Main Menu

The passport hypothesis

In this article, I present the hypothesis that Barack Obama traveled with his mother to Indonesia on his mother’s family passport, but returned to the United States on his own individual passport.

1. In the past, the United States issued family passports for families traveling with children.

2. My Freedom of Information Act request has been hung up with a State Department legal team since last July, the second time it has been to legal. The passport applications for Stanley Ann Dunham have already been released to Strunk, so there should be no legal issue there. However, since I asked for passports issued rather than applications, and because we know that passport issuance cards exist on microfilm, the 1965 passport under which Stanley Ann Dunham traveled to Indonesia would exist on this microfilm record. Passport applications, however, were destroyed for this period, and the Department of State did not have to deal with the 1965 passport in the Strunk case.

If the 1965 passport did include Barack Obama, the Department of State is presented with a legal dilemma. They cannot release the passport card itself because it contains information about a living person, contrary to their rules. On the other hand, they cannot redact the name of Barack Obama because the very act of redaction discloses that he was on the passport, since he is publicly known to be the only child of Stanley Ann Dunham. We know that routine passport query from 2009 only takes 4 months, so there must be a complication. This is the only complication that makes sense.

3. When Stanley Ann Dunham (then Soetoro) renewed her passport in 1968, we see that she filled in the name Barack Hussein Obama on the back of the renewal form under an amendment to exclude him from the passport. The same lines are used to include or exclude and the cross hatches reasonably indicate that he was to be excluded. Unfortunately, my hypothesis sheds no light on the mysterious Soebarkah.

Back page of Obama passport renewal application from 1968

The hypothesis may be  difficult to prove, at least through FOIA since the documentation involves Barack Obama, a living person.

Problems with the hypothesis (of which I know 2) are left as a exercise for the reader.

230 Responses to The passport hypothesis

  1. avatar
    Greg September 8, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    On the other hand, they cannot redact the name of Barack Obama because the very act of redaction discloses that he was on the passport, since he is publicly known to be the only child of Stanley Ann Dunham.

    In fact, denying the request because it falls into the exception that they cannot release information about a living person confirms that it included him. They can’t claim that they cannot tell you the reason for redaction, because, that, too, would confirm that it contained information about Obama.

    From the process of elimination, it is likely that claiming any exception proves that the application included him! (Legal is probably thinking like a rational person, and assuming that you aren’t going to conclude they are withholding the information because Dunham was a spy. Or, in the alternative, they are thinking about the consequences of birthers running off having jumped to that or a similar conclusion.)

    How would you word a denial so that it didn’t confirm that Obama’s name was on the application?

    Of course, we could be reading too much into it. According to the 2009 State Department FOIA Annual Report while the median processing time for simple requests was 88 days (and the average 133 days), the longest simple request took 1,074 days.

    That your request has been to legal twice suggests that it is not a simple request, but a complex one. The median response time for complex requests was 352 days (average = 423 days) and the longest satisfied request waited 2,383 days for a response.

    If you look at the distribution of complex requests, it is a J curve, with the largest group being 401+ days.

  2. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 8, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    When should a name on a passport renewal be struck out?

    Read the declartion just above Stanley Ann’s signature on her renewal application.

    I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served int he armed forces …

    (If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any person included in the passport or documentation, the portion which applies should be struck out, and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.)

    Marked P1, August 13, 1968. Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became Soebarkah, Indonesian National, in 1968.

    Thanks, Doc! You’re a good man.

  3. avatar
    Sean September 8, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    Was the State Dept memo in Lolo’s paperwork with specifics on Obama not against their rules because Obama in not mentioned by name?

  4. avatar
    gorefan September 8, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama renounced his US Citizenship

    Except that a minor cannot renounce his citizenship. That and the fact that his mother never renounced her citizenship, it is ludicrous to assume that she would renounce his. And since we know for a fact that he attended the Panahou School as Barak Obama, he would have had to change his name back.

    Thanks Sven, for helping to clear things up.

  5. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Marked P1, August 13, 1968. Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became Soebarkah, Indonesian National, in 1968.

    a 7 year old convinced a US consulate that he completely understood the ramifications of renouncing his citizenship ???

    smart kid.

  6. avatar
    gorefan September 9, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    “the cross hatches reasonably indicate that he was to be excluded”

    My first impression was that she was striking the entry out as if she had started to add him and then changed her mind. Unless, someone at the consular office told her to do it that way. Normally, wouldn’t you just strikeout the word include. So as to read:

    Amend to (exclude) children.

  7. avatar
    obsolete September 9, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    She wanted to be rid of her child, so she wrote his name down and crossed it out in an effort to kill or “disappear” him, according to the laws of physics in James and Sven’s world.

  8. avatar
    Rickey September 9, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    My theory has been that the reason that Obama’s name was crossed out on the renewal is that it was unnecessary to include him, because by then he had either received (or at least applied for) his own passport in anticipation of the trip to Hawaii to visit his grandparents.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 9, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    Greg: That your request has been to legal twice suggests that it is not a simple request, but a complex one. The median response time for complex requests was 352 days (average = 423 days) and the longest satisfied request waited 2,383 days for a response.

    From the standpoint of locating documents, it’s not complex. When the State Department talks about requests that take a long time, they typically mention ones that involve multiple remote diplomatic stations. Presumably passport issuance is a central function, and the microfilmed issuance cards, which as far as I know is all there is, should be indexed. Legally complex is another question. I called today and they told me that they would request someone from legal to call me. We’ll see how that goes. I am going to attempt to get around the problem by simply limiting my request to passports prior to 1965 because I really don’t care about passports issued after President Obama was born.

    If the followed the same policy they did with the Phil Jacobsen FOIA, they would just redact the name of the living child from the response. I also point out that in the Strunk case, DoS responded with a passport application from 1968 where President Obama’s name had NOT been redacted, which totally confuses me.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 9, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    gorefan: “the cross hatches reasonably indicate that he was to be excluded”My first impression was that she was striking the entry out as if she had started to add him and then changed her mind.Unless, someone at the consular office told her to do it that way.Normally, wouldn’t you just strikeout the word include. So as to read:
    Amend to (exclude) children.

    Other possibilities include her adding him when she needn’t have. Sometimes I think that it was an embassy employee named Soebarkah that crossed out the name, and put their name to indicate that they did it. The handwriting is similar to Obama’s, but the name is in Caps and Small caps, and Soebarkah is upper and lower.case.

  11. avatar
    Jules September 9, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    SvenMagnussen: When should a name on a passport renewal be struck out?Read the declartion just above Stanley Ann’s signature on her renewal application.
    Marked P1, August 13, 1968. Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became Soebarkah, Indonesian National, in 1968.Thanks, Doc! You’re a good man.

    The portion of the application that you quote says that the act performed should be struck out, not that an individual name should be.

    As we have discussed before, someone has to be acting voluntarily and intend to renounce his US citizenship. A seven-year-old would not have sufficient appreciation of the nature of citizenship and renunciation of it to be able to act voluntarily and intentionally. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Manual advises:

    Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent

  12. avatar
    AnotherBird September 9, 2010 at 6:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Marked P1, August 13, 1968. Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became Soebarkah, Indonesian National, in 1968.

    A seven year renounces their citizenship. That is a 7 year child. The child must have also know that they could get it back later. Imagine the consulate working scratching his head trying to figure out why a child in renouncing his citizenship, with his mother keep hers. Just that hesitation would stop the process.

  13. avatar
    charo September 9, 2010 at 7:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Other possibilities include her adding him when she needn’t have. Sometimes I think that it was an embassy employee named Soebarkah that crossed out the name, and put their name to indicate that they did it. The handwriting is similar to Obama’s, but the name is in Caps and Small caps, and Soebarkah is upper and lower.case.

    Out of curiosity, I checked the handwriting on the FOIA documents. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/strunk-foia-results-for-obamas-mother/

    Stanley Ann uses a combination of upper and lower case sporatically (look throughout the documents, for example the pink passport application: Stanley ANN DUNHAM.) You’ll even see cursive writing a few times throughout the documents. There is a spelling error on the first document (indefinate that is corrected on the pink document.) There is no consistency in general if you peruse the documents.

  14. avatar
    charo September 9, 2010 at 7:48 am #

    cursive in places other than signatures

  15. avatar
    ellid September 9, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    SvenMagnussen: When should a name on a passport renewal be struck out?Read the declartion just above Stanley Ann’s signature on her renewal application.
    Marked P1, August 13, 1968. Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became Soebarkah, Indonesian National, in 1968.Thanks, Doc! You’re a good man.

    An 8 year old is not legally competent to renounce anything, let alone citizenship. Wrong again!

  16. avatar
    Majority Will September 9, 2010 at 9:17 am #

    charo:
    Out of curiosity, I checked the handwriting on the FOIA documents.http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/strunk-foia-results-for-obamas-mother/Stanley Ann uses a combination of upper and lower case sporatically (look throughout the documents, for example the pink passport application:Stanley ANN DUNHAM.)You’ll even see cursive writing a few times throughout the documents.There is a spelling error on the first document (indefinate that is corrected on the pink document.) There is no consistency in general if you peruse the documents.

    What’s your point?

  17. avatar
    Majority Will September 9, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    charo: There is a spelling error on the first document (indefinate that is corrected on the pink document.)

    Find the irony.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will September 9, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    charo: sporatically

    Was your search sporadic?

  19. avatar
    Majority Will September 9, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    charo: cursive in places other than signatures

    You’re a full fledged birther. Of course you smell conspiracy everywhere and Occam’s Razor be damned.

  20. avatar
    charo September 9, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    “Indefinate” was the misspelled word so the irony that you find is absent. My comment was in response to Doc who talked about the handwriting.

    “The handwriting is similar to Obama’s, but the name is in Caps and Small caps, and Soebarkah is upper and lower.case.” (Doc)

  21. avatar
    charo September 9, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    In conclusion, it doesn’t appear that you can tell if Doc’s hypothesis is correct concerning whether an employee named Soebarkah made the correction base upon the small and large caps. Her handwriting is inconsistent. That doesn’t prove that there wasn’t an employee who made the indication, just that small and large caps seems not to make the case. I saw the spelling error on the earlier document right off the bat (with the large caps) and noticed that the same word corrected on the other document. It was just an interesting tidbit to me that doesn’t prove any conspiracy. Kind of a human interest thing. Another tidbit is that her height is listed as 5′ 1/2” on one document. I was surprised that she was that short, but then I saw that was an obvious typo because another section has her at 5′ 5” inches (and another one at 5′ 6”). No conspiracy intended.

    I suppose it is more interesting to some to see how many hundreds of ways one can call Sven mentally ill.

  22. avatar
    charo September 9, 2010 at 11:07 am #

    “based” upon …

    and 5′ 5 1/2”

  23. avatar
    HORUS September 9, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    From what I’ve read about Renouncing US Citizenship it is not so easily done and it can take up to a year to finalize it.
    All along you would be getting warnings from the State Dept.

    In addition, like how gorefan said, a Minor cannot renounce their US citizenship.

    That horse is dead, stop flogging it!

  24. avatar
    sfjeff September 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    And of course Sven has never once provided any substantiation to any of his claims, nor has he been able to produce a single example of any child successfully renouncing their citizenship.

  25. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    charo: In conclusion, it doesn’t appear that you can tell if Doc’s hypothesis is correct concerning whether an employee named Soebarkah made the correction base upon the small and large caps. Her handwriting is inconsistent.

    on quick inspection i’d say it is stanley ann’s handwriting on the mysterious “soebarkah”. but, as said before, i’m hard pressed to turn it into proof of a conspiracy. if anything just the opposite. i couldn’t imagine a forger doing documents for the same person using such eclectic handwriting.

  26. avatar
    Black Lion September 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    charo: In conclusion, it doesn’t appear that you can tell if Doc’s hypothesis is correct concerning whether an employee named Soebarkah made the correction base upon the small and large caps. Her handwriting is inconsistent. That doesn’t prove that there wasn’t an employee who made the indication, just that small and large caps seems not to make the case. I saw the spelling error on the earlier document right off the bat (with the large caps) and noticed that the same word corrected on the other document. It was just an interesting tidbit to me that doesn’t prove any conspiracy. Kind of a human interest thing. Another tidbit is that her height is listed as 5′ 1/2” on one document. I was surprised that she was that short, but then I saw that was an obvious typo because another section has her at 5′ 5” inches (and another one at 5′ 6”). No conspiracy intended. I suppose it is more interesting to some to see how many hundreds of ways one can call Sven mentally ill.

    Charo, do you happen to agree with Sven’s “conclusions” or his so called “theory”? I know you are not a regular poster to this site but Sven has never provided any evidence to support his wild and ficitional theories. So while Sven may be mentally challenged since he continually is pushing the same factually adverse theory, it is more likely that he just like to stir things up….

  27. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 9, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Where’s the love? You’ve got questions and I got answers. Where’s the love?

    Hey! Let’s exchange emails. I don’t want to lose my OCT family when Soebarkah resigns.

    My email is SvenIsRightandIwasWrong@yahoo.com .

  28. avatar
    Greg September 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’ve got questions and I got answers.

    Really? Show me an answer.

    What evidence do you have to support any of your assertions?

    Finish this statement: “I believe what I say is true because _______”

  29. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Black Lion: Sven’s “conclusions”

    just a recap on sven’s “Barry and the Pirates” ( i’m going from memory so please let me know if i missed or misstated anything ):

    barry moves to indonesia at the age of six with his mom and step date. shortly after his seventh birthday he successfully renounces his US citizenship ( against US policy/law). he then obtains indonesian citizenship ( against indonesian policy/law ). sometime in the next three years he is abandoned by his mother and step-father so he can qualify for refugee status . before barry is ten years old he is accepted by a sponsor family in connecticut but lives with his grandparents in hawaii. in the mid-late 70’s the sponsor family registers barry for a SS#.

  30. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’ve got questions and I got answers.

    did i get it right ?

  31. avatar
    NBC September 9, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I don’t want to lose my OCT family when Soebarkah resigns.

    Hahaha…
    You’re a funny dude. You have no evidence, and at best some ill informed hope that President Obama may resign.
    Let me make a prediction: See ya in 6 years when President Obama ‘resigns’ since the Constitution prohibits him from running for a 3rd time 🙂

    So far none of your predictions have come true… And you have refused to provide ANY evidence to support your hypotheticals which appear to be contradicted by any known fact.

  32. avatar
    gorefan September 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sometimes I think that it was an embassy employee named Soebarkah that crossed out the name,

    Maybe, Alphonse LaPorta would remember if there was a passport clerk named Soebarak.

  33. avatar
    charo September 9, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Black Lion,

    I haven’t followed what Sven contends. I just notice that there is a whole lotta blather when he is on the scene, for the most part. There are those who specifically address the issues and those who don’t. I only respond to what interests me.

  34. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    charo: I haven’t followed what Sven contends. I just notice that there is a whole lotta blather when he is on the scene, for the most part.

    then charo, please, read my synopsis i posted this morning of “sven’s conclusion”. i honestly tried to keep it as accurate as i could.

  35. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett September 9, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: is SvenIsRightandIwasWrong@yahoo.com .

    I hope you like clown porn. I just signed you up for several lists.

    have a nice day! 😀

  36. avatar
    BatGuano September 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    gorefan: Maybe, Alphonse LaPorta would remember

    had to look him up. my mistake. at first i thought he was the spanish soldier that claimed to have been instantaneously transported from his post in the philippines to mexico during the 19th century. the story is true, not sure about the claim. still, he might have been someone that would remember a passport clerk in a different century on the opposite side of the globe.

    ( …. potentially more fodder for sven ).

  37. avatar
    Ellid September 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    I hope you like clown porn. I just signed you up for several lists.have a nice day!

    CLOWN PORN???????

    *oh god let it involve the insane clown posse, day-of-the-week panties, Harry Potter smut, and hentai*

  38. avatar
    Black Lion September 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    charo: Black Lion,I haven’t followed what Sven contends. I just notice that there is a whole lotta blather when he is on the scene, for the most part. There are those who specifically address the issues and those who don’t. I only respond to what interests me.

    Charo, there is a “whole lotta blather” when he is on the scene because he just likes to make things up without any supporting factual evidence whatsoever….We all figure he is trying to write a work of fiction but is getting derailed by something known as lack of factual evidence….So we all like to point out where in his fiction something could not have happened because of something known as the law. It usually sends him away for a couple of hours….

  39. avatar
    Hulu September 9, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    It looks like the State Dept. has lied about the destruction of records. That is, according to the GSA.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/09/who-is-lying-and-who-is-telling-the-truth/

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 9, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    Hulu: It looks like the State Dept. has lied about the destruction of records. That is, according to the GSA.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/09/who-is-lying-and-who-is-telling-the-truth/

    Thanks for the link. I left the following comment on the Post & Email:

    For more information on the GSA and the State Department record keeping problems, I commend this 1981 GSA report (pay particular attention to Chapter 4):

    Management of the Department of State Office of Passport Services Needs To Be Improved.

    Do you think it will ever get out moderation? I don’t.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    charo: I haven’t followed what Sven contends.

    I just hit the scroll wheel (including responses).

  42. avatar
    Greg September 9, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Hulu: It looks like the State Dept. has lied about the destruction of records.

    Let’s see, here’s what PE claims:

    When I contacted the GSA, I explained to her that the State Department was saying that the GSA gave a directive back in the 1980s, but not saying which one it was, that caused them to destroy records

    Here’s what the State Department memo, from 1985 says:

    Since the late 1960’s the General Services Administration had pressured the Bureau of Consular Affairs to reduce the volume of passport applications and related records stored at FRC. At that time, original passport records were retained for a period of 100 years. The retention period was subsequently reduced to twenty years for 10 year applications and fifteen years for 5-year applications. In 1982, after consulting with all primary Bureau file users, the CA Bureau decided to reduce the holdings of records at PRC by eliminating all non-permanent routine records, retaining those records of permanent significance including those containing information on, or documentation of, citizenship.

    Seems to me that the State Department is saying that the GSA had encouraged the State Department for years to reduce their holdings, but the State Department decided to reduce their holdings.

    Now, I wonder if the GSA had been on the State Department for years to reduce their holdings? Dr. Conspiracy pointed to a GAO report from 1981. Could it shed some light on the subject?

    GSA has encouraged the State Department to reduce its holdings of passport files for many years. Numerous discussions have taken place to improve passport records storage and file retrievals.

    What is it about the English language that is so difficult for birthers?

    Here, let me make it clear for you:

    The GSA ordered the State Department to destroy documents.
    The State Department destroyed documents with guidance from the GSA.
    The GSA had encouraged the State Department to destroy documents for 25 years.

    Those are three different statements and they have three different meanings.

    Lightning != Lightning Bug

    Here’s a final clue – read the memo and the cover letter from the State Department. Find the word DIRECTIVE! I’ll give you a buck if you can find that word. Surely it’s in there if the State Department is blaming a GSA DIRECTIVE.

  43. avatar
    Greg September 9, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    Here’s the sentence that has birthers’ knickers in a twist:

    “Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.”

    Hmm. Guidance. That sounds like the GSA issued a directive, right? Totally blaming the GSA for the destruction, right?

    Look back at the link Dr. Conspiracy provided:

    Retention schedules for Federal records are set by the originating agencies and are approved by GSA. GSA has no authority to alter the retention period of records without agency consent but does offer guidance in determining them. [p. 41 of the .pdf]

    Dang, sounds like the State Department is actually describing how things are done in the real world.

  44. avatar
    Gordon September 9, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    Sven Magnunson CRACKS ME UP! I may start a blog with that name.

  45. avatar
    Hulu September 9, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    Greg,

    Quit trying so hard!

    Greg said; “Here’s what the State Department memo, from 1985 says:”

    What State Dept memo? Show us a copy of that memo! If such a memo exists, and you have really obtained your quote from that memo, you will should be able to readily provide a link to it.

    Don’t give me a link to NBC’s website, where the alleged memo only appears in html format.

  46. avatar
    Majority Will September 9, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    charo: “Indefinate” was the misspelled word so the irony that you find is absent.My comment was in response to Doc who talked about the handwriting.“The handwriting is similar to Obama’s, but the name is in Caps and Small caps, and Soebarkah is upper and lower.case.”(Doc)

    Then it must be “sporatic.”

  47. avatar
    BatGuano September 10, 2010 at 3:10 am #

    Greg: Here, let me make it clear for you:

    The GSA ordered the State Department to destroy documents.
    The State Department destroyed documents with guidance from the GSA.
    The GSA had encouraged the State Department to destroy documents for 25 years.

    Those are three different statements and they have three different meanings.

    um…….. if coming from one person that would be one statement, three different sentences.

  48. avatar
    Greg September 10, 2010 at 5:54 am #

    BatGuano: three different sentences.

    You agree that they do not have equivalent meanings, these three different sentences. If I said one, you would not be quoting me if you stated that I said one of the others, right?

    One of the sentences came from the birthers, one came from the State Department, and one came from the GAO report.

  49. avatar
    AnotherBird September 10, 2010 at 6:40 am #

    Greg: What is it about the English language that is so difficult for birthers?

    It is all about word games.

  50. avatar
    ellid September 10, 2010 at 7:05 am #

    Hulu: It looks like the State Dept. has lied about the destruction of records. That is, according to the GSA.http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/09/who-is-lying-and-who-is-telling-the-truth/

    Why anyone with a brain would believe a word that constitutional harp player Sharon Rondeau writes is beyond me.

    Also, I do not for a minute believe that Sharon will let a single comment by Doc out of moderation. She’s playing to the choir in the most literal sense.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 10, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Hulu: Greg said; “Here’s what the State Department memo, from 1985 says:”

    What State Dept memo? Show us a copy of that memo! If such a memo exists, and you have really obtained your quote from that memo, you will should be able to readily provide a link to it.

    Don’t give me a link to NBC’s website, where the alleged memo only appears in html format.

    So we are left to wonder here whether Hulu is casting doubt on Greg and/or NBC’s integrity for the purpose of trolling, spawning righteous indignation and a heated response (troll food), or whether Hulu is just too lazy to do any reading of the source material he talks about. This is why I have Hulu in moderation, so that I can prevent that commenter from monopolizing the discussion again by frequent insulting comments. BTW, NBC’s copy of the document is NOT in HTML format.

    One would think that anyone who knew anything about this passport destruction business would have read the documents in the Strunk case, from which the paragraph Greg cited comes. The court filing is available at Scribd Page 27. If you want a more authoritative source, you can get it from the federal court’s ECF filing system (requires a login and payment for the document — 28 pages x 8 cents).

    Making unfounded accusations is what keeps you in moderation.

  52. avatar
    Greg September 10, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    Hulu: What State Dept memo?

    Dr. Conspiracy has posted a link to it at Scribd. It is Exhibit 7 of the signed and sworn declaration of Alex Galovich (signed under penalty of perjury). The letter sent to Strunk (with the sentence about “guidance” that P&E spends their time discussing) is Exhibit 6. You can read the paragraph referencing those Exhibits on pages 5-6 of the declaration, paragraph 12.

    If you choose to go get the document yourself at Pacer (ECF), it is case number 1:08-cv-02234-RJL, and document 37-2.

    Quit trying so hard!

    I guess this would make it easier to buy the birther arguments – just sit back, let your eyes relax and get unfocused and everything starts to look the same. When the State Department says they got consultation from the GSA, that’s the same as the GSA issuing a directive – if you quit trying so hard.

  53. avatar
    john September 10, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    The Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin MUST cease!
    Judge Denise R. Lind cites PRESIDENTAL authority to govern the rules and the procedures of Lakin’s court martial.
    Is is now impossible for Lakin to proceed in his court martial any further.
    If Lakin continues to participate in his court martial….
    Under which the very authority he is questioning…
    Lakin will be tainting his defense that Obama DOES NOT have the authority to make his orders he has been charged with disobeying, lawful.
    The court can’t force Lakin to taint his own defense.
    If the government wants to prosecute Lakin, they must do in a court that does not rely on PRESIDENTAL authority.

    If it is Lakin’s contention that Obama lacks the authority to make his orders lawful, then it is also impossible for Obama’s authority to make the rules and procedures of his court martial valid as well.

    While Judge Lind said that Lakin can’t use Obama’s eligiblity as a defense, Judge Lind has no right to force Lakin to taint his own by essentially forcing Lakin to concede that Obama’s authority is valid for his court martial while Lakin is maintaining that Obama’s authority IS NOT valid for the lawfulness of his orders.

    Judge Lind is attempting to force Lakin into an impossible conudrum.

  54. avatar
    Arthur September 10, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    John:

    Regarding your post above: I haven’t read something as nonsensical since “The Bald Soprano.” You really must try your hand at absurdist drama; you’re a natural.

  55. avatar
    richCares September 10, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    hey john, Gen. Petraeus plus millions of soldiers are following their orders and serving their country with pride, is that too much to ask of Lakin?

