense? Really? How weak. And your “authority” and “expertise” on such matters is…oh thats right, you have none. You are just some loud mouth spouting off about stuff you have no authority on. What a joke!

    I think I’ll take their word over yours.

    Your false bravado and beliefs amounts to as much authority as the fantasy grand jury folks who are trying to perform “citizen arrests”. When they try their make believe games and tell real authorities how to do their job, it doesn’t work out so well, now does it?

    So tell me tough guy, since you think the DOH & the HI Gov are such liars and you know so much better than all of them, why don’t you stop being such a paper tiger and get off your lazy butt and try challenging or filing suit against them for their “lies”.

    Go ahead, I dare ya. Pull a “Walter Fitzpatrick” or “Darren Huff” type stunt and try to make a citizen arrest or try to make your silly little boastful arguments against any of these officials you claim are lying?

    But you won’t. Because you are all talk and willful ignorance and false bravado. You only want to blather and whine about your theories, but you know you neither have the courage of your convictions nor any evidence of any value to back them up to make any actual challenges in a court of law or any other legitimate venue, for that matter.

    All you can do is come on message boards and spout your nonsense.

    So again, if you truly believe the BS you spout, why won’t you take actual action to address it?

    Why won’t you do any of the following:

    1. Press for the US Supreme Court to take up the Ankeny ruling.

    2. File your own lawsuit (or join one in progress) (against the DOH, the Gov of HI, Obama, or whoever else you claim to be lying)

    3. Work to get your congressmen to take up this issue.

    Those are actual avenues you have available to you, if you truly believe this is a serious matter and that you know what you are talking about.

    Why won’t you do any of those?

    I think we all know the answer to that.

  124. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    G,

    You’re a lying piece of crap!

    “On the other hand, we have actual government officials looking at and talking about the veracity of government documents under their charge, that they are tasked with creating and maintaining.”

    F you! liar. They never discussed the veracity of that document. You know it too. You don’t give a crap because honor and integrity mean nothing to you. You would gladly sell out this country to the highest bidder. You’re a traitor. Anyone who would tell an outright lie like that deserves to be strung up.

  125. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Tell me where Fukino did anything more than look to see if Hawaii had vital records for Obama.

    Your problem is you wouldn’t know what veracity meant if it bit you in the A$$.

    Punk!

  126. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    [Particularly insulting comment deleted, Doc.]

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    WTF? : Tell me where Fukino did anything more than look to see if Hawaii had vital records

    I think you ought to look at what she said again:

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

    Dr. Fukino and Dr. Alvin Onaka (head of vital statistics) both looked at the record(s). The person who is in charge of that department is going to know exactly what he is looking at. In typical birther fashion you try to spin an official check of records into some haphazard and casual. When a government official makes a press release and posts it on the agency web site, they make some effort to insure that what they say is true.

  128. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    nemocapn,

    The Electors do not certify the President-Elect. Their discretionary role ends when they place their vote.

    Nothing in the Constitution requires that the candidate meet the qualifications to hold the office. It only requires the winner to meet the qualifications before taking that office.

    “Under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution the Senate has the power to remove the Presdent from office and to disqualify him from office. If they have the sole power to disqualify him from office, then logically they have the sole power to qualify him for office.”

    A discretionary power in one instance does not create a discretionary power in the other.

    Do you think the Senate has the discretionary power to judge a 34 year-old qualified to hold the office of President?

    How about someone who is 13 years a resident?

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    WTF? (@ G): You’re a lying piece of crap!

    G said: “On the other hand, we have actual government officials looking at and talking about the veracity of government documents under their charge, that they are tasked with creating and maintaining.”

    That is exactly what the Director of Health and the head of Vital Statistics did and said. Let’s look at G’s comment in detail.

    G: “we have actual government officials…”
    Fukino:” I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics

    G: “looking at”
    Fukino: “have personally seen”

    G: “and talking about the veracity of ” (Veracity (n) conformity to truth of fact; accuracy.)
    Fukino: “have verified”

    G: “government documents under their charge”
    Fukino: “Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record”
    Fukino: “original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health”

    G: “that they are tasked with creating and maintaining”
    Fukino: “Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records”

    First Statement of Dr. Funino
    Second Statement of Dr. Fukino

    One more irresponsible personal attack like that and you are banned for life with no discussion or appeal.

  130. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    I’m asking the courts to follow our written Constitution, even if it is not the popular thing to do.

    You’re suggesting that the Constitution should be ignored as long as he has the popular vote.

    There has never been anyone who had a publicly acknowledged dual character hold the office of President. I think that violates the intent of the natural born citizen mandate. All I am asking is that a court of competent jurisdiction make a determination that clearly should not be made by a branch that is beholding to the electorate. That’s the reason we have the courts. That’s how you stop emotion from trampling on the Constitution.

    I’ll guarantee you this; If Obama was white, you would find a whole lot more people who hold elective office willing to voice their opinion. Currently, anyone who says anything negative about Obama has been called a racist. That started from day one.

  131. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    Doc,

    Neither Dr. Fukino nor Dr. Onaka have made any statements regarding the origin or veracity of Obama’s records. Fukino stated that they have them, and that the say he was born in Hawaii.

    They would have had to say the same thing if they were filed by a hospital or if they were filed by Obama’s grandparent. If Obama was born in Kenya, his grandparent would have lied.

