Main Menu

Long form required for passport

Scott Brown: However, since a long-form is necessary for a Passport in my state, they will still issue a long-form.

In some parts of the country (specifically the border states Texas and California ) where there are specific problems with vital statistics fraud, it is sometimes necessary to provide additional documentation beyond the standard birth certificate to obtain a passport. The long form birth certificate, that contains the name of the attendant (for example a midwife)  may provide that additional documentation. Nine midwives in Texas were convicted of Vital Statistics fraud (see article here and report here), and over 1,000 false certificates have been identified. Certifications from these midwives would be suspect. In such a situation, the vital statistics agencies would reasonably provide a long form (although it may take longer and involve additional cost). It has been charged by the ACLU in CASTELANO v CLINTON that the US Department of State, the federal agency responsible for issuing all passports in the US, is unreasonable in their documentation requirements for Latino children delivered by midwives in south Texas.

The Texas Vital Statistics web site says:

What formats of birth certificates are available online? …

* Standard size (short form or abstract): The most commonly issued format because it satisfies most purposes, including registering a child for school or sports, obtaining a passport for a person born after 1963 if born in a hospital and obtaining a driver license in most states. If the birth record is not available in this format or if the state you live in requires the full size for a driver license, a full-size birth certificate will be issued instead.

* Full size (long form): Used most often to obtain a passport for a person born at home and/or before 1964. It’s also typically required for purposes of dual citizenship, Indian Registry and immigration. Because this format contains information that can facilitate identify theft, we recommend that you order this format only when it is required….

The problem with Texas short forms is not that the short forms lack the usual information necessary to obtain a passport (those items enumerated on the Department of State web site). The problem is that the Department of State, because of past fraud fundamentally distrusts birth certificates from Texas signed by midwives, and wants more documentation. What the Texas Vital Statistics web site does not say is that even the long form may not be enough.

Dr. Conspiracy

This, or something like this, explains the Scott Brown story.  Other people in Texas have the same experience. Given this completely plausible scenario, I think the personal attacks against Brown, calling her a liar for claiming that her short form birth certificate looked essentially like Obama’s but was not good enough for a passport, is flat wrong, and lacking in the evidentiary rigor that I would hope to see by commenters here. It took me about 5 minutes to find the Texas Vital Statistics web page.

Of course one might blame Scott Brown for all of this for refusing to name the state, but that would be the same kind of thing as blaming Obama for the Conspiracy Theories because he hasn’t released his long form birth certificate. The presumption of innocence should be applied equally to both sides.

See also my comment below:

126 Responses to Long form required for passport

  1. avatar
    misha June 9, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    Oops.

    I used my NYS abstract to obtain two passports, and driver license – so I did not go any further. Also, for when I worked as a long haul driver, I had to provide my driving record and criminal abstracts.

    So I was basing my response on experience.

    Sorry for the snark.

  2. avatar
    misha June 9, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    I would add, I used that abstract to obtain a driver license in NYS and PA.

  3. avatar
    Loren June 9, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    As it happens, I picked up a U.S. passport application at the post office the other day, thinking of precisely this issue. Here’s what it says on the subject:

    1. PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP

    a. APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate. A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.

    Notice, of course, that what is described is exactly what appears on a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, even down to the specification of when the record was “filed.”

  4. avatar
    Black Lion June 9, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    Doc, you forgot the other part of Scott Brown’s statement. She claimed that her COLB “looked just like Obama’s.” She was adamant about that. And then she implied that she had applied for her passport in LA. It was only when her story started to fall apart was her veracity called into question. And she was asked what state she was born in. She has steadfastly refused to provide that information. If she was being upfront and honest, that wouldn’t have been a problem. But she was attempting to be a “concern troll” and it seemed like her goal was to diminish the HI COLB. So I do understand the article and that some COLB’s may not be suffcient to get a US Passport. But in this case the issue was more about Scott being a birther and trolling to stir things up on this site. Just my 2 cents regarding the issue.

  5. avatar
    James June 9, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fdsz1iqEE
    Get this witness to LTC Terry Lakin!

  6. avatar
    richCares June 9, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    just curious, what state that requires a long form for a driver’s license (and possibly passport) and would allow the form being applied for in LA. This story seems invented as does some of her other stories. (Appeal to Authority) She is a cut and paste troll and I don’t believe her. Sorry, the proof is in the pudding!

  7. avatar
    richCares June 9, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    “Get this witness to LTC Terry Lakin!”
    .
    James, James James, what a nice laugh that would get, (chief elections clerk – sure)
    click that paypal!

  8. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    Loren:… A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.

    so if a birth certificate contains all this information a state can you refuse you a federal document ?

  9. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    BatGuano:
    …. can you refuse you ….

    apologies. need coffee.

  10. avatar
    misha June 9, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    James: Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fdsz1iqEEGet this witness to LTC Terry Lakin!

    I went to the video. At 2:00, there is the Stormfront logo – a neo-Nazi group. It is produced by the CCC, which is the Klan in business suits. Also, the person making the claim states he was a contract employee. He says he now lives in Kentucky. It’s all hearsay, sorry.

    Have you contacted the Hawaii DOH, and confirmed his claim of employment? Have you contacted Jensen, and told him about this video? Put your money where your mouth is.

  11. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 9:52 am #

    James: Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fdsz1iqEE
    Get this witness to LTC Terry Lakin!

    assuming this is the absolute fact, jack……………….. the IO in the lakin case ruled last week that obama’s eligibility has no bearing on lakin’s refusal to obey orders. this video would mean nothing to the case.

  12. avatar
    richCares June 9, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    Stormfront logo – a neo-Nazi group
    .
    is James a neo Nazi?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    BatGuano: so if a birth certificate contains all this information a state can you refuse you a federal document ?

    Passports are issued by the federal government, not a state. But yes, the federal government can refuse to issue a passport based on some short form (abstract) birth certificates.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    James: Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fdsz1iqEE
    Get this witness to LTC Terry Lakin!

    The problem is that conspiracy theorists will believe almost anything that agrees with their cause. So this video that cannot be authenticated, will be most certainly believed by many of the birthers.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    Loren: As it happens, I picked up a U.S. passport application at the post office the other day, thinking of precisely this issue.Here’s what it says on the subject:—1. PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP a. APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate.A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.—Notice, of course, that what is described is exactly what appears on a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, even down to the specification of when the record was “filed.”

    That is generally the case, but there are exceptions in special cases, as described by the Texas vital statistics web site. Also:

    SPECIAL NOTICE – CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE – PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS

    http://www.cityoforange.org/depts/cityclerk/passport.asp

  16. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    Even the Freeper admins pulled this one with the comment

    “Storm Front not welcome her”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2530540/posts

  17. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Passports are issued by the federal government, not a state. But yes, the federal government can refuse to issue a passport based on some short form (abstract) birth certificates.

    not trying to be a pain doc, just trying to be clear on this point.

    if a birth certificate contains all the above information, that the federal government has said are the requirements to obtain a passport, they can still refuse you a passport ?

  18. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    :SPECIAL NOTICE – CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE – PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS
    http://www.cityoforange.org/depts/cityclerk/passport.asp

    interesting. this wasn’t the case 2years ago when i got my daughter’s passport. curious what happened.

  19. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That is generally the case, but there are exceptions in special cases, as described by the Texas vital statistics web site. Also:SPECIAL NOTICE – CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE – PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS
    http://www.cityoforange.org/depts/cityclerk/passport.asp

    Does this say that, in addition to Puerto Rico, CA & TX have BC forging problems? I can see that might be a problem in those states where you have large populations & a large number of immigrants. I don’t see that being the case in HI.

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    Dr C. While I respect your call to civility, and ultimately it is your board, Scott Brown made a comment, and refused to substantiate it. A comment that directly contradicts what is on the State Department’s website. Anyone can make an unsupported claim (how many birthers come here saying that all it takes is x dollars and hawaii will issue a long form without question). Further, Scott Brown has shown herself to be a plagerizer, perfectly willing to pass off the work of other birthers as her own research. If I was genuinely motivated, I could go back and see what other incidents raise character questions of Ms. Scott Brown. Point is, it’s just not worth it to me. It’s not my job to research and support the claims of those arguing against me. Most birthers expect us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Obama was born in Hawaii, and disprove, beyond any doubt that he was born in Kenya. The least they can do is provide some support for their own unsubstantiated claims.

    So while I do respect your call to civility as the provider of this forum, I do not shed a tear for any ill words spoken regarding Scott Brown.

  21. avatar
    Lupin June 9, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    Doc:

    The reason we dismissed Scott Brown’s story was because he claimed (I may be paraphrasing) that
    (1) his BC was exactly like Obama’s
    AND
    (2) he couldn’t get a US passport with it.

    It’s the combination of these two statements (1) + (2) taken together that (so far) has not been proven true.

    I don’t read your post as meaning that Texas does require a BC more detailed than Obama’s in order to grant a US passport at all.

    Could you please clarify?

  22. avatar
    Lupin June 9, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Doc:

    To be crystal clear:

    The issue here is not “birth abstracts” or “short-form” BC — which might contain less info that Obama’s (in which case the argument is moot) — but whether the exact same type of COLB issued by HI to Obama could be construed as insufficient to obyain a passport in the jurisdictions you have mentioned.

  23. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    James: Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!

    This guy says he was a temp. Hard to believe he was “Chief” of anything. But suppose he worked in the Elections office. They have no birth information on anyone, only voter registration. Voter registration only lists your address and a declaration that you are a citizen, 18 or older and not inelugible due to being incarcerated, etc. No birth info at all. Plus, I don’t even know that Obama ever registered to vote in Hawaii. He left for college shortly after he turned 18 and may have registered where he went to school. Certainly, the last 15 years or so, he was registered in Illinois.

  24. avatar
    Dave June 9, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    James: Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!

    Taitz has a post on her blog that she wants to depose this person. As part of discovery in what lawsuit, I wonder. Far as I know the only lawsuit vaguely related to her that isn’t dismissed is Barnett v. Dunn, to which she is not a party, and which has nothing to do with the President. Maybe she means she wants to get an affidavit.

    Here are some questions for the birthers:
    1) does this person exist?
    2) is there actually such a position as chief elections clerk for hawaii?
    3) did this person actually hold that position?
    4) does hawaii have the practice of vetting voter registrations? (not all jurisdictions do — in fact, I don’t know of any that do)
    5) does this vetting include checking birth records?
    6) why does it make sense that the vetters have access specifically to Hawaiian birth records, when voters are not required to be born in Hawaii?
    7) why would this person be vetting the registration of Barack Obama, who was not registered to vote in Hawaii at that time (if ever)?

    It concerns me that birthers don’t see when a story makes no sense whatsoever, they only see that it agrees with the conclusion they want to reach.

  25. avatar
    racosta June 9, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    James: Chief Elections Clerk of Hawaii – OBAMA NOT BORN THERE!!
    .
    temporary help (claimed by this storm trooper) could not have been “Chief”, and in any event, an elections chief would not have access to BC records. Birthers fall for such silly stuff. This story definitely a HAHAHA!

  26. avatar
    Arthur June 9, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Dr. C.:

    I think this is very interesting information, but I’m confused on a number of points. Maybe you’ll be able to clear things up for me. In the state of Texas, for example:

    What agency decides whether a person needs to provide long-form documentation to get a birth certificate, rather than short-form documentation?

    Second, what standards are used to determine who needs to provide long-form documentation?

    Finally, when applying for a passport, does a state office mail birth record information directly to the federal govt. or is the document mailed to an individual applying for a passport who then mails it to the federal govt.?

    Now two question about California. First, what exactly is a photoreproduction? Is this simply a fancy term for photocopy? Second, how is this document certified?

    Thanks for your help.

  27. avatar
    Dave June 9, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    Are you kidding me, this “Chief Elections Clerk” thing originated on stormfront? Does Taitz know she propagating a story from stormfront? Does she know who stormfront is? I seriously doubt stormfront is exactly in tune with her strongly held views on Israel.

  28. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    Dave: Are you kidding me, this “Chief Elections Clerk” thing originated on stormfront? Does Taitz know she propagating a story from stormfront? Does she know who stormfront is? I seriously doubt stormfront is exactly in tune with her strongly held views on Israel.

    “Politics makes strange bedfellows”

  29. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    on the california abstract front, i found this:

    ” Q. I have a “Certified Abstract” that I obtained in the 1990s. I am now being told it is not sufficient (e.g. passports), and I need to get a full embossed certificate. What should I do?

    A. California law allowed for the issuance of abstracts for a period. Due to the increase of fraud, outside agencies became stricter in the forms of vital records they would accept, so State law was changed so abstracts are no longer issued. Unfortunately, that means you will probably need to replace any abstracts with a newer full certified copy. If you have an abstract issued from our office, please contact us to discuss replacement. ”

    not sure if it had “other certification” but it was missing an embossed seal. not sure when they stopped issuing the abstract but my daughter’s COLB from 2006 does have the seal ( ………. i 95% believe. i don’t have it in front of me to verify ).

  30. avatar
    misha June 9, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Dave: Are you kidding me, this “Chief Elections Clerk” thing originated on stormfront? Does Taitz know she propagating a story from stormfront? Does she know who stormfront is? I seriously doubt stormfront is exactly in tune with her strongly held views on Israel.

    I have noted many times, that Taitz and Berg are getting involved with vicious anti-semites, who will turn on them once they are no longer useful. They are in dangerous territory.

  31. avatar
    Passerby June 9, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Thanks for posting this information. Actually, if I hadn’t been so busy this morning, I was going to ask if anyone knew if there were states–either several states, or at least one or two high-population ones–where this was true. I mean states that issue a short form BC that’s not acceptable for a passport, and a long form that is acceptable. This is a claim that I see so often, that I wondered if there was a factual basis for it.

    Granted, I probably could have found that information myself; but in my defense, it would probably have taken me more than five minutes, since I wouldn’t have known where to look.

    My question to Scott really was sincere–I wasn’t intending to call him/her a liar out of hand. I’ve actually been a bit curious about that question (in general), although I guess not curious enough to actually research it. Anyway, no disrespect was intended.