  56. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    john: The Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin MUST cease!Judge Denise R. Lind cites PRESIDENTAL authority to govern the rules and the procedures of Lakin’s court martial.Is is now impossible for Lakin to proceed in his court martial any further.If Lakin continues to participate in his court martial….Under which the very authority he is questioning…Lakin will be tainting his defense that Obama DOES NOT have the authority to make his orders he has been charged with disobeying, lawful.The court can’t force Lakin to taint his own defense.If the government wants to prosecute Lakin, they must do in a court that does not rely on PRESIDENTAL authority.If it is Lakin’s contention that Obama lacks the authority to make his orders lawful, then it is also impossible for Obama’s authority to make the rules and procedures of his court martial valid as well.While Judge Lind said that Lakin can’t use Obama’s eligiblity as a defense, Judge Lind has no right to force Lakin to taint his own by essentially forcing Lakin to concede that Obama’s authority is valid for his court martial while Lakin is maintaining that Obama’s authority IS NOT valid for the lawfulness of his orders.Judge Lind is attempting to force Lakin into an impossible conudrum.

    John is just trolling…He posted the same nonsense over at other sites yesterday if you check the comments at the Post and Fail…He is actually citing the crazy Walt Fitzpatrick’s theory on what Lakin should do….

  57. avatar
    Greg September 10, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    john: The Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin MUST cease!

    Simple.

    Plead guilty.

    There will be a providence inquiry into the facts of the case, and since the defense of illegal orders was disallowed, it won’t interfere with the guilty plea and will still be a live issue for appeal.

    In fact, there is automatic appellate review of any court-martial where the punishment exceeds a tiny threshold, even when a person pleads guilty.

    Other than the ineligibility of Obama, john, what facts are in dispute? What elements of the crimes can Lakin contest?

  58. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Greg: You agree that they do not have equivalent meanings, these three different sentences. If I said one, you would not be quoting me if you stated that I said one of the others, right? One of the sentences came from the birthers, one came from the State Department, and one came from the GAO report.

    Greg, of course you are correct. The birthers, egged on by the idiotic Sharon Rondeau need a conspiracy to continue the charade they have going on. I work in the financial services industry and we get guidance all the time from regulations regarding destruction of records. Most of the time they are recommendations or suggestions to follow. However there are some that are mandatory. And those will way required. So anyone with a brain can tell the difference betweeen required or mandatory or guidance.

    Of course the birthers can’t or more likely don’t want to because that would cause them to question their belief in the ridiculous conspiracy. You can see that in the comments from the Post and Fail article…

    Bill Gerard says:
    Friday, September 10, 2010 at 4:16 AM
    It is not just her passport record that still has questions.Remember when they released the video of his passport a few weeks ago and the close up of the passport photo page had the Date of Issue blurred out ? People could not understand why they did this since it is not protected info like the passport number. An analysis of the video was just done and the probable Date of Issue is revealed. It raises MANY questions and shows why they had to blur it out. Here is the link of the analysis:

    http://www.whpassfraud.cjb.net

  59. avatar
    Obsolete September 10, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    So, let’s say I huff the same spray-paint brand birthers use and start believing that the Judicial Branch no longer has any authority (because the Attorney General must be sworn in on a Monday wearing a stove-pipe hat, not a Tuesday) so I burn a court building down.

    Under John’s theory they can only try me in a non-Judicial Branch court room. Neat trick if you can make it stick.

  60. avatar
    AnotherBird September 10, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    john: The Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin MUST cease!
    Judge Denise R. Lind cites PRESIDENTAL authority to govern the rules and the procedures of Lakin’s court martial.
    Is is now impossible for Lakin to proceed in his court martial any further.
    If Lakin continues to participate in his court martial….
    Under which the very authority he is questioning…
    Lakin will be tainting his defense that Obama DOES NOT have the authority to make his orders he has been charged with disobeying, lawful.
    The court can’t force Lakin to taint his own defense.
    If the government wants to prosecute Lakin, they must do in a court that does not rely on PRESIDENTAL authority.

    If it is Lakin’s contention that Obama lacks the authority to make his orders lawful, then it is also impossible for Obama’s authority to make the rules and procedures of his court martial valid as well.

    While Judge Lind said that Lakin can’t use Obama’s eligiblity as a defense, Judge Lind has no right to force Lakin to taint his own by essentially forcing Lakin to concede that Obama’s authority is valid for his court martial while Lakin is maintaining that Obama’s authority IS NOT valid for the lawfulness of his orders.

    Judge Lind is attempting to force Lakin into an impossible conudrum.

    It was Lakin himself who is responsible for the position he finds himself in.

    Lakin’s believed that he could produce nothing to support his arguments, but force others must satisfy his demands.

    You can’t just go around accusing a person of anything without having anything to support you accusations. Conjecture doesn’t count.

    Lakin conundrum was caused by his refusal to follow an order until the president to capitulate to his specific demands. He was hopeful that if the president didn’t then the courts would step in and assist him.

    Lakin should know that there is no relationship between his disobeying his orders and the president.

    It just doesn’t happen with a subordinate refusing to follow order until their supervisor satisfies their demands. It most cases the subordinate is either fired or force to quit.

    If you want to give money or other support to Lakin please do, but you must accept the fact that Lakin caused his own problems.

    Birthers have to learn “the acid test.”

  61. avatar
    aarrgghh September 10, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    from former JAG defense attorney charles gittins:

    i told LTCOL lakin that he was being badly advised when he called me to join his legal team. i gave him my (very) candid advice. i told him to seek opinions from other military justice experts if he was not willing to accept my advice. he is where he is for a reason. i am very sad for him. he has been deluded by a very incompetent attorney, who has done a disservice [to] our profession and military justice.

  62. avatar
    Obsolete September 10, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Amazing, Black Lion!
    I didnt know birthers already have a full web site to claim that Obama’s passport is a fraud/forgery!

    Just as expected, it contains faulty analysis, half-truths, unproven assertions as facts (think Sven), as well as ordinary lies.

    Do they think that as the guy who sits in the Oval Office, Obama couldn’t just have the State Dept. print him up a passport- that maybe Obama went out on the streets and paid a forger in a dark alley after waiting in line with some illegals?

    He thinks his Polarik-esque image analysis proves that the blurred-out date-of-issue is “March”.
    Here is a quote from the end of his page:
    “THERE IS NO WAY ON THIS EARTH THAT IT WOULD TAKE CLOSE TO 2 MONTHS TO GET A PASSPORT ISSUED FOR THE PRESIDENT. ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS A SEPARATE OFFICE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT SET ASIDE FOR DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS.

    He’s right- there is no way that Obama had to wait two months for his passport to show up in the White House mailbox. That means either:
    A- There is another huge conspiracy here involving the White House and State Dept.
    Or
    B- YOUR RESEARCH SUCKS AND YOUR “MARCH” CONCLUSION WAS WRONG FROM THE START YET YOU WORKED BACKWORDS FROM IT SO YOU CAME UP WITH A WHOLE WEB SITE’S WORTH OF STEAMING CRAP.

    You decide which is more likely. And this should remove all doubt that birthers would ever actually accept Obama’s long-form should he release it.

  63. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Obsolete, that site is hilarious…I attempted to make a comment regarding how Lakin brought this on himself but they put me in moderation….I am sure it won’t get posted…

    http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/obama-amends-courts-martial-rules-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-24983

    What is even more hilarious is what they are accusing Obama of…..He “changed the rules of a court martial”…Really? Here is the intro…

    “On August 31, 2010, pResident Obama signed his latest Executive Order amending the “Manual for Courts-Martial.”

    The White House website shows the Executive Order, but the changes that were made were not published. The cover page states they are “described in the Annex attached.”

    As of yesterday, the changes were not listed on these websites: The Federal Register; Department of Defense; Library of Congress; or the JAG database.

    On September 30, 2010, these new amendments will take effect.

    Until the amendments are released, we will not know if these changes will affect LTC. Lakin’s lawsuit. It is certainly suspicious and beyond coincidence that these amendments are being placed into law by the very person whose credentials to be Commander in Chief are being questioned by LTC. Lakin.

    There have been no changes to the Courts-Martial sections since 1984. What has changed? Why did Obama need to sign an Executive Order for these amendments to be in place within 30 days? Why now? We will see just how far Obama and his administration will go to protect his eligibility secrets, and if these changes protect him and skewer LTC. Lakin or some unknown.

    Did Robert Bauer, White House Counsel and Personal Attorney to Obama, pen the new amendments? Will the changes affect and prevent other soldiers from stepping up to protect our Constitution? Was Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, responsible for these new changes? Did General David Petraeus know about these amendments before he was sent overseas? Will there be an outcry from citizens, if indeed, this new executive order will or can affect LTC. Lakin’s case? Section 2 seems to allude to this case unless there are other courts- martials also in play. How will these changes affect our troops? Will those of you who visit military blogs please keep us apprised?”

  64. avatar
    charo September 10, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Then it must be “sporatic.”

    That applies to Doc too, then. Insulting by proxy.

  65. avatar
    Whatever4 September 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Black Lion: What is even more hilarious is what they are accusing Obama of…..He “changed the rules of a court martial”…Really? Here is the intro…“On August 31, 2010, pResident Obama signed his latest Executive Order amending the “Manual for Courts-Martial.”The White House website shows the Executive Order, but the changes that were made were not published. The cover page states they are “described in the Annex attached.”

    Well, the actual EO grandfathers any actions already started, so it doesn’t apply to Lakin. And the full EO with Annex is on the National Archives site.

    (b) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any
    nonjudicial punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of
    charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior
    to the effective date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment,
    restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial, or other action may proceed
    in the same manner and with the same effect as if these amendments
    had not been prescribed.

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-22279.pdf

  66. avatar
    Whatever4 September 10, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    He’s right- there is no way that Obama had to wait two months for his passport to show up in the White House mailbox. That means either:A- There is another huge conspiracy here involving the White House and State Dept.OrB- YOUR RESEARCH SUCKS AND YOUR “MARCH” CONCLUSION WAS WRONG FROM THE START YET YOU WORKED BACKWORDS FROM IT SO YOU CAME UP WITH A WHOLE WEB SITE’S WORTH OF STEAMING CRAP. You decide which is more likely. And this should remove all doubt that birthers would ever actually accept Obama’s long-form should he release it.

    Do they imagine Obama haunting the mailbox to see if his passport came? With AF1 cooling its jets on the tarmac? Could November be a possible date as well as March? Someone’s research DOES suck.

  67. avatar
    Black Lion September 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    Whatever4: Well, the actual EO grandfathers any actions already started, so it doesn’t apply to Lakin. And the full EO with Annex is on the National Archives site. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-22279.pdf

    Of course it does…But in the birther mind it is something that the ebil usurper Obama is doing to that fine treasonous patriot Lakin….If they had common sense then they would probably not be birthers and supporting Lakin and believing in guys like Lucas Smith…

  68. avatar
    AnotherBird September 10, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Obsolete: Amazing, Black Lion!
    I didnt know birthers already have a full web site to claim that Obama’s passport is a fraud/forgery!

    Just as expected, it contains faulty analysis, half-truths, unproven assertions as facts (think Sven),as well as ordinary lies…

    this should remove all doubt that birthers would ever actually accept Obama’s long-form should he release it.

    An aside of something that wasn’t quoted: The date of issue of Obama’s passport wasn’t shown. So how do birthers know he had to wait “2 months” for his passport.

    We both know that birther are continually searching for anything new to support their arguments. It is their logical inconsistencies that baffle me. My impression is the phrase “long-form” is just a coded message to say that “only a document that is acceptable to me will be accepted as proof.”

    Obama’s passport is just more information that birthers will manipulate, because accepting it will mean that they are wrong.

  69. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 10, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    I waded through the EO on the court martial and at the end of the day it only amounted to :

    They clarify and limit what CM can do with civilians “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field”

    In post trial review they have clarified the form of the judge advocate’s report – there was some doubt whether or not the 2008 amendments inadvertently deleted some paras unintentionally.(They also reword this but that seems to be purely stylistic)

    They clarify the distinction between “Military Property” and “Government Property”

    They correct at least one and probably two typos in the existing rules

    Birther sites were speculating about Lakin, Hasan Moslems dont ask don’t tell etc etc
    before they even read them!

    I never cease to amazed by the idiocy!

  70. avatar
    misha September 11, 2010 at 10:25 am #

    john: Judge Lind is attempting to force Lakin into an impossible conudrum.

    Chill, dude, and have some brownies. Thank heaven I don’t have to work with you. And have some brownies.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 11, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    john: Judge Lind is attempting to force Lakin into an impossible conudrum.

    Actually, I think it was Lakin’s intention to force the government into an impossible situation. It didn’t work because he used birther law instead of the UCMJ.

  72. avatar
    Sef September 11, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    john: The Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin MUST cease!
    Judge Denise R. Lind cites PRESIDENTAL authority to govern the rules and the procedures of Lakin’s court martial.
    Is is now impossible for Lakin to proceed in his court martial any further.
    If Lakin continues to participate in his court martial….
    Under which the very authority he is questioning…
    Lakin will be tainting his defense that Obama DOES NOT have the authority to make his orders he has been charged with disobeying, lawful.
    The court can’t force Lakin to taint his own defense.
    If the government wants to prosecute Lakin, they must do in a court that does not rely on PRESIDENTAL authority.If it is Lakin’s contention that Obama lacks the authority to make his orders lawful, then it is also impossible for Obama’s authority to make the rules and procedures of his court martial valid as well.While Judge Lind said that Lakin can’t use Obama’s eligiblity as a defense, Judge Lind has no right to force Lakin to taint his own by essentially forcing Lakin to concede that Obama’s authority is valid for his court martial while Lakin is maintaining that Obama’s authority IS NOT valid for the lawfulness of his orders.Judge Lind is attempting to force Lakin into an impossible conudrum.

    Lakin’s conundrum was self-created as has been pointed out many,many times on all the blogs that have discussed this poor deluded individual since April. Why did he choose to disobey the particular orders that are in his charges? Why has he chosen to accept his pay since Jan 20, 2009? Why has he himself given orders? Why did he show up at his hearings? In short, everything he has done since 1/20/09 belies his theory.

    Note also, that Lakin is the only one with the conundrum. The Government has no such problem, since his theory is false.

  73. avatar
    Daniel September 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    I rather suspect that Paul Jensen and his cronies at the American Putz Foundation know, and have known from the beginning that Lakin’s battle was hopeless from square one.

    I suspect Lakin has been played for a fool, encouraged to pursue a course that would ultimately place himself in jeopardy of imprisonment, in order to manufacture a martyr for the cause.

    I don’t have any proof, of course, it just seems very unlikely that, even as stupid as he obviously is, that Paul Jensen didn’t know how this was going to play out. It’s not like he got his law degree by a mail order catalog like Oily did.

  74. avatar
    J Maine September 11, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    How will you debunk this analysis? Why is the video so obviously edited. From reading your posts, I can tell you have more a predisposition of being fair, regardless of your current bias. Check out the video as the link below states, look at the analysis and tell me he isn’t right. If not, tell me why?

    http://www.whpassfraud.cjb.net/

    LOTS of things stink in the West Wing? BO is just one of them.

  75. avatar
    Daniel September 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Well the first thing that debunks the analysis right from the top is Occam’s Razor.

  76. avatar
    J Maine September 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Daniel,

    If you are going to use a term and think it’s useful, then please actually use it properly.

    REAL APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR shows BO to be guilty.

    The simplest thing to be done is to show anything, anytime anyone asks. Especially a real birth certificate when you claim you were born at Kapiolani.

    Occam’s Razor makes Obama super guilty. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

    Seriously Daniel. Look at the video and tell me it’s not a hack job, especially the clear ediiting done when he “flips through the pages”. Unreal how bad a hack this guy and his cronies are.

    Why redact the date of issue anyway? What a clown show this is.

    Dr. Conspiracy, can you tell me why?

    Didn’t think so.

    Again, the least transparent presidency and administration we’ve ever seen.

    C-Span for health care debates?
    Val Jarrett?
    “I don’t know Blago”

    I’m not sure why you guys even want to defend the guy. He’s running this country into the ground. Soon, he’ll be gone and Jimmy Carter’s motto will be “Thank God for Barry Obama”

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 11, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    J Maine
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    How will you debunk this analysis? Why is the video so obviously edited. From reading your posts, I can tell you have more a predisposition of being fair, regardless of your current bias. Check out the video as the link below states, look at the analysis and tell me he isn’t right. If not, tell me why?

    http://www.whpassfraud.cjb.net

    Hi, I’ll take a look at it and get back to you. I’ve been looking at something to use for my next article.

    But really, would you not expect the video to be edited? Have you ever seen a video from any professional videographer that wasn’t edited? That’s how professionals work. They shoot a lot and edit it down to the best parts. Do you disagree with that? I would expect that someone flipping through the passport would do it for a while and then it would be edited to show the parts that were clearer (not wiggling around) and parts that were interesting.

    I really don’t know why the passport issue dates were blurred out. (My guess is that the dates are before the inauguration and that’s why they were blurred.) But I will tell you one thing: if the passport is a fake, then there is no reason to blur out the dates, because a fake passport can have any dates they want. Let me put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you say that they are blurred out? What possible nefarious purpose can you dream up for the dates to be blurred?

  78. avatar
    BatGuano September 11, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    J Maine: REAL APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR shows BO to be guilty.

    50 year international conspiracy involving all three branches of the US government

    vs

    a kid was born in hawaii.

  79. avatar
    Daniel September 11, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    J Maine: Daniel,If you are going to use a term and think it’s useful, then please actually use it properly.

    Thank you, I did.

    J Maine: REAL APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR shows BO to be guilty.

    Apparently you are unaware that Occam’s razor refers to the simplest definition, especially in the complete absence of objective evidence to the contrary.

    Since the conspiracy, lik e most conspiracy theories, requires logistics and secretiveness that is so unweildy as to be untenable in any reality, the simplest explanation is that The POYUS is, indeed, qualified.

  80. avatar
    misha September 11, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    J Maine: The simplest thing to be done is to show anything, anytime anyone asks. Especially a real birth certificate when you claim you were born at Kapiolani.

    J Maine: I agree with you. I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that’s right here! Hope this helps.

  81. avatar
    Daniel September 11, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    J Maine: Look at the video and tell me it’s not a hack job, especially the clear ediiting done when he “flips through the pages”.

    OK, it’s not a hack job.

    And since all you’ve got is an “analysis” done by some anoymous hack with a badly formatted web page, why would I believe that you somehow found what all the actual real credentialed videographers and forensic experts? Do you honestly think that if it was a bad hack job, as your anonymous video wannabe investigator says, that the GOP wouldn’t have found it and jumped all over it?

    Occam’s Razor, once again, cuts you deep.

  82. avatar
    aarrgghh September 11, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    conspiracy theory is the art of turning every mundane triviality into a smoking howitzer …

    … and failing.

  83. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- September 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    aarrgghh: conspiracy theory is the art of turning every mundane triviality into a smoking howitzer

    As I’ve discovered ‘debating’ with truthers this week…

    Hearsay, conjecture, and trivialities are smoking howitzers
    Absence of evidence is further evidence of the conspiracy
    Evidence to the contrary is always faked

    I’m wondering at which point do we actually meet the clinical definition of ‘delusional’.

  84. avatar
    Daniel September 11, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
    at which point do we actually meet the clinical definition of delusional’.

    That boat has sailed…

  85. avatar
    G September 12, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    Arthur: John:

    Regarding your post above: I haven’t read something as nonsensical since “The Bald Soprano.” You really must try your hand at absurdist drama; you’re a natural.

    LOL! Nice mention of “The Bald Soprano”. Great theater of the absurd. True story, We actually put on this play, way back in High School. I had the role of The Fire Chief. Let me tell you, that soliloquy was a real pain to commit to memory. I actually forgot several lines of it in one of my performances and started spouting a bunch of blather I just made up on the spot to cover. …I was able to get away with it – the only people who caught on were the Prof and a few others who were intimately familiar with the play.

  86. avatar
    G September 12, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    Daniel: The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
    at which point do we actually meet the clinical definition of delusional’.

    That boat has sailed…

    Agreed.

  87. avatar
    AnotherBird September 12, 2010 at 6:14 am #

    J Maine: REAL APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR shows BO to be guilty.

    The simplest thing to be done is to show anything, anytime anyone asks. Especially a real birth certificate when you claim you were born at Kapiolani.

    Obama’s goal was to produced a document that indicated his date and place of birth. This was done to stem rumors about his citizenship. For that purpose the hospital of birth is immaterial.

    At some point a person has to stop responding to the similar requests. That is the simplest thing to do.

    Obama did keep it simple. The constant shifting and disjoint arguments by those who attempt to disprove Obama’s citizenship violate Occam’s Razor.

  88. avatar
    obsolete September 12, 2010 at 7:09 am #

    Any (non-birther) lawyer will tell you the simplest thing to do when sued for your private documents and info by someone who has no right to them is to ask for dismissal, not comply.
    You think we learned nothing from how Clinton was persecuted? Once you give them ANYTHING they will demand everything, forever.
    They will use whatever they get to manufacture claims of illegalities where none exist. (Remember Whitewater, Hillary’s travel records, etc.?)

    But this needs repeating:

    50 year international conspiracy involving all three branches of the US government

    vs

    a kid was born in Hawaii.

    Sorry J Maine, but you have the smell of BIRTHER FAIL about you, and your denigrating of President Carter, the devout Christian who “rose to the rank of lieutenant (senior grade), in the Navy working under Admiral Hyman Rickover in the development of the nuclear submarine program”. He “did graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College”.

    The fact is, the phony Christian right wing nuts HATE Carter because he is the real deal (a Christian with good acts, Veteran, and educated Scientist) and when they stand next to him they look very, very small.
    “Carter Derangement Syndrome” is also a real disease.

  89. avatar
    ellid September 12, 2010 at 8:30 am #

    obsolete: Any (non-birther) lawyer will tell you the simplest thing to do when sued for your private documents and info by someone who has no right to them is to ask for dismissal, not comply.
    You think we learned nothing from how Clinton was persecuted? Once you give them ANYTHING they will demand everything, forever.
    They will use whatever they get to manufacture claims of illegalities where none exist. (Remember Whitewater, Hillary’s travel records, etc.?)But this needs repeating:50 year international conspiracy involving all three branches of the US governmentvsa kid was born in Hawaii.Sorry J Maine, but you have the smell of BIRTHER FAIL about you, and your denigrating of President Carter, the devout Christian who “rose to the rank of lieutenant (senior grade), in the Navy working under Admiral Hyman Rickover in the development of the nuclear submarine program”. He “did graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College”.
    The fact is, the phony Christian right wing nuts HATE Carter because he is the real deal (a Christian with good acts, Veteran, and educated Scientist) and when they stand next to him they look very, very small.
    “Carter Derangement Syndrome” is also a real disease.

    And if you miss the constant scandalmongering and right wing smears of the 1990s, you’ll LOVE the next Congress. The Republicans in line to head key committees should they become the majority have already announced their intention to impeach President Obama.

    Yes. Really. The alleged reason is because of Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. Never mind that the supposed quid pro quo never happened, that Republicans have done exactly the same thing, and that NOTHING Obama has done in office is actionable. Darrell Issa and John Boehner want to subpoena him and impeach him, and unless the Democrats pull off a miracle, it’s going to happen.

    This country is doomed.

  90. avatar
    Lupin September 12, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    J Maine: I’m not sure why you guys even want to defend the guy. He’s running this country into the ground. Soon, he’ll be gone and Jimmy Carter’s motto will be “Thank God for Barry Obama”

    I find this comment surprisingly honest, rather disarming — and the worst indictment of all.

    What we have here is the naked admission that birthers care not at all for the constitution and the rule of law but only wish to overthrow a president they don’t like.

    Thank you for the candid moment.

  91. avatar
    Black Lion September 12, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    Lupin: I find this comment surprisingly honest, rather disarming — and the worst indictment of all.What we have here is the naked admission that birthers care not at all for the constitution and the rule of law but only wish to overthrow a president they don’t like.Thank you for the candid moment.

    Lupin, things must be slow in birtherland for avowed birther and Post and Fail supporter Joseph Maine to visit a non moderated site….However he is still braying the same nonsense…

  92. avatar
    Lupin September 12, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Black Lion:
    Lupin, things must be slow in birtherland for avowed birther and Post and Fail supporter Joseph Maine to visit a non moderated site….However he is still braying the same nonsense…

    What I always find remarkable are the lies and hypocrisy that underlies the birthers’ arguments.

  93. avatar
    Daniel September 12, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    Lupin:
    What I always find remarkable are the lies and hypocrisy that underlies the birthers’ arguments.

    Really? I don’t find it surprising at all. After all they are the ones most commonly appealing to biblical morality, yet they seem to have completely forgotten about the no “false witness” part.

    Hypocrisy goes hand-in-hand with loud moralizing.

  94. avatar
    J Maine September 12, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    Lupin,

    What makes it worse is that he won’t be transparent AND he’s doing a horrible job.

    Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.

  95. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 12, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    J Maine: Lupin,What makes it worse is that he won’t be transparent AND he’s doing a horrible job.Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.

    I love your concern trolling J Maine. How do these concerns stack up with your concerns of his predecessor if you even had any? He has been transparent. He has shown more documentation than any previous president yet you still want more because you don’t like him.
    Speaking of promises he kept his promise of drawing down troops from Iraq, kept promises of getting health reform, financial reform. So I find your claims of “every promise has been broken” to be rather ridiculous. What does it matter to you? You didn’t vote for him

  96. avatar
    sfjeff September 12, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    “What makes it worse is that he won’t be transparent AND he’s doing a horrible job.”