    Tell me how the public interest does not outweigh any privacy concern. Tell me what information on his original vital records is a matter of personal privacy to Obama.

  132. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm #

    Well Doc, the day you start coming to the defense of those of us on the other side of the issue, when we are personally attacked, I’ll consider your threat to be more than just a convenient method of silencing the opposition. Capice?

    Apply it equally, or don’t apply it at all.

  133. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    WTF?: How about someone who is 13 years a resident?

    In fact the meaning of the residency requirement is quite unclear. Is it the 14 tears immeduately preceding office? 14 years total lifetime? 14 continuous years?

    I see no evidence to suggest that the intent of the Constitution was anything other than to entrust this function to the body most accountable to the people. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Congress would do a worse job than the courts.

    The courts have said clearly that they don’t see this as in their purview, especially not once a president is inaugurated. Apparently you think you know better than the courts what their powers are.

    So I ask again, what are your qualifications? I will ask this in response to every single post you make until you answer. If you are going to present your self as all knowing we have a right to know.

  134. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    WTF?: Tell me what information on his original vital records is a matter of personal privacy to Obama.

    All of it.

    So I ask again, what are your qualifications? I will ask this in response to every single post you make until you answer. If you are going to present yourself as all knowing we have a right to know.

  135. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    WTF?: Apply it equally, or don’t apply it at all.

    I intend to. However, in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: “I paid for this microphone.” Capice?

  136. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    WTF?,

    I believe that you are an alien (UFO kind – not foreign kind) and should be dissected for scientific purposes. Do you believe that I should be able to have you dissected unless you can prove that you aren’t an alien? Of course not – the burden of proof falls on me. And likewise, the burden of proving (with evidence admissible in a court of law) that President Obama’s grandmother made a fraudulent registration of his birth lies with you. No judge in this country who respects the Constitution would let you go on a fishing expedition through public records to find evidence – no one has produced any kind of immigration record for Dr. Dunham or child (coming or going), Kenyan birth certificate (that isn’t obviously a forgery and comes with Kenyan officials testifying to its veracity), or anything beyond hearsay and innuendo that suggests that such a fraud took place. In other words, there is no US law which gives you any recourse to pursue this issue. Why do you want to violate the law in order to depose the legitimate president?

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    WTF?: I’m asking the courts to follow our written Constitution, even if it is not the popular thing to do.

    Not speaking of you in particular, but birthers in general are asking the courts to hear cases which the Constitution does not grant them the jurisdiction to hear, and to involve themselves in matters reserved to other branches of government. So from where I sit, the courts are following the Constitution and the birthers are asking them to violate it.

  138. avatar
    misha May 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    “One more irresponsible personal attack like that and you are banned for life with no discussion or appeal.”

    Thank you. I have learned from reading comments, [mildly insulting generalization deleted, Doc.]

    I have written this before, and say it for emphasis: Obama should not give in one iota to that crowd of malcontents. The more noise they make, the worse it gets for the GOP in general.

    So to WTF et al, Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

  139. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    Ditto. Dr C. already said exactly what I was going to and I fully concur.

  140. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    Doc,

    You don’t hear me complaining about the dismissals. Do you? I may not agree with much of the crap presented in the opinions, but I do agree that the parties lacked standing.

  141. avatar
    Scientist May 11, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    Who are you? What are your qualifications? If you are going to call the opinions of learned judges “crap” we should know what expertise you possess. We know about Doc. I am a PhD biochemist. We know Greg, Lupin and several others are attorneys. misha has a web page.

    Pardonez mon francais, mais qui etes vous, monsieur?

  142. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    WTF has a [personal insult deleted, Doc.]:

    G, [personal insult deleted, Doc.]!“On the other hand, we have actual government officials looking at and talking about the veracity of government documents under their charge, that they are tasked with creating and maintaining.”F [personal insult deleted, Doc.] They never discussed the veracity of that document. You know it too. [personal insult deleted, Doc.] [personal insult deleted, Doc.] [personal insult deleted, Doc.]

    [personal insult deleted, Doc.]

    Boy, you can’t stand to be called out, can you? And now all you’ve got as a retort is [personal insult deleted, Doc.] baseless and harmless insults, because the truth hurts you.

    LMAO! You’ve got nothing! Insults coming from you don’t even phase me at all, because you’re credibility is meaningless and you’ve been outed and found out for who and what you are.

    Too bad the record here shows that only one party has issued any lies or deceptions, and that is you.

    All I can be accused of is being incorrect on using a definitive “ALWAYS” in assuming how grammar rules should be used.

    Notice how once it was pointed out that I was wrong, I confirmed it and had no problems admitting I was in error and correcting the record.

    You however, are too [personal insult deleted, Doc.] to admit when you are wrong and didn’t even like when I admitted my mistake…because that admission and the research that proved your [personal insult deleted, Doc.] was all for….nothing!

    LMAO!

    Sorry. I love this country and I love the truth, which is why I’m willing to waste my time calling you out for your petty and deceitful tricks.

    You are just upset because there is nothing you can do that trumps the COLB Obama provided and the officials and official agencies who repeatedly stand behind it.