    If it’s Texas and California where this is an issue, I can see why so many people believe this. Those two states account for a lot of people. That makes a little more sense now.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    JoZeppy: Dr C. While I respect your call to civility, and ultimately it is your board, Scott Brown made a comment, and refused to substantiate it. A comment that directly contradicts what is on the State Department’s website. Anyone can make an unsupported claim (how many birthers come here saying that all it takes is x dollars and hawaii will issue a long form without question). Further, Scott Brown has shown herself to be a plagerizer, perfectly willing to pass off the work of other birthers as her own research. If I was genuinely motivated, I could go back and see what other incidents raise character questions of Ms. Scott Brown. Point is, it’s just not worth it to me. It’s not my job to research and support the claims of those arguing against me. Most birthers expect us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Obama was born in Hawaii, and disprove, beyond any doubt that he was born in Kenya. The least they can do is provide some support for their own unsubstantiated claims.So while I do respect your call to civility as the provider of this forum, I do not shed a tear for any ill words spoken regarding Scott Brown.

    Jozeppy there’s also the story of her “friends” who lived on an American military base and them being worried that their kids would not be American citizens and instead be german citizens at birth.

  33. avatar
    Rickey June 9, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    Of course one might blame Scott Brown for all of this for refusing to name the state, but that would be the same kind of thing as blaming Obama for the Conspiracy Theories because he hasn’t released his long form birth certificate. The presumption of innocence should be applied equally to both sides.

    That strikes me as false equivalency. The difference is that Obama has provided all of the information necessary to establish that he was born in the United States. Scott Brown has provided nothing but words.

    Scott Brown claimed that she could not obtain a U.S. passport with a COLB which is exactly like Obama’s. She raised this issue in the context of challenging the notion that Obama’s COLB could have been sufficient for him to obtain a passport. When she was asked to back up her statement, she steadfastly refused to provide any more information. It’s not like she was asked to reveal any personal information or go to the trouble of posting a redacted image of her COLB. All she had to do was tell us in what state she was born, and there are those among us who would have been happy to do the research to determine if her birth state has ever issued a COLB which is “exactly like Obama’s.” Other posters here, myself included, have shown no reluctance to identify where we were born.

    That said, we all recognize that the 50 states have used many different birth certificate forms over the years, and it is certain that some of those forms would be rejected if submitted with a passport application today. The birth certificate which was issued a week after my birth in New York does not have a raised seal and the signature of the registrar has become smudged, so I’m sure that it would not be acceptable today.

    So I don’t necessarily doubt that Scott Brown couldn’t get a passport with her short form birth certificate or COLB (or whatever her birth state calls it). What I doubt is her claim that her COLB is exactly like Obama’s, and she could clear that up by identifying her birth state.

    When I make an assertion here, I either back it up with a link or, at the very least, I will provide support for it when asked. This is a give and take forum, not a forum where we make speeches and then refuse to take questions afterward.

  34. avatar
    Black Lion June 9, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    Rickey: Of course one might blame Scott Brown for all of this for refusing to name the state, but that would be the same kind of thing as blaming Obama for the Conspiracy Theories because he hasn’t released his long form birth certificate. The presumption of innocence should be applied equally to both sides.That strikes me as false equivalency. The difference is that Obama has provided all of the information necessary to establish that he was born in the United States. Scott Brown has provided nothing but words.Scott Brown claimed that she could not obtain a U.S. passport with a COLB which is exactly like Obama’s. She raised this issue in the context of challenging the notion that Obama’s COLB could have been sufficient for him to obtain a passport. When she was asked to back up her statement, she steadfastly refused to provide any more information. It’s not like she was asked to reveal any personal information or go to the trouble of posting a redacted image of her COLB. All she had to do was tell us in what state she was born, and there are those among us who would have been happy to do the research to determine if her birth state has ever issued a COLB which is “exactly like Obama’s.” Other posters here, myself included, have shown no reluctance to identify where we were born. That said, we all recognize that the 50 states have used many different birth certificate forms over the years, and it is certain that some of those forms would be rejected if submitted with a passport application today. The birth certificate which was issued a week after my birth in New York does not have a raised seal and the signature of the registrar has become smudged, so I’m sure that it would not be acceptable today. So I don’t necessarily doubt that Scott Brown couldn’t get a passport with her short form birth certificate or COLB (or whatever her birth state calls it). What I doubt is her claim that her COLB is exactly like Obama’s, and she could clear that up by identifying her birth state. When I make an assertion here, I either back it up with a link or, at the very least, I will provide support for it when asked. This is a give and take forum, not a forum where we make speeches and then refuse to take questions afterward.

    Rickey, excellent points. Scott Brown was given the opportunity to back up or provide evidence to support her claim, she declined to do so. By doing that she brought upon herself the questions regarding whether or not her claim was truthful. And since she has steadfastly declined to provide us with what states she was born in, it makes people question her original intent or whether or not she was just trolling.

  35. avatar
    Scott Brown June 9, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Black Lion:
    Doc, you forgot the other part of Scott Brown’s statement.She claimed that her COLB “looked just like Obama’s.”She was adamant about that.And then she implied that she had applied for her passport in LA.It was only when her story started to fall apart was her veracity called into question.And she was asked what state she was born in.She has steadfastly refused to provide that information.If she was being upfront and honest, that wouldn’t have been a problem.But she was attempting to be a “concern troll” and it seemed like her goal was to diminish the HI COLB.So I do understand the article and that some COLB’s may not be suffcient to get a US Passport.But in this case the issue was more about Scott being a birther and trolling to stir things up on this site.Just my 2 cents regarding the issue.

    First off, I have on more than one occasion given clues about where I live. I highly respect the Internet and the implications of allowing people to know your exact location. I have stated implicitly that I live in the panhandle of Texas. I was born in that region, I have not lived in this area my entire life, but have returned and live there presently. I have NEVER once tried to obscure that information.

    Secondly, BlackLion may feel my story fell apart, but I do not. I have NOT lied, nor have I changed any of the facts that I have given you. I applied for my passport prior to an international trip I was taking, which happened to be right before Katrina hit. I applied for my passport at my local post office. I included what I thought was required for the passport (my DL and my COLB – WHICH LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE OBAMA’S THAT IS POSTED ONLINE). My husband applied for his at the same time, but we happened to have his long-form from the state of Colorado. He received his passport – the envelope was post stamped from LA.

    I, however, received a letter from the State Dept. in LA that said I needed to submit a long-form BC, as that was required for a Passport. I went to my local court house to inquire about this and was assured that I just needed to go across the street and VERBALLY ask for my long-form and they would happily give it to me for an extra fee, as it would take extra time to look it up on microfilm and print a copy of it. Amazing that even Texas, like Hawaii doesn’t keep paper copies of the long-form – but they DO still exist.

    I proceeded across the street to my Health Department and wah-la! I asked for a long-form, paid the fee, and about 20 minutes later I got a certifified copy of my long-form, which the lady at the Health Dept. said I should have told them I was getting a passport the first time I requested my BC, as yes, a long-form is necessary. Now – if ONLY Texas (or border states) requires long-forms, that I do not know. All I know is I HAD to have my long-form. My COLB that looks just like Obama’s was NOT sufficient.

    My trip was fast approaching and I still had no passport, so I called to inquire about the possible arrival date. I was told that Katrina had delayed the processing. Again, I don’t work for the State Dept. and I have no clue why Texas passports are/were processed out of LA, but both mine and my husbands were.

    I’m not sure how I can substantiate my claim, other than to say I am NOT a liar. My story has not changed one iota, and it is the full and honest truth. I’m not a troll and have no interest in causing problems. I have an opinion on the issue at hand, and if you find my posts at other sites, will see that my story and opinions do not change – I am also civil in my discourse, because I believe we are all on the same team with different view points. I respect your view point, it would be nice if you could respect mine without calling me a troll and a liar.

    BlackLion and others have chosen to read INTO my account things that I did NOT say, or refuse to read my statement for what it says and not for what they WANT it to say. That, I cannot help. Assassinating my character will NOT change the facts of my story, which have NOT changed since I first related them. IF there are, and I don’t believe there are, any discrepancies, it is human error and not an intentional lie.

    To clear up any confusion. I was born September 1961 in a hospital, delivered by a OB doctor in Texas, one month after Obama. My COLB looks identical to Obama’s that is posted online, but it was NOT sufficient to get my passport, The State Dept. required that I obtain my long-form. Both of my parents were US Citizens at the time of my birth, and there was nothing unusal about my birth circumstances. My parents were never divorced, although my father was deceased due to medical conditions prior to my passport application – so there are no step-mother/father’s involved either, as my mother has never re-married. I am an only child. As for myself, I have only been married one time, and I’m still married to the same man who also applied for his passport at the same time. I have worked in the public sector for the local government in an administrative capacity, but I’m currently retired. My husband is employeed to this day in the private sector for the same employer since I met him – having nothing to do with the government at all. Both of his parents have never been employed by the government, nor are any of his siblings or their spouses. We have two children together and neither of them were married at the time of the application, in fact, both were still in high school..

    Dr. C. claims that border states might require long-forms due to location. Yet, Hawaii – having just been admited to the Union would not ALSO encounter some of the same issues that would be present with a border state??? Ummm.okay – I’m not buying it, but I’m sure others here will.

    I totally and completely believe Obama was born in Hawaii – if that makes me a birther – so be it. I totally and completely believe that Obama has a long-form in Hawaii as well, He says he was born in Hawaii and I believe him. It doesn’t matter where he was born though. Obama freely admits that he was governed at birth by British Law – and I believe him on that issue as well. Persoanlly, in my opinion, being governed at birth by TWO countries precludes you from being a Natural Born Citizen of either country – thus, IN MY OPINION, Obama is NOT eligible to be POTUS.

  36. avatar
    Scott Brown June 9, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Jozeppy there’s also the story of her “friends” who lived on an American military base and them being worried that their kids would not be American citizens and instead be german citizens at birth.

    And exactly how is that a lie? My son was in cub scouts with her son. Is it so implausible that her son was born in Germany and that we as a group of mothers discussed his situation as to his eligibility for POTUS? What mother doesn’t think about her first born son being President?????? I didn’t think too much about it at the time, but the conversation came back when all the hoopla over Obama’s eligibility surfaced.

    I don’t recall saying that she felt her son was a German citizen. If I did, then I surely misspoke – she merely was, as were the rest of us, under the impression that since he was not born on US Soil that he was not eligible to be POTUS. Collectively, as a group, we all had the same general interpretation of that requirement for POTUS.

    Are you people so desperate to believe any one that posts here with an opposing view is a liar that you grasp at ANY post and declare it to be a lie?

    I feel sorry for you, that you cannot accept with dignity, someone that has a differing opinion, that they may be as fine an upstanding and honest citizen as yourself.

  37. avatar
    Scott Brown June 9, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    So while I do respect your call to civility as the provider of this forum, I do not shed a tear for any ill words spoken regarding Scott Brown.

    That’s unfortunate and I feel sorry for you as well. I feel we are all Americans (except for those out of the country that post here), and we are all on the same team. We happen to have differing opinions on the same subject. I respect your point of view and I would never call you a liar, a troll, or speak ill of you just because you happen to disagree with me. Not only is it immature, it is Un-American.

    It’s truly unfortunate that we cannot be civil to one another just because we disagree.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Scott Brown: And exactly how is that a lie? My son was in cub scouts with her son. Is it so implausible that her son was born in Germany and that we as a group of mothers discussed his situation as to his eligibility for POTUS? What mother doesn’t think about her first born son being President?????? I didn’t think too much about it at the time, but the conversation came back when all the hoopla over Obama’s eligibility surfaced. I don’t recall saying that she felt her son was a German citizen. If I did, then I surely misspoke – she merely was, as were the rest of us, under the impression that since he was not born on US Soil that he was not eligible to be POTUS. Collectively, as a group, we all had the same general interpretation of that requirement for POTUS. Are you people so desperate to believe any one that posts here with an opposing view is a liar that you grasp at ANY post and declare it to be a lie?I feel sorry for you, that you cannot accept with dignity, someone that has a differing opinion, that they may be as fine an upstanding and honest citizen as yourself.

    Its been explained to you fake scott brown. Germany’s citizenship laws are different than ours. Germany doesn’t give automatic citizenship for Non-german parents who have kids in Germany. You misspeak all the time fake scott brown. You also plagiarize birther essays and pass the research off as your own. It’s not that you have an opposing view its that you don’t have the honesty and decency to own up to it when you’re caught in a lie. So far you’ve been nothing but deceitful on this site.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    Scott Brown: That’s unfortunate and I feel sorry for you as well. I feel we are all Americans (except for those out of the country that post here), and we are all on the same team. We happen to have differing opinions on the same subject. I respect your point of view and I would never call you a liar, a troll, or speak ill of you just because you happen to disagree with me. Not only is it immature, it is Un-American. It’s truly unfortunate that we cannot be civil to one another just because we disagree.

    Its not that people disagree with you but when you make up stories and they end up being false then yes you are called out as a liar. LIke for instance your supposed “research” where you claimed Buchanan was the 14th President which was wrong he was the 15th. You lifted information from birthers and didn’t even bother to check the varacity of it. Then claim you’re not a birther especially when you go as far as to plagiarize birther essays and pass them off as your own research.

  40. avatar
    racosta June 9, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    “i feel we are all Americans (except for those out of the country that post here), and we are all on the same team”
    .
    wow, where did this come from? Do you think we haven’t noticed the gist of your posts (cut and paste plagerizing). Are you doing satire here, your hate has been shown in full bloom. As some would sasy “Gimme a break”!

  41. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    Scott Brown: Not only is it immature, it is Un-American.

    How is it not “Un-American” to deny the legitimacy of an official document produced by a state government which is signed, sealed & stated to be prima facie evidence? By denying the COLB you are, in effect, calling the HI DOH liars & worse. Or are you now accepting the COLB?

  42. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Sef: How is it not “Un-American” to deny the legitimacy of an official document produced by a state government which is signed, sealed & stated to be prima facie evidence? By denying the COLB you are, in effect, calling the HI DOH liars & worse. Or are you now accepting the COLB?

    “Scott Brown: I’m not a birther but….”