    His government has not been as transparent as I had hoped, I will give you that. I hardly find that an impeachable offense. The fact that you want him to make his private life transparent is an obsession of yours.

    Whether he is doing a horrible job is debatable. Personally I think he has done pretty good on the economy, but history will tell. Plenty of folks will disagree with you- but most of it is partisanship, rather than the actual quality of his job- on both sides.

    “Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.”

    Here you are either lieing or just displaying partisan ignorance. Which is it?

    In case it is ignorance, see this http://politifact.com/

    So- back up your claim that he has broken every promise or stand up and admit an ignorant statement.

  97. avatar
    Northland10 September 12, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    J Maine: Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.

    I seriously doubt J. Maine would like it if Obama was able to keep all of his promises. Maybe our concern troll would like to have the Public Option in health care, more spending on after school programs or a path to citizenship for undocumented workers (the last one is stalled).

  98. avatar
    Majority Will September 12, 2010 at 6:47 pm #

    “Every promise broken” is desperate FUD from teabagging, political enemies or pathetic bigots with more spare time than common sense.

    Promises fulfilled, broken, compromised, stalled, in the works and not yet rated:
    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

    Source: A 2009 Pulitzer Prize winning site and not inbred birthers drunk on hooch and misinformation.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    J Maine: REAL APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR shows BO to be guilty.

    I don’t think you should be playing with sharp things.

  100. avatar
    GeorgetownJD September 13, 2010 at 12:26 am #

    Black Lion: Obsolete, that site is hilarious…I attempted to make a comment regarding how Lakin brought this on himself but they put me in moderation….I am sure it won’t get posted…http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/obama-amends-courts-martial-rules-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-24983What is even more hilarious is what they are accusing Obama of…..He “changed the rules of a court martial”…Really?Here is the intro…“On August 31, 2010, pResident Obama signed his latest Executive Order amending the “Manual for Courts-Martial.”The White House website shows the Executive Order, but the changesthat were made were not published.The cover page states they are “described in the Annex attached.”As of yesterday, the changes were not listed on these websites: The Federal Register;Department of Defense; Library of Congress; or the JAG database.On September 30, 2010, these new amendments will take effect.Until the amendments are released, we will not know if these changes will affect LTC. Lakin’s lawsuit.It is certainly suspicious and beyond coincidence that these amendments are being placed into law by the very person whose credentials to be Commander in Chief are being questioned by LTC. Lakin.There have been no changes to the Courts-Martial sections since 1984. What has changed? Why did Obama need to sign an Executive Order for these amendments to be in place within 30 days? Why now? We will see just how far Obama and his administration will go to protect his eligibility secrets, and if these changes protect him and skewer LTC. Lakin or some unknown.Did Robert Bauer, White House Counsel and Personal Attorney to Obama,pen the new amendments? Will the changes affect and prevent other soldiers from stepping up to protect our Constitution? Was Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, responsible for these new changes? Did General David Petraeus know about these amendments before he was sent overseas? Will there be an outcry from citizens, if indeed, this new executive order will or can affect LTC. Lakin’s case? Section 2 seems to allude to this case unless there are other courts- martials also in play.How will these changes affect our troops? Will those of you who visit military blogs please keep us apprised?”

    The proposed amendment — now finalized — to the MCM was previously published in the Federal Register. I’ll look for that link and post it here tomorrow. The amendment adds as a court-martial offense the downloading and possession of child pornography. A commendable amendment IMHO.

  101. avatar
    Lupin September 13, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    J Maine: What makes it worse is that he won’t be transparent AND he’s doing a horrible job.

    Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.

    You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, which is shared by many.

    I urge you to campaign vigorously for the opposite camp, as the Constitution intends, instead of spreading seditious lies and advocating for an unconstitutional coup d’état

  102. avatar
    ellid September 13, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    J Maine: Lupin,What makes it worse is that he won’t be transparent AND he’s doing a horrible job.Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.

    Wrong. Among the things the President promised that he’s actually done:

    – rescinded the Mexico City order that killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of women seeking reproductive advice and abortion services.

    – signed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.

    – stabilized the economy, including about 3 million jobs.

    – signed the healthcare bill, which will result in a system similar in many ways to what we have in Massachusetts.

    – signed the financial reform bill.

    – restored American prestige abroad.

    – ended the American combat mission in Iraq and started shifting resources to Afghanistan, which is where Bush should have kept them in the first place if he truly wanted to stop Al Quaeda.

    And so on, and so on, and so on. You should be ashamed of yourself, lying like that.

  103. avatar
    Greg September 13, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    J Maine: REAL APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR shows BO to be guilty.

    Here’s how we apply Occam’s Razor:

    1. Like all Americans, Obama is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
    2. Birthers – prove that he’s guilty?

    And, now we stop and wait.

    C’mon, J, man-up! Give us some real, admissible, court-ready evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.

    No?

    Didn’t think so.

    J Maine: Every promise has been broken. None has been fulfilled.

    Name one that was broken.

    Can’t?

    Didn’t think so.

    Here. I’ll do your homework for you. Politifact lists 22 promises broken, like ending the income tax for seniors making $50,000 or less and ending no-bid contracts above $25,000. They list 121 promises kept. Big things like a credit card bill of rights, requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, expand SCHIP.

    Of the promises that have come to an end point, Obama’s kept 66% of his promises, broken 12% and compromised on the others.

    Let’s compare your record:

    1. Occam’s Razor shows Obama’s guilty. FALSE
    2. Every promise has been broken. FALSE
    3. None has been fulfilled. FALSE

    You’re zero for 3! A perfect record!

  104. avatar
    Lupin September 13, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    Greg et al:

    In any event the issue here is NOT whether BO has been a good president or not, whether he has fulfilled his promises, etc. etc but simply his legitimacy.

    That the birthers disagree with Obama’s policies is amply clear but the only remedy is at the ballot box, not spreading seditious lies or agitating for a coup.

    I don’t think Dr C would want to see this site turn into a pro- or con-Obama forum.

  105. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 13, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    Greg: Here’s how we apply Occam’s Razor: 1. Like all Americans, Obama is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.2. Birthers – prove that he’s guilty? And, now we stop and wait. C’mon, J, man-up! Give us some real, admissible, court-ready evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. No? Didn’t think so. Name one that was broken.Can’t? Didn’t think so. Here. I’ll do your homework for you. Politifact lists 22 promises broken, like ending the income tax for seniors making $50,000 or less and ending no-bid contracts above $25,000. They list 121 promises kept. Big things like a credit card bill of rights, requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, expand SCHIP. Of the promises that have come to an end point, Obama’s kept 66% of his promises, broken 12% and compromised on the others. Let’s compare your record: 1. Occam’s Razor shows Obama’s guilty. FALSE2. Every promise has been broken. FALSE3. None has been fulfilled. FALSEYou’re zero for 3! A perfect record!

    This is the point where we get one of those loud umpires to come in and yell “YERRRRRRR OUTTTTTAA HEREEE”

  106. avatar
    Rickey September 13, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Lupin: Greg et al:In any event the issue here is NOT whether BO has been a good president or not, whether he has fulfilled his promises, etc. etc but simply his legitimacy.That the birthers disagree with Obama’s policies is amply clear but the only remedy is at the ballot box, not spreading seditious lies or agitating for a coup.I don’t think Dr C would want to see this site turn into a pro- or con-Obama forum.

    In general I agree with you, and I try to avoid getting into arguments here about the kind of job Obama is doing. However, I’m all for correcting factual errors wherever they appear, even if they have no connection to Obama’s legitimacy.

    Consequently, when Irate Nate claims that “the people” want Obama to “go away,” I have no hesitation about pointing out that Obama’s last approval rating per Gallup is 46% approve, 46% disapprove. Whether I approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing is immaterial – it’s just a matter of setting the record straight.

    In the instant situation, we have J. Maine parroting right-wing talking points about broken promises when it’s obvious that he hasn’t spent even a minute trying to verify those talking points.

    One thing that I have learned from birthers is that we should never underestimate the gullibility of the American people. There are far too many people out there who are ready to believe anything which conforms to their prejudices.

  107. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    @ Lupin

    Right. I definitely don’t want a general Obama forum. There are ample venues for that discussion. This is a niche site on Obama conspiracies.

  108. avatar
    G September 13, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: @ LupinRight. I definitely don’t want a general Obama forum. There are ample venues for that discussion. This is a niche site on Obama conspiracies.

    I agree as well. However, I also fully understand and agree with the points Rickey made just above your comment.

    In summary, its not about support for/against Obama’s policies. It is about correcting and countering blatent lies that do not fall simply in the matter of personal opinion. Similar to how snopes.com will debunk slanderous rumors, I too feel these blatant falsehoods rise to the level of being legitimate topics of correction here as they really are just another type of hate based conspiracy nonsense.

  109. avatar
    Lupin September 14, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    G: In summary, its not about support for/against Obama’s policies. It is about correcting and countering blatent lies that do not fall simply in the matter of personal opinion. Similar to how snopes.com will debunk slanderous rumors, I too feel these blatant falsehoods rise to the level of being legitimate topics of correction here as they really are just another type of hate based conspiracy nonsense.

    For the record, I couldn’t agree more.

  110. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 14, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,
    I noticed you had a FOIA in for SAD’s Passport issued. Did you notice the two different requests by Mr. Otherson that was in Mr. Strunk’s filings? One was for all records which would be a complex request, and the second one was a very simple request which I copy below:

    – This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act
    – (FOIAI) request, dated September 30,2009, for copies of documents
    – concerning the date and month the late mother of President Barack Obama,
    – Stanley Ann Dunham aka Stanley Ann Obama was granted a United
    – States Passport in 1961. The date range if your request is between January
    – 1, 1961 and December 31, 1961.

    As you can see this is a very simple request concerning only one deceased person and for very specific information that would be available from the Master Index or paper records for passports from 1925 to 1970. Additionally they might check if there was an application in 1961 once they determined if there was or was not a passport issued in 1961. They lost his request and he had to resubmit it. It asks nothing that needs redacting.(unless SAD was issued a passport after Barack was born then it would only be his name.) It could be completed in a very short period of time.

    Why has it taken the State Department so long to answer these requests, especially the simple one? Why did Mr. Jacobsen receive his mother’s records in four months and you have been waiting over a year and a half? Why did Mr. Strunk have to sue to get information normally available without a lawsuit?

    You claim “However, what is really needed when confronting rumors and conspiracy theories is logical and critical thinking and these I learned in my academic studies in mathematics.”

    I suggest that logic and critical thinking along with experience and “curiosity” are the main tools of investigators, and that they should follow the leads or trails werever they go to get the truth and not be biased in their investigation. That works for both sides of any issue. Judges and juries and in some cases the Public decide facts and their relative value, while Investigators try to find facts and hopefully turn over every rock before arriving at reasoned (and reasonable) deductions and inferences, much less conclusions. I believe it is currently premature to reach a firm conclusion without further evidence on both sides and that most people’s conclusions now are based more on sentiment than facts. Unfortunately many facts are being hidden, sealed, obfuscated and possibly “spoliated”. Why?

    Take a look at both Acting Director Galovich’s declaration and Director Pullo’s declarations in Mr. Strunk’s case, study them and using logic and critical thinking, can you make any noteworthy observations? I realize reading paper pushers rote documents is not in your field of expertise, but take a look and see if anything strikes you, as it did me.

    Does your logic and critical thinking cause you to wonder about the myriad of questions surrounding President Obama’s life? Are you satisfied with the small amount of information that is truly verified about the President? Do you have a logical reason why he refuses to release his long form birth certificate? Can you explain his Connecticut issued Social Security Card? Do you think the public has a right to know more about the person who is their President? What else would you like to know? Is another “Warren Commision” in our future to document this situation and make conlusions for us? Will we see another “magic bullet” from our government. What is the difference between your alleged ” hate based conspiracy nonsense” and biased “adoration based non-conspiracy nonsense”? Is it possible most people simply want the truth no matter which way it falls? Can you fault them for that desire? Are you100% sure there is nothing to see here?

    Regards
    Phantom

  111. avatar
    misha September 14, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Do you have a logical reason why he refuses to release his long form birth certificate?

    Good point. The reason he refuses to release his long form is right here!

  112. avatar
    Black Lion September 14, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    Magic Bullet asks “Do you have a logical reason why he refuses to release his long form birth certificate? ”

    According to your post you engage in logical and critical thinking, yet you ask a question that has already been answered? The logical reason is simple, the state of Hawaii, where the President was born, does not release this so called long form any longer. Since 2001 the only document they release is the COLB.

    The better question is what information do you expect to see on this mythical long form with affects Constitutional Presidential eligibility that is not on the COLB? Do you feel that the state of Hawaii is lying when they released a document saying that “Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii”? What additional information is needed? Can you tell us that?

  113. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Are you satisfied with the small amount of information that is truly verified about the President?

    It’s more than we’ve had for any other president, so why shouldn’t I be satisfied?

    Magic Bullet: Do you have a logical reason why he refuses to release his long form birth certificate?

    Because Hawaii no longer issues the form, and he released the one document they do now issue.

    Magic Bullet: Can you explain his Connecticut issued Social Security Card?

    Connecticut doesn’t issue Social Security Cards, the federal government does. And the SSA clearly states that numbers don’t always match up. What’s there to explain?

    Magic Bullet: Do you think the public has a right to know more about the person who is their President?

    If people have a concern, they could have voted for McCain. They didn’t. So obviously most Americans were satisfied. Get over it.

    Magic Bullet: What else would you like to know?

    I’d like to know if Michelle is a freak in bed…but that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to an answer to my silly question.

    Magic Bullet: Is another “Warren Commision” in our future to document this situation and make conlusions for us? Will we see another “magic bullet” from our government.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any government investigation…but feel free if you want to.

    Magic Bullet: What is the difference between your alleged ” hate based conspiracy nonsense” and biased “adoration based non-conspiracy nonsense”?

    Because the “adoration based non-conspriacy” side, as you call it, has admissable evidence, plausiblity, and reality on its side. The other side is based on rumours, lies, and not a shred of anything that would be even entertained in a court of law.

    Magic Bullet: Is it possible most people simply want the truth no matter which way it falls?

    No, it is not. When people are willfully ignorant of facts, and ignore a huge body of law, they are not looking for the truth. They are looking for confirmation of the predetermined beliefs and are ignoring the truth before them.

    Magic Bullet: Can you fault them for that desire?

    Yes I can. It is clear their desire is to unseat a legally elected president, and overturn an election. So yes, I do fault them for their desires.

    Magic Bullet: Are you100% sure there is nothing to see here?

    Yes. When all of the evidence supports the president being born in Hawaii, and there is no credible evidence for anything else, then I have no choice but to make the conclusion
    he was born in Hawaii.

  114. avatar
    jamese777 September 14, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    According to your post you engage in logical and critical thinking, yet you ask a question that has already been answered? The logical reason is simple, the state of Hawaii, where the President was born, does not release this so called long form any longer. Since 2001 the only document they release is the COLB.

    The better question is what information do you expect to see on this mythical long form with affects Constitutional Presidential eligibility that is not on the COLB? Do you feel that the state of Hawaii is lying when they released a document saying that “Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii”? What additional information is needed? Can you tell us that?

    To back up Black Lion’s points, would anyone who questions Barack Obama’s birth in Hawai’i trust a document that was released BY Obama? When he released a scanned image of his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawai’i, did that stop the “birther” movement?
    When the Director of the state Health Department in Hawai’i verified Obama’s birth there on two separate occasions, did that stop the birther movement? When the Governor of Hawai’i, a Republican, named Obama’s birth hospital in Honolulu, did that deter birtherism?
    At some point you just have to ignore your political opposition and go about the job of running the country.
    Here are links to two different images of 1961 Hawaii Long form birth certificates. Please point out what additional information is on the long form that is relevant to being eligible to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:
    http://www.rewardforobamasbirthcertificate.com/
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg

  115. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    Magic Bullet: I believe it is currently premature to reach a firm conclusion without further evidence on both sides and that most people’s conclusions now are based more on sentiment than facts. Unfortunately many facts are being hidden, sealed, obfuscated and possibly “spoliated”. Why?

    What you believe is irrelevant. The reality is all the facts support the president’s birth in Hawaii. You have a copy of his COLB, which on its own, is sufficent to prove his birth in Hawaii in a court of law. On top of that you have the statements of the governor of Hawaii, and the head of DOH, which aren’t even necessary. On the other side you have exactly nothing. There is nothing “hidden, sealed, obfuscated and possibly spoliated” that should lead an honest person to conclude anything more is needed. Just because you can prove a fact a thousand different ways does not mean you have to prove it each of those thousand ways inorder to establish that fact, espcially when the opposing side has nothing to counter with.

  116. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 14, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    What you believe is irrelevant.The reality is all the facts support the president’s birth in Hawaii. You have a copy of his COLB, which on its own, is sufficent to prove his birth in Hawaii in a court of law.On top of that you have the statements of the governor of Hawaii, and the head of DOH, which aren’t even necessary.On the other side you have exactly nothing.There is nothing “hidden, sealed, obfuscated and possibly spoliated” that should lead an honest person to conclude anything more is needed.Just because you can prove a fact a thousand different ways does not mean you have to prove it each of those thousand ways inorder to establish that fact, espcially when the opposing side has nothing to counter with.

    They just want to conduct an investigation of the president so that they can find any little inconsistency or technicality that they can expound upon and make a mountain out of a molehill. In lieu of that, they will accept the word of any nutjob who downloads and alters anything he posts on the internet. The Constitution gives them absolutely no right to conduct an investigation of anyone.

  117. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 14, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    To use logical thinking, you must begin with facts, and your statement about long forms being unavailable sinc 2001 is not true. Long forms are available from Hawaii. It is a permanent record and you are entitled to it if you were born there. The information you have is a prime example of obfuscation by the media and Hawaii, but they have quietly owned up that you can order one but not off the internet, but by direct UIPA request. While you are at it use your critical thinking and tell me why the long form was readily available up until 2009 when they abruptly changed the procedures and Hawaii Homelands subsequently changed to no longer need the long form. These were both accomplished as far as I can tell without previous public notice. WHY? Could it be to obfuscate the fact that long forms were available and have plausible deniability that they weren’t? Since long forms are available, please try again and explain the logic in not having Hawaii release the long form and take the wind out of the sails of half the controversy? Why is everything searched for being fought and stalled? Play the devil’s advocate, if you were President what would you do? What is the logical thing to do? What is the easiest thing to do? What is the right thing to do?
    As a member of the public what do you expect him to do?

    As for your other question, any investigator who has worked with documents, particulary birth certificates, has the experience to value a COLB as next to worthless, and an online copy not worth commenting on. A long form would have either the hospital and doctor or witness information that could be then checked for accuracy. The US government itself has issued a document concerning fraud coming from “breeder” documents like birth certificates. In fact The US State Department will not accept short form BC’s from California or parts of Texas as they are not reliable. The information on a long form may or may not help determine who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen, but it is useful in verifying the origin and reliability of the COLB. A long form is far superior evidence than a short form, and if someone presented a short form in court, it would necesitate the examination or production of the long form to verify it. It is better evidence. If you buy a car from someone would you accept him giving you a self made bill of sale or would you rather have a signed over DMV printed title that you have verified with the DMV? Which is better evidence of ownership? Why are we forced to accept evidence of a lesser quality than what is available?

    Recently there have been hundreds of cases of fraudulent birth certificates being issued in Texas when witnessed by “mid wives”, It is common in questionable immigration/citizenship cases to verify birth certificates as much as possible. Imagine someone stating you were born in Hawaii and being allowed to get a BC without further evidence.

    -Do you feel that the state of Hawaii is lying when they released a document saying that “Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii

    I suggest you go back and carefully read their press releases, which I guess you are refering to when you say documents. They are broad enough to include a birth witnessed by only a relative or witness and not a doctor. If that is the case, the birth needs further investigation.They do not shed light on the situation but cloud it by refering to documents instead of document, thus indicating that President Obama has more than one vital record. They don’t have to be lying to obfuscate.

    An investigaor would want the best evidence available if there was any question as to any alleged fact, be it a birth certificate or for example a will. Both would require scrutiny to determine if they were valid, legal and reliable. If a will for an estate of value is contested I guarantee you it and the facts surrounding its production and chain of control will be examined. The birth of a President is no less important and should receive the same scrutiny if there is any question whatsoever.

    My opinion is not the point, I prefer to deal with facts.

    As for additional information,to determine whether President Obama or anyone else is a Natural Born Citizen, first it must be decided and agreed what circumstances are necessary for one to be a Natural Born Citizen, I will not argue either side of that case, the final arbiter is the US Supreme Court and they will one time or another have to decide that issue. If not determined now it will likely come up in the future. Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US? Would you like that to be answered now or after he might be President? Does he have the right to a determination prior to running for President? Why are only some Americans demanding a determination, are the rest satisfied because their person might be found ineligible? If McCain was President would you want to know if he was eligible?

  118. avatar
    Daniel September 14, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    Magic Bullet: My opinion is not the point, I prefer to deal with facts.

    Your posts indicate that what you really mean is that facts are not the point. You prefer to deal with it by pretending that your opinions are facts

  119. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 14, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    I worked in the NYC Passport Office, ca 1972-74. While I was there the “group” passports (husband & wife, mother & child) were phased out and only individual passports (i.e. one for each baby) allowed. The crosshatching over Barack’s name in the 1968 document does not necessarily indicate that he either was being added to, or was being taken off, her passport — usable info on passport applications was not crossed out; more likely, she (Mama Obama) saw a spot that said “children” and filled in his name and afterward realized her errored and crossed it out.. Since Mama Obama got her passport in 1965, when the future Prez was four years old, and is not known to have traveled out of the US earlier than that, it follows — although the logic is extremely complex – that if she was in the US when she gave birth then the future Prez was probably not born in Africa. Perhaps someone who’s got a medical degree (or given birth) can verify this hypothesis. Although the birthers reject the birth announcements in both Honolulu newspapers in August 1961, nobody has found a birth announcement for the future President printed in 1961 in an AFRICAN newspaper. It seems to me that, if he were born in Africa, it would have been newsworthy even without a vision into the future: “Wife of Kenyan official gives birth here”: “White American woman comes all the way to the Dark Continent to give birth.” etc. How come nobody has found a 1961 clipping from an AFRICAN newspaper??

  120. avatar
    Arthur September 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Magic Bullet wrote,

    “As for additional information,to determine whether President Obama or anyone else is a Natural Born Citizen, first it must be decided and agreed what circumstances are necessary for one to be a Natural Born Citizen, I will not argue either side of that case, the final arbiter is the US Supreme Court and they will one time or another have to decide that issue. If not determined now it will likely come up in the future. Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US?”

    Jindal was born in the United States. By every established legal standard, he’s a natural born citizen of this country. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Moreover, decisions by the Supreme Court have established what was already a common understanding–if one is born on United States soil, one is a natural born citizen.

  121. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    Magic Bullet: To use logical thinking, you must begin with facts, and your statement about long forms being unavailable sinc 2001 is not true. Long forms are available from Hawaii. It is a permanent record and you are entitled to it if you were born there. The information you have is a prime example of obfuscation by the media and Hawaii, but they have quietly owned up that you can order one but not off the internet, but by direct UIPA request. While you are at it use your critical thinking and tell me why the long form was readily available up until 2009 when they abruptly changed the procedures and Hawaii Homelands subsequently changed to no longer need the long form. These were both accomplished as far as I can tell without previous public notice. WHY? Could it be to obfuscate the fact that long forms were available and have plausible deniability that they weren’t? Since long forms are available, please try again and explain the logic in not having Hawaii release the long form and take the wind out of the sails of half the controversy? Why is everything searched for being fought and stalled? Play the devil’s advocate, if you were President what would you do? What is the logical thing to do? What is the easiest thing to do? What is the right thing to do?
    As a member of the public what do you expect him to do?

    You say you must begin with facts, yet you post is totally devoid of any, and in fact is full of a long sting of statements with no factual support at all. Produce a single copy of a long form issued by the state of Hawaii since 2001. You repeatedly say that they are available, or have been recently available, but that goes against the clear statements of the state that they no long give them out (and the fact that no one has shown one that has been recently issued). Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. The state of Hawaii is on record saying they stopped giving out long forms a long time ago. So weighing that against your wholly unsupported statements, I’d say a member of the public would conclude that you’re wrong. The logical thing to do is ignore the conspiracy nuts that will never be satisfied…and look, that is exactly what is being done.

  122. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    Magic Bullet: As for your other question, any investigator who has worked with documents, particulary birth certificates, has the experience to value a COLB as next to worthless, and an online copy not worth commenting on. A long form would have either the hospital and doctor or witness information that could be then checked for accuracy. The US government itself has issued a document concerning fraud coming from “breeder” documents like birth certificates. In fact The US State Department will not accept short form BC’s from California or parts of Texas as they are not reliable. The information on a long form may or may not help determine who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen, but it is useful in verifying the origin and reliability of the COLB. A long form is far superior evidence than a short form, and if someone presented a short form in court, it would necesitate the examination or production of the long form to verify it. It is better evidence. If you buy a car from someone would you accept him giving you a self made bill of sale or would you rather have a signed over DMV printed title that you have verified with the DMV? Which is better evidence of ownership? Why are we forced to accept evidence of a lesser quality than what is available?