  143. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    BG,

    Most states have recognized the definciency of permitting home birth to be reported. They now required gynecological exams to be submitted before they accept the report of home birth. That presents a problem. There is no other way to avoid fraudulent birth reports.

    I suspect that some states file the birth report, but don’t accept it as being a trusted filing without additional supporting documentation.

    That’s one of the problems with Obama’s COLB. It says that it was filed, but it doesn’t say that it was accepted.

    Who could answer that question? The Hawaii DOH. They violated their own UIPA laws in order to avoid answering that question.

  144. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Tell me where Fukino did anything more than look to see if Hawaii had vital records for Obama.Your problem is you wouldn’t know what veracity meant if it bit you in the A$$.Punk!

    I love how you keep trying to say that nobody there has seen the document. You seem to keep covering your eyes every time I bring this up, from the Governor of HI’s own words:

    <blockquote)
    You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And 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. … It’s been established. He was born here.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    So there. A direct confirmation of the actual certificate being looked at by someone with knowledge, background and authority to do so, including the hospital, etc. All confirmed directly by the governor.

    End of story. You lose.

  145. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    “I’m asking the courts to follow our written Constitution, even if it is not the popular thing to do”

    You are asking the courts to follow your interpretation of the Constitution- even though voters clearly disagree with you.

    “You’re suggesting that the Constitution should be ignored as long as he has the popular vote”

    What I am suggesting is that 69 million voters clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes a natural born citizen than you do. That there is no significant question about what constitutes a natural born citizen, but if the Supreme Court were to a) say that natural born citizen required two citizen parents and b) said therefore that President Obama was not our current President I would consider that a judicial coupe. It would open the door for the Supreme Court to invalidate any Presidency.

    My interpretation of the Constitution says that only Congress can remove a sitting president.

    “That’s how you stop emotion from trampling on the Constitution.”

    This whole nonsense about ‘two citizen parents” is nothing but emotion. The notion for all practical purposes does not exist until this election. It is not what anyone was taught in school- it is not what the electorate believes, its not what anybody but a few misguided believe.

    “I’ll guarantee you this; If Obama was white, you would find a whole lot more people who hold elective office willing to voice their opinion”

    And I think all birthers are racist. Really-I have more evidence that Birther are racist than you have the any congressman believes Obama wasn’t eligible but was too timid to voice his concerns.

    “Currently, anyone who says anything negative about Obama has been called a racist. That started from day one.”

    Yeah, sure. Dick Cheney has been spreading his slanders right and left, and we just accuse him of being a lieing sleazeball. Nope this is just the reverse racism card- frankly any Congressman who seriously felt that the President wasn’t eligible and didn’t say anything because he was too scared is beneath contempt.

    But you don’t have any evidence about that either do you?

  146. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    “Most states have recognized the definciency of permitting home birth to be reported. They now required gynecological exams to be submitted before they accept the report of home birth. That presents a problem. There is no other way to avoid fraudulent birth reports.”

    That may be the case, but a) you have no evidence there was a home birth and b) even if there was a home birth, the registration would have used the rules in place at the time.

    Requiring a President to provide evidence beyond what was required at the time of birth would often be impossible- as it would be in the case of current President.

    The fact that it is possible that a home birth may possibly be registered frauduantly does not mean that the President must prove after the fact that he a) was or was not born at home and b) that his registration was not fraudualant.

    Frankly- by your standards- any hospital registrations could possibly be fraudulant also. Someone could break into a hospital and forge all the information, and then report it.

    There really is no end to the madness when the standard is beyond any possibility instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

  147. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    “I love how you keep trying to say that nobody there has seen the document.”

    There you go “G”. That’s the kind of stuff that pisses me off. You know damn well that I have not said, nor have I implied that nobody has looked at the original records. The question has to do with the veracity of those records. i.e. If they are not the result of an institutional birth, then Obama lied. If Obama lied about his birth records, what else has he lied about.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    WTF?: Neither Dr. Fukino nor Dr. Onaka have made any statements regarding the origin or veracity of Obama’s records.

    In a way they did. The responsibility for verifying the “veracity of the records” was that of the Local Registrar and the State Registrar of Hawaii in 1961. When Dr. Fukino added the qualification “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures” I think she reasonably indicated that there was nothing irregular in the way the records were filed. If those who were responsible in 1961 for verifying the veracity of the records did their jobs “in accordance with state policies and procedures”, then I take this to be a statement regarding the veracity of the records. There are obviously more direct and informative things that could have been said, but I don’t think we may discount what we have.

  149. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: WTF?: Neither Dr. Fukino nor Dr. Onaka have made any statements regarding the origin or veracity of Obama’s records.In a way they did. The responsibility for verifying the “veracity of the records” was that of the Local Registrar and the State Registrar of Hawaii in 1961.

    That was the only part you needed to say, Doc. It was filed with the local registrar, but we have nothing that would indicate that it was accepted by the state registrar.

    Most COLB’s that I have seen, and all of them where the origin is an institutional birth, have a COLB that says “Date Accepted by State Registrar”. Obama’s only says “Date filed by registrar”.

  150. avatar
    WTF? May 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

    Just to clarify. -All of them that took place in a hospital under state jurisdiction. Some births that take place on a military base do not get accepted.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    WTF?: Just to clarify. -All of them that took place in a hospital under state jurisdiction. Some births that take place on a military base do not get accepted.

