Main Menu

Complaint filed in Hawaii

A complaint template has been created for the purpose of encouraging citizens of Hawaii to file it with the Attorney General of Hawaii against Lt. Governor of Hawaii Brian Schatz, acting as chairman of the Hawaii Democratic party, alleging that he committed fraud when he certified to the State that Barack Obama was the duly nominated candidate of the Democratic Party for president. The complaint asserts that Hawaii law requires that candidates so certified must be eligible, and that Lt. Governor Schatz did not verify this eligibility and that his certification was therefore fraudulent.

Following is the text of the complaint:

jbjd by jbjd

200 Responses to Complaint filed in Hawaii

  1. avatar
    dch January 31, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    I’m sure the AG will call over to 5-0 and have Steve McGarrett put “Dano” Williams and Chin Ho on the case!

  2. avatar
    Sean January 31, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Couple things here. Notice the complainer didn’t have the balls to go down the two parent rule road, yet he alluded to it.

    This is a complaint to the Attorney General of Hawaii and the complainer tries to school him on what constitutes a birth certificate legally.

  3. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Who filed the complaint?

    This has so much birther stink and b.s.

    Native and natural born are the exact same thing.

    There are only two types of citizens – native or natural born and naturalized.

    President Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.

    Hollister vs. Soetoro and naming TexasDarlin? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

    That’s some pathetic birther desperation.

    Put this steaming pile in the digital toilet where it belongs and flush it.

  4. avatar
    Bovril January 31, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    Came through the Birfoon “JBJD” it appears

    http://jbjd.org/

    Assuming it’s a REAL complaint, there will need to be a real name and address on the original, not this plainly redacted one.

  5. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    And oh yes, the Annenberg/Factcheck myth rears its ugly birther head again.

    Walter and Lenore Annenberg, the conservative Republicans and best buddies with Reagan and their Foundation were secret moles for Obama and the DNC?

    LMAO

  6. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    Bovril: Came through the Birfoon “JBJD” it appears
    http://jbjd.org/

    How do we know this one was actually fiied? Was it “accepted”? What is its registration #? Was it composed on a Mac or a PC? If paper filed, what stamps did it have on it? So many questions…..

  7. avatar
    Joey January 31, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Brian Schatz was never the Governor of Hawaii but he is the current Lieutenant Governor.

  8. avatar
    G January 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    Majority Will: That’s some pathetic birther desperation.
    Put this steaming pile in the digital toilet where it belongs and flush it.

    Agreed.

    Quite funny how the filer of the complaint won’t identify themselves.

    A stupid political attention stunt at best. Otherwise, just stupid.

  9. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Bovril: Came through the Birfoon “JBJD” it appearshttp://jbjd.org/Assuming it’s a REAL complaint, there will need to be a real name and address on the original, not this plainly redacted one.

    I could be wrong, but I think it is a form for others to follow. jbjd has been around for a long time and has encouraged activism.

  10. avatar
    US Citizen January 31, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    There’s a phrase for this, but let’s just call it “willful self-manipulation.”

  11. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) January 31, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Majority Will: And oh yes, the Annenberg/Factcheck myth rears its ugly birther head again.Walter and Lenore Annenberg, the conservative Republicans and best buddies with Reagan and their Foundation were secret moles for Obama and the DNC?LMAO

    I haven’t read it yet Will but did it try to make the Bill Ayers worked for the Annenberg foundation so Annenberg supports terrorism magical connection I’ve seen birthers use?

  12. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    I haven’t read it yet Will but did it try to make the Bill Ayers worked for the Annenberg foundation so Annenberg supports terrorism magical connection I’ve seen birthers use?

    Yes, the same tired birther b.s. keeps getting recycled.

    Walter and Lenore would have had a fit if they were alive to defend their foundation from vicious birther liars and cowards.

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    First try got stuck in moderation – let’s see if this works…

    Question: I’ve always considered jbjd to be the most competent of the birther lawyers (compared to, say, Orly she’s Clarence Darrow!) – not even remotely sane, but more competent than her peers. If you ignore the erroneous assumption that President Obama is ineligible (and corollaries like the impossibility of proving ineligibility), I think that this is closer to a valid way of attacking this issue than any of Berg, Taitz, Apuzzo, Jensen, Hemenway, et al. have come up with. How do people think that this template (I agree with Charo that based on jbjd’s past this is probably something that she is suggesting other people do – likely Hawai’ian birthers…) compares to the legal stylings of the birther dream team mentioned above?

    I’m hoping this trend towards marginal competence continues enough for someone to receive standing in a court case – then the fun will really begin!

  14. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    Doc,

    I’ve got a couple of tries at a comment stuck in moderation, could you fish one of them out for me? Thanks.

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    This got stuck in moderation under a different email address – Doc, feel free to delete everything else.

    Question: I’ve always considered jbjd to be the most competent of the birther lawyers (compared to, say, Orly she’s Clarence freaking Darrow!) – not even remotely sane, but more competent than her peers. If you ignore the erroneous assumption that President Obama is ineligible (and corollaries like the impossibility of proving ineligibility), I think that this is closer to a valid way of attacking this issue than any of Berg, Taitz, Apuzzo, Jensen, Hemenway, et al. have come up with. How do people think that this template (I agree with Charo that based on jbjd’s past this is probably something that she is suggesting other people do – likely Hawai’ian birthers…) compares to the legal stylings of the birther dream team mentioned above?

    I’m hoping this trend towards marginal competence continues enough for someone to receive standing in a court case – then the fun will really begin!

  16. avatar
    US Citizen January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Standing? How?

    “In as much as the plaintiff had always known all previous presidents to be white, has suffered undue stress and irreparable harm when defendant had the gall to go presidenting-while-black….” ?

  17. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    US Citizen: Standing? How?“In as much as the plaintiff had always known all previous presidents to be white, has suffered undue stressand irreparable harm when defendant had the gall to go presidenting-while-black….”?

    At least it isn’t harm shared by all Americans… πŸ˜‰

  18. avatar
    jbjd January 31, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    I wanted to clarify a few misconceptions contained in the previous comments.

    1. The name on the citizen complaint posted, is not redacted. Rather, the space is left blank so that residents of HI can fill this in with their real names and addresses, as they are instructed to do, on the blog.

    2. The complaint mentions the TexasDarlin blog because Annenberg Political Fact Check posted on their blog, an image of what they labeled a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of Obama’s birth. Only, clicking on the image they posted, an image they – APFC – claimed proved Obama was born in HI; took me to the TD blog. And, the image posted on the TD blog was unaccredited; and had been posted on that blog, anonymously. I mention this because in the Hollister case, Atty. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, APFC “noted” this contemporaneous news announcement. (Of course, APFC did note this announcement. But such note has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether Obama actually is a NBC.)

    3. This is a citizen complaint to the HI AG, asking him to exercise his discretion to enforce HI ballot eligibility laws

    4. I am not trying to school the HI AG (or any AG) on what constitutes a “birth certificate legally.” Nor am I “allud[ing]” to the “two parent rule road.” (I assume you mean, the theory that espouses, “natural born” means, born of two citizen parents.) And I never will, unless that becomes the legal definition of NBC. As I have said so often on my blog, no one knows what NBC means, until the federal appellate court says that’s what it means. And the complaint explicitly states in the introduction, this takes no stand on whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job of President. It merely charges, based on documentation available in the public record no one who swore to state election officials he is, could have ascertained this fact beforehand.

    You would already know all of this, if you read the citizen complaint of election fraud; and followed the links.

  19. avatar
    BatGuano January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Bovril: Came through the Birfoon “JBJD”

    favorite quote:

    ” And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago. (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)”

    she wants to imply that there is a dubious connection between the two for attending the same college……… just without having to admit that obama attended the college. not to mention one of them is the person she is asking for help from.

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    jbjd: As I have said so often on my blog, no one knows what NBC means, until the federal appellate court says that’s what it means.

    jbjd,

    If the federal courts hold similar views to the court in Ankeny (that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen – and hence President Obama is, too), then LG Schatz (and Speaker Pelosi) could have had the evidence to verify eligibility – the COLB – (and you certainly would have no evidence of fraud on their part). Would you be satisfied by a ruling of this nature?

  21. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    BatGuano:
    favorite quote:” And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago.(Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)”she wants to imply that there is a dubious connection between the two for attending the same college……… just without having to admit that obama attended the college. not to mention one of them is the person she is asking for help from.

    As is said, this has the ridiculous birther stink all over it from a birther with more time on her hands than common sense.