    More garbage. The President was born in Hawaii, not Texas or California. So all of your discussion on that subject is irrelevant. Also, the Hawaiian COLB is prima facie evidence, so any additional information to “check for accuracy” is unnessary. The document stands on its own under the law. It is good enough for the US State department, so your statement of it being worthless is demonstrably wrong, not to mention the fact that it is the only document now issues, so are you implying ever Hawaiian born since 2001 has no way of ever proving the facts of his birth? The COLB is all you need to prove natural born citizenship. All that is required is the “location born” line.

    Also, as before, just saying something doesn’t make it so. Your lack of a grasp of facts seems to extend to the Rules of Evidence. A long form is only superior to the COLB if you are trying to establish a fact not recorded in the COLB. For the question of where the President was born, both forms carry the same weight. A person offering the COLB would not need to offer anything additional. It is prima facie evidence. Unless you have evidence why it should not relied on (i.e. actual evidence of fraud in this case), it is suffient to establish the facts contained on it. Your analogy of a self made bill of sale is totally off point. This isn’t something the President threw together in his basement. It is issued by the State of Hawaii. It is the “DMV printed title” you ask of.

  123. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    Magic Bullet: An investigaor would want the best evidence available if there was any question as to any alleged fact, be it a birth certificate or for example a will. Both would require scrutiny to determine if they were valid, legal and reliable. If a will for an estate of value is contested I guarantee you it and the facts surrounding its production and chain of control will be examined. The birth of a President is no less important and should receive the same scrutiny if there is any question whatsoever.
    My opinion is not the point, I prefer to deal with facts.

    There are no legitimate questions. The point is you prefer to ignore facts. You tallk a lot of BS about facts, but fail to accept the reality that not a single shred of admissible evidence has been offered to show the President being born anywhere but Hawaii, and wish to parse and torture every word of every statement made by the Republican government in Hawaii to turn a statement on its head and mean exactly the opposite of what it is.

  124. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    Magic Bullet: As for additional information,to determine whether President Obama or anyone else is a Natural Born Citizen, first it must be decided and agreed what circumstances are necessary for one to be a Natural Born Citizen, I will not argue either side of that case, the final arbiter is the US Supreme Court and they will one time or another have to decide that issue. If not determined now it will likely come up in the future. Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US? Would you like that to be answered now or after he might be President? Does he have the right to a determination prior to running for President? Why are only some Americans demanding a determination, are the rest satisfied because their person might be found ineligible? If McCain was President would you want to know if he was eligible?

    The Supreme Court will never take the issue, because the Court does not take cases where there is no real question in the legal community. There is no doubt in the legal community that a person born in the US, with a few discrete exceptions (children of diplomats) are natural born citizens. The question is answered. Only some Americans are demanding a determination because they are an angry mob that refuse to accept the legitmacy of anyone but someone that they voted for. They are the same people that were trying to dig dirt up on Clinton even before he took the oath of office. The vast majority of these people never heard of Vattel B.s. before Obama became president, and now they’re acting like it was tought in the civics class when they were in grade school (and yet no one has ever produced a single civics book quoting Vattel…funny how that works). Most of us are satisfied because we are honest enough to admit our entire lives we knew anyone born in the US was a natural born citizen, are we’re not going to make stuff up just because we don’t like the guy elected….and funny you mention McCain….there was actually debate in the legal community if he was a natural born citizen. You see, he wasn’t born in the US, and the law granting people born in the Cannal Zone natural born citizenship was passed several years after he was born. There were actual law journal articles on the subject. Yet not a single one ever questioned a person born in the US, irrespective of the status of his parents, was a natural born citizen. That’s why the Senate passed their resolution…

  125. avatar
    sfjeff September 14, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Phantom- others have responed, but I feel compelled to also

    “To use logical thinking, you must begin with facts,”

    You are correct- let us start with the facts:
    a) Obama the candidate published on the internet a copy of his certification of live birth. The fact is that the original COLB(not the image on the internet, but the document the image was taken of) could be presented in Court.
    b) This COLB was viewed and verified by an independent factchecking organization.
    c) No other President has published any version of his Birth Certificate prior to an election, so it is a fact to say that Candidate Obama provided more evidence of his place of birth than any previous President.
    d) Dr. Fukino- the person who has been identified publicly by the Republican Governor of Hawaii as the person in charge of maintaining birth records in Hawaii said she had looked at the records and confirmed that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Her testimony would be accepted in a court of law.
    e) There are two contemporary announcements of the birth of the Obama’s son in Hawaii- again this is a fact- not conjecture.

    So the facts clearly support President Obama’s own story- that he was born in Hawaii.

    “and your statement about long forms being unavailable sinc 2001 is not true. ”

    This is not a fact- this is your opinion. It might be a fact if you can provide a verifiable copy of one issued since 2001.

    “The information you have is a prime example of obfuscation by the media and Hawaii, but they have quietly owned up that you can order one but not off the internet, but by direct UIPA request.”

    Again- this is not a fact- Do you have trouble differentiating between facts and internet rumors?

    ” tell me why the long form was readily available up until 2009 when they abruptly changed the procedures and Hawaii Homelands subsequently changed to no longer need the long form. These were both accomplished as far as I can tell without previous public notice. WHY? Could it be to obfuscate the fact that long forms were available and have plausible deniability that they weren’t? Since long forms are available, please try again and explain the logic in not having Hawaii release the long form”

    Again- this is opinion, not fact.

    “Play the devil’s advocate, if you were President what would you do? What is the logical thing to do? What is the easiest thing to do?”

    I would do the exact same thing, except I would probably be less polite about it. I would be pissed off that the first President who was asked to show his birth certificate also happened to be the first Black President. I would figure the people who keep circulating this smear wish me ill anyway, and I wouldn’t humor them a single tidbit.

    ” What is the right thing to do? As a member of the public what do you expect him to do?”

    Ignore the birthers? Really, the voters voted him into office- and they were the ones that counted- not some malcontents who have gone so far as to invent new requirements for NBC in an effort to pretend that Obama can’t really be President.

    “and if someone presented a short form in court, it would necesitate the examination or production of the long form to verify it. It is better evidence”

    Um no. I got my passport with a short form. It would be accepted in court.

    “If you buy a car from someone would you accept him giving you a self made bill of sale ”

    Hah- i have done excactly that- you know what that made me? The owner of a new car!

    “Why are we forced to accept evidence of a lesser quality than what is available?”

    You are not forced to accept anything. Your doubts just are not relevant. The voters already made their determination that he was eligible.

    “They don’t have to be lying to obfuscate.”

    Considering that Dr. Fukino said that she has seen the documents and that President obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen- she is either telling the truth or lieing. Since there is no evidence she is lieing- and she is in charge of the records- yes I trust her statement- since it is supported by all the rest of the facts.

    “The birth of a President is no less important and should receive the same scrutiny if there is any question whatsoever.”

    Fine- scrutinize away- but the voters made their determination- the President has no legal or moral obligation to help you resolve your doubts.

    “My opinion is not the point, I prefer to deal with facts.”

    I haven’t seen you either provide any facts, or accept the actual known facts, so I question your statement.

    “first it must be decided and agreed what circumstances are necessary for one to be a Natural Born Citizen,”

    I learned that in middle school- did you miss your civics classes- heck my 11 year old daughter knows the basics. Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- with a very few exceptions- diplomats etc.

    “Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US? ”

    Of course he is. Would you like that to be answered now or after he might be President?

    “Does he have the right to a determination prior to running for President? ”

    No- he doesn’t.

    “If McCain was President would you want to know if he was eligible?”

    You seem to miss a point- the time to decide eligibility is prior to the election, not afterwards. Deciding it afterwards both potentially thwarts the will of the voters, but leaves the decision to be much more likely to be politically motivated.

    But to answer your question- there is no doubt in my mind John McCain was eligible. The voters knew his status going into the election, and if he had been elected, there would have been no birther movement clamoring for two years asking him to prove his eligiblity.

    So to put critical thinking back to you- what evidence do you have that contradicts any of the actual facts that we do know?

  126. avatar
    G September 14, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    Kudos to JoZeppy & SFJeff in your replies to this BS con artist and his bogus statements and misapplied attempts of claiming logic from illogical conclusions.

    You’ve covered the points well and professionally in your responses and therefore have saved me the time in having to say anything further.

    So again – kudos…and ditto.

  127. avatar
    Rickey September 14, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    Magic Bullet:While you are at it use your critical thinking and tell me why the long form was readily available up until 2009 when they abruptly changed the procedures and Hawaii Homelands subsequently changed to no longer need the long form

    That’s not accurate. Ever since this issue first came up, we have been asking birthers to provide evidence of even a single instance of someone who was born in Hawaii having been able to obtain a copy of his or her “long form” birth certificate since 2001. The answer has always been the same – deafening silence.

    As for “Hawaii Homelands,” it has nothing to do with Obama because his parents were not native Hawaiians.

    As for your other question, any investigator who has worked with documents, particulary birth certificates, has the experience to value a COLB as next to worthless, and an online copy not worth commenting on.

    As a private investigator who has worked with documents for 35 years, I know that a certified copy of a document from a governmental agency has the same value as the original. I know that life insurance companies will accept a COLB as proof of birth when writing life insurance policies and issuing annuities. The State Department will, with a couple of notable exceptions (and Hawaii is not one of those exceptions), accept a COLB as proof of citizenship when someone applies for a passport.

    You are correct that an online image of a document has no legal weight, but no one here has ever suggested that it does.

    A long form would have either the hospital and doctor or witness information that could be then checked for accuracy.

    As an experienced investigator, I would like to know what I could do to check a “long form” birth certificate for accuracy 49 years after the fact. The hospital records were almost certainly destroyed many years ago. The doctor is probably deceased, but if alive would be elderly and unlikely to have any independent recollection of a birth which occurred in 1961. Any witnesses (nurses, other physicians) likewise would be dead or elderly now.

    The US government itself has issued a document concerning fraud coming from “breeder” documents like birth certificates.In fact The US State Department will not accept short form BC’s from California or parts of Texas as they are not reliable.

    Which is irrelevant, because the State Department has not identified any problems with Hawaii birth certificates.

    The information on a long form may or may not help determine who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen, but it is useful in verifying the origin and reliability of the COLB.

    Wrong again. The COLB is self-authenticating. Assuming that it is a genuine document which has been issued and certified by the State of Hawaii, no further verification is necessary.

    A long form is far superior evidence than a short form, and if someone presented a short form in court, it would necesitate the examination or production of the long form to verify it.

    Wrong again. Short form birth certificates are accepted as evidence in court cases all the time.

    It is better evidence. If you buy a car from someone would you accept him giving you a self made bill of sale or would you rather have a signed over DMV printed title that you have verified with the DMV? Which is better evidence of ownership?

    If you were consistent in your arguments, you would argue that a DMV printed title is insufficient evidence of ownership, and that the only acceptable proof of ownership is the original bill of sale. In fact, a DMV printed title is very much the equivalent of a COLB. It is an abstract of information taken from an original bill of sale and title application.

    They are broad enough to include a birth witnessed by only a relative or witness and not a doctor. If that is the case, the birth needs further investigation.

    And if it happened to be an unattended birth, how would you investigate it further? For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that the long form shows that Obama was not delivered by a doctor in a hospital. So what? If he was born on Waikiki Beach assisted only by a passing surfer, he still was born in Hawaii.

    They do not shed light on the situation but cloud it by refering to documents instead of document, thus indicating that President Obama has more than one vital record.

    Nonsense. I deal with Department of Health employees all the time, and they always refer to anything they have on an individual as that person’s “vital records,” even if there is only one such record.

    I prefer to deal with facts.

    If that is true, you have found the mother lode of facts on this blog.

    Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US?

    Yes.

    Why are only some Americans demanding a determination

    Because most Americans live in the reality-based world.

    If McCain was President would you want to know if he was eligible?

    If McCain had won the election, I would not be questioning his eligibility.

  128. avatar
    G September 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    Bonus kudos to you Rickey…that was quite thorough and well said! 🙂

  129. avatar
    Black Lion September 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Magic Bullet: To use logical thinking, you must begin with facts, and your statement about long forms being unavailable sinc 2001 is not true. Long forms are available from Hawaii. It is a permanent record and you are entitled to it if you were born there. The information you have is a prime example of obfuscation by the media and Hawaii, but they have quietly owned up that you can order one but not off the internet, but by direct UIPA request. While you are at it use your critical thinking and tell me why the long form was readily available up until 2009 when they abruptly changed the procedures and Hawaii Homelands subsequently changed to no longer need the long form. These were both accomplished as far as I can tell without previous public notice. WHY? Could it be to obfuscate the fact that long forms were available and have plausible deniability that they weren’t? Since long forms are available, please try again and explain the logic in not having Hawaii release the long form and take the wind out of the sails of half the controversy? Why is everything searched for being fought and stalled? Play the devil’s advocate, if you were President what would you do? What is the logical thing to do? What is the easiest thing to do? What is the right thing to do?As a member of the public what do you expect him to do?As for your other question, any investigator who has worked with documents, particulary birth certificates, has the experience to value a COLB as next to worthless, and an online copy not worth commenting on. A long form would have either the hospital and doctor or witness information that could be then checked for accuracy. The US government itself has issued a document concerning fraud coming from “breeder” documents like birth certificates. In fact The US State Department will not accept short form BC’s from California or parts of Texas as they are not reliable. The information on a long form may or may not help determine who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen, but it is useful in verifying the origin and reliability of the COLB. A long form is far superior evidence than a short form, and if someone presented a short form in court, it would necesitate the examination or production of the long form to verify it. It is better evidence. If you buy a car from someone would you accept him giving you a self made bill of sale or would you rather have a signed over DMV printed title that you have verified with the DMV? Which is better evidence of ownership? Why are we forced to accept evidence of a lesser quality than what is available?Recently there have been hundreds of cases of fraudulent birth certificates being issued in Texas when witnessed by “mid wives”, It is common in questionable immigration/citizenship cases to verify birth certificates as much as possible. Imagine someone stating you were born in Hawaii and being allowed to get a BC without further evidence.-Do you feel that the state of Hawaii is lying when they released a document saying that “Barack Obama was BORN in HawaiiI suggest you go back and carefully read their press releases, which I guess you are refering to when you say documents. They are broad enough to include a birth witnessed by only a relative or witness and not a doctor. If that is the case, the birth needs further investigation.They do not shed light on the situation but cloud it by refering to documents instead of document, thus indicating that President Obama has more than one vital record. They don’t have to be lying to obfuscate. An investigaor would want the best evidence available if there was any question as to any alleged fact, be it a birth certificate or for example a will. Both would require scrutiny to determine if they were valid, legal and reliable. If a will for an estate of value is contested I guarantee you it and the facts surrounding its production and chain of control will be examined. The birth of a President is no less important and should receive the same scrutiny if there is any question whatsoever.My opinion is not the point, I prefer to deal with facts.As for additional information,to determine whether President Obama or anyone else is a Natural Born Citizen, first it must be decided and agreed what circumstances are necessary for one to be a Natural Born Citizen, I will not argue either side of that case, the final arbiter is the US Supreme Court and they will one time or another have to decide that issue. If not determined now it will likely come up in the future. Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US? Would you like that to be answered now or after he might be President? Does he have the right to a determination prior to running for President? Why are only some Americans demanding a determination, are the rest satisfied because their person might be found ineligible? If McCain was President would you want to know if he was eligible?

    Interesting. Can you show us someone that received this infamous “long form BC” since 2001? I have asked many birthers this question who claim that you can still get this document and so far I have not seen one. You would think that if someone could still get this document we would have seen one by now. But no. Every so called long form was issued before 2001. Those are facts, period.
    Secondly I love how the birthers attempt to change an obvious statement. Dr. Fukino stated that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Period. Unless the definition of born has changed, that means that according to the records that the state of HI has, the President’s mother gave birth to him in Honolulu. There is no alternate meaning for born. Sorry. No matter how many time you attempt to confuse the issue, that doesn’t change the facts.
    Third, has there been any evidence of someone getting a Hawaiian COLB or Birth Certificate that was not actually born in HI. You claim that there is fraud in CA and TX. So what. That has nothing to do with Hawaii. Somehow I don’t see people flying or sailing to HI from Mexico or Central America to have a midwife claim they were born there. Either way that is a irrelevant argument because you can show us even one example of someone getting a fraudulent COLB or who was born somewhere other than Hawaii but received a COLB that states that they were born in HI since HI became a state.
    The Supreme Court has already addressed this issue. That is what the birthers don’t understand. They have declined to hear the issue because they feel it has already been answered back in 1898 with the Wong ruling. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen with very limited exceptions. Jindal is a NBC. Period. However I am still suspicious of Sarah Palin. I think she was born in Canada.
    If I was the President I would do what he is doing right now. Ignoring the small number of wingnuts out there. He knows that no matter what he does they will never believe him. So why bother trying to deal with them. Ignoring them is the best thing to do. He doesn’t need to worry about less than 1% of the population who consider themselves wingnut birthers.

  130. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    Phantom- others have responed, but I feel compelled to also

    “To use logical thinking, you must begin with facts,”

    You are correct- let us start with the facts:
    a) Obama the candidate published on the internet a copy of his certification of live birth.

    It was published on his campaign site. It had the certificate number blacked out. It states on the document “any alterations invalidate this certificate” Do you know if his BC has been amended? Does it matter?

    The fact is that the original COLB(not the image on the internet, but the document the image was taken of) could be presented in Court.
    Yes and it would promptly be countered by introduction of his long form birth certificate.

    b) This COLB was viewed and verified by an independent factchecking organization.
    What “independent” organization? What evidence do you have that this organization is “independent”

    c) No other President has published any version of his Birth Certificate prior to an election, so it is a fact to say that Candidate Obama provided more evidence of his place of birth than any previous President.

    Likely true that no one else published their BC prior to an election. Not likely that he has presented more evidence than any previous President. What evidence has he presented to show exactly where he was born, ie a hospital -or log cabin like Lincoln?

    d) Dr. Fukino- the person who has been identified publicly by the Republican Governor of Hawaii as the person in charge of maintaining birth records in Hawaii said she had looked at the records and confirmed that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Her testimony would be accepted in a court of law.

    Yes and she would be subject to cross examination and any and all documents relating to her testimony would be subject to discovery and could be used to reinforce or impeach her testimony. The proper way to get the documents would be through a subpoena duces tecum.

    e) There are two contemporary announcements of the birth of the Obama’s son in Hawaii- again this is a fact- not conjecture.

    Fact there were two announcements of the birth of Obama’s son in Hawaii. Whether they were contemporaneous or manufactured later is subject to debate.

    -So the facts clearly support President Obama’s own story- that he was born in Hawaii.

    Yes many facts support his “story” that he was born in Hawaii. Is that the only question you are concerned with, where he was born? Is that what you think I am concerned about?

    “and your statement about long forms being unavailable since 2001 is not true. ”

    -This is not a fact- this is your opinion. It might be a fact if you can provide a verifiable copy of one issued since 2001.

    It is a fact, until June 2009 the Hawaii Homelands required long form Hawaiin BCs for their applications. In addition BC’s are permanent records and have not been destroyed. According to the Hawaii UIPA persons are entitled to request and receive copies of those documents. If you don’t think so, please write to DOH and ask them yourself. Why would they not be available? Have you been fooled by misreporting or obfuscation? Why?

    “The information you have is a prime example of obfuscation by the media and Hawaii, but they have quietly owned up that you can order one but not off the internet, but by direct UIPA request.”

    -Again- this is not a fact- Do you have trouble differentiating between facts and internet rumors?

    How do you know it is not a fact? What is your proof? Have you asked Hawaii if they are available? Is it not just as possible that it is a rumor that they are not available?

    ” tell me why the long form was readily available up until 2009 when they abruptly changed the procedures and Hawaii Homelands subsequently changed to no longer need the long form. These were both accomplished as far as I can tell without previous public notice. WHY? Could it be to obfuscate the fact that long forms were available and have plausible deniability that they weren’t? Since long forms are available, please try again and explain the logic in not having Hawaii release the long form”

    -Again- this is opinion, not fact.

    No this is your opinion without a basis in fact. Have you looked for this issue on the internet or seen a screen shot of the pre June 2009 Hawaii Homelands application information stating that long forms were necessary?

    “Play the devil’s advocate, if you were President what would you do? What is the logical thing to do? What is the easiest thing to do?”

    -I would do the exact same thing, except I would probably be less polite about it. I would be pissed off that the first President who was asked to show his birth certificate also happened to be the first Black President. I would figure the people who keep circulating this smear wish me ill anyway, and I wouldn’t humor them a single tidbit.

    That doesn’t sound very Presidential to me. What does being half black have to do with any of this? Maybe if people in Kenya hadn’t claimed him as a son of the soil he wouldn’t have been asked? I do believe if he was white like McCain, his eligibility and place of birth would still be questioned, just as I bleive if McCain had been elected his eligibility would continue to be questioned.

    ” What is the right thing to do? As a member of the public what do you expect him to do?”

    -Ignore the birthers? Really, the voters voted him into office- and they were the ones that counted- not some malcontents who have gone so far as to invent new requirements for NBC in an effort to pretend that Obama can’t really be President.

    So sorry you feel nothing should be done.

    What was invented? Have you seen the previous history, law reports and cases about NBC?Pretend? Do you want to pretend it has not been an issue for years? Are you familiar with President Chester Arthur and the question of his eligibility? He was President in the 1880’s did “malcontents” invent the “new” requirements for NBC then or now? Did you know he burned his records? Why?

    “and if someone presented a short form in court, it would necesitate the examination or production of the long form to verify it. It is better evidence”

    -Um no. I got my passport with a short form. It would be accepted in court.

    Yes courtrooms allow for better evidence to be provided and admitted. That’s what happens when two side are on equal footing under the law. One side can’t just say here is what I got lalalalal you have nothing and they are allowed to hide and seal anything that might prove otherwise.

    It would be accepted if it was not amended, but according to Hawaiian Law if it was it would have to be adjudicated first to be accepted. It would also be subject to investigation of better evidence.

    “If you buy a car from someone would you accept him giving you a self made bill of sale ”

    -Hah- i have done excactly that- you know what that made me? The owner of a new car!

    I’m glad for you, do you know how many people buy stolen cars every year taking a bill of sale on faith?

    “Why are we forced to accept evidence of a lesser quality than what is available?”

    -You are not forced to accept anything. Your doubts just are not relevant. The voters already made their determination that he was eligible.

    So if it turns out a person was given a job of great responsibilty, requiring truthfulness and poser over large sums of money and Armies, and lied on their application and were not eligible for the job, that they could not or should not be fired? If someone comes into your house and robs you and you catch them later should they get to keep the things they stole from you? Since he was elected it does not mean the voters made a determination that he was eligible.If voters vote for someone they know is ineligible, does that make him eligible? Did they check a box on the ballot “I think he is eligible”? My doubts are just not relevant? I am a voter, and no I did not vote for McCain so rest easy.

    “They don’t have to be lying to obfuscate.”

    Considering that Dr. Fukino said that she has seen the documents and that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen- she is either telling the truth or lieing. Since there is no evidence she is lieing- and she is in charge of the records- yes I trust her statement- since it is supported by all the rest of the facts.

    I am glad you trust her statement, apparently you see nothing to question? How does a Medical Doctor know what a Natural Born Citizen is? It is debated by the best of lawyers, and you take the word of a Doctor? Does your Doctor write your wills or defend your traffic tickets?

    “The birth of a President is no less important and should receive the same scrutiny if there is any question whatsoever.”

    -Fine- scrutinize away- but the voters made their determination- the President has no legal or moral obligation to help you resolve your doubts.

    I disagree he is a public servant and has both a legal and ethical obligation to resolve the doubts. We have a right to have an open and honest government and to have our questions resolved. Yes the President doesn’t have to answer unless compelled, but it is a huge mistake to not have the trust of the people you are supposed to lead. Since you can’t understand the basic principle of ethics involved I believe anything I say will be ignored by you.

    “My opinion is not the point, I prefer to deal with facts.”

    -I haven’t seen you either provide any facts, or accept the actual known facts, so I question your statement.

    You claim known facts but provide few. Enlighten me and please question my statement, do some real deep critical thinking and use your logic and real research. That is the purpose of my post, to get people to re-examine their positions and their “facts” Question my posts and your own thoughts too. I appreciate your taking the time to try and knock me down, but please take a little more time and effort to present real facts.

    “first it must be decided and agreed what circumstances are necessary for one to be a Natural Born Citizen,”

    -I learned that in middle school- did you miss your civics classes- heck my 11 year old daughter knows the basics. Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- with a very few exceptions- diplomats etc.

    Sorry, you failed civics we are talking about Natual Born Citizens not Native Born Citizens.

    “Is Bobby Jindal a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US? ”

    -Of course he is.

    Would you like that to be answered now or after he might be President?

    “Does he have the right to a determination prior to running for President? ”

    -No- he doesn’t.

    If you don’t understand the difference between a Natural Born Citizen for eligibility purposes set out in the Constitution and a Native Born Citizen for other purposes, my questions can’t be answered by you.

    “If McCain was President would you want to know if he was eligible?”

    -You seem to miss a point- the time to decide eligibility is prior to the election, not afterwards. Deciding it afterwards both potentially thwarts the will of the voters, but leaves the decision to be much more likely to be politically motivated.