    Note folks, that if you use the QUOTE function when commenting, then the highlighted name above is a HYPERLINK to the original comment. COOL?

    I am confused by your comment, WTF?. You made a qualification on Date Filed for births that took place on a military base.

    However, if you are talking about the LONG FORM, then the phrase is pre-printed on the form. All forms are the same. If you are talking about a COLB, then it doesn’t show the origin of the document and you couldn’t know whether it was a military base or not (and why it would make any difference escapes me.)

    Here is another COLB that says Date Filed:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/file0015-cropped.jpg

    For more on this topic, see: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/

  152. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    WTF? quoting G: “I love how you keep trying to say that nobody there has seen the document.”There you go “G”. That’s the kind of stuff that pisses me off. You know damn well that I have not said, nor have I implied that nobody has looked at the original records. The question has to do with the veracity of those records. i.e. If they are not the result of an institutional birth, then Obama lied. If Obama lied about his birth records, what else has he lied about.

    Really? Now you are trying to deny your own words from right above where you quoted?? Let’s look at YOUR own words I was quoting again, shall we?

    Tell me where Fukino did anything more than look to see if Hawaii had vital records for Obama.Your problem is you wouldn’t know what veracity meant if it bit you in the [Personal insult removed, Doc.]!

    So, yes, you were totally implying that nobody actually looked at the document. I could go on, but I see Dr. C has already addressed explaining my post in great detail in his own responses here, which were posted at:

    May 11, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    May 11, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    May 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    No, I think what really pisses you off is we see through your charades and are able to dismantle your false arguments and that through your own previous actions, we’re on to you and your deceptions and word twisting.

    I think you also can’t stand it that I’ve openly called you on your true motivations.

    You’ve been revealed.

  153. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:01 am #

    I believe the COLB is a reflection of the information contained in the long form.

    As you know, there is a place for “Date Filed by Registrar” and a place for “Date Accepted by Registrar”.

    Something would have to be filed, before it could be accepted (although “G” will probably find a biblical translation that fails to follow the standard 🙂 ).

    You’re right. Without knowing the source of the original filing, we can’t be sure if my theory is correct.

    I have seen some COLBs for births that took place on a military base in Hawaii, and the COLB still is only filed, not accepted. It may be that the documentation received from the military base does not comply with some requirement of the state. For some reason, the Hawaii DOH doesn’t want to release that information. Trust me, I’ve requested it.

    When you can’t get the issuing authority to tell us why some COLBs are filed, and others are accepted, people have to speculate. They could arrive at the same conclusion that you did, but it is still speculation.

    Would a COLB issued after Jan 2007 be enough to convince you that Obama’s birth registration was not accepted?

    What do you think happens when someone gives birth at home, and refuses to be examined by a doctor? They are required to report the birth, but good luck getting the CSI team to find the afterbirth. This would be a case in which their COLB should indicate it may be questionable. Don’t you think?

    –I looked over your filed vs. accepted article. I’m not convinced. I always like to compare apples to apples. To draw a reasonable conclusion the birth report must be compared to the resultant COLB.

    (I do like how well the folds, and embossed stamp show up on the scan) 🙂

    I did have a big problem with this statement that you made; “If for some reason Obama’s birth registration had not been “accepted” by the state, then the state wouldn’t issue it.”

    I don’t think that can be a logical conclusion. The state registrar must have criteria that must be met before she will accept the filing. If someone fails to meet that criteria, the birth report would be filed (as required by law), but the state would not accept it. –Do you think they wouldn’t issue a COLB? Wasn’t it you who was pushing the whole “date filed” thing was to comply with proof of birth requirements? If the requirement was to file within a certain period of time, how can the state not issue a birth certificate when they met the filing requirements?

    I know that other states (like Ohio) accept all filings, but require additional information for extra-institutional births, and will not “accept” it until they receive the supporting documents.

  154. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    “You made a qualification on Date Filed for births that took place on a military base.”

    Yes. I have seen a number of COLBs that resulted from births on military bases, that, like Obama’s only had “date filed by registrar”.

    This could be something new. It could be that all COLBs issued after a certain date will show “date filed by registrar”. However, if that is the case, why won’t Hawaii provide documentation to support the change, or any documentation to support the usage of the two terms?

  155. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:17 am #

    G,

    It think you’re trying to play with words. Maybe I just didn’t make my self clear enough.

    I said “did anything more than look to see if Hawaii had vital records for Obama”.

    By nothing more than look to see if Hawaii, I meant that they visually looked at the record in order to see if they had it. I don’t know of any other way to see if they have it. Do you?

    If my wording wasn’t good enough to provide the clarity you desire, ask a question. Do you know how to ask; “Do you mean she never looked at it?” And I would have said “No. I think she looked at it, but that doesn’t mean the birth report has been examined to comply with Obama’s claim of birth in Kapiolani.”

  156. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    WTF?: Something would have to be filed, before it could be accepted (although “G” will probably find a biblical translation that fails to follow the standard 🙂 ).

    Kudos! I thought you displayed a good use of humor here.

    You may be surprised at this, but I prefer laughing with you than at you.