  22. avatar
    BatGuano January 31, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    jbjd: As I have said so often on my blog, no one knows what NBC means, until the federal appellate court says that’s what it means. And the complaint explicitly states in the introduction, this takes no stand on whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job of President. It merely charges, based on documentation available in the public record no one who swore to state election officials he is, could have ascertained this fact beforehand.

    by that definition you have made every state guilty of voter fraud in every single presidential election.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    The Idiocy of the Birthers
    http://unews.com/2011/01/31/the-idiocy-of-the-birthers’/

  24. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    “TexasDarlin blog”

    Yeah, because nothing screams credibility more than an anonymous birther blog run by a rabid, bigoted, political enemy of the President of the United States.

    /sarcasm

  25. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    BatGuano:
    by that definition you have made every state guilty of voter fraud in every single presidential election.

    Not when there are only old, rich white guys running. Duh.

  26. avatar
    Bovril January 31, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    jbjd

    “As I have said so often on my blog, no one knows what NBC means, until the federal appellate court says that’s what it means. ”

    So do tell?

    Why is Ankeny insufficient for you?

    It relates exactly and solely to the President
    States clearly, succinctly and precisely that the President is an NBC
    Refers it it WKA which is Supreme Court ruling and suprecedes and other
    Federal court

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

  27. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The link to FactCheck also says

    In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

    [picture of newspaper birth announcement and a dead link to staradvertiser.com]

    Below that is a link to the TD blog (which I think was unnecessary to the article):

    The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger* who grudgingly concluded that Obama “likely” was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

    *dead link to texasdarlin.wordpress.com
    Conveniently omitted like all birthers desperate to keep moving the goalposts.

    “Only, clicking on the image they posted, an image they – APFC – claimed proved Obama was born in HI; took me to the TD blog.”

    Wrong.

  28. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    “Only, clicking on the image they posted, an image they – APFC – claimed proved Obama was born in HI; took me to the TD blog.”

    What else has jbjd lied about?

  29. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    jbjd: It merely charges, based on documentation available in the public record no one who swore to state election officials he is, could have ascertained this fact beforehand

    How do you know that Mr Obama didn’t show the people who swore to his eligibility an official COLB? If he did, why would they consider him anything other than eligible? What did McCain show the comparable Republican officials? What did previous candidates show? Did you look into Bush and Kerry in 2004 or Bush and Gore in 2000? If not, then I don’t take your “complaint’ seriously.

  30. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    Bovril: Why is Ankeny insufficient for you?

    Bovril, you should know that the only court that counts is one that would rule the way the birthers want. All other courts are corrupt and illegitimate. Oh, and that terrible horrible Ankeny court, the birthers didn;t even bother to appeal it (hence it stands).

  31. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Scientist:
    How do you know that Mr Obama didn’t show the people who swore to his eligibility an official COLB?If he did, why would they consider him anything other than eligible?What did McCain show the comparable Republican officials?What did previous candidates show?Did you look into Bush and Kerry in 2004 or Bush and Gore in 2000?If not, then I don’t take your “complaint’ seriously.

    Logic and fairness will only confuse her.

  32. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    Scientist:
    Bovril, you should know that the only court that counts is one that would rule the way the birthers want.All other courts are corrupt and illegitimate.Oh, and that terrible horrible Ankeny court, the birthers didn;t even bother to appeal it (hence it stands).

    Are you insane? If they appealed it to SCOTUS and it was denied cert they would lose this entire line of argument (and it’s one of their favorites).

    Shame on you. πŸ˜‰

  33. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Slart,

    I believe it was you who stated this same point a few weeks ago on a thread that I can’t remember.

    “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

    The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/09/ln/hawaii811090361.html

    I got sidetracked and never got to follow up. Here is what I wanted to bring to your attention.
    A blogger named ladyforest, who responded here briefly around the same time frame of the thread I mentioned, claims that her research found as follows:

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/graphs-and-stats/

    She summarizes the above here:

    **The only time that I found the announcements to have been printed in the same order, from the first birth announcement through to the last, and printed only one day apart in the sister paper, was on the dates when obama was announced. Though one paper had a shorter list, the names listed matched in exact descending order in both papers. I later did a less meticulous check for the two week period preceding and following the ten day sample size that I used for the stats research in the post “What Happens When The Planets Align”,

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/graphs-and-stats

    and I did the same less meticulous check in the Jan 1961 and Feb 1961 copies that I have
    (while looking for the obama parents marriage announcement), and never found this same pattern to have occurred in those date ranges.

    I am not a statistician, but I believe you have expertise in this area. What do you think about the data?

  34. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    “I am not a statistician, but I believe you have expertise in this area. What do you think about the data?”

    That is my comment- I should have separated it.

  35. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    Slart,

    Now I am thinking it was Rickey that was involved in the discussion. The question is open to you as well of course.

    I’ll check again later. Thanks.

  36. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    charo: I am not a statistician, but I believe you have expertise in this area. What do you think about the data?

    I’m not a statistician (although I do have a PhD in mathematics) but I see a couple reasons to be concerned with this ‘study’:

    1. While there is an attempt to pick some other data points as a control, the lack of a well-defined working hypothesis and a coherent methodology for gathering data renders any conclusions extremely weak.

    2. There is no suggestion of what significance the alleged anomaly would have – and hence no answer to the question, ‘Why does this anomaly matter?’ (who is ladyforest alleging did what and for what reason?)

    My opinion is that she’s making a very weak assertion regarding something with very little, if any, significance.

    p.s. I knew it wasn’t me that you were thinking of, but here’s my two cents worth…

  37. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Slartibartfast: 2. There is no suggestion of what significance the alleged anomaly would have – and hence no answer to the question, β€˜Why does this anomaly matter?’ (who is ladyforest alleging did what and for what reason?)

    Thanks,

    It seemed to me that she was trying to see if it was a usual occurrence for birth announcements to be printed in the same order one day apart for the two competing newspapers. Rickey’s implication as well as the reporter’s was that the announcements are obviously legitimate because why would both papers have the same order of births because they had to have been obtained from the same source at the same time. Ladyforest put a disclaimer at the end of one of the links that she is not concluding by this particular research alone that there was any kind of tampering. She seemed to find an anomaly. I don’t know how many months she would have had to have to show that for sure.

    Thanks.

    Maybe Doc will weigh in.

  38. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    how many “becauses” can I use in one sentence

  39. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    charo,

    There may be an anomaly here (although I’m far from convinced that there is), but I cannot figure out any way in which it might be significant (i.e. an indicator of some sort of fraud).

  40. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    charo,

    I could make up some numerology surrounding the fact that you used ‘because’ twice in the 2nd of 5 sentences (plus 2 on the closing) – I could make it sound very good, but it wouldn’t MEAN anything…

    Wait a sec… 2… and 5-2=3… 23… HOLY ILLUMINATI! CHARO IS AN AGENT OF THE GNOMES OF ZURICH! She’s probably been sneaking ‘fnords’ into her posts all along… πŸ˜‰

  41. avatar
    jbjd January 31, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    Intentionally misstating my words does not change what I actually said. And guessing what I mean without reading my blog or even the whole HI citizen complaint of election fraud posted here, does not evidence sloppy scholarship on my part.

    1. The only states in which I allege criminal election fraud viz a viz submitting to election officials the name of the candidate to be printed on the ballot; are those states with laws mandating only the names of candidates eligible for office may be printed on the ballot. Not all states have that law.

    2. In each state in which a citizen complaint of election fraud was drafted, an essential prerequisite was to submit a request to the person who in that state submitted the Certification of Nomination for Obama, asking on what documentary basis s/he had determined Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job. For example, Nancy Pelosi; Alice Germond; and Boyd Richie all signed Certifications to get Obama’s name on the ballot in applicable states, that is, states with ballot eligibility laws. But when asked, each refused to disclose the basis for determining Obama was a citizen, let alone natural born. And, I already know MO and AL have such eligibility laws but I will not draft the complaint until citizens from those states come forward and agree to request the basis for the Certification submitted in that state.)

    3. At some point, APFC changed the image of the newspaper birth announcement from TD to an image attributed to AP, posted on a ‘newspaper’ web site in December 2010, 6 (six) months after the newspaper ceased publication. Indeed, I suspect the image, which also now appears on any article referencing this birth announcement, including one authored by Maureen Dowd; is actually an advertisement that appears with any article mentioning the announcement. Again, this repeats what is explained on the blog. OBAMA TRIES to WIPE SLATE CLEAN for 2012 RUN

  42. avatar
    US Citizen January 31, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    (slightly OT, but interesting)

    I was speaking to a psychiatrist friend today who only knows that birthers exist, but doesn’t actively follow them per se.
    (He’s politically active, but yawns at the mention of birthers. Oh well.)