  43. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    “Scott Brown: I’m not a birther but….”

    Let’s hear his answer to the last question.

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Scott Brown: That’s unfortunate and I feel sorry for you as well. I feel we are all Americans (except for those out of the country that post here), and we are all on the same team. We happen to have differing opinions on the same subject. I respect your point of view and I would never call you a liar, a troll, or speak ill of you just because you happen to disagree with me. Not only is it immature, it is Un-American. It’s truly unfortunate that we cannot be civil to one another just because we disagree.

    I have said it before, and I will say it again. I do not consider those who seach to undermine an election with undemocratic means “on the same team.” Those who spent 8 years trying to find any reason to chase President Clinton out of office are not “on the same team” as I am. I disagreed with President GW Bush, but never, NEVER, did I once question is legitimacy or seach out fantasy theories of law, that has no support in the legal community to find excuses to why he should lack legitimacy. I even disagreed with the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore, but once the court ruled, that was it.

    You see, not all opinions are equal. You are free to hold them, and I fought for your right to hold those opinions. However, sometimes, opinions are wrong. It is not being closed minded when I say I have examined the law, and looked at a wide body of law journal articles, and examined who is, and is not supporting the Vattel theory. I can say, with little doubt, that the is no debate in the legal community as to whether you need to have 2 parent citizens to be a natural born citizen. It is not being closed minded, immature, or Un-American. It is being objective and honest. Likewise, I can look to see weed out all stories behind the COLB. One side has all the evidence, the other side has nothing. So again, which side is being immature and un-American. The side that searches out any theory, and ignores any facts to undermine a legally elected president, or the side that says “sorry, you are wrong both on the law and facts” and supports their position with both?

    I have no problem having a free discourse and debate on issues with those with differing opinions than myself. There is nothing wrong with differing opinions. I don’t believe in supply side economics, but that is a legimate economic theory held by genuine economists. Just because someone holds an opinion, no matter how dearly, doesn’t make legitimate.

    Oh…and what about cutting and pasting someone else’s work and calling it your own extensive research? Is that mature and American?

  45. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 9, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    A concern troll AND a scold. How charming.

  46. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Scott Brown:
    Are you people so desperate to believe any one that posts here with an opposing view is a liar that you grasp at ANY post and declare it to be a lie?

    an interesting post. you haven’t replied to any comment/response in weeks then……. came in like gangbusters when it was said that your germany story was a “lie”. the law of germany/US is what it is and i will agree with you that we have no way of knowing if the conversation you had with friends (and the opinions there in) is true or false unless we were physically there.

    but……

    i do find it very interesting all the comments you skipped in this thread to get to that point.

    comments about you before your reply:

    – OP : 13 ( not directly about you, scott, but…….)
    – scott’s lack of stating state: 7
    – scott as alleged plagerizer: 1
    – scott in germany: 1

    22 comments and you accuse use at grasping at one.

  47. avatar
    BatGuano June 9, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    Scott Brown: I feel sorry for you, that you cannot accept with dignity, someone that has a differing opinion, that they may be as fine an upstanding and honest citizen as yourself.

    as for this quote……… my best friend of 30years and i have never seen eye-to-eye politically. he is an absolutely fine and honest man .

  48. avatar
    HellT June 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Dr. C. sez, “In some parts of the country (especially our border states) where there are specific problems with vital statistics fraud, it is sometimes necessary to provide additional documentation beyond the standard birth certificate to obtain a passport.”

    In previous research I did on this, I only found Texas and California short (abstract) birth certificates disallowed as primary evidence of citizenship for obtaining a passport. In the case of California short forms, it was ascribed to a programming error in their system; I assume that apparently resulted in insufficient data being put on the form. For Texas, IIRC it had to do with the imprint of the official seal on their short form not meeting federal requirements.

    I thus took it that those two states’ short forms were disqualified on the basis of bureaucratic technicalities, rather than it specifically being a concern over potential vital statistics fraud.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    Doc from my own experience of getting a passport a few years back I used my short form California birth certificate and got my passport in Connecticut. I remember a person calling me and asking Where I went to primary school, where I went to middle school, what city state town etc.

  50. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 9, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Scott Brown: I respect your point of view and I would never call you a liar, a troll, or speak ill of you just because you happen to disagree with me. Not only is it immature, it is Un-American. <

    Un-American? How do you figure that?

    Nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed an insult-free life. The First Amendment applies to heckling, too, and the more ridiculous you act, the more you open yourself up to it.

    The only un-american act would be to bring in the government and rip your internet priviledges away because we disagree with you. No one here is advocating that.

    So you’re a concern troll, a scold, AND entitlement-minded. This does not make for a good combination to be posting on a website that’s focused on the diametrical opposite of what you think to be true.

    If you’re going to continue to be the lone vegetarian at the all-meat buffet restaurant, I suggest you toughen up a bit. You’re not doing whatever side you’re on today any good with this slop.

  51. avatar
    Gordon June 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    We haven’t used a long form for anything in ILL. for many yrs. That would incl. passports.

  52. avatar
    Zixi of Ix June 9, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Dave:
    (snip)
    Here are some questions for the birthers:
    1) does this person exist?
    2) is there actually such a position as chief elections clerk for hawaii?
    3) did this person actually hold that position?
    4) does hawaii have the practice of vetting voter registrations? (not all jurisdictions do — in fact, I don’t know of any that do)
    5) does this vetting include checking birth records?
    6) why does it make sense that the vetters have access specifically to Hawaiian birth records, when voters are not required to be born in Hawaii?
    7)why would this person be vetting the registration of Barack Obama, who was not registered to vote in Hawaii at that time (if ever)?It concerns me that birthers don’t see when a story makes no sense whatsoever, they only see that it agrees with the conclusion they want to reach.

    1). I can’t hear the video, so I don’t know the name.
    2). This, from the state of Hawaii and dated in 2004, refers to a Chief Election Officer, not “clerk”. It opens to a pdf, fyi: http://hawaii.gov/elections/factsheets/fsvs532.pdf
    3). Here is a list of people who currently serve on the board. The minutes of meetings going back to 2004 are available. The information should be in those records. http://hawaii.gov/elections/ec/
    4). Hawaii requires what every other state I’ve lived in requires. Photo ID *or* alternate forms of ID; power bill, paycheck, etc. They do *not* list “Birth Certificate” as an accepted form of ID.
    I can’t see how they would vet anyone since they allow people to wait until they reach the polling place to show any ID at all: http://hawaii.gov/elections/voters/registration.htm/view?searchterm=register%20to%20vote
    “If you do not provide the required proof of identification with this Affidavit on Application for Voter Registration, you will be required to do so at your polling place, or with your voted absentee mail-in ballot. ”
    5). Doubtful. They don’t list having or showing a birth certificate as being necessary to register and don’t show it as an allowed form of ID. This makes sense, because a birth certificate does nothing to prove that you are a current resident of the state, whereas a current driver’s license, power bills in your name, or a pay stub in your name would prove just that. http://hawaii.gov/elections/voters/registration.htm
    6). It doesn’t make sense. None at all.
    7) It makes no logical sense, as you point out, but birthers are more than willing to discard sense in favor of whatever sounds good to them.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    @ Scott Brown

    First my apologies for your comment languishing in moderation so long. It’s been a very hectic day, and I just found it.

    I urge anyone interested to take the link above and GO READ THIS POST because it is important for the Scott Brown discussion and tell us which state she was born in!

    Based on some Passport assistance web sites, I have learned that the “long forms” from exactly two states, California and Texas, are required for passports. Short forms from other states are sufficient. Let me be clear, the fact that the long form is required is not due to a deficiency of the content of the short form. When you say that your form looks just like Obama’s, I don’t doubt this for a moment–all short forms are pretty much the same. It is because of particular instances of fraud that additional documentation is required in those states, not because the standard short form is different on those two states. I commented about “border states” because I had read an article to the effect that some registered midwives were fraudulently signing certificates in border states, but apparently the only two border states affected were Texas and California.

    You made the comment: “Obama freely admits that he was governed at birth by British Law” and I would say that this is not precisely accurate. “Obama freely admits” is precisely stated as “the Obama campaign published a web page from FactCheck.org that says.” “Governed at birth by British Law” is not an accurate citation, but rather FactCheck says that “[the] British Nationality Act of 1948… governed the status of Obama Sr.s children..” This is a huge difference. A foreign government may grant its citizenship to anyone in the world it chooses, as did the UK in the case of Obama. However, that foreign government may not govern the person unless that person comes under its jurisdiction, which Obama was NOT when he was born, since you agree that event took place in Hawaii. While Great Britain granted citizenship to Obama at birth, it had no jurisdiction over him whatever and it did not “govern” him, but only governed his citizenship status in the UK. This is the key distinction to make when examining the introduction to the 14th Amendment, and evaluating the claims of divided citizenship/loyalty.

  54. avatar
    Passerby June 9, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Well, Scott, your passport story makes perfect sense to me now, with Dr. Conspiracy’s info about Texas.

    I really have wondered about this. Given the requirements listed on the passport application–there aren’t that many elements required–it seemed odd to me that any state would issue a COLB that didn’t meet them. Like I think I said, in that case why issue a COLB at all? It still seems to me to be a pretty silly way for a state to run its business. But OTOH, it sounds like it might be an ad hoc response to security or fraud issues that have come up, so oh well.

    Anyway, makes sense now. It is still not true in general that a long form is required for a passport, but if it’s true in these two large states, I can see why so many people might think it is.

    As far as your conversation with your friends, I’m not sure why you’re getting skepticism about that one–although, again, I’m not sure exactly what you said in your original post. But if it was just that you had this conversation with your friends about whether the kids born in Germany would be natural born citizens, that seems natural enough. It sounds like you all were misinformed, but that happens sometimes. That doesn’t mean you didn’t have the discussion. So yeah.

    The part about Obama not being eligible because of his father’s citizenship is where I really disagree with you. Others are more familiar with the case law and such, but for me, at first glance, my problem is this. It was never any kind of a secret that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen. If it was also known that this would make him ineligible for the presidency, then he would never have run. He wouldn’t have had the support to run. Instead, Democrats would have been talking about him the way Republicans used to talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger: “It’s too bad he can’t run for president.”

  55. avatar
    Jules June 9, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    For the record, I have never stated that Scott Brown was lying. Rather, I assumed that the authority issuing Scott Brown’s birth certificate failed for some reason to meet State Department standards. I also noted that Hawaii’s certificates were designed to State Department standards.

    I would have to disagree with Scott Brown’s suggestion that Hawaii would have experienced issues similar to those experienced by California and Texas. Hawaii is the most geographically isolated state in the US. It is quite easily to tell who and what is arriving in Hawaii, as all arrivals will be by plane or ship. (Hawaii’s rabies-free status confirms the ability to control entry of animals to Hawaii in a way that you cannot do in any other state. Similarly, smuggling a person to Hawaii from outside the US would be rather more difficult than smuggling a person into Texas.)

    Scott Brown’s “twofer” assertion still does not address a point that I have raised before: If any person born with dual nationality is automatically excluded from Presidential eligibility, then you are arguing that Presidential eligibility is decided not solely or even primarily by the laws of the United States, but rather by the laws of nearly 200 countries. Any one of them could choose to enact a law stating that all people born US citizens shall be deemed to be its citizens from birth. Is our constitution such that Kim Jong Il could tinker with North Korean nationality law to disqualify all foreseeable generations of US citizens from the Presidency?

    A disqualification based on dual nationality would raise a number of questions about what constitutes a nation, government, and nationality for such purposes. Would a person claimed as a citizen under the laws of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus be disqualified? What about someone who holds a passport issued by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (not to be confused with the island nation known as Malta)? Would the US regard its citizens who are Overseas Citizens of India as dual US/Indian nationals, or would it treat them as merely holding a long-term Indian visa?

  56. avatar
    Izzy June 9, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    My brother was born in Richardson, Texas, and he easily used his short form BC to receive a passport in, oddly enough. California. My daugher and husband have used their California short forms to get passports in California. These rules must have changed over the years.

  57. avatar
    richCares June 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    It appears that scott brown’s passport story was told as a means of discrediting Obama. Howeve, it is obvious Obama has one and has travled on it, a US Passport for some time. So what is the issue and why did scott tell us her story. Is she saying Obama has no US Pasport since he is not a citizen? What was her point. (sorry, her posts almost never have points). The main issue with her is that she has no issue!

  58. avatar
    SFJeff June 9, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Oh I get her issue. And Scott, really if you had told the story you told a few days ago it would have all been quite a bit more clear.

    Her point was that in certain instances a long form is required for positive identification. And it appears to be the case in two instances. But since she says she believes the President was born in Hawaii, what form of BC is necessary is moot.

    Okay I don’t really understand her argument now.

    Anyway- Scott- you are welcome to your opinion, but the voters disagreed with you. They had no issue with Obama’s father being a non-citizen. Nor did the Electoral College or Congress or chief Justice Roberts.

    So, you are welcome to your opinion, just like I think the United States legally should have declared war before invading Afghanistan or Iraq. But my opinion, and your opinion are contrary to what voters seem to think, and what Congress thinks, and its unlikely our opinions will matter much.

  59. avatar
    G June 9, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    JoZeppy: You see, not all opinions are equal. You are free to hold them, and I fought for your right to hold those opinions. However, sometimes, opinions are wrong. It is not being closed minded when I say I have examined the law, and looked at a wide body of law journal articles, and examined who is, and is not supporting the Vattel theory. I can say, with little doubt, that the is no debate in the legal community as to whether you need to have 2 parent citizens to be a natural born citizen. It is not being closed minded, immature, or Un-American. It is being objective and honest. Likewise, I can look to see weed out all stories behind the COLB. One side has all the evidence, the other side has nothing. So again, which side is being immature and un-American. The side that searches out any theory, and ignores any facts to undermine a legally elected president, or the side that says “sorry, you are wrong both on the law and facts” and supports their position with both?

    I have no problem having a free discourse and debate on issues with those with differing opinions than myself. There is nothing wrong with differing opinions. I don’t believe in supply side economics, but that is a legimate economic theory held by genuine economists. Just because someone holds an opinion, no matter how dearly, doesn’t make legitimate.