  157. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    G,

    I saw through your charades a long time ago. I was able to dismantle your false arguments, and I placed you in a trap that you couldn’t get out of. That makes you mad. Or was it that Dr. Con made fun of you for getting caught in the trap that steams you? Then you stayed up until the wee hours of the morning trying to figure a way to did yourself out. You’re good, son, but don’t think for a minute that you’re better than me. I was performing investigations before you were old enough to graduate. You’re not the first to try to twist words to support the man who’s paying you, and you won’t be the last. We know how your game is played.

    Your motivations are obvious. You’re here to defend Obama. Nothing wrong with that, until you use obfuscation to do it. Then I’ll call you on it every time.

    You’ve been revealed, again.

  158. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    WTF?: G,It think you’re trying to play with words. Maybe I just didn’t make my self clear enough.I said “did anything more than look to see if Hawaii had vital records for Obama”.By nothing more than look to see if Hawaii, I meant that they visually looked at the record in order to see if they had it. I don’t know of any other way to see if they have it. Do you?If my wording wasn’t good enough to provide the clarity you desire, ask a question. Do you know how to ask; “Do you mean she never looked at it?” And I would have said “No. I think she looked at it, but that doesn’t mean the birth report has been examined to comply with Obama’s claim of birth in Kapiolani.

    Maybe we’re just not understanding each other properly here – I’ll try to give you that benefit of the doubt.

    I’ll try one more time, with the exact SAME quote as before, but I’ll cut it to only the most relevant portion of that quote, so hopefully it is clearer to you:

    And 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.

    So, what I’m saying, per that quote, someone directly looked not just to “see” if they had “vital records” or just an index of records on file, but directly looked at the ACTUAL birth certificate record(s) on file.

    This quote goes to the level of detail of expressly conveying that they confirmed that he was BORN AT Kapi’olani Hospital, by a direct result of examining said records.

    I don’t know how much clearer and more direct it can be.

    Unlike you, I’m not here to play word games. I may be verbose, but I state directly what I intend.

  159. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    “You may be surprised at this, but I prefer laughing with you than at you.”

    And if you pulled back you talons, you might actually be able to exchange ideas. Just a thought.

    I’ll play nice if you will. But no deception. A quote comes from a linked source, and it must be the opinion of the author.

  160. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 12:39 am #

    You’re right. It’s a communication problem.

    “So, what I’m saying, per that quote, someone directly looked not just to “see” if they had “vital records” or just an index of records on file, but directly looked at the ACTUAL birth certificate record(s) on file.”

    I agree with that statement.

    “This quote goes to the level of detail of expressly conveying that they confirmed that he was BORN AT Kapi’olani Hospital, by a direct result of examining said records.”

    That one I have a problem with. Dr. Fukino never made that statement, and it would be nothing more than hearsay from Gov. Lingle. If Dr. Fukino would have said that he was born at Kapiolani, that would have answered a whole lot of questions a long time ago.

    Knowing that this statement from Gov. Lingle “we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii” is not a true account, cannot be used to substantiate Obama’s claims.

    If you can find that news release that Gov. Lingle is referring to, I’ll be happy to look at it. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn’t exist.

  161. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    WTF?: G,I saw through your charades a long time ago. I was able to dismantle your false arguments, and I placed you in a trap that you couldn’t get out of. That makes you mad. Or was it that Dr. Con made fun of you for getting caught in the trap that steams you? Then you stayed up until the wee hours of the morning trying to figure a way to did yourself out. You’re good, son, but don’t think for a minute that you’re better than me. I was performing investigations before you were old enough to graduate. You’re not the first to try to twist words to support the man who’s paying you, and you won’t be the last. We know how your game is played.Your motivations are obvious. You’re here to defend Obama. Nothing wrong with that, until you use obfuscation to do it. Then I’ll call you on it every time.You’ve been revealed, again.

    Sorry, wrong again. Look WTF, just because you have nothing but charades and cheap parlor tricks to go on, doesn’t mean that is how everyone else operations. So, once again, your only retort it to provide projection, where you attack tactics that only you yourself have demonstrated. Sounds like an issue of [personal attack deleted, Doc C.].

    You can’t point to any actual “obfuscation” or “lies” that I’ve done here. Sorry, but again, you want to find that, you need to look in the mirror.

    Hey, I gave you kudos for “playing me” and freely admitted it every step of the way.

    However, I also called you out for being too smug and celebrating too soon, as further analysis quickly proved that your little game and your implications turned out to be much less of a convincing argument than you intended.

    In the end, you are back to nothing but inconclusive statements because the language is ambiguous. That’s not bias, that’s just a reality based on further research. Was I motivated to do some further digging because I was “played”? Yes. But that is far different than “bias”. The results are what they are. My findings are quite clear and directly sourced.

    The only “bias” here is from you, as you are upset by this and wish you could ignore it and continue to play your deceptive game.

    Did I spend the extra time to do said research? Yes, absolutely! Was it late when I posted it? It most certainly was.

    However, that is nothing unusual nor special. If you look through the history of my posting here, you will see that I’m often up that late on a fairly regular basis.

    Also, I’ve made a number of lengthy posts here, often with backup citations, just as many others have too. When a question is out there, we do research and post back on our findings and source them. Pretty standard stuff.

    The only thing that took a little more time here is you provided a link to a book and I promised to come back and read it before replying, which I did. And to the extent that the preview feature would allow, I read not just the tiny excerpt you gave, but as much of the full chapter as was available to get the appropriate context.