    But he brought up something I’d never considered before.
    In reference to how “Obama came out of nowhere” and suddenly took over the polls, he said something like “They (the birthers) are probably embarrassed. They didn’t think he’d win. They gave him no attention until it was too late.
    His rise was so quick, it didn’t make sense to them how someone (especially a black democrat with Hussein in his name) could *ever* beat a decorated war hero like McCain.
    It was completely illogical to them and they got blindsided by their confidence.

    But here’s the thing he said that struck me: “Because of the speed that they felt overcome by in the elections, birthers might now be trying to undo it all with equal speed.”
    He said something like “One always rushes to the broom when they just broke the saucer.”
    Birtherism may therefore be an innate desire to undo what never made sense to them in the first place and in quickly a manner as possible.
    The whole “take out country back” thing is apparently chanted by those that felt like they had the rug pulled out from under them or cheated.
    “You see the same anger traits as people that lost in Vegas and they too want another chance to win it all back… immediately”
    (You can probably guess his specialty or clientele πŸ˜‰

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 6:47 pm #

    US Citizen: But he brought up something I’d never considered before.
    In reference to how “Obama came out of nowhere” and suddenly took over the polls, he said something like “They (the birthers) are probably embarrassed. They didn’t think he’d win. They gave him no attention until it was too late.

    This is remarkably like Lincoln’s nomination as the Republican candidate for president. It was widely assumed that Lincoln had no chance, and that most likely William Seward would be nominated. Lincoln got nominated by working behind the scenes to be everyone’s “second choice.” Lincoln’s nomination was a shock to many people.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I seem to be getting stuck in moderation – I’m trying a different email address…

    There was a problem with the moderation filter that is now fixed. My apologies.

  45. avatar
    BatGuano January 31, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    jbjd: 1. The only states in which I allege criminal election fraud viz a viz submitting to election officials the name of the candidate to be printed on the ballot; are those states with laws mandating only the names of candidates eligible for office may be printed on the ballot. Not all states have that law.

    so, which states haven’t been conducting fraud in every single presidential election?

  46. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    jbjd: Intentionally misstating my words does not change what I actually said.

    Yada, yada. Unless you reached the age of majority between 2004 and 2008, it is perfectly fair to ask what was done differently in 2008 compared to 2004, 2000,1996, etc.,none of which you seemed to have a problem with. What proof of eligibility has ANY presiidential candidate in the history of the US provided to his or her party’s nominating body? When you have an answer, come back and tell us. Until then, have a pleasant evening.

  47. avatar
    BatGuano January 31, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    jbjd: 3. At some point, APFC changed the image of the newspaper birth announcement….

    the original scan was taken from microfisch obtained at a california university library ( berkeley i believe ). more than likely microfisch copies of the paper are available in university libraries across the country. call around. you may be able to get your own copy direct from the horses mouth.

  48. avatar
    Bovril January 31, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    Still waiting on a response jbjd

    jbjd
    “As I have said so often on my blog, no one knows what NBC means, until the federal appellate court says that’s what it means. ”

    So do tell?

    Why is Ankeny insufficient for you?

    It relates exactly and solely to the President
    States clearly, succinctly and precisely that the President is an NBC
    Refers it it WKA which is Supreme Court ruling and suprecedes and other
    Federal court

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    Majority Will: Walter and Lenore Annenberg, the conservative Republicans and best buddies with Reagan and their Foundation were secret moles for Obama and the DNC?

    Walter is deceased, but Lenore gave money to McCain in the last presidential election.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    Joey: Brian Schatz was never the Governor of Hawaii but he is the current Lieutenant Governor.

    Thanks for the correction. Updated.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    jbjd: 2. The complaint mentions the TexasDarlin blog because Annenberg Political Fact Check posted on their blog, an image of what they labeled a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of Obama’s birth. Only, clicking on the image they posted, an image they – APFC – claimed proved Obama was born in HI; took me to the TD blog. And, the image posted on the TD blog was unaccredited; and had been posted on that blog, anonymously. I mention this because in the Hollister case, Atty. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, APFC “noted” this contemporaneous news announcement. (Of course, APFC did note this announcement. But such note has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether Obama actually is a NBC.)

    The birth announcements subsequently appeared in the Hawaii newspapers that originally carried them, so that they can be verified online from authoritative sources.

  52. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Slartibartfast: charo,I could make up some numerology surrounding the fact that you used because’ twice in the 2nd of 5 sentences (plus 2 on the closing) – I could make it sound very good, but it wouldn’t MEAN anything…Wait a sec…2… and 5-2=3…23…HOLY ILLUMINATI!CHARO IS AN AGENT OF THE GNOMES OF ZURICH!She’s probably been sneaking fnords’ into her posts all along…

    I understand your point, but what ladyforest was researching was not that ridiculous.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    Bovril: Why is Ankeny insufficient for you [jbjd]?

    While Ankeny is a state court ruling and hardly binding, it does demonstrate what a competent attorney would conclude after reading Wong.

  54. avatar
    Keith January 31, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Wait a sec… 2… and 5-2=3… 23… HOLY ILLUMINATI! CHARO IS AN AGENT OF THE GNOMES OF ZURICH! She’s probably been sneaking fnords’ into her posts all along… πŸ˜‰

    You better go back into deep cover or I’m gonna send Malaclypse the Bigger after you.

    Signed

    …The Mgt

  55. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    charo:
    I understand your point, but what ladyforest was researching was not that ridiculous.

    That’s why they call it hyperbole… πŸ˜‰ Ladyforest’s ‘research’ wasn’t ridiculous (or rigorous), just uninteresting and unskilled.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    jbjd: 2. The complaint mentions the TexasDarlin blog because Annenberg Political Fact Check posted on their blog, an image of what they labeled a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of Obama’s birth

    Obama’s birthplace is public knowledge and I hardly see any reason for someone to go to the trouble to independently verify that information, any more than they need to verify that George W. Bush was born in Texas (OK, Connecticut).

    While I fully doubt that it happened, Schatz could have gone to the public library in Honolulu and looked at back issues of the Star and the Advertiser to see the announcements from the microfilms.

    What I cannot figure out is why jbjd only focused on the Democratic chairman, and not the Republican who surely would have had much more difficulty verifying where John McCain was born.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    BatGuano: call around. you may be able to get your own copy direct from the horses mouth.

    It is available at the Library of Congress.

  58. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

    charo: I am not a statistician, but I believe you have expertise in this area. What do you think about the data?

    charo, I have done a simiilar study, I looked at birth announcements in my local paper of births in various local hospitals over the last year, around 2,000 or so. Every single one listed a home address for the parents that was within 50 miles or so of the metro area. The conclusion is that the odds of anyone travelling far from where they live to give birth are <1/2000. Since Stanley Ann Dunham lived in Honolulu in 1961, the odds of her giving birth anywhere else are <1/2000.

  59. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    Scientist:
    charo, I have done a simiilar study,I looked at birth announcements in my local paper of births in various local hospitals over the last year, around 2,000 or so.Every single one listed a home address for the parents that was within 50 miles or so of the metro area.The conclusion is that the odds of anyone travelling far from where they live to give birth are <1/2000.Since Stanley Ann Dunham lived in Honolulu in 1961, the odds of hergiving birth anywhere else are <1/2000.

    Charo, do you see the difference between Scientist’s study and Ladyforest’s? He asks a clear question, uses a large data set (and good methodology), and thus is able to make a credible conclusion. She… doesn’t.

  60. avatar
    gorefan January 31, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    BatGuano: you may be able to get your own copy direct from the horses mouth.

    Dr. Conspiracy: It is available at the Library of Congress.

    The birthers (missTickly mostly) have already “proved” that all of those have been switched.

  61. avatar
    BatGuano January 31, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

    gorefan: The birthers (missTickly mostly) have already “proved” that all of those have been switched.

    how did she “prove” it?

  62. avatar
    Joey January 31, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Thanks for the correction. Updated.

    Glad to assist, Doc. Here’s some Brian Schatz conspiracy info for you. I hope you’re sitting down for this bombshell: BRIAN SCHATZ attended Punahou School just like Barry Soetoro AND Brian Schatz studied in……………………………………………………………………KENYA!!!!