    Oh…and what about cutting and pasting someone else’s work and calling it your own extensive research? Is that mature and American?

    Agreed and well said.

    Look, I appreciate that Scott Brown has come here to finally give more details about her BC story and say what state it was….but why did it take months just to answer those simple questions? *sheesh*

    No, I do not feel that Scott Brown has been sincere here at all and I think JoZeppy has clearly and well stated why you can be entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    Finally, I think the key point is that Scott Brown’s COLB from her example does NOT look “exactly” like Obama’s HI COLB and that is a key distinction that she refuse to accept.

    Every state has its differences. If the forms from other states, such as TX, etc. are insufficient for a passport, I can honestly see folks initially being confused by their own experiences and forms and buying into some of the “birther” surface arguments. However, once someone learns and it is explained what the requirements are and what HI provides and that it is sufficient, these arguments no longer hold.

    To continue to hold onto or push such “birther” positions after being educated on those facts is the problem.

  60. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    That link from City of Orange said copyright 2002-2010 and the law was changed in July 2003, to stop identity theft, which had been endemic in California because someone put the California birth index on the internet.
    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Documents/CHS-CertifiedCopiesBirthandDeathPamphlet-2010-01-Merged.pdf
    You have to go to a notary now to get a birth certificate good enough for “travel”

    Look at the note at the bottom of this:
    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/CertifiedCopiesofBirthDeathRecords.aspx
    So they will provide this medical info on their normal birth certificate, but tell you it is not necessary for “travel”.

    Could it be California has done away with abstracts, but some other administrations haven’t noticed yet?

    In any case, at the top of the second link it also says:
    “At this time, the Office of Vital Records can only accept orders submitted by mail. Please follow the 6 Steps listed below to place your order.”
    Seems you cannot even apply in person, but Scott said she went across the street for a long form certificate from Texas.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    Sorry but I don’t buy it guys. Fake Scott Brown filibustered and filibustered for a month on this story. Now conveniently after Doc posts information of his research she adjusts her story to match. After her recent plagiarism and taking credit for other birther’s work I just don’t think she’s telling the truth here.

  62. avatar
    DavidH June 9, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    I was born in Texas prior to 1961. I have a Texas short form BC. It has all of the information required to get a passport, namely: “A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.”

    Although I already have a passport, I suspect that if I did not, my short form would get me one.

  63. avatar
    Black Lion June 9, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    Scott Brown: First off, I have on more than one occasion given clues about where I live. I highly respect the Internet and the implications of allowing people to know your exact location. I have stated implicitly that I live in the panhandle of Texas. I was born in that region, I have not lived in this area my entire life, but have returned and live there presently. I have NEVER once tried to obscure that information. Secondly, BlackLion may feel my story fell apart, but I do not. I have NOT lied, nor have I changed any of the facts that I have given you. I applied for my passport prior to an international trip I was taking, which happened to be right before Katrina hit. I applied for my passport at my local post office. I included what I thought was required for the passport (my DL and my COLB – WHICH LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE OBAMA’S THAT IS POSTED ONLINE). My husband applied for his at the same time, but we happened to have his long-form from the state of Colorado. He received his passport – the envelope was post stamped from LA. I, however, received a letter from the State Dept. in LA that said I needed to submit a long-form BC, as that was required for a Passport. I went to my local court house to inquire about this and was assured that I just needed to go across the street and VERBALLY ask for my long-form and they would happily give it to me for an extra fee, as it would take extra time to look it up on microfilm and print a copy of it. Amazing that even Texas, like Hawaii doesn’t keep paper copies of the long-form – but they DO still exist.I proceeded across the street to my Health Department and wah-la! I asked for a long-form, paid the fee, and about 20 minutes later I got a certifified copy of my long-form, which the lady at the Health Dept. said I should have told them I was getting a passport the first time I requested my BC, as yes, a long-form is necessary. Now – if ONLY Texas (or border states) requires long-forms, that I do not know. All I know is I HAD to have my long-form. My COLB that looks just like Obama’s was NOT sufficient.My trip was fast approaching and I still had no passport, so I called to inquire about the possible arrival date. I was told that Katrina had delayed the processing. Again, I don’t work for the State Dept. and I have no clue why Texas passports are/were processed out of LA, but both mine and my husbands were.I’m not sure how I can substantiate my claim, other than to say I am NOT a liar. My story has not changed one iota, and it is the full and honest truth. I’m not a troll and have no interest in causing problems. I have an opinion on the issue at hand, and if you find my posts at other sites, will see that my story and opinions do not change – I am also civil in my discourse, because I believe we are all on the same team with different view points. I respect your view point, it would be nice if you could respect mine without calling me a troll and a liar.BlackLion and others have chosen to read INTO my account things that I did NOT say, or refuse to read my statement for what it says and not for what they WANT it to say. That, I cannot help. Assassinating my character will NOT change the facts of my story, which have NOT changed since I first related them. IF there are, and I don’t believe there are, any discrepancies, it is human error and not an intentional lie.To clear up any confusion. I was born September 1961 in a hospital, delivered by a OB doctor in Texas, one month after Obama. My COLB looks identical to Obama’s that is posted online, but it was NOT sufficient to get my passport, The State Dept. required that I obtain my long-form. Both of my parents were US Citizens at the time of my birth, and there was nothing unusal about my birth circumstances. My parents were never divorced, although my father was deceased due to medical conditions prior to my passport application – so there are no step-mother/father’s involved either, as my mother has never re-married. I am an only child. As for myself, I have only been married one time, and I’m still married to the same man who also applied for his passport at the same time. I have worked in the public sector for the local government in an administrative capacity, but I’m currently retired. My husband is employeed to this day in the private sector for the same employer since I met him – having nothing to do with the government at all. Both of his parents have never been employed by the government, nor are any of his siblings or their spouses. We have two children together and neither of them were married at the time of the application, in fact, both were still in high school..Dr. C. claims that border states might require long-forms due to location. Yet, Hawaii – having just been admited to the Union would not ALSO encounter some of the same issues that would be present with a border state??? Ummm.okay – I’m not buying it, but I’m sure others here will.I totally and completely believe Obama was born in Hawaii – if that makes me a birther – so be it. I totally and completely believe that Obama has a long-form in Hawaii as well, He says he was born in Hawaii and I believe him. It doesn’t matter where he was born though. Obama freely admits that he was governed at birth by British Law – and I believe him on that issue as well. Persoanlly, in my opinion, being governed at birth by TWO countries precludes you from being a Natural Born Citizen of either country – thus, IN MY OPINION, Obama is NOT eligible to be POTUS.

    Scott Brown, if you had told the story the way you did above, people would have given you the benefit of the doubt. Posters here would have researched the issue and informed you why your state was different than other states. I must have missed it but you never had stated you were born in TX. With Doc’s article your issue makes more sense. However the fact remains that you were born in TX (as you have claimed) and the President was born in HI. Each state is different. And as Rich and others have stated their so called COLB’s or short forms from HI were suffcient to get a US Passport. So you might not accept that but those are the facts. Many individuals that try and discredit the state of HI can never provide any proof or any examples that any kind of fraudulent activity ever occured in HI once they became a state.

  64. avatar
    James June 9, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Awesome interview by Mario Apuzzo to Post & Email:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/09/the-post-emails-exclusive-interview-with-eligibility-attorney-mario-apuzzo/

  65. avatar
    richCares June 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    James, stop posting your silly and bigoted links here, stay at Post @ Fail or go back to the storm troopers.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    richCares: James, stop posting your silly and bigoted links here, stay at Post @ Fail or go back to the storm troopers.

    Hey, hold on a minute. If if weren’t for silly and bigoted links, we wouldn’t be here.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: In any case, at the top of the second link it also says:
    “At this time, the Office of Vital Records can only accept orders submitted by mail. Please follow the 6 Steps listed below to place your order.”
    Seems you cannot even apply in person, but Scott said she went across the street for a long form certificate from Texas.

    California has a complicated and convoluted vital records system so nothing surprises me. However, most states have local offices where you can indeed walk in and get a certified copy — at least you can get a short form. If you want a long form then you typically have to to go the county where you were born or order it from the State. The State may or may not let you walk in depending on how long it takes them to get the copy, and where the copy is.

    One cannot extrapolate office procedure from one state to another.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Izzy: These rules must have changed over the years.

    Exactly.

  69. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Sorry but I don’t buy it guys. Fake Scott Brown filibustered and filibustered for a month on this story. Now conveniently after Doc posts information of his research she adjusts her story to match. After her recent plagiarism and taking credit for other birther’s work I just don’t think she’s telling the truth here.

    I agree….how exactly are we to take these sudden claims of truthfulness right after dodging the issue of the COLB for a month, and right afterScott Brown was busted plagerizing? Sorry…you were busted claiming someone else’s work as your own “extensive research.” Why should we believe anything she says?

  70. avatar
    richCares June 9, 2010 at 11:46 pm #

    “Hey, hold on a minute. If if weren’t for silly and bigoted links, we wouldn’t be here.”
    .
    that was great, but now you owe me a keyboard! (spilled coffee)

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    Black Lion: Doc, you forgot the other part of Scott Brown’s statement. She claimed that her COLB “looked just like Obama’s.”

    Not at all. There is nothing at all odd with her saying her COLB looked just like Obama’s. I haven’t seen a Texas COLB lately, but I would expect it to look just like Obama’s (except for minor wording changes and graphic design). The problem with Scott Brown’s COLB is not what it looked like, but the state were it came from, a state that had had vital statistics fraud problems.

  72. avatar
    richCares June 10, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    All of scott’s stories were “filed” not “received” on Doc C’s site, so they are worthless.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2010 at 12:15 am #

    Arthur: Maybe you’ll be able to clear things up for me.

    I’ll take a shot at it.

    What agency decides whether a person needs to provide long-form documentation to get a birth certificate [I presume you mean a Passport], rather than short-form documentation?

    The United States Department of State

    Second, what standards are used to determine who needs to provide long-form documentation?

    The overriding principle is that the Department of State only issues passports to US citizens and nationals. It’s important that they don’t make mistakes, so they set the rules to minimize the possibility that someone gets a US passport that shouldn’t. Significant portions of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs manual related to passport application processing and examination is not available to the public, so we don’t exactly know what their rules are in detail. But based on an article I read some time back, there were issues with certain midwives in Texas who filed false birth certificates, and so there are bogus birth certificates in the Texas system, and just having a Texas birth certificate (one from California) is not conclusive proof of citizenship. I presume they know the marks of the fake ones, but require the long form to check.

    Finally, when applying for a passport, does a state office mail birth record information directly to the federal govt. or is the document mailed to an individual applying for a passport who then mails it to the federal govt.?

    Passport applications are not taken at “state offices” but rather federal offices within a state, primarily post offices. By requiring you to apply in person, they can check that the person applying for the passport looks like the picture (and probably for other reasons). Once the application is made, it is forwarded to a federal passport processing facilities, where the documentation is looked at by passport examiners who are experts at detecting fraudulent birth certificates. Birth certificates have security features, which I won’t discuss further, that help in this determination.

    Now two question about California. First, what exactly is a photoreproduction? Is this simply a fancy term for photocopy? Second, how is this document certified?

    It’s a general term for a copy of an image, either a photocopy, or printing from microfiche, or printing an image scanned and stored on a computer. Once the photocopy is made, a raised seal is applied (or the security paper has a multi-colored seal preprinted) and somebody in authority certifies the copy by signing it.

  74. avatar
    Lupin June 10, 2010 at 2:42 am #

    Dr C:

    I’m sorry to say so but I think you have just muddied the waters in order to make a point that ultimately is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    If I understand correctly, you have stated that in Texas and in California (in certain circumstances which remain vague, at least me me) the Passport issuing authorities might require a long-form BC as opposed to a short-form issued by that state (because of fraud).

    This bears no relevance on BCs issued by the State of HI. Further we still don’t know how these various forms (ie: HI COLB, short-form CA, long-form CA, short-form TX, long-form TX) differ from each other, so we have no way to make a valid comparison between Obama’s COLB and Scott Brown’s hypothetical TX or CA BC.

    Finally, again if I understand correctly, the underlying issue is forgery; in other words the TX authorities do not trust their own short-form and want a back-up document. They don’t claim that they need different information; just authentication of the same information. Fair enough.

    But to the extent the State of HI authenticated Obama’s COLB, this argument becomes moot. No additional information is in fact required.

    Scott Brown’s initiial post (or series of posts) remain as deceitful (or to be kind addle-brained) as ever, and nothing you wrote changes this.

  75. avatar
    Jules June 10, 2010 at 5:13 am #

    Scott Brown:
    Dr. C. claims that border states might require long-forms due to location.Yet, Hawaii – having just been admited to the Union would not ALSO encounter some of the same issues that would be present with a border state???Ummm.okay – I’m not buying it, but I’m sure others here will.

    As I have noted before, the location of Hawaii is such that it is probably more difficult to commit birth fraud in Hawaii than in any part of the mainland US. As to the statement about Hawaii being a new state, I don’t see how this is relevant. Is Scott Brown suggesting that Hawaii Territory did not establish a reasonable system of birth registration for the State of Hawaii to inherit? Is she suggesting that Hawaii did not have adequate laws, regulations, and practices in place when it became a state? Is she suggesting that a new state is more likely than an old one to have corrupt registrars? If there is not evidence to support any of these propositions, then Scott Brown has no reasonable basis for her belief that Hawaii would encounter issues similar to those discussed for California and Texas.

    As indicated by the Castelano v. Clinton settlement agreement, the concerns with births in certain border states deal with established fraud by certain midwives. Further inquiries only need to be made if the birth was reported by a midwife on the State Department’s Suspect Birth Attendant List. This list is based upon actual evidence that particular people committed fraud in particular places. There is not any evidence for them to regard as Hawaii’s standard birth registrations as suspect.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    Lupin If I understand correctly, you have stated that in Texas and in California (in certain circumstances which remain vague, at least me me) the Passport issuing authorities might require a long-form BC as opposed to a short-form issued by that state (because of fraud).