    No I haven’t missed a point. Eligibility should have been decided, but wasn’t what do you do now, just forget about it?

    -But to answer your question- there is no doubt in my mind John McCain was eligible. The voters knew his status going into the election, and if he had been elected, there would have been no birther movement clamoring for two years asking him to prove his eligiblity.

    Of course their would be questions, and rightfully so. They were brought up first before any questions about Obama. The Senate passed a worthless resolution stating they believe McCain was eligible, why did they think that ws necessary if there was no question abouot his eligibility? The State Department itself doesn’t know if persons born abroad to US citizens would be eligible for the Presidency. They recommend their oversees employees return to the US and give them leave to give birth just for that reason.

    -So to put critical thinking back to you- what evidence do you have that contradicts any of the actual facts that we do know?

    What facts have you presented(we)? A scanned COLB? A vague statement from Hawaii that easily can be parsed? A newspaper birth announcement? Did I miss something?

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 14, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Why has it taken the State Department so long to answer these requests, especially the simple one? Why did Mr. Jacobsen receive his mother’s records in four months and you have been waiting over a year and a half? Why did Mr. Strunk have to sue to get information normally available without a lawsuit?

    First, thanks for coming by my blog. Of course one can only speculate as to the answers of these questions. I should correct you on one point, and that is Strunk asked for information in his FOIA that he was not entitled to receive in addition to what he did receive. If memory serves me right, the lawsuit was about what they refused to give him rather than what they agreed to give him, so I don’t know that Strunk had to sue to get what he was legitimately entitled to at all. As far as I know, nothing initially refused him was later provided by the government. (Of course you’re a lot closer to this than I am, so please correct me if this is in error.)

    From the outset, the Department of State agreed to my FOIA; they just haven’t answered it yet. Do I think they are playing politics with it? I certainly do. Do I think the delay is because they are trying to cover something up? I can’t imagine what it could be.

    You ask a lot of questions, but questions are not evidence, and they are not logical deduction. They are just questions. And the problem I find, from a critical thinking direction is that you don’t offer any hypothetical answers to your questions. If birthers had a coherent alternative theory one could critique it and compare the evidence for it against evidence for other theories, but that is just the problem; birthers only ask questions. (There is the flight to Africa story, but there’s zero evidence for that, and it hardly qualifies as theory.) You ask me why Barack Obama has a Connecticut Social Security number. I can guess, but I don’t know. Do you know? If you can’t present a testable coherent answer with a nefarious association, then I suggest you have no reason to assert that it does.

    You ask: “Are you 100% sure there is nothing to see here?” That is a very vague question. If you are asking if I am 100% sure that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, then yes, I am 100% sure (and am about as well-informed on this question as anyone who relies on public information). I do not have much sympathy for folks who want every imaginable minutiae about Barack Obama’s past and then turn that lack of information into some vague miasma of evil.

    You say:

    Take a look at both Acting Director Galovich’s declaration and Director Pullo’s declarations in Mr. Strunk’s case, study them and using logic and critical thinking, can you make any noteworthy observations? I realize reading paper pushers rote documents is not in your field of expertise, but take a look and see if anything strikes you, as it did me.

    No, it looks like plain vanilla government bureaucratic language (and I do see a lot of that). I confirmed from a 1981 GSA report exactly what kind of pressure the GSA was putting on the Department of State and that they were recommending EXACTLY the retention periods that were in the State Department cable from 1984 attached to the declaration. So no, I see nothing at all odd here. (Have you read the GSA report? Check out chapter 4. I think it pretty much demolishes Strunk’s claim that the 1965 files were not destroyed in the 80’s.)

  132. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 14, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    When the Obama campaign posted the image of his replacement Birth Certificate on the internet in 2008, (1) the serial number of the certificate was blacked out, and (2) someone determined that the internet image had been altered. Item 2 was actually item 1; the alteration of the image was the use of Photoshop (or something similar) to mask the serial number in the photo posted on the internet.

    It turns out, from FactCheck.org, that the serial number was masked – only on the internet image, not the certificate itself – by an Obama assistant, but only out of an abundance of caution in case the serial number was his SSN or some other detail of interest to indentity thieves.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    FactCheck saw, and photographed, the unmarked original (the serial number has no such personal connection). The original has the Hawaii Health Dept impression seal, and is the genuine article. It is computer printed based on data in the Health Dept computers; this is the standard replacement Birth Certificate now being issued by Hawaii — the ONLY form Hawaii now uses. Yes, it has less personal info than the original 1961 document, mostly because of intervening privacy laws — the 1961 forms had all sorts of extremely personal data on the parents which, considering that the purpose of the birth certificate is to establish place and date of birth, is really nobody’s business.

    Under Hawaiian law, this current form, although shorter than the 1961 original, is the legal equivalent of the 1961 original as evidence. The only way anyone born in Hawaii — even Obama — can obtain from the Health Dept a xerox of the original long document is by court order, so Obama himself would have to file a lawsuit for his own long form.

    The document released by Obama shows clearly that he was born in Honolulu and his birth was registered within two business days of his birth. Additionally, the week after his birth was registered the two Honolulu newspapers listed Obama among the local new births.

    Oddly enough, nobody – even the people who claim to have come up with Kenyan birth certificates (that say that Obama was born in Mombasa – which was actually part of Zanzibar at the time) – has come up with a 1961 announcement of the President’s birth in an AFRICAN newspaper (and it would have been newsworthy, even without a crystal ball: “Wife of Kenyan official gives birth in Zanzibar”; “White American woman comes all the way to Sub-saharan Africa to give birth”; etc.).

  133. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    Magic Bullet, you really need to stop talking about anything to do with the law, because it is very clear you do not have the first clue about the law. The COLB is prima facia evidence of the information on it. Nothing further needs to be adjucated, no further discovery requried, no depositions, no “better evidence” b.s. as you claim. It is prima facie evidence. You don’t need anything else. In fact, any decent lawyer would simply state that your requests are unnecessarily duplicative and burdensome, and unless you had some evidence of fraud, they’d probably be right. In a court of law, someone offers the COLB, unless you have admissable evidence that it should not be relied on, it is considered proven. Oh…and if it was amended, it would say “amended” on it. It doesn’t (and are you really claiming that redacting a scan alters the paper original? Really?)

    An no, in terms of being born on US soil, no, the best lawyers are not debating what a natural born citizen is. There is no difference between native and natural born. The only types of citizens are natural(native) born and naturalized. Show me a single law journal article that argues that parentage (besides diplomats) makes any difference. I can show you articles that say “there is no debate that those born on US solid are natural born citizens.” Name one geniune legal scholar that argues the parents citizenship has any impact on the question of natural obrn citizens. There are none. The only debate is for those born abroad (there is a minority view that only those born on US soil are natural born, and a statute cannot make a natural born citizen). There is absolutely no debate in the legal community that a person, not born to dipolmats, born on US soil is a natural born citizen.

  134. avatar
    JoZeppy September 14, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    Magic Bullet: What was invented? Have you seen the previous history, law reports and cases about NBC?Pretend? Do you want to pretend it has not been an issue for years? Are you familiar with President Chester Arthur and the question of his eligibility? He was President in the 1880′s did “malcontents” invent the “new” requirements for NBC then or now? Did you know he burned his records? Why?

    And yes, I have read the cases, law jounrals articles, and history. No case has ever adopted the Vattel definition, the closest coming to it was the totally repudiated Dred Scott decision. It has not been an issue for a 100 years. There is no question in the legal community that a person born on US soil, irrepsective of parentage, is a NBC. And yes, President Aurthur’s eligibility was questioned…not for his parents, but for claims that he was born in Canada. His father’s citizenship was NEVER raised in questioning his eligiblity.

  135. avatar
    obsolete September 14, 2010 at 11:06 pm #

    Magic Bullet says:
    “Fact there were two announcements of the birth of Obama’s son in Hawaii. Whether they were contemporaneous or manufactured later is subject to debate.”

    Magic Bullet, if you really believe that the authenticity of the birth announcements is “subject to debate”, You have a terminal case of confirmation bias and are not reachable.

    Those two announcements were actually discovered by a birther, and they exist in the microfilm archives of those two newspapers at dozens, if not hundreds, of libraries around the world. If you think they may be fake then we can safely conclude:
    1. You are clueless as to how the real world works.
    2. There is NO evidence that could be produced ANYWHERE from ANYBODY that you won’t dismiss as fake.
    3. You believe in a conspiracy so vast and powerful that if it actually existed, the conspirators would never be exposed or defeated, so why do you even bother?
    4. There is no point responding to your drivel. You will not acknowledge any evidence, no matter how confirmed it is by consensus reality. You may as well be arguing that Obama doesn’t even exist, because he is a hologram. How would you debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge that 2+2=4? Or someone who claims the universe doesn’t exist? That’s the territory that you are treading here- borderline insanity.

    In the real world, Obama would present his COLB in a court, and they would pronounce the matter settled. There is NO POSSIBILITY whatsoever that a judge would look at it and ask to supplement or independently verify the facts presented on it, and start a domino chain of asking for more documents to confirm those documents, and so on.

    On one hand you say that an internet image isn’t good enough in a court of law (very true), but on the other hand you seem to think that blacking out the number on the internet image somehow invalidates the real, paper copy. I can tell by your writing that you are not stupid, yet your confirmation bias makes you support this very stupid argument.

    Have you ever visited the factcheck site:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The number is clearly visible on their photographs, which leads me to to believe that you have never taken to time to actually read their report- you just dismissed it because it doesn’t feed your confirmation bias.

    Here is your quote regarding Dr. Fukino:
    “I am glad you trust her statement, apparently you see nothing to question? How does a Medical Doctor know what a Natural Born Citizen is? It is debated by the best of lawyers, and you take the word of a Doctor? Does your Doctor write your wills or defend your traffic tickets?”

    Really- do you even see what a nonsensical strawman you have created? The substance of her statement is that she has seen Obama’s original birth record, it says he was born in Hawaii, and everything is in order. Yet, you ignore that in a stupefying effort to turn the debate into whether or not she is qualified to pronounce what a “natural born citizen” is. You have to parse that much to avoid the obvious? Do you realize how desperate your argument sounds? She confirmed the facts of Obama’s birth records in her official capacity. She pronounced him a “natural born citizen” as an aside, because she knows that anyone born in Hawaii is natural born. One doesn’t need to be a judge to add 2+2 and get 4.

    In the real world, if asked by a court she would present an affidavit similar to her statements here:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
    After that- game over. Case dismissed. No, you don’t get to question or cross-examine her. You would have to have something more than lunatic birther porn ravings copied from racist web sites. And you don’t.

    99% of reasonable people can read the two statements on the above link and consider the matter closed. You look foolish trying to parse it. Normal people would think “hmmm, why would Hawaii even have Obama’s birth certificate if he wasn’t born there? Why would Hawaii even have a web page devoted to it, and why would they make a law to deal with people who harass them for it if they don’t actually have it?”
    Not to mention the birth index…

    Well, I went on much longer than I wanted to. I guess my point is, if you can’t even agree to acknowledge consensus reality, no one should waste time responding with long, factual posts such as this.

  136. avatar
    G September 15, 2010 at 12:28 am #

    Others have already covered and knocked down your latest nonsense, Magic Bullet. So I’ll only waste my time briefly addressing a few of your meaningless points that they left out. (actually, most of them too have already been covered before your latest fail response, so spend some time and re-read their previous replies to you and maybe you’ll learn something…but since you live in a world of denial…I highly doubt you are capable of learning anything.

    Anyways, here goes:

    Magic Bullet: It is a fact, until June 2009 the Hawaii Homelands required long form Hawaiin BCs for their applications. In addition BC’s are permanent records and have not been destroyed. According to the Hawaii UIPA persons are entitled to request and receive copies of those documents. If you don’t think so, please write to DOH and ask them yourself. Why would they not be available? Have you been fooled by misreporting or obfuscation? Why?

    Wow. Yet another worthless apples to orange comparison that shows that all you are trying to do is trying to dodge the truth that you want to hide from by connecting irrelevant and unrelated dots. Your responses just make you look silly and hard to take seriously.

    The Hawaii Homelands program has no relevancy in this situation. The whole purpose and intent of it was for proof on native Hawaiian ancestry – hence the request for a deeper burden of proof than typical. It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation or any standard birth certificate request whatsoever at all.

    You and many other birthers have been asked multiple times to prove your evidence and show us ANY HI long form released in the past few years….and of course…you’ve got nothing. Put up or shut up you weak con artist. Go find a safe birther site where the gullible and misinformed might be more apt to not see through your flimsy and failed arguments so quickly.

    Your flippant lame car fraud response later down was and equally irrelevant dodge, as was your equally failed house robbery analogy. Just more evidence that shows you are reacting out of nothing but petulant denial and truly have very little understanding of how deductive reasoning logic actually works.

    Then there was this little gem from you:

    Magic Bullet: What does being half black have to do with any of this? Maybe if people in Kenya hadn’t claimed him as a son of the soil he wouldn’t have been asked?

    Wow…just wow…I don’t want to even waste time asking why you felt you had to come out of nowhere and stress that the president is “half-black” or any of that or why that would matter at all. Clearly, you’ve outed yourself as someone who has hangups with race.

    Beyond that, only you delusional birthers cling to this false notion of Natural Born Citizen and Native Born Citizen of the US being different instead of interchangeable terms for the same thing. Make those nonsense claims all you want. Classrooms, the courtrooms, history and reality will continue to disagree.

    The rest of your blather pretty much amounts to nothing but a long *waaaaaaah* whine because neither Obama, nor the courts, nor any part of the government, nor most citizens will take you folks and your nonsense claims seriously.

    Sorry, but all you’ve presented is misinformation and poorly informed opinions. Unless and until you have hard evidence or facts that directly correlate and refute the existing actual evidence out there, you’ve got absolutely zilch and there is no reason for anybody to take you cranks seriously. As the old saying goes, “put up or shut up”. …But you can’t and you won’t of course, so all you can do is gnash your teeth and stomp your feet and continue to fail to accomplish anything but making yourself look like a childish and misguided fool.

  137. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    obsolete: Magic Bullet says:
    “Fact there were two announcements of the birth of Obama’s son in Hawaii. Whether they were contemporaneous or manufactured later is subject to debate.”Magic Bullet, if you really believe that the authenticity of the birth announcements is “subject to debate”, You have a terminal case of confirmation bias and are not reachable.Those two announcements were actually discovered by a birther, and they exist in the microfilm archives of those two newspapers at dozens, if not hundreds, of libraries around the world. If you think they may be fake then we can safely conclude:
    1. You are clueless as to how the real world works.
    2. There is NO evidence that could be produced ANYWHERE from ANYBODY that you won’t dismiss as fake.
    3. You believe in a conspiracy so vast and powerful that if it actually existed, the conspirators would never be exposed or defeated, so why do you even bother?
    4. There is no point responding to your drivel. You will not acknowledge any evidence, no matter how confirmed it is by consensus reality. You may as well be arguing that Obama doesn’t even exist, because he is a hologram. How would you debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge that 2+2=4? Or someone who claims the universe doesn’t exist? That’s the territory that you are treading here- borderline insanity.In the real world, Obama would present his COLB in a court, and they would pronounce the matter settled. There is NO POSSIBILITY whatsoever that a judge would look at it and ask to supplement or independently verify the facts presented on it, and start a domino chain of asking for more documents to confirm those documents, and so on.
    On one hand you say that an internet image isn’t good enough in a court of law (very true), but on the other hand you seem to think that blacking out the number on the internet image somehow invalidates the real, paper copy. I can tell by your writing that you are not stupid, yet your confirmation bias makes you support this very stupid argument.Have you ever visited the factcheck site:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlThe number is clearly visible on their photographs, which leads me to to believe that you have never taken to time to actually read their report- you just dismissed it because it doesn’t feed your confirmation bias.Here is your quote regarding Dr. Fukino:
    “I am glad you trust her statement, apparently you see nothing to question? How does a Medical Doctor know what a Natural Born Citizen is? It is debated by the best of lawyers, and you take the word of a Doctor? Does your Doctor write your wills or defend your traffic tickets?”Really- do you even see what a nonsensical strawman you have created? The substance of her statement is that she has seen Obama’s original birth record, it says he was born in Hawaii, and everything is in order. Yet, you ignore that in a stupefying effort to turn the debate into whether or not she is qualified to pronounce what a “natural born citizen” is. You have to parse that much to avoid the obvious? Do you realize how desperate your argument sounds? She confirmed the facts of Obama’s birth records in her official capacity. She pronounced him a “natural born citizen” as an aside, because she knows that anyone born in Hawaii is natural born. One doesn’t need to be a judge to add 2+2 and get 4.In the real world, if asked by a court she would present an affidavit similar to her statements here:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
    After that- game over. Case dismissed. No, you don’t get to question or cross-examine her. You would have to have something more than lunatic birther porn ravings copied from racist web sites. And you don’t.99% of reasonable people can read the two statements on the above link and consider the matter closed. You look foolish trying to parse it.Normal people would think “hmmm, why would Hawaii even have Obama’s birth certificate if he wasn’t born there? Why would Hawaii even have a web page devoted to it, and why would they make a law to deal with people who harass them for it if they don’t actually have it?”
    Not to mention the birth index…Well, I went on much longer than I wanted to. I guess my point is, if you can’t even agree to acknowledge consensus reality, no one should waste time responding with long, factual posts such as this.

    Well said. Thank you.

  138. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    G: Others have already covered and knocked down your latest nonsense, Magic Bullet.So I’ll only waste my time briefly addressing a few of your meaningless points that they left out. (actually, most of them too have already been covered before your latest fail response, so spend some time and re-read their previous replies to you and maybe you’ll learn something…but since you live in a world of denial…I highly doubt you are capable of learning anything.Anyways, here goes:
    Wow. Yet another worthless apples to orange comparison that shows that all you are trying to do is trying to dodge the truth that you want to hide from by connecting irrelevant and unrelated dots.Your responses just make you look silly and hard to take seriously.The Hawaii Homelands program has no relevancy in this situation.The whole purpose and intent of it was for proof on native Hawaiian ancestry – hence the request for a deeper burden of proof than typical.It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation or any standard birth certificate request whatsoever at all.You and many other birthers have been asked multiple times to prove your evidence and show us ANY HI long form released in the past few years….and of course…you’ve got nothing.Put up or shut up you weak con artist.Go find a safe birther site where the gullible and misinformed might be more apt to not see through your flimsy and failed arguments so quickly.
    Your flippant lame car fraud response later down was and equally irrelevant dodge, as was your equally failed house robbery analogy.Just more evidence that shows you are reacting out of nothing but petulant denial and truly have very little understanding of how deductive reasoning logic actually works.
    Then there was this little gem from you:
    Wow…just wow…I don’t want to even waste time asking why you felt you had to come out of nowhere and stress that the president is “half-black” or any of that or why that would matter at all.Clearly, you’ve outed yourself as someone who has hangups with race.Beyond that, only you delusional birthers cling to this false notion of Natural Born Citizen and Native Born Citizen of the US being different instead of interchangeable terms for the same thing.Make those nonsense claims all you want.Classrooms, the courtrooms, history and reality will continue to disagree.The rest of your blather pretty much amounts to nothing but a long *waaaaaaah* whine because neither Obama, nor the courts, nor any part of the government, nor most citizens will take you folks and your nonsense claims seriously.Sorry, but all you’ve presented is misinformation and poorly informed opinions.Unless and until you have hard evidence or facts that directly correlate and refute the existing actual evidence out there, you’ve got absolutely zilch and there is no reason for anybody to take you cranks seriously.As the old saying goes, “put up or shut up”.…But you can’t and you won’t of course, so all you can do is gnash your teeth and stomp your feet and continue to fail to accomplish anything but making yourself look like a childish and misguided fool.

    Equally well said. Thank you.

  139. avatar
    sfjeff September 15, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    I wrote a long response but lost it- I will just mention this

    I asked you to present some facts to support your initial statement that the first step in critical thinking was to gather the facts- and this was your response.

    “What facts have you presented(we)? A scanned COLB? A vague statement from Hawaii that easily can be parsed? A newspaper birth announcement? Did I miss something?”

    a) You once again fail to provide the facts that you call for initially and
    b) You mischaracterize the facts I did present.

    Any presidential COLB you will ever see will be scanned. Think about this.
    “Obama was born in Hawaii”is not vague or easily parsed
    There were two contemporary birth announcements, not one- and they clearly support the other facts.

    Give us some facts, or change your initial statement

  140. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,
    Thank you kindly for responding to my post.
    First off you are correct Mr. Strunk asked for items that were claimed to be exempt by law. That certainly could cause some delay,but as you point out your request did not and has still taken considerable time to process. Ken Allen received a court order and agreement to get similar records and he had to go to court to compell the State Department to comply with the court order. Those records were to be released in 4-6 weeks after March 8, 2010 and were finally received by him on July 29, 2010. A simple request by Mr, Otherson taking over a year to get an answer does intrigue me. A quick- no passport issued in 1961 -answer by DOS could have dismissed a lot of speculation. If I was in charge and that was the case it would have been done long ago. To be honest with you Strunk’s case has gone on so long some of the particulars of the early parts escape me without refreshing my memory.

    I certainly hope the State Department is not trying to cover anything up and as we both know in couple of days they should respond (or not) and hopefully clear up a number of issues.

    I asked a lot of questions, because of my perceived shall we politely say interests of most on this forum. As I suspected my questions were met by posters with resistance, but apparently little attempt to look at the other side of things. (You excepted). I myself continue to collect information and try and weigh facts and proceed in this quest for the truth. I have not yet formed even an opinion as to many aspects of this situation. To formulate a theory that disagrees with the most commonly presented one requires more information in my opinion. I have arrived at the opinion that there is much amiss and many strange happenings related to the history of President Obama and the attempts by many people to get information from the proper authorities. There are a lot of coincidences that may be just that or may in fact be part of independent or collective efforts to stall or hide information that should be readily available. Time will tell the tale.

    I am glad you feel confident Obama was born in Hawaii, if I did I would probably still continue to ask questions, especially why he won’t allow the release of his long form BC and school records.

    You asked for an alternative theory about President Obama, would you settle for what I might describe as a possible alternative ” scenario”, something not as involved as a theory but still described enough to understand? Is it possible President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii,(or not) later adopted (possibly in Indonesia) and then later had his adoption rescinded by way of a court order requested by Stanley Ann, and that the reason he won’t release his long form is because it might show his records were amended? Would that fit in with Fukino stating he was a Natural Born Citizen (by whatever definition she chose to use) but still allow for his eligibility and/or loyalties to be questioned or a name change to Soetoro by adoption not fitting with his political agenda? Does this “scenario” require a Grand Conspiracy? No but it might allow the need for some records being lost and Hawaii trying to keep his history under wraps. Proof by contradiction or logical fallacy? Have at it.

    To me the responses to UIPA request in Hawaii indicate something is being covered up or they are grossly incompetent. That is an opinion I feel free to share based on my experience and the experience of many other people. It does not go directly to Obama’s eligibility one way or the other but if something is being covered up it does infer that more information is needed to determine why and what is being covered up.

    The Social Security number issued to Obama using a Connecticut return address does concern me and I have no logical explanation for it, other than mistake or fraud. I am open to any suggestions. In my opinion it is nefarious on its face and needs explanation to overcome that presumption, not vice-versa. Gibbs dodged the question about it and that did nothing to explain it but added more fuel to speculation that it indeed is nefarious. Again why no answers to a simple question-why? why dodge it? The path of least resistance is the truth- unless the truth is a lie. Logic calls for a simple straightforward answer but none was forthcoming.

    The theory of a possible trip to Kenya is intriguing, it could involve airplanes or ships and concerns over yellow fever and vaccinations. I do believe in 1961 if Stanley Ann needed a YF vaccination while pregnant that she could have gotten it (or a shot card showing such) through her mother’s contacts. There was no YF in Kenya until around 1992 if my memory serves me. As to the cost, of transportation, most of the students flew over by a charter airplane and the legendary African Airlift. Obama’s father was not part of this and he had secured private funding. The cost of the airlift was about $300 each to New York. I believe it is likely at the end of the school year a similar charter might have been arranged for similar costs to return to Kenya. Expensive yes, impossible no.

    As for the two declarations, I will share my thoughts later, but I don’t care to reveal them just yet. I am glad I didn’t sign them.

    Yes I am very familiar with the 1981 GAO document. I noticed they had no update to show what was and was not implemented. I have asked GAO if they updated that report and have received no answer. I am familiar enough with government operations to realize suggestions and reports are made all the time that are never implemented and many times are a struggle between one agency and another for perceived power or funds. Cutting a bureaucrat’s buget or number of employees or sphere of power is like pulling teeth, The State Department did change the period of validity of passports to 10 years in 1983, thus cutting down their workload immensely. Could that have been a compromise over the records issue? I find it illogical to believe the State Dept. changed the passport application retention records from 100 years to 15 years-and then back to 100 years. I sure wouldn’t want to be the person in charge of that mess having to to explain that convoluted change to higher ups. I have heard rumors of a “purge” of passport records in the 1980’s but it was not about passport applications. Wouldn’t it be something if someone altered or re-wrote a different similar teletype? Hmmm…shades of Rathergate..Watergate..Passportgate..?