  63. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Charo, do you see the difference between Scientist’s study and Ladyforest’s? He asks a clear question, uses a large data set (and good methodology), and thus is able to make a credible conclusion. She… doesn’t.

    Thanks, Slartie. Of course, one could look at birth announcements in Mombasa. Mombasa has a population around 700,000 and there are 35 births/1000 people/year. That’s about 25,000 births/year, Look at 10 years worth of data and you have 250,000 births. How many of those are to US residents who just happen to have gone to Kenya while heavily pregnant? (0 would be a pretty good estimate). In fact, someone could ask the US embassy in Nairobi how many births they registered to American tourists in the last 50 years (as opposed to Americans living in Kenya).

  64. avatar
    gorefan January 31, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    BatGuano: how did she “prove” it?

    The same way that she “proves” everything. She guesses. Actually I believe it involved sometype of stratch analysis (stratches on the microfilm) and the fact that some pages were out of order. Any anomaly is proof of the conspiracy.

  65. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Keith:
    You better go back into deep cover or I’m gonna send Malaclypse the Bigger after you.Signed
    …The Mgt

    Sometimes you have to lie by telling the truth… or tell the truth by lying… don’t get your fnords in a bunch. I prefer fjords in any case… πŸ˜‰

  66. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    Scientist: Thanks, Slartie.

    You provided the contrast – I just pointed it out.

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 8:50 pm #

    gorefan: Any anomaly is proof of the conspiracy.

    The birthers take this as holy writ – it is unquestionably true and they never even attempt to explain why…

  68. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Walter is deceased, but Lenore gave money to McCain in the last presidential election.

    Both are deceased. Lenore Annenberg died March 12, 2009.

    And they were both staunch Republicans.

  69. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    charo:
    Thanks,It seemed to me that she was trying to see if it was a usual occurrence for birth announcements to be printed in the same order one day apart for the two competing newspapers. Rickey’s implication as well as the reporter’s was that the announcements are obviously legitimate because why would both papers have the same order of births because they had to have been obtained from the same source at the same time.

    Someone may have discussed this before, but it wasn’t me.

    However I can think of a reason why the announcements may not have appeared on the same day. The Star-Bulletin was an afternoon paper and the Advertiser was a morning paper. In those days it was common for cities the size of Honolulu to have both a morning paper and an afternoon paper. However, both papers published Sunday morning editions.

    The Advertiser published the birth announcement on Sunday. The Star-Bulletin, as I understand it, published the announcement on Monday. But keep in mind that the Star-Bulletin had to put out its regular afternoon edition on Saturday and then turn right around and work on its Sunday morning edition. Given the tight turnaround the staff faced on Saturdays, it may have decided to hold off on publishing routine things such as birth announcements until Monday.

    I’m not saying that is the case – I have no way of knowing – but that is a plausible scenario. There are any number of other possible explanations, as well. For example, there may not have been sufficient space on the Sunday page usually used for such announcements, and an editor at the Star-Bulletin may have decided to hold it for Monday’s paper.

  70. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The birth announcements subsequently appeared in the Hawaii newspapers that originally carried them, so that they can be verified online from authoritative sources.

    The FactCheck site says:

    In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

    [An image of a newspaper Obama birth announcement and a dead link to staradvertiser.com]

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Albeit a dead link which can happen with old articles, they link to the source -staradvertiser.com who would be considered a reliable authority.

    The PUMA birther’s blog was mentioned briefly in the next paragraph as an acknowledgement that a birther unwittingly unearthed evidence that the President was born in Hawaii.

    “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama “likely” was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”

    And yet jbjd vows, “Of course, APFC did note this announcement. But such note has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether Obama actually is a NBC”

    Which must mean the whole FactCheck part and birther blog b.s. is an irrelevant red herring.

    Poor, little losing birthers.

  71. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    US Citizen: (slightly OT, but interesting)I was speaking to a psychiatrist friend today who only knows thatbirthers exist, but doesn’t actively follow them per se.
    (He’s politically active, but yawns at the mention of birthers. Oh well.)But he brought up something I’d never considered before.
    In reference to how “Obama came out of nowhere” and suddenly took over the polls, he said something like “They (the birthers) are probably embarrassed. They didn’t think he’d win. They gave him no attention until it was too late.
    His rise was so quick, it didn’t make sense to them how someone (especially a black democrat with Hussein in his name) could *ever* beat a decorated war hero like McCain.
    It was completely illogical to them and they got blindsided by their confidence.But here’s the thing he said that struck me: “Because of the speed that they felt overcome by in the elections, birthers might now be trying to undo it all with equal speed.”
    He said something like “One always rushes to the broom when they just broke the saucer.”
    Birtherism may therefore be an innate desire to undo what never made sense to them in the first place and in quickly a manner as possible.
    The whole “take out country back” thing is apparently chanted by those that felt like they had the rug pulled out from under them or cheated.
    “You see the same anger traits as people that lost in Vegas and they too want another chance to win it all back… immediately”
    (You can probably guess his specialty or clientele

    That makes perfect sense. So many birther rants reek of fear and desperation.
    Thanks.

  72. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    jbjd: At some point, APFC changed the image of the newspaper birth announcement from TD to an image attributed to AP, posted on a newspaper’ web site in December 2010, 6 (six) months after the newspaper ceased publication. Indeed, I suspect the image, which also now appears on any article referencing this birth announcement, including one authored by Maureen Dowd; is actually an advertisement that appears with any article mentioning the announcement. Again, this repeats what is explained on the blog.

    Where’s your proof? You sure are a master at accusations without evidence and baseless speculations.

    Keep moving those goalposts , birther.

    And this crap about the announcements is still entirely irrelevant just like you and the rest of the birthers and your b.s. complaint.

    P.S. Linking to your own idiotic birther blog means what? Credibility? LMFAO
    You still only offered your insistence without any evidence. But let’s say you’re right. FactCheck changed the link. OOOOOOH! Massive conspiracy! WTF cares? Your paranoia sees ghosts in every shadow.

    And your delusional sense of self-importance is also irrelevant and sad.

  73. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 9:43 pm #

    Rickey:
    Someone may have discussed this before, but it wasn’t me.However I can think of a reason why the announcements may not have appeared on the same day. The Star-Bulletin was an afternoon paper and the Advertiser was a morning paper. In those days it was common for cities the size of Honolulu to have both a morning paper and an afternoon paper. However, both papers published Sunday morning editions.The Advertiser published the birth announcement on Sunday. The Star-Bulletin, as I understand it, published the announcement on Monday. But keep in mind that the Star-Bulletin had to put out its regular afternoon edition on Saturday and then turn right around and work on its Sunday morning edition. Given the tight turnaround the staff faced on Saturdays, it may have decided to hold off on publishing routine things such as birth announcements until Monday.
    I’m not saying that is the case – I have no way of knowing – but that is a plausible scenario. There are any number of other possible explanations, as well. For example, there may not have been sufficient space on the Sunday page usually used for such announcements, and an editor at the Star-Bulletin may have decided to hold it for Monday’s paper.

    I could be misreading what she was trying to prove, but I think it was that birth announcements were in the same order for both papers a day apart, the exact order being important.

  74. avatar
    charo January 31, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Charo, do you see the difference between Scientist’s study and Ladyforest’s?He asks a clear question, uses a large data set (and good methodology), and thus is able to make a credible conclusion.She…doesn’t.

    I thought he was being facetious. She has a post on it that is more specific than my truncated summary. You haven’t really attacked with any specificity, pointing to this or that in her post, actually, posts. Here is a bit from one of them:

    This research project focuses on recently discovered facts surrounding the Barack Obama newspaper birth announcements. I realized quite some time ago that no one had done comparisons on copies from multiple libraries -personally collected- on a large scale. I set off to do so.
    My main goal originally was to look for any obvious anomalies. Obviously.
    Second, the frequency of the two papers posting the birth announcements in exact order within a day or two of publication.
    Third, anything that jumped out as being out of place, or dissimilar between the copies from each location.

    I will begin with a very abbreviated history on the discovery of the infamous obama newspaper birth announcements, followed by my own experiences and the materials that I’ve collected which are relevant to the research in this post. So, basically this is written somewhat like a a journal. There are a total of three different posts, and a “supporting” page of PDF’s (over in the right hand column). The links to the other two posts are below:

    etc. http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/

    I was expecting a more specific critique, not a general one.

  75. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 31, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    charo: I was expecting a more specific critique, not a general one.