    There are no passport issuing authorities in states of the United States. All passports are issued by the Federal government, by the US Department of State. So I am saying that the Federal government does not trust the birth certificates of some states. The issue is fraud rather than forgery. Some persons legally entitled to file birth certificates in two states filed significant numbers of them for persons who were not born in the United States. The Department of State needs to know who signed the original certificate before they would trust it. It is a matter of content. (See linked articles below).

    I understood Scott Brown to argue: my birth certificate looks like Obama’s birth certificate. If my birth certificate is not good enough for a passport, his isn’t either. That would be a reasonable deduction if the rejection of Brown’s passport was because of its content or design. However, the rejection of Brown’s passport was the combination of specific problems of fraud in Texas (and California) and the content. That is, Scott Brown’s passport problem is a special case, and not applicable for general conclusions.

    This from the Texas Midwifery Board regarding fraud (see other discussion of fraud from the report):

    Regulation The practice of midwifery was unregulated in Texas at the time of the last Sunset Review, unless a midwife’s actions or negligence rose to the level that criminal authorities became involved. Responding to legislative mandates in 1997, the board has successfully transitioned from a public health advisory committee to an effective health-occupation regulatory board. Since the adoption of complaint review rules in 1999 (22 TAC § 831.161), the board has imposed disciplinary sanctions including revocation, suspension, and administrative penalties; has accepted a voluntary surrender; has denied applications from two midwives previously convicted of birth certificate fraud; and continues to review and resolve complaints in open public meetings, which both the midwife and the complainant are invited but not required to attend. The board has resolved all complaints to date without requiring the expense and delay of a hearing through the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In the 2003 legislative session, the board was authorized to temporarily suspend the letter of documentation of a midwife on an emergency basis, should evidence or information indicate that continued practice by that midwife constitutes a continuing and imminent threat to public welfare.

    http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/79threports/mb/ser.pdf

    See also this article: Delivered by a midwife in South Texas? No passport for you

    For untold numbers of Latinos born in the Southwest who were delivered by midwives, obtaining a passport has become almost an impossibility, according to a class action suit filed by the ACLU on September 9th. The suit alleges the State Department is sending this group of passport applicants on a “scavenger hunt” and when presented with requested additional documentation, denying the applications anyway.

    Lupin: They don’t claim that they need different information; just authentication of the same information. Fair enough.

    Sometimes I add irrelevant information to my comments, and I fear I have muddied the waters by talking about security features. That’s not what is happening here. The problem with Texas birth certificates is with content: the short form doesn’t say who filed the certificate. In some sense the problem with Texas birth certificates is the same problem that birthers complain about with Hawaiian birth certificates. In both cases the issue is fraud. The Department of State questions Texas birth certificates because certain persons legally entitled to file certificates (midwives at home births) were filing them fraudulently. The birthers claim that an Obama relative also filed a birth certificate, possibly fraudulently. In both cases fraud could be ruled out by the long form showing who filed the certificate. The reason the birther argument breaks down is that there is evidence of significant fraud in Texas, while the possibility that an Obama relative filed a certificate for an African-born Obama is wildly implausible and lacking in any credible evidence.

    There is some additional complication here because the State of Texas says that long forms are not required if the infant was born in a hospital. Either the latest Texas short form includes an indication of a hospital birth, or the Department of State has an easy way to find out from the Texas whether the certificate originated in a hospital. Both are plausible.

    The point of all this, is that many posters here called Scott Brown a liar for saying: my birth certificate looks just like Obama’s but it was not good enough for a passport; they told me I needed to get a long form. The fact is that someone from Texas will have exactly that experience.

    For general information about Vital Records fraud, see: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

  77. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 10, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    JoZeppy: I agree….how exactly are we to take these sudden claims of truthfulness right after dodging the issue of the COLB for a month, and right afterScott Brown was busted plagerizing? Sorry…you were busted claiming someone else’s work as your own “extensive research.” Why should we believe anything she says?

    Exactly I’m sure if Doc posted other information her story would have matched that as well. She refused to hint or even tell us the state up until Doc posted this information now she states Texas and a date before 1964

  78. avatar
    Black Lion June 10, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Exactly I’m sure if Doc posted other information her story would have matched that as well. She refused to hint or even tell us the state up until Doc posted this information now she states Texas and a date before 1964

    I understand what Doc is saying but I still think that Scott was being a bit disinenous. It wasn’t until Doc posted the article on the fraud in TX and CA that all of a sudden Soctt was “born in Texas”. That seemed awfully convenient for Scott. If I remember she also attempted to use another article regarding WND I believe to defend why she thought the way she did. The bottom line is that Scott was attempting to discredit Obama and his COLB and has seemed to “luck” into a plausable explanation.

  79. avatar
    Jules June 10, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    Black Lion:
    I understand what Doc is saying but I still think that Scott was being a bit disinenous.It wasn’t until Doc posted the article on the fraud in TX and CA that all of a sudden Soctt was “born in Texas”.

    Being born in Texas is neither implausible nor rare. It has happened to millions of people. Being born in California is even more common.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 10, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    Jules: Being born in Texas is neither implausible nor rare. It has happened to millions of people. Being born in California is even more common.

    That’s not the point Jules. Don’t you find it odd that for over a month “Scott Brown” wouldn’t tell us the state then waits until Doc posts this information to claim one of those two states. After her recent bit of plagiarism its hard to take her word

  81. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 10, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    About the German birth:
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) said: “Jozeppy there’s also the story of her “friends” who lived on an American military base and them being worried that their kids would not be American citizens and instead be german citizens at birth.”

    Scott Brown said: “And exactly how is that a lie? My son was in cub scouts with her son. Is it so implausible that her son was born in Germany and that we as a group of mothers discussed his situation as to his eligibility for POTUS? What mother doesn’t think about her first born son being President?????? I didn’t think too much about it at the time, but the conversation came back when all the hoopla over Obama’s eligibility surfaced.

    I don’t recall saying that she felt her son was a German citizen. If I did, then I surely misspoke – she merely was, as were the rest of us, under the impression that since he was not born on US Soil that he was not eligible to be POTUS. Collectively, as a group, we all had the same general interpretation of that requirement for POTUS.”

    The truth is that Scott Brown argued that the reason why according to her, the boy could not be POTUS was the same as why Obama was ineligible: double citizenship. Obviously, that can only mean that she thought that the boy had German citizenship.

    I remember this because I intervened to quote the new law since 1 Jan 2000 (obviously, the birth Scott referred to happened before, meaning the boy had absolutely no right to German nationality, unless both parents were stateless at the time of birth). The law now gives people born in Germany from Jan 1, 2000 the right to German citizenship provided they give up other citizenship between the age of 18 and 23 (we later had an argument about whether that included giving up the citizenship of other countries that do NOT require revocations, the answer to that now seems to be NO in the case of Schengen members Belgium and Switzerland, but YES in the case of the United States – meaning the child would never have double citizenship).

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Staatsangeh%C3%B6rigkeit#Durch_Geburt_im_Inland_.28so_genanntes_Optionsmodell.29

  82. avatar
    Black Lion June 10, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    James: Awesome interview by Mario Apuzzo to Post & Email:http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/09/the-post-emails-exclusive-interview-with-eligibility-attorney-mario-apuzzo/

    The interview was awesome as far as how spectacularly Mario could be wrong about his so called interpretation of the law.

    First of all note how the Post and Fail attempts to give Mario’s so called credentials but neglects to inform their audience that Mario is a glorified ambulance chaser and DUI lawyer. That is the first sign that even the pathetic Post and Fail knows that Mario has no clue….

    “Mario Apuzzo was born on June 30, 1956. He graduated from Jamesburg High School in New Jersey in 1975. He obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He then attended Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia, from which he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He then continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, CA, at its McGeorge School of Law and in Salzburg, Austria, which also included coursework in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has also studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples. Mr. Apuzzo founded his law firm in 1983, at which time he went into private practice in New Jersey. He currently has his law offices at 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831. He is engaged in the general practice of law which includes trials and appellate work in both the state and federal courts.”

    Then we find out that the noted Constitutionalist Mario was so interested in the whole eligibility issue that he became involved AFTER Obama was elected….

    “Regarding the Obama eligibility controversy, Attorney Apuzzo published his first blog entry on December 20, 2008 after having followed and contributed to the postings on the websites of Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz. ”

    Then he discusses his DOA Kerchner suit….

    “If the Third Circuit affirms the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing and political question, then the Kerchner plaintiffs will file a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Then Mario becomes a “two-fer”…Bringing up his doubts of Obama being born in HI and being eligbile because of his Kenyan dad….

    “That means that the lower court never addressed the merits of the case, the merits being “Is Mr. Obama a natural born Citizen’ under the Constitution; does he meet that definition?” We contend that he does not meet the doubt-free definition of a “natural born Citizen” because when he was born his father was a British subject and Obama himself was also born a British subject (which converted to Kenyan citizenship when he was 2), all giving him conflicting natural allegiance to Great Britain from the time of birth and to Kenya from age 2. The Framers would not have allowed a person born after the adoption of the Constitution with such conflicting natural allegiances to assume the great and singular powers of the President and Commander in Chief. Secondly, “Was he born in Hawaii?” We contend that he has yet to provide sufficient and credible information that he was indeed born in Hawaii.”

    Then Mario continues his incorrect interpretation of the Constitution and Supreme Court law. Even after Greg, NBC, Doc, and others eviserated his argument, he is still pushing it on the ignorant masses. I guess since he only posts to sites that don’t allow dissent, he has become a legend in his own mind.

    “There have been cases where the Supreme Court was asked to define citizenship. We hear of the famous Wong Kim Ark case of 1898. The reason why I point to that case right now is that the Obama supporters, or enablers, depending on how motivated they are, point to that case as being the definitive answer from the Supreme Court as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, which is totally incorrect, because #1, that case is not about defining presidential eligibility, and #2, the case dealt only with a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. A “citizen of the United States” is one thing; a “natural born Citizen” is another. It’s two different things. It’s very simple to see that if you look at Article II, Section 1, clause 5, which is the Eligibility Clause. Right there, it has both standards: “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” relates to a citizen of the United States. But after the adoption of the Constitution, you have to be a “natural born Citizen,” so it tells you right there just by a very simple common-sense reading of the Article that it’s two different things. It can’t be the same thing or the Framers wouldn’t have written it that way.”

    “However, what’s important about Wong Kim Ark is that it did recognize that there is a “natural born Citizen,” and it confirmed the definition of that particular clause because it cites the case of Minor v. Happersett, which case defines clearly what a natural born Citizen is, although it doesn’t tell us, again, in the presidential context. We call it dicta, when the court says something that is not part of the actual decision, so it’s just giving you an extra comment.”

    “There are also more cases which address that particular issue. If we go back to the Venus case, which is one of the earliest cases, heard by Chief Justice John Marshall back in 1814, he was concurring and dissenting for other reasons, and then he told us what a “natural born Citizen” is. He doesn’t use that language; he uses the old language which was used to translate Vattel. He talks about the “indigenous,” the “natives” or “indigenous,” but it’s the same concept, the same definition. So that goes back as far as 1814, and Justice Marshall was one of the Founders.”

    Then Mario begins his “granstanding”….About how he is just protecting the rights of all Americans….

    “The injury is tied to your basic, unalienable rights, natural rights that are confirmed by the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, by the Fifth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, although the 14th Amendment applies only to the states; but the federal courts look at the 14th Amendment also when they interpret the Fifth Amendment. So we’ve heard these words over and over again which are at the heart of our existence: life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. You can’t get beyond that; that is it. Those are the elements.”

    “Look at how Obama has so far transformed our nation; it’s unbelievable in a short amount of time. That’s what I’m talking about here; that’s the protection that we’re not getting and that my clients do not have, and that is the fundamental crux of our standing. ”

    Then Mario channels his inner Kerchner and goes down the conspiracy “rabbit hole”…

    “We talk about “the perfect storm”? Well, we had one. We had the perfect storm. And what was it? We had McCain, who was born in Panama, whose “natural born Citizenship” status was not clear in the U.S. Constitution. That’s an open question. You can argue in court whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen.” So you have that on the Republican side. You had the Democrats supporting McCain for “natural born Citizenship” status, which was really unbelievable. Obama himself and Hillary Clinton were supporting the resolution that McCain is a natural born Citizen? So, now the Republicans are beholden. “Oh, thank you for being so nice and for letting us run, for letting our candidate go through!” which, by the way, there still could have been challenges if he had won afterward. Just because you pass a Senate resolution, that’s not binding, that’s not law. So the Republicans had a weakness; they were compromised. They were compromised because they made a “deal” with the Democrats. Now, did they sit down and make a deal or something like that? I’m not saying that; I have no evidence of that. But what I’m saying is, in the general sense, they were given this “gift.” And then they were compromised. So they couldn’t argue about Obama, because McCain wasn’t even born in America! So how do they argue about it? They said, “OK, you let us run; we’ll let you run; and the people won’t even know anything. This thing will go through, politics as usual…” and that was the end of it. So that was a big, big factor as to why the Republicans didn’t do anything. That’s one factor. Additionally, Calero, who ran as a Socialist, was not even a “citizen of the United States.” So he surely was not going to say anything about either Obama’s or McCain’s “natural born Citizen” status, nor was anyone from either the Republicans or the Democrats going to say anything about his status.

    Another factor is race, and it’s going on right now. If you read the blogs and some of the comments, you’ll see, “Oh, the only reason you’re going after Obama is because you’re a racist,” which is the most absurd thing, because if you look at history, there have been many challenges to candidates, and all those candidates were white. They were all white. If you look, there are a bunch of them. And there was McCain in this same election who is white, who was challenged, who was sued such that the Senate had to pass a resolution because he was being challenged. That’s not racism? So it’s absurd, but yet, it exists. Just like the tea party movement – “Oh, you’re a racist.” Anything that you do against Obama makes you a racist. So that also is a factor that plays in here whereby a congressman or senator is thinking, “If I say anything, they’re going to say that I’m doing it because I’m a racist.”

    Then Mario goes for full “birther” with this question…

    “MRS. RONDEAU: That seems to be the impression they want to leave with their audiences. Do you think that Governor Lingle of Hawaii really knows for a fact that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center as she stated a few weeks ago on a radio program?

