Main Menu

Supreme Court reviews Kerchner

The United States Supreme Court scheduled review of the appeal in Kerchner v. Obama yesterday, and we presume they will announce that it has been denied on Monday. WorldNetDaily asks: “Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?” to which I reply, “No.”

The Kerchner lawsuit was a “kitchen sink” complaint including every birther fantasy from fake travel bans to Pakistan, misrepresentations of Hawaiian statutes and grandmother tapes to redefinition of “natural born citizen.” While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign.

Learn more:

473 Responses to Supreme Court reviews Kerchner

  1. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree November 24, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Mario’s been over at CAAFlog trying to defend his absurd filings. He’s getting flogged over there something fierce. Col. Dwight Sullivan, the blog owner, indicates that SCOTUS has already denied cert., based upon their failure to request a response from the government. But we already knew that was a foregone conclusion. What’s Mario’s next move going to be?

  2. avatar
    Majority Will November 24, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    Lawyerwitharealdegree: What’s Mario’s next move going to be?

    The circus can always use a good freak.

  3. avatar
    ASK Esq November 24, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    I’m wondering something. If the birther wet dreams come true and the Court not only grants cert, but then goes ahead and removes Obama AND reverses everything he’s done as President, does that mean the turkey he pardoned gets killed?

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

  4. avatar
    Reality Check November 24, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    ASK Esq: I’m wondering something. If the birther wet dreams come true and the Court not only grants cert, but then goes ahead and removes Obama AND reverses everything he’s done as President, does that mean the turkey he pardoned gets killed?Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

    The moral of that story is that not all turkeys are Birthers but all Birthers are turkeys.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  5. avatar
    Rickey November 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Lawyerwitharealdegree: Mario’s been over at CAAFlog trying to defend his absurd filings.He’s getting flogged over there something fierce.Col. Dwight Sullivan, the blog owner, indicates that SCOTUS has already denied cert., based upon their failure to request a response from the government.But we already knew that was a foregone conclusion.

    Col. Sullivan has hit the nail on the head. I did some spot-checking of the cases for which orders were issued on 11/15/10. It seems that if SCOTUS requests a response from the respondent, you can’t predict anything. Responses were requested on two cases for which cert was granted, but I found multiple cases where responses were requested but cert was denied.

    On the other hand, if SCOTUS fails to request a response, it seems to be the kiss of death. On every case for which cert has been granted so far this term, either the respondent filed a response on its own or SCOTUS requested a response. Since no response was requested on the Kerchner case, we can predict with 100% certainty that cert is being denied.

  6. avatar
    E.Vattel November 24, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    [The following is by DancingRabbit, Doc.]

    It appears the English courts accepted the Law of Nations as law of the land and a part of their common law in the 18th century.

    Makes Puzo’s comments more credible.

  7. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    It’s claimed that President Obama has spent millions of dollars “sealing” or otherwise concealing his actual birth documentation (the real Dr. signed form and not the Hawaiian registration form that can technically be issued without actually being born in Hawaii), kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

    This has to be false. No U.S. President has even done this.

    Why do you think they keep saying it?

  8. avatar
    E.Vattel November 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    Neglected to add the link to this information. Blackstone wrote when England accepted the Law of Nations as English common law…’it brought England into the civilized world.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1346554

  9. avatar
    Reality Check November 24, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Curious: This has to be false. No U.S. President has even done this.Why do you think they keep saying it?

    OK, I will give it a shot. Because “they” are uninformed, gullible bigots? What do you think?

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    E.Vattel: Neglected to add the link to this information. Blackstone wrote when England accepted the Law of Nations as English common law…’it brought England into the civilized world.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1346554

    Mr. Rabbit

    I assume that the citation from the Bellia paper to which you refer is:

    First, English courts generally applied the law of nations as part of
    the law of the land because they adopted it as part of the common law.

    However, you will notice that “law of nations” is not capitalized, and it is not a reference to E. Vattel’s treatise, but to the generally understood principles and usages of international law, a topic that Vattel writes about. When Vattel’s book is referenced by the author of the paper cited, it is capitalized. (It is not capitalized in the quote from Franklin, but it is when the paper’s author speaks.)

    So it is essentially a lie to say that England accepted the Law of Nations (capitalized), or E. Vattel as English common law. De Vattel is just one man’s informed opinion as to what the law of nations was.

    Apuzzo’s theory is a crank.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    Curious: It’s claimed that President Obama has spent millions of dollars “sealing” or otherwise concealing his actual birth documentation…
    Why do you think they keep saying it?

    It’s a very effective argument. Common understanding is that legal fees are huge, and the fact that there are many birther lawsuits makes it plausible that Obama has monumental legal fees. They fail to appreciate that all the cases have been dismissed, and that Obama is not even named in most of them.

  12. avatar
    misha November 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    Curious: This has to be false. No U.S. President has even done this.
    Why do you think they keep saying it?

    @I am Curious (yellow): They keep saying it for reasons that won’t go away. I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that may help.

  13. avatar
    E.Vattel November 24, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    I have the exact quote and Law of Nations is in caps..

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/56279158@N07/5204385907/in/photostream/

  14. avatar
    E.Vattel November 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/56279158@N07/5204385907/in/photostream/

    Founder Wilson’s proposal to make the Law of Nations a part of the federal courts.

  15. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    Dr. C:
    I assume the cases are being dismissed because he is not concealing the info. Thank you for your help with this.

  16. avatar
    ellid November 24, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    Majority Will:
    The circus can always use a good freak.

    *spit-take*

    Nice.

  17. avatar
    E.Vattel November 24, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

    You really should be careful calling people a liar. Dont you want to know the truth..or are you a part of the conspiracy to hide Obama natural born citizenship status.

    I am not a part of the Puzo herd. My goal is finding the truth not covering it up. You banned a freeper for pointing out Vattel is the congressional records at the congress convention in the 1780’s. You said no way is Vattel listed. It was shown to you and you banned the person.

    Then you tried to cover your tracks.

    You sir are a fraud. The Law of Nations was very important helping the founders form the country. You besmirch him.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will November 24, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    ellid:
    *spit-take*Nice.

    πŸ˜€

  19. avatar
    Majority Will November 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    Did Myles Standish have standing? Somewhat?

    Happy Thanksgiving to all but the belligerent birther trolls.

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 24, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    Majority Will:
    The circus can always use a good freak.

    Don’t you mean ‘geek’? – after all of the birther lies he’s swallowed, biting the head off of a chicken shouldn’t be any problem…

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    E.Vattel: I am not a part of the Puzo herd. My goal is finding the truth not covering it up. You banned a freeper for pointing out Vattel is the congressional records at the congress convention in the 1780β€²s. You said no way is Vattel listed. It was shown to you and you banned the person.

    Then you tried to cover your tracks.

    Your version of history is somewhat flawed. I decided to ban someone for persistent misrepresentation of facts. When I discovered on my own, double checking my facts that I was wrong, I changed the reason for the ban (since the original reason was not correct).

    As for you, I hardly care whether you believe Apuzzo, or you just use his flawed arguments to make trouble.

  22. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    Dr. C:
    I’m now in a discussion with a few people that are misinformed. I’m defending the President by saying that he is not concealing all the information he is accused of concealing. I’m backing it up with what you told me ….that all the claims to the contrary are being dismissed. Am I missing something?

  23. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    Are they yapping about the 2 million bucks again? lmao. They have no proof that money went to lawyers defending him in these cases. Those lawyers were hired for his presidential campaign in 2008, not to defend him in these dumb cases. The lawyers who have been defending him are DoJ lawyers, and he does not pay them. He was only a defendant in a few lawsuits where he would have to have lawyers to go to court for him, but they are actually DoJ lawyers. Tell them to show you a bill for a specific case.

  24. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    Furthermore, the plaintiff in some of these cases were required to pay his fees, so he didn’t pay squat for legal fees.

    What they will say is that they have no proof of specific bills because it’s a conspiracy to hide the fact that he is paying people.

    If he was paying anyone for anything, and they would have accepted it, he would have paid 9 SCOTUS justices a one-time fee to take a case and declare him to be natural born. They have3 him paying off thousands and thousands of people for 2 million dollars. That means they would each be getting about $2.75 for their services.

  25. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    Yeah, they are really hardheaded about this stuff. They just keep repeating that the President is hiding all the information. I keep saying that isn’t true, but they just don’t get it.
    So once and for all, he isn’t concealing all the info, right?

  26. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Curious,

    I would suggest either asking people to show you evidence that President Obama has done anything to conceal his records or asking them why they have had all of their records sealed (in exactly the same manner as President Obama).

  27. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    Curious: Yeah, they are really hardheaded about this stuff.They just keep repeating that the President is hiding all the information.I keep saying that isn’t true, but they just don’t get it.
    So once and for all, he isn’t concealing all the info, right?

    If they start yapping about an executive order, give them this:

    http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/united-states-supreme-court-confers-on-obama-eligibility/page/10#post-2289664

  28. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 8:23 pm #

    Startibartast:

    No offense but I was hoping for a better response. Did you see the list of all stuff that the President is accused of concealing (see my 1st comment above)? I have been saying that the President isn’t hiding this stuff. Am I wrong?

    Help me out here.

  29. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 8:23 pm #

    You are never going to prove to anyone of them that their delusions and/or their opinions are wrong. I don’t care what you tell them or what kind of evidence you show them, I have learned from dealing with these nutjobs for the past 2.5 years on a FOX News forum, that they will blind themselves to anything that proves to them they are wrong. The only effective proof is to remind them of how long they have been making these dumb claims and how many times they have been rejected by the courts and Congress. You cannot reason with those who are convinced that any possible doubt is a reasonable doubt.

  30. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    Curious: Startibartast:No offense but I was hoping for a better response.Did you see the list of all stuff that the President is accused of concealing (see my 1st comment above)?I have been saying that the President isn’t hiding this stuff.Am I wrong?Help me out here.

    They say this in several different contexts, and without knowing what context they are saying it, it is difficult to determine just how to answer them. One of the contexts they like to use is that they say he signed an executive order to conceal his records, which is demonstrably false, as I showed above.

  31. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    It’s not always easy for me to determine what they are saying but essentially this is it:
    The President has spent millions on lawyers concealing basically every document having to do with his personal life (see the list in my 1st post above). I reply that is not true. They say it is true and all the lawsuits are proof.

  32. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    Curious: It’s not always easy for me to determine what they are saying but essentially this is it:
    The President has spent millions on lawyers concealing basically every document having to do with hispersonal life (see the list in my 1st post above).I reply that is not true.They say it is true and all the lawsuits are proof.

    As I said earlier, Curious, he was a defendant on only a few of the lawsuits, and on some of those, the plaintiff had to pay his costs.

    If they are going to say that he paid money to defend himself on these suits, tell them to show you an attorney’s bill for any of the lawsuits that have been brought against him in this regard. I can tell you right now, they cannot do it because the attorneys he paid he paid for his presidential campaign. If they can’t prove their claim with actual proof, they have no business making it. Of course, as with all their claims, they will say it’s a conspiracy which means that you just have to take them at their word.

  33. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 24, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Curious: Startibartfast:No offense but I was hoping for a better response.Did you see the list of all stuff that the President is accused of concealing (see my 1st comment above)?I have been saying that the President isn’t hiding this stuff.Am I wrong?Help me out here.

    If you can’t get them to admit that their allegations of sealing records have no source or that President Obama’s records are sealed in exactly the same way the the records of ALL Americans are sealed then you’re never going to make any headway – All that you can really do is point out that their argument consists of ‘I heard it on the internet somewhere’ and make sure that any third party reading the thread sees that their position has no factual support. The example of the EO issued in the president’s first day in office is also a good example as FUTTHESHUCKUP explained – the facts are that his EO was nearly identical to the law under President Reagan and considerably more open than the prevailing law under President Bush.

    A tack you could take regarding the list of ‘sealed’ items is to ask what had to be done (i.e. an overt act by President Obama or his agents) to seal the particular record in question – in most (if not all) cases the answer will be something like: President Obama’s transcripts from Columbia are sealed just like every the transcripts of every other student at every university in the country.

  34. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    What they are trying to do is con you into disproving their claims since they don’t have anything to prove them with. It’s a standard birther tactic. If they make the claim, the onus is on them to prove it, not you to disprove it.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    Curious: It’s not always easy for me to determine what they are saying but essentially this is it:
    The President has spent millions on lawyers concealing basically every document having to do with his personal life (see the list in my 1st post above). I reply that is not true. They say it is true and all the lawsuits are proof.

    I suggest you ask for the lawsuit that goes with each document and how much Obama’s legal bill was for that lawsuit. If they can’t answer then just say, “so you are just guessing.”

    One of the false arguments they make is to take the entire bill for the Obama 2008 campaign and say he spent it defending birther lawsuits.

    The important thing is that NO lawsuit was just about documents. Even if Obama had supplied whatever documentation was requested, the lawsuit would have gone on anyway. That is, Obama saved money by having the lawsuit dismissed. As a birther for a lawsuit that would have been settled by supplying a document. I have never seen one.

    Finally, some of the documents they list are known not to exist. Obama could never satisfy such a request.

  36. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 24, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    On a more basic level, there is no reason why he should not move to dismiss every one these cases since they have no business being in court. The courts have said over and over again for two years that none of the cases can satisfy all three conditions of Article III standing, and if someone doesn’t have standing to sue you in a court of law, there is no rational reason why you shouldn’t move to dismiss the suit.

    John McCain was sued for the same reason, and he moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of standing just as Obama has done; the judge did, in fact, dismiss the case for lack of standing by the plaintiff just as they have Obama’s. Does that mean he was trying to hide something?

    http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php

  37. avatar
    Rickey November 24, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    : [The following is by DancingRabbit, Doc.]

    The poster also has gone by the name “draggingcanoe” on this site. See the links to Flickr images – uploaded by draggingcanoe.

  38. avatar
    Rickey November 24, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    Curious: It’s not always easy for me to determine what they are saying but essentially this is it:
    The President has spent millions on lawyers concealing basically every document having to do with hispersonal life (see the list in my 1st post above).I reply that is not true.They say it is true and all the lawsuits are proof.

    Obama hasn’t sealed anything. The records which the birthers are demanding are “sealed” by State and Federal privacy laws which existed before Obama was elected. A few examples:

    1. Birth certificate – you cannot order anyone’s birth certificate unless you have a “tangible interest” in it. For example, a parent can order his or her child’s birth certificate, but you can’t order my birth certificate.

    2. School records – again, you cannot order my school records unless I give you a specific authorization to do so. I don’t have to “seal” them, because they are already sealed.

    3. Kindergarten records, college records, etc. — see #2 above.

    4. Medical records, per Federal law, cannot be released without a signed HIPAA authorization from the patient. This applies to everybody.

    When birthers claim that Obama has sealed his records, they imply that he has taken some proactive measures to make sure that nobody can see them. That simply isn’t true. His records are sealed in the same sense that your records are sealed and my records are sealed.

    Would birthers want anybody to be able to get copies of their Social Security Number applications? I don’t think so.

  39. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 24, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    Curious: Why do you think they keep saying it?

    Because they are lying.

  40. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 24, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Rickey:
    Obama hasn’t sealed anything. The records which the birthers are demanding are “sealed” by State and Federal privacy laws which existed before Obama was elected. A few examples:1. Birth certificate – you cannot order anyone’s birth certificate unless you have a “tangible interest” in it. For example, a parent can order his or her child’s birth certificate, but you can’t order my birth certificate.2. School records – again, you cannot order my school records unless I give you a specific authorization to do so. I don’t have to “seal” them, because they are already sealed.3. Kindergarten records, college records, etc. — see #2 above.4. Medical records, per Federal law, cannot be released without a signed HIPAA authorization from the patient. This applies to everybody.
    When birthers claim that Obama has sealed his records, they imply that he has taken some proactive measures to make sure that nobody can see them. That simply isn’t true. His records are sealed in the same sense that your records are sealed and my records are sealed.
    Would birthers want anybody to be able to get copies of their Social Security Number applications? I don’t think so.

    This is clearly an indication that all birthers have something to hide – we shouldn’t give any credence to any birther claim until they’ve shown us all of their own birth, medical, school, professional (and criminal, if applicable) records to prove that they are legit.

  41. avatar
    Curious November 24, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Sorry I was gone for awhile, I had to run out to take care of some Thanksgiving prep.

    Thank all of for you responses. I appreciate your help.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you.

  42. avatar
    gorefan November 24, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    Curious: Startibartast:No offense but I was hoping for a better response. Did you see the list of all stuff that the President is accused of concealing (see my 1st comment above)? I have been saying that the President isn’t hiding this stuff. Am I wrong?Help me out here.

    First of all,you don’t seem to understand that no president has ever released the list of documents, that you say the President is hiding. Ask yourself, I mean them, what were Presidents Bush’s kindergarten records, or high school records. In fact, ask them to show you a BC from any other President.

    So,hy the fascination with this President’s records?

  43. avatar
    Greg November 24, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    E.Vattel: I have the exact quote and Law of Nations is in caps..

    Serious reading comprehension issues if you think that is referring to Vattel’s book. The quote you took a picture of says:

    “[T]his is a Court of the Law of Nations, though sitting here under the authority of the King of Great Britain,” and it thus administers “the law of nations, simply, and exclusively of the introduction of principles borrowed from our own municipal jurisprudence.”

    You really think that this is talking about Vattel’s book? That there is a Court of Vattel’s Book!?? A COURT OF VATTEL’S BOOK?

    What do you think that Court does? Judges crimes against Vattel?

    Seriously, that is a disordered reading you have there.

    What’s amazing is that this article is pretty laudatory of Vattel without you having to pretend that every time they capitalize the word “Law” and the word “Nations” they’re referring to Vattel’s book!

    Unlike municipal law, the law of nations was not understood to be the law of a single nation. According to Blackstone, the law of nations “cannot be dictated by any; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues and agreements between these several communities.” To appreciate how the Founders understood the law of nations, it is important to examine the writings of Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel’s treatise, The Law of Nations, was well known in England and America at the time of the founding.

    The problem, of course, is that Vattel’s book was important on the issues of the law of nations, which citizenship is not! Read that paragraph VERY. SLOWLY. If you can look at the laws of a single nation and come to the answer, then it is not the law of nations and you don’t refer to Vattel.

    Quiz – How many nations do you have to look at to determine how the United States defines citizenship?

    Answer: One – the United States.

    This isn’t rocket surgery, folks, but it does require reading for comprehension.

    If you’d read a few pages before in that article you would have found what “law of nations” means to English writers when they don’t specifically name Vattel:

    Some English writers and judges used the phrase “the law of nations” to denote not only such rules of state-state relations, but also certain transnational rules of
    private conduct, including the law merchant and the private law maritime. These various branches of the law of nations did not describe strict mutually exclusive categories; nonetheless, the categories were, and remain, helpful.

    Or, instead of using Ctrl-F to find all instances of “law of nations” and looking for those that are capitalized, you could read the article. I can tell that you didn’t because you cited a footnote, number 96, and if you’d read the paragraph the footnote came from, you would have seen clearly that it didn’t refer to Vattel’s book:

    3. The Law of State-State Relations. — The question whether the law of state-state relations could preempt English municipal law did not squarely arise in late eighteenth century English legal writings. In large measure, courts administered the two bodies of law independently of each other. The law of prize—a branch of admiralty that directly implicated sovereign relations—provided a rule of decision in courts of admiralty, which lacked jurisdiction to apply municipal law governing actions arising upon land.94 Since an admiralty court lacked jurisdiction over questions of municipal law,95 it also lacked any opportunity to resolve conflicts that might exist between the law of nations and municipal law.96

    They’re talking about how municipal law and international law were dealt with separately, not whether Vattel overlaps with municipal law!

  44. avatar
    Greg November 25, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Curious: It’s claimed that President Obama has spent millions of dollars “sealing” or otherwise concealing his actual birth documentation (the real Dr. signed form and not the Hawaiian registration form that can technically be issued without actually being born in Hawaii), kindergarten records

    Any reasonable reader would stop here.

    Kindergarten records?

    Really?

    Seriously?

    Kindergarten records?

    I guarantee you that whether Obama got good grades in penmanship and whether he took naps regularly won’t impact his eligibility. Even if his dad had enrolled him as an Indonesian citizen, that couldn’t impact his eligibility, because a parent cannot take a minor’s citizenship from him. Period.

    Stopping at this point also lets us consider why Obama might move, at an early stage, to dismiss these lawsuits, when, as birthers love to claim, simply releasing the long form birth certificate would quash all questions.

    First, it clearly puts the lie to the suggestion. Birthers won’t be satisfied until they’ve rooted through every scrap of paper about Obama. Second, it gives a clear motive to stop these lawsuits early (and stop right there the motive isn’t to hide his records) — birthers don’t want just one document from Obama. They want everything, and producing everything costs money!

    The most expensive part of any litigation bigger than small claims court is discovery. Plain and simple, lawyers spend most of their time, and make most of their money, sorting through documents. Is this document privileged? Did the other side word their request in such a way to cover this document? Can I argue that it’s not covered? Can I withhold it for some reason? And when everything has been reviewed and documents set aside as privileged, lawyers get the added benefit of creating a privilege log.

    Berg is the only lawyer, that I know of, who has propounded a set of discovery requests. He asked for the moon – every document created by the DNC, Obama’s campaign, and others that relates to the vetting of Obama – essentially every e-mail or piece of paper that has Obama’s name in it was covered by his requests.

    If any of these cases got to discovery, then and only then could it make sense to claim that Obama had spent millions of dollars defending these suits. You guys really think it took two lawyer-years to seal Obama’s records (assuming billing those lawyers at more than $600/hour and 2,000 hours in a year)? Or to file a motion to dismiss that could have been copied from Wong Kim Ark?

    Even if every lawyer working for the defense in every case that has been brought has been paid for personally by Obama (and not by the Federal government, state governments and other parties), we’re talking very low six figures, not anywhere near seven.

    Any person who claims “millions of dollars” spent automatically goes into my nutter file. They have no grasp on the business or mechanics of law, and are simply pulling a number out of their rears.

    Curious: the real Dr. signed form and not the Hawaiian registration form that can technically be issued without actually being born in Hawaii

    Technically you could get a Hawaii COLB despite being born elsewhere, Fiji say. But, you cannot get one that says you were born in Hawaii it would say you were born in Fiji.

  45. avatar
    Greg November 25, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    To put millions of dollars in legal fees in perspective, consider that Clinton, having had to employ personal lawyers for almost his entire presidency, only racked up $9 million in fees. That’s a little more than a million for each year of worthless Republican witchhunts!

    And you think Obama spent millions in legal fees in under a year to hide his records and defend against birther suits that fizzled before they got to discovery?

  46. avatar
    Lupin November 25, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    E.Vattel: The Law of Nations was very important helping the founders form the country.

    You unmitigated fool. To you, Vattel = Shazam!

    Can’t you get it that in actuality Vattel does NOT help your cause and that Mario had purposefully distorted, misquoted and misinterpreted him?

  47. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 25, 2010 at 6:06 am #

    “E.Vattel: The Law of Nations was very important helping the founders form the country.”

    Let’ suppose for a moment that the Puzz reaaly did find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that he is now so eagerly chasing (instead of his habitual DUI defendants) – a written statement by the majority of the Founders that “natural-born citizen” was indeed based on Vattel’s The Law of Nations, is it not obvious that the legal debate would then immediately focus on the question which version the Founders had in mind?

    The English version that was available to the Foundres did not even contain the sentence that has been quoted by the Birfers from the moment in November 2008 when Donofrio googled up the phrase>

    So you are basically stuck with the original French version. If that ever came up in your Cloud Cuckooland court, you can be sure that any lawyer will argue that the the (mistaken) notion that the Founders knew enough French to base their citizenship theory on an original French text, that would imply they also knew some of the intricacies of the French language (google “Noam Chomsky deep structure” for info on how one sentence in a language can hide several others). Three major points that have been made on this forum a few times already:

    1) It is unclear how you get from the French expressions “les naturels” (a substantive) or “les indigenes” to English “natural born citizen”. It is a vile lie that the Founders would have understood the French in that way because, as birfers have claimed both were terms of art. The Canadian constitution has always used the phrases “natural born citizen” and “citoyen de naissance”.

    2) The plural form “parens” in the French original has no relevance as there is no way of saying it in French without using the plural. Plural subjects in French demand an object or a complement referring to the subject to be in the plural as well. To be clear and unambiguous, a French legal text would add ” deux” here. Note that the same ambiguity can arise in English. “Childeren of memberS are allowed to use the pool.” Suppose that a club were to stop a child who had only one parent who was a member (perhaps because of a divorce or a death) were stopped from using the pool, and a law suit evolved, do you really think any judge would dare to rule in favor of the club?

    3) As I pointed out, the French word “parent” does not necessarily equal the modern English word ” parent”. From the 19th century, the English word could no longer be used to refer to blood relatives, and now only refers to mother or father. But the French word still can be used to mean blood relatives. In fact, when Vattel wrote his book, good French usage demanded “parent” to be used with that meaning. Using it to refer only to father and mother was deemed sub-standard French (the authority here is the French Jesuit grammarian Bouhours). Note that Vattel at least once used “parents” in that meaning elsewhere in the same book.

    It would be funny if Bouhours or the rules of French grammar were actually once cited in a US Supreme Court decision, but that is a silly dream, of course (though of course, also the ultimate nightmare for birthers). The point is that if the Supreme Court were ever to rule on this , and the only case would be a state controlled by Tea Part activists stopping, or trying to stop Jindal from getting onto the ballot papers, the Supreme Court would rule the Vattel objection against Jindal fails at the first hurdle, the “not a term of art” hurdle.

    Luckily for Jindal by the way, since neither the second hurdle (Vattel never meant a plural) nor the third hurdle (Vattel uses “parent” with a broader meaning than birfers realize) actually helps him. But they help Obama. And Arthur. And Agnew.

    And I agree with Lupin that Vattel is being used as a convenient scapegoat by racists who googled him up in November 2008 when the birth certificate issue was losing its sting. Something which he himself would probably abhorred – though he certainly did NOT believe in equal rights for women, his comments about Protestant refugees in Prussia being unjustly claimed as “still our citizens” by the rulers of the Roman Catholic countries they had fled from, or on the contrary, being ostracised by the natives of the countries they were now living in and helping to develop, prove that he was no racist.

  48. avatar
    The Magic M November 25, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    > birthers don’t want just one document from Obama. They want everything, and producing everything costs money!

    That’s not the reason they demand it. In fact, they do not care the slightest bit about those records.

    There’s two motivations for birthers to demand these records:

    1. One group believes that the “original” birth certificate alone is the “smoking gun” because if it doesn’t say “born in Hawaii”, then their quest to “prove” ineligibility would be done. This is the group that actually believes Obama was not born in the USA.

    2. The other group simply asks for things they will never get or they will never be satisfied with in the first place. Just to further their “if only we got to see these documents, the fraud would be visible to everyone” agenda. They just want more fodder to fuel their “he has something to hide” meme.
    It’s like asking for a DNA test to prove you’re not a space alien. You know you’ll never get any court in the world to order such a test, but it fuels your FUD campaign. “If he is not a space lizard, why does he refuse testing?” “If the pope is not a woman, why doesn’t he show his pecker live on national TV?”
    This type of birther does not necessarily believe Obama is not eligible or at least does not care, he just sees the birther plot as a vehicle for pushing his anti-Obama (or pro-“donate money”) campaign.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2010 at 9:39 am #

    Rickey: The poster also has gone by the name “draggingcanoe” on this site. See the links to Flickr images – uploaded by draggingcanoe.

    Unless DraggingCanoe has moved back to the United States, DR is not DC.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: 3) As I pointed out, the French word “parent” does not necessarily equal the modern English word ” parent”.

    It sounds like “family” might be the better modern English equivalent. Since Barack Obama Sr. and his family had very little to do with his son, one might reasonably say that that Barack Obama’s “parens” (mother and grandparents) were US Citizens.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    E.Vattel: Wilson

    I think the link you meant was:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/56312067@N04/5205888911/

    It appears to me quite definite from this meager context that the text does not refer to Vattel’s book. A book title in those places doesn’t make sense. One notes that other words such as “Causes” is also capitalized in the passage.

    However, I do not intend to allow any more comments from you supported by images where one cannot obtain the full context of the citation. If you want to honestly present an idea, you should be willing to provide the evidence in context.

  52. avatar
    Jules November 25, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    E.Vattel: I have the exact quote and Law of Nations is in caps..http://www.flickr.com/photos/56279158@N07/5204385907/in/photostream/

    The use of the term “Law of Nations” was a term used for what is now known as customary international law. Vattel’s commentary on international law was just one influential commentary on international law of the time.

    Regardless of whether some regarded nationality law to be part of customary international law, it is clear that the view had long differed in England. Blackstone’s commentaries on the matter described the concept of natural born status as that of someone who was born owing permanent allegiance. He described how the common law position originally granted such status to those born within England and how statute had for several centuries extended the right to others who were born outside England to English parents. Blackstone explicitly noted that English nationality law was rather different from that of France.

    Vattel had lost the argument in the United States on nationality law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and has continued losing it since. Most states’ laws on citizenship prior to the adoption of the constitution clearly favoured the English position on nationality law and its holding that jus soli acquisition of citizenship led to natural born status. Additionally, the 14th Amendment clearly followed the English tradition. In international law, we can see that it is regarded as the sovereign right of each nation to decide who its citizens are. It is also regarded as arguably a principle of international law and at least a practical reality that the country of physical presence determines the stronger claim upon a dual citizen.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    Rickey: When birthers claim that Obama has sealed his records, they imply that he has taken some proactive measures to make sure that nobody can see them. That simply isn’t true.

    The one exception that I know of was a motion made by Obama’s pro bono attorney (Woocher) in California to quash a subpoena (in a case where a motion to dismiss was pending) of records from Occidental College.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/keyes-v-obama-motion-to-quash/

  54. avatar
    ron November 25, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    as I have said before I believe it is code for someone needs to spend millions to help unseal the documents, just a tactic to get more money from gullible misinformed citizens to support a bogus cause, does anyone have any idea where the donations are going?

    Curious: It’s claimed that President Obama has spent millions of dollars “sealing” or otherwise concealing his actual birth documentation (the real Dr. signed form and not the Hawaiian registration form that can technically be issued without actually being born in Hawaii), kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.This has to be false. No U.S. President has even done this.Why do you think they keep saying it?

  55. avatar
    BatGuano November 25, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    ron: …does anyone have any idea where the donations are going?

    hopefully towards therapy.

  56. avatar
    Daniel November 25, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    E.Vattel: [The following is by DancingRabbit, Doc.]It appears the English courts accepted the Law of Nations as law of the land and a part of their common law in the 18th century.Makes Puzo’s comments more credible.

    All sorts of things appear to some people, who need for their delusions to be real, and choose to wallow in willful ignorance of the subject matter.

    Your lack of knowledge of English law, and historical precedence, is not going to change reality.

  57. avatar
    Daniel November 25, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    E.Vattel: My goal is finding the truth

    Oh great, another “concern troll”.

  58. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Unless DraggingCanoe has moved back to the United States, DR is not DC.

    They are working in tandem, then. See:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/56279158@N07/with/5204385907/

    Now look at E. Vattel’s Flickr images:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/56312067@N04/with/5205888911/

    No images were uploaded under the “E. Vattel” handle until this morning.

    Of course, he continually makes the same old mistake of assuming that the generic term “law of nations” is a reference to Vattel’s book. If you look up “Law of nations” in Black’s Law Dictionary, it doesn’t refer you to Vattel, it refers you to “international law.” Earlier this year Oxford University Press published a book called “America and the Law of Nations 1776-1939.” I haven’t seen the book, but the published abstracts refer to Blackstone and Jeremy Bentham, not to Vattel (apparently Bentham coined the phrase “international law”). .

  59. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The one exception that I know of was a motion made by Obama’s pro bono attorney in California to quash a subpoena (in a case where a motion to dismiss was pending) of records from Occidental College.

    That’s a fair point, although it should be pointed out that the records already were sealed. and of course the subpoena was nothing more than a fishing expedition.

  60. avatar
    Sean November 25, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Just curious, if the Kerchner case does make traction, are they (birther horde) risking the Supreme Court will actually define “Natural Born Citizen” in a way to include folks like Obama and Bill Richardson?

  61. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 25, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    Sean: Just curious, if the Kerchner case does make traction, are they (birther horde) risking the Supreme Court will actually define “Natural Born Citizen” in a way to include folks like Obama and Bill Richardson?

    The case is actually being appealed on Standing. So, if the Supreme Court overrules the lower court, the Supreme Court would just send it back down to the lower court to continue with the case as if the standing issue was decided in Kerckner’s favor. However, what will happen is that it’ll get to discovery. The lower court will rule that only the birth certificate (the one that Obama has already produced) is relevant to the procedings (Kindergarten records are not relevant and there’s no reasonable expectation that they’d produce relevant information. Courts do not like to be used in fishing expiditions.). They’d take one look at the birth certificate, and rule that Obama was born in the United States, and that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. This would probably be appealed (the legal conclusion that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. details of fact like Obama was born in the United States is left up to the District Court, which is the trier of fact). This would eventually work it’s way upto the Supreme Court, which if granted is when we’d finally get the definition of Natural Born Citizen. This decision would very likely be a 9-0 decision. Now, they also may take the oppertunity at this point to determine whether anybody born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. This is less likely to be a 9-0 decision, but still very likely.

    My personal fantasy is that the Opinion of the Court (joined by every Justice) would be written by Antonin Scalia, would would quote Blackstone extensively in his decision.

  62. avatar
    Ballantine November 25, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    dunstvangeet: The case is actually being appealed on Standing. So, if the Supreme Court overrules the lower court, the Supreme Court would just send it back down to the lower court to continue with the case as if the standing issue was decided in Kerckner’s favor. However, what will happen is that it’ll get to discovery. The lower court will rule that only the birth certificate (the one that Obama has already produced) is relevant to the procedings (Kindergarten records are not relevant and there’s no reasonable expectation that they’d produce relevant information. Courts do not like to be used in fishing expiditions.). They’d take one look at the birth certificate, and rule that Obama was born in the United States, and that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. This would probably be appealed (the legal conclusion that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. details of fact like Obama was born in the United States is left up to the District Court, which is the trier of fact). This would eventually work it’s way upto the Supreme Court, which if granted is when we’d finally get the definition of Natural Born Citizen. This decision would very likely be a 9-0 decision. Now, they also may take the oppertunity at this point to determine whether anybody born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. This is less likely to be a 9-0 decision, but still very likely.My personal fantasy is that the Opinion of the Court (joined by every Justice) would be written by Antonin Scalia, would would quote Blackstone extensively in his decision.

    Of course, it would be 2013 before all that would happen unless a court actually ruled against Obama at some point, in which case the case would be expedited. In reality, the court wouldn’t take the case unless four Justices wanted to depart from what they said in Wong Kim Ark in some respect, as they wouldn’t take the case just to re-state what has already been said. The most you will get is a circuit court ruling which will look a lot like the Ankeny ruling simply pointing to Wong Kim Ark.

  63. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    dunstvangeet: My personal fantasy is that the Opinion of the Court (joined by every Justice) would be written by Antonin Scalia, would would quote Blackstone extensively in his decision.

    I can almost hear the wails of outrage from the birther hordes… πŸ˜‰

  64. avatar
    Daniel November 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I can almost hear the wails of outrage from the birther hordes…

    Does three dozen wannabees, 47 cats, two dogs, and a syphilitic hamster actually qualify as a “horde”?

  65. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    Daniel:
    Does three dozen wannabees, 47 cats, two dogs, and a syphilitic hamster actually qualify as a “horde”?