    And I gave you one: her methodology lacks rigor which means that her claim of an anomaly is a weak one and in any case the alleged anomaly is of no significance (certainly not in the sense of being evidence of any type of fraud). I’ve already wasted my time by reading her article months ago and I have no intention of wasting any more of my time to decide if her weak case for an insignificant anomaly can be made into a strong case for an insignificant anomaly. She’s jousting at windmills – I don’t really care whether or not she’s winning…

  76. avatar
    BatGuano February 1, 2011 at 12:39 am #

    Slartibartfast: her methodology lacks rigor which means that her claim of an anomaly is a weak one…..

    the microfilm was created by at least 2 different companies, using different cameras, using different copies of the original papers, possibly different using different brand/stock of film, stored in different locations, viewed on different projectors and printed with different printers………. and a few minor anomalies is her proof of a massive government conspiracy of switching out microfilm in an unknown number of libraries ? well, that and the fact that ” Copies at that library require inserting COINS into the viewer copy machine. No Library card needed.”

    oof.

  77. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 1, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    BatGuano:
    the microfilm was created by at least 2 different companies, using different cameras, using different copies of the original papers, possibly different using different brand/stock of film, stored in different locations, viewed on different projectors and printed with different printers………. and a few minor anomalies is her proof of a massive government conspiracy of switching out microfilm in an unknown number of libraries ? well, that and the fact that ” Copies at that library require inserting COINS into the viewer copy machine.No Library card needed.” oof.

    So I might have understated the case…

  78. avatar
    brygenon February 1, 2011 at 7:00 am #

    charo wrote:: I thought he was being facetious. She has a post on it that is more specific than my truncated summary. You haven’t really attacked with any specificity, pointing to this or that in her post, actually, posts.

    The thing about anomaly hunting is that the wild anomaly is easy game. Use a shotgun. If there are million ways for the data to be anomalous — and in fact there are many times more — then we’d expect to hit about a hundred one-in-ten-thousand shots.

    Anomalies and coincidences fuel many a conspiracy theory. If you’re impressed by the birthers’ collection, check out the 9/11-was-an-inside-job kooks.

  79. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2011 at 7:08 am #

    charo: I thought he was being facetious

    Me? Never!

  80. avatar
    brygenon February 1, 2011 at 7:35 am #

    jbjd wrote:: Nor am I “allud[ing]” to the “two parent rule road.”

    I read the “complaint”, and obviously that’s not true.

    (I assume you mean, the theory that espouses, “natural born” means, born of two citizen parents.) And I never will, unless that becomes the legal definition of NBC. As I have said so often on my blog, no one knows what NBC means, until the federal appellate court says that’s what it means.

    Any competent attorney would just look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary. No need to make a federal case of it.

    Birthers just keep making the same mistakes, over and over, failure after failure. Even if they can convince themselves of their crank theories, how do they conclude that there’s any case for fraud? The people they accuse don’t have to agree with them. How deluded do they have to be to think some investigation could show that Lt. Governor Schatz intended to put an ineligible candidate on the ballot?

  81. avatar
    charo February 1, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    charo: Slart,

    I believe it was you who stated this same point a few weeks ago on a thread that I can’t remember.

    It was actually Greg.

    Greg January 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    charo: The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

    If the announcements were put there individually, we have to assume that each and every parent that called the one newspaper called the other, and since Obama’s announcement came out next day along with all the others that were identical, we have to assume that NOT ONE PARENT called the other paper first!

    ****

    I remembered this comment after reading ladyforest the other day (I figured it was on that ugly old thread). I had not seen it discussed here before and apologize if it was. Greg makes the logical argument that no one could individually call in announcements because what are the chances that each and every parent called one paper before the other How else could they have printed that way, one paper having the same announcements the day before the other? I understand now that if someone actually gets papers to examine whether the birth orders are actually printed identically all the time, this is wrong. There is to be no thorough debunking of ideas to point to for educating people, which I thought was one of Doc’s reasons for the site. Oh but charo is always grasping at any “birther” straw just hoping that something just might fit! Or, I think that it is possible someone has been stringing along people for a long time and now the situation has spun out of control. In my ignorant view, everything needs debunked with specificity.

  82. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    This “discussion” is worthy of the ones that Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer used to have at Monk’s Cafe. As I mentioned, I have been following the birth announcements in my local paper for the past year or so. They come directly from the local hospitals (parents must consent) and those from a given hospital over several days are grouped together. There is no charge to the parents. There is no provision for parents to phone in a home birth or out of area birth. I’m sure the newspaper would be willing to sell you a box to announce such an event, but it would appear separately from the regular hospital birth announcements. By contrast, engagement, wedding and anniversary announcements are sent in by the parties and the paper charges for printing them.

    I can’t say if that is the policy that the Honolulu papers followed in 1961, but this is long-standing practice in the newspaper business.

  83. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    charo:
    I could be misreading what she was trying to prove, but I think it was that birth announcements were in the same order for both papers a day apart, the exact order being important.

    I fail to see how there is any significance in the fact that the names are in the same order in both papers. I have no doubt that if the names were not in the same order, birthers would cite that as an anomaly.

    Besides, the Honolulu Advertiser itself confirmed that the birth announcement appeared in its paper on August 13, 1961. Is there really a rational basis for believing that the announcment is not genuine?

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

  84. avatar
    charo February 1, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    Rickey: I fail to see how there is any significance in the fact that the names are in the same order in both papers.

    Greg is the one who initially made it an issue with me, not the other way around. Applying HIS analysis, it would be odd for the births announcements not to be in the same order. But never mind.

  85. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    charo:
    Greg is the one who initially made it an issue with me, not the other way around. Applying HIS analysis, it would be odd for the births announcements not to be in the same order.But never mind.

    I would think that copying the information exactly as it was received from DOH would be the most likely procedure, but consider the many potential variables – the available column space, the typesetter, etc. I doubt that for something as mundane as birth announcements and marriage applications the papers had a protocol in place which had to be followed.

  86. avatar
    bob February 1, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    Was a complaint actually filed? Or is this merely a template for someone who would like to file a complaint?

  87. avatar
    charo February 1, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    bob: Was a complaint actually filed?Or is this merely a template for someone who would like to file a complaint?

    A template.

  88. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    Rickey: the available column space, the typesetter, etc.

    Did the two Honolulu papers share the same printing facility (typesetters) in 1961?

    Here is a short video on how papers were printed in the 1960’s,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCXWl0W0FaA

  89. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    bob: Was a complaint actually filed?Or is this merely a template for someone who would like to file a complaint?

    A template and she left out the word Frivolous before Complaint in the title.

    Sloppy birther idiot.

  90. avatar
    BatGuano February 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    gorefan:
    Did the two Honolulu papers share the same printing facility (typesetters) in 1961?Here is a short video on how papers were printed in the 1960β€²s,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCXWl0W0FaA

    great video.

    i did lay-out for my jr high and high school papers ( then went on to a career doing illustration and layout for weeklies, monthlies, magazines etc. never worked on a daily lay-out tho ). assuming they didn’t print “in-house” then they prob used the same printer but each employed separate lay-out staffs.

  91. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    gorefan:
    Did the two Honolulu papers share the same printing facility (typesetters) in 1961?

    I don’t know. The first reference I can find to the two papers sharing facilities is in 1962:

    June 1, 1962: The Star-Bulletin and its morning rival, the Honolulu Advertiser, set up a third company, the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, under a joint operating agreement to handle non-newsroom functions of both papers. The Sunday editions of both papers are combined.

    That would seem to suggest that their printing facilities were separate in 1961, but it’s hardly definitive.

  92. avatar
    Wild Bill H February 1, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    US Citizen: In reference to how “Obama came out of nowhere” and suddenly took over the polls, he said something like “They (the birthers) are probably embarrassed. They didn’t think he’d win. They gave him no attention until it was too late.
    His rise was so quick, it didn’t make sense to them how someone (especially a black democrat with Hussein in his name) could *ever* beat a decorated war hero like McCain.
    It was completely illogical to them and they got blindsided by their confidence.

    Well, I don’t consider myself to be a birther, but I’m sure those that post to this blog do.

    Obama didn’t come out of no where. I distinctly remember the hoopla made over his Senate win. I thought it was odd at the time, given that it was simply a Senate seat, but never gave it another thought, other than the media seems to be swooning over (how was it that Biden put it?) “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy….a storybook guy”. And they call the birthers, racists? LMAO

    As far as thinking he wouldn’t win – WHAT? His rise was certainly quick, but it was consistent from the beginning. He was predicted to win for nearly the whole general campaign – I certainly thought he was going to win. And you bring up this decorated war hero – McCain? pfft! McCain was a shoe-in as the loser – no one really wanted him to win. I only voted for him as a vote against Obama. In fact, I thought McCain would be just as bad a president as Obama has turned out to be – I just figured it would take McCain longer than Obama to bring us down.