    ATTY. APUZZO: Here’s what I think. If she knows that for a fact, then what’s her evidence? What is her evidence? Hawaii has a lot of power and authority in this. If you look at the Hawaii statutes, they can actually confirm whether or not you were born there by going to your medical records. It’s right in their statutes. Wouldn’t you think they would have done that? They know that people are saying that the hospital has not confirmed it. And then the hospital says, “Oh, well, we can’t do it because Obama has privacy rights and he has not told us that we can release his information to the public.” But Hawaii has the right to actually confirm whether or not somebody was born there by going to the medical records. They can do that. Why haven’t they done that? Why haven’t they gone to the hospital and said, “We have to put this thing to rest once and for all because we have all of this conflicting information: the grandmother says one thing, the ambassador says another; the Kenyan Parliament recently said he was born in Kenya; the people are up in arms.” They pass these ridiculous laws so that people can’t ask for Obama’s documents again, and I don’t know how they’re going to enforce that. Who determines what is “vexatious“? It is so vague and gives discretion to a person, but now you’re applying politics without a standard to the question of whether a public entity should release records to the public, which is absurd. Instead of sparing themselves all that embarrassment and ridicule, just get the medical record from the hospital, and that would be the end of it.”

    Then Mario attempts to marginalize the Indiana court, as you can see bothers the birthers a great deal by Rondeau’s question….

    “MRS. RONDEAU: What could be done with the case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana?

    ATTY. APUZZO: Well, it’s not a federal opinion; it’s not binding on the federal court, and I really don’t give much value to it myself, personally, based on what I’m saying now as well as other things. They really didn’t get into all the case law, all the evidence, all the history; they just used Wong Kim Ark and said, “He’s a natural born Citizen.” The Indiana court used Wong’s holding that under colonial English common law Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and expanded it to give the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the standard to be eligible to be President. Clearly, the Wong decision did no such thing. On the contrary, Wong distinguished a “natural born Citizen” from a “citizen of the United States.”

    MRS. RONDEAU: And yet there’s no real evidence that he was even born in this country.

    ATTY. APUZZO: Exactly. That’s another thing with the Ankeny court. They didn’t even get into that. They just assumed without citing to any evidence that Obama was born within the borders of the United States. They had to make that finding in order to apply the jus soli Wong decision to Obama’s situation. But there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was in fact born in the United States. The defendants did not produce for the court any birth certificate or any other evidence proving Obama was born in the United States. Even without any such evidence, the court ruled that he was born in the United States and therefore a “natural born citizen.” In fact, none of the defendants including Obama himself has ever produced his birth certificate for any court which dismissed all cases against him.

    Then as with most birthers they go for your wallet…..

    “ATTY. APUZZO: Well, if Charlie (Kerchner) were on this interview with me, he would tell you right away that we have the fund-raising blog which we use for advertorials. We write these articles with information for the public. The site is http://www.protectourliberty.org. People can go there and make a contribution to our educational efforts. Then, of course, there’s my blog at http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com, which contains all the information as to what a natural born Citizen is. So they can do that. And keep getting educated, keep reading all the information. Your publication is fantastic; it’s cutting-edge; you state the issues the way they are; you don’t hide anything. People need that information; honest, clean information, so they have to keep educating themselves. The reason I say that is I wrote a recent essay on “Who is Protecting the Constitution and our Nation, the “Birthers” or Obama and his Enablers?”

    So we have learned that Mario hasn’t changed, that no matter what the Supreme court will not hear his case and the birthers will be milking this for as long as they can. As long as there are posters like James, that belive whatever nonsense Marion and the other birthers are spewing, then this will continue to be a big business…

  83. avatar
    Lupin June 10, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Doc:

    Thank you for a more detailed explanation of what you meant. But respectfully I still disagree with you,

    I think your post muddles the issue by confusing sufficiency and authenticity.

    (Apologies if I don’t use the proper technical terms.)

    Obama’s COLB is both sufficient (ie: it contains all the necessary information for the issuance of a passport) and authentic — since it was authenticated by the State of Hawaii.

    On the other hand, when Scott stated: “my birth certificate looks just like Obama’s but it was not good enough for a passport; they told me I needed to get a long form” Scott implied that Obama’s COLB was somehow insufficient. That is not the case.

    What Scott might have meant was that his BC wasn’t authenticated. But he didn’t say that. And while knowing full well that Obama’s COLB had been authenticated, he persevered in blurring the line between authenticity and sufficiency.

  84. avatar
    Black Lion June 10, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    Jules: Being born in Texas is neither implausible nor rare. It has happened to millions of people. Being born in California is even more common.

    I never claimed that it was. CA and TX are our most populus states. I used to live in CA. What I found interesting was that for over 2 months Scott refused to tell us what state she was born in and then once Doc published this article then all of a sudden she admits to being born in Texas. I just thought that was quite convenient for her. As for the veracity of her statement, I will leave that up to her history on this blog. It speaks for itself.

  85. avatar
    Lupin June 10, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    Black Lion: What I found interesting was that for over 2 months Scott refused to tell us what state she was born in and then once Doc published this article then all of a sudden she admits to being born in Texas. I just thought that was quite convenient for her. As for the veracity of her statement, I will leave that up to her history on this blog. It speaks for itself.

    Myself, I think that the point here isn’t that (hypothetically) Scott tried to get a passport with her TX BC and was turned down (for the reasons Doc meticulously detailed), but that — if that incident happened — it was because of possible fraud in that region, not because the BC in question contained insufficient information.

    Scott then took this incident (which may or may not have happened) and used it to purposefully cast doubt on Obama’s COLB sufficiency when authentication was/is clearly not an issue.

    Bottom line: this was at best addled; at worst deceitful.

  86. avatar
    Bob Ross June 10, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    Lupin:
    Scott then took this incident (which may or may not have happened) and used it to purposefully cast doubt on Obama’s COLB sufficiency when authentication was/is clearly not an issue.Bottom line: this was at best addled; at worst deceitful.

    In other words par for the course for “Scott Brown”

  87. avatar
    richCares June 10, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    I didn’t know people fromTexas get their passports through LA. My wife applied for citizensip and now we have to go to LA for her passport. The airfare is $300.00, scott must be rich, can some of you chip in and help pay for her plane ticket. Send all donations to Snoop Dog Dog attn my wife. Thank you.

  88. avatar
    Bob Ross June 10, 2010 at 10:26 am #

    Okay guys I must confess. Obama and I were both born in Stalingrad at Stalin’s International House of Kommunist Manchurian Candidate Hospital. You guys may say hey wheres the proof or weren’t you born 20 years after Obama to which I’ll reply yeah but you guys didnt count on the flux capacitor. So we were raised to infiltrate through the popular and electoral election and then he would activate and immediately go about trying to compromise I mean acquiesce to republican demands on bills while getting almost no votes. He would also be charged to govern radically from the center. I know [insert paypal button here]

    Thanks

  89. avatar
    Bob Ross June 10, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    Oops doc can you move that last post to the stormfront video thread?

  90. avatar
    Jules June 10, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    richCares: I didn’t know people fromTexas get their passports through LA.

    Applications for a first adult US passport can be submitted at any passport acceptance facility in the US. The vast majority of these facilities are post offices, where a specially trained employee checks that the applicant’s proof of identity (such as a driving licence) and makes sure that the photos submitted with the application match his/her appearance. Passport acceptance facilities send the application elsewhere to be processed. Applications are not necessarily processed near the location where the application is submitted.

    I applied for my first passport at a post office in Chicago and found that the passport issued to me several weeks later had “Charleston Passport Center” listed as the issuing authority even though I have never been anywhere near South Carolina.

    I do not know if the redesign in passports since my first one and/or change in State Department practice have led to a change in the listing of the authority for passports. I submitted my most recent US passport application to the US Embassy in the country where I now live and received a new passport that has “United States Department of State” rather than any particular passport centre listed as the authority. I suppose this difference may be the result of my application being made outside the US.

  91. avatar
    Scott Brown June 10, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    Black Lion: I understand what Doc is saying but I still think that Scott was being a bit disinenous.It wasn’t until Doc posted the article on the fraud in TX and CA that all of a sudden Soctt was “born in Texas”.That seemed awfully convenient for Scott.If I remember she also attempted to use another article regarding WND I believe to defend why she thought the way she did.The bottom line is that Scott was attempting to discredit Obama and his COLB and has seemed to “luck” into a plausable explanation.

    Why are you so desperate to believe I’m lying or being disingenuous? I have stated on this blog and others PRIOR to Dr. C’s Texas post that I was born in the Panhandle of Texas. I’ve not concealed that fact – EVER.

    You must be mixing me up with someone else (purposefully?) as I do NOT read WND – I think they are crack pots. I’ve not been to WND’s site in over a year. Furthermore, I don’t need to read WND to tell me how to think. I use common sense and common sense tells me that if you are born a dual citizen, it would stand to reason that you are not a NBC of either country.

    And as far as plagiarizing – I have no clue what you are talking about, other than if you are referring to the Buchanan info. So, posting the link to Donofrio’s site where I copied and pasted it, isn’t enough of a citation to say this is where I got the info?

    And yes, I did personally do a lot of research in to prior presidents, although Buchanan wasn’t one of them. I did research along with Wayfaringstranger (posters name) into other past presidents that Donofrio didn’t do. Agnew was one of them, and I questioned Dr. C. on whether or not he questioned his NBC status. Agnew was extremely hard to find because his father changed his name when he arrived in America. Once I found that fact, it was still hard to find where and when he was naturalized – but I did find it. And he was naturalized like 4 years prior to the birth of Spiro.

    I don’t plagiarize other’s work. I don’t need to.

  92. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 10, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    richCares: I didn’t know people fromTexas get their passports through LA..

    Well, I have to admit – and what I wrote after looking up all that info on California proves it, apologies to Doc on this one – that I had indeed thought Scott had gone to California. But no, you will not have to go to LA (30% of the vote went to Taitz there, so a place to avoid) to get that passport; So, no sponsoring for you.

    As far as California is concerned, I still have no idea what the problem could be of a certified BC (they no longer call it an abstract) issued in or after 2007 – particularly since you can ask for the supa sikrit medical information to be included. It would be interesting to see whether that last one also applies to new Texas BCs. (Just using 2007 here to compare with Obama’s BC)

    By the way, Doc, if a birth certicficate said “Harry S Truman” would that be the full name or not? It seems now that if it is not the full name, the BC cannot be used to get a passport…

  93. avatar
    Scott Brown June 10, 2010 at 11:27 am #

    richCares:
    I didn’t know people fromTexas get their passports through LA. My wife applied for citizensip and now we have to go to LA for her passport. The airfare is $300.00, scott must be rich, can some of you chip in and help pay for her plane ticket. Send all donations to Snoop Dog Dog attn my wife. Thank you.

    WHAT? Have you read into my post that I traveled to LA? Or are you purposefully muddling the waters? I ask because I cannot fathom that someone would misunderstand my post so badly that they thought I said I traveled to LA.

    I’m sitting here laughing because I’m just not sure what to make of your comment. Comic relief or the absence of anything coherent to say in response to my post?

    I applied in Texas, they were issued from the LA office. I never left Texas, but then I think you already knew that.

  94. avatar
    Scott Brown June 10, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    Lupin:
    Scott then took this incident (which may or may not have happened) and used it to purposefully cast doubt on Obama’s COLB sufficiency when authentication was/is clearly not an issue.
    Bottom line: this was at best addled; at worst deceitful.

    This information has really addled some of you. I had/have no idea WHY my COLB was not acceptable. You know, I didn’t really think to argue with the State Dept. at the time as to why my COLB wasn’t good enough – I just wanted my passport so I could leave on my cruise!

    Even when I stated it on this and other blogs that my COLB wasn’t good enough to get a passport – I didn’t really think about WHY, but now that you mention it – I have to wonder WHY Hawaii doesn’t have a problem with authentication, given the same propensity for such an occurrence in Hawaii as in Texas.

  95. avatar
    Black Lion June 10, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Scott Brown: This information has really addled some of you. I had/have no idea WHY my COLB was not acceptable. You know, I didn’t really think to argue with the State Dept. at the time as to why my COLB wasn’t good enough – I just wanted my passport so I could leave on my cruise!Even when I stated it on this and other blogs that my COLB wasn’t good enough to get a passport – I didn’t really think about WHY, but now that you mention it – I have to wonder WHY Hawaii doesn’t have a problem with authentication, given the same propensity for such an occurrence in Hawaii as in Texas.

    Scott, can you show us any instance of fraud occuring with birth certificates in HI since it became a state? Or did you intentionally misread Doc’s post. He said that fraud due to midwives was the reason that some COLB’s were insuffcient from TX and CA. So how can you wonder why HI doesn’t have the same problem or propensity of occurance? Can you point us to some article that led you to believe this? Or are you going with some sort of “gut feeling” with no proof whatsoever….

  96. avatar
    Scott Brown June 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    Lupin:
    Dr C:

    Scott Brown’s initiial post (or series of posts) remain as deceitful (or to be kind addle-brained) as ever, and nothing you wrote changes this.

    You’ve got to be kidding, right? Addle-brained? Why, because it causes a problem for your preconceived idea that Obama got a Passport with a COLB, when possibly that might not have been the case? How funny.

    In case you all haven’t figured it out by now – which I though would have been rather obvious to everyone (because you are all so much smarter than the average bear) – I post and never return to read the responses. If you have been asking for me to tell you the state I was born in, I am oblivious of the request! You take my non-response as stonewalling or refusal to answer – are you serious? You never once thought that it could be because I never returned to actually read the question? And you’ve not recognized the pattern of my posting and never posting follow-ups – REALLY?

    I visit Dr. C.’s post once – and once only and only when it shows up in my google alert (for a time Dr. C wasn’t even being included in the Google Alerts – wonder why?). I make comment or respond to comments and move along. I’m not a troll, and I don’t come here to cause problems….although it would seem that I have caused a major problem because I didn’t give your questions the attention you felt they deserved.