    I’ll grant that they’re not the Mongols, but Dr. Kate got at least half a dozen for her Usurpathon – that’s got to be like three dozen if you count sock puppets, right? That’s almost 0.015% of what Jon Stewart got for his ‘rally to restore sanity’ – and that was certainly a horde… πŸ˜‰

  66. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    Fact – The only “certificate” that was shown was one that they give to those born out of the country, in Hawaii. He (Obama) refuses to show the certificate he would have received if he were born at Kapi O Lani Medical center as he claims.
    Fact – His paternal grandmother has said under sworn oath that he was born in Kenya, as well as the Kenyan Mambosu Coastal hospital, Kenyan Govt., the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., as well as the people in the country as a whole. As well, a Kenyan representative in India claimed Obama was from Kenya….just last week!
    Fact – Obama is known to have multiple social security numbers right now…the one listed as Potus has a date associated with it….1890! Confirmed by two independent investigators from two different states. Also, the SSN listed with the president was issued in Connecticut. Obama never lived there.
    Fact – Members of Congress have asked the Congressional Research Service what to say to the inundation of letters asking about the Potus elligibillity. The CRS reported that Members or Congress as well as every states Sec. of elections should have fully vetted and researched Obamas’ records. The CRS reported they did not. He was never vetted fully and officially.
    Fact – Nancy Pelosi signed two different ” Confirmation of Nomination “forms from the DNC’s rally nominating Obama. One form claims Obama was fully vetted as per the constitution. This form was sent to Hawaii. Another form , which DOESNT state he was vetted per the constitution,
    was signed by her, and sent to the OTHER 49 states. This is legal ans free for any one to check for themselves. I did. Easy and free. Public documents…they have to show you. This tells me alone Nancy and her “CROWD” would do anything to be in power. ANYTHING. She knows he’s not AMerican born. She signed two different documents stateing so.
    These are all facts available to all.
    Good Luck

  67. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    I could write Facts that I know to be true for pages and pages. I’ve been researching this since before the election. No, it’s not racism. Thats the first thing libs say when they have nothing else to say. Id vote for Alan Keyes in a heart beat, and He’s Black! No, it’s not racism. It’s his policies. He’s a socialist. He’s already sent hundreds of millions of dollars to Kenyan for social programs. He’s hired communists and socialists all through out his administration. The fact that he didnt cover his nationality tracks is just a reason to get him out….like libs did with nixon helping people around him.
    This also shows a lot about our society. The truth is so much in our face, and libs and social thinkers refuse to see the truth. All you have to do is look at the facts. The numbers dont ad up.
    A blind man could see that!

  68. avatar
    Majority Will November 25, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    Some drunk, special needs idiot just crapped on your carpet again, Doc.

    You might want to roll up a newspaper and swat it on the nose.

  69. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    Drunk…I dont think so….that so shows that you have no idea what your talking about. Name calling is a typical lib defense mechanism….! Par for the course. Swatting wont do any good either….i assure you Im bigger than both of you put together.
    Can you hit me with any facts….?
    No names…just facts….!
    Of course you cant….you have none.
    Good Luck

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Realist: Drunk…I dont think so….that so shows that you have no idea what your talking about.Name calling is a typical lib defense mechanism….!Par for the course.Swatting wont do any good either….i assure you Im bigger than both of you put together.
    Can you hit me with any facts….?
    No names…just facts….!
    Of course you cant….you have none.
    Good Luck

    So if you’re not drunk, the question is are you ignorant or are you lying? You see, if you had actually read the articles on this site, you would have found pretty much everything you said has been proven false here with well researched and referenced arguments. No matter how many factually incorrect statements and lies you make here, it wont change the fact that you cannot produce any valid evidence to support any of the claims you made.

  71. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    Realist: Fact – The only “certificate” that was shown was one that they give to those born out of the country, in Hawaii.

    Wrong. Someone born outside of Hawaii can obtain a Hawaii COLB, but they can’t get one which says that they were born in Hawaii. Obama’s COLB says that he was born in Hawaii.

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

    Fact – His paternal grandmother has said under sworn oath that he was born in Kenya, as well as the Kenyan Mambosu Coastalhospital, Kenyan Govt., the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., as well as the people in the country as a whole.

    Wrong again. No such “sworn oath” exists, and Obama’s step-grandmother (they are not blood relatives) never said that he was born in Kenya.

    Fact – Obama is known to have multiple social security numbers right now…the one listed as Potus has a date associated with it….1890!Confirmed by two independent investigators from two different states.Also, the SSN listed with the president was issued in Connecticut.Obama never lived there.

    Wrong yet again. Obama is not “known” to have multiple Social Security Numbers, now or at any time. I am a licensed private investigator and I have seen the databases which were used to make the claim of multiple SSNs. The database information is unreliable, unverified, and the primary source of the information is unknown. The database reports contain the following disclaimer:

    “Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.”

    The is no evidence that Obama’s SSN was issued to someone in 1890. If it was, who is that person? What is his or her name? Orly Taitz’s investigators are unable to say, because the information is unreliable and unverified. My wife has a Pennsylvania SSN, and she has never lived in Pennsylvania. It happens.

    Fact – Members of Congress have asked the Congressional Research Service what to say to the inundation of letters asking about the Potus elligibillity.The CRS reported that Members or Congress as well as every states Sec. of elections should have fully vetted and researched Obamas’ records.The CRS reported they did not.He was never vetted fully and officially.

    Still wrong. The CRS report says no such thing. You obviously have not read it.

    Fact –Nancy Pelosi signed two different ” Confirmation of Nomination “forms from the DNC’s rally nominating Obama.One form claims Obama was fully vetted as per the constitution. This form was sent to Hawaii.Another form , which DOESNT state he was vetted per the constitution, was signed by her, and sent to the OTHER 49 states.

    You’re batting a thousand – wrong again! The Constitution doesn’t require vetting. The Constitution sets out the qualifications, but leaves it up to the Congress to raise any questions it may have regarding eligibility. The Congress raised no objections.

    Good Luck

    I don’t rely upon luck. I rely upon provable facts and the law.

  72. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    Look whos lying….Didnt you read about the DNCs’ “Confirmation of Nomination”….? They sent a copy to every states elections office. I dont have to prove anything….they’ll prove it for me.
    It’s free and it’s public. I called my states’ sect. of elections (Louisiana) and Hawaii’s sec. of elections. The office of both sent me the forms they have as sent to them by the DNC. You can hold the forms and read them yourself. Pelosi knows of this…Do it yourself. I dont have to hold your hand….Im sure your an adult. I dont have to convince you….you can, if you want the truth, find out for yourself. You, on the other hand, cant tell me a lie, when I can hold the truth in my hand.
    My boss ( I’m in the solar panel field) is a heavy liberal, and when I showed him the facts as per the constitution, he said, ” $%&k the rules” ! I believe this is much more the lib standpoint on the issue. Obviously the facts dont matter. If I can get these documents, any body can.
    You just have to WANT to. You actually have to call them to get the truth. They’ll send it to you!
    Dont get me wrong, I dont think the Supremes are going to carry this ball. They’ll drop this case
    like a hot potato.
    Good Luck

  73. avatar
    ron November 25, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    Rickey: Wrong. Someone born outside of Hawaii can obtain a Hawaii COLB, but they can’t get one which says that they were born in Hawaii. Obama’s COLB says that he was born in Hawaii.“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”Fact – His paternal grandmother has said under sworn oath that he was born in Kenya, as well as the Kenyan Mambosu Coastalhospital, Kenyan Govt., the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., as well as the people in the country as a whole.Wrong again. No such “sworn oath” exists, and Obama’s step-grandmother (they are not blood relatives) never said that he was born in Kenya.Fact – Obama is known to have multiple social security numbers right now…the one listed as Potus has a date associated with it….1890!Confirmed by two independent investigators from two different states.Also, the SSN listed with the president was issued in Connecticut.Obama never lived there.Wrong yet again. Obama is not “known” to have multiple Social Security Numbers, now or at any time. I am a licensed private investigator and I have seen the databases which were used to make the claim of multiple SSNs. The database information is unreliable, unverified, and the primary source of the information is unknown. The database reports contain the following disclaimer:“Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.”The is no evidence that Obama’s SSN was issued to someone in 1890. If it was, who is that person? What is his or her name? Orly Taitz’s investigators are unable to say, because the information is unreliable and unverified. My wife has a Pennsylvania SSN, and she has never lived in Pennsylvania. It happens.Fact – Members of Congress have asked the Congressional Research Service what to say to the inundation of letters asking about the Potus elligibillity.The CRS reported that Members or Congress as well as every states Sec. of elections should have fully vetted and researched Obamas’ records.The CRS reported they did not.He was never vetted fully and officially.Still wrong. The CRS report says no such thing. You obviously have not read it.Fact –Nancy Pelosi signed two different ” Confirmation of Nomination “forms from the DNC’s rally nominating Obama.One form claims Obama was fully vetted as per the constitution. This form was sent to Hawaii.Another form , which DOESNT state he was vetted per the constitution, was signed by her, and sent to the OTHER 49 states.You’re batting a thousand – wrong again! The Constitution doesn’t require vetting. The Constitution sets out the qualifications, but leaves it up to the Congress to raise any questions it may have regarding eligibility. The Congress raised no objections.Good LuckI don’t rely upon luck. I rely upon provable facts and the law.

    Bravo Rickey Bravo

  74. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    You said I was wrong about Nanci….no your wrong…I said she sIgned two different documents….nothing about congress….where did you get that….? I said she signed two different documents after the DNC’s national convention. They are call the “Confirmation of Nomination”…signed moments after the DNC nominated Barak Obama as theyr choice to run for Potus. Pay attention to what I wrote. This has NOTHING to do with Congress. If you get the Documents, You’ll see that Nanci Pelosi signed both. Thats all Im saying….! I never mentioned congress. Once again, look for the truth…your not looking cause you dont want to know.
    I hold the two documents in my hand….be more than happy to send them to you if you want…..you can get them for yourself also. YOU CAN!

  75. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    Realist: Look whos lying….Didnt you read about the DNCs’“Confirmation of Nomination”….? They sent a copy to every states elections office.I dont have to prove anything….they’ll prove it for me.
    It’s free and it’s public.I called my states’ sect. of elections (Louisiana) and Hawaii’s sec. of elections. The office of both sent me the forms they have as sent to them by the DNC.You can hold the forms and read them yourself.Pelosi knows of this…Do it yourself.I dont have to hold your hand….Im sure your an adult.I dont have to convince you….you can, if you want the truth, find out for yourself.You, on the other hand, cant tell me a lie, when I can hold the truth in my hand.
    My boss ( I’m in the solar panel field) is a heavy liberal, and when I showed him the facts as per the constitution, he said, ” $%&k the rules” ! I believe this is much more the lib standpoint on the issue.Obviously the facts dont matter.If I can get these documents, any body can.
    You just have to WANT to. You actually have to call them to get the truth.They’ll send it to you!
    Dont get me wrong, I dont think the Supremes are going to carry this ball.They’ll drop this case
    like a hot potato.
    Good Luck

    Let’s assume that you are correct about the different wording in different states – what’s the significance of it? Have you determined what was required by each of the state parties? What John McCain had sent to the state Republican parties? The analogous documentation for previous presidential candidates? Sorry, but even if we take you at your word, you haven’t shown any indication that anything untoward happened much less fraud or ineligibility on the part of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else.

  76. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    Realist: You said I was wrong about Nanci….no your wrong…I said she sIgned two different documents….nothing about congress….where did you get that….?I said she signed two different documents after the DNC’s national convention.They are call the “Confirmation of Nomination”…signed moments after the DNC nominated Barak Obama as theyr choice to run for Potus.Pay attention to what I wrote.This has NOTHING to do with Congress.If you get the Documents, You’ll see that Nanci Pelosi signed both.Thats all Im saying….!I never mentioned congress.Once again, look for the truth…your not looking cause you dont want to know.
    I hold the two documents in my hand….be more than happy to send them to you if you want…..you can get them for yourself also.YOU CAN!

    And these ‘two different documents’ prove… what?

  77. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Ok….I’ll give you the one on the investigators….They’re records are not perfect your saying…! Ok…so obviously your familiar with the case….and Barak H. Obama isn’t exactly a common name.
    How do they find 16 different numbers associated with his name.
    About the colb…look at your birth certificate…I was born in 66 and mine is totally handwritten. It could have been typed, but it’s not. It’s totally computer generated. Now I’ll tell you, when I produce my “Birth Certificate” (yes, I do have one….a foot away, not in a lawyers office) it’s an old
    copy of a handwritten form….some handwriting is messy as in the doctors signature, some is neet as in the head nurse that signed it. What he shows is not, obviously a copy. What Dr, Fukino said was that she saw, in person, what is shown on computer file. What Linda Lingle said was that she held the same document that is seen on the internet, and that the seal is raided, it just cant be seen on the computer screen. Once again, he stated he was born in Kapi o Lani medical center. Ive seen two articles by women who had children born the day after him in the same hospital, and they’re certificates were “Long From BCs”, not the short form COLB.
    Your turn.

  78. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    The two different documents prove she, Mrs. Pelosi, knows there is a discrepancy with his birth records, and she wanted to save her own LEGAL ass by not saying he was vetted per the constitution on the ones sent to the 49 states. Why she sent only one of the “vetted”copies to hawaii….well thats a good one. I’ve called her office numerous times, but never get a return call.
    I’ll keep trying, but I know what’s going to happen. Nothing.
    But she does know….I’ll send them on here so you can see.
    You can get them for yourselves though. Really.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    @Realist

    I have reviewed your “facts” and find that they are sloppy copies of standard birther myths. The FACT is that you cannot support one of them with any evidence. Your description of the Pelosi document is wrong–they say nothing about “vetting” and you cannot support your claim that 49 say one thing and one says another. The FACT is that Pelosi swore in the Hawaii letter that Obama was Constitutionally eligible, evidence refuting your claim she believes him ineligible.

    It is obvious you have done no research but have only read birther web sites and remembered them poorly.

  80. avatar
    ellid November 25, 2010 at 11:46 pm #

    Realist: Fact – The only “certificate” that was shown was one that they give to those born out of the country, in Hawaii.He(Obama) refuses to show the certificate he would have received if he were born at Kapi O Lani Medical center as he claims.
    Fact – His paternal grandmother has said under sworn oath that he was born in Kenya, as well as the Kenyan Mambosu Coastalhospital, Kenyan Govt., the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., as well as the people in the country as a whole. As well, a Kenyan representative in India claimed Obama was from Kenya….just last week!
    Fact – Obama is known to have multiple social security numbers right now…the one listed as Potus has a date associated with it….1890!Confirmed by two independent investigators from two different states.Also, the SSN listed with the president was issued in Connecticut.Obama never lived there.
    Fact – Members of Congress have asked the Congressional Research Service what to say to the inundation of letters asking about the Potus elligibillity.The CRS reported that Members or Congress as well as every states Sec. of elections should have fully vetted and researched Obamas’ records.The CRS reported they did not.He was never vetted fully and officially.
    Fact –Nancy Pelosi signed two different ” Confirmation of Nomination “forms from the DNC’s rally nominating Obama.One form claims Obama was fully vetted as per the constitution. This form was sent to Hawaii.Another form , which DOESNT state he was vetted per the constitution,
    was signed by her, and sent to the OTHER 49 states.This is legal ans free for any one to check for themselves.I did.Easy and free.Public documents…they have to show you.This tells me alone Nancy and her “CROWD” would do anything to be in power.ANYTHING.She knows he’s not AMerican born.She signed two different documents stateing so.
    These are all facts available to all.
    Good Luck

    1. Wrong.

    2. Wrong.

    3. Wrong.

    4. Wrong.

    5. Wrong.

    So much for Surrealist’s “facts.”

  81. avatar
    ellid November 25, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    Also, who is this “Nanci” Surrealist is babbling about, and what does she have to do with elections? The Speaker of the House is named NANCY so clearly it can’t be her.

  82. avatar
    Realist November 25, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Once again, thank you for your co-operation. Name calling instead of facts.
    You’ve proven me correct again. I know, her name is spelled wrong. It’s much more imortant for you
    to use my shortcomings than facts. Have you noticed how all of you on here use name calling.
    And they say libs are progressive. It’s kiddie. How about facts.
    Tell you what…..each of you on here….call the secretary of elections for your state and ask them for the copy of the DNC’s “Confirmation of Nomination” for Obama. Then, call Hawaii and ask for the same.
    then come on here in a week or two when you have the facts and I’ll be waiting.
    I’ll be waiting!

  83. avatar
    Realist November 26, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Dude, it’s not a letter, it’s an official DNC document…not a letter. She signed it with two other people.
    You wanna put your email address on here, I’ll gladly send you the two copies I have.
    It’s real….you refuse to see or admit it. You have’nt even looked.
    And no, it doesnt say vetted…it means it. It actually says “they are found to eligible as per the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Exact wording from the copie I have here.
    One was sent to every state.
    Call me all the names that you want…it does’nt take away from the truth!
    Only makes you look more kiddie.

  84. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 26, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Realist,

    Apparently you ignore any substantive replies – I suppose that can only be expected since you have no facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It is obvious that you have no answer to my question about the significance of the documents you keep touting, just like neither you nor any other birther has any evidence whatsoever that would in any way impeach a certified copy of the COLB (in a court of law or any other reality-base forum…).

  85. avatar
    Realist November 26, 2010 at 12:15 am #

    no facts or evidence….Im holding the [Potty mouth deleted. Doc] evidence in my hand…how many times do I have to say it.
    Do you have to be explained the relevance of two different documents, supposedly saying the same thing, but not saying it in reality…? Does somebody have to explain that to you?
    It shows Mrs. Pelosi knows he cant prove his residency, therefore she is not claiming that he is constitutionally eligible. Actually, she is only claiming that he is eligible to be president in Hawaii.
    FACT !

    Congress did a follow up study to it’s’ 1996 Immigration law. The follow up study, done in 2000, stated COLBs were not to be trusted and that Long Form Birth Certificates were much more trustworthy and reliable. It stated, LFBCs should be used in lieu of a COLB whenever possible.
    Congress’ own word. I guess that not good enough for the Potus though!
    When you say I dont have any facts…your lying to yourself and everyone reading this.
    Im holding evidence…and it’s not secret…it’s public. It’s free…anybody can do it. Im not lying or exagerating at all…..you dont know until you make the calls yourself…!
    You cant know….you dont have the copies in your hand.
    I do…..

  86. avatar
    Rickey November 26, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    Realist: Ok….I’ll give you the one on the investigators….They’re records are not perfect your saying…!Ok…so obviously your familiar with the case….and Barak H. Obama isn’t exactly a common name. How do they find 16 different numbers associated with his name.

    That’s easy. The information in those databases primarily (but not exclusively) comes from credit bureaus. The data gets into credit bureau databases whenever a credit application is sent in. The “date reported” for almost all of the phony SSNs associated with Obama show that they began turning up shortly after he announced that he was running for President. They were pranks. All someone had to do was pick up a credit application, put down Obama’s name and any Social Security Number, make up an address, and mail it in. A clerk then enters that information into a computer, the information is sent to one or more credit bureaus which input it into their databases, and there it stays. The credit application is denied, of course, but that was never the point. Many of the addresses associated with those applications are non-existent. Any investigator worth his or her salt would immediately recognize that those entries are bogus.

    About the colb…look at your birth certificate…I was born in 66 and mine is totally handwritten.It could have been typed, but it’s not.It’s totally computer generated.Now I’ll tell you, when I produce my “Birth Certificate” (yes, I do have one….a foot away, not in a lawyers office) it’s an old copy of a handwritten form….some handwriting is messy as in the doctors signature, some is neet as in the head nurse that signed it.What he shows is not, obviously a copy.

    Different states issue different forms of birth certificates. I was born in 1948. The certificate which was issued to my parents a week after I was born was typed. There is no doctor’s name, no nurse’s name, no hospital name, in spite of the fact that I was born in a hospital. A copy that I ordered in 1988 is computer-generated and contains the same information as the 1948 birth certificate. One typed, one computer-generated, both are valid and both are prima facie proof of my birth.

    What Dr, Fukino said was that she saw, in person, what is shown on computer file.What Linda Lingle said was that she held the same document that is seen on the internet, and that the seal is raided, it just cant be seen on the computer screen.

    You’re making that up. You have no idea what Dr. Fukino looked at. This is what she said:

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    Once again, he stated he was born in Kapi o Lani medical center.Ive seen two articles by women who had children born the day after him in the same hospital, and they’re certificates were “Long From BCs”, not the short form COLB.

    Nothing new about that. In 1961, Hawaii issued “long form” birth certificates. They no longer do so. I have never seen my “long-form” birth certificate. The ones that I have – with no doctor’s name, no hospital name – were sufficient for me to get a Social Security Number, a driver’s license, enlist in the U.S. Navy, register to vote, and obtain a U.S. passport.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 26, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Realist:
    Fact – Obama is known to have multiple social security numbers right now…the one listed as Potus has a date associated with it….1890!

    1890? You birthers can’t seem to make up your minds I heard another birther say 1880. Also that it was issued to someone who had died in 1880. Obviously the information is a typo. Do you understand how stupid it is when Orly says it was issued to someone who died in 1880? Social Security didn’t exist until Roosevelt and so saying it was issued in 1880 or to someone who died in 1880 just makes one sound ridiculously stupid.

  88. avatar
    sfjeff November 26, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    Realist- I won’t insult you- I will just ask you to provide proof of one of your assertions:

    “Fact – His paternal grandmother has said under sworn oath that he was born in Kenya, as well as the Kenyan Mambosu Coastal hospital, Kenyan Govt., the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., as well as the people in the country as a whole. As well, a Kenyan representative in India claimed Obama was from Kenya….just last week!”

    Prove each of your above assertions.

    Provide links to the actual citations, not a Birther web site.

    I will await your evidence.

  89. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Let’ suppose for a moment that the Puzz reaaly did find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that he is now so eagerly chasing (instead of his habitual DUI defendants) – a written statement by the majority of the Founders that “natural-born citizen” was indeed based on Vattel’s The Law of Nations, is it not obvious that the legal debate would then immediately focus on the question which version the Founders had in mind?

    The English version that was available to the Foundres did not even contain the sentence that has been quoted by the Birfers from the moment in November 2008 when Donofrio googled up the phrase>

    So you are basically stuck with the original French version. If that ever came up in your Cloud Cuckooland court, you can be sure that any lawyer will argue that the the (mistaken) notion that the Founders knew enough French to base their citizenship theory on an original French text, that would imply they also knew some of the intricacies of the French language (google “Noam Chomsky deep structure” for info on how one sentence in a language can hide several others). Three major points that have been made on this forum a few times already:

    1) It is unclear how you get from the French expressions “les naturels” (a substantive) or “les indigenes” to English “natural born citizen”. It is a vile lie that the Founders would have understood the French in that way because, as birfers have claimed both were terms of art. The Canadian constitution has always used the phrases “natural born citizen” and “citoyen de naissance”.

    2) The plural form “parens” in the French original has no relevance as there is no way of saying it in French without using the plural. Plural subjects in French demand an object or a complement referring to the subject to be in the plural as well. To be clear and unambiguous, a French legal text would add ” deux” here. Note that the same ambiguity can arise in English. “Childeren of memberS are allowed to use the pool.” Suppose that a club were to stop a child who had only one parent who was a member (perhaps because of a divorce or a death) were stopped from using the pool, and a law suit evolved, do you really think any judge would dare to rule in favor of the club?

    3) As I pointed out, the French word “parent” does not necessarily equal the modern English word ” parent”. From the 19th century, the English word could no longer be used to refer to blood relatives, and now only refers to mother or father. But the French word still can be used to mean blood relatives. In fact, when Vattel wrote his book, good French usage demanded “parent” to be used with that meaning. Using it to refer only to father and mother was deemed sub-standard French (the authority here is the French Jesuit grammarian Bouhours). Note that Vattel at least once used “parents” in that meaning elsewhere in the same book.

    It would be funny if Bouhours or the rules of French grammar were actually once cited in a US Supreme Court decision, but that is a silly dream, of course (though of course, also the ultimate nightmare for birthers). The point is that if the Supreme Court were ever to rule on this , and the only case would be a state controlled by Tea Part activists stopping, or trying to stop Jindal from getting onto the ballot papers, the Supreme Court would rule the Vattel objection against Jindal fails at the first hurdle, the “not a term of art” hurdle.

    Luckily for Jindal by the way, since neither the second hurdle (Vattel never meant a plural) nor the third hurdle (Vattel uses “parent” with a broader meaning than birfers realize) actually helps him. But they help Obama. And Arthur. And Agnew.

    And I agree with Lupin that Vattel is being used as a convenient scapegoat by racists who googled him up in November 2008 when the birth certificate issue was losing its sting. Something which he himself would probably abhorred – though he certainly did NOT believe in equal rights for women, his comments about Protestant refugees in Prussia being unjustly claimed as “still our citizens” by the rulers of the Roman Catholic countries they had fled from, or on the contrary, being ostracized by the natives of the countries they were now living in and helping to develop, prove that he was no racist.

    Paul’s brilliant post above perfectly encapsulates what he and I have been saying, which is that even IF Vattel was determined to be the determining factor in this case, as long as it was read by competent experts, it still would NOT help the birthers’ cause.

    Plainly, Meretricious Mario and his racist ilk are wrong on the facts AND wrong on the “Law”.

  90. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Jules: Vattel had lost the argument in the United States on nationality law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and has continued losing it since. Most states’ laws on citizenship prior to the adoption of the constitution clearly favoured the English position on nationality law and its holding that jus soli acquisition of citizenship led to natural born status. Additionally, the 14th Amendment clearly followed the English tradition. In international law, we can see that it is regarded as the sovereign right of each nation to decide who its citizens are. It is also regarded as arguably a principle of international law and at least a practical reality that the country of physical presence determines the stronger claim upon a dual citizen.

    To be fair, I don’t think Vattel was “campaigning” for one system over the other. He mentioned the British jus soli system of transmission of citizenship and did not attack it. He wrote about what he knew, ie the system in force in Switzerland, Prussia, etc.

    To the extent the US started as a British colony, it made sense that you adopted the fundamental tenets of British law. Had we not sold you Louisiana and kept that huge chink of territory in the middle going up to French Canada, this hypothetical “Nouvelle France” would likely have evolved a legal system that would have followed French Law. And writing that Blackstone had “lost the argument” would then be just as inappropriate.

    (If that had happened you might have saved yourself a Civil War.)

  91. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    Realist: I could write Facts that I know to be true for pages and pages. I’ve been researching this since before the election. No, it’s not racism. Thats the first thing libs say when they have nothing else to say. Id vote for Alan Keyes in a heart beat, and He’s Black! No, it’s not racism. It’s his policies. He’s a socialist. He’s already sent hundreds of millions of dollars to Kenyan for social programs. He’s hired communists and socialists all through out his administration. The fact that he didnt cover his nationality tracks is just a reason to get him out….like libs did with nixon helping people around him.

    Of course it is racism, plain and simple. Every antisemite counts at least one Jew amongst his “best friends”. Your agenda is identical to that of the KKK which also claims not to be racist.

    If you want to oppose Obama because of his policies you’ll have your chance in 2012; you don’t have to resort to racist propaganda.

    Two, you have no idea what “socialism” is. Obama’s economic policies are in fact to the right of Richard Nixon’s. They are also to the right of British Conservative PM Gordon Brown. Whether or not one agrees with them, Obama is a moderate right wing president.

    You are uneducated, bigoted, easily duped and a liar. You are a pathetic and sorry representative of the American ultra-reactionary wing.

  92. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    Realist: Call me all the names that you want…it does’nt take away from the truth!

    That is very true, the truth being that you’re a bigoted imbecile.

    Let me add here, since you obviously believe that everyone here is a Democrat or a “liberal” (whatever that is), that I, for one, am French, not particularly thrilled with many of your President’s policies — I would definitely not call myself “pro-Obama” although I much prefer him to the alternatives — and like most of my educated countrymen, we have heard of and reviewed your insane theories about Obama’s citizenship and judged them for what they are : a bunch of racist, lunatic lies and gobbledygook.

  93. avatar
    misha November 26, 2010 at 5:17 am #

    Realist: Call me all the names that you want…it does’nt take away from the truth!

    I agree with you. I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that’s right here!

    Hope this helps.

  94. avatar
    The Magic M November 26, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    > “Childeren of memberS are allowed to use the pool.”

    That is probably the single best example to at least in part refute the argument that “born to citizen parents” (if that really were the definition of NBC in the constitutional sense) necessarily means “born to two citizen parents”.

  95. avatar
    ellid November 26, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    Realist –

    You’re still wrong on each and every point you’ve raised. FAIL.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    Realist
    You [can’t] know….you dont have the copies in your hand.

    But, you see, I do. The Pelosi affidavits have been sitting on this web site since February 23, 2009. I wrote an article on it! So calm your self down and pay attention. I suggest you read that article and learn something about argument and evidence.

    You say: “It shows Mrs. Pelosi knows he [can’t] prove his residency, therefore she is not claiming that he is constitutionally eligible” but Nancy Pelosi swore in the Hawaiian affidavit:

    …the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution: For President of the United States Barack Obama…

    What could be plainer? That statement, sworn and notarized, is reasonable evidence that Nancy Peolsi believed Obama was eligible to be President.

    You then say: “Actually, she is only claiming that he is eligible to be president in Hawaii.”

    Her statement does not mention Hawaii, but rather “United States Constitution”. 50 is not some magic number. One sworn statement is as good as a thousand. You note correctly that Pelosi’s similar letter to some other states (e.g. South Carolina) uses different wording, but she NEVER says that Obama is not eligible. You throw away an affirmative statement, and base your whole argument on words that do not exist. Can you not comprehend how totally irrational your argument is? ALL the evidence you have either says Obama is eligible under the US Constitution, or it says nothing. So while you have “evidence,” you misrepresent it.

    Your second mistake is to claim that the constitutionally eligible language is missing in 49 state certifications. This could be true, but you are lying if you claim to know that is a FACT because you don’t have all 49 certifications, and no one else has published such proof.

    Finally you present another “fact”:

    The follow up study, done in 2000, stated COLBs were not to be trusted and that Long Form Birth Certificates were much more trustworthy and reliable. It stated, LFBCs should be used in lieu of a COLB whenever possible.

    You will forgive me, but I don’t trust your word. Put up some evidence, or I will conclude that this is just something you found written on a filling station bathroom wall.

  97. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: this is just something you found written on a filling station bathroom wall.

    Otherwise known as the Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo, esq,

  98. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    The Magic M: > “Childeren of memberS are allowed to use the pool.”That is probably the single best example to at least in part refute the argument that “born to citizen parents” (if that really were the definition of NBC in the constitutional sense) necessarily means “born to two citizen parents”.

    I agree.
    It would mean we throw out a sitting US President based on a single letter “s” first published in a book 10 years after the Constitution was ratified.

    Tell me one judge in the US that would find this reasonable.

  99. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Realist: The two different documents prove she, Mrs. Pelosi, knows there is a discrepancy with his birth records, and she wanted to save her own LEGAL ass by not saying he was vetted per the constitution on the ones sent to the 49 states. Why she sent only one of the “vetted”copies to hawaii….well thats a good one.I’ve called her office numerous times, but never get a return call.
    I’ll keep trying, but I know what’s going to happen.Nothing.
    But she does know….I’ll send them on here so you can see.
    You can get them for yourselves though.Really.

    How is a candidate “vetted per Constitution?” What is the process?

  100. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    E.Vattel: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56279158@N07/5204385907/in/photostream/Founder Wilson’s proposal to make the Law of Nations a part of the federal courts.

    Law of Nations the book or legal term aka (jus gentium)?

  101. avatar
    Greg November 26, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Realist: Fact – The only “certificate” that was shown was one that they give to those born out of the country, in Hawaii. He (Obama) refuses to show the certificate he would have received if he were born at Kapi O Lani Medical center as he claims.

    Tell me, if you start out with an obvious falsehood – that someone born abroad could get a certificate that says, contrary to fact, that they were born in Hawaii – why should I continue to read any of the rest of your poorly written, poorly spelled, non-capitalized nonsense?

    Realist: Fact – His paternal grandmother has said under sworn oath that he was born in Kenya

    Yep, now I am definitely going to stop reading your trash. His grandmother was never sworn. A person on the phone with her “swore” that he heard her say that. Of course, the transcript casts doubt on that interpretation (to say the least).

    You’re repeating claims that have been debunked for months, if not years.

    In fact, “Realist,” you’re on a blog where you could, if you looked with any diligence find the debunking of each of your claims! Dr. C. has written about each of these at length.

    Why don’t you read this blog and then come up with some new and interesting nonsense, rather than recycling the old drivel that has been long demolished!

  102. avatar
    Rickey November 26, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy.
    You will forgive me, but I don’t trust your word. Put up some evidence, or I will conclude that this is just something you found written on a filling station bathroom wall.

    Realist apparently is referring to this 2000 report on birth certificate fraud issued by Health & Human Services (not by the Congress):

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/26150665/Birth-Certificate-Fraud#

    However, he obviously has never read it, because nowhere does it say that “COLBs were not to be trusted and that Long Form Birth Certificates were much more trustworthy and reliable,” In fact, the terms “long form” and “COLB” do not even appear in the report, in any context.

    The report does point out that there are more than 14,000 different forms of birth certificates in circulation in the United States, which points out how foolish it is to complain that “Obama’s COLB doesn’t contain the same kind of information as my birth certificate.”

  103. avatar
    dch November 26, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    The reality is that the scotus justices never actually discussed on Mario’s pettiton. It was rejected long ago and stuck on this week’s list to stop Mario from asking all nine justices to take it on.
    It will appear on Monday’s long list of case denied without comment. That is a fact. Mario is simply wringing that last paypal donations from this tired and long failed case. It cost him nothing to pester the SCOTUS to keep it alive for a few more months. This case was just catnip to attract in a new bunch of birthers to the donation scam.
    Over on Freerepublic they seem to be convinced this actually was being taken “seriously.”
    As in the past the birthers are proven wrong. On Monday they will be wailing about how Kagan and Sotomeyer must have sabotaged the case. LOL

    Are there any other cases pending anywhere other than the Latkin case (which in NOT a birther case back in reality).

  104. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Greg:

    Any person who claims “millions of dollars” spent automatically goes into my nutter file. They have no grasp on the business or mechanics of law, and are simply pulling a number out of their rears.

    I’ve always assumed that the number had a basis in truth… Somewhere, some disclosure was made about the legal costs of the presidential campaign. And given the size and complexity of that campaign, I’d be willing to bet that there were some legal expenses, and double that bet that the legal expenses were dwarfed either by various kinds of insurance or food and entertainment.

    The standard tirade that relies on begging the question, generally makes the assumption that Obama has gone thorough some very expensive process to keep confidential records confidential, and for me it also ends with the demand for kindergarten records, because it shows we are dealing with pedophiles. They don’t care about his eligibility, they want to know if he was circumcised and whether he had potty training problems. There’s really no good reason to engage these clowns and perverts, unless you get some entertainment value from doing so (I do.)

  105. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Realist: No, it’s not racism. Thats the first thing libs say when they have nothing else to say.

    Well it’s either racism, willful ignorance, or abject stupidity….

    If you claim it’s not racism, despite the fact that you’ve not required this from any POTUS, until one that was black won, then please tell us which of the other two possibilities for you following a patently false set of delusions is the correct one?

  106. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Realist: Name calling is a typical lib defense mechanism

    Another Irony meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!!!

    Incidentally, I’m a conservative… but that’s OK. Feel free to continue to call us names while you drip and moan about us calling you names.

  107. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You note correctly that Pelosi’s similar letter to some other states (e.g. South Carolina) uses different wording

    Actually, I think it is reasonable to point out that the Hawaii memo has an obvious typo, leaving out an entire line of the text. This makes it possible to read it as being purposefully worded to say the candidate is not certified “under the Constitution” but under the “Democratic Parties balloting”. Setting the error of possessives and plurals aside, this is one of the the few factual elements that fuels some of the birther arguments. If this memo were some kind of legal requirement, it would be flawed. If it isn’t a legal requirement, why does it exist?

    I’m not saying there’s any merit to the idea. It’s just that brushing off the problem in the Pelosi affadavit only serves to encourage birthers, and to them it creates an impression that we aren’t actually examining the evidence. There’s a glaring problem in the affadavit, and it is being interpreted in a way that works for the birthers.

  108. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    Curious: Startibartast:No offense but I was hoping for a better response.Did you see the list of all stuff that the President is accused of concealing (see my 1st comment above)?I have been saying that the President isn’t hiding this stuff.Am I wrong?Help me out here.

    You’re hiding your dead family members in coffins in the cemetery. Why won’t you let me see them?

  109. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    Realist: Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…Fact –…fact… fact… FACT!!!…fact… FACT!!!…fact… FACT!!!…facts…FACTS….fact…Fact…fact… FACT!!!…fact… FACT!!!…fact… FACT!!!…facts…FACTS….fact……fact… fact…

    These are all facts….

    Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Ever notice that people who use the word “fact” far more than necessary, including lots of caps and exclamation marks, rarely have any actual facts, if at all?

    Realist: A word of friendly advice, if I may. Simply pasting a label of “fact” over one of your delusions will not magically transform it into actual fact. Your wishes won’t actually change reality.

    You lost the election. Please do get over it before you make the US a laughing stock in front of the whole world, OK? Thanx.