    I gave Obama lots of attention – at least as far as considering him a viable candidate. At first he had great appeal. He was saying and doing what he needed to to win over conservatives. I’m curious if you think we are all racists – were we racists when we were considering voting for him? In fact, many many of my friends genuinely considered voting for Mr. Obama. It was not until late into his campaign when the true Obama began to become apparent and his deeply liberal agenda became obvious, that we suddenly realized that he was NOT the candidate that he had originally made himself out to be.

    I can even tell you the exact moment I changed my mind. In a Dr. office, reading an interview with Senator Obama in Newsweek. WOW! My eyes were opened: At the time, I never even knew his middle name, and didn’t and don’t care about that even today.

    I think you are heaping a whole lot of ignorance upon the voting public, which is the same mistake a lot of democrats make. i.e. “We know you don’t want health care but it’s good for you and you are just too damn stupid to know what is best for you, so we’ll make that decision for you.”

  93. avatar
    Wild Bill H February 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Scientist: I can’t say if that is the policy that the Honolulu papers followed in 1961, but this is long-standing practice in the newspaper business.

    Like Obama, I too was born in 1961, not in Hawaii, but in Texas.

    My parents were from a different state than Texas, so when I was born, they phoned the newspapers where each had grown up and inserted my birth announcement, for their friends and family.

    I’m sure that is no longer the practice, as with all things, time and regulations change. However, in that I know it could and did happen in September of 1961, it is viable possibility that someone, other than the hospital, placed the birth announcement in the newspaper.

    I’m not at all sure what the hoopla is over these birth announcements. What are they really saying? that a Mr. and a Mrs. Obama had a son. We don’t know who the Mrs. was (without a marriage certificate) or who the son was. While common sense does tell us the son was Obama Jr….I would hardly think that is evidence on any level.

  94. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    Wild Bill H: I gave Obama lots of attention – at least as far as considering him a viable candidate.

    Not enough, since you obviously didn’t check his Senate voting record. He had the most liberal record of all senators in 2007 and was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006. Nor I guess, did you read the Democratic platform in 2008, which he has followed quite closely. You are entitled to not like what Obama has done in office, but if it comes as a surprise that’s your fault, not his.

    http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

  95. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    Wild Bill H: My parents were from a different state than Texas, so when I was born, they phoned the newspapers where each had grown up and inserted my birth announcement, for their friends and family

    Did it say you were born in Texas?

    Wild Bill H: We don’t know who the Mrs. was (without a marriage certificate) or who the son was

    The state of Hawaii granted the Obamas a divorce, which they only do for people who are married as far as I know. Whether the marriage was legal, in view of Sr’s village marriage back in Kenya is unclear, but since Hawaii was unaware of that, they considered him married to Ms Dunham.

  96. avatar
    US Citizen February 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Wild Bill H: As far as thinking he wouldn’t win – WHAT? His rise was certainly quick, but it was consistent from the beginning.

    Yes and you know this having looked yourself.

    But time and time again, I’ve observed that birthers have said they can’t watch him.
    They proudly stated how they wouldn’t watch his 30 minute TV spots.
    They railed against him about showing an educational video to children and formed a movement to deliberately decide NOT to watch.

    Many said on earlier blogs (Obamacrimes and others) how they couldn’t watch the inauguration or listen to his speeches.
    (many also followed that with what they were about to get drunk on, but I digress…)

    There are almost countless blog entries that reflect a practice of not watching him deliberately for a variety of reasons.
    (I can’t watch him, can’t stand to listen to him, I turn him off when he comes on, I won’t let my children listen to him, he’s not “allowed” in our house, etc, etc.)

    Even right now we had unique counter-SOTU rebuttals before Obama had even *given* his SOTU speech.
    They had a rebuttal to something they hadn’t even listened to yet!
    Listening to Obama is not something birthers make a practice of, nor ever have.

    Most birthers refuse to listen to him or formed such hostile opinions early.
    Today there is nothing he could say that wouldn’t garnish some critical or cynical complaint from a birther.
    It hurts for them to watch him.

    You are a special snowflake. The exception to the rule.
    But to most birthers, this IS their answer to never having to see or listen to him again.
    That’s exactly what they want and exactly what they’re doing now.

    Hell, the tea party itself says they stand for “Taxed Enough Already” and most of their taxes went down… just like Obama SAID they would in his speeches.
    They refused to listen to those too.
    (It’s also interesting how quickly they went from being “tea baggers” to “tea party members” when they DID listen to someone other than the president.) πŸ˜‰

  97. avatar
    Sef February 1, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    Scientist: The state of Hawaii granted the Obamas a divorce, which they only do for people who are married as far as I know. Whether the marriage was legal, in view of Sr’s village marriage back in Kenya is unclear, but since Hawaii was unaware of that, they considered him married to Ms Dunham.

    It doesn’t matter what the State of HI thought of the marriage, only UK, as they are the ones who would determine the legitimacy of Obama, Jr’s UKC citizenship.

  98. avatar
    US Citizen February 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    Sef:
    It doesn’t matter what the State of HI thought of the marriage, only UK, as they are the ones who would determine the legitimacy of Obama, Jr’s UKC citizenship.

    Wrong again. WHERE Obama was born solely makes him a natural born US citizen.
    It doesn’t matter if his parents were married, divorced, Swahili or martians.
    He was born in Hawaii and UK laws don’t apply to people born in the US.

  99. avatar
    Sef February 1, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    US Citizen:
    Wrong again. WHERE Obama was born solely makes him a natural born US citizen.
    It doesn’t matter if his parents were married, divorced, Swahili or martians.
    He was born in Hawaii and UK laws don’t apply to people born in the US.

    I didn’t comment AT ALL on Obama’s NBC status. This was a comment about his supposed UKC citizenship and who would have control over it.

  100. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm #

    Scientist: but since Hawaii was unaware of that, they considered him married to Ms Dunham.

    Didn’t she also get a passport under the name Obama? She would have needed a marriage certificate to do that.

  101. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Wild Bill H: they phoned the newspapers where each had grown up and inserted my birth announcement, for their friends and family.

    Did they give as dry a recitation of facts as appear in the Hawaiian announcements? Notice how all the announcements are the same in wording, that’s because the parent based announcements are in a different section of the paper.

    Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.

    Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.’

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

  102. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    gorefan: Didn’t she also get a passport under the name Obama? She would have needed a marriage certificate to do that.

    Sorry, I think I got that wrong – I was thniking of the second marriage.

  103. avatar
    Hawaiiborn February 1, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    Rickey:
    However, both papers published Sunday morning editions. The Advertiser published the birth announcement on Sunday. The Star-Bulletin, as I understand it, published the announcement on Monday. But keep in mind that the Star-Bulletin had to put out its regular afternoon edition on Saturday and then turn right around and work on its Sunday morning edition. Given the tight turnaround the staff faced on Saturdays, it may have decided to hold off on publishing routine things such as birth announcements until Monday.

    Sorry, this is incorrect. The Honolulu Advertiser was the only one that delivered a Sunday edition, since it was the morning paper and the Sunday paper was delivered in the early morning (around 3 am to be exact). I had school mates who used to deliver the morning paper.

    The Star Bulletin started a short-lived Sunday edition around 2005-6 (can’t be certain as I haven’t subscribed to a newspaper in over 10 years) and that fell to the way side soon after.

    Then of course the merger of both into the Star Advertiser happened last year.

    Rickey:
    I’m not saying that is the case – I have no way of knowing – but that is a plausible scenario. There are any number of other possible explanations, as well. For example, there may not have been sufficient space on the Sunday page usually used for such announcements, and an editor at the Star-Bulletin may have decided to hold it for Monday’s paper.

    See above. Star Bulletin didn’t publish a Sunday paper. It was strictly a Mon – Saturday evening/afternoon paper up until 2005-6. But that circulation was short lived.

  104. avatar
    Hawaiiborn February 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    gorefan:
    Did the two Honolulu papers share the same printing facility (typesetters) in 1961?Here is a short video on how papers were printed in the 1960β€²s,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCXWl0W0FaA

    Yes actually they did. There was a joint agreement that both newspapers could use the same printing facility for their papers, which was granted by the Hawaiian News Agency.

    that is until 2001 , when the Honolulu Advertiser built their own printing facility out in Kapolei since the Star Bulletin was sold to David Black of Black Press in 2000

  105. avatar
    US Citizen February 1, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    Sef: This was a comment about his supposed UKC citizenship and who would have control over it.