    For a large number of reasons, despite the teletype indicating destruction, I believe it is unlikely the State Department destroyed millions of passport applications. It will be interesting to see their reply, if they do in fact reply. What would no reply indicate to you? I haven’t noticed an update on the State Department website clarifying the issue or a press release about it either. I would expect a public explanation sooner or later.

    I hope you look at things with a bit more of an open mind, this problem is like an algebra equation that does not yet have enough parts of the equation to solve it with. If x=3 then 2y=? Maybe we should look for help from Aristotle, Euclid and Plato to fill in the blanks…

  141. avatar
    Daniel September 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Magic Bullet: As I suspected my questions were metby posters with resistance, but apparently little attempt to look at the other side of things.

    Funny but in my dealing with flat earthers I get pretty much the same response, that I make little attempt to look at the “other side” of things.

    Unfortunately they, like you, don’t realize that the “other side” is not always worth considering. It is not worth considering that the flat earthers may be right. The proof is in, it is overwhelming, and none of their “concerns” holds any water

    The fact is, the Earth is not flat… and Obama is eligible to be POTUS.

    Life is hard when you really need to hold on to a delusion.

  142. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 15, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Dr. Conspiracy,Disinformation, spin, lack of evidence

    I find your continued novellettes to be droll and uninformative and devoid of any substance. Take for instance your request for school records. What does his school records have anything to do with his eligibility? Besides the press leaking both Bush and Kerry’s school records how many other presidential candidates school records have you seen? How many long form certificates have you seen from other presidents?

    Why do you just focus on this president while ignoring anything abou the previous presidents? Your alternative theory has already been debunked. There is no proof Obama was ever adopted and that the adoption that didn’t take place was ever rescinded. Even if the adoption was rescinded there would be record of the adoption. The state department already concluded Obama wasn’t Adopted during the strunk affair. He never took the name Soetoro he was never adopted. So do you have any actual proof of an adoption? No… thought not moving on.

    No, no doctor would willingly give a vaccination to a very pregnant woman. Its just not possible. Also a very pregnant woman would not be taking along flight to a country she’s never been. It cost a lot to fly back then where did they get all the money?

    The airlift was to New York not from New York. So another theory debunked and not based on reality.

    No you’re making up an entirely new method of math that’s not based on you know, math.

  143. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Daniel:
    Funny but in my dealing with flat earthers I get pretty much the same response, that I make little attempt to look at the “other side” of things.Unfortunately they, like you, don’t realize that the “other side” is not always worth considering. It is not worth considering that the flat earthers may be right. The proof is in, it is overwhelming, and none of their “concerns” holds any waterThe fact is, the Earth is not flat… and Obama is eligible to be POTUS.Life is hard when you really need to hold on to a delusion.

    Especially extremely paranoid delusions fed by endless, baseless speculations without a shred of credible evidence.

  144. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Daniel: Funny but in my dealing with flat earthers I get pretty much the same response, that I make little attempt to look at the “other side” of things.Unfortunately they, like you, don’t realize that the “other side” is not always worth considering. It is not worth considering that the flat earthers may be right. The proof is in, it is overwhelming, and none of their “concerns” holds any waterThe fact is, the Earth is not flat… and Obama is eligible to be POTUS.Life is hard when you really need to hold on to a delusion.

    This is that cable news balance thing I was talking about a week or so ago. There is the truth and a flat out lie the truth is in Obama’s corner the lie is in Magic Bullets so there is no true other side to look at. There arent shades of grey here or differing opinion there’s reality and there’s the fantasy birthers are peddling

  145. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    Your alternative theory has already been debunked. There is no proof Obama was ever adopted and that the adoption that didn’t take place was ever rescinded. Even if the adoption was rescinded there would be record of the adoption. The state department already concluded Obama wasn’t Adopted during the strunk affair. He never took the name Soetoro he was never adopted. So do you have any actual proof of an adoption? No… thought not moving on.

    Hmm I must have missed where adoption was debunked especially the part where the State Department concluded that in the Strunk affair. I would appreciate it if you would show me that conclusion and the debunking so we can all move on to something else. Dr. Noisewater, are you familiar with adoption procedures and records? What can you tell me about the AP photo showing Barry Soetoro enrolled in school in Indonesia stating Barry was an Indonesian citizen? Has that been debunked too? The name and citizenship on that document was wrong?
    Thanks in advance

  146. avatar
    JoZeppy September 15, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Hmm I must have missed where adoption was debunked especially the part where the State Department concluded that in the Strunk affair. I would appreciate it if you would show me that conclusion and the debunking so we can all move on to something else. Dr. Noisewater, are you familiar with adoption procedures and records? What can you tell me about the AP photo showing Barry Soetoro enrolled in school in Indonesia stating Barry was an Indonesian citizen? Has that been debunked too? The name and citizenship on that document was wrong?
    Thanks in advance

    Read the government pleadings in the many birther suits. They state President Obama was never adopted. Also, due to President Obama’s age at the time he was in Indonesia, it would have been impossible under Indonesian law for him to become a citizen of Indonesia, so the school record (which is neither a legal record of his name or citizenship), is obviously wrong.

    And even if we was adopted, why would that require amending his records? There would be no reason for it. And even if there was a reason (which there isn’t) to amend his record, it would say amended on his COLB, which it doesn’t. And even if he was adopted, that has no impact on his status as a NBC, so it is further irrelevant.

    And btw….the Social Secuirty Administration says flat out that sometimes the 3 digit codes don’t match up to the state of the person requesting….so again, there is nothing “nefarious on its face ” nor does it need further explanation….

    And just to round things off you throw in a totally implausible idea of a very pregnant student of limited means talking a very expensive flight to a third world nation to give birth?

    And why you expect to be taken seriously by anyone with such absurd theories, much less get an answer from the President, who by the way, is dealing with the worst economic situation since the Great Depression, while trying to wind down two wars, as well as getting major legislation passed in the areas of health care reform, banking reform, etc?

  147. avatar
    Keith September 15, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    Daniel:
    Funny but in my dealing with flat earthers I get pretty much the same response, that I make little attempt to look at the “other side” of things.Unfortunately they, like you, don’t realize that the “other side” is not always worth considering. It is not worth considering that the flat earthers may be right. The proof is in, it is overwhelming, and none of their “concerns” holds any waterThe fact is, the Earth is not flat… and Obama is eligible to be POTUS.Life is hard when you really need to hold on to a delusion.

    Whoa. Slow down there big boy…

    Galileo Was Wrong: First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism

  148. avatar
    Daniel September 15, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Hmm I must have missed where adoption was debunked especially the part where the State Department concluded that in the Strunk affair. I would appreciate it if you would show me that conclusion and the debunking so we can all move on to something else.Dr. Noisewater, are you familiar with adoption procedures and records?What can you tell me about the AP photo showing Barry Soetoro enrolled in school in Indonesia stating Barry was an Indonesian citizen? Has that been debunked too? The name and citizenship on that document was wrong?
    Thanks in advance

    All of which is not relevant.

    Obama was born in Hawaii, therefore he is a natural born citizen. All that other crap is just obfuscation to a dead issue.

    If you have credible, objective evidence to show that he was not born in Hawaii, then show it, otherwise you’re nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling silver.

  149. avatar
    G September 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Keith:
    Whoa. Slow down there big boy…Galileo Was Wrong: First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism

    LOL! Well, having looked at the link, I can confirm that conference is for real and not a joke.

    Here’s how I know:

    The funniest thing here is that one of my old BW college professor’s – Dr. Gerry Bouw is listed as one of the featured speakers…LMAO!

    That alome confirms this conference is for real. I know Gerry fairly well. He was part of the Flat Earth Society way back then and he spent many hours back in the days trying to tell me all about such nonsense. He’s actually a very, very nice guy and very sincere (driven by being a “born again” religious freak) but he truly forces himself to believe and constantly try to convert others to all this nonsense. I’ve had quite a few enjoyable conversations with him back in the day, outside of class. I just respectfully tried really, really hard to keep from laughing whenever he brought this stuff up. I guess he’s still actively at it and for only $50…you too can expose yourself to such antiquated myths that are right up there with believing that the earth floats on the back of a giant turtle…

    Hilarious…and insane. Had to share that little connection…

  150. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 15, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    Among other reasons for rejecting the notion of adoption – with the effect of changing Obama’s citizenship – is that, to reflect his new surname, young Obama would have had to have his US passport amended. In fact, if he were relinquishing his US citizenship, he’d have to go through a process in a US diplomatic mission in a foreign country where he’d fill out papers renouncing his US citizenship, surrender his US passport, and be issued a Certificate of Loss of US Citizenship. So the State Dept would have records if either of those events happened.

    Now, as to evidence. It is possible that when Obama became a lawyer, US citizenship was required (it isn’t required now). The Constitution requires that US Senators be citizens, and Obama evidently provided satisfactory documentation when he was elected to the Senate. The Constitution doesn’t require that Senators be natural-born citizens, but if Obama had been born anywhere else it would have said so in the official Senate directory. That was the Senate; earlier this year the House marked the 50th anniversary of Hawaii statehood by adopting a Resolution that said that Obama was born in Hawaii. So it would appear that the two chambers who’d be needed to impeach him are satisfied as to his citizenship.

    The estimates of how much money Obama supposedly spent to keep his birth certificate secret are pure pipe dream. Several of the lawyers representing Obama’s side in the lawsuits were supporters in his campaign and say that they are donating their work free of charge in these lawsuits.

    I might add at least one previous President actually REFUSED to make public his birth certificate – unlike Obama who made public the certificate issued by the Hawaii Health Dept — that was Reagan. Ol’ Ronnie went to considerable effort to keep anyone from getting a copy of his birth certificate …. because he was gaga about horoscopes and astrology and didn’t want anyone else to know his exact time of birth!

  151. avatar
    sfjeff September 15, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    “Is it possible President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii,(or not) later adopted (possibly in Indonesia) and then later had his adoption rescinded by way of a court order requested by Stanley Ann, and that the reason he won’t release his long form is because it might show his records were amended? Would that fit in with Fukino stating he was a Natural Born Citizen (by whatever definition she chose to use) but still allow for his eligibility and/or loyalties to be questioned or a name change to Soetoro by adoption not fitting with his political agenda? Does this “scenario” require a Grand Conspiracy? No but it might allow the need for some records being lost and Hawaii trying to keep his history under wraps.”

    It is possible to say “is it possible President Obama was born on Krypton and arrived here on a spaceship” but it isn’t very plausible.

    The thing with your scenario is that a) it isn’t very plausible and b) it wouldn’t affect President Obama’s eligiblity. While it may be true, that this would be a reason that the original was not shown- it has no relevance.

    If the question is “is President Obama eligible to be President” then your scenario is irrelevant.
    If the question is ‘why won’t he show his long form BC, then my answer is that the President shouldn’t be obligated to show anything that doesn’t reflect on his eligibility.

  152. avatar
    Daniel September 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    Keith:
    Whoa. Slow down there big boy…Galileo Was Wrong: First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism

    Funny how many of those speakers are also avowed Biblical Six-day Creationists…

    But I digress…….. or do I?

  153. avatar
    Rickey September 15, 2010 at 6:58 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Hmm I must have missed where adoption was debunked especially the part where the State Department concluded that in the Strunk affair. I would appreciate it if you would show me that conclusion and the debunking so we can all move on to something else.

    It’s right here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer

    37. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a
    natural-born citizen of the United States or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied
    .

    38. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that Lolo Soetoro is or ever was
    President Obama’s father by birth or adoption, that allegation is denied. To the extent
    this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that
    allegation is denied.

    What can you tell me about the AP photo showing Barry Soetoro enrolled in school in Indonesia stating Barry was an Indonesian citizen?

    Why do you accept as genuine a photograph of an un-certified and un-authenticated school registration document from Indonesia, yet you refuse to accept multiple photographs of a certified COLB from Hawaii? BTW, that very same AP photograph shows that the school document states that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Since you claim to be interested only in facts, you should know that Obama was not eligible for Indonesian citizenship even if he had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro. And U.S. law is very clear that there is nothing that either Lolo or Stanley Ann could have done to cause Obama to lose his U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, Obama was too young to have been able to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

  154. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Your alternative theory has already been debunked. There is no proof Obama was ever adopted and that the adoption that didn’t take place was ever rescinded. Even if the adoption was rescinded there would be record of the adoption. The state department already concluded Obama wasn’t Adopted during the strunk affair. He never took the name Soetoro he was never adopted. So do you have any actual proof of an adoption? No… thought not moving on.Hmm I must have missed where adoption was debunked especially the part where the State Department concluded that in the Strunk affair. I would appreciate it if you would show me that conclusion and the debunking so we can all move on to something else.Dr. Noisewater, are you familiar with adoption procedures and records?What can you tell me about the AP photo showing Barry Soetoro enrolled in school in Indonesia stating Barry was an Indonesian citizen? Has that been debunked too? The name and citizenship on that document was wrong?
    Thanks in advance

    This is too damned easy. Do you bother doing any research at all?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer

    37. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a
    natural-born citizen of the United States or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.

    38. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that Lolo Soetoro is or ever was
    President Obama’s father by birth or adoption, that allegation is denied. To the extent
    this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that
    allegation is denied.

    Now there’s the state department above stating that Lolo Soetoro was never Obama’s father by birth or adoption. Now do you have any proof that Soetoro ever adopted Obama? Any actual official paperwork?

    I’m very familiar with adoption procedures. Even if an adoption was rescinded it would still show that he was adopted. This is not the case and there is no proof he was. As for the school records they have never been verified. The school has already stated it was common procedure to put the step father’s last name on school forms. It was just customary. Now are you familiar with how adoption works in the muslim world? No? Well here’s a hint it doesn’t. You can’t adopt children where the father is still alive.

    Btw do you have an actual link to that document? Indonesian law prohibits dual citizenship and there is no proof that Obama or his mother disowned their American citizenship. So yeah your theory holds no basis in reality.

  155. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    Ok Doc get back to me whan you find out what a denial of an allegation in a lawsuit (answer) means and what value it has..hint: if you are short on toilet paper you can use it for that purpose…

    I’ll give you another hint on a different level you might better understand, if you are arrested and go to court, the first time you are asked are you going to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges? If you plead not guilty does that mean your case is dismissed based on your self serving statement of innocence or will you have to go to trial and prove your are not guilty with real evidence subject to cross examination and authentication which is allowed to be presented by both sides?

    I’ll respond to the rest of your post after you figure out that what you just posted is baloney. Amazing no wonder some people think something has been debunked when they are the ones throwing the bunk around as facts. I guess ignorance is bliss.

  156. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Someone missed the clue train.

  157. avatar
    sfjeff September 15, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    “I’ll give you another hint on a different level you might better understand, if you are arrested and go to court, the first time you are asked are you going to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges? If you plead not guilty does that mean your case is dismissed based on your self serving statement of innocence or will you have to go to trial and prove your are not guilty with real evidence subject to cross examination and authentication which is allowed to be presented by both sides?”

    I always am amazed at how Birthers get confused with their analogies.

    If I am arrested and i go to court, the prosecution has to prove I am guilty. I have no obligation to prove that I am not guilty.

    Not only that, but before the prosecution can go to trial, they must convince the judge that they have sufficient evidence to proceed- again, I am under no obligation to respond- the accusers- the prosecution have the responsibility to proceed.

    I am thinking you must not be an American, because we are all raised to understand that in our system, the defendent is presumed innocent, and the accuser is the one who is responsible to prove guilt. Not the other way around.

    Lets take this analogy even further. Lets say for instance that I am accused of identity theft- I am accused of using someone else’s identity. First of all the prosecution would have to show a judge that they had some evidence to support their charges. Police couldn’t even get a search warrent of my property without convincing a judge that there was a reasonable suspicion that a search would be warrented. This is just to get the case to go to trial. Once in trial, if I chose to not put on any case whatsoever, I would still(theorectically) win unless the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I had committed the crime.

    In the case of Birthers- you are accusing the President of not being eligible. You have the obligation to provide some evidnce. This is the American way.
    .

    “Amazing no wonder some people think something has been debunked when they are the ones throwing the bunk around as facts.”

    I think you are confused about what facts are. The facts support the conclusion of reasonable people that the President was born in Hawaii.

    You have presented no facts to the contrary.

    Why will you not present any facts to support your position?

  158. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    I’m very familiar with adoption procedures. Even if an adoption was rescinded it would still show that he was adopted. This is not the case and there is no proof he was.

    Hmm since you are VERY familiar with adoption procedures, maybe this question will be easier for you…Where would you find records of an adoption? Are they open to public inspection? Can you copy those records and put them on the internet? Do individuals who are adopted always know they were adopted if not told by their parents? Where would it show that a person is adopted? Do you have proof he wasn’t adopted? Did someone adopt your brain? Where is it?

  159. avatar
    Keith September 15, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    Majority Will: Someone missed the clue train.

    I thought they said “blue plane”! I don’t like blue planes because the disappear into the background of the sky and other planes can’t see them.

  160. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    Keith:
    I thought they said “blue plane”! I don’t like blue planes because the disappear into the background of the sky and other planes can’t see them.

    LMAO!

    In Birferstan, it rains chocolate and everyone rides unicorns.

  161. avatar
    JoZeppy September 15, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Ok Doc get back to me whan you find out what a denial of an allegation in a lawsuit (answer) means and what value it has..hint: if you are short on toilet paper you can use it for that purpose…
    I’ll give you another hint on a different level you might better understand, if you are arrested and go to court, the first time you are asked are you going to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges? If you plead not guilty does that mean your case is dismissed based on your self serving statement of innocence or will you have to go to trial and prove your are not guilty with real evidence subject to cross examination and authentication which is allowed to be presented by both sides?
    I’ll respond to the rest of your post after you figure out that what you just posted is baloney. Amazing no wonder some people think something has been debunked when they are the ones throwing the bunk around as facts. I guess ignorance is bliss.

    Thank you again for putting on diplay your complete ignorance of anything to do with the legal world. There is a world of difference between filing an answer to a complaint and entering a plea. The two aren’t remotely comprable. An answer to a complaint is bound by Rule 11. Rule 11 requires that every statement is true based on a reasonable amnount of research and due dilligence. An attorney cannot make a statement of fact in an answer that he knows to be false (unless he really wants to be disbarred). An attorney cannot make a statement of fact that he has no clue if it is correct or false. An attorney cannot make a statement of fact if he hasn’t researched whether it is true or not. A plea is not a statement of fact. No one is ever sanctioned or held criminally liable if they plea not-guilty and are later found guilty. Attorneys who get caught making statements they know or should have known to be untrue in an answer, get sanctioned.

    So again, please put on display for us your honest search for the truth through a complete lack of knowledge of the law or anything pertaining to the law.

  162. avatar
    Rickey September 15, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    Magic Bullet: If you plead not guilty does that mean your case is dismissed based on your self serving statement of innocence or will you have to go to trial and prove yourare not guilty with real evidence subject to cross examination and authentication which is allowed to be presented by both sides?

    Under our system of justice a defendant is presumed to be innocent, so a defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a civil case.

    Do you have proof he wasn’t adopted?

    It is becoming increasingly clear that you are just another birther troll who has no interest in the truth. It is impossible to prove that Obama wasn’t adopted, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is no evidence that Obama ever was adopted. And what is even more relevant is the fact that insofar as eligibility for POTUS is concerned, it doesn’t matter if he was adopted.

    Barack Obama – never adopted by Lolo Soetoro and a natural born U.S. citizen

    Barack Obama – adopted by Lolo Soetoro, still a natural born U.S. citizen

  163. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 15, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    G: . He was part of the Flat Earth Society way back then and he spent many hours back in the days trying to tell me all about such nonsense.

    Just curious… how do Flat Earther’s manage explain satellite photos? Or round the world travel, for that matter?

  164. avatar
    JoZeppy September 15, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Magic Bullet: I’m very familiar with adoption procedures. Even if an adoption was rescinded it would still show that he was adopted. This is not the case and there is no proof he was. Hmm since you are VERY familiar with adoption procedures, maybe this question will be easier for you…Where would you find records of an adoption? Are they open to public inspection? Can you copy those records and put them on the internet? Do individuals who are adopted always know they were adopted if not told by their parents? Where would it show that a person is adopted? Do you have proof he wasn’t adopted? Did someone adopt your brain? Where is it?

    And here’s a question for you….what does it matter? None of it has any impact on the President’s eligiblity.

  165. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Thank you again for putting on diplay your complete ignorance of anything to do with the legal world.There is a world of difference between filing an answer to a complaint and entering a plea.The two aren’t remotely comprable.An answer to a complaint is bound by Rule 11.Rule 11 requires that every statement is true based on a reasonable amnount of research and due dilligence.An attorney cannot make a statement of fact in an answer that he knows to be false (unless he really wants to be disbarred).An attorney cannot make a statement of fact that he has no clue if it is correct or false.An attorney cannot make a statement of fact if he hasn’t researched whether it is true or not.A plea is not a statement of fact.No one is ever sanctioned or held criminally liable if they plea not-guilty and are later found guilty.Attorneys who get caught making statements they knowor should have known to be untrue in an answer, get sanctioned.So again, please put on display for us your honest search for the truth through a complete lack of knowledge of the law or anything pertaining to the law.

    Birthers watched Matlock. Ergo, they are legal experts.

  166. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    You are correct one does not have to prove their innocence. You do not have to put on evidence. However you will be tried after a preliminary hearing with a showing of probable cause by the Prosecution. If you look at what I was discussing, it was the defendants answer in a civil case to an allegation. The defendants as usual denied most allegations. That denial caries little weight in the scheme of things, and certainly is not a legal conclusion as the poster represented.

    I am not acusing the President of anything. I am searching for information and I was asked to present a theory, which I did. Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case? Is it sufficient evidence of eligibility for a candidate to swear that he is eligible then the burden of proof shifts to those that disagree? When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking? Is eligibility for a position given the same presumption of innocence as an allegation of criminal conduct or is the burden on the one desiring the job?

    The other poster claimed that it had ben debunked and that Obama was never adopted. I don’t think his “evidence” supported theat idea. You are welcome to try.

    My position is to get to the truth, which I clearly stated has a long ways to go. Do you object to fact finding or since the President is already in office do you think we should not try and find out if he is eligible or not?

  167. avatar
    Majority Will September 15, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    Just curious… how do Flat Earther’s manage explain satellite photos?Or round the world travel, for that matter?

    Photoshop might be the excuse for the photos. But world travel? Wouldn’t there be an edge or precipice?

  168. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 15, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Majority Will: Birthers watched Matlock. Ergo, they are legal experts.

    Wait just one darn minute, your honor. Let me feeeeeeeneeeesh!

  169. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 15, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Magic Bullet: I’m very familiar with adoption procedures. Even if an adoption was rescinded it would still show that he was adopted. This is not the case and there is no proof he was.
    Hmm since you are VERY familiar with adoption procedures, maybe this question will be easier for you…Where would you find recordsof an adoption? Are they open to public inspection?Can you copy those records and put them on the internet?Do individuals who are adopted always know they were adopted if not told by their parents?Where would it show that a person is adopted? Do you have proof he wasn’t adopted? Did someone adopt your brain? Where is it?

    Everything you have stated is a moot point once again since you don’t bother pulling your foot out of your mouth before saying anything.

    From the strunk affair which was posted before and you didn’t bother reading it:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer

    37. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a
    natural-born citizen of the United States or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.

    38. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that Lolo Soetoro is or ever was
    President Obama’s father by birth or adoption, that allegation is denied. To the extent
    this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that
    allegation is denied.

  170. avatar
    JoZeppy September 15, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Magic Bullet: You are correct one does not have to prove their innocence. You do not have to put on evidence. However you will be tried after a preliminary hearing with a showing of probable cause by the Prosecution. If you look at what I was discussing, it was the defendants answer in a civil case to an allegation. The defendants as usual denied most allegations. That denial caries little weight in the scheme of things, and certainly is not a legal conclusion as the poster represented.

    When you make a statement of act such as “the President was never adopted” in an answer, it had better be true. So as usual, you are dead wrong.

    Magic Bullet: I am not acusing the President of anything. I am searching for information and I was asked to present a theory, which I did. Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case? Is it sufficient evidence of eligibility for a candidate to swear that he is eligible then the burden of proof shifts to those that disagree? When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking? Is eligibility for a position given the same presumption of innocence as an allegation of criminal conduct or is the burden on the one desiring the job?

    And again, you analogy totally misses the target. The President’s “application” for the job was when he ran for office. He has the job, and is under contract for 4 years. The time for checking is passed, and they guy you wanted to get the job didn’t, so get over it, and quit being a baby. And guess what, even if he had to prove his eligiblity in a court of law, all he’d have to do is slap the COLB he scanned on put up on his website, and let be examined and photographed, on the table, and it’s over. Under the law, he has proven he is a natural born citizen. End of story. Move on.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 15, 2010 at 8:55 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Ok Doc get back to me whan you find out what a denial of an allegation in a lawsuit (answer) means and what value it has..hint: if you are short on toilet paper you can use it for that purpose…

    I’ll give you another hint on a different level you might better understand, if you are arrested and go to court, the first time you are asked are you going to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges? If you plead not guilty does that mean your case is dismissed based on your self serving statement of innocence or will you have to go to trial and prove your are not guilty with real evidence subject to cross examination and authentication which is allowed to be presented by both sides?