  110. avatar
    BatGuano November 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    James M: I’m not saying there’s any merit to the idea. It’s just that brushing off the problem in the Pelosi affadavit only serves to encourage birthers, and to them it creates an impression that we aren’t actually examining the evidence.

    agreed.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    James M: Actually, I think it is reasonable to point out that the Hawaii memo has an obvious typo, leaving out an entire line of the text. This makes it possible to read it as being purposefully worded to say the candidate is not certified “under the Constitution” but under the “Democratic Parties balloting”. Setting the error of possessives and plurals aside, this is one of the the few factual elements that fuels some of the birther arguments. If this memo were some kind of legal requirement, it would be flawed. If it isn’t a legal requirement, why does it exist?

    I think you are confusing the Hawaiian Democratic Party’s certificate with the DNC certification signed by Pelosi. The Pelosi/DNC affidavit clearly says
    “eligible under the Constitution”. Read it:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/pelosiaffidavit.pdf

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Daniel: Well it’s either racism, willful ignorance, or abject stupidity….

    I’m leaning towards willful ignorance in this case. Realist can’t even get his lies straight.

  113. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Realist:
    Do you have to be explained the relevance of two different documents, supposedly saying the same thing, but not saying it in reality…?

    It’s a mild typo. A line is entirely omitted in one of the memos. While you can read it as a certification that the candidate is qualified to serve under “the Democratic Parties [sic]”, you cannot show intent and you certainly cannot make the logical stretch based on this to claim that Congress knew Obama to be ineligible. The typo is not an error I would ever make, and I would be careful enough not to sign an erroneous memo, but then you cannot afford the rate I would charge to be your secretary.

    In any case, that’s all there is to see on your affadavits: A typographical error. I can see the argument you should be making (if you understood the issue well enough to make it). That Congress certified a nomination that had an error that changed its meaning implies that the elections in Hawaii were flawed.

    I personally would love it if you could “explain the relevance of two different documents.”

  114. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    James M: I’ve always assumed that the number had a basis in truth… Somewhere, some disclosure was made about the legal costs of the presidential campaign. And given the size and complexity of that campaign, I’d be willing to bet that there were some legal expenses, and double that bet that the legal expenses were dwarfed either by various kinds of insurance or food and entertainment.

    one approach was to subtract the legal expenses from the McCain campaign from the Obama campaign’s expense and assume that such was the legal expense defending lawsuits. This is fueled by the fact that Obama’s personal attorney is the same (firm) as his campaign. I think the difference is somewhere in the order of $2 million. I seem to recall that WorldNetDaily was one of the publishers of this smear.

    But of course, a few motions to dismiss simply do not equal $2 Million. One of the lawyers on this blog made an estimate a year or so ago and it was maybe $100,000. If you get sued, you have to defend yourself, and a motion to dismiss is the cheapest way to end the suit.

  115. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    Realist:

    The two different documents prove she, Mrs. Pelosi, knows there is a discrepancy with his birth records, and she wanted to save her own LEGAL ass by not saying he was vetted per the constitution on the ones sent to the 49 states.

    All it proves is that she was careless, or that she chose not to send the memo back due to a typographical error. It doesn’t “prove” the intent that you are reading into it. If this got into a courtroom as evidence, the people who signed the memos would be asked what they meant. The memos themselves are not instruments that would remove a sitting president. At most, this could lead to an admonition to be more careful with official correspondence.

    The important concept you are missing here is that the State of Hawaii has the right to choose its electors, DNC memo or no DNC memo, Congressional notarization or no Congressional notarization, at-large election or no at-large election, and the time to challenge the validity of those electors passed in 2008.

    It is unfortunate that there is an error on the memo, but only because it gives fuel to people like you.

  116. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    Realist: Drunk…I dont think so….that so shows that you have no idea what your talking about.

    They are giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you’re not merely drunk then you are semi-literate with limited reasoning ability at the age of 45. Believe me, it looks much better for you if you are drunk.

  117. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    Greg:

    And you think Obama spent millions in legal fees in under a year to hide his records and defend against birther suits that fizzled before they got to discovery?

    You could convince me that the entire 2008 campaign organization racked up some significant legal fees. I would even go as far as to say that not having a General Counsel staff for any organization of that size would have been irresponsible, and personnel costs alone could easily top the $1 million mark.

    Until some birther proves that these legal bills were literally about birther cases, they don’t get to use this against Obama. If he paid lawyers, that is to his credit.

  118. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    Curious: So once and for all, he isn’t concealing all the info, right?

    For some of the items, he actually is “concealing” the information, although there’s nothing nefarious about that so it’s a poor choice of words.

    I’m “concealing” my records from the University of Texas and University of Arizona, except for the framed diplomas on my wall. I’m “concealing” my medical records. I’m “concealing” my financial records and pretty much all the documentation related to my business and my wife’s private practice. I’m not “concealing” my kindergarten records — I hope there is no such thing — and if there is, I would make sure the person who disclosed them, particularly to a political opponent, faced bankrupting civil fines on top of criminal prosecution.

    I’m willing to bet large amounts of money that you and everyone else here is “concealing” records. Why are we spending the millions of dollars in legal fees in order to keep those records confidential? Oh that’s right, we aren’t.

    President Obama isn’t, either.

  119. avatar
    James M November 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    Curious:
    I’m now in a discussion with a few people that are misinformed.

    Let them “win.” Walk away. Killfile them. It won’t make any difference.

  120. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    Just playing Devil’s advocate here, so bear with me. With all this talk of concealing records, were all the documents, (college, kindergarden etc) available to the public by other Presidents during their time in office? Can I see what grades Reagan got in college or the name of Jerald Ford’s 2nd grade teacher?

    It is a fact that we haven’t seen the birth certificate of any other US President?

    Am I right?

  121. avatar
    BatGuano November 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Sean: It is a fact that we haven’t seen the birth certificate of any other US President?

    the only other birth certificate of a president i’ve seen is reagan’s on one of the lakinista sites ( supposedly from the reagan library ). the thing i found funny was it appeared the BC had been issued in 1993, obviously well after his term in office ( not to mention the fact that reagan didn’t have any BC till decades after his home birth ).

    besides that i’ve never seen a one.

  122. avatar
    BatGuano November 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    Sean: …..or the name of Jerald Ford’s 2nd grade teacher

    up until high school it seems to be standard practice to hold a students records for 7years then they are destroyed. altho visiting the historical society in ford’s hometown would probably reveal the answer.

  123. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 26, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    James M: There’s really no good reason to engage these clowns and perverts, unless you get some entertainment value from doing so (I do.)

    For you or me, I agree with this statement, but what Doc has done here DOES serve an important purpose – making the facts accessible to anyone who hasn’t made up their mind yet and showing the quality of the arguments advanced by various parties. Do you think that anyone reading just this thread would agree with Realist or E. Vattel over Doc and the others who have posted substantive replies?

  124. avatar
    Greg November 26, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Another difficulty with comparing Obama’s and McCain’s legal fees is that compliance lawyering is going to increase as the amount of money raised increases. There are more pages of FEC filings for more money, for instance. Obama’s campaign also got to continue raising money after the election for the inauguration celebration (McCain’s campaign could raise money to wind up the campaign)

    Anybody who thinks you can directly compare a campaign that raised and spent three-quarters of a billion dollars with one that raised and spent a third that amount is innumerate as well as tragically uninformed about the legal system.

  125. avatar
    Realist November 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    In the terms and usage of which Im integrating the word Fact in my message, it means it’s verifiable!

  126. avatar
    Realist November 26, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    Just playing Devil’s advocate here, so bear with me. With all this talk of concealing records, were all the documents, (college, kindergarden etc) available to the public by other Presidents during their time in office? Can I see what grades Reagan got in college or the name of Jerald Ford’s 2nd grade teacher?

    With other Presidents, when they began running for office, any one could go back and look at their college thesis, prior work history, war or military record etc. I dont know of any other President, or person for that matter, who has all of that info legally tied up with a team of lawyers in which to pursue it for them. You do know Bauer is the Lawyers’ name who is defending these cases. He worked for the DNC, and when Obama was elected, quit the DNC and became White House Council. Taxpayers …US ….We are paying for Obama to keep the truth hidden. True to
    the book, “Rules for Radicals” to let the taxpayers pay for leftist causes. We’ve been sending money to Acorn for Generations. Shows you.
    Tax money goes to so many places it has no business being!

  127. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Realist: Just playing Devil’s advocate here, so bear with me. With all this talk of concealing records, were all the documents, (college, kindergarden etc) available to the public by other Presidents during their time in office? Can I see what grades Reagan got in college or the name of Jerald Ford’s 2nd grade teacher?With other Presidents, when they began running for office, any one could go back and look at their college thesis, prior work history, war or military record etc. I dont know of any other President, or person for that matter, who has all of that info legally tied up with a team of lawyers in which to pursue it for them.You do know Bauer is the Lawyers’ name who is defending these cases. He worked for the DNC, and when Obama was elected, quit the DNC and became White House Council.Taxpayers …US ….We are paying for Obama to keep the truth hidden.True to
    the book, “Rules for Radicals” to let the taxpayers pay for leftist causes.We’ve been sending money to Acorn for Generations.Shows you.
    Tax money goes to so many places it has no business being!

    What would a lawyer do to keep documents sealed that are already sealed by privacy laws?

    If you got ahold of Obama’s College transcripts, what would you do with them? Would you praise Barack Obama for his good grades?

    What were the college thesis of the last 5 US Presidents? Do you care? Does anyone care?

  128. avatar
    Greg November 26, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    So verifiable that I stopped reading after one and a half claims because there were more than two lies. Tell me, how can you verify that Obsma’s mom was “sworn” when the transcript of the interview shows she wasn’t?

    Can you verify that anyone could see Bush Sr.’s kindergarten records? These are warmed over and recycled nonsense, not verifiable “fact!”

  129. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan November 26, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Realist, as one of my commanding officers used to say, when you’re employed by the government, the more you work, the less you make per hour. We pay the Whie House Counsel the same amount regardless of whether he works 16 hours a day or 20 hours a day. There’s no actual increased expenditure of taxpayer funds when a White House Counsel or a DOJ attorney works on a particular case. That’s yet another reason to distrust those who seek to put a dollar amount on how much President Obama has purportedly spent responding to unsuccessful lawsuits.

  130. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    Realist: In the terms and usage of which Im integrating the word Fact in my message, it means it’s verifiable!

    I’m sure you believe that.

    Unfortunately for you, not only are none of the things you purported verifiable, most of them have been completely debunked, long ago, many times, by experts and courts alike, ad nauseum.

    Therefore none of the things you purported are actually facts, in any sense of the word, whatsoever.

    If you cannot even get the facts about the word “fact” straight…. how can you possibly hope to be cured of your delusions?

  131. avatar
    BatGuano November 26, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Realist: With other Presidents, when they began running for office, any one could go back and look at their…..

    realist, can you list exactly which document’s of obama’s should be public record ( not records that you want to be public) but are not.

  132. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    Realist: Just playing Devil’s advocate here,

    Actually you’re playing fast and loose with the truth. There’s a difference.

    Do you think any of these delusional fantasies of yours are new? Do you suppose for a moment we havn’t gone over all these a hundred times here, with each little chest puffy pissant that struts in here all proud and cocky with a chip on his shoulder, believing himself to be somehow in possession of some dark secrets that the rest of the world missed?

    Do you think we havn’t heard the kindergarten kid chanting “I know something you don’t know” before?

    You’re not new, and you’re not clever. You’re not even smart enough to read the archives first to see if your birther bites have been dealt with already.

    I feel so very, very sad for you.

  133. avatar
    Realist November 26, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    What would a lawyer do to keep documents sealed that are already sealed by privacy laws?

    If you got ahold of Obama’s College transcripts, what would you do with them? Would you praise Barack Obama for his good grades?

    What were the college thesis of the last 5 US Presidents? Do you care? Does anyone care?

    Actually, no, I could care less what they write about, although I would bet Obama’s would be some marxist fantasy. No, 99% of the people out there could care less what someones’s transcript says.
    THE POINT is that that information IS eligible to be seen by whatever freak might want to go over it.
    But the most transparent presidents’ info. is tightly seeled and legally guarded.
    Transparency…? Half of America is buying this stuff…?

    You know, the jist of all of this is….I see innumerable issues of serious question about this guy.
    Way too many to ignore. You can and do ignore them…or maybe socialism is what you want. I know my boss has a Che banner on his wall….he favors socialism. I do not.
    I see many things wrong with him, you see many things right about him.

    Amidst all of this, the reality is, Obama wont show his BC. He wont. No one has seen it.
    Not a long form Birth Certificate. And he’s got attorneys protecting these records at our expense.

  134. avatar
    Greg November 26, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    THE POINT is that that information IS eligible to be seen by whatever freak might want to go over it.

    Prove it!

    Bush Jr.’s thesis was __________
    Clinton’s thesis was __________
    Bush Sr.’s thesis was _________
    Reagan’s thesis was _________
    Carter’s thesis was ___________

    Gore had a thesis, “The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969” but no one has ever seen it. (Obama’s senior paper was reportedly about nuclear disarmament, and his professor described it.)

    But the most transparent presidents’ info. is tightly seeled and legally guarded.

    Again, prove it.

    Obama’s records were sealed in ___________ court of law, case number __________ on _______ day of _______ in the year 200_.

    And he’s got attorneys protecting these records at our expense.

    It’s cheaper to move to dismiss at an early stage than to fight frivolous lawsuits in discovery. That’s why Republicans love tort reform, unless they get to inflict the frivolous lawsuits on their political enemies.

    Let me prove what I’m saying:

    In 1996, Republicans brought a lawsuit against the Clintons and the FBI because someone in the White House requested the file of someone who had been fired from the White House Travel Office.

    14 years later, the case was dismissed because there was, as the judge put it, “no there, there.”

    After years of litigation, endless depositions, the fictionalized portrayal of this lawsuit and its litigants on television, and innumerable histrionics, this Court is left to conclude that with this lawsuit, to quote Gertrude Stein, ‘there’s no there there.’ While this Court seriously entertained the plaintiffs’ allegations that their privacy had been violated–and indeed it was, even if not in the sense contemplated by the Privacy Act–after ample opportunity, they have not produced any evidence of the far-reaching conspiracy that sought to use intimate details from FBI files for political assassinations that they alleged. The only thing that they have demonstrated is that this unfortunate episode–about which they do have cause to complain–was exactly what the defendants claimed: a bureaucratic snafu.

    Since Bill Clinton as President was sued, he got to pay private lawyers as well as taking up the time of the White House counsel (paid for by us). Since the FBI was sued, the DOJ got to defend them (paid for by us). Since individuals were deposed, they got to pay for their own lawyers.

    Millions of dollars wasted, thousands of hours wasted.

    If only they’d had this case dismissed before it got to discovery.

    If a lawyer ever recommended to a client that it would be cheaper just to give the other side the documents they want than to get a clearly frivolous suit dismissed early, they would be committing malpractice!

    .I see innumerable issues of serious question about this guy.

    Most of the issues you see have been debunked long ago and many times over.

    You can and do ignore them

    No, if you’d poke around this website, you’d see we’ve debunked them! Not ignored, proved wrong!

  135. avatar
    ellid November 26, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    Realist –

    You’re still wrong on each and every point you’ve raised. FAIL.

    Realist: dead

    We have never had a president named “Jerald Ford.” Are you thinking of GERALD Ford, born Lesley King Jr.? If so, kindly learn to spell before posting.

    Thank you.

  136. avatar
    ellid November 26, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    Realist:
    THE POINT is that that information IS eligible to be seen by whatever freak might want to go over it.

    Completely wrong. College transcripts are customarily released only to the alumna herself. The Registrar at my alma mater, Smith, was approached by several tabloids to obtain the transcripts of fellow Smith alumnae Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush during their respective tenures as First Lady. In each case the tabloids were turned down on the grounds that transcripts could not be released except to the alumna herself, or at her express direction. The same applies to Ivy League schools like Columbia and Harvard.

    FAIL.

  137. avatar
    BatGuano November 26, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    ellid: We have never had a president named “Jerald Ford.”

    in defense of realist……. he was quoting ( improperly ).

  138. avatar
    Sean November 26, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    I was the one who spelled Gerald Ford’s name wrong and I stand corrected.

  139. avatar
    BatGuano November 27, 2010 at 12:58 am #

    but…… i ( we ) digress. this site is about eligibility, not policy ( or perception of policy ).

  140. avatar
    Sean November 27, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    I was recently watching an episode of “Wait till Your Father Gets Home” which was like the “Family Guy” if the early 70’s.

    In it, the family has a crazy racist neighbor named Ralph who’s always going on about the Pinkos and Commies.

    Now enough fringe propaganda has been generated that we brought this caricature back in the form of birthers/tea partyers.

  141. avatar
    James M November 27, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think you are confusing the Hawaiian Democratic Party’s certificate with the DNC certification signed by Pelosi.

    I don’t think I’m confusing them, I think that one document is effectively a notarization of the other. Of course I’m also saying that if it were actually an issue, a deposition from each party involved would settle it. In other words, it is a non-issue. But there is still a typo, and I’ve seen the fact of that typo get brushed under the rug in quite a few discussions.

  142. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 27, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Realist: In the terms and usage of which Im integrating the word Fact in my message, it means it’s verifiable!

    Considering none of the information you’ve posted as “fact” is verifiable I’d say you might want to rethink your position

  143. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 27, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    Realist: What would a lawyer do to keep documents sealed that are already sealed by privacy laws?If you got ahold of Obama’s College transcripts, what would you do with them? Would you praise Barack Obama for his good grades?
    What were the college thesis of the last 5 US Presidents? Do you care? Does anyone care?Actually, no, I could care less what they write about, although I would bet Obama’s would be some marxist fantasy.No, 99% of the people out there could care less what someones’s transcript says.
    THE POINT is that that information IS eligible to be seen by whatever freak might want to go over it.
    But the most transparent presidents’ info. is tightly seeled and legally guarded.
    Transparency…?Half of America is buying this stuff…?You know, the jist of all of this is….I seeinnumerable issues of serious question about this guy.
    Way too many to ignore.You can and do ignore them…or maybe socialism is what you want. I know my boss has a Che banner on his wall….he favors socialism.I do not.
    I see many things wrong with him, you see many things right about him.Amidst all of this, the reality is, Obama wont show his BC.He wont. No one has seen it.
    Not a long form Birth Certificate.And he’s got attorneys protecting these records at our expense.

    Sounds like a lot of whining by you. Socialism marxism all in the same post and yet you don’t know either one of them or how they apply. Obama has shown his birth certificate, you don’t think that’s good enough. How many other presidents have you seen their birth certificates? You go on about how other presidents have thesis, etc but then you can’t name the actual thesis. This just means you’re making it up. Obama shared more information to the public than we knew about George W. Bush. You could have read either of Obama’s 2 books before the election.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    James M: I don’t think I’m confusing them, I think that one document is effectively a notarization of the other. Of course I’m also saying that if it were actually an issue, a deposition from each party involved would settle it. In other words, it is a non-issue. But there is still a typo, and I’ve seen the fact of that typo get brushed under the rug in quite a few discussions.

    After reviewing the documents, I am unable to see how you arrive at the preceding statement. The document signed by Pelosi clearly says “under the Constitution” and is notarized itself. The other document is from the Hawaiian Democratic Party and could hardly be a “notarization” of the Pelosi document since it was signed a DAY EARLIER.

  145. avatar
    Arthur November 27, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    Dr. C.

    I apologize for making the original reference to trickle down economics. It was 3 in the morning, I couldn’t sleep, and offered it as a joke to other insomniacs.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    Realist: With other Presidents, when they began running for office, any one could go back and look at their college thesis, prior work history, war or military record etc. I dont know of any other President, or person for that matter, who has all of that info legally tied up with a team of lawyers in which to pursue it for them. You do know Bauer is the Lawyers’ name who is defending these cases. He worked for the DNC, and when Obama was elected, quit the DNC and became White House Council. Taxpayers …US ….We are paying for Obama to keep the truth hidden

    Actually such records are not generally available unless the candidate chooses to publish them. Neither Bush nor McCain released college transcripts, for example. Generally PhD theses are available, but the Obama’s master’s paper was not a thesis, and Obama’s professor confirms that he didn’t have a copy and no other copy seems to exist unless Obama retains his own copy.

    The thing about all of these records is that if the voting public perceives the non-release of them negatively, they may base their votes on it.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    Realist: Drunk…I dont think so….that so shows that you have no idea what your talking about.

    While I hold out little hope of teaching Realist critical thinking skills, I hope at least that he will come out of this knowing that the contraction for “you are” is spelled “you’re” not “your.” (I wouldn’t mention this, but he’s misspelled it multiple times.) I will leave “dont” for another time.

  148. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 27, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While I hold out little hope of teaching Realist critical thinking skills, I hope at least that he will come out of this knowing that the contraction for “you are” is spelled “you’re” not “your.” (I wouldn’t mention this, but he’s misspelled it multiple times.) I will leave “dont” for another time.

    Thanks for the public service – that’s a pet peeve of mine too…

    I don’t expect Realist to, for example, make a well-sourced, logical, fact-based response to one of Greg’s posts, but if you can get him to at least stop torturing the English language so badly, that would be progress… πŸ˜‰

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    Arthur: I apologize for making the original reference to trickle down economics. It was 3 in the morning, I couldn’t sleep, and offered it as a joke to other insomniacs.

    You realize that this will go in your permanent record. πŸ˜‰

  150. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 27, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Referring to the complaint/petition that I filed in the Kerchner case in the federal district court, you say in this post, “While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign.”

    For you now to imply that we only lately resorted to the “natural born Citizen” issue for the sake of a “publicity campaign” is highly dishonest and also not unexpected of you. You know very well that since at least December 20, 2008, when I wrote my first essay on my blog entitled, The Two Constitutional Obstacles Obama Has to Overcome to be President,
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html, I have always argued the two eligibility issues of place of birth and the original meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The two issues have been argued by me in every one of my briefs to the New Jersey Federal District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I have also included both issues in the recent Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court which I filed on September 30, 2010. Additionally, Commander Kerchner and I have written numerous essays on my blog and given numerous radio interviews in which we discussed both issues.

    Given the existence of all this well-documented information showing that I have raised both issues since December 2008, I must concluded that you did not make a simple mistake in making your factually incorrect statement. On the contrary, I know why you would make such a false statement on your blog. What you are really doing is trying to re-write history, like you and your supporters here and elsewhere are good at doing or at least attempting to do. And you do know that I am referring to the fact that you and other like-thinking individuals have, for the sake of saving Obama from his correct historical fate, attempted to write natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel out of our constitutional history. But now you are also re-writing history for another purpose. This whole blog is about conspiracy theories related to Obama’s eligibility to be President. So clearly this blog, “Obamaconspiracy.org,” and your whole cyberspace persona, “Dr. Conspiracy,” are not relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen,” for their is nothing conspiratorial about determining what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution. In fact, the meaning of what is a citizen has been studied by scholars since time immemorial. There are countless volumes and articles written by great scholars devoted to the study. The meaning of citizenship has been addressed by our courts since the beginning of our republic. The meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause has been debated by scholars for quite a number of years, concerning candidates such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, Christian D. Herr, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and recently John McCain. How interesting that those who engaged in that scholarship were not labeled “birthers” or conspiracy nuts. So clearly Obama, whom you have decided to blindly defend at the expense of our Constitution, must make the difference for you and so many who have followed your ill-fated path.

    What I suggest that you do is create a new blog with a new name, also give yourself a new name, and engage in real scholarship on the legitimate and important question of whether Obama, born a British citizen to a British citizen father, is an Article II “natural born Citizen” as intended by the Founders and Framers.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    November 27, 2010

  151. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2010 at 6:47 pm #

    Realist: You know, the jist of all of this is….I see innumerable issues of serious question about this guy.
    Way too many to ignore. You can and do ignore them

    The problem is not that we ignore the purile questions of birthers. The problem is that those questions have all ben n answered, and birthers don’t like the answers, so birthers pretend the questions are unanswered.

    I’m pretty sure there’s a term for that that’s really hard to pronounce.

  152. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: For you now to imply that we only lately resorted to the “natural born Citizen” issue for the sake of a “publicity campaign” is highly dishonest

    Hey look, Apuzzo (if that really is you…) calling someone else dishonest. That blew three whole Irony meters right there, and severley damaged two more backups.

    Say Mario. When the word comes down that your l;atest escapade has been refused by SCOTUS, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows it will, what do you plan for your next showcase stunt to weasel money from the weakminded?

  153. avatar
    misha November 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: What I suggest that you do is create a new blog with a new name, also give yourself a new name, and engage in real scholarship

    Mario: I don’t normally don’t respond to drivel, but I feel a responsibility.

    The issue was settled with Ark, and affirmed with Ankeny. Of course, I should not expect anything more from a DWI garbage practice lawyer. Instead of casting insults, I suggest you go back to law school.

    Run along to the ER, and find some poor schmuck that was just rear ended.

  154. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    Realist: Obama wont show his BC. He wont. No one has seen it.
    Not a long form Birth Certificate. And he’s got attorneys protecting these records at our expense.

    “Obama wont show his BC. He wont. No one has seen it.” Sure he will, and has, many times, including having it available for personal inspection at his campaign HQ. If you were too lazy to go see it then that’s your problem. Millions of people have seen it though, so yhour purile attempt to claim otherwise is pretty sad.

    “Not a long form Birth Certificate.” He’s shown the only one available to him, the only one required by law, and the one that is certified by the state of Hawaii as legal for ALL federal and state requirements. If that’s not good enough for you…. well too bad, you lose.

    “And he’s got attorneys protecting these records at our expense.” No he doesn’t. The records are protected by privacy laws that apply to him as equally as they apply to you and me and to all citizens of the USA. He doesn’t need lawyers to “protect” what is already protected by law. Your dripping and moaning “but Iiiiiiiiii waaaaaannnnnaaaaaa seeeeeee theeeeeeem” may impress other birthers, but it won’t allow you to circumvent the law. No, not even if you paste “fact” all over your whinings.

  155. avatar
    Bovril November 27, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    Irony meters are explodung across the Intertubes….

    Mario’s little diatribe us all to predictable now his frivolous lawsuit has been canned by the Supreme Court and like the pathetic child he is he lashes out at those he se’s as the enemy.

    A perfect example repeated over at CAAFLOG juwt the other day where AGAIN he was unformed by actual lawyers his opinions have zero legal basis and an equal amount of credibility.

    Mario,

    Hard as it is for Birfoons like you, face facts, your Vattel views are and have been demonstrated to be wholly incompatible with the US Constitution.

    Your views and opinions have been rejected in every court

    You legal cases and arguments where labelled as frivolous

    Your stance was so out of touch with legal norms and etiquette that you were threatened with sanctions.

    So, do tell, why should ANYONE take a blind piece of notice of your childish little whining..?

  156. avatar
    Bovril November 27, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    p.s. excuse the spelling entered on a handheld device….

  157. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 27, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Given the existence of all this well-documented information showing that I have raised both issues since December 2008, I must concluded that you did not make a simple mistake in making your factually incorrect statement.

    You did not impeach Doc Conspiracy’s statement which was: “While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign.” He didn’t say anything about when you started making that argument, just that the argument was ‘little more than a footnote’ in the original complaint. I’m sure Doc will substantiate the validity of his claim, but I just wanted mention it to you because I’m guessing that the SCOTUS doesn’t tolerate that kind of stuff (just in case all of the people with good track records of predicting court decisions are wrong and you get to argue before them). I wonder if you will show up here in a couple of days to explain why the SCOTUS denied cert…

  158. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    Bovril: p.s. excuse the spelling entered on a handheld device….

    Well you could be forgiven. I mean it’s not like you’re wasting the time of the Supreme Court with stupid and frivolous ambulance chasing….

  159. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 27, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    bovril,

    Your name fits you well. It sounds like drivel.

  160. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: bovril,
    Your name fits you well. It sounds like drivel.

    Look if you’re going to keep doing that I’m going to start sueing you for the price of the irony meters you’re blowing.

    Why I’ll fight it all the way to the Supreme Court….

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  161. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 27, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    Slartibartfast,

    I was anticipating someone to respond exactly like you did. I did not seek to impeach the veracity of his statement as said. Rather, it is what he intended to convey that I seek to impeach.

    Also,why does Dr. Conspiracy just now come out with such a statement almost two years after our “publicity campaign” started?

    Why should the amount of words devoted to the issue of “natural born Citizen” in the complaint be the measure of the validity of my argument?

    Finally, what does Dr. Conspiracy mean to communicate by saying that the “natural born Citizen” issue was just a footnote in the complaint? Does Dr. Conspiracy expect me to argue the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a complaint?

  162. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I did not seek to impeach the veracity of his statement as said. Rather, it is what he intended to convey

    So you don’t attack what he said, but you attack what he meant? Ohhhhhhhhh…..

    Tell me Mario, if you’d be so kind, how does one obtain this ability to read another person’s mind, so skillfully that you know what they think better even than they do?

  163. avatar
    James M November 27, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo I have also included both issues in the recent Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court which I filed on September 30, 2010.

    So you got your case all the way to the Supreme Court. Did you win? If so, congratulations.
    If you didn’t win, then why not?

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Referring to the complaint/petition that I filed in the Kerchner case in the federal district court, you say in this post, “While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign.”

    For you now to imply that we only lately resorted to the “natural born Citizen” issue for the sake of a “publicity campaign” is highly dishonest and also not unexpected of you

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    Having had the opportunity to dispute with you on a few occasions, I note here what I have found before, a straw man argument (“a caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to hold, so that it is easy to refute” Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Argument, 4th ed.). What I said does not make the implications you claim. It simply states the indisputable fact that the longer, expanded Second Amended Complaint in Kerchner v. Obama is 87 pages long and only points 71-75 question Obama’s eligibility based on the meaning of “natural born citizen.” After stating the obvious in points 71-74 that Obama’s father was not a US citizen you conclude briefly:

    75. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore cannot be a ‘natural born Citizen.”

    We don’t see your definition of “natural born citizen” and a mention of de Vattel except in Endnote 14. So I am quite literally correct saying that your theories on the definition of natural born citizen are little more than a footnote.

    The reasonable inference from what I said is not that the “natural born citizen” argument came late (since I point out that it was in the complaint), but that at the time of the complaint, the argument was not given a prominent place and one may infer that it was not deemed important given the space afforded it.

    Further, there is no reasonable implication in my piece that the natural born citizen issue has been raised only for the purpose of publicity, but rather that the prominence of the issue in the publicity campaign (and I am sure you will concede that full page newspaper ads do constitute a publicity campaign) is evidence of the importance you and/or Mr. Kerchner give the issue now in comparison to the lack of importance that you assigned it in February of 2009.

    I thought it worthwhile to point out that while today you see to talk about little more than your natural born citizenship theories, you started out with every crank birther lie in the book.

    By the way, did you ever inform the court that your statements regarding the travel ban to Pakistan in that complaint were not true?

  165. avatar
    Bovril November 27, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Notice that dear Mario is wholly unable to refute a single point I made and immediately descends to (yet more) inane stupidity.

    So do tell Mario, which of the points I raised is factually incorrect?

    The one about your case being deemed by tge court as frivolous..?

    The one about sanctioning..?

    The one about CAAFLOG handing you your ass..?

    etc. etc.

    Please, do tell.

  166. avatar
    Sef November 27, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I wonder if you will show up here in a couple of days to explain why the SCOTUS denied cert…

    I wonder if Mario will “pull an Orly” and attempt to appeal his SCOTUS rejection to The Hague?

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: So clearly this blog, “Obamaconspiracy.org,” and your whole cyberspace persona, “Dr. Conspiracy,” are not relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen,” for their is nothing conspiratorial about determining what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution.

    I would agree with what you say in the main. However, it is difficult to separate conspiracy theories about Barack Obama from eligibility questions based on the definition of natural born citizen when they are promoted by the same people in the same legal complaints (e.g. Kerchner v. Obama). Further, the rather obvious question of why no one in Congress objected when certifying Obama’s election if your natural born citizen theory is true often finds an explanation full of conspiratorial fear of Barack Obama.

    My longtime interest is in why people believe false things, and whether the false thing is that there was a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981 or that the Founders looked to Emerich de Vattel for a definition of natural born citizen, is not an important distinction. While Leo Donofrio was up front about the fact that he was trying to create “new law,” your sheep believe that your definition is settled law, which could not be farther from the truth.

    The online community that has arisen on this web site seem to be interested in the broad aspects of crank views on Obama’s eligibility, and so I have expanded my scope.

  168. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 27, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You said: …”[T]he prominence of the issue in the publicity campaign (and I am sure you will concede that full page newspaper ads do constitute a publicity campaign) is evidence of the importance you and/or Mr. Kerchner give the issue now in comparison to the lack of importance that you assigned it in February of 2009. I thought it worthwhile to point out that while today you see to talk about little more than your natural born citizenship theories, you started out with every crank birther lie in the book.”

    Notwithsanding Slartibartfast’s defense of your writings (“He [meaning you] didn’t say anything about when you started making that argument, just that the argument was little more than a footnote’ in the original complaint”), thank you for admitting that I am correct in how I read your post. You are, indeed, saying in your post that it is only “now,” “today,” that Commander Kerchner and I are giving importance to the “natural born Citizen” issue. In my comment, I have shown you how you are wrong in making such statement, for I have been arguing the “natural born Citizen” issue since at least as early as December 20, 2008.

    I know that you are not an attorney, but please know that a complaint is not the place to argue a legal issue.

    On the travel ban, I have yet to see a copy of Obama’s passport which he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981. The passport that he used is the real issue, not whether there was or was not a travel “ban” or travel “advisory” or some type of travel restriction there which we know there was. Why do you persist in parsing words that neither define nor constitute the issue?

  169. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 27, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Slartibartfast,
    I was anticipating someone to respond exactly like you did.

    You’re welcome, I guess.

    I did not seek to impeach the veracity of his statement as said.Rather, it is what he intended to convey that I seek to impeach.

    Maybe you should have spent more time on understanding the law regarding the term ‘natural born citizen’ and less on interpreting nuances of inference of an internet blogger
    before submitting a case to the SCOTUS. Just a friendly suggestion… πŸ˜‰

    Also,why does Dr. Conspiracy just now come out with such a statement almost two years after our “publicity campaign” started?

    Because your case was in conference in the SCOTUS? Just guessing… Is it not legitimate to provide commentary on a case being considered by the SCOTUS?

    Why should the amount of words devoted to the issue of “natural born Citizen” in the complaint be the measure of the validity of my argument?

    Speaking for myself, I don’t think that the number of words you devoted to anything affects the validity of your arguments, however, since they and others like them are currently something like 0-70 in the courts, no authority on Constitutional law with actual credentials seems to agree with you, my own reading of Wong Kim Ark and other relevant references (guided by the posts of Vince Treacy and other identified lawyers as well as what the Doc has written) says that your arguments are completely without merit (and most likely frivolous as well), and that the people who are accurately predicting the behavior of the courts seem to feel that your arguments lack validity, I feel perfectly justified in believing that your arguments are invalid.

    Finally, what does Dr. Conspiracy mean to communicate by saying that the “natural born Citizen” issue was just a footnote in the complaint?

    Again, just guessing, but I inferred that he thought that you treated it as a minor issue in your first complaint – certainly not a damning revelation, but a valid point to raise. What do you think he was trying to say? (And why didn’t you treat the issue more thoroughly in the initial complaint?)

    Does Dr. Conspiracy expect me to argue the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a complaint?

    I don’t know. I expect that, in all likelihood, your case will be denied cert and in the highly improbable case that it proceeds and you actually get to discovery, you will find that all of the work you have done entitles you to discover a certified copy of the COLB that has been posted online. I hope you think it was worth it (or your client does…)

  170. avatar
    Bovril November 27, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Come on Mario, man up, you posted a wholly value free comment when I listed your manifest legal failings and requested your response as to just where my points were invalid.

    Surely you have the strength of your convictions..?

    As a reminder,

    ===========================

    So do tell Mario, which of the points I raised is factually incorrect?

    The one about your case being deemed by the court as frivolous..?

    The one about sanctioning..?

    The one about CAAFLOG handing you your ass..?

    etc. etc.

    Please, do tell.

    ===========================

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:On the travel ban, I have yet to see a copy of Obama’s passport which he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981. The passport that he used is the real issue, not whether there was or was not a travel “ban” or travel “advisory” or some type of travel restriction there which we know there was. Why do you persist in parsing words that neither define nor constitute the issue?

    I do this because you keep repeating the lie. In this case you say: “some type of travel restriction there which we know there was.” There was no unusual restriction for Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. The truth is that American tourism was being promoted at that time. The advisory just said that visas were only good for 30 days.

    Just for the record, this is what you wrote in the First Amended Complaint:

    51. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

    The only way you will get me to stop mentioning the travel ban to Pakistan is for you to confess the preceding section of the Kerchner lawsuit was false.