    I don’t even have a clue whether most of my posts make it past moderation – as I don’t check….I don’t care. What I say is just my 2 cents worth – which most of you here seem to think I’m a liar, so why should I give any credence to people who want to belittle and call me names? For the life of me, I can’t understand why you can’t be civil to people that come here with differing opinions. And the liberals always want to make the conservatives out to be the violent and misguided souls. hummm…

    I used to post here under the name of Sally Hill, and I did return to postings, but when all I got in return of my 2 cents was a bunch of name calling and harassment (no real or civil discussion of the issues)- I became a lurker. I didn’t post here for a long time – I just read Dr. C’s posts and left it at that. I don’t want to only read what I want to hear. I want to read and stay informed of the opposing side of issues – in case those views counter what I believe in a way that might possibly change my mind. Don’t worry, this blog hasn’t accomplished that; although, I have learned a few new names to call people that disagree with me though!

    I thought it was odd that Dr. C. posted that info about Texas…I figured he had LOOKED UP MY IP and knew very well where I lived. But I guess that fact never crossed any of your minds. It would seem most of you are so narrow sighted and fixed on your belief in Obama that you fail to look at the whole picture. We are all guilty of that at times, but what is at stake here is WAY more important than just being right….open your mind and your eyes and look at the whole forrest, and not just the trees that are right in front of you. I’m not trying to change your mind or argue one side or the other – just asking you to stop being so close minded about the issue.

    If it makes you feel better to think I’m a liar, dimm-witted, or addled-brained – so be it.

    I’m done.

  97. avatar
    Sef June 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    As an extension of this discussion consider the case of Puerto Rico. In Dec ’09 they passed a law saying that the BCs of people with PR BCs not living on the island would no longer be valid as of July 1 because of extensive counterfeiting. ( http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Puerto-Rican-Birth-Certificates-Invalid-After-July-1-85988872.html ) I have not seen a PR BC but it is probably similar to the HI COLB. The point is that governments can periodically reassess their documents & say that henceforth you need a different one. The government keeps the original info so that a new one can be generated with the relevant data on the appropriate form. With these records they also have the ability to verify the information on a document that someone presents. The HI Governor has done this for the world for Obama’s COLB.

    This is also similar to the recent change in our paper money. In an effort to prevent the increasing ability of ordinary people to counterfeit money with the availability of new technologies our money has been redesigned with features that are very difficult to counterfeit. Banks snarf up the old bills as they come in & the government destroys them. People may not be aware that recent versions of Adobe Photoshop have the ability to detect paper currency & prevent printing to thwart everyday counterfeiters.

  98. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    Scott Brown: You’ve got to be kidding, right? Addle-brained? Why, because it causes a problem for your preconceived idea that Obama got a Passport with a COLB, when possibly that might not have been the case? How funny.In case you all haven’t figured it out by now – which I though would have been rather obvious to everyone (because you are all so much smarter than the average bear) – I post and never return to read the responses. If you have been asking for me to tell you the state I was born in, I am oblivious of the request! You take my non-response as stonewalling or refusal to answer – are you serious? You never once thought that it could be because I never returned to actually read the question? And you’ve not recognized the pattern of my posting and never posting follow-ups – REALLY?I visit Dr. C.’s post once – and once only and only when it shows up in my google alert (for a time Dr. C wasn’t even being included in the Google Alerts – wonder why?). I make comment or respond to comments and move along. I’m not a troll, and I don’t come here to cause problems….although it would seem that I have caused a major problem because I didn’t give your questions the attention you felt they deserved.I don’t even have a clue whether most of my posts make it past moderation – as I don’t check….I don’t care. What I say is just my 2 cents worth – which most of you here seem to think I’m a liar, so why should I give any credence to people who want to belittle and call me names? For the life of me, I can’t understand why you can’t be civil to people that come here with differing opinions. And the liberals always want to make the conservatives out to be the violent and misguided souls. hummm…I used to post here under the name of Sally Hill, and I did return to postings, but when all I got in return of my 2 cents was a bunch of name calling and harassment (no real or civil discussion of the issues)- I became a lurker. I didn’t post here for a long time – I just read Dr. C’s posts and left it at that. I don’t want to only read what I want to hear. I want to read and stay informed of the opposing side of issues – in case those views counter what I believe in a way that might possibly change my mind. Don’t worry, this blog hasn’t accomplished that; although, I have learned a few new names to call people that disagree with me though!I thought it was odd that Dr. C. posted that info about Texas…I figured he had LOOKED UP MY IP and knew very well where I lived. But I guess that fact never crossed any of your minds. It would seem most of you are so narrow sighted and fixed on your belief in Obama that you fail to look at the whole picture. We are all guilty of that at times, but what is at stake here is WAY more important than just being right….open your mind and your eyes and look at the whole forrest, and not just the trees that are right in front of you. I’m not trying to change your mind or argue one side or the other – just asking you to stop being so close minded about the issue.If it makes you feel better to think I’m a liar, dimm-witted, or addled-brained – so be it.I’m done.

    How many times have you said you’re done? This just confirms my earlier suspicion you are a bombthrower. You post nonsense to stir up a thread then don’t defend yourself. I find it funny how you claim you weren’t avoiding the state question when most of the threads it was originally asked in you posted again later on. Considering your recent bout of plagiarism I find that its more plausible that you altered your story to fit Doc’s research.

  99. avatar
    richCares June 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    so be it.I’m done.
    GOOD!, about time. Bye Bye!

  100. avatar
    JoZeppy June 10, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Scott Brown: I have to wonder WHY Hawaii doesn’t have a problem with authentication, given the same propensity for such an occurrence in Hawaii as in Texas.

    Yes…because we know that so many illegal immigrants sneak arcoss the ocean to Hawaii to find disreputable midwives to create false birth certificates for them.

  101. avatar
    JoZeppy June 10, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    Scott Brown: In case you all haven’t figured it out by now – which I though would have been rather obvious to everyone (because you are all so much smarter than the average bear) – I post and never return to read the responses. If you have been asking for me to tell you the state I was born in, I am oblivious of the request! You take my non-response as stonewalling or refusal to answer – are you serious? You never once thought that it could be because I never returned to actually read the question? And you’ve not recognized the pattern of my posting and never posting follow-ups – REALLY?

    Sorry…you did respond to several replies (just like you did here). You just ignore the repeated questions about what state…kind of like the way you ignore the repeated comments about your plagerizing a birther posting, and claiming to be “your own extensive research.”

  102. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 10, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:if a birth certicficate said “Harry S Truman” would that be the full name or not?

    But Harry S Truman was the full name, Paul.

    The S, in Harry S Truman actually didn’t stand for anything, and it was put there to pay homage to both his grandfathers (Anderson Shipp Truman & Solomon Young).

  103. avatar
    Scientist June 10, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    Scott Brown: Why, because it causes a problem for your preconceived idea that Obama got a Passport with a COLB, when possibly that might not have been the case?

    Actually, President Obama did not get a passport with the COLB he showed on line. He got his first passport in the 1960s using whatever Hawaii issued at the time. Subsequent passports would have only required previous ones as proof.

    What I question about you, is why you are continuing to flog this dead horse. Our system of government leaves the decision of qualifying a President to Congress and only on a single occasion. They did so, and there is no provision to revisit it. The electoral choices of the American people and their elected representatives deserve respect from you. They are not to be overturned just because “Sally Hill” of “Scott Brown” or LTC lakin are “not sure”. There are thousands of things that we will never know for certain. Live with it, ma’am!!

  104. avatar
    G June 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) referring to “Scott Brown” aka Sally Hill: How many times have you said you’re done? This just confirms my earlier suspicion you are a bombthrower. You post nonsense to stir up a thread then don’t defend yourself. I find it funny how you claim you weren’t avoiding the state question when most of the threads it was originally asked in you posted again later on. Considering your recent bout of plagiarism I find that its more plausible that you altered your story to fit Doc’s research.

    Agreed.

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

    I thought LA meant Louisiana, sorry. I’m from LA–Lower Alabama.

  106. avatar
    G June 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    Scott Brown: In case you all haven’t figured it out by now – which I though would have been rather obvious to everyone (because you are all so much smarter than the average bear) – I post and never return to read the responses. If you have been asking for me to tell you the state I was born in, I am oblivious of the request! You take my non-response as stonewalling or refusal to answer – are you serious? You never once thought that it could be because I never returned to actually read the question? And you’ve not recognized the pattern of my posting and never posting follow-ups – REALLY?

    I visit Dr. C.’s post once – and once only and only when it shows up in my google alert (for a time Dr. C wasn’t even being included in the Google Alerts – wonder why?). I make comment or respond to comments and move along. I’m not a troll, and I don’t come here to cause problems….although it would seem that I have caused a major problem because I didn’t give your questions the attention you felt they deserved.

    JoZeppy to “Scott Brown” aka Sally Hill:
    Sorry…you did respond to several replies (just like you did here).You just ignore the repeated questions about what state…kind of like the way you ignore the repeated comments about your plagerizing a birther posting, and claiming to be “your own extensive research.”

    Joe Zeppy – I agree completely with you on this.

    Scott Brown returns again to her “vicitm card” tactic to try to cover her arse, as she has done many times before.

    Sorry, SB, but the history of your posts pokes a lot of holes in the credibility of your stories, yet again. They are all here on this site for anyone to find and see the pattern of your posts & the replies to them.

    You try to play this off as if you somehow never ever saw all the posts asking you which state you were born in. That I find highly, highly doubtful, to say the least.

    First of all, prior to your COLB story, you had been posting and replying to response posts, often in detail for months. So, sorry SB, but your “pattern” that you want to claim only started soon after people started asking you to clarify which state your story took place in.

    When you first started your COLB story and received questions, you came out with several replies to those inquiries – in which you played the victim card and came up with more and more elaborate answers, but avoided to mention which state you were from, but left “hints”.

    Then when the replies came from others, based on those hints that the COLB wouldn’t look like a HI COLB in certain states and asked you to simply clearly indicate which state you were from…

    …all of a sudden *crickets* from you on responding.

    You continued for awhile to continue to post on that very same thread and address other portions of people’s critique, but completely ignored the “which state are you from” question.

    More and more posters here then chimed in to specifically ask you to clarify that state and you continued to post and ignore that question completely.

    You somehow showed up, often more than once, on most blog topic postings after that one and on every one, when you posted, you were immediately asked by a number of us here to answer the state question.

    On some of those posts, you DID return to post again or comment on what someone else said, yet consistently avoided the which state you were from question.

    Somehow, you want us to believe that you “never saw” these questions to you, when there were tons of them, as many of us doggedly repeated them to you every single time you would show up to post. Yet on those very same threads, you would post more of your commentary later on, often obviously as a result of something else said by someone on that thread.

    So, it appears quite clear that you were coming here often and reading not just the blog, but the commentary that followed. Therefore, I find it completely unbelievable that you could somehow read all that was going on yet somehow continue to miss every single one of the many, many repeated inquiries directed specifically towards you to answer the simple question of what state you were from for a whole two months.

    Is it possible that with your elaboration on this topic that you have finally come clean and the story you are telling about your COLB experience and that you are from is true? Possibly, yes.

    But, as others have pointed out, it is quite “convenient” that you waited until Dr. C. posted that such a loophole existed for TX before you ever came forward to say that yes, that was the state you are from.

    So, is it also quite possible, based on your pattern and history of posts here that you completely made up an elaborate story and then as soon as it became obvious that others could check into the veracity of your tale once they knew which state you were from, you realized that you were “caught” making things up and suddenly, went silent and did everything you could do to avoid answering that question? …Only to return to “finally” answer it, once Dr. C’s post gave you a convenient loop-hole that could fit your cover story? Quite possibly, yes.

  107. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Doc I kind of miss the rating system

  108. avatar
    G June 10, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Fake Scott Brown: I have to wonder WHY Hawaii doesn’t have a problem with authentication, given the same propensity for such an occurrence in Hawaii as in Texas.

    Black Lion:
    Scott, can you show us any instance of fraud occuring with birth certificates in HI since it became a state? Or did you intentionally misread Doc’s post. He said that fraud due to midwives was the reason that some COLB’s were insuffcient from TX and CA. So how can you wonder why HI doesn’t have the same problem or propensity of occurance? Can you point us to some article that led you to believe this? Or are you going with some sort of “gut feeling” with no proof whatsoever…

    Exactly. Again, Scott Brown, you tend to make declarative accusations without any basis to back them up.

    Please tell us what you mean about HI having the same “propensity” for such problems to occur and what you base that on.

    Because I think you are comparing apples to oranges here and intentionally just shooting off your mouth again to make-up smear accusations and insinuations about HI that have no bearing on reality.

    But then again, that is just par for the course for you on here.

    Your true intention here is concern trolling and all you wish to do is make unfounded accusations and create negative insinuations, while trying to proclaim your “innocence”.

    As you mentioned on another reply on here:

    Scott Brown: I want to read and stay informed of the opposing side of issues – in case those views counter what I believe in a way that might possibly change my mind. Don’t worry, this blog hasn’t accomplished that

    Of course it hasn’t. You come here with a clear agenda and intent to try to sow and spread misinformation and smears.

    You don’t have an open mind at all. You come at this issue with a desperate need to back-up your pre-conceived dislike for Obama and to try to attack all the evidence which blows holes through all of your pre-concevied birther beliefs.

    It is fairly clear that is your whole goal and intent on here. Well, I hate to tell you, but we have been on to you for a long time, “Scott Brown” and so your twisted little “act” doesn’t work here.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 10, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    G: Exactly. Again, Scott Brown, you tend to make declarative accusations without any basis to back them up.Please tell us what you mean about HI having the same “propensity” for such problems to occur and what you base that on.Because I think you are comparing apples to oranges here and intentionally just shooting off your mouth again to make-up smear accusations and insinuations about HI that have no bearing on reality.But then again, that is just par for the course for you on here.Your true intention here is concern trolling and all you wish to do is make unfounded accusations and create negative insinuations, while trying to proclaim your “innocence”. As you mentioned on another reply on here:Of course it hasn’t. You come here with a clear agenda and intent to try to sow and spread misinformation and smears.You don’t have an open mind at all. You come at this issue with a desperate need to back-up your pre-conceived dislike for Obama and to try to attack all the evidence which blows holes through all of your pre-concevied birther beliefs. It is fairly clear that is your whole goal and intent on here. Well, I hate to tell you, but we have been on to you for a long time, “Scott Brown” and so your twisted little “act” doesn’t work here.