    I’ll respond to the rest of your post after you figure out that what you just posted is baloney. Amazing no wonder some people think something has been debunked when they are the ones throwing the bunk around as facts. I guess ignorance is bliss.

    I know you were talking to the other Doc, but I wanted to comment.

    I actually hope one of the lawyers here will comment on exactly what a denial in a civil suit means. It’s something that I have been wondering about. I think it is a little more than you make it out to be. An attorney for the Department of State when filling such a thing has to have (as I understand it) some rational basis for denying something. It is not a “throw away” thing like pleading “not guilty”. Of course if one equates the Department of State with a common street thug, then I suppose the denials in the Department of States response might equate with a “not guilty” plea.

  172. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 15, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

    Magic Bullet: You are correct one does not have to prove their innocence. You do not have to put on evidence. However you will be tried after a preliminary hearing with a showing of probable cause by the Prosecution. If you look at what I was discussing, it was the defendants answer in a civil case to an allegation. The defendants as usual denied most allegations. That denial caries little weight in the scheme of things, and certainly is not a legal conclusion as the poster represented.I am not acusing the President of anything.I am searching for information and I was asked to present a theory, whichI did. Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case? Is it sufficient evidence of eligibility for a candidate to swear that he is eligible then the burden of proof shifts to those that disagree? When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking?Is eligibility for a position given the same presumption of innocence as an allegation of criminal conduct or is the burden on the one desiring the job?The other poster claimed that it had ben debunked and that Obama was never adopted. I don’t think his “evidence” supported theat idea. You are welcome to try.My position is to get to the truth, which I clearly stated has a long ways to go. Do you object to fact finding or since the President is already in office do you think we should not try and find out if he is eligible or not?

    You are not interested in the truth nimrod. This is why you keep skipping over what was posted about the Strunk case and the State Department stating Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro. You continue making claims not based in reality.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer

    37. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a
    natural-born citizen of the United States or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.

    38. Allegations concerning President Obama are subject to a pending motion to dismiss, and
    no response is therefore required. To the extent this paragraph refers to a document,
    Defendants refer the Court to the document for a complete and accurate representation of
    its contents. To the extent this paragraph alleges that Lolo Soetoro is or ever was
    President Obama’s father by birth or adoption, that allegation is denied. To the extent
    this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that
    allegation is denied.

    Obama provided a valid Birth certificate which he didn’t have to even show you. He satisfied the states, he satisfied congress. So yes he got the job after being interviewed. To make your analogy relevant. Its like someone applies for a job, meets all the requirements, satisfies most other employees in the company with his qualifications, gets the job, then you get jealous and start asking him to further prove himself to you, when you are not the boss and you try to distract him from doing his job.

    Those who were tasked with checking did their job. Obama met the requirements, had background checks when he was in the senate and any other previous job he held. This is just you being pissed because your guy lost.

  173. avatar
    Scientist September 15, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    Magic Bullet: I am not acusing the President of anything. I am searching for information and I was asked to present a theory, which I did. Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case? Is it sufficient evidence of eligibility for a candidate to swear that he is eligible then the burden of proof shifts to those that disagree? When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking? Is eligibility for a position given the same presumption of innocence as an allegation of criminal conduct or is the burden on the one desiring the job?

    in the case of a job the level of proof required is up to the employer. In the case of an elected official how much information a candidate discloses is up to him. If the voters think what he disclosed is insufficient, they can withhold their votes. Legally there are no disclosure requirements at all, other than those relating to donors. The fact remains that Obama provided a birth certificate, something no other candidate before EVER provided,. Think of that. You are nitpicking the document, but you haven’t said word one about the complete lack of such documents for the previous 42.

    I don’t understand why you care. Perhaps you missed the news that the election is over. Obama is the President. I sincerely doubt that anyone’s opinion of him would be changed by any document he could possibly release. Therefore, there is no reason to pursue this. Si why don’t you find soimething else to amuse yourself with. There are several tight pennant races going on. The leaves will soon be changing.. Lindsay Lohan is out of jail. All 3 of those are more significant and interesting than the nits you are attempting (unsucessfully) to pick in an election that was over 2 years ago. Now run along.

  174. avatar
    Scientist September 15, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Magic Bullet: My position is to get to the truth, which I clearly stated has a long ways to go. Do you object to fact finding or since the President is already in office do you think we should not try and find out if he is eligible or not?

    Both.

  175. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 15, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    Magic Bullet: Hmm I must have missed where adoption was debunked especially the part where the State Department concluded that in the Strunk affair. I would appreciate it if you would show me that conclusion and the debunking so we can all move on to something else. Dr. Noisewater, are you familiar with adoption procedures and records? What can you tell me about the AP photo showing Barry Soetoro enrolled in school in Indonesia stating Barry was an Indonesian citizen? Has that been debunked too? The name and citizenship on that document was wrong?

    Was the place of birth (Honolulu, Hawaii) wrong?

    We have two quite separate questions here, whether Barack Obama was adopted by his step-father Lolo Soetoro, and whether he became an Indonesian citizen.

    The only reason to think that that Barack Obama was adopted by Mr. Soetoro is, as you point out, the name on the hand-written school registration form, “Barry Soetoro”. There is nothing else. On the other side, there is no mention of an adoption in Barack Obama’s book Dreams from My Father (which is rather frank on other issues) and the denial of an adoption by the Department of State in one case (which I think deserves a little more weight than you give it). I give the preponderance of the evidence to “not adopted” but I wouldn’t bet my life on it. However, the adoption question is irrelevant.

    This has been discussed at great length on this blog and in comments, but the gist of it is that Barack Obama could not have been a citizen of Indonesia for two reasons: First, the Indonesian Constitution does not permit dual citizenship and will not naturalize someone over age 5 unless their former country has a process for renunciation of citizenship and the person renounces their former citizenship, and second, the firm law of the United States with regards to renunciation of citizenship. While a young person, who convinces a consular officer of the United States that they freely and under no duress, knowing fully the implications of their actions, can renounce US citizenship, it is beyond plausibility that the US would accept renunciation from a child under 10 years old. A parent most certainly cannot renounce the citizenship of their child. (See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)). For more on the Indonesian constitution and a debunking of this Indonesian citizenship, please refer to my February 2009 article: Hollister v Indonesian Citizenship law.

    Given the solid evidence that Barack Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen, the technical accuracy of the “Barry Soetoro” name comes into question as well.

  176. avatar
    Rickey September 15, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    Magic Bullet: That denial caries little weight in the scheme of things, and certainly is not a legal conclusion as the poster represented.

    Nobody claimed that a denial represents a “legal conclusion.” It is, however, in this case an official debunking by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security of Strunk;’s claims. Both agencies have gone on record that Obama was never adopted and that he was never a citizen of Indonesia. If you’re not satisfied by that, prove that they are wrong.

    Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case?

    The burden of proof is on those who claim that Obama is not eligible. He is the President. He was elected and sworn in without any objection from a single member of the Congress. It’s a done deal. If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to try to raise the issue when and if he runs for re-election. And if that doesn’t work out for you, you can vote for his opponent.

    When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking?

    When you apply for a job, you state your qualifications to the satisfaction of your potential employer. The criterion for satisfaction is up to the employer. When a political candidate runs for office, he or she states his or her qualificationd to the voters. If the voters are not satisfied, they can vote for someone else.

    Besides, the question of whether Obama was adopted has nothing to do with his eligibility, as has already been pointed out to you time and again.

  177. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Keith: Whoa. Slow down there big boy…
    Galileo Was Wrong: First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism

    Wow. The first “academic” to post and defend them is Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
    Holocaust denier, moon landings were faked, and more. Did you know Stalin, Churchill and FDR were all Jews and the Zionists started the second world war? With friends like this, the geocentrists and catholic apologetics do not need enemies.
    http://www.realityreviewed.com/Dresden.htm

    Of course, it is only normal that people who believe in one insane conspiracy theory are very willing to adopt another one. Berg was a trufer before he became a birfer.

  178. avatar
    Nate Farmer September 15, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    Rickey:
    Nobody claimed that a denial represents a “legal conclusion.” It is, however, in this case an official debunkingby the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security of Strunk;’s claims. Both agencies have gone on record that Obama was never adopted and that he was never a citizen of Indonesia. If you’re not satisfied by that, prove that they are wrong.Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case?The burden of proof is on those who claim that Obama is not eligible. He is the President. He was elected and sworn in without any objection from a single member of the Congress. It’s a done deal. If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to try to raise the issue when and if he runs for re-election. And if that doesn’t work out for you, you can vote for his opponent.When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking?When you apply for a job, you state your qualifications to the satisfaction of your potential employer. The criterion for satisfaction is up to the employer. When a political candidate runs for office, he or she states his or her qualificationd to the voters. If the voters are not satisfied, they can vote for someone else.Besides, the question of whether Obama was adopted has nothing to do with his eligibility, as has already been pointed out to you time and again.

    When Soebarkah’s adoption was annulled, he, or any legal representative, could state he was never adopted. The child’s name, if changed through adoption, is changed back. A new birth certificate is ordered to remove the adoptive parents name(s).

    Yet, the actions taken or the engagements committed to are not nullified. For example, a child who attends and completes the 1st grade while he was adopted is not forced to repeat the first grade because their adoption was nullified. And, for that matter, a child who moves out of the country and renounces his US citizenship while adopted is still a non-US citizen when the adoption is nullified.

  179. avatar
    Rickey September 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I actually hope one of the lawyers here will comment on exactly what a denial in a civil suit means. It’s something that I have been wondering about. I think it is a little more than you make it out to be.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I have been working on civil lawsuits for the last 35 years, so I’ve picked up some knowledge along the way.

    Basically, a plaintiff files a Complaint, which is full of allegations. When a defendant files his Answer, he has to either admit or deny each allegation. Defendants typically will admit allegations which are not in dispute. For example, a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of an auto accident will allege that an accident occurred on a particular date in a particular location. Unless the defendant disputes that the accident occurred, he will usually admit to those facts. If the defendant denies being involved he the accident, he will make an unequivocal denial. Allegations which are admitted to are in effect stipulated to be facts. Denying allegations does not mean that the allegations are not true, but the denial preserves the defendant’s right to challenge the allegations in court.

    Some denials are equivocal. For example, a defendant may respond to an allegation that he does not have sufficient knowledge of the facts to know if the allegation is true or false, and therefore denies it on that basis. An example of this would be in regard to the plaintiff’s claim
    s of injuries; obviously at the early stage of a lawsuit the defense attorney has no way of knowing if the plaintiff really was injured, but he certainly isn’t going to admit that there were any injuries. Other denials may be made “on information and belief,” which means that the defendant does not believe the allegations but is not flatly stating that they are false.

    An attorney has to verify in writing that everything his puts in his Answer is true. In the Strunk case, this means that the defense attorneys are absolutely convinced that Obama was never adopted and that he was never a citizen of Indonesia.

    The real attorneys here should feel free to elaborate or correct me if I am mistaken about anything.

  180. avatar
    Rickey September 15, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Nate Farmer:
    When Soebarkah’s adoption was annulled, he, or any legal representative, could state he was never adopted. /i>

    Who is Soebarkah? When and where was this person adopted? Please provide evidence.

  181. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 15, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Nate Farmer:
    When Soebarkah’s adoption was annulled, he, or any legal representative, could state he was never adopted. The child’s name, if changed through adoption, is changed back. A new birth certificate is ordered to remove the adoptive parents name(s).Yet, the actions taken or the engagements committed to are not nullified. For example, a child who attends and completes the 1st grade while he was adopted is not forced to repeat the first grade because their adoption was nullified. And, for that matter, a child who moves out of the country and renounces his US citizenship while adopted is still a non-US citizen when the adoption is nullified.

    What are you talking about? They don’t change the birth parents on a birth certificate when one is adopted

  182. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 15, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Magic Bullet:

    To be honest with you Strunk’s case has gone on so long some of the particulars of the early parts escape me without refreshing my memory.

    Same here. Let’s do some memory refreshing. Strunk filed his FOIA in October of 2008, and filed his lawsuit about 5 weeks later in November of 2008. In a Department of State motion in opposition dated February 29, 2009, the following footnote appears:

    Plaintiff has submitted three requests of which counsel is aware: two to the Department of State and one to DHS. The Department of State has provided a partial final response and is currently conducting a search for other responsive documents, and DHS has completed its search and provided a partial final response to Plaintiff (DHS has also requested additional documentation from Plaintiff as to some categories of requested documents).

    It has been a point of curiosity with me just why Mr. Strunk didn’t publish his partial final response in February of 2009, and I wrote about this question in my March 2009 article: What does Strunk know and when did he know it?

    Magic Bullet: As I suspected my questions were met by posters with resistance, but apparently little attempt to look at the other side of things.

    Well, you have to understand that we’ve been over this stuff many, many times. It is a huge challenge to respond with any freshness or interest to the same old, same old — or to even pay enough attention to see whether it is the same old, same old.

    Magic Bullet: You asked for an alternative theory about President Obama, would you settle for what I might describe as a possible alternative ” scenario”, something not as involved as a theory but still described enough to understand? Is it possible President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii,(or not) later adopted (possibly in Indonesia) and then later had his adoption rescinded by way of a court order requested by Stanley Ann, and that the reason he won’t release his long form is because it might show his records were amended? Would that fit in with Fukino stating he was a Natural Born Citizen (by whatever definition she chose to use) but still allow for his eligibility and/or loyalties to be questioned or a name change to Soetoro by adoption not fitting with his political agenda? Does this “scenario” require a Grand Conspiracy? No but it might allow the need for some records being lost and Hawaii trying to keep his history under wraps. Proof by contradiction or logical fallacy? Have at it.

    As I replied to another comment of yours, the Indonesian adoption loss of citizenship hypothesis is legally impossible. That comment links to my article here.

    In my professional life I have had the opportunity to work with several State and local registrars. They are a very proud bunch, and I have a very difficult time imaging anyone of that tribe doing anything to risk the credibility of the data they hold. Based on the documentation I have seen and the statutes, regulations, newspaper reports and press releases I have read (including the Butterdezillion material) I have formed an opinion about the Hawaii State Department of Health and how well they are handling the situation. I’ll keep that opinion to myself (mainly because it is speculative) except to say that nothing I have seen suggests to me that the Hawaii Department of Health holds any document about Barack Obama except one sheet of paper, titled Certificate of Live Birth, from Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, showing Barack Obama was born in August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, nor anything to lead me to think that it differs in any way from the information in the Certification of Live Birth (the so-called “short form”) that appears on the Obama campaign web site, FactCheck, Daily KOS and Politifact.

    One thing about official lies, particularly lies that involve many people: they come out eventually. If for no other reason, the utter embarrassment, damage to careers, and in some cases criminal sanctions, seems ample reason to keep Hawaiian and State Department officials honest. Especially with the supervision of a federal court in the Strunk case, it really stretches my credulity to believe that they would make up such a monumental lie as the destruction of a hundred million records. Talk about a “smoking gun”–how do you hide 11,000 cu ft. of files? All it takes is one former employee to say “I was there and we didn’t do that” or one foreign service officer to say “that cable is bogus.” I’m sorry, but this is a theory I cannot take seriously.

    It’s one thing for a private individual to fake a document (we have fake Kenyan birth certificate galore), but it is entirely something else for a federal agency to fake one. It’s not unheard of, but it is so extraordinary that it is not a hypothesis one would come to without extreme justification, something lacking in this case.

    We have already had one scandal in the Department of Homeland Security about delays of FOIA responses due to political machinations. I don’t need to look further than that model to explain everything I see from the Department of State.

    I would expect that the Department of State will answer Strunk’s motion with whatever information is available and I look forward to their explanation. I would not expect anything on their web site though.

  183. avatar
    Keith September 15, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Wow. The first “academic” to post and defend them is Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
    Holocaust denier, moon landings were faked, and more. Did you know Stalin, Churchill and FDR were all Jews and the Zionists started the second world war? With friends like this, the geocentrists and catholic apologetics do not need enemies.
    http://www.realityreviewed.com/Dresden.htmOf course, it is only normal that people who believe in one insane conspiracy theory are very willing to adopt another one. Berg was a trufer before he became a birfer.

    Well, I count him as the fourth, but no matter.

    I happen to agree that Dresden was a war crime; I come down on the ‘insignificant military target’ side of the discussion. I don’t think vengeance is a particularly useful strategy in the long term prosecution of a war, and that is what it was, pure and simple, vengeance for the bombing of London. I understand responses to an attack for morale purposes, but Dresden was not that.

    However, my 21st century viewpoint looking back is not the same as the one that faced the War Command in 1945. Also, Dresden was not the worst bombing raid in Europe. There is still debate over the death toll at Dresden, but it seems clear that the original death toll estimate were exagerated by a factor of at least 10, so probably around 25,000. The Hamburg bombings killed upwards of 50,000 and included a much bigger firestorm.

    But calling everyone from Stalin to Churchill to Eisenhower is just a tad wacko-num-num-num-razzats lunatic.

    I am reliably informed that neither Notre Dame University nor the Catholic hierarchy are amused by the use of their names on the publicity pamphlet. I believe that the Catholics have asked them to stop calling it a ‘Catholic Conference’.

  184. avatar
    misha September 15, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    Keith: simple, vengeance for the bombing of London

    Dresden was revenge for Coventry. It’s easy for our generation to pontificate, but the survival of western civilization was at stake.

  185. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    I too welcome any input, I am not an attorney and don’t play one on TV (especially not Matlock) but I have been involved in many civil and criminal cases. Unfortunately I am pressed for time right now but will point out a couple of things based on my knowlede and experience,

    Rule 11 IMO is keyed more to frivolous lawsuits being filed than iffy denials. I consider it more of a restraint to a plaintiff than a defendant. An attorney can basically ask his client if he was adopted and if his BC was valid and in the preliminary stages before discovery that would be sufficient to cover his butt IMO. I expect Obama did not admit to being ineligible or adopted. Plausible deniabilty, Attorney client priveledge would also hold that conversation priviledged. In any case how do you prove the other side did no investigation?

    Sanctions are the usual remedy for a violation of rule 11 and a complaint must be filed by a party to the case. A filing for sanctions itself is subject to sanctions. Sanctions can be monetary and usually equate to attorney fees charged to overcome the violation, or there can be a dismissal of the pleading or whole case. In this case Strunk is pro se and plaintiff not defendant and not ordinarily eligible for attoney’s fees and if he proved that the denials were in violation (old standard bad faith) he could be granted what he requested (what could he request, no more BS?)but not have the case adjudicated in his favor based on the violation. State Department is the defendant and certainly not afraid of any monetary damages. State Department requested and was granted a dismisal of the pleadings against Obama thus basically taking sanctions off the table.

    I do consider a denial in an answer by the State Department in this FOIA case to be next to worthless.

  186. avatar
    Black Lion September 15, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): What are you talking about? They don’t change the birth parents on a birth certificate when one is adopted

    It’s Sven pushing his Barry and the Pirates new chapter….You know, his work of fiction….No evidence will be forthcoming…

  187. avatar
    Magic Bullet September 15, 2010 at 11:20 pm #

    I appreciate your response, but will have to look at it later…off the cuff, yes my possible proposition is very hard to believe and many would consider absurd- reductio ad absurdum..give me credit for sticking my neck out..lol…it may get chopped off….regards

  188. avatar
    sfjeff September 15, 2010 at 11:20 pm #

    I call shenanigans- or as usual ‘moving the goal posts during the game;

    Phantom “If you look at what I was discussing, it was the defendants answer in a civil case to an allegation. The defendants as usual denied most allegations.”

    Except here is your actual discussiont:

    “if you are arrested and go to court, the first time you are asked are you going to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges? If you plead not guilty does that mean your case is dismissed based on your self serving statement of innocence or will you have to go to trial and prove your are not guilty with real evidence subject to cross examination and authentication which is allowed to be presented by both sides?”

    While you coached your statements as questions, clearly your opinion is that a defendent is required to prove he is not guilty. This is the example you offered up.

    “Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case?”

    It is the exact same burden of proof as it has always been. There is no statutory requirement, therefore it is up to the voters to decide whether they believe the candidate is eligible. Barring that, someone needs to prove the candidate is not elgible- not the President- the candidate.

    “Is it sufficient evidence of eligibility for a candidate to swear that he is eligible then the burden of proof shifts to those that disagree?”

    Thats what all previous Presidents have done. Was this a particular issue with you when Bush was elected, or Clinton?

    I go back to the first statement in your second post:

    “To use logical thinking, you must begin with facts”

    You claim to be striving for logical thinking- so show us the facts- what facts show that President Obama is not eligible?

  189. avatar
    sfjeff September 15, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    “Dresden was revenge for Coventry”

    Completely off topic but just finished reading “Bomber Boys” – I think that was the title which was an account of the Allied bombing campaign of Europe in WW11. Best balanced account of that part of the war that I had read. Do you know that in 1943, the casualty rates of U.S. bomber crews was higher than of any other service except submariners? Good- and I think very fair discussion of the bombing of German cities.

  190. avatar
    G September 15, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    Just curious… how do Flat Earther’s manage explain satellite photos?Or round the world travel, for that matter?

    Trust me, I always wonder that one myself. All I can go by is the few Flat Earthers I’ve actually dealt with.

    The funny thing is Dr.Gerardus Bouw actually got his doctorate in Astronomy, prior to having some sort of weird “near death” experience (If I remember correctly it was nothing more than a major car accident that he survived and somehow could only conclude that must mean it was a miracle from God). From that event, be became “born again” in an extreme biblical literalness way and that everything post some crazy point in the early middle ages of the church was heretical. So, he concluded that in order to worship God and follow the bible, he must reject and renounce everything he had previously been taught & believed before and must “spread the word” at every chance.

    His answers to such questions were similar to some of the cognitive dissonance and utter change the topic dodges and misdirection we see from the birthers – except he was much more genuine and congenial when challenged, (and I was always fairly polite and congenial with him – he really is a super nice guy as a person – just an awfully incompetent professor (but he’s got tenure) and with religious-interpretation based viewpoints that are so antiquated and nonsensical that you end up more amused at the crazy than bothered by it. Honestly, how can anyone take these Creationist/Flat Earther types and their ridiculous nonsense with a straight face?

    So, back to your direct question – I honestly can barely remember what his responses to such questions (such as satellite evidence) consisted of – and that is primarily because his responses to such things pretty much amounted to non-responses and simply ignoring/pretending the question wasn’t asked and quickly going on to something else. When pressed, it might elicit some dazzling professorially sounding and lengthy rambling mumbo-jumbo bad pseudo-science / conspiracy based speech told with a convincing and soothing smile. Such answers in the end always amounted to saying a lot of nothing (but with conviction!) and were usually fairly irrelevant to addressing the original questions in any respect whatsoever. Like a lot of the birther nonsense we see, it often involved making connections of unrelated dots, including ones to dots that don’t even exist. Finally, such standard fallback responses would always include an amazing amount of spiffy “God did it” or the “devil did it” magic solution thinking sprinkled constantly throughout. These days, it would remind you of a biblical version of the infamous South Park “Underpants Gnomes” thinking.

    Basically, he was a Moon Landing denier (with those same arguments) as well…just with very biblical inspired excuses. So everything kinda came down to god/the devil can trick us into seeing things that aren’t there…for whatever mysterious reason. So, essentially we’ve never been in space, we’re only somehow manipulated to think we did and satellites and their imagery and everything else about astronomy that we know is roughly the same response he had for dinosaurs back in those days – God/devil planted fake bones for scientist to find….

    …Yeah…just pure crazy and a wall of magical thinking protection for him to dismissively explain away a world that utterly contradicts with his make believe reality.

    As I’ve pointed out repeatedly – very similar to the birthers and their communication skills. With the only difference is that he was nice and polite and that the basis of his fictional world didn’t stem from deep seated inner fears and hatreds.

  191. avatar
    JoZeppy September 15, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    Magic Bullet: An attorney can basically ask his client if he was adopted and if his BC was valid and in the preliminary stages before discovery that would be sufficient to cover his butt IMO. I expect Obama did not admit to being ineligible or adopted. Plausible deniabilty, Attorney client priveledge would also hold that conversation priviledged. In any case how do you prove the other side did no investigation?

    Magic Bullet: Rule 11 IMO is keyed more to frivolous lawsuits being filed than iffy denials. I consider it more of a restraint to a plaintiff than a defendant.

    Big surprise. A question about the law, and you’re completely wrong. Rule 11 governs everything signed by an attorney. It certainly covers making false statements in an Answer.

    Magic Bullet: An attorney can basically ask his client if he was adopted and if his BC was valid and in the preliminary stages before discovery that would be sufficient to cover his butt IMO. I expect Obama did not admit to being ineligible or adopted. Plausible deniabilty, Attorney client priveledge would also hold that conversation priviledged. In any case how do you prove the other side did no investigation?

    Oh…and big surprise…Wrong again. No it would not be covered under attorney client privilege. Crime Fraud Exception. The client is attempting to use the attorneys services to perpetuate a fraud. The conversaton would not be protected. And trust me, when sanctions are invovled, attorneys (with the exception of Orly) , make sure they have their bases covered. When an attorney makes a statement like “he was never adopted” and signs his name to it, unless the attorney is a total hack, they makes sure it’s an accurate statement.