  172. avatar
    Majority Will November 27, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: bovril,
    Your name fits you well. It sounds like drivel.

    Aren’t your desperate and puerile ad hominem attacks a clear sign that you’re finally admitting you’ve got nothing of substance to discuss or contribute?

    That in reality, you’ve had nothing all along?

    And aren’t those little mindless digs the last shrill stabs in a vain attempt to fight off your inevitable spiral into an irrelevant, empty future forgotten by all?

    But I’m sure people will still drive drunk. So, you’ll always have that.

  173. avatar
    Sean November 27, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: immemorial

    Mr. Apuzzo, When was it discovered that Chester A. Arthur was ineligible to be President based on his Father’s Irish citizenship at his birth?

    Is Barack Obama having one non-citizen at birth a unique situation? Is Bill Richardson’s situation different? If so, how has this nation get this far (more than 200 years) without it being clarified?

    When I say clarified, I specifically mean not having two citizen parents at birth.

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Does Dr. Conspiracy expect me to argue the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a complaint?

    Well, what would you call Endnote 9 of the First Amended Complaint, where you talk about the John Jay letter to George Washington and claim that he got the words “natural born citizen” from de Vattel (even though that phrase didn’t exist in the English translation until a decade later)? It sure sounds like you were arguing the meaning of “natural born citizen” to me.

    But if you would like to explain why Endnote 9 is not an argument, go right ahead.

  175. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 27, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: but the Obama’s master’s paper was not a thesis, and Obama’s professor confirms that he didn’t have a copy and no other copy seems to exist unless Obama retains his own copy.

    Obama did not get a master’s degree, so he didn’t wrote a “master’s paper”. He simply wrote a substantial paper (not a thesis) for a class he took as a senior in college– what is commonly known as a “term paper”. It is likely that the paper was graded and returned to him — which is what typically happens with such papers — and Obama does not appear to have retained his, which also is fairly typical. (I mean, I wouldn’t have a clue how to go about digging up my old college papers, either. Did I save them? are they in a box somewhere shoved in the back of a closet or storage unit? or did they get discarded long ago? Who knows?

  176. avatar
    Northland10 November 27, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: On the travel ban, I have yet to see a copy of Obama’s passport which he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981. The passport that he used is the real issue, not whether there was or was not a travel “ban” or travel “advisory”

    It seems you are moving the goalposts quite a bit here. If the ban does not matter, why do you need to see a passport?

    Mario Apuzzo: And you do know that I am referring to the fact that you and other like-thinking individuals have, for the sake of saving Obama from his correct historical fate, attempted to write natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel out of our constitutional history.

    If you were to be granted cert (for anything beyond standing), you might want to consider another who apparently does not consider the law of nations to be referring only to de Vattel.

    That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates).

    SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN (03-339) 542 U.S. 692 (2004) 331 F.3d 604, reversed.
    Concurring Opinion – Justice Scalia

  177. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 27, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Did you ever make a distinction in your attacks on the “birthers” that not everything they say is based on some conspiracy theory? The answer is a resounding “no.” And it is people like you that have polluted and infected the “intellectual” discourse of Obama’s eligibility issue.

    Also, please tell me where is the conspiracy in stating that Obama has yet to produce to any source his 1961 long-form, contemporaneous birth certificate which we know is an undisputed fact? Where is the conspiracy in saying that in order show that he is eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he should produce that document for the public? You know darn well that there is no conspiracy in such question.

    Please do not tell me that Obama has already produced his “birth certificate” and that Hawaii has certified everything to be in order. We know that what he produced is a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and not a long-form birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth (BC). The COLB which Obama has made public by posting it on the internet is a computer-generated certification that lists the child’s name, date of birth, time of birth, gender, place of birth and time, and the names of Obama’s parents. The COLB does not included the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor. The COLB would have been provided by the State of Hawaii to an authorized person under Hawaii 338-13 Certified copies. Hawaii Revised Statute 338-13 refers to three different pieces of information, “a copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.” It also states that “[c]opies of the contents of any certificate shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original. . .” It does not say that a copy of “any part thereof” shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original. What Obama posted on the internet does not contain the “contents of any certificate.” Obama says that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hence, his long-form birth certificate would contain the name of the hospital and delivery doctor. What he posted on the internet is missing information that we know would appear on his long-form certificate, i.e., the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor. Hence, what Obama posted on the internet, which has not even been confirmed by Hawaii officials as representing any document that they issued, is not under Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-13 a certified copy of his birth certificate. Assuming that there really is a paper version of what Obama posted on the internet and that the Hawaii Department of Health issued it, because the image is missing the material and critical information of birth hospital and delivery doctor, no court would accept it as replacing the long-form birth certificate. Neither should we as a nation.
    So you see, Dr. Conspiracy, you, your blog, and concomitant hatchet jobbers are totally irrelevant to the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President.

    So take my advice and start anew.

  178. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: drivel

    Sometimes Apuzzo tries to provoke folks into an angry response so he can complain about the lack of civility.

  179. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: So take my advice and start anew.

    You have got to be kidding if you think I would take any kind of advice from you.

  180. avatar
    Northland10 November 27, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: he COLB which Obama has made public by posting it on the internet is a computer-generated certification that lists the child’s name, date of birth, time of birth, gender, place of birth and time, and the names of Obama’s parents. The COLB does not included the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor.

    Mr. Apuzzo, being an attorney, maybe you could explain to me where in the constitution or even any US Code that requires the submission of a birth hospital and delivery doctor? I must have missed that clause in my copy of the constitution. All I remember being required is Natural Born Citizen (birth location was provided – Honolulu, Hawaii) and age (also provided). If you feel you need to have 2 parent citizens, you do not really need the COLB for that since the President was kind enough to state that multiple times, unless you believe Obama Sr., was not Kenyan.

  181. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 27, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Mr. Appuzo,

    Could you tell me why a document that would be accepted as a valid birth certificate in every court in the land is insufficient? Is there any evidence that it is invalid or information relevant to determining natural born citizenship that is omitted from the COLB? Why is anything more than a certified copy of the document published on the web (and the statements of the Hawaii DOH officials) necessary to decide the validity of your arguments?

  182. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 27, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    Northland10,

    Where did I ever say that “law of nations” only refers to Vattel? You are just making that up. The Founders knew quite well that Blackstone, among many others, also wrote on the law of nations.

  183. avatar
    Arthur November 27, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Hey Mario!

    Good to see you posting again– unlike your fellow birthers, who tend to practice poke and run, you actually respond to comments and criticisms.

    But you know when you comparied the way Bovril’s name sounds to the way the word “drivel” sounds? Well, I wouldn’t really get into name calling. I’ve read some humorous versions of your name–and not just on this site. Most involve turning your last name into the Yiddish equivalent for male genitalia. A lot of people who post here take delight in playing with language, so let’s not give anyone ideas.

    Good luck on you’re upcoming hearing or whatever it is. I’m thinking you’ll find the conclusion not to your liking, but keep plucking that chicken.

  184. avatar
    Northland10 November 27, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Where did I ever say that “law of nations” only refers to Vattel? You are just making that up. The Founders knew quite well that Blackstone, among many others, also wrote on the law of nations.

    Then, if not for the term “Law of Nations,” where is your support/proof that the founders were using Vattel’s “definition” of Natural Born over the understood common law version as seen in Blackstone. Many of your supporters seem to think that it is due to the term “Law of Nations,” which I should mention, you included in your statement, “…write natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel out of our constitutional history.”

    I do not see the Doc writing “the law of nations” out of our history but understanding it as the relation between nations and on the high seas (offenses against the law of nations).

  185. avatar
    Majority Will November 27, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Northland10: Mr. Apuzzo, being an attorney, maybe you could explain to me where in the constitution or even any US Code that requires the submission of a birth hospital and delivery doctor?

    You would think an alleged attorney and an alleged contitutional expert wouldn’t invent such obvious lies with regards to eligibility standards.

    Do you think Mario, the brilliant jurist, can name any birth hospital for any President before Carter?

    Perhaps he fantasizes we’re as gullible and simple minded as his birther sheep.

  186. avatar
    gorefan November 27, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: The COLB which Obama has made public by posting it on the internet is a computer-generated certification that lists the child’s name, date of birth, time of birth, gender, place of birth and time, and the names of Obama’s parents

    Mario – isn’t this what the US State Department requires for a US Passport?

    “A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” US Passport Application Form DS11.

    No mention of doctor’s name or hospital name.

    “*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

  187. avatar
    Bovril November 27, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Still waiting Mario, surely that finally tuned legal mind is capable of refuting those wicked factual points I raised?

    So tell us one and all, other than you and a range of sorely deluded Birfoons, can you name any REAL Constitutional scholars or actual sitting judges who support your Vattel delusion?

  188. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:The COLB which Obama has made public by posting it on the internet is a computer-generated certification that lists the child’s name, date of birth, time of birth, gender, place of birth and time, and the names of Obama’s parents.The COLB does not included the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor.

    I was born in New York State in 1948. I have in front of the me the yellowed but still intact birth certificate which was issued to my parents one week after my birth. It is called a “Certificate of Birth Registration.” It contains the following information, and only the following information:

    1. My name
    2. My date of birth
    3. The city and state of my birth
    4. My father’s name and my mother’s maiden name
    5. The date it was filed.
    6. The signature of the local registrar.

    That’s it. No hospital name, no doctor’s name, no names of any witnesses. Yet this document was sufficient for me to do the following:

    1. Obtain a Social Security Number
    2. Obtain a driver’s license
    3. Enlist in the U.S. Navy (which gave me a Top Secret security clearance)
    4. Register to vote
    4. Obtain a U.S. passport

    Please explain how I was able to do all of those things, since in your opinion the document I have clearly is insufficient to prove my citizenship.

  189. avatar
    James M November 27, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Rickey:

    That’s it. No hospital name, no doctor’s name, no names of any witnesses.

    My original birth certificate indicates my father’s profession and place of business (but not my mother’s!), and it also indicates whether my mother had any previous children and how many. Those two pieces of information alone would stop me from disclosing this document publicly.

  190. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 27, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

  191. avatar
    Sean November 27, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: ?Where is the conspiracy in saying that in order show that he is eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he should produce that document for the public?You know darn well that there is no conspiracy in such question.Please do not tell me that Obama has already produced his “birth certificate” …

    Mr. Apuzzo, please answer the obvious question of where in the Constitution or anywhere else a Presidential Candidate is required to supply a birth certificate in the first place.

    Do you think this might be a question the Supreme Court might ask you? How much tolerance do you think they have for unpreparedness?

  192. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    Obama did not get a master’s degree, so he didn’t wrote a “master’s paper”. He simply wrote a substantial paper (not a thesis) for a class he took as a senior in college– what is commonly known asa “term paper”.It is likely that the paper was graded and returned to him —which is what typically happens with such papers — and Obama does not appear to have retained his, which also is fairly typical.(I mean, I wouldn’t have a clue how to go about digging up my old college papers, either.Did I save them? are they in a box somewhere shoved in the back of a closet or storage unit? or did they get discarded long ago?Who knows?

    I wrote a lengthy history paper as the culmination of an independent study program which I took in college. A decade ago I had lunch with my former history professor and he confirmed that neither he nor the college kept such papers.

    Oddly enough, a copy of my paper has ended up in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University. I gave the copy to one of the subjects of my research, and when she died it was donated to Yale along with the rest of her papers.

  193. avatar
    Sean November 27, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    gorefan: Mario – isn’t this what the US State Department requires for a US Passport?“A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” US Passport Application Form DS11.No mention of doctor’s name or hospital name.“*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    Two of my Hawaiian friends got US Passports using the same type document as Obama.

    That myth is busted Mr. Apuzzo.

  194. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    James M:
    My original birth certificate indicates my father’s profession and place of business (but not my mother’s!), and it also indicates whether my mother had any previous children and how many.

    And as I mentioned in an earlier note in this thread, in 2000 the Department of Health and Human Services determined that there are more than 14,000 different types of birth certificates in circulation in the U.S. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they are all over the place in terms of the information they include.

    It’s also worth noting that the proposed birther bills to require Presidential candidates to produce birth certificates won’t satisfy the Vattel crowd, because birth certificates typically do not say anything about the citizenship of the parents.

  195. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 27, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Sean:
    Two of my Hawaiian friends got US Passports using the same type document as Obama.That myth is busted Mr. Apuzzo.

    That’s absolutely right, Sean. All this stuff about a Hawaiian birth certificate, or any certified birth certificate from any US state for that matter, not being adequate to get a passport or anything else is just a fairy tale that they have dreamed up to try to give their claim an aura of legitimacy. Whatever any US state gives out is what they will accept; just because states have different information on them is irrelevant since it’s up to each individual state to decide what information they include on it.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Did you ever make a distinction in your attacks on the “birthers” that not everything they say is based on some conspiracy theory? The answer is a resounding “no.”

    Just as you failed to do diligence in verifying the complaint in Kerchner v. Obama (things like that fake travel ban to Pakistan), you failed to do diligence in making the claim quoted preceding. The editorial policy of this blog says:

    “Obama Conspiracy Theories” used in reference to the name of the web site refers to any negative claim about Barack Obama involving facts not widely accepted, or poorly documented. In articles the phrase “conspiracy theory” refers exactly to theories involving a conspiracy. For example, Leo Donofrio’s views on natural-born citizenship are not described as a conspiracy theory, but his claims that Chester A. Arthur tried to cover up his father’s naturalization status are. While the phrase “conspiracy theory” has a pejorative connotation, this web site, except for its title, strives to make value judgments only as to the evidence available to support theory, not to dismiss theories by attaching labels.

    On January 13, 2010, I wrote:

    This site has never called denialist views of the definition of “natural born citizen” a conspiracy theory; they are not. They are crank legal views; they rely on misinformation and misrepresentations; they are not belief in a conspiracy theory EXCEPT when folks start calling judges traitors and claiming a government cover-up and congressional complicity because of fear. That’s full-blown conspiracy thinking.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/natural-born-citizen-at-law/#comment-31870

    And I might remind you that I demonstrated that the Kerchner complaint had significant content that relied on conspiracy theories.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-27116

    By the way, Mr. Apuzzo and I had this discussion almost two years ago.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/kokopelli/#comment-4269
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/kokopelli/#comment-4271

  197. avatar
    Keith November 27, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    James M: I’m “concealing” my records from the University of Texas and University of Arizona, except for the framed diplomas on my wall.

    Bear Down!

    (Forget the ‘horns’)

  198. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Obama did not get a master’s degree, so he didn’t wrote a “master’s paper”. He simply wrote a substantial paper (not a thesis) for a class he took as a senior in college– what is commonly known as a “term paper”.

    Thanks for the correction.

  199. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 27, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    By the way, Mr. Apuzzo and I had this discussion almost two years ago.http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/kokopelli/#comment-4269
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/kokopelli/#comment-4271

    I think a lot of us have had that deja vu feeling many times over the past two years.

  200. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Also, please tell me where is the conspiracy in stating that Obama has yet to produce to any source his 1961 long-form, contemporaneous birth certificate which we know is an undisputed fact? Where is the conspiracy in saying that in order show that he is eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he should produce that document for the public? You know darn well that there is no conspiracy in such question.

    See the following for my list of conspiracy theories in Kerchner v Obama.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-27116

  201. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While I hold out little hope of teaching Realist critical thinking skills, I hope at least that he will come out of this knowing that the contraction for “you are” is spelled “you’re” not “your.” (I wouldn’t mention this, but he’s misspelled it multiple times.) I will leave “dont” for another time.

    He also commits one of my pet peeves when he says “I could care less,” which is a meaningless phrase.

    “I couldn’t care less,” on the other hand, is a properly dismissive phrase.

  202. avatar
    Keith November 27, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: What I suggest that you do is create a new blog with a new name, also give yourself a new name, and engage in real scholarship on the legitimate and important question of whether Obama, born a British citizen to a British citizen father, is an Article II “natural born Citizen” as intended by the Founders and Framers.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  203. avatar
    Sean November 27, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    Rickey:
    He also commits one of my pet peeves when he says “I could care less,” which is a meaningless phrase.
    “I couldn’t care less,” on the other hand, is a properly dismissive phrase.

    Ricky, Thank you!

    It always irked me when someone said “I could care less.” This is the first time I’ve heard anyone make the correction.

  204. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    On the travel ban, I have yet to see a copy of Obama’s passport which he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981. The passport that he used is the real issue, not whether there was or was not a travel “ban” or travel “advisory” or some type of travel restriction there which we know there was.Why do you persist in parsing words that neither define nor constitute the issue?

    You are being disingenuous again.

    A “travel advisory” is not a “travel restriction” and it is not a “travel ban.” The travel advisory about Pakistan which the State Department issued in 1981 merely spelled out Pakistan’s visa requirements and how long American tourists could remain in that country.

    The only “restriction” on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981 was that the traveler needed a plane ticket and a passport.

    We all know that the only reason anyone questioned the passport which Obama used when he visited Pakistan in 1981 is because Phil Berg made the specious claim that there was a ban on Americans traveling there (in Berg’s words, “Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. Citizens.”). You bought into that lie – hook, line, and sinker – and you have yet to acknowledge that no such ban existed.

    There was no ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981, so there was no need for Obama to use anything other than his U.S. passport.

  205. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Northland10:

    Your attempt to limit the law of nations to just some matters which do not include citizenship has no support in our history and jurisprudence. Just as two examples and there are many, in the prize case, The Venus (1814), Chief Justice Marshall (dissenting for other reasons and concurring) relied upon the law of nations and Vattel Section 212 to define national citizenship in the United States (a necessary issue to be resolved in any prize case) and Minor v. Happersett (1874) in which Chief Justice Waite relied on the law of nations taken verbatim from Vattel Section 212 which he called our “common law” to define a “natural born citizen.”

    Moreover, Blackstone, on whom so many on this blog rely, told us in his Commentaries Book 4, Chapter 5 that the law of nations is a “univeral law” which “is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.” He added that “the law of nations has much scope and extent, as adopted by the law of England. . .” He then explained that he was only going to comment on “a narrow compass” of the law of nations which is where you are led astray and assume that the law of nations only pertains to a few subjects (e.g. crimes on the high seas, piracies, and related matters) which of course you conveniently tell us do not included citizenship. Similarly, that Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 mentions “Offences against the Law of Nations” does not mean that the Framers meant to limit the adoption and application of the law of nations in the United States to just a couple of areas which again you tells us do not include citizenship.

  206. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    Majority Will: birth hospital

    Your fallacious argument is astounding. I hope you would not make such absurd arguments in any legal documents presented to a court.

  207. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: bovril, Your name fits you well. It sounds like drivel.

    Arthur: Most involve turning your last name into the Yiddish equivalent for male genitalia.

    You mean like “Mario Aputzzo.”

  208. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I hope you would not make such absurd arguments in any legal documents presented to a court.

    Like the theatre of the absurd arguments you constantly make here?

  209. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    .”He then explained that he was only going to comment on “a narrow compass” of the law of nations which is where you are led astray and assume that the law of nations only pertains to a few subjects (e.g. crimes on the high seas, piracies, and related matters) which of course you conveniently tell us do not included citizenship.Similarly, that Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 mentions “Offences against the Law of Nations” does not mean that the Framers meant to limit the adoption and application of the law of nations in the United States to just a couple of areas which again you tells us do not include citizenship.

    What about the parts that seem to advocate socialism and rape?

    I can’t hear you. What was that?

  210. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    gorefan,

    “Mario – isn’t this what the US State Department requires for a US Passport?

    “A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” US Passport Application Form DS11.

    No mention of doctor’s name or hospital name.

    “*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”

    The issue is whether Obama has presented a copy of his “birth certificate.” Under Hawaii Revised Statues 338-13 he has not because he presented a copy of a documents which does not contain “the contents” of this long-form birth certificate. Again, from the statute itself, we can clearly see that “the contents” does not mean “any part thereof.” Presenting the information that he did but leaving out the birth hospital and delivery doctor which are also part of the long-form birth certificate can only mean that he presented only a part of his original long-form birth certificate and not “the content” of that document. You are evading the issue. Address 338-13 rather then telling me about what some other general statute or rule might say or what is accepted who knows where.

  211. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Your fallacious argument is astounding.

    Hey Mario: check this out:

    http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirl.blogspot.com/

  212. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    Mario;

    Do you think the SCOTUS justices will be impressed with how deftly you cherry pick the law?

    Do you think they will be impressed with how you make up your own requirements for what is acceptable identification for establishing a Presidential canditates eligibility?

    Have you yet scheduled your address in the house of Congress to educate them as to how wrong they all were, after your big win on monday at SCOTUS?

  213. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 12:39 am #

    Sean: Mr. Apuzzo, please answer the obvious question of where in the Constitution or anywhere else a Presidential Candidate is required to supply a birth certificate in the first place.Do you think this might be a question the Supreme Court might ask you? How much tolerance do you think they have for unpreparedness?

    The last time I looked the Constitution said that one had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?

  214. avatar
    James M November 28, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Daniel: Have you yet scheduled your address in the house of Congress to educate them as to how wrong they all were, after your big win on monday at SCOTUS?

    Is there anything at all left for the birther movement after Monday? There’s still Lakin’s trial, but what else? I mean, assuming the Kerchner case doesn’t fly.

  215. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    The last time I looked the Constitution said that one had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President.Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?

    Mr. Appuzo,

    I think that the Supreme Court is likely to have an interpretation of the term ‘natural born citizen’ that is similar to that of the Ankeny court and would find a certified copy of the COLB sufficient to establish President Obama’s natural born status. I noticed that you ducked the question of what information on a long form was needed to determine natural born status – I wonder how the Supreme Court feels about fishing expeditions…

  216. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Kerchner conspiracy theories

    You try to come off as having shown that the Kerchner action has conspiracy theories in it. Why do you not telling me where the conspiracy theories are in the complaint, my briefs to the courts, and in my Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Please do not go off on some unrelated tangent which is how you people here address my arguments and which only produces an unresponsive answer.

  217. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    James M: I mean, assuming the Kerchner case doesn’t fly.

    That reminds me of an old WKRP in Cincinnati episode – “God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly…”

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/322/wkrp-in-cincinnati-turkeys-away

  218. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    The last time I looked the Constitution said that one had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President.Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?

    And of coarse you ignore the obvious question presented to you (big surprise). And, no I don’t think the Supreme Court would be stupid. That’s why I predict they won’t be too kind to someone presenting nonsense like your bucket of rhetoric.

    After they hand your butt to you, you can retreat to the Birther Bunker and tell us how the Supreme Court judges are all traitors.

  219. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Please do not go off on some unrelated tangent which is how you people here address my arguments and which only produces an unresponsive answer.

    Mario: you are a schmuck. That’s the bottom line.

  220. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: gorefan,
    “Mario – isn’t this what the US State Department requires for a US Passport?“A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” US Passport Application Form DS11.No mention of doctor’s name or hospital name.“*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”The issue is whether Obama has presented a copy of his “birth certificate.”Under Hawaii Revised Statues 338-13 he has not because he presented a copy of a documents which does not contain “the contents” of this long-form birth certificate. Again, from the statute itself, we can clearly see that “the contents” does not mean “any part thereof.”Presenting the information that he did but leaving out the birth hospital and delivery doctor which are also part of the long-form birth certificate can only mean that he presented only a part of his original long-form birth certificate and not “the content” of that document.You are evading the issue.Address 338-13 rather then telling me about what some other general statute or rule might say or what is accepted who knows where.

    Actually, 338-13 does not say an EXACT copy. Hawaii stopped giving out that kind of thing in 2001, which anyone can confirm by going to the Hawaiian Homelands website run by the state.

    “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

  221. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 12:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You try to come off as having shown that the Kerchner action has conspiracy theories in it.Why do you not telling me where the conspiracy theories are in the complaint, my briefs to the courts, and in my Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Please do not go off on some unrelated tangent which is how you people here address my arguments and which only produces an unresponsive answer.

    Tell you what Mario. I’ll make you a real sweet deal.

    If you agree to come back here after the ruling on your writ comes down, and publically agree to stop pursuing the matter altogether if the ruling doesn’t go your way, and we’ll agree to answer any reasonable question you may have.

    Sounds like a reasonable offer, no?

  222. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: following

    Your really make a stretch to justify your finding conspiracy theories in the Kerchner action. You label anything a conspiracy that questions any kind of government authority. You label anything conspiracy if it challenges the truth of what others might blindly accept as true. I also have some good Florida swamp land that I can sell you, Dr. Conspiracy. Are you interested or is that also a conspiracy theory?

  223. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Your fallacious argument is astounding.I hope you would not make such absurd arguments in any legal documents presented to a court.

    Another irony meter explodes.
    Mario dodges again every time he’s caught lying.

    Where in the constitution is hospital and doctor’s name demanded, Mario?

    Why do you censor all dissent on your cesspool of a blog?

    Afraid of the truth? Or is your bigotry that fragile?

    “Presenting that he did . . .”

    Are you unable to distinguish between the president and the DOH of the state of Hawaii?

    It’s a rhetorical question. Should we explain what that means along with the meaning of confirmation bias? Apparently there are large areas of knowledge where you are completely clueless.Luckily, your self-righteous demands and hate driven bigotry is irrelevant.

    Come on back with the only rebuttals in which you truly excel.

    Ad hominem attacks. Like on caaflog.com.

  224. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    The last time I looked the Constitution said that one had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President.Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?

    Well you seem to think that the entire Democratic Party, the entire Republican Party, the entire House of Representatives, every credentialed constitutional expert in the country, and every court justice you’ve been in front of thius far, are so stupid….

    Is there no one alive smarter than you, Mario?

  225. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    Keith:

    I am sorry to report but your cliche has no application here, for there is a great difference between Dr. Conspiracy and me.

  226. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I hope you would not make such absurd arguments in any legal documents presented to a court.

    No sir, I would not…

    That’s YOUR job.

  227. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I am sorry to report but your cliche has no application here, for there is a great difference between Dr. Conspiracy and me.

    Indeed there is. Doc knows what he’s talking about

  228. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Your really make a stretch to justify your finding conspiracy theories in the Kerchner action.You label anything a conspiracy that questions any kind of government authority.You label anything conspiracy if it challenges the truth of what others might blindly accept as true.I also have some good Florida swamp land that I can sell you, Dr. Conspiracy.Are you interested or is that also a conspiracy theory?

    But he doesn’t blindly censor people like you do as if you’re Mussolini of your little birther fantasy world.

  229. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    Rickey: travel “ban”

    No one bought into anything. You are still missing the point. The question of anyone being able to travel to Pakistan goes to what passport they are using which goes to what citizenship they possess. You need a passport to travel. The passport shows what your citizenship is. It is really simple to understand but you and others here, like Dr. Conspiracy, simply cannot grasp it.

  230. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    “Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?”

    Which is exactly why SCOTUS will give bigoted birther stupidity the ignoring it deserves.

  231. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    Sean: socialism and rape

    Please try to make a little sense in responding to what I write.

  232. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 1:19 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: there is a great difference between Dr. Conspiracy and me.

    Yes – Doc is a deep intellect, and you are a shallow, ambulance chasing, pathological liar.

  233. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Please try to make a little sense in responding to what I write.

    Practice what you spew. The courts might appreciate it too.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

    Tomorrow is just another insignificant birther loss in a string of inane, irrelevant, futile wastes of taxpayer money.

  234. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    I want to hear about the “grandmother” interview. Here is what the tape says:

    5:17 McCray: Was he born in Mombasa?

    5:48 Translator: No. He was born in America.

    5:51 McCray: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

    5:57 Translator: He was born in America

    6:03 McCray: Do you know whereabouts he was born?

    6:06 McCray: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

    6:23 Translator: Hawaii

    6:26 Translator: She said he was born in Hawaii

    6:30 McCray: Okay.

    6:35 Translator: Where his father was living/learning there. In Hawaii

    6:40 McCray: Okay

    6:50 McCray: Was Mrs. Obama present?

    7:09 McCray: I thought she said she was present when he was born.

    7:14 Translator: No. No. He was born in America.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/8167169.wma

    McCray initially asked two questions at the same time – he asked President Obama’s grandmother if he could ask her some questions about her son and if she was present at his birth. The answer was yes, but it is unclear as to what question his grandmother was answering, the first one or the second one. We do not know what transpired between the translator and the grandmother, and it’s entirely possible that she was answering the first when he thought she was answering the second.

    Be that as it may, his grandmother repeatedly says after those two questions that he was born in America/Hawaii, and when she was asked to clarify her initial statement, she repeatedly says that he was born in America/Hawaii.

    Now if you are going to present this tape as evidence to a judge, do you really think that he or she is not going to listen to the WHOLE tape? If he or she does, he or she is going to hear the clarification of the initial statement and her repeated statements that he was born in America/Hawaii. In all honesty, do you really believe that you can just submit a snippet of this interview that you want a judge to hear and leave out the parts that go against your claim?

    How can anyone take you seriously if you are leaving out information contained on the tape that proves your assessment of what was said in this interview is wrong?

  235. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    Slartibartfast: fishing expedition

    At a minimum, a born 14th Amendment citizen must be born in the U.S. territory. The birth certificate at a minimum would establish if Obama is a born 14th Amendment citizen. If he is a born citizen under the 14th Amendment, then we move forward and examine if he is also an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Consider that if Obama is not a born 14th Amendment citizen, then he cannot be a born citizen under any Congressional act, for his U.S. citizen mother was too young to pass citizenship to him if he was born abroad.

  236. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 1:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: You need a passport to travel. The passport shows what your citizenship is. It is really simple to understand but you and others here, like Dr. Conspiracy, simply cannot grasp it.

    You dance divinely Mario, but unfortunately for you, your weaselling doesn’t fool anyone here.

    The reason you gave for wanting to see the passport, was because you claim that Obama’s ability to travel to Pakistan during a travel ban meant that his passport wasn’t a US one. We’ve all seen that arguement that YOU made.

    And there’s an easier way to show what his citizenship is. Just look at his COLB, issued by the State of Hawaii, and legal for ALL federal and state purposes. As citizenship goes, his passport is not relevant, if he’s already provided his COLB. What he may or may not have travelled on as a child, to a destination YOU have consistently lied about by claiming a non-existent travel ban, is simply not relevant.

    There is a person here who seemingly has an extraordinary inability to grasp simple concepts Mario, but it ain’t Doc, and it ain’t us.

    WE’ll all be better off when you stop wasting courts time with ridiculous and frivolous challenges about a complete non-issue.

    Your side lost the election to a black man. Wahhh Wahhh Wah. Get over it..

  237. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Consider that if Obama is not a born 14th Amendment citizen, then he cannot be a born citizen under any Congressional act, for his U.S.

    And if he wasn’t born a 14th Amendment citizen, he wouldn’t have a COLB from the state of Hawaii.

    Oh look, he has one.

    End of story for any reasonable and intellignet person.

  238. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: EXACT copy

    I did not say an “EXACT copy” is needed. What I did say is that under Hawaiian Revised Statute 338-13 a certified copy of the original birth certificate, in order to serve in the place of the original, needs to contain “the content” not a “part thereof” of the original. This is what the statute says. Why do you not address the statute?

  239. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Please try to make a little sense in responding to what I write.

    Sure Mario!

    The Law of Nations

    Book II, § 81 advocates socialism

    Book II, § 122 advocates rape

    Look it up.

  240. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I did not say an “EXACT copy” is needed. What I did say is that under Hawaiian Revised Statute 338-13 a certified copy of the original birth certificate, in order to serve in the place of the original, needs to contain “the content” not a “part thereof” of the original. This is what the statute says.Why do you not address the statute?

    It says “Copies of the contents…” It doesn’t say “original contents”, nor does it say “all the contents” or what specific contents it’s referring to. Moreover, it doesn’t say “a certified copy of the original birth certificate.”

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

  241. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    Then you can pair the 338-13 to what Hawaii says on their website, and it’s clear that what he released is just as good as the original

    “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

  242. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 1:44 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I did not say an “EXACT copy” is needed. What I did say is that under Hawaiian Revised Statute 338-13 a certified copy of the original birth certificate, in order to serve in the place of the original, needs to contain “the content” not a “part thereof” of the original. This is what the statute says.Why do you not address the statute?

    So all this time the Hawaii department of health has been doing it wrong. sending out millions of copies of COLBs which are completely and utterly devoid of any legal merit for establisshing place of birth! All those millions of dollars wasted! All those millions of people stuck with invalid ID! Oh the Humanity!!!

    Why, oh why didn’t the Hawaii Department of Health consult with you before embarking on such a fool’s errand. What arrogance for them to think they knew Hawaiian law better than the Great Apputzo!!

  243. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 1:44 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    At a minimum, a born 14th Amendment citizen must be born in the U.S. territory.The birth certificate at a minimum would establish if Obama is a born 14th Amendment citizen.If he is a born citizen under the 14th Amendment, then we move forward and examine if he is also an Article II “natural born Citizen.”Consider that if Obama is not a born 14th Amendment citizen, then he cannot be a born citizen under any Congressional act, for his U.S. citizen mother was too young to pass citizenship to him if he was born abroad.

    But alas…he was born in Hawaii.

    (gavel falls)

  244. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: grandmother interview and snippet

    You mention “snippet.” Why did you not present the first part of the interview when the grandmother said she was present when Obama was born? Also, I do not need the grandmother’s interview. The long-form birth certificate will do.

    This whole Obama place of birth issue is like like arguing about who some child’s father is. Let’s not hide behind how the accuser made the whole thing up just to get money, how much of a gentleman the alleged father was, or that he would never get an unwed woman pregnant, or that he already had a girl he loved, or how much of a religious and upstanding family he came from, and so on and so forth. Just give me the DNA test and we will be done with it.

  245. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You mention “snippet.”Why did you not present the first part of the interview when the grandmother said she was present when Obama was born?Also, I do not need the grandmother’s interview.The long-form birth certificate will do.This whole Obama place of birth issue is like like arguing about who some child’s father is.Let’s not hide behind how the accuser made the whole thing up just to get money, how much of a gentleman the alleged father was, or that he would never get an unwed woman pregnant, or that he already had a girl he loved, or how much of a religious and upstanding family he came from, and so on and so forth.Just give me the DNA test and we will be done with it.

    Actually, i did present that part. Read it again.

    McCray initially asked two questions at the same time – he asked President Obama’s grandmother if he could ask her some questions about her son and if she was present at his birth. The answer was yes, but it is unclear as to what question his grandmother was answering, the first one or the second one. We do not know what transpired between the translator and the grandmother, and it’s entirely possible that she was answering the first when he thought she was answering the second.

    Be that as it may, his grandmother repeatedly says after those two questions that he was born in America/Hawaii, and when she was asked to clarify her initial statement, she repeatedly says that he was born in America/Hawaii.

    If you don’t need it, why did you include it? When one listens to the whole interview, it damages your credibility because there was an obvious mixup in the initial stages of the interview that was later corrected later when his grandmother was asked about it, and you exploit that mixup while diminishing the importance of the clarification and what she consistently said about President Obama being born in America/Hawaii.

  246. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    The last time I looked the Constitution said that one had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President.Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?

    And Mario if I were to use the same illogic you birthers use. I would say the way the constitution is worded nowhere does it say you have to be a natural born citizen of the united states but rather it says A natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of the constitution. The way the sentence is punctuated it makes those two conditions an either/or condition. So do you have anything worth discussing?

  247. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    Daniel: You dance divinely Mario, but unfortunately for you, your weaselling doesn’t fool anyone here.The reason you gave for wanting to see the passport, was because you claim that Obama’s ability to travel to Pakistan during a travel ban meant that his passport wasn’t a US one. We’ve all seen that arguement that YOU made.And there’s an easier way to show what his citizenship is. Just look at his COLB, issued by the State of Hawaii, and legal for ALL federal and state purposes. As citizenship goes, his passport is not relevant, if he’s already provided his COLB. What he may or may not have travelled on as a child, to a destination YOU have consistently lied about by claiming a non-existent travel ban, is simply not relevant.There is a person here who seemingly has an extraordinary inability to grasp simple concepts Mario, but it ain’t Doc, and it ain’t us.WE’ll all be better off when you stop wasting courts time with ridiculous and frivolous challenges about a complete non-issue.Your side lost the election to a black man. Wahhh Wahhh Wah. Get over it..

    The way you restate what I supposedly argued concedes the issue as I have stated it. The passport is needed to travel and is sought only to see what Obama’s citizenship was at the time. The passport would be sought in light of Obama refusing to release his birth certificate.

    Also, do us all a favor and keep race out of this matter. Your demagoguery only serves to hurt race relations, not help them.