    Its the intelligent design argument all over again. Start with a conclusion and then fit everything else around it

  110. avatar
    Black Lion June 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Scott Brown: Why are you so desperate to believe I’m lying or being disingenuous? I have stated on this blog and others PRIOR to Dr. C’s Texas post that I was born in the Panhandle of Texas. I’ve not concealed that fact – EVER.You must be mixing me up with someone else (purposefully?) as I do NOT read WND – I think they are crack pots. I’ve not been to WND’s site in over a year. Furthermore, I don’t need to read WND to tell me how to think. I use common sense and common sense tells me that if you are born a dual citizen, it would stand to reason that you are not a NBC of either country.And as far as plagiarizing – I have no clue what you are talking about, other than if you are referring to the Buchanan info. So, posting the link to Donofrio’s site where I copied and pasted it, isn’t enough of a citation to say this is where I got the info?And yes, I did personally do a lot of research in to prior presidents, although Buchanan wasn’t one of them. I did research along with Wayfaringstranger (posters name) into other past presidents that Donofrio didn’t do. Agnew was one of them, and I questioned Dr. C. on whether or not he questioned his NBC status. Agnew was extremely hard to find because his father changed his name when he arrived in America. Once I found that fact, it was still hard to find where and when he was naturalized – but I did find it. And he was naturalized like 4 years prior to the birth of Spiro.I don’t plagiarize other’s work. I don’t need to.

    Two points. No one can recall you ever stating where you were born before yesterday. I recall many posters asking you where you were born and you ignoring the question or never addressing it. If you had stated where you were born a long time ago as you claim, you would have responded that you addressed that back then. Not yesterday when you had Doc’s article to fall back on. If you did and I missed it, then I apologize in advance. However I looked back at your earlier posts and could not find any instance of you making that claim. Secondly I never made the plagiarizing accusation against you. It was others that pointed out how similar your work was to other articles from different websites.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    I was bored so I thought I’d use the Google here are some of Scott Brown aka Sally Hill’s comments.

    http://joshuacolwell.com/blog/index.php/2009/obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

    “Sally HIll says:

    July 23, 2009 at 11:34 pm
    Interesting article; however, you failed to address the issue of his father….you know the half of his birthright that he uses to espouse that he African American.

    And please don’t even think I’m a racist, since I happen to view Obama is white (raised by white mother, white grandparents, attended white private schools, and ivy league colleges). Yes, I oppose Obama due to his ideals, policies and beliefs, which has abolutely nothing to do with whether he is white, black, pink or purple. I’m deeply concerned – through is ACTIONS – that he believes in Sharia Law and that he continues to have dual-loyalties.

    The real question is this:
    During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?”

    Another instance of her lack of knowledge:
    http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/obama-brainwashing-obama-brainwashing/

    ” Sally HIll Says:

    September 9, 2009 at 11:20 am
    RLS – where have you been? You don’t remember the witch hunt that Congress started when Bush Sr actually DID address school children with a speech VERY VERY close to the same one Obama gave.

    The hypocracy of it all – where is the media? where is Congress? No, this time around it had to be the outcry of We the People.

    So – was it plain and simple racism and demagoguery at the root of the Congressional Investigation into Bush Sr, too?

    You people are using racism for everything you disagree with and you are single handedly errasing the real meaning of the word. It is simply going to become a catch phrase with an empty meaning if you don’t stop throwing it around like a frisby!”

    My favorite is this reply to Sally:

    ” Bob Mc Says:

    December 3, 2009 at 12:05 am
    Sally: “You People”? Gawd, I feel like an honorary Brother…”

  112. avatar
    G June 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Its the intelligent design argument all over again. Start with a conclusion and then fit everything else around it

    Exactly. Not only the same type of bogus argument, but the same type of blind belief-based, anti-science, fear and anti-fact based mentality that drives such things.

  113. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    dunstvangeet: But Harry S Truman was the full name, Paul.The S, in Harry S Truman actually didn’t stand for anything, and it was put there to pay homage to both his grandfathers (Anderson Shipp Truman & Solomon Young).

    Er, there is some reasonable doubt about that, and even if it is not true, in a strange way Truman may be the starting point of the whole “Cult of the COLB” as Obama may have put his COLB on the Internet to stop the rumour that his middle name was not Hussein, but Mohammed:
    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-109047.html
    Funny how George Burns was the only one to know… Apart from some Russian bloggers.
    Note that was all from 2002, before Obama came into the footlights,

  114. avatar
    Mike June 10, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Staatsangeh%C3%B6rigkeit#Durch_Geburt_im_Inland_.28so_genanntes_Optionsmodell.29

    Rough translation done on the fly for anyone who wants to know the gist; my vocab’s rusty these days, so apologies in advance for any mistakes:
    A child born in Germany becomes German if one parent at the time has lived in Germany for eight years and has an unrestricted leave to remain in Germany.

    This rule applies only to children with foreign parents born after 1st Jan 2010. For children born before this time, the law gives them the opportunity to become citizens for one year after they achieve their majority.

    The rule set out here states that the child must be legally resident in Germany and not more than ten years old. As a rule of thumb, children who achieve German citizenship in this manner have another citizenship. They must declare between the ages of 18 and 23 their intent to keep German citizenship or renounce the second citizenship.

    In exceptional cases permission can be given to retain both citizenships. This is in case the second citizenship cannot be given up or if the naturalisation is accepted under a different law.

  115. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Scott Brown: I’m done.

    Yeah, right. You WILL be back, either under this name or another one.

  116. avatar
    northland10 June 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    To be honest, I cannot quite understand our fellow posters obsession with “Scott Brown” (or whomever they went by previously). The posts seem to be focused on the messenger and not the topic. If “Scott” were trolling, being intentionally being obtuse and/or even outright lying, wouldn’t it be best to after a while to just dismiss her/his posts and move on. The obsession with the single poster appears to me to be the actions you might see from the birthers/denialists.

    Just my opinion.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    northland10 To be honest, I cannot quite understand our fellow posters obsession with “Scott Brown” (or whomever they went by previously). The posts seem to be focused on the messenger and not the topic. If “Scott” were trolling, being intentionally being obtuse and/or even outright lying, wouldn’t it be best to after a while to just dismiss her/his posts and move on. The obsession with the single poster appears to me to be the actions you might see from the birthers/denialists.

    This focus on messengers is what I have been hoping to avoid. When the discussion turns to internecine bickering, it loses its value.

  118. avatar
    G June 11, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    northland10: To be honest, I cannot quite understand our fellow posters obsession with “Scott Brown” (or whomever they went by previously). The posts seem to be focused on the messenger and not the topic. If “Scott” were trolling, being intentionally being obtuse and/or even outright lying, wouldn’t it be best to after a while to just dismiss her/his posts and move on. The obsession with the single poster appears to me to be the actions you might see from the birthers/denialists.

    Just my opinion.

    Northland, you would have to have been familiar with the whole history of that poster’s words and actions on this blog to understand why Scott Brown has earned more ire and disrespect from many of us here. So, I feel you are trying to pass judgment on something you weren’t around to fully witness or experience.

  119. avatar
    G June 11, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I was bored so I thought I’d use the Google here are some of Scott Brown aka Sally Hill’s comments.

    Thanks again for the find. Just further confirmation that her birtherism seems to be driven off the motivation of at least “anti-muslim” bigotry category, utilizing the birther’s Vattel / dual-citizenship arguments.

  120. avatar
    Lupin June 11, 2010 at 2:32 am #

    Scott Brown: Even when I stated it on this and other blogs that my COLB wasn’t good enough to get a passport – I didn’t really think about WHY, but now that you mention it – I have to wonder WHY Hawaii doesn’t have a problem with authentication, given the same propensity for such an occurrence in Hawaii as in Texas.

    That’s exactly the place where purposefully or not (I’m not a mind reader) you deceived your readers.

    Your COLB wasn’t “good enough” not because it didn’t contain enough info, but because there were doubts as to its authenticity.

    BEFORE Obama’s COLB was authenticated by the State of HI, you would have been justified in raising the issue.

    AFTER it was authenticated, to claim that it wasn’t sufficient and people needed to see the long-form was misleading.

  121. avatar
    G June 11, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Lupin: That’s exactly the place where purposefully or not (I’m not a mind reader) you deceived your readers.

    Your COLB wasn’t “good enough” not because it didn’t contain enough info, but because there were doubts as to its authenticity.

    BEFORE Obama’s COLB was authenticated by the State of HI, you would have been justified in raising the issue.

    AFTER it was authenticated, to claim that it wasn’t sufficient and people needed to see the long-form was misleading.

    Then again, there is the issue that on all the other posts on other blogs that we have found to date, she consistently claims that she doesn’t doubt his HI birth nor care about the COLB issue at all.

    No, all of her other claims are specifically that the issue is based on the birther dual citizenship arguments, so that his COLB is not relevant.

    Therefore, just more proof here that her whole COLB arguments are nothing but intentionally misleading red-herrings and that her motives are less than sincere, to say the least.

  122. avatar
    Lupin June 11, 2010 at 6:10 am #

    G: Then again, there is the issue that on all the other posts on other blogs that we have found to date, she consistently claims that she doesn’t doubt his HI birth nor care about the COLB issue at all.

    My recollection is that Scott insisted that Obama’s COLB wasn’t sufficient and we still needed to see the long-form.

    As Dr C proposed, I’m willing to go on trust, but as long as logic is followed.

    Logic in this case dictates that Obama’s COLB is indeed sufficient, since it has been authenticated, and therefore the possibility of fraud has been eliminated — and long-forms in TX and CA are only used to authenticate possibly dubious short-forms.

    If Scott acknowledged that, then I’d have no problems.

  123. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 11, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    Mike: Rough translation done on the fly for anyone who wants to know the gist; my vocab’s rusty these days, so apologies in advance for any mistakes:A child born in Germany becomes German if one parent at the time has lived in Germany for eight years and has an unrestricted leave to remain in Germany.This rule applies only to children with foreign parents born after 1st Jan 2010. For children born before this time, the law gives them the opportunity to become citizens for one year after they achieve their majority.The rule set out here states that the child must be legally resident in Germany and not more than ten years old. As a rule of thumb, children who achieve German citizenship in this manner have another citizenship. They must declare between the ages of 18 and 23 their intent to keep German citizenship or renounce the second citizenship.In exceptional cases permission can be given to retain both citizenships. This is in case the second citizenship cannot be given up or if the naturalisation is accepted under a different law.

    I will make a few remarks here:
    a) “and has an unrestricted right of residence”. You are right on that part of the necessary conditions – in an earlier posting I quoted an earlier version of the law which said that of those eight years’ required residence, three had to be legal residence; This condition has been abrogated. Note that for 99,99% of all foreigners that change makes it easier for their child to be (also) German. The exception is with foreign diplomats, who are of course always legally in the country, but do not have unrestricted residence. So, in direct opposition to normal diplomatic practice, children of foreign diplomats might have become German citizens under the original rule- but now no longer. I am afraid that for our argument with Scott Brown, this means that children born after Jan 1,2000, on an American military base as children of 2 US citizens do have the right to German citizenship – until they are 18-23 and have to choose.

    b) 2010, no sorry it is 2000. You are misinterpreting an intermediary rule to deal with the carried over problem of children who were being born just before 2000. If they are no older than 10 on Jan1,2000, they will also have the CHANCE during one year to opt for German nationality, provided the same conditions were met at their time of birth. They needed to solve the carryover, because before Jan 2000, some categories of children born in Germany had for some obscure reason not been entitled to German citizenship, when everybody felt they should have been. If I interpret the passage correctly, that rule lapsed on Jan 1, 2001. Another interpretation would be that they cannot wait until they are 23, but must choose before they are 19.

    c) renunciation of the other citizenship. When it was later discussing the legality of the Schengen Accord, the German Supreme Court ruled that the provision in this citizenship law that in order to keep German citizenship because of birth, you need to renounce the other one (or perhaps even two) you got by ius sanguinis, created various sorts of discrimination – some people would be unable to keep both citizenships and cannot choose the jurisdiction to defend against extradiction, while others, who can keep both citizenships, can choose the venue. By the way, since 2018 is still a bit far off, the German legislators are in no great hurry to solve the problem and it is unclear still how the whole mess can be sorted out. There is no reason to believe however that changes would go so far as to leave everybody the right to keep double citizenship. The Supreme Court had a problem only with Schengen and EU countries (and Switzerland, also part of Schengen) which allow German citizens to keep their ius sanguinis citizenship while bestowing their own ius soli citizenship. So, the children in Scott Brown’s example, if born 1 Jan 2000 or later would still have to explicitly renounce US citizenship to keep the German one, between its 18th and 23rd birthday. A bit like Obama who, if he had Kenyan nationality, lost it by default when an adult.

  124. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 11, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I thought LA meant Louisiana, sorry. I’m from LA–Lower Alabama.

    I re-read it again, and conclude that you were right all along, because of the reference to Katrina. I (and perhaps others) were mystified by the fact that California and Texas were lumped together here, and by how Scott referred to LA.

  125. avatar
    mimi June 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Loren: As it happens, I picked up a U.S. passport application at the post office the other day, thinking of precisely this issue.Here’s what it says on the subject:—1. PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP a. APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate.A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.—Notice, of course, that what is described is exactly what appears on a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, even down to the specification of when the record was “filed.”

    Loren,

    My Birth Certificate doesn’t have my parents names. I had no trouble getting a passport. [That was mid 90’s.]

    I went to the online instructions for passports a couple of months ago. As I recall, the parents names are required for applicants who are underage. I assume this is to help combat child abduction.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 11, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    mimi: I went to the online instructions for passports a couple of months ago. As I recall, the parents names are required for applicants who are underage. I assume this is to help combat child abduction.

    That makes. One jurisdiction I’ve worked with won’t issue a birth certificate for a child reported missing for that very reason.