    Hate to break it to you, but you were not really an impact on my normal schedule or plans.

    My motivations are to defend against lies, myths and misconceptions.

    Per this particular site’s focus, (i.e. “Obama Conspiracies”) those primarily result in defending Obama, but only against such lies, libel, hyperbolic paranoia and other such crockery.

    If people like you weren’t spending so much time coming up with false attacks, there wouldn’t be a need to defend.

    If legitimate arguments, debate or viewpoints are expressed in a reasonable manner, I don’t have a problem with that at all.

    I have my differences and disagreements with Obama & his administration’s decision and actions and he has to perform his job well enough to earn my vote for re-election, just like anyone else.

    If he doesn’t screw things up, am I likely to vote for his re-election? Absolutely. Many of our modern presidents have served two terms. After the first term, I’ve got to have a pretty good reason for not wanting that person, who is a known quantity by that time, to finish the job they started.

  162. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 1:09 am #

    And now I have to give up aspirations to the presidency because I don’t have a “date filed” or a “date accepted” on my birth certificate. I have “date signed” and “date received.”

  163. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 12, 2010 at 1:12 am #

    WTF?,

    I still haven’t seen you submit any proof that you are not an alien, nor have you submitted yourself for dissection so we can tell for sure.

    I notice that you like to make a big deal about something and then when you are called on it (and can’t produce anything to refute it) we hear nary a peep. You challenged me to provide quotes from Wong Kim Ark, nitpicked me when I provided them (and pointed out one valid issue which resulted from my error) but when I supported my statement and admitted my error, you didn’t respond. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that the ‘two citizen parents’ requirement is something that has no basis in the Constitution or in law – not saying anything about it is essentially a cowardly way of making the admission tacitly.

    So on to the burden of proof – have you gotten anything to give us to support your burden of proof or will you admit that (as far as the law is concerned) there is no controversy here? The third option is to submit for dissection so we can determine whether or not you are an alien.

  164. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 1:32 am #

    Slartibartfast,

    Sorry, bud. I didn’t notice that you had responded. I checked for a while, but then got on to other areas.

    Slartibartfast said “The intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that the two citizen parents’ requirement is something that has no basis in the Constitution or in law”

    If you want to say the two-citizen parent thing has nothing to do with natural-born citizen, you’re going to have to find a way to defeat the case that actually comes closest to defining it. Minor v. Happersett.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
    [Now here’s the part where they talk about people in Obama’s situation] Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    The Court has ever determined that anyone is a natural-born citizen solely due to the fact that they were born on this soil. The closest they came is to say that such a person, whose parents are permanently domiciled here, is as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen. -Guess what? A peanut butter sandwich is as much a sandwich as a ham sandwich, but a peanut butter sandwich is not a ham sandwich. (Not even if the majority of voters say it is 🙂 )

  165. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    WTF?: “This quote goes to the level of detail of expressly conveying that they confirmed that he was BORN AT Kapi’olani Hospital, by a direct result of examining said records.”

    That one I have a problem with. Dr. Fukino never made that statement, and it would be nothing more than hearsay from Gov. Lingle. If Dr. Fukino would have said that he was born at Kapiolani, that would have answered a whole lot of questions a long time ago.

    Knowing that this statement from Gov. Lingle “we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii” is not a true account, cannot be used to substantiate Obama’s claims.If you can find that news release that Gov. Lingle is referring to, I’ll be happy to look at it. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn’t exist.

    I don’t know what press release she is referring to either. On that we agree.

    Where we differ is how we view Gov. Lingle’s statement in these regards.

    My point is that SHE directly is stating he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. That is the statement that SHE is making.

    Your point is that her statement is heresay because it is “second-hand” and that you haven’t seen evidence to back up the 2nd part of her statement about the issued press release.

    Fair enough. That’s just a difference of how we see or care about these things.

    Simply put, I have no problem with taking the Governor at her word on this and am more than sufficiently satisfied with the extent of info provided. You are skeptical and wish to know more. Is that a fair enough distinction between our perspectives on this for you?

    A second and more important distinction is that honestly, I could care less what hospital it was. To me, that is cute little trivia details, but completely irrelevant to the ONLY pertinent issue here – is he an NBC.

    For that, born in Hawaii 100% seals the deal for me. No further details are required. It is nice that I know it is Honolulu, HI specifically, but frankly, I didn’t even need that level of detail and could care less if it occurred there or in Maui, Oahu, etc.

    For me, born on HI, which is a state of the US is all the validation I needed, as it confirms the NBC requirement to my full satisfaction. All actual evidence I’ve seen to date says just that.

    That is why issues of hospital, long form, etc. are just meaningless sideshow distractions without any real purpose or hope of making an impact, from my perspective.

    For you, everything is viewed starting from a much more “sinister” perspective… that somehow it all must be a lie or whatever.

    So while you might be all focused on the aspect of a public release of the hospital, I view it as an irrelevant wild goose chase that you are on and doesn’t change the fact that he was born in HI, period.

    Look, honestly I don’t care or mind that we disagree or see things differently on this, or even that you wish for further details.

    You don’t have to agree with how I see things and I don’t have to agree with you. That’s okay.