  248. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 1:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You mention “snippet.”Why did you not present the first part of the interview when the grandmother said she was present when Obama was born?Also, I do not need the grandmother’s interview.The long-form birth certificate will do.This whole Obama place of birth issue is like like arguing about who some child’s father is.Let’s not hide behind how the accuser made the whole thing up just to get money, how much of a gentleman the alleged father was, or that he would never get an unwed woman pregnant, or that he already had a girl he loved, or how much of a religious and upstanding family he came from, and so on and so forth.Just give me the DNA test and we will be done with it.

    Why do you skip over the clarification? It’s obvious McRae was messing things up with his constant confusion by asking her about her son repeatedly instead of her grandson.

  249. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    Sean: socialism and rape

    So what.

  250. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 2:05 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    The way you restate what I supposedly argued concedes the issue as I have stated it.The passport is needed to travel and is sought only to see what Obama’s citizenship was at the time.The passport would be sought in light of Obama refusing to release his birth certificate.Also, do us all a favor and keep race out of this matter.Your demagogueryonly serves to hurt race relations, not help them.

    Obama released his birth certificate. You just don’t like the one he released.

  251. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:07 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:

    I never said “original contents.” Using the word “original” is the way your crew tries to confuse the public on this. What I did say is “the content” which is what the statute says. The same statute also distiguishes when referring to the content of the document to “part thereof.” So do not try to play word games. I repeat, address the statute and stop playing your little games.

  252. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    So what.

    You’re the one banging the “importance of The Law of Nations” drum.

  253. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: website

    What controls is the Hawaiian statute, not what some web site says.

  254. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    It doesn’t say what contents. You are adding your words to the statute to make it say what you want. The statute does not say that it has to have ALL the contents of the original; you are adding that.

  255. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    Daniel: So all this time the Hawaii department of health has been doing it wrong. sending out millions of copies of COLBs which are completely and utterly devoid of any legal merit for establisshing place of birth! All those millions of dollars wasted! All those millions of people stuck with invalid ID! Oh the Humanity!!!Why, oh why didn’t the Hawaii Department of Health consult with you before embarking on such a fool’s errand. What arrogance for them to think they knew Hawaiian law better than the Great Apputzo!!

    God is supposed to be your judge and I would think you would be more wise. Something is not an issue until it becomes an issue.

  256. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    It’s a policy statement on the Hawaiian website, not a law. By statute, the certified birth certificate is as good as the original, and it has been their policy since 2001 to discontinue what you call a “long form.”

  257. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    At a minimum, a born 14th Amendment citizen must be born in the U.S. territory.The birth certificate at a minimum would establish if Obama is a born 14th Amendment citizen.If he is a born citizen under the 14th Amendment, then we move forward and examine if he is also an Article II “natural born Citizen.”Consider that if Obama is not a born 14th Amendment citizen, then he cannot be a born citizen under any Congressional act, for his U.S. citizen mother was too young to pass citizenship to him if he was born abroad.

    I don’t believe that this is of any significance (as I believe that the COLB published on the web is an accurate copy of the information on record with the Hawaii DOH), but the theory has been advanced on this blog that Dr. Dunham would have been, in fact, able to pass on citizenship to her son even if born abroad, as her marriage to Barak Obama Sr. was invalid due to his previous marriage.

    Returning to your comment, since you’ve admitted that the only information relevant to citizenship is contained on the COLB, what evidence do you have that would impeach the veracity of a certified copy of said document? Do you really believe any competent court would allow for discovery of more than the COLB before moving on to your theories about Vattel? (Which I don’t believe will fare well if examined by any court of law – just my opinion – what do you think are the odds that I’m right? ;-)) By what right and for what purpose do you need any record whatsoever besides a certified copy of the COLB?

  258. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:

    I am interested in the transcript of the tape, not your self-serving editorial comments about what the grandmother meant.

    Why do you not publish the exact questions and answers contained in the first part of the tape like you did for the part that serves your purpose?

  259. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 2:23 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I am interested in the transcript of the tape, not your self-serving editorial comments about what the grandmother meant.Why do you not publish the exact questions and answers contained in the first part of the tape like you did for the part that serves your purpose?

    Those are direct quotes from the tape I posted a link to; you can listen to it for yourself. They are not editorial comments. I acknowledged that there was one brief moment where there was a mixup with the initial questioning that was later corrected by his grandmother numerous times, and they are direct quotes, not “editorial comments.”

  260. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 28, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: The question of anyone being able to travel to Pakistan goes to what passport they are using which goes to what citizenship they possess. You need a passport to travel. The passport shows what your citizenship is. It is really simple to understand but you and others here, like Dr. Conspiracy, simply cannot grasp it.

    Obama had a US passport when he was10, and he has a US passport now. He is a US Citizen. Travel to Pakistan by US Citizens has always been legal.

    Ergo, we can presume that Obama traveled to Pakistan on his US passport. There is no evidence of him ever having any other type of passport, nor no reason in logic to think that he would have had one… all of your smokescreens notwithstanding.

  261. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): anything worth

    Normally, any standard that is grandfathered is less demanding than one that follows in time. We know from reading the eligibility clause that “Citizen of the United States” was grandfathered and that “natural born Citizen” was the prospective standard. Hence, the latter would necessarily be more difficult to meet than the former. In light of this simple logic, a “natural born Citizen” would have to pertain to the United States and no other place.

  262. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Normally, any standard that is grandfathered is less demanding than one that follows in time. We know from reading the eligibility clause that “Citizen of the United States” was grandfathered and that “natural born Citizen” was the prospective standard.Hence, the latter would necessarily be more difficult to meet than the former.In light of this simple logic, a “natural born Citizen” would have to pertain to the United States and no other place.

    Congratulations Mario!

    That’s the first completely reasonable and logic comment you’ve made here!

  263. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 2:30 am #

    Slartibartfast: Congratulations Mario!

    That’s the first completely reasonable and logicAL comment you’ve made here!

    My bad.

  264. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: It doesn’t say what contents. You are adding your words to the statute to make it say what you want. The statute does not say that it has to have ALL the contents of the original; you are adding that.

    Then how do you reconcile the statute’s distinguishing “the content” from “part thereof?”
    Clearly if it is not “part thereof,” it must be “content thereof.” There is not other choice. And not to be “part thereof,” it must be the entire content.

  265. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Also, do us all a favor and keep race out of this matter. Your demagoguery only serves to hurt race relations, not help them.

    Have you demanded as much from any other past POTUS as for this one? No?

    Has any other POTUS before this one been required by you to present his “long form” BC? No?

    Have you taken any other past POTUS to court for not releasing every single nuance of his private life and for not accounting for every single moment of his life and his parentls lives before this one? No?

    So what’s different about this POTUS, to make him worthy of your extra special attention that you ignored for every other POTUS?

    Well the only difference is the color of his skin…

    It’s a reasonable assumption to make, dear Mario. If you have a different reason for demanding of this POTUS what you have consistently FAILED to demand of any other… please do fill us in.

  266. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:41 am #

    Slartibartfast: significance

    The marriage of Obama’s parents has been publicly established, relied upon by not oly Obama but many people and institution, and a matter of judicial record established in the divorce of that very marriage. It is therefore res judicata and subject to collateral estoppel as a matter of public policy. And do you really think that Obama would argue that the marriage was not valid after accepting it in his books and other places? Would he dishonor the memory of his parents for the sake of saving his own place in history?

    I never said the COLB is sufficient. I clearly said that it is not. Rather, I said that the long-form birth certificate should be sufficient to prove where Obama was born which only goes to making him a born 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” and not necessarily an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  267. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: God is supposed to be your judge and I would think you would be more wise. Something is not an issue until it becomes an issue.

    The Hebrew meaning of my name has nothing to do with the issue, and if I were you I wouldn’t want to bet on which side of this stupidity God would be on.

    I am infinitel,y more wise than you, for many reasons, not least of which that having failed miserably in all the court challenges to date, and having the weight of expert opinion and legal precedent against me, if it were me, I’d consider the possibility that I might be wrong.

    Something is not an issue until it becomes an issue, if it ever does become an issue. Some things never become issues, no matter how hard some people may wish they are.

    Whether or not the Earth is flat, is not an issue, no matter how many flat earthers drip and moan about it.

    Whether or not the moon landings ever happened, is not an issue, no matter how many moon hoaxers drip and moan about it.

    Whether or not the Holocaust ever happened, is not an issue, no matter how many holocaust deniers drip and moan about it.

    Whether or not is entitled to hold the office of POTUS, is not an issue, no matter how many birthers drip and moan about it.

    Are you getting the picture at all here, Mario?

  268. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I never said the COLB is sufficient. I clearly said that it is not.

    In your opinion.

    Too bad nobody with any expertise or authority agrees with your purile opinion on the matter.

  269. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    Expelliarmus:

    When it comes to knowing who the President and Commander in Chief is, we cannot “presume” anything.

    I guess they also “presumed” that that Taliban leader was who he said he was.

  270. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    No one bought into anything.You are still missing the point.The question of anyone being able to travel to Pakistan goes to what passport they are using which goes to what citizenship they possess.You need a passport to travel.The passport shows what your citizenship is.It is really simple to understand but you and others here, like Dr. Conspiracy, simply cannot grasp it.

    No, your problem is that we grasp it all too well.

    You claimed in your Complaint that there was a ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. You obviously never bothered to try to verify that. But in fact there was no such ban, and you still to refuse to admit it. You never amended your Complaint to correct that misstatement of fact. Once your misstatement was exposed, your “ban” became a “de facto ban” and now has now become “restrictions,” but there were no “restrictions” in place in 1981 which are in any material way different from the restrictions which exist today.

    And if the so-called “ban” has nothing to do with it, why the focus on Obama’s 1981 passport? Did your Complaint bring up anything about his 1988 passport, when Obama visited Kenya for the first time? Wouldn’t that have been just as useful to you as the 1981 passport?

    Of course this is all quickly becoming academic, because on Monday morning you will receive confirmation that your cert petition has been denied. And you know what? You are never going to see Obama’s passport records, unless you manage to outlive him.

  271. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Then how do you reconcile the statute’s distinguishing “the content” from “part thereof?”
    Clearly if it is not “part thereof,” it must be “content thereof.”There is not other choice.And not to be “part thereof,” it must be the entire content.

    Hence the reason that Mario is morally bound to inform the Hawaii Department of Health that every COLB they have issued must be iommediately recalled. I’m sure they’ll be eternally grateful to him for correcting their most grevious of errors.

  272. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 2:50 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    When it comes to knowing who the President and Commander in Chief is, we cannot “presume” anything.
    I guess they also “presumed” that that Taliban leader was who he said he was.

    Now the truth comes out. You’re comparing President Obama to a Taliban leader?

    Stay classy, Mario!

  273. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 2:50 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    When it comes to knowing who the President and Commander in Chief is, we cannot “presume” anything.
    I guess they also “presumed” that that Taliban leader was who he said he was.

    Good point, since we know that the “taliban leader” you are referring to was also certified by both the Democratic and Republican parties, and Congress.

    Now if only we had some sort of document, issued by the State of Hawaii, that was legal for ALL federal and state requirements to establish place of birth…. something like a COLB…. if only we could get Obama to show us that…. maybe display it at his campaign HQ, and post it to the internet for all to see…. if only we had something like that…..

  274. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    Daniel:

    I guess you want to persist in your demagoguery. Well, I cannot stop you but see how far it gets you.

  275. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:55 am #

    Daniel:

    I see that you are so full of yourself that you think you are some special person. Well, you can think all the special things you want. It does not show that you have made one sound argument here.

  276. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    Sean:

    You’re not only stupid, but you are also a liar.

  277. avatar
    Nbc November 28, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You’re not only stupid, but you are also a liar.

    How cute. After having been pwned by CAAFlog, Mario returns to OC.

    Hilarious…

    What a sad sight really.

  278. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 3:02 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You’re not only stupid, but you are also a liar.

    We’ll see who the stupid liar on Monday.

    Anyone taking odds?

  279. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 3:07 am #

    Daniel: Good point, since we know that the “taliban leader” you are referring to was also certified by both the Democratic and Republican parties, and Congress.Now if only we had some sort of document, issued by the State of Hawaii, that was legal for ALL federal and state requirements to establish place of birth…. something like a COLB…. if only we could get Obama to show us that…. maybe display it at his campaign HQ, and post it to the internet for all to see…. if only we had something like that…..

    I do not understand why you need to tell us that it was both the Democrats and Republicans involved in the fiasco with the Taliban leader. We also know that it was both the Democrats and Republicans involved with, despite the numerous law suits and public petitions to check out his birth certificate, certifying Obama for the most powerful position on earth without one Senator or Representative ever seeing a paper version of anything purporting to be his birth certificate let alone a real birth certificate. So what’s your point?

  280. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 3:11 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I guess you want to persist in your demagoguery.Well, I cannot stop you but see how far it gets you.

    Well I will persist in buying and installing new Irony meters, since you seem to insist on driving them beyonf thier design limits.

    Or perhaps you simply do not know what the word “demagoguery” means since I amd clearly not the one in this conversation who is appealing to prejudice, emotions, or fears to pursue a fool’s errand through a miasma of failed legal challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, where it will obviously fail yet again.

    Of course i we’re going to see how far “it” will get me, It seesm to have got me on to the side which agrees with all the consitutional experts, and which has consistently won every court challenge that birthers have thrown at it.

    I’d say that pretty much gets me to the checkered flag, with you in last place, eating dust. Your consistent failure in every avenue seems to pretty much say it all.

    But you never did say whether you’ve got the guts to accept my previous offer….

  281. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 3:13 am #

    This is exactly what they say on the tape. And if you have anything other than this, I want to hear it.

    4:21 – McCray: Uhh, could I ask her, uhh, could I ask her about his, uhh, his..his…his actual birthplace. I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Umm, was she…

    4:36: Translator to Mrs. Obama (inaudble)

    4:37: Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

    4:42 Translator: (inaudible) IN ENGLISH – He wants to know something was that you would say….was she present when ah he was born.

    4:53: Translator: (inaudible)

    4:57 Translator: Yes, she said yes she was. She was present when Obama was born.

    5:02 McCray: Umm, When I come in December, I would like to go by the place, the hospital, where he was born.

    5:12 McCray: Umm, could you tell me where he was born?

    5:16 McCray: Was he born in Mombasa?

    5:48 Translator: No. He was born in America.

    5:51 McCray: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

    5:57 Translator: He was born in America not in Mombasa

    6:03 McCray: Okay. Do you know whereabouts he was born?

    6:04 Translator: Hello?

    6:06 McCray: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

    6:14 Translator: (inaudible)

    6:23 Translator: Hawaii

    6:26 Translator: She said he was born in Hawaii

    6:30 McCray: Okay.

    6:35 Translator: Where his father was living/learning there. In Hawaii

    6:40 McCray: Okay

    6:49 McCray: Was Mrs. Obama… was she present…Was Mrs. Obama present…was Mrs. Obama…I thought she said she was present…was she…was she able to see him being born in Hawaii?

    7:00 Translator: Hello? (inaudible)

    7:06 McCray: Okay, I’m sorry.

    7:08 McCray: I…I thought she said she was present when he was born…I was

    7:14 Translator: No…No.. (inaudible) She was here, and Obama was born in America

    7:24 McCray: Okay.

    7:25 Translator:(inaudible)

    7:27: Translator: Obama was born in America where uhh he’s learning. Obama was learning, was learning in America…in the United States

    7:37: McCray: Oh, okay

    7:41 McCray: I misunderstood what she was saying. I thought she said she was present when he was born.

    7:46 Translator: No. Not present (inaudible). Not present. (inaudible). She was here in Kenya while Obama was learning in America, and he befriended his first wife in America there. (inaudible.). Was born in America

    7:37 McCray: Oh, okay

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/8167169.wma

    It shows taht after the initial mixup, she repeatedly said he was born in Hawaii/America and told McCray that she was NOT present for his birth

  282. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 3:15 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I do not understand why you need to tell us that it was both the Democrats and Republicans involved in the fiasco with the Taliban leader.We also know that it was both the Democrats and Republicans involved with, despite the numerous law suits and public petitions to check out his birth certificate, certifying Obama for the most powerful position on earth without one Senator or Representative ever seeing a paper version of anything purporting to be his birth certificate let alone a real birth certificate.So what’s your point?

    This paper version birth certificate rule is a new one that only applies to Barack Obama, right?

  283. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 3:18 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I do not understand why you need to tell us that it was both the Democrats and Republicans involved in the fiasco with the Taliban leader.We also know that it was both the Democrats and Republicans involved with, despite the numerous law suits and public petitions to check out his birth certificate, certifying Obama for the most powerful position on earth without one Senator or Representative ever seeing a paper version of anything purporting to be his birth certificate let alone a real birth certificate.So what’s your point?

    You obviously missed my point entirely.

    Of which I’m not surprised.

    You were the one comparing the situation with the taliban leader with the non-issue of Obama’s eligibility. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your purile attempt to compare the two was.

    And are you seriously suggesting that no one in the Democratic or Republican party saw the COLB that was posted, in situ, in the Democratic Party HQ during the campaign?

    Are you seriously suggesting that no member of Congress saw the COLB, either in situ, or the image of it posted on the internet; that no member of Congress thought to ask if he was eligible before certifying him; that no member of Congress thought to consult the Constitution regarding the requiremnets for POTUS?

    Are you seriously suggesting those things, Mario? If you are, then you are much more in need of the services of a mental health professional than even I had thought.

  284. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 3:24 am #

    Anyone who says that tape says anything more of significance than that is a bold-faced liar and has no credibility

  285. avatar
    Keith November 28, 2010 at 3:30 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Moreover, Blackstone, on whom so many on this blog rely, told us in his Commentaries Book 4, Chapter 5 that the law of nations is a “univeral law” which “is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.” He added that “the law of nations has much scope and extent, as adopted by the law of England. . .” He then explained that he was only going to comment on “a narrow compass” of the law of nations which is where you are led astray and assume that the law of nations only pertains to a few subjects (e.g. crimes on the high seas, piracies, and related matters) which of course you conveniently tell us do not included citizenship. Similarly, that Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 mentions “Offences against the Law of Nations” does not mean that the Framers meant to limit the adoption and application of the law of nations in the United States to just a couple of areas which again you tells us do not include citizenship.

    You change frame of reference so fast that your head must be spinning. I thought that trick was reserved for Linda Blair.

    Blackstone is referring to international law, not de Vattel’s book about international law. Perhaps if you get used to using the term “international law” for the laws (both common and treaty) that govern the interaction between nations, and the term “de Vattel’s book” for the book written by de Vattel, and “offenses against international law” for the constitutional phrase “Offences against the Law of Nations” you may, in time, begin to understand the problems involved in your continual confusion of the terms.

    de Vattel wrote about his understanding of international law, he did not define international law. His understanding clearly came from a Prussian/Swiss experience and his opinions on citizenship came from that experience.

    Your insistence that de Vattel’s paragraph 212 justifies your supposedly internationally recognized jus sanguinis view of “natural born citizen” completely ignores de Vattel’s own acknowledgment in paragraph 214 that in England it is jus soli that applies.

    The claim that the Constitutional phrase “Offenses against the Law of Nations” somehow is embedding the entire de Vattel book into the Constitution is ludicrous. de Vattel explicitly insists on an established state religion, restricting the right to bear arms to the elite, and kidnapping and rape as a state policy for population expansion. Are you seriously proposing that the framers of the Constitution gave these views more than a passing thought? The results of their efforts point to the more likely conclusion that, if they considered de Vattel at all, they considered his ideas as a negative model, as what not to do.

  286. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 3:30 am #

    Sean,

    I’ll give you action at 1,000,000 to 1 (I think those odds are probably optimistic…)

    Mario,

    I didn’t say anything about what I thought President Obama would do, I just mentioned a possible legal theory by which Dr. Dunham could have passed citizenship to her son if all of the currently available evidence is wrong and he wasn’t born in Hawaii. You, however, are unable or unwilling to disclose what information (pertinent to President Obama’s natural born status) you could find on a long form that isn’t present on a COLB nor have you provided any evidence as to why (a certified copy of) the COLB should not be accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by any court in the country.

  287. avatar
    Keith November 28, 2010 at 3:49 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I am sorry to report but your cliche has no application here, for there is a great difference between Dr. Conspiracy and me.

    Yes, and that is the first truth you have uttered. I apologize to the Doc for the inference that there is some similarity.

    First of all, the good Doc allows you license to expose your ignorance on his site and is not trying empty your wallet.

    You on the other hand maintain a closed loop propaganda site for the one and only reason of raising Paypal donations.

    The Doc is providing a forum for education while you are providing a forum for brainwashing, ego stroking, and the venting of invective.

    You gave your reasons why you think the Doc should start over. You should just quit, period.

  288. avatar
    AnotherBird November 28, 2010 at 3:57 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    No one bought into anything.You are still missing the point.The question of anyonebeing able to travel to Pakistan goes to what passport they are using which goes to what citizenship they possess.You need a passport to travel.The passport shows what your citizenship is.It is really simple to understand but you and others here, like Dr. Conspiracy, simply cannot grasp it.

    More smoke and mirrors.

    As, there was only a travel advisory, it is possible to travel to Pakistan with an American passport.

    So, if an American citizen traveled to Pakistan in 1981 they would have had an American passport.

    We all understand (grasp) that passport indicates a person citizenship.

    Your argument centers around the desire to see the passport that Obama used to travel to Pakistan to know his citizenship.

    Mario Apuzzo: On the travel ban, I have yet to see a copy of Obama’s passport which he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981. The passport that he used is the real issue, not whether there was or was not a travel “ban” or travel “advisory” or some type of travel restriction there which we know there was.

    So, by seeing a passport used to travel Pakistan would help clarify a person citizenship? That is a strange argument when proof of citizenship is required for a passport, and not the other way around.

    The smoke is the ignoring of the birth certificate and the statement by Hawaii in confirming his citizenship.

    The mirrors is rejecting part of the “Pakistan travel ban” argument, but trying to suggest that he might have used a non-American passport.

    Talk about moving goal post.

  289. avatar
    Lupin November 28, 2010 at 5:44 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: in which Chief Justice Waite relied on the law of nations taken verbatim from Vattel Section 212 which he called our “common law” to define a “natural born citizen.”

    Once again, for the millionth time, I note that Vattel did not define “natural born citizen” but speaks of natives and indigenes, and that under his definition, Obama would qualify as such because of his relatives.

    Hence any reliance on Vattel would automatically lead to conclude that Obama is indeed a NBC (assuming one was to equate such term with Vattel’s).

    An attorney who willfully misquotes or distorts the Law is a scoundrel.

  290. avatar
    Ballantine November 28, 2010 at 6:13 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: The last time I looked the Constitution said that one had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. Do you really think that the Supreme Court would be so stupid?

    The supreme court also have constitutions and nothing in their copies says there is an obligation for anyone to vet the president or for the president to present any evidence. You apparetnly think you can make stuff up and wonder why the courts call yuor arguments frivolous. Why would anyone claim the 20th Amendment requires Congress to vet the president when their is no language in such amendment that can remotely be construed to say such and of court no legal authority ever said any such thing. Do you think making stuff up is going to convince anyone. The supreme court also have constitutions that nowhere say their is a right to tranquility and again no legal authority ever said anything remotely close to that. Again just making stuff up. Hard to imagine that anyone thinks that if Congress doesn’t do what I want and I feel less secure, I can sue Congress and a court will make them do what I want. Did you actually take constitutional law. Oh you make up an equal protection claim too. So if the republican congress investigates democrats and not repulbicans, I can sue them and make them investigate republicans too. Wow. Did you ever hear of separation of powers? Honestly, the court really can’t accept you case as your arguments make no sense.

  291. avatar
    Ballantine November 28, 2010 at 6:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Your attempt to limit the law of nations to just some matters which do not include citizenship has no support in our history and jurisprudence. Just as two examples and there are many, in the prize case, The Venus (1814), Chief Justice Marshall (dissenting for other reasons and concurring) relied upon the law of nations and Vattel Section 212 to define national citizenship in the United States (a necessary issue to be resolved in any prize case) and Minor v. Happersett (1874) in which Chief Justice Waite relied on the law of nations taken verbatim from Vattel Section 212 which he called our “common law” to define a “natural born citizen.” Moreover, Blackstone, on whom so many on this blog rely, told us in his Commentaries Book 4, Chapter 5 that the law of nations is a “univeral law” which “is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.” He added that “the law of nations has much scope and extent, as adopted by the law of England. . .” He then explained that he was only going to comment on “a narrow compass” of the law of nations which is where you are led astray and assume that the law of nations only pertains to a few subjects (e.g. crimes on the high seas, piracies, and related matters) which of course you conveniently tell us do not included citizenship. Similarly, that Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 mentions “Offences against the Law of Nations” does not mean that the Framers meant to limit the adoption and application of the law of nations in the United States to just a couple of areas which again you tells us do not include citizenship.

    .

    Actually, the supreme court in Sosa does a good job explaining Blackstone view of the applicability of the law of nations and how such was generally limited to international relations and mercantile issues. Our courts have taken the same view as they have rarely cited the law of nations outside these areas. The court has rarely cited de Vattel on interpretation of the original constituttion as there is little evidence that any provision of the constitution was based upon the law of nations other than granting Congress the power to write laws to punish violations of international law. Such provisions obviously has no application to the rest of the constitution.

    Pretty sad you keep trying to claim The Venus defined NBC where it nowhere contains such term and has nothing to do with citizenship. I really can’t help you if you don’t understand that when a court cites someone to make point A, anything in such cite unrelated to point A cannot be claimed to be endorsed by the court. I would really like you to try to make such claim to a court as you would be told to go back to law school. Of course, the court has never cited the law of nations on citizenship outside the narrow context of nationality in time of war. And of course, we know you have your own interpretations of Minor and Wong Kim Ark that are different from everyone else on the planet who can read english and that you somehow can’t comprehend that Gray specifically rejected the notion that any rule of international law had superceded “the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” However, the rest of us, and any court such as Ankeny, can read plain Englsih.

  292. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 7:08 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    When it comes to knowing who the President and Commander in Chief is, we cannot “presume” anything.
    I guess they also “presumed” that that Taliban leader was who he said he was.

    Your fallacious argument is astounding. I hope you would not make such absurd arguments in any legal documents presented to a court.

    See how that works, birther?

    Do we need to explain hypocrisy to you as well?

    Is it just the dark-skinned people who terrify you?

  293. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    Lupin: An attorney who willfully misquotes or distorts the Law is a scoundrel.

    A scoundrel and a mindless birther bigot with hate driven and political ulterior motives.
    (See Taitz, Farah and Berg.)

  294. avatar
    Realist November 28, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    Even Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court is AVOIDING the issue of his eligibility.

    Look, The man(obama) HAS NOT shown a long form Birth Certificate! PERIOD.
    He’s hired, and paying attorneys….WE’re Paying attorneys, to keep these and other
    records locked up legaly.
    You can argue legal mumbo jumbo all you want.
    If it looks like a chicken, smells like one, sounds like one….etc.
    The man is hiding something he doesn’t want the world to know about.
    PERIOD.
    Call it what you want. I call it evading. Why not show it and be done with it
    like McCain…!
    He’s probably Kenyan, and making a mockery of this country. Actually the people that
    elected him are making a mockery of the US. IT’s all a really bad joke that will ruin
    the U.S. I think 2012, when he leaves office and the truth is known, the world will end.
    hehehehe…..Obama as the Anti Christ.

  295. avatar
    Lupin November 28, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    Realist: He’s probably Kenyan, and making a mockery of this country.

    I was wondering how long it would take before the hood would come out.

    Go burn a cross elsewhere, you ignorant bigot.

  296. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 10:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: The passport is needed to travel and is sought only to see what Obama’s citizenship was at the time.

    is it your belief that obama had an indonesian passport ? couldn’t happen. indonesian law requires that a person be at least 18years old and have lived in the country for 5 consecutive years or 10 non-consecutive years before even applying for citizenship. obama only lived there for 4years during his youth. even if obama had moved back to indonesia after high school the absolute earliest he would have been eligible to apply for citizenship would have been 1984, a little late for use on the ’81 trip.

    only recently has indonesia made available the option of dual citizenship. this only applies to children of one biological indonesian parent and only till the age of 18. again, this would have no affect on the ’81 trip.

  297. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    Realist: Why not show it and be done with it
    like McCain…!

    McCain did not make his birth certificate available to the public.

  298. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    Realist:…. to keep these and other
    records locked up legaly.

    again, i ask you:

    can you list the documents of obama’s that are public record but are not being released.

  299. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    Realist: …..Obama as the Anti Christ.

    the bible states that we will not know who the anti-christ is. so if you know it’s him….. it’s not him.

  300. avatar
    Sef November 28, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    Realist: The man is hiding something he doesn’t want the world to know about.

    He COULD tell you, but then he’d have to kill you. You can’t handle the truth!

    Mario Apuzzo: The passport is needed to travel and is sought only to see what Obama’s citizenship was at the time.

    Does the PP that Obama had in 1981 even still exist? What you need to see is not the PP, but the entry records, if any, in Pakistan which would give this info. I’m sure you can look up the relevant phone no. by yourself.

  301. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Realist: Even Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court is AVOIDING the issue of his eligibility.Look, The man(obama) HAS NOT shown a long form Birth Certificate! PERIOD.
    He’s hired, and paying attorneys….WE’re Paying attorneys, to keep these and other
    records locked up legaly.
    You can argue legal mumbo jumbo all you want.
    If it looks like a chicken, smells like one, sounds like one….etc.
    The man is hiding something he doesn’t want the world to know about.
    PERIOD.
    Call it what you want. I call it evading.Why not show it and be done with it
    like McCain…!
    He’s probably Kenyan, and making a mockery of this country.Actually the people that
    elected him are making a mockery of the US.IT’s all a really bad joke that will ruin
    the U.S. I think 2012, when he leaves office and the truth is known, the world will end.
    hehehehe…..Obama as the Anti Christ.

    Wahh wahh wahh you look stupider by the second. Obama the anti-christ? Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

    You have no proof we’re paying attorneys do you have receipts? Bills? McCain never showed his birth certificate to the public. Thus far Obama has released more to the public than any previous president. You’re blinded by your hatred of a strong black man that its driving you insane.

  302. avatar
    ellid November 28, 2010 at 11:06 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: bovril,
    Your name fits you well. It sounds like drivel.

    Attorney Apuzzo –

    I worked for lawyers for several years at law firms that made yours look like a flyspeck. Your miserable excuse for legal writing and argument wouldn’t have made it out of the office at any of them.

    Kindly go back to personal injury law so you can afford your next advertisement starring Robert Vaughn or William Shatner and leave the rest of us alone. Thank you.

  303. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I see that you are so full of yourself that you think you are some special person. Well, you can think all the special things you want.It does not show that you have made one sound argument here.

    Mario no one in this world doubts that you are indeed a special person and its time for you to get back on the short bus from whence you came.

  304. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Normally, any standard that is grandfathered is less demanding than one that follows in time. We know from reading the eligibility clause that “Citizen of the United States” was grandfathered and that “natural born Citizen” was the prospective standard.Hence, the latter would necessarily be more difficult to meet than the former.In light of this simple logic, a “natural born Citizen” would have to pertain to the United States and no other place.

    But using Mario logic. Only one referred to being of the United States while the other just referred to being a natural born citizen. That is the way it is punctuated and read in plain english. If I was to act like you I’d say the sentence is missing a comma somewhere to be able to say that those two conditions must refer to being of the united states. See how easy it is to be a bither? I can just make up new meanings of things just like you do.

  305. avatar
    lucky stripe November 28, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    hey guys, for the first time in us history both parties are guilty of nominating ineligible candidates (mccain and soetoro) in the ’08 election for potus.

  306. avatar
    ellid November 28, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You have got to be kidding if you think I would take any kind of advice from you.

    Based solely on his posts here, I wouldn’t hire Mario Apuzzo to represent me in a traffic accident. Even the legendary Mark E. Salamone, ambulance chaser extraordinaire, knew better than to take on a non-personal injury related case.

    What a sorry excuse for legal discourse.

  307. avatar
    ellid November 28, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Your attempt to limit the law of nations to just some matters which do not include citizenship has no support in our history and jurisprudence.Just as two examples and there are many, in the prize case, The Venus (1814), Chief Justice Marshall (dissenting for other reasons and concurring) relied upon the law of nations and Vattel Section 212 to define national citizenship in the United States (a necessary issue to be resolved in any prize case) and Minor v. Happersett (1874) in which Chief Justice Waite relied on the law of nations taken verbatim from Vattel Section 212 which he called our “common law” to define a “natural born citizen.”Moreover, Blackstone, on whom so many on this blog rely, told us in his Commentaries Book 4, Chapter 5 that the law of nations is a “univeral law” which “is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.”He added that “the law of nations has much scope and extent, as adopted by the law of England. . .”He then explained that he was only going to comment on “a narrow compass” of the law of nations which is where you are led astray and assume that the law of nations only pertains to a few subjects (e.g. crimes on the high seas, piracies, and related matters) which of course you conveniently tell us do not included citizenship.Similarly, that Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 mentions “Offences against the Law of Nations” does not mean that the Framers meant to limit the adoption and application of the law of nations in the United States to just a couple of areas which again you tells us do not include citizenship.

    The Venus is a maritime salvage case that has nothing to do with determining citizenship, as is obvious from reading the *abstract*, let alone the actual case. What pathetic excuse for a law school let you graduate if you’re unable to see this?

  308. avatar
    Greg November 28, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: The passport is needed to travel and is sought only to see what Obama’s citizenship was at the time.

    Since there was no travel ban, there was no restriction at all on Americans traveling to Pakistan, in fact, the US Embassy was encouraging visitors…

    Can’t we assume that an American traveling there is traveling on an American passport?

    Certainly we cannot use the fact that he traveled to Pakistan as evidence that he’s not an American.

    You, in contrast, DID use the fact that he traveled to Pakistan as part of your case that he’s not an American:

    Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But
    such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a
    legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

    and

    83. There also exists the possibility that if Obama had U.S. citizenship at birth, he lost that citizenship when his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, adopted/acknowledged him as his son and along with his mother took him to live in Indonesia and when he later traveled as a foreign citizen with a foreign passport to Pakistan after the age of majority (18) when he was approximately 20.

    If there is no travel ban, there is no reason to suspect that he was traveling on a foreign passport, and it cannot form a basis of a claim that he was a foreigner.

    I’ve pointed out the ethical requirements for lawyers to do a cursory investigation of the facts that they present in a complaint. I think that’s probably the reason you cannot admit you were completely, and utterly wrong in the complaint – wrong in a way that could have been remedied by a simple Google search. That simple Google search would have shown you the NY Times article describing American travel to Pakistan published a few months before Obama’s trip and a letter from the US Embassy encouraging further tourism.

    Realist: Even Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court is AVOIDING the issue of his eligibility.

    He said the Supreme Court was avoiding the issue of the eligibility of Puerto Ricans.

    1. Was Obama born in Puerto Rico?
    2. Do you understand the meaning of the word joke?

    Mario Apuzzo: Under Hawaii Revised Statues 338-13 he has not because he presented a copy of a documents which does not contain “the contents” of this long-form birth certificate.

    Does the COLB put forward by Obama state that he was born in Hawaii?
    Does it bear the seal of the State of Hawaii?
    Does a state seal make a document self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

    Do you have any evidence that the State of Hawaii could issue what they term a “COLB” with FALSE information?

    Did the State of Hawaii confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii?

    Your nonsensical argument that the COLB is a document that doesn’t comply with 338-13 does nothing to give any suggestion that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. It doesn’t even take away the evidentiary quality of the COLB as it would qualify as self-authenticating because of the seal, regardless of whether it complied with 338-13 (and also because of the signature of the registrar).

    You’re actually lucky, Mario, that your case will never get to the merits, as these arguments you’ve presented here are so fatally flawed that they could easily qualify as frivolous. Personally, I’d ask for sanctions against any lawyer that raised them against someone I defended.

  309. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    lucky stripe: hey guys,…..

    i’ll bite,……. why exactly do you think obama is ineligible ?

  310. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 11:43 am #

    Greg: You’re actually lucky, Mario, that your case will never get to the merits, as these arguments you’ve presented here are so fatally flawed that they could easily qualify as frivolous. Personally, I’d ask for sanctions against any lawyer that raised them against someone I defended.

    I have a suspicion that being sanctioned (especially by the SCOTUS) is worth more in birther donations than it costs…

    Mario,

    Care to comment on the size of your PayPal button? πŸ˜‰

  311. avatar
    Reality Check November 28, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Majority Will: But he doesn’t blindly censor people like you do as if you’re Mussolini of your little birther fantasy world.