    Magic Bullet: Sanctions are the usual remedy for a violation of rule 11 and a complaint must be filed by a party to the case. A filing for sanctions itself is subject to sanctions. Sanctions can be monetary and usually equate to attorney fees charged to overcome the violation, or there can be a dismissal of the pleading or whole case. In this case Strunk is pro se and plaintiff not defendant and not ordinarily eligible for attoney’s fees and if he proved that the denials were in violation (old standard bad faith) he could be granted what he requested (what could he request, no more BS?)but not have the case adjudicated in his favor based on the violation. State Department is the defendant and certainly not afraid of any monetary damages. State Department requested and was granted a dismisal of the pleadings against Obama thus basically taking sanctions off the table.

    Well, you did get one thing right. A frivolous motion of santions is sanctionalbe. The rest of it…pretty much totall wrong. A court can issue a motion to show cause sua sponte. Just ask Orly. And you’ll note, her sanctions were not based on attorney fees. And the court can also assess the penalty against the attorney personally, and the Court can also contract the State bar recommending the attorney be disbarred. And of course, every time you apply to admission to any other bar, you have to say if you’ve ever been sanctioned…so again, you’re dead wrong. EVERY attorney that plans to continue practicing will be very mindful of sanctions. They certainly are not off the table.

    Magic Bullet: I do consider a denial in an answer by the State Department in this FOIA case to be next to worthless.

    Of course you do…because you have no idea what you’re talking about, and have no interest in the truth….you should have stopped at “I”m not a lawyer.”

  192. avatar
    G September 16, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Rickey:
    Nobody claimed that a denial represents a “legal conclusion.” It is, however, in this case an official debunkingby the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security of Strunk;’s claims. Both agencies have gone on record that Obama was never adopted and that he was never a citizen of Indonesia. If you’re not satisfied by that, prove that they are wrong.Where is the burden of proof in an Presidential eligibility case?The burden of proof is on those who claim that Obama is not eligible. He is the President. He was elected and sworn in without any objection from a single member of the Congress. It’s a done deal. If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to try to raise the issue when and if he runs for re-election. And if that doesn’t work out for you, you can vote for his opponent.When you apply for a job do you state your qualifications and expect that your future employer will accept those representations without checking?When you apply for a job, you state your qualifications to the satisfaction of your potential employer. The criterion for satisfaction is up to the employer. When a political candidate runs for office, he or she states his or her qualification to the voters. If the voters are not satisfied, they can vote for someone else.Besides, the question of whether Obama was adopted has nothing to do with his eligibility, as has already been pointed out to you time and again.

    Excellent and succinct responses, Rickey. Kudos again.

  193. avatar
    JoZeppy September 16, 2010 at 12:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I actually hope one of the lawyers here will comment on exactly what a denial in a civil suit means. It’s something that I have been wondering about.

    Rickey’s explanation is pretty accurate. A complaint is basically a long list of factual allegations with a couple of conclusions of law thrown in. In the Answer, the defendant must either admit or deny every factual allegation. If they really lack any way of knowing (i.e. the plaintiff claims to have suffered $1000000 in medical costs), they can claim insufficient knowledge. You may have some fudge factor on something that is a legal conclusion (i.e. “they breached the contract on x date”), but when you say something like “he was born in Hawaii, and never adopted” you don’t have much wiggle room. You can pretty much take to the bank that those are accurate. Judges don’t like lawyers lying to them, and lawyer who want to keep being lawyers will do their best not to p.o. judges by lying.

  194. avatar
    obsolete September 16, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    Of course, Magic Bullet hasn’t said why he thinks the State Dept. would lie over this. What do they have to gain? How much do they have to lose? Again, there is no wiggle room in their statements.
    Do you have any evidence the State Dept. lied? Do you have any evidence the State Dept. lied in a similar case before? Is every single employee at the State Dept. an Obot? Have they all been threatened? Bought off?
    You now think that the State Dept. AND the officials in Hawaii are lying and covering up.

    I want to know- how deep do you think the rabbit hole is? How vast is this conspiracy?

  195. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 16, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    G: (If I remember correctly it was nothing more than a major car accident that he survived and somehow could only conclude that must mean it was a miracle from God).

    Did he hit his head?

  196. avatar
    G September 16, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    Expelliarmus:
    Did he hit his head?

    LOL! I honestly don’t remember much about what his whole accident situation was that led to his “conversion” to crazy….it has been so many years. I do have a co-worker who’s husband (prior to his passing away) was a close colleague of his. I’ll check and see if she remembers more of what happened.

    But it sure sounds like a clear case of Dain Brammage… doesn’t it? 😉

  197. avatar
    Keith September 16, 2010 at 3:12 am #

    misha:
    Dresden was revenge for Coventry. It’s easy for our generation to pontificate, but the survival of western civilization was at stake.

    Yeah, I stand corrected about Coventry. I agree that our retrospective perspective does not resemble that of the War Command in 1945.

  198. avatar
    Keith September 16, 2010 at 3:21 am #

    G: Honestly, how can anyone take these Creationist/Flat Earther types and their ridiculous nonsense with a straight face?

    The problem though, is that some of these people are influencing policy decisions at the school board level, pushing anti-scientific agendas into curriculums, and removing the funding base for education from State budgets.

    That is definitely not a joke.

  199. avatar
    G September 16, 2010 at 3:23 am #

    Keith:
    The problem though, is that some of these people are influencing policy decisions at the school board level, pushing anti-scientific agendas into curriculums, and removing the funding base for education from State budgets.
    That is definitely not a joke.

    Agreed. Totally.

  200. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 16, 2010 at 4:52 am #

    Keith: Yeah, I stand corrected about Coventry. I agree that our retrospective perspective does not resemble that of the War Command in 1945.

    I’ve been to Coventry and its present cathedral. Its rebuilding is a better revenge for the raids than what happened at Dresden, I agree.

    But what about the argument that the Dresden bombing was a coup pretending to help Stalin, at a time when the Western Allies did not know or were pretending not to know how to help him? Today, evidence newly released from the western and Soviet archives proves that the Soviet victory at Kursk (not the end of the beginning like Stalingrad but the beginning of the end) was all because the Soviet Union knew about the coming German Panzer attack from … Kim Philby. Churchill and FDR, who knew through Enigma, had in fact decided NOT to warn Uncle Joe. Naughty, very naughty. At this time, it seems like the Britsish and the Americans did not have a reverse Kim Philby in Moscow telling them how the Red Army would take Berlin, but who knows – perhaps today the British and US intelligence services are still suppressing something. Because they are afraid of what historians will make of Dresden? Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, any possible evil has already been done.

    When I linked to the Dresden page on that nutter PD’s website, I knew that this Dresden argument would come up, but I could not find any better example of his Elders of Zion diatribes. He replaced the pages that according to the menu should refer to his anti-zionist viewpoint by a long complaint about Zionists convincing his earlier webspace providers to block access to his probably both certifiable and libellous comment pages.

  201. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 16, 2010 at 6:55 am #

    It’s a thread hijack of course, but I see now that my argument on Dresden is too succinct to be understood by newcomers to the discussion. One of the main arguments for considering Dresden a war crime is that it served no military purpose. It can actually be proven that it hindered the Soviet attack on Berlin: Dresden was of no use as a railway junction anyway and the Dresden attack stopped the flight of millions of Germans from the North East of Germany into the Sudeten mountains which were deemed safe at the time. This flight when it was going on was actually severely hindering attempts by the German army to send reinforcements from the South to Berlin. Hitler was planning a counter attack SE of Berlin. In the end, that attack came to nothing and 50 to 60 thousand German troops got killed or captured in the Halbe pocket. (The Schneider attack, famous from its mention in Der Untergang, was to coincide in the North but came to nothing because he had no men and no weapons)

    Of course, Western historians can safely retort that Stalin did not really tell the Western Allies how he was going to attack Berlin. If however documents were to turn up indicating that Stalin did tell them or that spies in Moscow told them, this would devastate the defense against the war crime accusation.

    Some East Gemans (and by all means not only Die Linke) even opine that an additional reason for the destruction of Dresden was to ensure that Stalin inherited a derelict East Germany. That is of course another conspiracy theory.

  202. avatar
    Nate Farmer September 16, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    What are you talking about?They don’t change the birth parents on a birth certificate when one is adopted

    New BC created when an adoption is finalized ..

    Hawaii revised statute §338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.

    (b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.

    (c) Any certified copy of final decree of adoption, or abstract thereof, of persons born in the State, rendered by courts of other states and territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or courts of a foreign country, shall be considered properly certified when attested by the clerk of the court in which it was rendered with the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding judge, chancellor, or magistrate that the attestation is in due form.

    (d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence as it deems necessary to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.

    (e) The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order setting aside a decree of adoption, the department shall restore the original certificate to its original place in the files. [L 1949, c 327, §24; RL 1955, §57-23; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-20; am L 1978, c 50, §1; am L 1979, c 203, §2; am L 1980, c 153, §6 and c 232, §18; am L 1988, c 274, §2; am L 1990, c 338, §2]

    Carefully read part (d) of the statute. It’s the reason Soebarkah cannot show his original long-form birth certificate.

  203. avatar
    Dave September 16, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    Nate Farmer:
    New BC created when an adoption is finalized ..
    Carefully read part (d) of the statute. It’s the reason Soebarkah cannot show his original long-form birth certificate.

    I carefully read it, especially the part you helpfully emphasized, which clarifies that your statement is false. In case of adopotion, they don’t make a new BC, they make a supplemental BC.

    Note that the President’s BC that we’ve all seen is not a supplemental BC, therefore he was not adopted.

    Are we done?

  204. avatar
    AnotherBird September 16, 2010 at 8:50 am #

    Nate Farmer:
    New BC created when an adoption is finalized ..

    Carefully read part (d) of the statute. It’s the reason Soebarkah cannot show his original long-form birth certificate.

    The thing that makes conspiracy theorist really boring is that produce absolutely nothing to support their arguments. Presenting a law in no way proves the existence of a “Soebarkah,” an act of adoption, or anything else.

    So we still don’t know what you are talking about.

  205. avatar
    Greg September 16, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    Nate Farmer: It’s the reason Soebarkah cannot show his original long-form birth certificate.

    Because it shows that he’s the child of a diplomat?

    And, for that matter, a child who moves out of the country and renounces his US citizenship while adopted is still a non-US citizen when the adoption is nullified.

    You can search court cases here: http://scholar.google.com/

    Can you give a single example of a six-year old renouncing his citizenship?

    There’s a technical legal term that we lawyers use for a claim that someone refuses to validate with any evidence after repeated requests…

    BS!

  206. avatar
    misha September 16, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    Nate Farmer: It’s the reason Soebarkah cannot show his original long-form birth certificate.

    Good point. Is this the supplemental birth certificate you’re looking for?

  207. avatar
    Black Lion September 16, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    Greg: Because it shows that he’s the child of a diplomat? You can search court cases here: http://scholar.google.com/Can you give a single example of a six-year old renouncing his citizenship? There’s a technical legal term that we lawyers use for a claim that someone refuses to validate with any evidence after repeated requests…BS!

    Who is Soebarkah? I have never heard of this individual and how is he supposedly related to the issue of whether or not the President of the US, Barack Obama is eligible? Sven, can you explain with some supporting evidence who this individual is? Because it is tough to keep track of all the different characters in your upcoming novel….

  208. avatar
    Nate Farmer September 16, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    paraphrasing and not really quoting: AnotherBird: We were wrong, Nate. We’re sorry for our mistake. Please accept our most humble apologies.

    Apology accepted. Let’s move on.

    What we haven’t heard from Soebarkah’s legal representatives is a statement we can sink our teeth into to establish his true background.

    For example, it’s irrelevant as to his Natural born status as to whether or not Soebarkah was adopted. Has Soebarkah, or any of the names he uses, ever been issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by the US SoS?

    It’s irrelevant if Soebarkah ever naturalized to any country other than the US. The question is whether he naturalized after he moved back to the US to attend some the finest educational institutions as a foreign national.

  209. avatar
    Lupin September 16, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    Transcript of Obama’s French interview in 2009 (in English):
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transcript-of-the-Interview-of-the-President-by-Laura-Haim-Canal-Plus-6-1-09/

    Relevant graph:

    Q Did you go to Provence?

    THE PRESIDENT: You know, I have traveled through the south of France when I was in college. I haven’t been back for a long time. And so I need to — I need to get back there.

    On French TV, cut to a clip of couple of jovial hoteliers remembering bright young American.

  210. avatar
    Black Lion September 16, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Nate Farmer: Apology accepted. Let’s move on.What we haven’t heard from Soebarkah’s legal representatives is a statement we can sink our teeth into to establish his true background.For example, it’s irrelevant as to his Natural born status as to whether or not Soebarkah was adopted. Has Soebarkah, or any of the names he uses, ever been issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by the US SoS?It’s irrelevant if Soebarkah ever naturalized to any country other than the US. The question is whether he naturalized after he moved back to the US to attend some the finest educational institutions as a foreign national.

    Nate(Sven) can you tell us who this Soebarkah person is? It has been asked before on this thread. Who is he, what does this person have to do with the President, and why would we care about some Certificate of Loss of Nationality? If I am correct this site is about Barack Obama, not some guy named Soebarkah. If you don’t have the answer of who he is that’s OK. Just explain why you are continually bringing him up?

  211. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 16, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    I am rather disappointed that MY contributions are being ignored.

    The Constitution is silent on how or by whom a President’s natural-born citizenship is proven. Obama himself has clearly presented enough evidence to get himself a US passport, a seat in the US Senate, etc. The relevant officials of Hawaii, including the Republican Governor, attest to the genuiness of his Hawaiian birth. Frankly we have more documentary evidence of his natural-born status than we have of most previous Presidents. Whether or not the burden of proof was originally on Obama, it is clear that he has made a very strong case for himself and now the burden shifts to those who claim he isn’t a natural born citizen. (By the way, the Constitution requires only that he be a US citizen when born, it is silent on the possibilitie that he could acquire another nationality afterward.)

    One might ask, what was the purpose of the Constitutional requirement — and, therefore, how stringently must it be applied?? Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state, Chester A. Arthur was born in NY to a father who was a British citizen, John McCain was born in the US Panama Canal Zone which was subsequently ceded to the Republic of Panama. Only about 6 years ago Republicans were aggitating for “the Arnold Amendment” – to eliminate the requirement of born citizenship altogether so that Schwarzeneggar could run for President.

  212. avatar
    Nate Farmer September 16, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    My brother from another mother, Black Lion:

    See item 3 in Doc’s message at the beginning of this thread.

    3. When Stanley Ann Dunham (then Soetoro) renewed her passport in 1968, we see that she filled in the name Barack Hussein Obama on the back of the renewal form under an amendment to exclude him from the passport. The same lines are used to include or exclude and the cross hatches reasonably indicate that he was to be excluded. Unfortunately, my hypothesis sheds no light on the mysterious Soebarkah.

    “Who is Soebarkah?” is the question we, as a collective, are trying to answer.

  213. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 16, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    It’s the reason Soebarkah cannot show his original long-form birth certificate.

    Actually, the reason given by Obama himself is that the original document was lost in a house fire some years ago.

    What Obama made public in 2008 is the standard official Hawaii replacement certificate. Hawaii law makes it legally satisfactory for whatever the original document would be used for. The replacement does show that Obama’s birth was registered within two business days. If, at some point during his life, he had been adopted and supplied with a new surname, the birth certificate record, according to the very law you cited, would have been amended and he could not then have gotten a certificate in 2008 that still says his name is Obama.

    Even so, it is not legally clear if, having fullfilled the Constitutional requirement of having been born a US citizen, Obama’s eligibility could thereafter have been lost by something done by others when he was a small child (namely, adoption by a non-citizen). Since the Constitution is silent and since the tangible evidence of such an adoption is so feeble, I would suppose it is not enough to disqualify him for office.

    By the way, Obama Sr., although something or other in the Kenyan govt at the time, was NOT a diplomat accredited to the US.

  214. avatar
    Majority Will September 16, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Nate Farmer:
    “Who is Soebarkah?” is the question we, as a collective, are trying to answer.

    Who is “we”? Your enormous sock collection?

    Collective? Like the Borg?

    Enjoy your pathetic obsession, Sven, Dan, Bill, Moe, Esther, Cliff, Dick, birther.

  215. avatar
    Black Lion September 16, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    Nate Farmer: “Who is Soebarkah?” is the question we, as a collective, are trying to answer.

    Sven, Agreed…So again who is he? I was confused because in your comments regarding Loss Nationality forms and adoptions I thought that you knew who he was? It seems like he is some sort of mythical character, .kind of like the Yeti or the Bigfoot that Ed Hale claimed to have shot….

  216. avatar
    katahdin September 16, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Nate Farmer: “Who is Soebarkah?” is the question we, as a collective, are trying to answer.

    “Collective?”
    What are you, some kind of Commie?
    Do you have a Commie flag tacked up on wall inside of your garage?
    Pinko!

  217. avatar
    Majority Will September 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    katahdin:
    “Collective?”What are you, some kind of Commie?
    Do you have a Commie flag tacked up on wall inside of your garage?
    Pinko!

    LMAO

  218. avatar
    Rickey September 16, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Rickey’s explanation is pretty accurate

    Glad to hear that!

    A complaint is basically a long list of factual allegations with a couple of conclusions of law thrown in.In the Answer, the defendant must either admit or deny every factual allegation. If they really lack any way of knowing (i.e. the plaintiff claims to have suffered $1000000 in medical costs), they can claim insufficient knowledge.You may have some fudge factor on something that is a legal conclusion (i.e. “they breached the contract on x date”), but when you say something like “he was born in Hawaii, and never adopted” you don’t have much wiggle room.You can pretty much take to the bank that those are accurate.Judges don’t like lawyers lying to them, and lawyer who want to keep being lawyers will do their best not to p.o. judges by lying.

    I know that the attorneys I work for will not file an Answer until they have conferred with their client and gotten the client’s version of what happened. For one thing, they don’t want to admit that the client was involved in the matter at hand if the client is going to deny being involved. On the other hand, they don’t want to deny involvement if, for example, the client has already filed an accident report which shows that he or she was involved.

    In the Strunk case, it is inconceivable that the attorneys for State and Homeland Security filed the Answer without first obtaining assurances from Obama that he was never adopted and was never a citizen of Indonesia.

    They also denied the allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and denied that he was born in Kenya or any place other than Hawaii.

  219. avatar
    Rickey September 16, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Nate Farmer:
    “Who is Soebarkah?” is the question we, as a collective, are trying to answer.

    Wow, Before you were talking about Soebarkah’s adoption, and now you are admitting that you don’t know who Soebarkah is. So how do you know that he/she was adopted?

    And you’re a member of a collective? Doesn’t that make you a Communist?

  220. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 16, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    Rickey: Wow, Before you were talking about Soebarkah’s adoption, and now you are admitting that you don’t know who Soebarkah is. So how do you know that he/she was adopted?And you’re a member of a collective? Doesn’t that make you a Communist?

    I thought he was saying he was Borg

  221. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 16, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    Rickey: [The State Department} also denied the allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and denied that he was born in Kenya or any place other than Hawaii.

    Well, duh, they have their own copy of his birth certificate.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 16, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    Bernard Sussman: Actually, the reason given by Obama himself is that the original document was lost in a house fire some years ago.

    Not really.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7973

  223. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 17, 2010 at 6:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, duh, they {the US Dept of State} have their own copy of his birth certificate.

    Actually, they wouldn’t have a copy. The best they’d have on his first passport application would be the adjudicator’s note of having seen the “bc” – meaning one issued by the Hawaii Health Dept with the impression seal. Only the details on the birth certificate which confirm the details asked on the passport application — date & place of birth, parents’ names — would be of interest to the adjudicator. If the adjudicator hadn’t been satisfied with the birth certificate, the application wouldn’t have progressed until the applicant (Obama) supplied a satisfactory one.

  224. avatar
    AnotherBird September 17, 2010 at 7:01 am #

    Nate why would you attempt to fake an apology that was never made to you?

    Nate Farmer: paraphrasing and not really quoting: AnotherBird: We were wrong, Nate. We’re sorry for our mistake. Please accept our most humble apologies.

    Not to worry, I don’t expect an apology for you as you have more important things to concentrate on.

    Nate Farmer:
    Apology accepted. Let’s move on.What we haven’t heard from Soebarkah’s legal representatives is a statement we can sink our teeth into to establish his true background.

    For example, it’s irrelevant as to his Natural born status as to whether or not Soebarkah was adopted. Has Soebarkah, or any of the names he uses, ever been issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by the US SoS?

    It’s irrelevant if Soebarkah ever naturalized to any country other than the US. The question is whether he naturalized after he moved back to the US to attend some the finest educational institutions as a foreign national.

    Anyways, let us move on to more important matters.

    Nate, who is the Soebarkah person?

    Nate adoption and naturalization are two different processes. In the simplest case of adoption a parent or both parents have to relinquish adoption rights to another person or person. Nationalization is where a state grants the right of citizenship to a person who wasn’t a citizen by birth.

    It isn’t possible to become a naturalized in a country other that the current country of residency. So, Nate you will have to rethink your final statement (the one in bold).

  225. avatar
    Bernard Sussman September 17, 2010 at 7:16 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not really.http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7973

    According to Obama, the 1961 copy of his birth certificate, which is to say the copy that was sent to his mother in 1961, was lost in a house fire at his grandparents’ home circa 1971….
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HBPgne3OwJ4J:sentinelradio.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/obama-original-birth-certificate-lost-in-house-fire/+obama+%22birth+certificate%22+%22small+house+fire%22+lost&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
    …. which, I think, would have happened after he got his first passport. In any case the point is that the fire was in his grandparents’ home.

    The nastiness started when, somehow, some birthers garbled this story into Obama claiming there had been a fire in the Hawaii Dept of Health, which, of course, hadn’t happened …. and Obama had never made such a claim.

    From the public statements of the director of the Hawaii Health Dept, the 1961 original still exists in Health Dept files and corroborates the recent replacement certificate that he made public in 2008. It is not clear from their statement whether the 1961 original still exists in 50 year old paper or whether it is kept only in microfilm or digitized records.

  226. avatar
    AnotherBird September 17, 2010 at 8:06 am #

    Bernard Sussman:
    According to Obama, the 1961 copy of his birth certificate, which is to say the copy that was sent to his mother in 1961, was lost in a house fire at his grandparents’ home circa 1971…. …. which, I think, would have happened after he got his first passport.

    The story about his birth certificate being lost in a fire would have been big news, but nothing has been heard about it. Tracking back the links it was reported twice in August and once in December 2009.

    An extraction for the earliest article reads …

    Through a spokesperson working for the Administration, the President now claims that his original birth certificate was lost in a fire ….

    “There was a small house fire in which the document was lost,” the spokesperson said. “That is why the President has been unable to comply with requests to release it.”

    There are several problems with the article. Who is this spokesperson? Why was this never news?

    The explanation is inconsistent with the position that the White House has taken on this issue.

    It is just another internet rumor that never got traction when it was first released over a year ago, even with birthers.

  227. avatar
    Daniel September 17, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    AnotherBird: The story about his birth certificate being lost in a fire would have been big news, but nothing has been heard about it. … Why was this never news?

    Why would this be big news? It would only be of interest to Birthers, and only then so they could misinterpret it somehow to make it say what they want.

    To the rest of the world it’s of no interest whatsoever, since Obama’s eligibility has been properly and legally established, the proof of which is the legally admissible COLB.

  228. avatar
    AnotherBird September 17, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Daniel:
    Why would this be big news? It would only be of interest to Birthers, and only then so they could misinterpret it somehow to make it say what they want.To the rest of the world it’s of no interest whatsoever, since Obama’s eligibility has been properly and legally established, the proof of which is the legally admissible COLB.

    Sorry, that was my mistake. What was meant by my comment is that if the White House had actual made that statement that it would have been heard over a year ago. It never was.

    Over the past few days it has been discussed more than the previous year. Birther sites would have been shown much interested in it, and we would have discussed it more when it was originally release. The rest of the world doesn’t cares about Lakin’s court martial and that is “big news.”

    That is what is meant by “big news.” However, the question was “Why was this never news?” without big, and meaning “Why wasn’t this story circulated more?”

    The point is that it is and was a fake story.

  229. avatar
    AnotherBird September 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    Sorry, one important point. For the rest of the world the fact that Obama ran to become president is enough proof that he is eligible to be president. Anyways, sorry for any confusion and I hope that I clarified myself.

  230. avatar
    gorefan September 17, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    Nate Farmer: What we haven’t heard from Soebarkah’s legal representatives is a statement we can sink our teeth into to establish his true background.

    Here are just a few websites with pictures from the Punahou yearbook during the President’s years. The first one is from 1973 and lists him as Barry Obama

    http://wonkette.com/364154/barack-obamas-sixth-grade-yearbook-photos

    The second one, with even a simple photo editing program, shows also lists him as Barry Obama.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3125.html

    So, we know for a fact, he was Barry Obama from 1971 to 1979.

    We know for a fact, he registered at Occidental as Barak Obama and at Columbia as Barak Obama.

    So Nate, all these yearbooks, school directories, school classmates, former teachers, friends say he was known as Barry or Barak Obama.

    Why has no one come forward to say that from the age of 10 years until today, he was ever known as Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah? Wouldn’t that be plastered all over the internet?