    I just hope you fairly understand where you & I see things differently.

  166. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 12, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    WTF? said:

    “If you want to say the two-citizen parent thing has nothing to do with natural-born citizen, you’re going to have to find a way to defeat the case that actually comes closest to defining it. Minor v. Happersett.”

    Sorry, the quotes I gave you from Wong Kim Ark were very clear (a citizen who cannot run for president is NOT as much a citizen as someone who can run for president). They also indicated that the English common law was the appropriate context in which to interpret the Constitution. Furthermore, the court in Ankeny ruled that the precedent of the Wong Kim Ark ruling said that President Obama was a natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett says there might be a question (but doesn’t address the issue) – twenty years later Wong Kim Ark settled the question (to the satisfaction of a real court). According to the law as it has been interpreted for the last 100 years, you’ve got no argument. How are you doing on your burden of proof for fraud?

  167. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: WTF?: I’m asking the courts to follow our written Constitution, even if it is not the popular thing to do.Not speaking of you in particular, but birthers in general are asking the courts to hear cases which the Constitution does not grant them the jurisdiction to hear, and to involve themselves in matters reserved to other branches of government. So from where I sit, the courts are following the Constitution and the birthers are asking them to violate it.

    I agree with Dr. Conspiracy.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve dealt with a so-called “usurper president.” President Rutherford B. Hayes was a de facto president who was called a “usurper” because he didn’t win the popular vote. A bipartisan electoral commission deriving its power from the legislative branch decided the election. They were believed by many to have the discretionary authority to do so. One person contended that if Congress didn’t have that authority, they would be forced to accept even “an alien” as President. I think that’s interesting, because it implies that he believed Congress was the body that determines presidential eligibility.

    Federalist No. 68 implies that the power to determine presidential eligibility lies with the will of the people expressed through the electors of the electoral college. Hamilton believed that this method of election would prevent a foreign power from “raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”

    Our elections weren’t meant to be decided by the Supreme Court. That’s the reason the court emphasized that Bush v. Gore shouldn’t be used as a precedent. In the 19th century, an election was decided by the state supreme court in Maine in violation of the Maine constitution. It almost caused a second civil war. You see, the founding fathers trusted the legislative branch more than the judiciary branch precisely because the legislature is beholden to the electorate. If they decide an election contrary to the will of the people, the legislature can be voted out. A supreme court justice is appointed for life and can be removed only by impeachment.

  168. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    G,

    “I have no problem with taking the Governor at her word on this”

    I have a real problem with the reliability of a witness whose comments do not agree with the official statement made 6 months prior. If the Gov. told her to issue that news release, why didn’t it contain the same information that the Gov. says it should?

    Is releasing that information standard procedure? Did Obama authorize it?

    Further, Dr. Fukino, in the same statement said “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii” which would completely contradict what Gov. Lingle says.

    Either they can release the information or they can’t.
    Either they handled it differently, or they didn’t.
    Either Dr. Fukino released a statement saying that he was born at Kapiolani, or she did not.

    It’s a mess, and they caused it all themselves. If you want to get irritated at people for asking questions, get irritated at the officials in Hawaii, whose conflicting statements and refusal to follow their own UIPA laws have created more questions than they have answered.

    If he wasn’t born in a hospital, he lied. Will you at least admit that?

    If he wasn’t born in a hospital, there is no independent third party (a disinterested party) to validate the claim of birth in Hawaii.

  169. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 2:27 am #

    WTF?: nemocapn,The Electors do not certify the President-Elect. Their discretionary role ends when they place their vote.

    I agree that they don’t certify the President-Elect. I thought you said a discretionary act can’t be challenged in the courts; and yet, aren’t you asking a court to challenge the discretionary acts of the electoral college?

    The President of the Senate (aka Vice President of the United States) is the one who certifies the electoral votes. It’s a ministerial act. You say the court can challenge only ministerial acts. Does that mean you’re going to sue Dick Cheney for certifying Obama?

    A discretionary power in one instance does not create a discretionary power in the other.Do you think the Senate has the discretionary power to judge a 34 year-old qualified to hold the office of President?How about someone who is 13 years a resident?

    Before the President of the Senate certifies the votes, he accepts written objections, if any, by one Senator and one Congressman. Both houses debate the objection and use their discretionary powers to decide what to do about the objection. It’s at this time that someone can bring an objection on the basis of the candidate lacking the constitutional requirements for eligibility. So, yes, I do believe the Senate has the discretionary power to do that. They could’ve asked Obama to prove eligibility to them; and, if he did not, they could determine that the electoral votes for Obama should go to Biden instead.

  170. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    nemocapn,

    That Electoral Commission consisted of 5 Representatives, 5 Senators, and 5 Supreme Court Justices.

    They even identified the judges as Democrats and Republicans. There were 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans. There vote was along party lines.

    I’d have to chalk that one up to: Didn’t work out as planned. Truth is, there is no such thing as non-partisan in D.C. Everything is bought and paid for in one way or another.

    I say it must be decided by SCOTUS. I also say a state should have been the Plaintiff.

    Remember, impeachment is a judicial function performed by the legislature. Judicial Review is a legislative function performed by the Judiciary. I don’t think anyone would say that the Legislature can’t repeal an unconstitutional law.