    I believe Mr. Apuzzo has been sitting on at least one comment at his blog made by Dwight Sullivan for almost a week because Mr. Sullivan dared to point out several errors in fact that Charles Kerchner made in an article. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-born-citizen-of-united-states.html Mr. Apuzzo made one unacknowledged correction without giving credit to Mr. Sullivan but left the rest of the article as is.

    Mr. Apuzzo has ironically titled his blog “A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers”. It seems that he and Mr. Kerchner are the final arbiters on what is “right” completely independent of the facts. I can certainly understand why Mr. Apuzzo would choose not to embarrass himself and Mr. Kerchner by having such outright errors pointed out on his own blog but that doesn’t make it less hypocritical for him to come here and to CAAFLOG to whine like a fifth grade child about folks criticizing his misguided legal efforts.

    it is a testament to the authors of the Constitution that they set up a system that prevents a few fringe nuts like the birthers from inventing their own delusional interpretation of the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and attempting to enforce it. Fortunately, the courts haven’t bought into their charade. I will enjoy seeing that system work once again tomorrow morning.

  312. avatar
    dch November 28, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    Mario has a 100% failure record in court with his birther cases. The SCOTUS has already disposed of this Kerchner case. It is O-V-E-R.
    There is no doubt it will be on the list of cases denied without comment when the list is released.
    The question for Mario is this: Why can’t you convince any judge of any of this? Why have all of your cases failed? Why do judgers sanction you? Why do you lose every appeal? Why did the SCOTUS just dump your case in the reject bin?

  313. avatar
    Realist November 28, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Realist: He’s probably Kenyan, and making a mockery of this country.

    I was wondering how long it would take before the hood would come out.

    Im tired of all the name calling on here. Totally liberal thing. All the hate
    because someone else has a different view than yours. Use all the legal
    mumbo jumbo you want….he(obama)claims to have been born in a hospital.
    He WOULD have a long form birth Certificate to prove it, but refused, in fact,
    we pay hundreds of thousands of tax dollors for him to hide it.
    Any self respecting person would put up the document just to shut everyone
    up…but not he.
    And you think all of this is OK.
    I’ll bet he sends a tingle up your leg also huh…?
    Have you seen the picture of him with the fly on his lip….?
    How can you say he’s not Kenyan?
    And dont call me a bigot, id vote for Dr. Alan Keyes in a heart
    beat for President…if being black is all your concerned with.

  314. avatar
    James M November 28, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    Greg:

    If there is no travel ban, there is no reason to suspect that he was traveling on a foreign passport, and it cannot form a basis of a claim that he was a foreigner.

    Stronger point, isn’t Mario asserting that he *did* travel to Pakistan with a foreign passport? If he has no evidence of any such foreign passport, how is this not simply a lie?

  315. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Realist: Any self respecting person would put up the document just to shut everyone
    up…

    how would that shut up the people that believe that a “natural born citizen” must have two citizen parents ( see mario above ) ? or those that think any long form obama could produce must be a fake ? or those that claim he renounced his US citzenship to obtain indonesian citizenship ?

  316. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Realist,

    You have refused to provide any evidence to support your assertions and have added nothing significant to the debate. You ignore the people who point out your errors. Is it any wonder that people are irritated with you? And before ascribing all hate to liberals, you might want to review the amount of completely baseless hate that you’ve flung at President Obama. It’s unAmerican seditious liars who have no respect for the office of the presidency like yourself that are threatening our Constitution. Fortunately you birthers have proved to be laughingly inept…

  317. avatar
    James M November 28, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    Realist:

    Im tired of all the name calling on here.

    You just called President Obama the “anti-christ.”

    You have already removed yourself from the discussion here. Nobody is even going to try to have a rational conversation with you after that. If anyone talks to you at all, it will be for their own entertainment, and nothing more.

    You have nothing meaningful to contribute, and you have made that abundantly clear.

  318. avatar
    lucky stripe November 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    thankyou bat guano for asking. all the evidence claiming he was born in hawaii is heresay. gov lingle claims her health director reviewed the original bc and it states he was born in hawaii. i personally don’t believe it exists. if it did, we would have seen it already. nonetheless, thats the one i want to see. my understanding is you have to have both blood and dirt to be potus. at this point in time, soetoro has proven he has neither. but i was just thinking, what would really be helpful, to me anyway, would be, from one fellow american to another, can you please make a formal request to see a copy of the original bc? depending upon the response you receive, i hope its favorable, i will join you and we’ll go from there.

  319. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    Realist: Use all the legal
    mumbo jumbo you want….

    what legal terms are you having trouble understanding ?

  320. avatar
    BigGuy November 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    Greg:

    Do you have any evidence that the State of Hawaii could issue what they term a “COLB” with FALSE information?

    BINGO. Until that question is answered convincingly, the rest is just hot air.

  321. avatar
    gorefan November 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: He added that “the law of nations has much scope and extent, as adopted by the law of England. . .”

    Mario – Since the law of nations was adopted by England, did England also then adopt the idea that to be a natural born subject you had to have parents who were natural born subjects? Or were children of aliens born in the realm still considered natural born subjects?

  322. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    lucky stripe: thankyou bat guano for asking. all the evidence claiming he was born in hawaii is heresay. gov lingle claims her health director reviewed the original bc and it states he was born in hawaii.

    well, a bit more than heresay. not only did gov lingle say the health director reviewed the original ( which i believe would be heresay ) but the director herself has stated:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. ”

    also the COLB is a self-authenticating document and is prima facie evidence in any court.

  323. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    James M:
    You just called President Obama the “anti-christ.”You have already removed yourself from the discussion here.Nobody is even going to try to have a rational conversation with you after that.If anyone talks to you at all, it will be for their own entertainment, and nothing more.You have nothing meaningful to contribute, and you have made that abundantly clear.

    Hear, hear.

  324. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    lucky stripe: hey guys, for the first time in us history both parties are guilty of nominating ineligible candidates (mccain and soetoro) in the ’08 election for potus.

    Lolo ran for President?!

  325. avatar
    James M November 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    BatGuano:
    what legal terms are you having trouble understanding ?

    Start with “evidence.”

  326. avatar
    Majority Will November 28, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Birthers are such pathetic, lying idiots.

  327. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Realist: Realist: He’s probably Kenyan, and making a mockery of this country.I was wondering how long it would take before the hood would come out.
    Im tired of all the name calling on here.Totally liberal thing.All the hate
    because someone else has a different view than yours. Use all the legal
    mumbo jumbo you want….he(obama)claims to have been born in a hospital.
    He WOULD have a long form birth Certificate to prove it, but refused, in fact,
    we pay hundreds of thousands of tax dollors for him to hide it.
    Any self respecting person would put up the document just to shut everyone
    up…but not he.
    And you think all of this is OK.
    I’ll bet he sends a tingle up your leg also huh…?
    Have you seen the picture of him with the fly on his lip….?
    How can you say he’s not Kenyan?
    And dont call me a bigot, id vote for Dr. Alan Keyes in a heart
    beat for President…if being black is all your concerned with.

    Its not hate its calling a bigot a bigot. Of course you’d vote for Alan Keyes you bigots stick together. This is the same guy who disowned his daughter because she’s gay. So its no wonder you find him to be a favorable candidates. You crazies like to stick together.

    Calling a spade a spade has nothing to do with liberals. You might want to put away the labeling as many here are not liberal as this whole issue isn’t a liberal conservative issue. This is about how one side has the facts and the law and the other side just makes up stuff. You would be on the side that makes up stuff.

    What does a long form have to do with anything? He has a COLB nothing on the long form would be any different than the COLB in regards to place of Birth. The COLB says he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the Long form also would say that. The Director of the Department of Health has come out and confirmed the COLB and that the original records are in check.

    Hundreds of thousands to hide them? Didn’t you say millions before? Make up your mind on which one of your lies you want to believe. If he was paying that much money it should be easily verifiable. So can you show us some proof?

    What does a picture of him having a fly on his lip have to do with him being Kenyan? And you wonder why people call you a bigot here?

    He’s of Kenyan Descent because of his father he’s also of American Descent. He was born in Hawaii thus he’s an American.

  328. avatar
    gorefan November 28, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: he has not because he presented a copy of a documents which does not contain “the contents” of this long-form birth certificate.

    Recently, a birther blogger at freerepublic documented her Hawaiian BC. She had an original long form BC (pre-2000), a short form COLB (identical in appearance to President Obama’s) and a 2010 non-certified long form that she received from the Hawaii DOH.

    Her pre-2000 long form has 11 fields of information (child name, birth date location, parent’s name, doctor’s name, etc.)

    Her COLB has the same number of fields as President Obama’s.

    Her non-certified 2010 copy has 13 fields of information, along the the 11 fields in her pre-2000 BC, there two extra fields (12 – race of father and 15 – race of mother).

    So by your interpretation of 338-13, the certified BC that she received prior to 2000 and her certified COLB, that she received after 2001 are not legal BCs. Since they did not contain the “contents” of a birth certificate.

    In fact, doesn’t the standard BC form from the National Center for Health Statistics contain many more fields then are shown on most certified BCs. Are they all not legal?

  329. avatar
    BatGuano November 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    lucky stripe: my understanding is you have to have both blood and dirt to be potus. at this point in time, soetoro has proven he has neither.

    and here lies the majority of the discussion on this site. i think if you read thru this site you’ll see that both “blood” (jus sanguinis) and “dirt” (jus soli) have been addressed in detail as they pertain to a NBC status ( and from what we’ve seen obama meets the criteria ).

    i notice you keep referring to the president as “soetoro”. is this meant to be an insult or do you also believe that he was adopted by his step-father and/or became an indonesian citizen ? this one is easily debunked by just doing a simple google check on the qualifications for indonesian citizenship ( obama wasn’t eligible in that scenario ).

  330. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    Realist: Realist: He’s probably Kenyan, and making a mockery of this country.I was wondering how long it would take before the hood would come out.
    Im tired of all the name calling on here.Totally liberal thing.All the hate
    because someone else has a different view than yours. Use all the legal
    mumbo jumbo you want….he(obama)claims to have been born in a hospital.
    He WOULD have a long form birth Certificate to prove it, but refused, in fact,
    we pay hundreds of thousands of tax dollors for him to hide it.
    Any self respecting person would put up the document just to shut everyone
    up…but not he.
    And you think all of this is OK.
    I’ll bet he sends a tingle up your leg also huh…?
    Have you seen the picture of him with the fly on his lip….?
    How can you say he’s not Kenyan?
    And dont call me a bigot, id vote for Dr. Alan Keyes in a heart
    beat for President…if being black is all your concerned with.

    Realist, tell me more about the name calling. It’s so obvious you haven’t partaken in this.

  331. avatar
    Arthur November 28, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    misha: You mean like “Mario Aputzzo.”

    Exactly! There are at least a dozen more, but civility prevents me, etc., etc.

  332. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    lucky stripe: hey guys, for the first time in us history both parties are guilty of nominating ineligible candidates (mccain and soetoro) in the ’08 election for potus.

    Is the Shift key on your keyboard broken?

  333. avatar
    lucky stripe November 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    batguano, i’m not interested in stepping on anyone’s toes or thumbing my nose at anyone. i also do not want to appear to be disrespestful to mr. soetoro. my understanding is he was adopted at an early age and his name changed to barry soetoro. i haven’t seen any court documents showing he legally changed his name to barak obama. thank you for bringing to our attention again the statement made by dr. fukino. more heresay and then some. she has put her credibility and possibly her liberty at stake, in my opinion. but we really can’t go any further unless you formally request copies of the vital records that she claims to have seen. and if she or anyone in her office denies you your request to see copies of those vital record then you remind her that your right to see them outweighs soetoro’s want to conceal. my only hope and goal is at some point we get on the same page and maybe, just maybe, we can resove this issue.

  334. avatar
    BigGuy November 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    @lucky stripe — Let me get this straight.

    You won’t believe his name is Barack Obama unless you see court documents, but you’ll believe his name is Barry Soetoro based on your “understanding,” for which you provide exactly no evidence?

  335. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    lucky stripe: i also do not want to appear to be disrespestful to mr. soetoro. my understanding is he was adopted at an early age and his name changed to barry soetoro. i haven’t seen any court documents showing he legally changed his name to barak obama.

    If you didn’t want to be disrespectful, you would refer to the sitting president of the United States of America as President Obama. There is no evidence that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro or that his name was legally changed to Soetoro. In fact, in the muslim world, adoptees retain the name of their biological parents – to do otherwise is an affront to the biological family. Since all of the legal documents available show his name to be Barak Obama, referring to him in other ways is just puerile and childish, but that’s pretty much what we’ve come to expect from birthers…

  336. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    lucky stripe: batguano, i’m not interested in stepping on anyone’s toes or thumbing my nose at anyone. i also do not want to appear to be disrespestful to mr. soetoro. my understanding is he was adopted at an early age and his name changed to barry soetoro. i haven’t seen any court documents showing he legally changed his name to barak obama. thank you for bringing to our attention again the statement made by dr. fukino. more heresay and then some. she has put her credibility and possibly her liberty at stake, in my opinion. but we really can’t go any further unless you formally request copies of the vital records that she claims to have seen. and if she or anyone in her office denies you your request to see copies of those vital record then you remind her that your right to see them outweighs soetoro’s want to conceal. my only hope and goal is at some point we get on the same page and maybe, just maybe, we can resove this issue.

    Why do you care so much about Barack Obama’s stepdad’s last name? Or his nickname Barry for that matter? George W. Bush’s nickname was “Gin and Tonic,” but I’ve yet to hear anyone address Him this way.

    It’s obvious you don’t like the President and don’t wish to address him normally. But he is President and will be until his term/terms are up.

    Get over it.

  337. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    lucky stripe: my understanding is he was adopted at an early age and his name changed to barry soetoro. i haven’t seen any court documents showing he legally changed his name to barak obama.

    I haven’t seen any court documents showing that he was adopted and that he legally changed his name to Barry Soetoro. Have you? If so, please provide evidence of same.

    Did they teach you about capitalization when you were in school?

    By the way, President Obama’s first name is spelled “Barack,” not “Barak.”

  338. avatar
    Sef November 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    lucky stripe: my understanding is he was adopted at an early age and his name changed to barry soetoro.

    Your “understanding” is incorrect. As has been shown numerous times an adoption in Indonesia would not have been possible, so there was no need to “change his name back”. You have been getting your info from inaccurate sources.

  339. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    lucky stripe: batguano, i’m not interested in stepping on anyone’s toes or thumbing my nose at anyone. i also do not want to appear to be disrespestful to mr. soetoro. my understanding is he was adopted at an early age and his name changed to barry soetoro. i haven’t seen any court documents showing he legally changed his name to barak obama. thank you for bringing to our attention again the statement made by dr. fukino. more heresay and then some. she has put her credibility and possibly her liberty at stake, in my opinion. but we really can’t go any further unless you formally request copies of the vital records that she claims to have seen. and if she or anyone in her office denies you your request to see copies of those vital record then you remind her that your right to see them outweighs soetoro’s want to conceal. my only hope and goal is at some point we get on the same page and maybe, just maybe, we can resove this issue.

    His name has never been Mr Soetoro. You see those of us in the reality based world base our statements on actual documentation and not on stuff we pull from our backsides. What do you base your understanding of him being adopted on? What documentation do you have to prove it? The Dunham/Soetoro divorce papers have been released and nowhere does it say Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Also the state department stated during their investigation of Dunham’s passports that Soetoro never adopted her son Barack and that he was born in Hawaii. You have seen no legal documents showing he ever changed his name to Barack Soetoro. You’re just making uneducated guesses.

    Dr Fukino’s statement is not hearsay. She is the one charged with keeping the vital records and she would serve as a witness if any of these dumb cases found standing. She personally checked the records the Department of Health has on file for Obama. Her statement is in her capacity as the legal authority charged with keeping the documents.

    Your right to see those documents does not outweigh Obama’s right to privacy no more than my right to see any court documents you have outweighs your right to privacy. The same privacy laws that protect you also protect the President.

  340. avatar
    James M November 28, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    BigGuy:

    Greg:

    Do you have any evidence that the State of Hawaii could issue what they term a “COLB” with FALSE information?

    BINGO. Until that question is answered convincingly, the rest is just hot air.

    No, this is not even pertinent. When I was in college I knew a girl who had a whole fake ID consisting of a real birth certificate and a real drivers license, all with a fake name. Yes I realize she was a “criminal element” but that’s not the point. The state absolutely *could* issue a certificate with false information. I’ve seen this personally in a different state.

    The question though is not whether they *could*. The question is whether they *did*, and unless someone has evidence to indicate this conclusion, there is no reason to believe it.

  341. avatar
    lucky stripe November 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    attacking me wastes time. i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue. why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records. if they have nothing to hide why not comply? it won’t be long before you realize we have a problem here. i’m curious, do you guys believe those vital records exist? i,m beginning to think you guys might be afraid of the truth. prove me wrong and demand to see those vital records. when you realize something is wrong i belive things might begin to loosen. as we speak we’re forced to discuss this on the net. this issue needs to be discussed openly across this country. nobody in the media will touch it so it must be red hot. i’ll bet some of you have to admit somethings don’t add up.

    f

  342. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    James M:
    No, this is not even pertinent. When I was in college I knew a girl who had a whole fake ID consisting of a real birth certificate and a real drivers license, all with a fake name.Yes I realize she was a “criminal element” but that’s not the point.The state absolutely *could* issue a certificate with false information.I’ve seen this personally in a different state.The question though is not whether they *could*.The question is whether they *did*, and unless someone has evidence to indicate this conclusion, there is no reason to believe it.

    When the Department of Health and Human Services studied birth certificate fraud in 2000, the conclusion was that most such fraud involved authentic birth certificates which contained accurate information. The fraud arose out of the use of the birth certificates, not the certificates themselves.

    In other words, when a state issues a birth certificate, we can have confidence that the information contained in it is accurate. Whether the person holding and using the birth certificate is the person named in the birth certificate is another matter.

    HHS did raise some questions about the reliability of delayed birth certificates, but that’s not relevant to Obama’s birth certificate.

  343. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    lucky stripe: attacking me wastes time. i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue. why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records. if they have nothing to hide why not comply? it won’t be long before you realize we have a problem here. i’m curious, do you guys believe those vital records exist? i,m beginning to think you guys might be afraid of the truth. prove me wrong and demand to see those vital records. when you realize something is wrong i belive things might begin to loosen. as we speak we’re forced to discuss this on the net. this issue needs to be discussed openly across this country. nobody in the media will touch itso it must be red hot. i’ll bet some of you have to admit somethings don’t add up.f

    Did you ever consider that the reason no one will cover this issue has to do with the fact that all of the evidence indicates that President Obama is eligible for his office to any rational person who understands the relevant law? Why should anyone care about your desire to see documents that have no additional pertinent information and are protected by privacy laws?

  344. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 28, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Lucky Stripe…

    You’re right on one thing…

    The evidence for the birth in Hawaii is hearsay. Hearsay is simply an out-of-court statement (or document) offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

    However, the evidence for Obama’s birth is specifically admitted as hearsay exemptions.

    Let’s take the birth certificate. It would be hearsay, but it would be admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a hearsay exemption. Even Mario Apuzzo, once he gets his foot out of his mouth, would tell you that a birth certificate is admissible in a court of law. That proves that he was born in the United States.

    So, I’ve already seen an admissible birth certificate that proves beyond a preponderance of the evidence (I’d argue that it proves it beyond a reasonable doubt when taken with the lack of evidence for the scenario that you’re stating). Any court in the land would take one look at the birth certificate, and declare that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    I’ve seen the birth certificate. If you want to see it too, you can look here, where it’s been independently verified by a reliable news organization.

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

  345. avatar
    Sean November 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    lucky stripe: attacking me wastes time. i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue. why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records. if they have nothing to hide why not comply? it won’t be long before you realize we have a problem here. i’m curious, do you guys believe those vital records exist? i,m beginning to think you guys might be afraid of the truth. prove me wrong and demand to see those vital records. when you realize something is wrong i belive things might begin to loosen. as we speak we’re forced to discuss this on the net. this issue needs to be discussed openly across this country. nobody in the media will touch itso it must be red hot. i’ll bet some of you have to admit somethings don’t add up.f

    Asking to be proved wrong implies you’re right. It also turns the legal system upside down.

    It is you that must provide evidence that Obama is ineligible.

  346. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    lucky stripe: why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records

    Because the “original vital records” are sealed by Federal and State privacy laws – laws which went into effect long before Obama and McCain ran for President. I have no right to see the records, and neither do you. Get used to it.

  347. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    lucky stripe: attacking me wastes time. i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue. why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records. if they have nothing to hide why not comply? it won’t be long before you realize we have a problem here. i’m curious, do you guys believe those vital records exist?

    Actually, I think folks demanding to see records the contents of which are already known and verified is wasting time. And if you had Obama’s long form you (by “you” I mean birthers in general) would just spin more conspiracies about it and waste more of everyone’s time.

    Of course, I believe that the original vital records exist. The person in charge of them has signed a statement to that effect. So please stop wasting everybody’s time.

  348. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    lucky stripe: i also do not want to appear to be disrespestful to mr. soetoro.

    ❗ WARNING ❗ IRONY METER AT MAXIMUM.

    I don’t know about “disrespestful”, but it is usually considered disrespectful to call someone by the wrong name.

  349. avatar
    G November 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    lucky stripe: attacking me wastes time. i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue.

    The key word there is that you “believe” this. So what? Why should we care what you “believe” just because you choose to shoot off your mouth.

    You can “believe” whatever you want… that the moon is made of green cheese and that pigs fly and that magical unicorns farting rainbows live under your bed and you can shoot your mouth off about it all you want…but why does anyone have to pay attention to you or listen to your crazy “beliefs” if you can’t back them up with any facts or evidence???

    Sorry, but I have no sympathy for somebody who merely whines about being attacked without any evidence to back up the nonsense that they say. Where is your sense of personal self-respect and accountability?

    If you don’t want to come off appearing like a crazy loon and crank, then you should chose your words more carefully and you should back up your “beliefs” with some actual evidence to support them.

    lucky stripe:
    why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records. if they have nothing to hide why not comply?

    Sorry, you’ve got reality backwards there. He’s the one who is serving as president. You are just some disgruntled person spouting off on the internet that you don’t “believe” or whatever.

    The onus is on YOU to prove your points and the crazy claims you are making.

    But you can’t…can you?

    lucky stripe:
    it won’t be long before you realize we have a problem here.

    Won’t be long? LOL! Um…hello…do you realize that the election occurred over 2 years ago? Hate to break it to you there, but he’s almost half-way done with his first term in office.

    I “believe” the only problem here is that you have a hard time dealing with reality and are simply an unhappy and uneducated whiny person. The only “problem” is within your own mind.

    lucky stripe:
    i’m curious, do you guys believe those vital records exist? i,m beginning to think you guys might be afraid of the truth.

    Yes, I believe his vital records exist. Why wouldn’t I?

    Like myself, most people are fully satisfied by the COLB they’ve seen, not to mention all the corroborating birth announcements in the contemporary HI newspapers and statements made by HI officials.

    Simply put, there is no logical reason NOR any actual contrarian evidence for any rational person to question these things.

    So, all “truth” to date supports him being NBC. Folks like you seem to be the only ones afraid of actual facts and truth.

    lucky stripe:
    prove me wrong and demand to see those vital records. when you realize something is wrong i belive things might begin to loosen. as we speak we’re forced to discuss this on the net. this issue needs to be discussed openly across this country. nobody in the media will touch it so it must be red hot. i’ll bet some of you have to admit somethings don’t add up.

    I’m sorry…can you explain why any of us have to prove anything to you at all?

    You are the one making crazy claims. It is up to you to “prove” your baseless accusations, not the other way around.

    Nobody is “forcing” you to do anything. You choose to come off as a crazy nutter ranting over here.

    The country has just as much of a need to openly discuss the concern of Leprechauns plotting to take over the nation as it does to waste air space discussing birther nonsense. –

    HINT – the answer is there is no such need to discuss silly unsupported nonsense and utter delusional fantasy…

    The only thing so far that doesn’t “add up” at all are the crazy claims that you silly birthers make up and keep repeating endlessly amongst yourselves.

  350. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    Rickey: Because the “original vital records” are sealed by Federal and State privacy laws – laws which went into effect long before Obama and McCain ran for President.

    Let’s be precise here. There is no federal law that prevents disclosure of a state vital record. Some states have laws that prohibit disclosure of vital records in specific situations and in some states the records are open and public. Hawaii has a law that prevents general public access to its records. In any case, vital records such as that of Barack Obama are not “sealed” (something that has a wholly different meaning). If someone is adopted, for example, their original records is sealed and may not even be accessible to the subject person. There is no evidence that Barack Obama has a sealed record.

    There might be an exception for John McCain since he was not born in the United States and so I think it most likely that he has a Consular birth certificate. If that is the case, then his birth certificate is a federal record, and there might be a law or regulation that prevents its disclosure. I don’t know for sure.

  351. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    lucky stripe: attacking me wastes time. i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue. why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records. if they have nothing to hide why not comply? it won’t be long before you realize we have a problem here. i’m curious, do you guys believe those vital records exist? i,m beginning to think you guys might be afraid of the truth. prove me wrong and demand to see those vital records. when you realize something is wrong i belive things might begin to loosen. as we speak we’re forced to discuss this on the net. this issue needs to be discussed openly across this country. nobody in the media will touch itso it must be red hot. i’ll bet some of you have to admit somethings don’t add up.f

    Are we being asked to prove negatives now? Prove to me you’re not a child molester. This ranks up here with you asking others to prove you wrong when you have yet to prove yourself right. I see instead of addressing when people ask you for proof of your claims you just change the topic.

  352. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    lucky stripe: nobody in the media will touch it so it must be red hot.

    Normally when the media doesn’t cover something it means that it is not newsworthy or that it is unsubstantiated. “Red hot” is not the conclusion a reasonable person would draw. Birthers read the world upside down (but you’d never convince them of it), and that was a perfect example.

  353. avatar
    Keith November 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    lucky stripe: attacking me wastes time.

    Actually, just responding to you wastes time. Fortunately, I currently have some time to waste.

    i’m the one who believes without a doubt leaders of both parties are lying through their teeth on this issue. why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records.

    Because you are the one making the accusation, and the burden of proof lies with the accuser. I thought the birther motivation was ‘protection of the Constitution’; why then are you attempting to nullify the 4th and 5th amendments?

    this issue needs to be discussed openly across this country.

    It has been discussed openly across the country for two and a half years.

    nobody in the media will touch itso it must be red hot.

    nobody in the media will touch it because it is stone cold.

  354. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let’s be precise here. There is no federal law that prevents disclosure of a state vital record. Some states have laws that prohibit disclosure of vital records in specific situations and in some states the records are open and public. Hawaii has a law that prevents general public access to its records. In any case, vital records such as that of Barack Obama are not “sealed” (something that has a wholly different meaning). If someone is adopted, for example, their original records is sealed and may not even be accessible to the subject person. There is no evidence that Barack Obama has a sealed record.There might be an exception for John McCain since he was not born in the United States and so I think it most likely that he has a Consular birth certificate. If that is the case, then his birth certificate is a federal record, and there might be a law or regulation that prevents its disclosure. I don’t know for sure.

    Yes, I should have been more precise. I was actually referring to all of the records which birthers demand to see, including medical records (protected by both Federal and state laws) and passport records (protected by Federal law).

  355. avatar
    Mary Adams November 28, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    ellid: The same applies to Ivy League schools like Columbia and Harvard.

    The same applies to EVERY school.

    Not even a PARENT, who is footing the bill, can get the transcripts of a student over age 18.

  356. avatar
    Mary Adams November 28, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: The meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause has been debated by scholars for quite a number of years, concerning candidates such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, Christian D. Herr, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and recently John McCain. How interesting that those who engaged in that scholarship were not labeled “birthers” or conspiracy nuts.

    Maybe that has to do with the fact that they weren’t making up crazy [S***] like you and the rest of the birthers are.

  357. avatar
    Bovril November 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Poor old Mario, got his kicking, continually failed to actually answer questions and has scuttled away, tail between his legs back to the safety of his hwavily censored web site.

    One wonders just how whiney and pathetic he will be tomorrow when the formal notification of how his pile if dross has been treated hits the Intertubes….

  358. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    lucky stripe: if they have nothing to hide why not comply?

    I’ll make you a deal. If you send me copies of your BC, all your school records, your banking information, and your original signature on a cheque sized piece of paper, I’ll send in the request immediately to the Hawaii Dept of Health.

    If you have nothing to hide, why not comply? After all my right to know those things about you overrides your right to privacy, correct?

  359. avatar
    natural born citizen party November 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    Woody Allen quote:

    Ninety percent of life is just showing up.

    by Woody Allen quotes

    — about 17 hours until release of latest SCOTUS cert holiday schedule conference in the context of the 2010 congressional election reversal result — also this cert petiton requested sotomayor and kagan recusals adding even more interest as well as the context of the latest cert petitions (showing up) of Orly Taitz and John Hemenway (Hollister) — as well as the ongoing context of various Strunk known public federal (e.g. FOIA judge Leon) and nys supreme court Kings Cty (judge Schmidt) cases. — and of course the CINC case and controversy and standing of senior officer LTC Lakin

  360. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 28, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    natural born citizen party: Woody Allen quote:Ninety percent of life is just showing up.by Woody Allen quotes– about 17 hours until release of latest SCOTUS cert holiday schedule conference in the context of the 2010 congressional election reversal result — also this cert petiton requested sotomayor and kagan recusals adding even more interest as well as the context of the latest cert petitions (showing up) of Orly Taitz and John Hemenway (Hollister) — as well as the ongoing context of various Strunk known public federal (e.g. FOIA judge Leon) and nys supreme court Kings Cty (judge Schmidt) cases. — and of course the CINC case and controversy and standing of senior officer LTC Lakin

    I see your fantasy world has a lot of detail…

  361. avatar
    Sef November 28, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    Bovril: Poor old Mario, got his kicking, continually failed to actually answer questions and has scuttled away, tail between his legs back to the safety of his hwavily censored web site.One wonders just how whiney and pathetic he will be tomorrow when the formal notification of how his pile if dross has been treated hits the Intertubes….

    In past cases it was several days before Mario’s site had any reference to his rejections. I predict something similar after tomorrow.

  362. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    You have to give the man some time to spin up the propaganda machine…

  363. avatar
    Bovril November 28, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    Sef,

    I don’t know, he started his whine fest over at CAAFLOG a week ago seemingly in preparation for his epic fail.

    I expect he has already written his whine and will probably allow Kerchner to vomit it out as a squeal about how the SC were all “gotten at”.

  364. avatar
    gorefan November 28, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    natural born citizen party: about 17 hours until release of latest SCOTUS cert holiday schedule conference

    Don’t quote me, but I don’t think it will be out until Tuesday.

  365. avatar
    ron November 28, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Mary Adams: The same applies to EVERY school. Not even a PARENT, who is footing the bill, can get the transcripts of a student over age 18.

    not even the military, as a recruiter I had to have a signed consent from from the applicant

  366. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    natural born citizen party: – about 17 hours until release of latest SCOTUS cert holiday schedule conference in the context of the 2010 congressional election reversal result

    lucky stripe: why not prove me wrong and demand to see the original vital records.

    I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?).

    Hope this helps.

  367. avatar
    gorefan November 28, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    natural born citizen party: also this cert petiton requested sotomayor and kagan recusals

    FYI, here is a article on Supreme Court recusals,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us/16bar.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=supreme%20court%20recusal&st=cse

    My guess based on it, is that neither Justice Sotomayor nor Justice Kagan will recuse themselves.

  368. avatar
    Reality Check November 28, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    [While we are waiting for the momentous decision in Kerchner v Obama I thought a little humor was in order.]

    The hidden microphones of the RC Radio Network secretly recorded the deliberations on the Kerchner v Obama case that occurred on 23 November 2010 somewhere in the bowels of the Supreme Court. Here is a transcript of those deliberations:

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: What is the next case for consideration of the Honorable Justices of the Court?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Case number 10-446 Kerchner et. al. v Obama et. al. The plaintiffs are represented by Mario Apuzzo, ESQ. It is a birther case, sir.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Oh god, another one?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Yes sir. I am afraid so.

    CHIEF CLERK: I thought they gave up?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: On no sir. We have another case filed by that crazy bitch Orly Taitz coming up in a few weeks.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: OK, don’t spoil the fun on that one. Let’s hold discussion on Taitz latest pile of poop for now. Who is this Kerchner Apuzzo?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: They are two different people sir. Charles Kerchner is a frustrated ex electrical engineer and birfer. Mario Apuzzo is a DUI attorney from New Jersey who wears a bow tie.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Mario Apuzzo from New Jersey? Has to be a mob lawyer, right?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: No sir. He seems to specialize in DUI cases.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: He must be the world’s most god awful attorney with a name like that and he can’t work for the mob in Jersey.

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Yes, sir. He is that bad.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: OK lay it on us. What has this idiot written?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Well, it is pretty long sir. 81 pages.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Just the highlights. We know where this one is headed.

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Well sir. The Third Circuit denied this one on standing like all the other POS birfer cases. They almost sanctioned him for not mentioning another case that was directly on point in his appeal brief but this Apuzzo managed to grovel enough in his OSC response that he avoided sanctions.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Those Third Circuit guys always were a bunch of pussies. They should have sanctioned his ass. [Laughter]

    UNKNOWN CLERK: So anyway, the Third Circuit denied on standing because this case is filed by another bunch of whiny assed racists who can’t believe a black guy got elected to be president.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Birfers. Got to love them.

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Yes sir. Anyway most of the brief is spent pushing this kookie theory that you have to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. They quote Vattel.

    JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: Who the hell?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Why, Mr. Justice Thomas. Good to hear from you. Vattel. V-A-T-T-E-L. He was a Swiss or maybe Prussian philosopher who wrote a Treatise called “The Law of Nations”. He apparently said that you have to have two citizen parents to be a natural born subject. He also doesn’t believe in the right to own firearms.

    JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Screw that dude with a hot poker up his ass.

    UNKNOWN CLERK: Good one sir!

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Anything else for the honorable justices?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: No sir.

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL: Thank you. You get extra pay for reading through that POS. How many pages was that pile of poop again?

    UNKNOWN CLERK: 81 pages sir. By the way, they are suing Congress for not vetting Obama and Cheney for not calling for objections to the electoral vote.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Now I know they are morons. Fuck with Cheney and he will shoot you in the fucking face. I fucking know. I was there! [Laughter]

    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL; Thank you again for the summary my friend. Honorable Chief Justice Roberts, do we need a show of hands on this one sir?

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You’re kidding right? Good one Danny! We needed a laugh. Denined. What’s next? [LAUGHTER]

  369. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    natural born citizen party: about 17 hours until release of latest SCOTUS cert holiday schedule conference in the context of the 2010 congressional election reversal result — also this cert petiton requested sotomayor and kagan recusals adding even more interest as well as the context of the latest cert petitions (showing up) of Orly Taitz and John Hemenway (Hollister) — as well as the ongoing context of various Strunk known public federal (e.g. FOIA judge Leon) and nys supreme court Kings Cty (judge Schmidt) cases. — and of course the CINC case and controversy and standing of senior officer LTC Lakin

    The Taitz and Hollister petitions will be denied without comment and without the government bothering to respond.

    Strunk has lost every one of the numerous lawsuits he has filed in New York, and there is no reason to think that this one will be any different.

    And in case you have missed it, Lakin’s attorney has conceded that Obama’s eligibility has nothing to do with the case and it will not be an issue during his court-martial.

  370. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 28, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    Just in case my fellow Jersey I-A friend returns, I have gone over the recording of the interview and put exact words, when audible, and times into the transcript.

    After some small talk with the translator, McCray begins asking his questions of Obama’s grandmother at approximately 4 minutes and 21 seconds into the interview. The questions about where President Obama was born cease at approximately 8:12, and McCray engages in more small talk with the translator and President Obama’s mother.

    4:21:438 – McCray: Uhh, could I ask her, uhh, could I ask her about his, uhh, his..his…his actual birthplace. I would like to see his birthplace when I…when I.. come to Kenya in December. Umm,

    4:35:938 – McCray: Was sh…was she present when he was…

    4:37:303 – Translator: says something in Kenyan

    4:37:976 – McCray: Was she…present…was she present when he was born in Kenya?

    4:42:551 Translator: Asks question to grandmother in Kenyan.

    4:46:729 – Translator (IN ENGLISH) – He wants to know something was that ahh was that you would say….was she present when ahhh he was born?