    A fairly speculative question considering Obama doesn’t have any UK citizenship whatsoever.
    So it’s basically an “IF my grandmother DID have balls….” question based on something that never happened.

  106. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    Hawaiiborn: Star Bulletin didn’t publish a Sunday paper.

    So would that mean that the Star Bulletin was always trying to catchup on birth announcements that the Advertiser published on Sundays?

  107. avatar
    Sef February 1, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    US Citizen:
    A fairly speculative question considering Obama doesn’t have any UK citizenship whatsoever.
    So it’s basically an “IF my grandmother DID have balls….” question based on something that never happened.

    I see you haven’t been keeping up. When Obama was born he would have had UKC citizenship through his father until this was transferred to Kenya citizenship. The Kenya citizenship was totally lost when he turned 23. There is a question whether he would have had the UKC citizenship because of the still existent marriage back in Kenya, but this would have had to be decided by UK laws. Whether or not he had any other citizenship is totally immaterial to his NBC status.

  108. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    Wild Bill H:
    Like Obama, I too was born in 1961, not in Hawaii, but in Texas.My parents were from a different state than Texas, so when I was born, they phoned the newspapers where each had grown up and inserted my birth announcement, for their friends and family.I’m sure that is no longer the practice, as with all things, time and regulations change. However, in that I know it could and did happen in September of 1961, it is viable possibility that someone, other than the hospital, placed the birth announcement in the newspaper.

    And I’m sure that the birth announcements which your parents placed included your name. However, the birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers contain no baby names, just the names of the parents and the date of birth and sex of the child. Furthermore, the announcements in the Hawaii Advertiser have the heading “Health Bureau Statistics.”

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

    it’s obvious to anyone but a committed birther that these announcements came from the Health Department, not the parents or other family members.

    And in 2009 a reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser wrote that in 1961 “Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.:

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

  109. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Hawaiiborn:
    Star Bulletin didn’t publish a Sunday paper. It was strictly a Mon – Saturday evening/afternoon paper up until 2005-6. But that circulation was short lived.

    Thanks for the clarification. The material I saw said that it had a Sunday edition, but that obviously is incorrect.

    And of course that explains why the announcements didn’t appear in the Star Bulletin until Monday.

  110. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Rickey: And of course that explains why the announcements didn’t appear in the Star Bulletin until Monday.

    So, could they have just reprinted the birth announcements that from Sunday’s Advertiser and if they had already been layed out by the typesetters, would they be in the same order?

  111. avatar
    charo February 1, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    gorefan:
    So, could they have just reprinted the birth announcements that from Sunday’s Advertiser and if they had already been layed out by the typesetters, would they be in the same order?

    Thank you for your input. It seems to me that one of the focus points of the blogger was that the printing of the birth announcements in the exact order in each paper within a day was not a common occurrence for the time periods she used as samples. I don’t want to speak for the researcher or draw any conclusions myself. My question is why would that not always be the case (birth announcements printed in the same order in both papers because they came from the same generated list from vital records) Maybe I didn’t understand your approach.

  112. avatar
    Hawaiiborn February 1, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    gorefan:
    So would that mean that the Star Bulletin was always trying to catchup on birth announcements that the Advertiser published on Sundays?

    Basically. If the information was received late on that Friday before that Monday, and it didn’t make it into the Saturday issue, it would be published on the following Monday.

  113. avatar
    Hawaiiborn February 1, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    charo:
    Thank you for your input. It seems to me that one of the focus points of the blogger was that the printing of the birth announcements in the exact order in each paper within a day was not a common occurrence for the time periods she used as samples.I don’t want to speak for the researcher or draw any conclusions myself. My question is why would that not always be the case (birth announcements printed in the same order in both papers because they came from the same generated list from vital records) Maybe I didn’t understand your approach.

    It could be likely because again, they used the same printing press and location when they printed both newspapers. And the Classified section (where these announcements were made) could have been just used from one paper to the next if there isn’t any other additional changes that needed to be made

    example: advertisers that would have to adjust to typesetting and layout.

    Since most people don’t place advertisements in the newspaper over the weekend, its likely that the typesetter for the Advertiser just gave the layout and typesetting for the Star Bulletin the next day.

    This is my opinion. I really only know how the Advertiser worked AFTER 1994, when my cousin went to work for them. And she lost her job after the merger.

  114. avatar
    Hawaiiborn February 1, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    charo:
    Thank you for your input. It seems to me that one of the focus points of the blogger was that the printing of the birth announcements in the exact order in each paper within a day was not a common occurrence for the time periods she used as samples.I don’t want to speak for the researcher or draw any conclusions myself. My question is why would that not always be the case (birth announcements printed in the same order in both papers because they came from the same generated list from vital records) Maybe I didn’t understand your approach.

    Many factors:

    1) The typesetter for the Advertiser didn’t give over the layout for that section to the typesetter for the Star Bulletin at the time

    2) There was change in layout due to an insertion for an advertisement to appear on that page or the removal of an advertisement

    3) realise at the time, that the list generated came in piles of paper (forms) that the typesetter has to go through (not a printout where they can simply copy and paste the information). If they received the forms in no particular order, then its up to the typesetter which order to place them in. If the Advertiser typesetter received the information in one order, and the Star bulletin received it in another order….that can make it so that each paper lists its differently.

    Or in the case of Obama’s birth announcements, could be that the Star Bulletin’s typesetter just simply used the one created by the Advertiser’s typesetter.

  115. avatar
    charo February 1, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Thank you. I’ll have to review your comment in more detail later.

  116. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 1, 2011 at 9:04 pm #

    Hawaiiborn,

    Thanks for the info.

    charo,

    So, do you think that I was correct in saying that this anomaly has no significance with respect to the president’s eligibility?

  117. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Hawaiiborn,Thanks for the info.charo,So, do you think that I was correct in saying that this anomaly has no significance with respect to the president’s eligibility?

    Sometimes shadows are just shadows.

  118. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 1, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Sometimes shadows are just shadows.

    With the birthers there’s nothing but shadows… (well, I guess they’ve got lies, too ;-))

  119. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    Wild Bill H: I’m not at all sure what the hoopla is over these birth announcements. What are they really saying? that a Mr. and a Mrs. Obama had a son. We don’t know who the Mrs. was (without a marriage certificate) or who the son was. While common sense does tell us the son was Obama Jr….I would hardly think that is evidence on any level.

    Common sense would also tell you how highly improbable it would be that there would be another couple with the last name of Obama on the island having a baby around the same time.

  120. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    Wild Bill H: Well, I don’t consider myself to be a birther, but I’m sure those that post to this blog do.

    Well, you’ve made birther-type statements in the past. So, you’ve acted like one before. I am a fair person, so I’ll give you credit that so far, you’ve avoided any actual “birther myths” in this post. However, you certainly come across as judgmentally closed-minded and are guilty of perpetuating the fallacies of simplistic ideological stereotyping. So, you certainly have areas to work on to not come across as such a pompous bigot. NOTE: I said bigot – not “racist”…bigotry is much broader than issues of race and you definitely demonstrate a lot of ideological bigotry.

  121. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 9:38 pm #

    Wild Bill H: Well, I don’t consider myself to be a birther, but I’m sure those that post to this blog do.

    Well, you’ve made birther-type statements in the past. So, you’ve acted like one before. I am a fair person, so I’ll give you credit that so far, you’ve avoided any actual “birther myths” in this post. However, you certainly come across as judgmentally closed-minded and are guilty of perpetuating the fallacies of simplistic ideological stereotyping. So, you certainly have areas to work on to not come across as such a pompous bigot. NOTE: I said bigot – not “racist”…bigotry is much broader than issues of race and you definitely demonstrate a lot of ideological bigotry.

    Wild Bill H: Obama didn’t come out of nowhere. I distinctly remember the hoopla made over his Senate win. I thought it was odd at the time, given that it was simply a Senate seat, but never gave it another thought, other than the media seems to be swooning over (how was it that Biden put it?) “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy….a storybook guy”. And they call the birthers, racists? LMAO

    Wow, for someone who seems to be against charges of “racism”…you sure seem to be hung up on the issue…and obsessively focused with issues or statements of “race”. Why is that exactly…???