    Impeachment may be the only way to remove a de jure President, but the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution tells me that a de facto officer can be ousted.

  171. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 3:26 am #

    Either they can release the information or they can’t.
    Either they handled it differently, or they didn’t.
    Either Dr. Fukino released a statement saying that he was born at Kapiolani, or she did not.

    Here’s how I simply see it. Birthers want to have it both ways. They claim they want answers and get mad that privacy laws protect most of the info they want.

    Then if some official makes a statement in support of the existing documents, they get upset and want to parse & twist the words & try to interpret them to mean or imply something different than what that official intended.

    If an official makes a statement giving more information that they probably should, birthers quickly whine that now the official is violating privacy laws.

    So which is it? From my stand point, there are a lot of very human and very exasperated officials trying to say in their own words that yes, they have the documents of his birth and yes he was born there and what part of yes don’t you folks understand…

    From my standpoint, the birthers are unhappy because the officials are vouching for the document and all your arguments are just intentional pettiness desperately looking to play more word game tricks as you try to find loopholes to keep pretending that they are not verifying the document is what everyone says it is.

    So in summary, I see all your complaints here as more of your word play games and much ado about nothing. I don’t share your concerns at all and am completely satisfied by the evidence presented.

    If you don’t like it, why don’t you take some actual action that could make a difference and:

    A) Call or write to the HI DOH yourself for answers or clarification.

    B) Contact the HI Gov’s office for answers or clarification

    C) Contact the hospital for answers or clarification

    D) File some sort of grievance or lawsuit with any of the above.

    If you aren’t going to take those actions, your just playing more games and whining for the sake of whining.

    If he wasn’t born in a hospital, he lied. Will you at least admit that?

    Huh? I guess my simple answer is NO.

    Honestly, I don’t understand or get your point here.

    A born baby has no real awareness or recollection of what hospital he was born in, only what he’s been told. So, if under some scenario he was wrong, it would not mean that he ever lied, just that he was mistaken.

    Not that I even buy into that scenario of yours in the first place.

    If he wasn’t born in a hospital, there is no independent third party (a disinterested party) to validate the claim of birth in Hawaii.

    I don’t buy that argument at all either. Completely irrelevant.

    The signed & certified COLB is an official document to be taken at face value by definition.

    It says born in Honolulu, HI. One of the likely reasons that such a COLB short form doesn’t include additional fields of info, such as which hospital is probably because such info is really irrelevant to the overall issue.

    You would have to have strong evidence to PROVE fraud or otherwise to even legally challenge it. Without such, there is simply no getting around that.

    Who cares which hospital or which building or even if he was born in a barn or a tree in the park there or on top of a post office mailbox for that matter. As long as it was in HI, he’s NBC.

  172. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 3:46 am #

    And what will be your response if the Supreme Court decides not to take the case based on the political question doctrine?

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    At this point, it would seem to me that Obama’s best move would be to release the COLB in the height of the election where the opposition is screaming the loudest about Obama not being born in Hawaii. He will make the birthers look utterly stupid, so stupid in fact that the war, the economy and healthcare will not be the driving factor in the election, but rather returning to office the only sane folks in the race.

  174. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    WTF?: Truth is, there is no such thing as non-partisan in D.C. Everything is bought and paid for in one way or another.I say it must be decided by SCOTUS. I also say a state should have been the Plaintiff.Remember, impeachment is a judicial function performed by the legislature. Judicial Review is a legislative function performed by the Judiciary. I don’t think anyone would say that the Legislature can’t repeal an unconstitutional law.Impeachment may be the only way to remove a de jure President, but the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution tells me that a de facto officer can be ousted.

    Last time I looked SCOTUS is in D.C., and they’re not apolitical either even though they try to be. So, you think that if the legislative branch can perform a judicial function, then the judicial branch can perform a legislative function? Isn’t that what’s called “judicial activism?” I take it you support judicial activism.

  175. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    WTF?: I say it must be decided by SCOTUS.

    Then why not appeal Ankeny? The Indiana Court of Appeals (a real honest-to-goodness court) ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and the Indiana Supreme Court let that stand. A reasonable person would think that the birthers would have their appeal in fron of the SCOTUS the next day. But they haven’t. A reasonable person would have to conclude that they are afraid of the answer and prefer whining about how courts keep turning them down.

  176. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Scientist said:

    “Then why not appeal Ankeny? The Indiana Court of Appeals (a real honest-to-goodness court) ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and the Indiana Supreme Court let that stand. A reasonable person would think that the birthers would have their appeal in fron of the SCOTUS the next day. But they haven’t. A reasonable person would have to conclude that they are afraid of the answer and prefer whining about how courts keep turning them down.”

    Because the smart birthers know that there are no solid grounds to appeal Ankeny and wouldn’t want to start with the millstone of that decision hung around their necks (I’m sure that getting defeated on the merits would negatively impact their fund raising) and the dumb ones have no idea how the courts work – they just want someone to agree with the propaganda they’ve been feed and get the usurping commie mo-fo out of the White House…

  177. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    nemocapn,

    political question – I don’t speculate on what I will do. I serves no useful purpose.

    Is judicial review, judicial activism? It can be, but it is not necessarily so. Is it an exception to the Separation of Powers Doctrine? Yes, but it is a power that was expressly granted to the Court.