    {There is a problem with the translator at this point. The translator asked the grandmother, “Was she present when he was born?” This is an improper question. The question should have been, “Were YOU present when he was born?” not, “Was SHE present when he was born?” There is no way to know whom the grandmother thought “she” was when she was asked the question by the translator. Answering yes to a question that refers to someone else, “she,” in the affirmative does not mean that she meant that she, the grandmother herself, was present at his birth. An English speaker would have asked the translator whom he was referring to when he said “she” in that question. If the translator had asked, “Were YOU present when he was born?”, the grandmother would have answered with a no, as can be seen from all her later responses to this same question and others like it.}

    4:54:179 – Translator: Says something in Kenyan to grandmother

    4:57:078 – Translator: Yes, she said yes she was. She was present when Obama was born.

    5:02:445 – McCray: Okay. Umm, When I come in December, I would like to go by the, the place, the hospital, where he was born. Umm, could you tell me where he was born?

    5:16:506 – McCray: Was he born in Mombasa?

    5:24:080 – Translator: Says something to grandmother in Kenyan

    5:44:781 – Translator: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

    5:51:222 – McCray: Well whereabouts wa…whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

    5:57:749 Translator: He was born in America not in Mombasa

    6:00:404 – McCray: Okay. Do you know whereabouts he was born?

    6:05:514 – Translator: Hello?

    6:06:729 – McCray: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

    6:14:547 – Translator: Says something to grandmother in Kenyan.

    6:23:486 – Translator: Hawaii. Says something in Kenyan.

    6:26:458 – Translator: Uhhhh, she said he was born in Hawaii

    6:29:712 – McCray: Okay.

    6:35 Translator: (inaudible)…Hawaii where his father…his father…was over learning there. In Hawaii

    6:40:017 – McCray: Okay.

    6:42:315 – McCray: Was…was..

    6:44:222 – McCray: Was Mrs. Obama…was..was she present…was…(McCray groans)

    6:49:870 – Was Mrs. Obama…see..I thought she said was present…was..was she able to see him being born in Hawaii?

    7:00:524 – Translator: Hello? Will you please go on?

    7:05:947 – McCray: Okay, I’m sorry.

    7:08:603 – McCray: I…I thought she said she was present when he was born…I was

    7:14:849 – Translator: No…No.. (inaudible). You see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America…(inaudible).

    7:24:825 – McCray: Okay.

    7:24:975 – Translator: His mother…(inaudible)..and Obama was born in America…where…uhhh…he’s…(inaudible)…Obama was learning. He was learning in America, the United States.

    7:38:009 – McCray: Oh, okay. Alright.

    7:39:467 – McCray: I mau…I just…I misunderstood what she was saying. I thought she was present when he was born.

    7:46:387 – Translator: Nooo. (inaudible) Not present. (inaudible) She was here in Kenya while he uhh her son, the little one, was learning in America…and uhh he befriended his first wife was in America there. (inaudible) The president and senator was born there in America.

    8:11:316 McCray: Oh, okay

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/8167169.wma

    It’s clear why President Obama’s grandmother answered the question the way she initially did. McCray told the translator to ask her if “she was present at his birth.” At 4:46:729, the translator then asked the president’s grandmother the question, “Was she present at Obama’s birth?” when he should have asked her, “Were YOU president at Obama’s birth?” Therefore, his grandmother never said that she herself was present at President Obama’s birth because that is not the question that the translator asked her.

    Misunderstandings are quite common when people are unfamiliar with each other. I have had more than my fair share of those experiences on many first dates. Throw in thousands of miles between the parties, three different individuals, two different languages and cultures, and one grandmother well into her 80’s, and the potential for problems increases exponentially.

  371. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    gorefan:

    I did not write the Hawaiian statute which is clear in distinguishing between “the contents” of the document and “part thereof.” If we apply common sense, how could a piece of something be the equivalent of the whole. It simply cannot. Simple logic.

  372. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 28, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    gorefan:

    gorefan: Mario – Since the law of nations was adopted by England, did England also then adopt the idea that to be a natural born subject you had to have parents who were natural born subjects? Or were children of aliens born in the realm still considered natural born subjects?

    I am not aware of any evidence that England adopted natural law (per Pufendorf) and the law of nations (per Vattel) definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” There was no need for them to do so since there was no revolution there like that in America which transformed the society and form of government (feudal subjects under a monarchy to free and equal persons over a republic). But there is plenty of evidence that the Framers did adopt that law of nature and law of nations to define the new citizenship in America. Just as one piece of evidence, Minor v. Happersett revealed to us that America adopted the law of nations per Vattel as part of our “common law” and used that “common law” to define a “natural born citizen” to be a child born in the country of citizen parents. There is nothing of “English common law” in that simple statement.

    Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark referred to Minor for justifying his resorting to the “common law” to define a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born citizen.” But then Justice Gray totally disregarded that “the common law” used in Minor was based on the law of nations and not the English common law. There is a lot to be said about Wong Kim Ark but I will stop now and keep it short.

  373. avatar
    misha November 28, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: There is a lot to be said about Wong Kim Ark but I will stop now and keep it short.

    As you should. You know zero about citizenship law. Stick to drunks. They’re usually too intoxicated to notice much.

  374. avatar
    Daniel November 29, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I did not write the Hawaiian statute which is clear in distinguishing between “the contents” of the document and “part thereof.”If we apply common sense, how could a piece of something be the equivalent of the whole.It simply cannot.Simple logic.

    You did not write it, nor do you understand it. Unless you believe that all of the millions of COLBs issued by the Hi Dept of Hlth over the last years are invalid?

    If you wer in the habit of applying common sense you wouldn’t be in the position of now waiting for the SCOTUS to deny your petition.

    Simple logic eludes you, otherwise you wouldn’t be a birther.

  375. avatar
    Daniel November 29, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    So Mario…. you still havn’t indicated if you would be taking me up on my offer….

  376. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    Frankly, I believe that arguing about what the founding fathers meant by “natural born” is both silly and pointless. It’s a matter of opinion rather than a matter of law since it has never been defined in any court ruling, the Constitution, or any US law; the exception being the Ankeny/Kruse Indiana case.

    Those who have an opinion either way are going to find opinions of others to support their own selected opinion on the matter, and at the end of the day, all we have is a Mexican standoff. Moreover, it’s not our opinions in this regard that matter. If and when Congress decides to tackle this issue, it will be their opinions that matter. It’s no different than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  377. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 29, 2010 at 12:29 am #

    FUT…

    Take a look at Lynch v. Clarke. That defined it over 150 years ago.

    Take a look at the logic of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That directly took Citizenship back to English Common Law, and, as part of the ruling, said that under the original constitution, Wong would have been a citizen. Mario would love for us to believe that it only applied to “citizen” and not “Natural Born Citizen”. But if Citizen is defined by English Common Law, why would “Natural Born Citizen” not, especially when “Natural Born” has a 400 year history in English Common Law?

    Take a look at the Oral Arguments in the Supreme Court.

    Natural Born Citizen has been defined in Court Cases. They just continue to ignore that in order to have their fantasy.

    Oh, and if the Supreme Court ever did take up one of these cases, it would be a 9-0 decision declaring Obama to be eligible for the Presidency. If they wrote an opinion, I hope that it’d be Scalia that wrote the opinion of the Court. He’s famous for quoting from Blackstone in every opinion, and this would just give him every oppertunity to do so now.

    Now, it would be much less sure of a 9-0 decision on whether someone who was born outside the United States would be eligible for the Presidency. But ultimately, I think that the court would take a view that anybody who was a U.S. Citizen by birth is a Natural Born Citizen.

  378. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    dunstvangeet: FUT…Take a look at Lynch v. Clarke.That defined it over 150 years ago.Take a look at the logic of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.That directly took Citizenship back to English Common Law, and, as part of the ruling, said that under the original constitution, Wong would have been a citizen.Mario would love for us to believe that it only applied to “citizen” and not “Natural Born Citizen”.But if Citizen is defined by English Common Law, why would “Natural Born Citizen” not, especially when “Natural Born” has a 400 year history in English Common Law?Take a look at the Oral Arguments in the Supreme Court.Natural Born Citizen has been defined in Court Cases.They just continue to ignore that in order to have their fantasy.Oh, and if the Supreme Court ever did take up one of these cases, it would be a 9-0 decision declaring Obama to be eligible for the Presidency.If they wrote an opinion, I hope that it’d be Scalia that wrote the opinion of the Court.He’s famous for quoting from Blackstone in every opinion, and this would just give him every oppertunity to do so now.Now, it would be much less sure of a 9-0 decision on whether someone who was born outside the United States would be eligible for the Presidency.But ultimately, I think that the court would take a view that anybody who was a U.S. Citizen by birth is a Natural Born Citizen.

    I agree with you, dunstvangeet. I just don’t think that you’re going to change their opinions about it. Their opinions are of no consequence since they are not members of Congress. I am certain that if Congress does decide to define it, they will do so in line with the 14th Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and US Code TITLE 8 CHAPTER 12 SUBCHAPTER III Part I § 1401 – a natural born citizen is one who is born on American soil.

  379. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Grandmother interview

    Sarah Obama’s telephonic interview of Thursday, October 16, 2008, in Kogello, Kenya, in which she confirmed twice in her native Swahili language that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya, is the smoking gun.

    Bishop Ron McRae swore in an affidavit that Attorney Philip Berg filed with the federal district court that “. . . it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especially around the Kisumu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.” Affidavit at page 5. What a coincidence that Sarah Obama just happen to confirm this generally-known information and say when first asked that she was present when Obama was born.

    Your transcript is not accurate. You have not included all the speaking persons that were present during the telephonic interview of Sarah Obama. According to the McRae Affidavit, those persons who were present are:

    In the United States

    1. Bishop Ron McRae

    In Kenya

    2. Sarah Obama

    3. Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (name fictitious). He located Sarah Obama and was acting as the official English-Swahili translator for her.

    4. Vitalis Akech Ogombe. He is the step-grandson of Sarah Obama. He is also a cousin of Barack Obama. He was the Kogelo Community Chairman.

    5. One unknown person who can be heard speaking.

    6. Several unidentified men’s voices can be heard.

    Also present were several hundred people and police.

    In the beginning part of the interview, Bishop McRae asked Sarah Obama: “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” The translator, Reverend Kweli Shuhudia, asked her the question in Swahili, which she answered in Swahili, and Mr. Shuhudia gave her response in English: “Yes, she said yes she was. She was present when Obama was born.” The McRae Affidavit states that the question was asked to her twice in translation and both times Sarah Obama responded through Mr. Shuhudia that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I do not see how the grandmother can be confused with this mystery “she” that you are referring to. Clearly, Sarah Obama knew that question was directed at her, the object of the interview, and she answered it directly and without any difficulty.

    Later in the interview we can hear that there is considerable interference with the ongoing questioning of Mrs. Obama. We learn from the McRae Affidavit that Mr. Ogombe is the one who interfered. Although he was not the translator, we can hear him interject and interfere with the grandmother’s ongoing interview. He is the one who said, “No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.” “He was born in America, not Mombassa.” “She said he was born in Hawaii.” “(inaudible). . . Hawaii where his father. . .his father. . . was over learning there. In Hawaii.” “No. . . No. . . (inaudible). You see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. . . (inaudible). “His mother. . . (inaudible). . . and Obama was born in America. . . where. . . uhhh . . . he’s . . . (inaudible) . . . Obama was learning. He was learning in America, the United States.” “Nooo. (inaudible) Not present. (inaudible) She was here in Kenya while he uhh her son, the little one, was learning in America…and uhh he befriended his first wife was in America there. (inaudible) The president and senator was born there in America.”

    Mr. Ogombe was not able to explain how Sarah Obama could be present at Obama’s birth if he was born in Hawaii. When Bishop McRae asked him the question, there was long silence from him.

    Mr. Ogombe took over the interview and provided his own answers to Bishop McRae questions which were for Sarah Obama to answer and not Mr. Ogombe. It is Mr. Ogombe’s answers that Dr. Conspiracy, his supporters here, and you have offered to the world as Sarah Obama’s retraction to her clear statement that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.

    There is one very easy way to clarify the situation. Mr. Obama can simply release his long-form birth certificate and then we will see if what Sarah Obama said is true or false.

  380. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 1:28 am #

    dunstvangeet:

    Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark just made up the whole notion that the English common law was still used in the United States to define national citizenship. He cites no Supreme Court decision to support him. On the contrary, there are Supreme Court cases that came before him that show that we used the law of nations to define the new national citizenship, not the English common law. Why do you now address my point that the “common law” that Minor referred to was clearly not the English common law. The only thing that you can do here is pontificate but you have no well-reasoned arguments supporting your opinion.

    On Lynch, that was a state case regarding inheriting real estate in New York which the New York Legislature later overruled. How silly for the court to say, in a case related to inheriting some real estate in New York, that a person born in the U.S.A. during her parents brief visit here and taken back to the country of her alien parents who never again return to the USA was eligible to be President.

    Now we know why the New York Legislature overruled the Lynch case.

  381. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    dch:

    Your IQ is about as high as the amount of letters in your name.

  382. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2010 at 2:17 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Bishop Ron McRae swore in an affidavit that Attorney Philip Berg filed with the federal district court that

    Mario – Please explain why McRea’s and Rev. Kweli Shuhubia’s affidavids are word for word the same.

    McRae, ““When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, No, No, No, He was born in the United States!’ But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

    Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, “When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

    McCrae says in his affidavit that he asked questions in English which were translated into Swahili then the answers were translated back to English. So how does he swear to what Mrs. Obama said? He wasn’t in the room, could see her her and doesn’t even know if she answered the questions.

  383. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 2:20 am #

    Realist: Have you seen the picture of him with the fly on his lip….?
    How can you say he’s not Kenyan?

    Clearly this man is obviously not a racist, and he shows it with everything he writes. πŸ™‚

    If I were you, I would stop digging,m you ignorant little bigot.

  384. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 2:32 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: America adopted the law of nations per Vattel as part of our “common law” and used that “common law” to define a “natural born citizen” to be a child born in the country of citizen parents.

    The last part of that statement is egregiously wrong and you know it. You are a liar and nothing more than a puppet lawyer for white supremacist organizations.

  385. avatar
    BatGuano November 29, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    natural born citizen party: Woody Allen quote:

    Ninety percent of life is just showing up.

    obviously that 10% can be a bitch.

  386. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 2:46 am #

    I have never dealt with “mob attorneys” but I have at one time sat opposite counsels for the mobster Giancarlo Parretti who almost took down the French bank Credit Lyonnais in his notorious MGM swindle.

    (For more details
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giancarlo_Parretti )

    That is my only experience with attorneys willfully and knowingly defending the cause of a man they knew to be a crook and using every tactic in the book to prevent or delay reckoning. Factually, there was no defense as everything that had been done was clear to everyone.

    Based on this experience, in my opinion, Mario is in similar fashion a “bad faith” attorney in the sense that I believe that he very well knows that virtually everything he says or write is rubbish, indefensible, but as he is being paid by white supremacists, he obviously has to put up a good show.

    Obviously, I have made it clear that I find that kind of lawyering utterly contemptible, and if I were your Bar Association I would sanction harshly the slightest deviation from professional ethics in such cases. I honestly don’t see why, as a society, we need to encourage of tolerate that sort of things beyond the letter of the law. If it were me, Mario’s complaint would get him a one-way ticket to disbarment. But it’s not up to me.

    I have posted here links to several articles in the past that show the connections between the gullible birthers and far right racist organizations; there’s no doubt that Mario is one more (small) tentacle in that vile hydra.

  387. avatar
    BatGuano November 29, 2010 at 2:46 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Bishop Ron McRae swore in an affidavit that Attorney Philip Berg filed with the federal district court that “

    is that the same Philip Berg that claims President Obama became an Indonesian citizen as a minor ?

  388. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: If we apply common sense, how could a piece of something be the equivalent of the whole.

    In 1978, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued a revised standard for Birth Certificates. One of the modifications was,

    “The certificate was reformatted by moving the certlfication statement and registrar information above the parentage information to make it possible to issue short-form certifications by photographic means.” DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 83-1460

    Logically, the USDHHS recognized that a “part thereof” of the birth certificate, could represent the whole contents, in cases where place of birth was the single most important requirement.

  389. avatar
    Arthur November 29, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Your IQ is about as high as the amount of letters in your name.

    I wouldn’t like it if someone listed my failures, and so I can understand why you would lash out at dch for pointing out that you have a 100% failure rate with the birther cases you’ve represented, and that that the Supreme Court has “already disposed of Kerchner” and probably will deny without comment your current action.

    Nevertheless, dch asked some relevant questions about your work as a lawyer, and indirectly questioned your reasons for continuing in the face of so much disappointment. For example, dch asked why you’ve been unable to “convince any judge” that your position is correct, why you’ve failed all the time, why it is that judges sanction you, why you’ve lost every appeal, etc. You responded to dch’s facts and questions by telling him he as an I.Q. of three.

    While I’m proud of you for not pulling an Orly and blaming your remarkable failure rate on a conspiracy of judges and law clerks to cover up the truth and/or destroy you, I’m disheartened that you refused to answer dch and simply called him an idiot. That’s childish. His questions are legitimate and I’m interested in your response.

    There are many people, myself among them, who cannot understand why a seemingly intelligent man and otherwise successful lawyer would continue to pursue what has proved to be a fool’s errand. We all know that people like Orly Taitz and Walt Fitzpatrick are nuts, that Phil Berg has a crush on Hilary Clinton, that David Manning and Alan Keyes have serious personality disorders, and that an irrational hatred and fear of President Obama runs through the birther claque, but where do you fit into all this?

  390. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 29, 2010 at 3:09 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: It’s clear why President Obama’s grandmother answered the question the way she initially did. McCray told the translator to ask her if “she was present at his birth.” At 4:46:729, the translator then asked the president’s grandmother the question, “Was she present at Obama’s birth?” when he should have asked her, “Were YOU president at Obama’s birth?”

    Actually, the translation, or possible mis-translation, of the word “present” is a problem — the question, was she present when he was born in Kenya could easily have been understood and translated as, were you here in Kenya when [Obama] was born — and the posing of the question as “when he was born in Kenya”, referring to a man who was born in Hawaii, could clearly have led the translator to make that mistake..

    An appropriate interview would have more along these lines:

    Do you know where your grandson Obama was born?
    [If yes], where was he born? How do you know?

  391. avatar
    Arthur November 29, 2010 at 3:13 am #

    Lupin: . . . in my opinion, Mario is in similar fashion a “bad faith” attorney in the sense that I believe that he very well knows that virtually everything he says or write is rubbish, indefensible, but as he is being paid by white supremacists, he obviously has to put up a good show . . . there’s no doubt that Mario is one more (small) tentacle in that vile hydra.

    I found your post very interesting, Lupin, because you submitted it right before I asked Mario the question of “why”– fundamentally, why is he doing this. While I wait for his response, would it be possible for you to create links to those older articles you refer to? Thanks.

  392. avatar
    BatGuano November 29, 2010 at 3:16 am #

    happy monday mario. all the best.

  393. avatar
    brygenon November 29, 2010 at 3:21 am #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:: Sarah Obama’s telephonic interview of Thursday, October 16, 2008, in Kogello, Kenya, in which she confirmed twice in her native Swahili language that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya, is the smoking gun.

    Yes, she was present in the village in Kenya, when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Bishop Ron McRae swore

    Ron McRae is “bishop” of a sect invented by Ron McRae. “Anabaptist Churches of North America” is not a collections of churches; it’s the name Ron McRae bestowed upon his own endeavor.

    Ron McRae assured Sarah Obama that he would be praying for Barack Obama, her grandson, while actually trying to trick her into saying something he could use to harm Barack Obama. Quite something when your best evidence shows your star witness to be liar.

    in an affidavit that Attorney Philip Berg filed with the federal district court that “. . . it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especially around the Kisumu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.” Affidavit at page 5.

    In the same affidavit, McRae swore that Barack Obama campaigned for Raila Odinga. Ron McRae swears falsely.

    What a coincidence that Sarah Obama just happen to confirm this generally-known information and say when first asked that she was present when Obama was born.

    No, there’s no coincidence. Sarah Obama and other Kenyans were barraged by calls and requests for interviews. Over all that talk and across all that translating, how could there not be a few misunderstandings? This one got cleared up immediately. Once the question was clear, the answer was that Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii.

    In the beginning part of the interview,

    In the very beginning, McRae introduced himself as the Bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America and falsely portrays himself as a friend. He says it’s an honor to talk to her, that he’ll be praying for her grandson, and that he’d like to come visit and pray with her.

    Bishop McRae asked Sarah Obama: “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?”

    What kind of shyster would pitch a leading question like that as something a court should accept? Where’s Sarah Obama’s affidavit? McRae said he’d be visiting in December, which would be just after the 2008 election. How’d that go?

    The translator, Reverend Kweli Shuhudia, asked her the question in Swahili, which she answered in Swahili, and Mr. Shuhudia gave her response in English: “Yes, she said yes she was. She was present when Obama was born.”

    What was the Swahili? Did he specify her grandson, or did he just say “Barack Obama” which is also the name of her step-son? Did he translate it to ask if she was present *at* his birth, or present there in the village on the day of Barack Obama’s birth?

    The McRae Affidavit states that the question was asked to her twice in translation and both times Sarah Obama responded through Mr. Shuhudia that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.

    The audio recording contradicts McRae on that.

    Later in the interview we can hear that there is considerable interference with the ongoing questioning of Mrs. Obama.

    Nope, about the same amount of back-and-forth as throughout the interview.

    Mr. Ogombe was not able to explain how Sarah Obama could be present at Obama’s birth if he was born in Hawaii. When Bishop McRae asked him the question, there was long silence from him.

    So he explains that it was a misunderstanding. She wasn’t saying Barack Obama II was born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. The only person on the recording who said Obama was born in Kenya was “Bishop” Ron McRae.

    There is one very easy way to clarify the situation. Mr. Obama can simply release his long-form birth certificate and then we will see if what Sarah Obama said is true or false.

    The situation was clear long ago. President Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a natural-born citizen of the United States. And birthers lie.

  394. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2010 at 3:37 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Minor v. Happersett

    The Minor opinion was decided in 1875, so I doubt the Framers were aware of it.

    So in 1774, when the Continental Congress wrote “That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England.” Were they using the English Law definition of natural born or the Law of Nations definition?

    In 1776, when Pennsylvania issued their state constitution in which was written, “Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.” Were they using the English Law definition of natural born, or the Law of Nations definition?

    in 1777, when Vermont issued their state constitution in which was written “Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence. ” Were they using the English Law definition of natural born, or the Law of Nations definition?

    In 1786, when Vermont rewrote thier state constitution in which was written “Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.” Were they using the English Law definition of natural born, or the Law of Nations definition?

    In 1789, when the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” And declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others are “entitled to all the liberties privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.” Were they using the English Law definition of natural born, or the Law of Nations definition?

    How do you know which definition they were using?

  395. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 3:40 am #

    Arthur: I wouldn’t like it if someone listed my failures, and so I can understand why you would lash out at dch for pointing out that you have a 100% failure rate with the birther cases you’ve represented, and that that the Supreme Court has “already disposed of Kerchner” and probably will deny without comment your current action.Nevertheless, dch asked some relevant questions about your work as a lawyer, and indirectly questioned your reasons for continuing in the face of so much disappointment. For example, dch asked why you’ve been unable to “convince any judge” that your position is correct, why you’ve failed all the time, why it is that judges sanction you, why you’ve lost every appeal, etc. You responded to dch’s facts and questions by telling him he as an I.Q. of three. While I’m proud of you for not pulling an Orly and blaming your remarkable failure rate on a conspiracy of judges and law clerks to cover up the truth and/or destroy you, I’m disheartened that you refused to answer dch and simply called him an idiot. That’s childish. His questions are legitimate and I’m interested in your response. There are many people, myself among them, who cannot understand why a seemingly intelligent man and otherwise successful lawyer would continue to pursue what has proved to be a fool’s errand. We all know that people like Orly Taitz and Walt Fitzpatrick are nuts, that Phil Berg has a crush on Hilary Clinton, that David Manning and Alan Keyes have serious personality disorders, and that an irrational hatred and fear of President Obama runs through the birther claque, but where do you fit into all this?

    You’re doing better than dch by a doubling factor.

  396. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 3:46 am #

    Arthur: There are many people, myself among them, who cannot understand why a seemingly intelligent man and otherwise successful lawyer would continue to pursue what has proved to be a fool’s errand. We all know that people like Orly Taitz and Walt Fitzpatrick are nuts, that Phil Berg has a crush on Hilary Clinton, that David Manning and Alan Keyes have serious personality disorders, and that an irrational hatred and fear of President Obama runs through the birther claque, but where do you fit into all this?

    For the answer see my earlier post about mob attorneys.

  397. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 3:52 am #

    gorefan:

    Why should you struggle so. Our Constituion says “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject.” Did I answer your question?

  398. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 3:53 am #

    Arthur:

    This is a repost:

    Fascinating article in THE NATION explaining why it’s ENTIRELY about racism:

    http://www.thenation.com/article/agent-intolerance

    The money-quote:

    “Seeking to capitalize on mounting evangelical discontent, a right-wing Washington operative and anti-Vatican II Catholic named Paul Weyrich took a series of trips down South to meet with Falwell and other evangelical leaders. Weyrich hoped to produce a well-funded evangelical lobbying outfit that could lend grassroots muscle to the top-heavy Republican Party and effectively mobilize the vanquished forces of massive resistance into a new political bloc. In discussions with Falwell, Weyrich cited various social ills that necessitated evangelical involvement in politics, particularly abortion, school prayer and the rise of feminism. His pleas initially fell on deaf ears.

    “I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.”

    It’s worth also reading this article on AlterNet which shows how the racists are being manipulated by big business:

    http://www.alternet.org/news/148795/how_republicans_and_their_big_business_allies_duped_tens_of_millions_of_evangelicals_into_voting_for_a_corporate_agenda?page=entire

    Money quote:

    “And fear-filled white Americans don’t get anything in return, unless you count their fleeting visceral pleasure of putting “that uppity black man” in the White House in his place.”

    Mario and the others are just one very tiny tentacle of the same octopus.

    To which I would add this:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/18/103946/birthright-citizenship-will-be.html

  399. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 3:59 am #

    For those who came in late, this is the Vattel capsule review.

    The questions to be decided are:

    (1) Is Vattel relevant to the issue?
    Not being a US constitutional attorney, I have no expert opinion on this, but my readings on this site leads me to to think he isn’t.

    (2) If he is, does his terminology accurately translate into the term “natural-born citizen”?
    With some reservations, I’d say it does NOT, but I could see a good faith argument being made for it.

    (3) If it did, would applying Vattel then disqualify Obama (ie: by making him not an NBC)?
    My expert professional opinion is that it would NOT, and I’m certainly far more an expert on this that Apuzzo, and there is NO good faith argument to the opposite.

  400. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 4:19 am #

    For I think the fourth or firth time, I will ask again attorney Apuzzo to formally and publicly deny that his client(s) are not connected with far right organizations.

    He has always steadfastly refused to answer in the past.

  401. avatar
    Jules November 29, 2010 at 4:24 am #

    Lupin: To be fair, I don’t think Vattel was “campaigning” for one system over the other. He mentioned the British jus soli system of transmission of citizenship and did not attack it. He wrote about what he knew, ie the system in force in Switzerland, Prussia, etc.

    To the extent the US started as a British colony, it made sense that you adopted the fundamental tenets of British law. Had we not sold you Louisiana and kept that huge chink of territory in the middle going up to French Canada, this hypothetical “Nouvelle France” would likely have evolved a legal system that would have followed French Law. And writing that Blackstone had “lost the argument” would then be just as inappropriate.

    (If that had happened you might have saved yourself a Civil War.)

    You are correct that Vattel was merely describing the approach to nationality law taken in the countries with which he was most familiar. I should have clarified that I was assuming, for the purposes of my comment, that the twofers are correct in stating that Vattel’s view on citizenship was a definitive statement of customary international law. My intention in doing so was to show that Vattel would have been wrong if he were purporting to describe principles of nationality law that would be binding on such countries as the United States as certain birther lawyers argue. There is no question that nationality law differs from one country to another and that each nation has a sovereign right to decide on the course it takes in its nationality law.

  402. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark just made up the whole notion that the English common law was still used in the United States to define national citizenship. He cites no Supreme Court decision to support him. On the contrary, there are Supreme Court cases that came before him that show that we used the law of nations to define the new national citizenship, not the English common law. Why do you now address my point that the “common law” that Minor referred to was clearly not the English common law. The only thing that you can do here is pontificate but you have no well-reasoned arguments supporting your opinion.

    On Lynch, that was a state case regarding inheriting real estate in New York which the New York Legislature later overruled. How silly for the court to say, in a case related to inheriting some real estate in New York, that a person born in the U.S.A. during her parents brief visit here and taken back to the country of her alien parents who never again return to the USA was eligible to be President.

    Now we know why the New York Legislature overruled the Lynch case.

    And we know why the United States overruled Dred Scott by the 14th amendment, an amendment which removed any doubt that jus soli (the English rule) is the law of the land.

    You say that “Justice Gray… just made up the whole notion that the English common law was still used in the United States to define national citizenship,” but that is hardly the case. Vice-chancellor Sandford in Lynch v Clarke said it before.

    We may, of course, infer that English common law is the source of our natural born citizenship language by looking to early writers on the Constitution such as Rawle who define it in terms of jus soli.

    Your fake analysis of the Constitution is as valid as your fake travel ban to Pakistan. You are an unrepentant liar, and no one in their right mind would believe a word you say.

  403. avatar
    Majority Will November 29, 2010 at 4:41 am #

    Mario drooled:

    “Your IQ is about as high as the amount of letters in your name.”

    Is this another of so many reasons why Mario is an incompetent lawyer?

    The NJ Bar Association must be so proud.

  404. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 4:46 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Does Dr. Conspiracy expect me to argue the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a complaint?

    Kerchner v. Obama is not a complaint; it is a publicity stunt.

  405. avatar
    Majority Will November 29, 2010 at 4:57 am #

    Reality Check: [While we are waiting for the momentous decision in Kerchner v Obama I thought a little humor was in order.]The hidden microphones of the RC Radio Network secretly recorded the deliberations on the Kerchner v Obama case that occurred on 23 November 2010 somewhere in the bowels of the Supreme Court. Here is a transcript of thosedeliberations:CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:What is the next case for consideration of the Honorable Justices of the Court?UNKNOWN CLERK:Case number 10-446 Kerchner et. al. v Obama et. al. The plaintiffs are represented by Mario Apuzzo, ESQ. It is a birther case, sir.CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Oh god, another one?
    UNKNOWN CLERK: Yes sir. I am afraid so.CHIEF CLERK:I thought they gave up?UNKNOWN CLERK: On no sir. We have another case filed by that crazy bitch Orly Taitz coming up in a few weeks.CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:OK, don’t spoil the fun on that one. Let’s hold discussion on Taitz latest pile of poop for now. Who is this Kerchner Apuzzo?
    UNKNOWN CLERK:They are two different people sir. Charles Kerchner is a frustrated ex electrical engineer and birfer. Mario Apuzzo is a DUI attorney from New Jersey who wears a bow tie.CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Mario Apuzzo from New Jersey? Has to be a mob lawyer, right?UNKNOWN CLERK: No sir. He seems to specialize in DUI cases.
    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:He must be the world’s most god awful attorney with a name like that and he can’t work for the mob in Jersey.UNKNOWN CLERK: Yes, sir. He is that bad.
    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:OK lay it on us. What has this idiot written?UNKNOWN CLERK:Well, it is pretty long sir. 81 pages.CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Just the highlights. We know where this one is headed.
    UNKNOWN CLERK:Well sir. The Third Circuit denied this one on standing like all the other POS birfer cases. They almost sanctioned him for not mentioning another case that was directly on point in his appeal brief but this Apuzzo managed to grovel enough in his OSC response that he avoided sanctions.
    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Those Third Circuit guys always were a bunch of pussies. They should have sanctioned his ass. [Laughter]UNKNOWN CLERK:So anyway, the Third Circuit denied on standing because this case is filed by another bunch of whiny assed racists who can’t believe a black guy got elected to be president.
    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Birfers. Got to love them.UNKNOWN CLERK:Yes sir. Anyway most of the brief is spent pushing this kookie theory that you have to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. They quote Vattel.JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS:Who the hell?UNKNOWN CLERK: Why, Mr. Justice Thomas. Good to hear from you. Vattel. V-A-T-T-E-L. He was a Swiss or maybe Prussian philosopher who wrote a Treatise called “The Law of Nations”. He apparently said that you have to have two citizen parents to be a natural born subject. He also doesn’t believe in the right to own firearms.
    JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA:Screw that dude with a hot poker up his ass.
    UNKNOWN CLERK:Good one sir!CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Anything else for the honorable justices?UNKNOWN CLERK:No sir.
    CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL:Thank you. You get extra pay for reading through that POS. How many pages was that pile of poop again?UNKNOWN CLERK: 81 pages sir. By the way, they are suing Congress for not vetting Obama and Cheney for not calling for objections to the electoral vote.
    JUSTICE SCALIA:Now I know they are morons. Fuck with Cheney and he will shoot you in the fucking face. I fucking know. I was there! [Laughter]CHIEF CLERK DANNY BICKELL;Thank you again for the summary my friend. Honorable Chief Justice Roberts, do we need a show of hands on this one sir?
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:You’re kidding right? Good one Danny! We needed a laugh. Denined. What’s next? [LAUGHTER]

    LMFAO

    It”s past time to let this insignificant bigot fade away into inevitable obscurity.

  406. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 5:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: But there is plenty of evidence that the Framers did adopt that law of nature and law of nations to define the new citizenship in America. Just as one piece of evidence, Minor v. Happersett revealed to us that America adopted the law of nations per Vattel as part of our “common law” and used that “common law” to define a “natural born citizen” to be a child born in the country of citizen parents. There is nothing of “English common law” in that simple statement.

    It is absurd to suggest that a bit of dicta from the Supreme Court is “evidence” especially since it occurred long after the Constitution was written. Also, if you honestly report Minor, you must also say that the court had doubts as to the accuracy of this being a true representation of the rule, entertaining the idea that the parental requirement might not exist at all. The court did not resolve whether it did or did not; Minor was a citizen in either case.

    Your claim that Justice Gray invented the application of English common law to the definition of citizenship is equally absurd, as anyone can readily see when reading the decision in US v Wong. It is abundantly clear from the argument there how English common law applies.

    The theory that de Vattel controls citizenship was a notion invented in a concurring opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case (widely identified as one of the worst and most shameful in Supreme Court history). Wong is the controlling decision, and Dred Scott was repudiated by the whole country in the 14th Amendment.

  407. avatar
    AnotherBird November 29, 2010 at 5:51 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: There is one very easy way to clarify the situation. Mr. Obama can simply release his long-form birth certificate and then we will see if what Sarah Obama said is true or false.

    You should take your fingers out of your ears, and listen for once. You where previously harping about a desire to see a passport, now you have returned to “long-form birth certificate.” Nothing will satisfy you.

    What is it? Is it that you realized that the passport issue was the wrong avenue?

    You can keep on moving those goal post, or listen to what the state of Hawaii’s confirmation of Obama natural born citizenship status. The later would prevent you from tripping over yourself.

  408. avatar
    e.vattel November 29, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    Obama needs the 14th Amendment.. to be a citizen if he was born in Hawaii, plus he needs Wong Kim Ark.

    WKA has 50 pages of argument to affirm WKA is a citizen. How can it be possible a natural born citizen needs the 14th Amendment plus 50 pages of argument in WKA.

    This makes no sense. There is no way a legit NBC needs needs the 14th and WKA.

    Why? Because of..this..

    “2008 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal Georgetown Immigration Law Journal ARTICLE: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC MINIMUM by William Ty Mayton” …

    “And now to cut to and quickly state the thesis of this article: Citizenship right under the Fourteenth Amendment includes–within the Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” qualification–gauge classically identified by Emer de Vattel.
    This gauge is the “moral relation of the parents to the state ” (and not, as Vattel added, an ‘inanimate piece of land” ”

    Obama fails the subject of jurisdiction qualification.

    Obama fails Minor.

  409. avatar
    Ballantine November 29, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    I am not aware of any evidence that England adopted natural law (per Pufendorf) and the law of nations (per Vattel) definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” There was no need for them to do so since there was no revolution there like that in America which transformed the society and form of government (feudal subjects under a monarchy to free and equal persons over a republic). But there is plenty of evidence that the Framers did adopt that law of nature and law of nations to define the new citizenship in America. Just as one piece of evidence, Minor v. Happersett revealed to us that America adopted the law of nations per Vattel as part of our “common law” and used that “common law” to define a “natural born citizen” to be a child born in the country of citizen parents. There is nothing of “English common law” in that simple statement. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark referred to Minor for justifying his resorting to the “common law” to define a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born citizen.” But then Justice Gray totally disregarded that “the common law” used in Minor was based on the law of nations and not the English common law. There is a lot to be said about Wong Kim Ark but I will stop now and keep it short.

    Is English not your first language? Have you actually read these cases? Right after Gray said NBC was to be defined by the common law it cited Smith v. Alamaba saying the Constitutionmust befined by the English common law and spent 10 pages examining what natural born subject meant under the English common law before telling us such jus soli rule continued after the revolution and prevailed under our constitution. DUH. Can’t make this stuff up. Later in the case, when distinguishing dicta in Slaughterhouse, Gray cites Minor for the sole purpose of showing the Slaughterhouse court “was not committed” to a position since Minor, the same court, was not committeed to a view. Hence, Minor was cited to show it punted on the issue but Mario thinks Gray is endorsing some hidden definition in Minor.

    The court said over and over in the 19th century that undefined termns in the Constituition was to be defined by the common law and they usually made clear that they meant the English common law. No one in the 19th century said common law when they meant law of nations. This is the dishonestly you need to go to to try to make an argument.

  410. avatar
    Keith November 29, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    Jules: There is no question that nationality law differs from one country to another and that each nation has a sovereign right to decide on the course it takes in its nationality law.

    And embarrassingly for those very same twofers, Vattel acknowledges that in paragraph 214.

  411. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 8:25 am #

    e.vattel: “2008 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal Georgetown Immigration Law Journal ARTICLE: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC MINIMUM by William Ty Mayton”

    It is settled law that the children of illegal aliens born in the United States are citizens. Mayton seeks to overturn that. It is fine for him to argue that the status quo should be changed. It is not fine for you to misrepresent what the status quo is.

  412. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    e.vattel: “And now to cut to and quickly state the thesis of this article: Citizenship right under the Fourteenth Amendment includes–within the Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” qualification–gauge classically identified by Emer de Vattel.
    This gauge is the “moral relation of the parents to the state ” (and not, as Vattel added, an inanimate piece of land” ”

    I am sick and tired of ignoramuses like you who likely can’t read French, who visibly don’t know anything about the French and Swiss legal systems and their history, who who clearly have not studied Vattel’s works, making ill-conceived and distorted statements about what Vattel said or meant.

    As a French lawyer, I find this utterly preposterous, just as if I, a foreigner, was going to explain YOUR Constitution to YOU.

    Suffice it to say that you are WRONG, and if somehow you seek to craft a legal argument to undermine Obama’s legitimacy using the “natural-born citizen” issue, please do so while refraining from dragging Vattel into it, you ignorant troll.

  413. avatar
    Arthur November 29, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: You’re doing better than dch by a doubling factor.

    Mario:
    That’s faint praise–still leaves me with an I.Q. level of . . . five. No six. Or is it four? I don’t know for sure; according to you I’m still an idiot. Or maybe . . . an idiot savant? For I’m intelligent enough to note that you failed to answer any of the questions put to you by dch or me. Oh, well, maybe we’ll get em for Christmas.

    Anyway, happy Monday, Mario. I get the sense that something’s about to be handed to you, and it won’t be a medal for “World’s Greatest Lawyer.”

  414. avatar
    ellid November 29, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Your IQ is about as high as the amount of letters in your name.

    That would imply that his IQ is has three digit, so unless you’re suddenly claiming that the *average* IQ tops 1000 (which it clearly doesn’t), this “insult” is as senseless as your insistence that a marine salvage has squat to do with citizenship, and that the laws of the United States do not apply to a black President.

    It would be highly amusing if it weren’t so disgusting.

  415. avatar
    ellid November 29, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    And I need more coffee…it should be “digits” and “marine salvage case.” Then again, unlike the worthy Attorney Apuzzo, I’m more than happy to correct my mistakes.

  416. avatar
    ellid November 29, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Also present were several hundred people and police.

    Several HUNDRED people? HUNDRED? Are you insane? Or do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Sarah Obama invited the entire population of her town (plus probably several others) to listen in on a cell phone call from someone she’d never met? And that the police either knew or cared?

    Whatever you’re smoking, STOP. The above post bears no resemblance to fact, truth, or logic.

  417. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 29, 2010 at 9:57 am #

    Lupin: I am sick and tired of ignoramuses like you who likely can’t read French, who visibly don’t know anything about the French and Swiss legal systems and their history, who who clearly have not studied Vattel’s works, making ill-conceived and distorted statements about what Vattel said or meant. As a French lawyer, I find this utterly preposterous, just as if I, a foreigner, was going to explain YOUR Constitution to YOU.Suffice it to say that you are WRONG, and if somehow you seek to craft a legal argument to undermine Obama’s legitimacy using the “natural-born citizen” issue, please do so while refraining from dragging Vattel into it, you ignorant troll.

    Lupin this is as annoying as people who misunderstand what Machiavelli was writing about and that his Prince was dripping with sarcasm and was not a praise of totalitarianism but rather a critique against it.

  418. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 9:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And we know why the United States overruled Dred Scott by the 14th amendment, an amendment which removed any doubt that jus soli (the English rule) is the law of the land.You say that “Justice Gray… just made up the whole notion that the English common law was still used in the United States to define national citizenship,” but that is hardly the case. Vice-chancellor Sandford in Lynch v Clarke said it before.We may, of course, infer that English common law is the source of our natural born citizenship language by looking to early writers on the Constitution such as Rawle who define it in terms of jus soli.Your fake analysis of the Constitution is as valid as your fake travel ban to Pakistan. You are an unrepentant liar, and no one in their right mind would believe a word you say.

    You cite to Rawle. Can you give me one source that Rawle cited to support his personal opinion of what a “natural born Citizen” is. Can you tell me if there is anything special about Rawle’s personal circumstances which would lead us to believe that he, like David Ramsay, would know what a “natural born Citizen” was in the eyes of the Founders and Framers?

    Can you cite one U.S. Supreme Court case on which Justice Gray relied to justify his using English common law to define our national citizenship?

  419. avatar
    DCH November 29, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    Mario : “Your IQ is about as high as the amount of letters in your name.”

    Might be true, but I’m NOT the one who had to GO back to the judges after having my case rejected by the appeals court to explain why I should not be sanctioned for filing such a stupid case and wasting their time. The judges actually SINGLED you out. They rejected your appeal and then questioned your behavior as a attorney.

    I might has dumb as you say, but I actually LEARN from my mistakes and don’t waste tax payer money pushing a fringe legal case from court to court. The SCOTUS (clerks) killed your Zombie-Kerchner case last week.

  420. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 29, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    brygenon: Yes, she was present in the village in Kenya, when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.Ron McRae is “bishop” of a sect invented by Ron McRae. “Anabaptist Churches of North America” is not a collections of churches; it’s the name Ron McRae bestowed upon his own endeavor.Ron McRae assured Sarah Obama that he would be praying for Barack Obama, her grandson, while actually trying to trick her into saying something he could use to harm Barack Obama. Quite something when your best evidence shows your star witness to be liar.In the same affidavit, McRae swore that Barack Obama campaigned for Raila Odinga. Ron McRae swears falsely. No, there’s no coincidence. Sarah Obama and other Kenyans were barraged by calls and requests for interviews. Over all that talk and across all that translating, how could there not be a few misunderstandings? This one got cleared up immediately. Once the question was clear, the answer was that Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii.In the very beginning, McRae introduced himself as the Bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America and falsely portrays himself as a friend. He says it’s an honor to talk to her, that he’ll be praying for her grandson, and that he’d like to come visit and pray with her.What kind of shyster would pitch a leading question like that as something a court should accept? Where’s Sarah Obama’s affidavit? McRae said he’d be visiting in December, which would be just after the 2008 election. How’d that go?What was the Swahili? Did he specify her grandson, or did he just say “Barack Obama” which is also the name of her step-son? Did he translate it to ask if she was present *at* his birth, or present there in the village on the day of Barack Obama’s birth? The audio recording contradicts McRae on that.Nope, about the same amount of back-and-forth as throughout the interview.So he explains that it was a misunderstanding. She wasn’t saying Barack Obama II was born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. The only person on the recording who said Obama was born in Kenya was “Bishop” Ron McRae.The situation was clear long ago. President Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a natural-born citizen of the United States. And birthers lie.

    Brygenon, just listening to the audio recording McRae screws up several times and says Son and not grandson until he is corrected. He did this several times in the recording and it looks like an attempt to try to confuse the translator.

  421. avatar
    DCH November 29, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    We have a……………………uh,uh,…….. loser

    Just posted on the SCOTUS sight

    10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
    file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
    writ of certiorari is denied.

    Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    Game Over!
    I see that that that Kreepsjump in to hog the birther spotlght!

  422. avatar
    ballantine November 29, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: You cite to Rawle. Can you give me one source that Rawle cited to support his personal opinion of what a “natural born Citizen” is. Can you tell me if there is anything special about Rawle’s personal circumstances which would lead us to believe that he, like David Ramsay, would know what a “natural born Citizen” was in the eyes of the Founders and Framers? Can you cite one U.S. Supreme Court case on which Justice Gray relied to justify his using English common law to define our national citizenship?

    Gray cited Marshall in the Charming Betsey where Marshall is actually talking about citizenship, unlike The Venus. He cites 3 cases by Justice Story including Inglis where Story says the english common law rule defined citizenship in the united states for those who can read english. He cited Justice Curtis in Dred Scott who specifically defined natural born citizen by place of birth unlike Justice Danial who cited de Vattel to support his notion that citizenship required equal rights and privleges. Have to look at the context of the quote, Mario. He also cited Justice Swwayne equating natural born citizen with natural born subject. Despite you comically interpretations, no previous court ever connected de Vattel to the citizenship of person born after the revolution. And depsite Rawle, every other early scholar like Kent, Tucker and Bouvier all looked to the English rule really without exception. Have you really not done any research?

  423. avatar
    Bovril November 29, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    AND HE’S OUT !!!!

    10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
    file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
    writ of certiorari is denied.

  424. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 29, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    DCH: We have a……………………uh,uh,…….. loserJust posted on the SCOTUS sight10-446KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave tofile a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for awrit of certiorari is denied.BuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzGame Over!I see that that that Kreepsjump in to hog the birther spotlght!

    Mario to commence with his whining in 5.4.3.2.1

  425. avatar
    DCH November 29, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    It’s a wrap!

    Move along folks, your holding up the internets! Nothing to see here, just a dead-birther zombie case.

    The Birther record remains unbroken!

    Mario has failed where all others have failed before him.

  426. avatar
    BatGuano November 29, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    e.vattel: WKA has 50 pages of argument to affirm WKA is a citizen. How can it be possible a natural born citizen needs the 14th Amendment plus 50 pages of argument in WKA.

    were you serious when you wrote this ?

    ” your honor, i am not guilty of homicide because the word obviously has too many letters in it.”

    everyday the line is blurred between birtherism and the lost episodes of monty python.

  427. avatar
    Arthur November 29, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Lupin,

    Thanks for providing the reposts!

  428. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Our Constituion says “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject.”

    Then why did the founding generatrion in the Commonwealth of Massachusett use both terms interchangeably?

    “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, MARIA THERESA DE GREGOIRE, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.”

    “intitled to all the Liberties, Rights and Priviledges of natural born Citizens.” October 29, 1787.

    ““AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.”

    “entitled to all the liberties privileges and immunities of natural born subjects. June 22, 1789

    In 1787, “natural born Citizens” and in 1789, “natural born subjects”.

    Did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts not get the memo?

    So no you didn’t answer my question.

    Were they using the English Law definition of natural born, or the Law of Nations definition?

    But look, I know today you have bigger problems, so no rush on that answer.

  429. avatar
    ballantine November 29, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    gorefan: Then why did the founding generatrion in the Commonwealth of Massachusett use both terms interchangeably?“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, MARIA THERESA DE GREGOIRE, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.”“intitled to all the Liberties, Rights and Priviledges of natural born Citizens.” October 29, 1787.““AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.”“entitled to all the liberties privileges and immunities of natural born subjects. June 22, 1789In 1787, “natural born Citizens” and in 1789, “natural born subjects”.Did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts not get the memo?So no you didn’t answer my question.Were they using the English Law definition of natural born, or the Law of Nations definition?But look, I know today you have bigger problems, so no rush on that answer.

    The same Massachusetts legislature proposed to amend the natural born citizenship clause in 1798 and said such clause applied to natural born subjects. Gee, they didn’t get the memo. For the first several decades after the revolution, the term “subject” continued to be the primary term used by the states in their statutes and constitutions. Accordingly, if one was naturalized in most of these states during such period, one was made a subject or given the rights of natural born subjects, not citizens. When “citizen” was used, it was used in identical contexts as “subject.” One can cite early authority all day conflating the terms including a whole body of case law interpreting English statutes that had been adopted in the states that contained the term “natural born subject.” The courts merely substituted “citizen” for “subject” in these cases.

  430. avatar
    Black Lion November 29, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    Bovril: AND HE’S OUT !!!!10-446KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave tofile a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for awrit of certiorari is denied.

    This was the biggest non-surprise in awhile for the birthers…anyone with any kind of reading comprehension knew that Mario’s case was a dead case walking….However I bet it will help get the paypal button humming when Crazy Kerchner and Mario spin this as the latest in the line of conspiracies by the judges to the remaining birther faithful…

  431. avatar
    Greg November 29, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Can you cite one U.S. Supreme Court case on which Justice Gray relied to justify his using English common law to define our national citizenship?

    Perhaps you should try reading or briefing the case.

    1. The Constitution “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

    Cases cited: Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465

    2. “The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.”

    Case Cited: Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
    Additional support: Kent’s Commentaries

    3. The English law of citizenship “was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    Supreme Court Cases Cited: The Charming Betsy
    Ingliss v. Sailor’s Snug Notch
    McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354
    Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102
    Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, (Justice Curtis dissent)
    Additional Support: Story’s Conflict of Laws
    United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41 (Justice Swayne riding circuit)
    Garder v. Ward (1805), 2 Mass. 244
    Kilham v. Ward (1806)
    State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (North Carolina)
    Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394
    Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373
    Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.
    Chancellor Kent’s Commentaries
    Binney’s Alienigenae

    4. International Law did not universally support jus sanguinis

    – France used jus soli – citations: Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall’s International Law, (4th ed.) § 68.

    Jus soli continued in France until 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186.

    – At the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, jus soli applied in some European states, but not in others. Dicey and Story Conflict of laws.

    This is only the first half of the case. Parts I-IV.

    Mario, why do you insist at every turn on convincing us you haven’t read WKA, or if you have read it, that you haven’t read it at all closely?

  432. avatar
    Greg November 29, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    e.vattel: WKA has 50 pages of argument to affirm WKA is a citizen. How can it be possible a natural born citizen needs the 14th Amendment plus 50 pages of argument in WKA.

    Because the Supreme Court, in Dred Scott, said that former slaves, indeed anyone with brown skin, could not be citizens.

    Without the 14th Amendment, which was intended to overturn Dred Scott, African Americans would not be citizens, natural born or otherwise.

    Justice Gray used 50 pages to defend WKA’s citizenship because he’s a verbose guy and wanted to put this issue to bed permanently. Justice Field (riding circuit) said the same thing in In re: Look Ting Sing in 7 pages. Justice Field heard the oral arguments in WKA, but retired before the decision was written. Maybe if Gray hadn’t wanted to write the opinion, Field would have written it before he left.

    WKA didn’t rely on the 14th amendment, however, except to the extent that it made it easier to cast aside Dred Scott. WKA is a citizen, according to the logic of the case, because he is a natural born citizen.

  433. avatar
    brygenon November 29, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    From the article:

    WorldNetDaily asks: “Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?” to which I reply, “No.”

    Surprise, surprise, Dr. C. is right again:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

    No. 10-446
    Title:
    Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
    Docketed: October 4, 2010
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-4209)
    Decision Date: July 2, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
    Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
    Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism. (Distributed)
    Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
    Nov 29 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism GRANTED.
    Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED.

  434. avatar
    Sean November 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    Where’s my buddy Mario?

    Anyone heard from him?

  435. avatar
    Arthur November 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    This just in from Mario’s publicist:

    It is with regret that Mario and Integrity have decided to finalize their divorce. After a spearation that has lasted for most of the past twenty years, the couple ultimately realized that a reconciliation was impossible. In a statement, Mario said, “I just hate that woman. All Integrity got me was the respect of my colleagues and clients.To hell with them! I just want the money.” The fate of their children, Honor and Intelligence has not been revealed, but it is assumed that their mother will win custody.

  436. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Sarah Obama’s telephonic interview of Thursday, October 16, 2008, in Kogello, Kenya, in which she confirmed twice in her native Swahili language that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya, is the smoking gun.Bishop Ron McRae swore in an affidavit that Attorney Philip Berg filed with the federal district court that “. . . it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especially around the Kisumu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.”Affidavit at page 5.What a coincidence that Sarah Obama just happen to confirm this generally-known information and say when first asked that she was present when Obama was born.Your transcript is not accurate.You have not included all the speaking persons that were present during the telephonic interview of Sarah Obama.According to the McRae Affidavit, those persons who were present are:In the United States1.Bishop Ron McRaeIn Kenya2.Sarah Obama3.Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (name fictitious).He located Sarah Obama and was acting as the official English-Swahili translator for her.4.Vitalis Akech Ogombe.He is the step-grandson of Sarah Obama.He is also a cousin of Barack Obama.He was the Kogelo Community Chairman.5.One unknown person who can be heard speaking.
    6.Several unidentified men’s voices can be heard.
    Also present were several hundred people and police.In the beginning part of the interview, Bishop McRae asked Sarah Obama:“Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?”The translator, Reverend Kweli Shuhudia, asked her the question in Swahili, which she answered in Swahili, and Mr. Shuhudia gave her response in English:“Yes, she said yes she was.She was present when Obama was born.”The McRae Affidavit states that the question was asked to her twice in translation and both times Sarah Obama responded through Mr. Shuhudia that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.I do not see how the grandmother can be confused with this mystery “she” that you are referring to. Clearly, Sarah Obama knew that question was directed at her, the object of the interview, and she answered it directly and without any difficulty.
    Later in the interview we can hear that there is considerable interference with the ongoing questioning of Mrs. Obama.We learn from the McRae Affidavit that Mr. Ogombe is the one who interfered.Although he was not the translator, we can hear him interject and interfere with the grandmother’s ongoing interview.He is the one who said, “No, Obama was not born in Mombasa.He was born in America.”“He was born in America, not Mombassa.”“She said he was born in Hawaii.”“(inaudible). . . Hawaii where his father. . .his father. . . was over learning there.In Hawaii.”“No. . . No. . . (inaudible).You see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. . . (inaudible).“His mother. . . (inaudible). . . and Obama was born in America. . . where. . . uhhh . . . he’s . . . (inaudible) . . . Obama was learning.He was learning in America, the United States.”“Nooo. (inaudible) Not present. (inaudible) She was here in Kenya while he uhh her son, the little one, was learning in America…and uhh he befriended his first wife was in America there. (inaudible) The president and senator was born there in America.”Mr. Ogombe was not able to explain how Sarah Obama could be present at Obama’s birth if he was born in Hawaii.When Bishop McRae asked him the question, there was long silence from him.Mr. Ogombe took over the interview and provided his own answers to Bishop McRae questions which were for Sarah Obama to answer and not Mr. Ogombe.It is Mr. Ogombe’s answers that Dr. Conspiracy, his supporters here, and you have offered to the world as Sarah Obama’s retraction to her clear statement that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.There is one very easy way to clarify the situation.Mr. Obama can simply release his long-form birth certificate and then we will see if what Sarah Obama said is true or false.

    That transcript is totally accurate. I listened to it over and over again recording what was said and at what times. I supplied the link to the interview. You claim there were more speaking people there in Kenya, then supply a link to the interview; you have supplied nothing to prove your claim, and until you do, the only conclusion that can be made is that you are making up facts. That transcript stands until you prove your claimj

  437. avatar
    Sean November 29, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:
    That transcript is totally accurate. I listened to it over and over again recording what was said and at what times. I supplied the link to the interview. You claim there were more speaking people there in Kenya, then supply a link to the interview; you have supplied nothing to prove your claim, and until you do, the only conclusion that can be made is that you are making up facts. That transcript stands until you prove your claimj

    The bottom line is, Sarah Obama took the steps to clarify herself when she found there was a communication goof.

    The Sarah Obama interview confirms a Hawaiian birth. What is typical of birthers is clinging to grey areas and quote mines and ignoring the surrounding evidence.

  438. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    Sean:
    The bottom line is, Sarah Obama took the steps to clarify herself when she found there was a communication goof.The Sarah Obama interview confirms a Hawaiian birth. What is typical of birthers is clinging to grey areas and quote mines and ignoring the surrounding evidence.

    I know, Sean. They either ignore facts that are there they don’t like, make up “facts” that they do like, or both. Apuzzo is a prime example of that. I thought he would be above that kind of thing, but I can see from his responses here that he’s no smarter or more honest than your average birther.

  439. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: I know, Sean. They either ignore facts that are there they don’t like, make up “facts” that they do like, or both. Apuzzo is a prime example of that. I thought he would be above that kind of thing, but I can see from his responses here that he’s no smarter or more honest than your average birther.

    Hmmm. I wonder if he’s thinking of running for office.

  440. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 6:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Sarah Obama’s telephonic interview of Thursday, October 16, 2008, in Kogello, Kenya, in which she confirmed twice in her native Swahili language that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya, is the smoking gun.

    You speak Swahili? Is must be a dialect of Italian.

    For the benefit of the non-birther crowd, I would remind that a native speaker of Swahili and a personal acquaintance of Sarah Obama, Mr. Leo Omolo, was presented with the tape and HIS interpretation, for what it worth, is:

    I have taken a very keen interest and have carefully listened to the interview. The voice is truly of the of Mama Sarah Hussein Obama, although her interpreter was not doing a perfect job in correctly translating her words into English. …

    From the script you posted to me and according to my understanding of both the Dho-Luo vernacular and Kiswaili, Mama Sarah Obama was being pinned down with the question whether she herself was present—where—and the place where the boy was born. She replied in affirmative, that she wasn’t there herself because she happen to be in Mombasa at the material time, whereas the little baby grandson was born in Hawaii in the United States of America, therefore she could not have been there to witness his birth. Th[is is] what the script is telling. The same as I know the history of the family, there is nothing that can connect his birth to Mombasa.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/08/28/born-in-mombasa/

  441. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You speak Swahili? Is must be a dialect of Italian.For the benefit of the non-birther crowd, I would remind that a native speaker of Swahili and a personal acquaintance of Sarah Obama, Mr. Leo Omolo, was presented with the tape and HIS interpretation, for what it worth, is:

    I have a sneaking suspicion that they were trying o set her up. His first question was definitely a loaded question that contained the response he wanted to get – “Was she present when he was born in Kenya?”; kind of like, “Are you still beating your wife?

    When the translator said that she said she was present, he sighed and sounded like he was on the verge of an orgasm. Then, when they told him that she said that she was not there when he was born and that Obama was born in America/Hawaii numerous times, he groaned. There’s somethng not right about the guy

  442. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Leo Omolo

    You should know that any lawyer that knows what he or she is doing will never allow a translator to also be an adovocate at the same moment. You have just blown any credibility that Leo Omolo might have had.

  443. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 29, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You should know that any lawyer that knows what he or she is doing will never allow a translator to also be an adovocate at the same moment.You have just blown any credibility that Leo Omolo might have had.

    That also blows the credibility of both of the witnesses that you have to the Sarah Obama one, since they are advocates of the Birther Movement…

  444. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: You should know that any lawyer that knows what he or she is doing will never allow a translator to also be an adovocate at the same moment. You have just blown any credibility that Leo Omolo might have had.

    I have never given Omolo all that much credibility, but I am all for full disclosure. (I assume that folks who visit my site follow my links and read the background material.)

    But just as Omolo is a friend of the family, so Bishop McRae is an Obama enemy (he is an extreme anti-abortion advocate). It is he who makes the claim (unsubstantiated by the transcript) that Obama relatives tried to convince Sarah Obama to change her story. We may call McRae an “interpreter” of the event rather than a “translator.”

  445. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: You have just blown any credibility

    Mario – why are Bishop McRea’s and Rev. Kweli Shuhubia’s affidavits word for word the same?

    McRae, ““When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, No, No, No, He was born in the United States!’ But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

    Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, “When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

  446. avatar
    James M November 29, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    You should know that any lawyer that knows what he or she is doing will never allow a translator to also be an adovocate at the same moment. You have just blown any credibility that Leo Omolo might have had.

    He’s using the facts to continue to make a laughing stock of you. That’s the value of this tape and the translator’s opinion. You seem to think it could be used as evidence. Get it admitted into a trial and prove that it says whatever you think it says.

    I’m still wondering why you bothered with a civil suit in the first place. Why didn’t you go for criminal prosecution against Fukino on charges of forgery? In all the birther noise, I never heard the slightest hint that anyone was willing to go that route. Is it because there would be personal risks to the individual who made the criminal complaint? Or is it because there’s no money to be made by such a proposition?

    You do contend that Fukino committed forgery when she produced the COLB, don’t you? Because if it’s not a forgery, then what is it?

  447. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    James M:
    He’s using the facts to continue to make a laughing stock of you.That’s the value of this tape and the translator’s opinion.You seem to think it could be used as evidence.Get it admitted into a trial and prove that it says whatever you think it says.I’m still wondering why you bothered with a civil suit in the first place.Why didn’t you go for criminal prosecution against Fukino on charges of forgery? In all the birther noise, I never heard the slightest hint that anyone was willing to go that route.Is it because there would be personal risks to the individual who made the criminal complaint?Or is it because there’s no money to be made by such a proposition?You do contend that Fukino committed forgery when she produced the COLB, don’t you?Because if it’s not a forgery, then what is it?

    Please do not give him any ideas, James. He’s embarrassed us Italian-Americans who were born and raised in Jersey enough

  448. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 29, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Whatever you want to call Bishop McRae, the tape, Sarah Obama’s statements, and the res gestae all speak for themselves.

  449. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 29, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Whatever you want to call Bishop McRae, the tape, Sarah Obama’s statements, and the res gestae all speak for themselves.

    Yes they indeed do. She stated Obama was born in America while she was in Kenya. She said this several times.

  450. avatar
    Daniel November 29, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Whatever you want to call Bishop McRae, the tape, Sarah Obama’s statements, and the res gestae all speak for themselves.

    You mean like your recent application to the SCOTUS speaks for itself?

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

  451. avatar
    Daniel November 29, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    So Mario, in light of you recently being able to snatch defeat from the jaws of…. well certain defeat, will you be taking me up on my offer?

  452. avatar
    Daniel November 29, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    So Mario, in light of you recently being able to snatch defeat from the jaws of…. well certain defeat, will you be taking me up on my offer?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Yes they indeed do.She stated Obama was born in America while she was in Kenya.She said this several times.

    Don’t waste your time. Mario is incapable of hearing anything he does not wish too. He has fingerprints permanently molded into his ear canals.

  453. avatar
    Majority Will November 29, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    SELF-APPOINTED (Anabaptist) Bishop and street preacher McRae with the same vile ulterior motives as Mario the Pathological Liar who just can’t get seem to practice law very well. It must be those sophomoric arguments and asinine filings.

    It is quite obvious that he really is that stupid.

  454. avatar
    Majority Will November 29, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    Mario pathetically plays the victim card over at caaflog.com, “Please do not speak to me about civility. I have found none here nor on any other Obama blog sites. It’s virtually all hate, racism, elitism, and the need to win at all cost.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    This is the allegedly educated hack who pretends to not understand irony or confirmation bias.

    I suppose someone needs to explain hypocrisy to this sad, little, steaming birther pile as well.

    Not that it would matter.

    Would any sane person consider blatant and constant censorship of dissent on birther sites like his an act of civility?

    I was sure that was COWARDICE.

  455. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Whatever you want to call Bishop McRae, the tape, Sarah Obama’s statements, and the res gestae all speak for themselves.

    Well yes, they do speak for themselves–except when someone stops testifying to what was said, and launches into an interpretation of what was said. The McRae “transcript” abruptly ends in the middle of the conversation (as do many of the audio versions) and then he starts interpreting events rather than reciting them.

    One wonders why any honest reporter would find it necessary to switch from verbatum transcript to interpretation, except in an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion they would not reach had they access to the full transcript.

    One sees context destroyed so often in this Obama Conspiracy business.

  456. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Whatever you want to call Bishop McRae, the tape, Sarah Obama’s statements, and the res gestae all speak for themselves.

    That they do, and it’s quite clear after reading the whole transcript that Sarah Obama maintained, in the face of a great many attempts to manipulate her and put words in her mouth, that her grandson Barack was born in Hawaii.

    That you are unable to see this indicates either a) you are too stupid to read English, b) you are too bigoted to accept a black man as President, or c) you are doing this out of some insane desire to publicize your drunk driving practice. I see no other explanation for your refusal to accept the plain meaning of Ms. Obama’s words.

  457. avatar
    Sean November 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:
    I know, Sean. They either ignore facts that are there they don’t like, make up “facts” that they do like, or both. Apuzzo is a prime example of that. I thought he would be above that kind of thing, but I can see from his responses here that he’s no smarter or more honest than your average birther.

    Thinking like a birther can be fun. I’s like a game. Here’s my example:

    Last year during the World Cup, Obama presented a bottle of beer to the British PM. He stated this beer is from his hometown of Chicago.

    BOOM! Obama admits to being born in Chicago.

    A few moths later MSNBC newswoman Tamron Hall said Obama was visiting his hometown of Chicago.

    BOOM AGAIN! We have the President himself and a major news organization confirming Obama was not born in Hawaii, but rather Chicago, Illinois.

    But alas being born in Chicago wouldn’t disqualify you for the Presidency.

    Hmmm………… UNLESS……

    I bet if we dig deep enough we can find an obscure law or reference that’ll theoretically make him ineligible.

    Mario, if you’re reading this, this is a conspiracy theory I wrote just for you as an early Christmas present.

    It’s yours! Now run with it!

  458. avatar
    Sef November 30, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    ellid: c) you are doing this out of some insane desire to publicize your drunk driving practice

    Is there anyone from NJ here who can say if Mario has TV ads for his practice, and if those have changed since the birther fiasco began?

  459. avatar
    BatGuano November 30, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    Sean: But alas being born in Chicago wouldn’t disqualify you for the Presidency.

    chicago is the “second city”. obviously to be a NBC you need to have been born in a first or “original” city.

  460. avatar
    Greg November 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Sean: But alas being born in Chicago wouldn’t disqualify you for the Presidency.

    When the Founders wrote the Constitution, there were only 13 colonies. Therefore, only the people born within those original 13 colonies are really natural born citizens. Just because we’ve allowed people born in other states to run doesn’t mean that this interpretation isn’t correct. As Mario will point out, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    But, in actuality, only the first 9 states to ratify the Constitution can be considered truly natural born-eligible. They constitute the TRUE United States, the rest are simply Johnny-come-latelies.

    So, sorry, Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island, you snooze, you lose.

    It’s obvious that the NBC clause was a carrot held out to the states to entice them to join up with the new venture. If Kansas and Arizona had wanted to have eligible citizens, they should have joined up earlier.

  461. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Greg:
    When the Founders wrote the Constitution, there were only 13 colonies. Therefore, only the people born within those original 13 colonies are really natural born citizens. Just because we’ve allowed people born in other states to run doesn’t mean that this interpretation isn’t correct. As Mario will point out, two wrongs don’t make a right.
    But, in actuality, only the first 9 states to ratify the Constitution can be considered truly natural born-eligible. They constitute the TRUE United States, the rest are simply Johnny-come-latelies.
    So, sorry, Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island, you snooze, you lose.
    It’s obvious that the NBC clause was a carrot held out to the states to entice them to join up with the new venture. If Kansas and Arizona had wanted to have eligible citizens, they should have joined up earlier.

    This is frighteningly close to the monstrous, mind-roasting exchange I had with Borderraven last year where he maintained that I was NOT a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of Pennsylvania since I was born in Pittsburgh, and that I needed to hie myself to the City-County Building to exchange my American passport for a Pennsylvania passport. Never mind that I’ve lived in Massachusetts since 1978, or that there’s no such thing as a Pennsylvania passport – and yes, he was serious. Told me it was his job to teach me about citizenship, and then told me to kiss the sebaceous cysts on his generously padded gluteal muscles when I told him that he was wrong.

    *shudders at the memory*

  462. avatar
    Greg November 30, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    ellid: I needed to hie myself to the City-County Building to exchange my American passport for a Pennsylvania passport.

    There is only a hairs-breadth difference between the birthers and the sovereign citizen/tax-evading/white supremacist folks. Many of the ideas, that there is some distinction between a 14th Amendment citizen and a “natural born” citizen come directly from the earlier whackaloons.

  463. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Greg:
    There is only a hairs-breadth difference between the birthers and the sovereign citizen/tax-evading/white supremacist folks. Many of the ideas, that there is some distinction between a 14th Amendment citizen and a “natural born” citizen come directly from the earlier whackaloons.

    Add in functional illiteracy of the Jon Douglas West type,* and there you have it.

    *”Jon Douglas West” was a California man who harassed writer Harlan Ellison during the 1980s, when Ellison was a columnist for a Los Angeles paper. Ellison finally managed to track him down and found that he was an anti-Semite, a gun nut, and a racist with some extremely unsavory connections. West eventually was jailed on weapons-related charges, but Ellison was so concerned about retaliation that he left a sealed envelope with his attorney and several friends in case something happened to him. The whole story can be found in =An Edge in My Voice=.

  464. avatar
    Sef November 30, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    ellid: This is frighteningly close to the monstrous, mind-roasting exchange I had with Borderraven last year

    Do you have links to this exchange? It might be a fun read.

  465. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    Sef:
    Do you have links to this exchange?It might be a fun read.

    Good heavens…I think it was on Raw Story or possibly the Washington Independent. It would have been sometime last spring before David Weigel left the Independent for his disastrous gig at the Post….

  466. avatar
    charo November 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Sef:
    Do you have links to this exchange?It might be a fun read.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/76300/joseph-farah-birth-certificate-theories-are-popular-because-of-us

    (comments follow)

  467. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    charo:
    http://washingtonindependent.com/76300/joseph-farah-birth-certificate-theories-are-popular-because-of-us(comments follow)

    Good times, Ellid.

  468. avatar
    Sef November 30, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    charo:
    http://washingtonindependent.com/76300/joseph-farah-birth-certificate-theories-are-popular-because-of-us(comments follow)

    I just had a stroll around that slough of despond. That was fun. Thanks for looking it up.

  469. avatar
    ellid November 30, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    Sef:
    I just had a stroll around that slough of despond.That was fun. Thanks for looking it up.

    Thanks indeed, Charo. I guess the Raw Story debate with Borderraven was something else (women’s citizenship after marriage?).

  470. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    charo: Sef:
    Do you have links to this exchange?It might be a fun read.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/76300/joseph-farah-birth-certificate-theories-are-popular-because-of-us

    (comments follow)

    What I find interesting is that Farah essentially takes credit for the birther movement, and I think he is right. WorldNetDaily is the only outlet that has the reach to the numbers of folks that believe the birther mythology.

  471. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 1, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    Sef: I just had a stroll around that slough of despond. That was fun. Thanks for looking it up.

    Looks like that whole site pretty much destroyed borderraven. Don’t think I’ve seen such a unilateral takedown of a birther without other birthers popping in.

  472. avatar
    ellid December 1, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What I find interesting is that Farah essentially takes credit for the birther movement, and I think he is right. WorldNetDaily is the only outlet that has the reach to the numbers of folks that believe the birther mythology.

    I think you’re right, Doc. Farah needed a cause after he finished destroying John Kerry’s presidential chances, and the mere possibility of electing a black man with a funny name was all he needed.

  473. avatar
    The Magic M December 1, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    > This is frighteningly close to the monstrous, mind-roasting exchange I had with Borderraven last year where he maintained that I was NOT a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of Pennsylvania since I was born in Pittsburgh

    Reminds me of the people who claim that the US is a corporation since “the Act of 1871” because they don’t understand the meaning of “municipal corporation” (and of course Wikipedia is lying) and because they take a part of U.S.C. 28 §3002 out of context, claiming it defines “all-encompassingly” that “United States” means a corporation (or harping endlessly about word capitalization issues).

    In fact, we have the same people in Germany who claim that, because the government founded a company named “Bundesrepublik Deutschland Finanzagentur GmbH” (“Federal Republic of Germany Financial Agency Ltd.”) in the 90s, the state is a company since then.

    Funny how cranks think alike on both sides of the ocean. πŸ˜‰