    The overall reason for the media swoon story is two-fold:

    1 – Obama delivered an amazing and uplifting speech at the 2004 DNC that really “spoke” to a lot of people. THAT is what grabbed the national attention and really led to his meteoric rise and got many people to take notice. For a man who is a gifted speech-maker and has given many memorable speeches since, it is still considered one of his best speeches.

    2 – His background story reflected many of ideals of pursuing the “American Dream” that many Americans either can relate to or proudly point to as what is great about this land of opportunity. Here was a middle-class kid with a diverse background that many different types of people could find some aspect to relate to, who got a good education, started a stable family and worked his way up through his experiences to obtain higher and higher office. His was a story of inspiration.

    His “race” is part of who he is, but only folks obsessed with racial hang-ups one way or another cling to that as either a qualifier or disqualifier and lose sight of those broader issues and themes of his appeal, which would ring true no matter what race he was.

  122. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    With the birthers there’s nothing but shadows… (well, I guess they’ve got lies, too )

    With birthers, all shadows are really scary, evil ghosts and they are watching each other very closely.

  123. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    Wild Bill H: As far as thinking he wouldn’t win – WHAT? His rise was certainly quick, but it was consistent from the beginning. He was predicted to win for nearly the whole general campaign – I certainly thought he was going to win. And you bring up this decorated war hero – McCain? pfft! McCain was a shoe-in as the loser – no one really wanted him to win. I only voted for him as a vote against Obama. In fact, I thought McCain would be just as bad a president as Obama has turned out to be – I just figured it would take McCain longer than Obama to bring us down.

    Hmmm… and why did you feel the need to cast a vote AGAINST him exactly??? You never seem to really state your reasons and dance around the topic…

    Not that there is anything that unusual or wrong with people viewing candidate choices in an election as the “lesser of two evils” in their mind. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences and choices…but usually they are able to articulate them. So far, you seem to weasel around the topic…

    And you are also entitled to not like an Administration or agree with its policies. That too is matter of opinion, of which others can rightly disagree with you.

    However, when you make such hyperbolic charges as “bring us down”…that goes beyond mere opinion as real opinions need to have some basis in fact or reality.

    Just how has this country in any way been “brought down” and just how is life that much different than it was prior to the current administration? I don’t see any of that at all and when you just make blowhard overblown statements like that, you just come across ignorant.

  124. avatar
    US Citizen February 1, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    Sef: I see you haven’t been keeping up. When Obama was born he would have had UKC citizenship through his father until this was transferred to Kenya citizenship. The Kenya citizenship was totally lost when he turned 23.

    You’re right. I haven’t been keeping up with conspiracy theories.
    But as far as the law, Obama had NO UK ties or allegiances when born whatsoever.
    He was 100% a US Citizen when born. Period.
    The UK’s statutes do not trump ours. Period.
    It matters WHERE he was born, not who his father was. Period.
    Thanks for playing, but you have to “keep up” using contemporary laws.
    He has and never has had ANY ties to the UK since he was BORN IN THE USA.

  125. avatar
    US Citizen February 1, 2011 at 10:14 pm #

    Btw, a little searching shows that a certain someone did have a dog in a losing fight… πŸ˜‰

    These are contributions to committees who are raising funds to be distributed to other committees. The breakdown of these contributions to their final recipients may appear below

    TAITZ, ORLY DR.
    LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
    SELF-EMPLOYED/DOCTOR

    MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY CALIFORNIA
    09/17/2008 2000.00 28933469611

    Total Joint Fundraising: 2000.00

    Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions

  126. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    Wild Bill H: I gave Obama lots of attention – at least as far as considering him a viable candidate. At first he had great appeal. He was saying and doing what he needed to to win over conservatives. I’m curious if you think we are all racists – were we racists when we were considering voting for him? In fact, many many of my friends genuinely considered voting for Mr. Obama. It was not until late into his campaign when the true Obama began to become apparent and his deeply liberal agenda became obvious, that we suddenly realized that he was NOT the candidate that he had originally made himself out to be.

    Again with your race-based and “racist” fixation? Gee, can I accuse you of pulling the victimhood card…because you are.

    I’m sure there are a few unfortunate people out there who share such a similar black/white stereotype mindset as you do, and who wrongly view all conservatives as racists. The irony there, is you and they share the same wrongheaded simplistic thinking.

    But in general, NO, most sane and rational people do not think that conservatives are all racists. Are there racists amongst your numbers and amongst the general population? Of course there are. Is it also disturbing that in general, conservatives tend to protect and defend the racists amongst their midst? Yes.

    You are not being honest if you do not see that there have been numerous instances of both blatant and “dog whistle” racism on display over the past two years…and that unfortunately, it has been predominantly coming from one side of the aisle.

    I find it funny that certain conservatives tend to generally talk about self-responsibility and strength, but when it comes to taking action, folks like you turn a blind eye to ugly elements when they tend to share your general “ideology” and cry the “victim card” instead. To me, that is a sign of personal weakness and an utter lack of taking responsibility.

  127. avatar
    G February 1, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    Wild Bill H: I can even tell you the exact moment I changed my mind. In a Dr. office, reading an interview with Senator Obama in Newsweek. WOW! My eyes were opened: At the time, I never even knew his middle name, and didn’t and don’t care about that even today.

    ???… umm… you mention the “moment” that changed your mind…. But you fail to explain it at all…

    …and yet you find some need to mention his middle name… but you say you don’t care about that … so why did you even bring it up? Especially when there is nothing else to your paragraph that in any way explains what “opened your eyes”…

    You claim to not have issues about race or religion, yet you spent more in your post talking about race and mentioning his middle name (all brought up completely by you all on your own here, BTW)… and really don’t address at all any other reasons about why you didn’t vote for him…

    …Methinks you protest too much.

  128. avatar
    Sef February 1, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    US Citizen:
    You’re right. I haven’t been keeping up with conspiracy theories.
    But as far as the law, Obama had NO UK ties or allegiances when born whatsoever.
    He was 100% a US Citizen when born. Period.
    The UK’s statutes do not trump ours. Period.
    It matters WHERE he was born, not who his father was. Period.
    Thanks for playing, but you have to “keep up” using contemporary laws.
    He has and never has had ANY ties to the UK since he was BORN IN THE USA.

    You just don’t get it. I was only referring to the supposed dual citizen stuff. Of course, as far as the U.S. is concerned Obama’s birth in HI is all that matters. The additional citizenship was only something which he could have had if he had moved to Kenya & accepted Kenya citizenship, which he could have done until age 23. It’s sort of like a stock option. It only has value when exercised. The option has expired.

  129. avatar
    charo February 1, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Hawaiiborn,Thanks for the info.charo,So, do you think that I was correct in saying that this anomaly has no significance with respect to the president’s eligibility?

    The evidence put forth to dispel birther claims, and the ones mentioned on shows like Hardball, is the COLB and the newspaper announcements. A blogger presented some research concerning the newspaper announcements that I didn’t see addressed anywhere. I asked for a interpretation from a statistician, but that was actually the wrong avenue. It was someone with printing experience who needs to give the answers. H-born gave some relevant insight that I hope to direct the blogger to so that if she chooses, she can address.

  130. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 1, 2011 at 11:45 pm #

    US Citizen:
    You’re right. I haven’t been keeping up with conspiracy theories.
    But as far as the law, Obama had NO UK ties or allegiances when born whatsoever.
    He was 100% a US Citizen when born. Period.
    The UK’s statutes do not trump ours. Period.
    It matters WHERE he was born, not who his father was. Period.
    Thanks for playing, but you have to “keep up” using contemporary laws.
    He has and never has had ANY ties to the UK since he was BORN IN THE USA.

    I think our friend Sef was pointing out that the birther klan’s meme is that the Kenyan constitution automatically grants citizenship to anyone born to a Kenyan citizen. It is conditionally granted and one who meets this condition must apply for full citizenship before they reach the age of 23, or they lose their Kenyan citizenship. Of course, President Obama never exercised or applied for his Kenyan citizenship option.

  131. avatar
    brygenon February 2, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    Wild Bill H wrote:: I’m curious if you think we are all racists – were we racists when we were considering voting for him?

    And:

    What are they really saying? that a Mr. and a Mrs. Obama had a son. We don’t know who the Mrs. was (without a marriage certificate) or who the son was.

    How many marriage certificates did you see for the parents of the first 43 presidents? How many times did you cast doubt upon those marriages?

    See, it’s not who you voted for. It’s this crap here. I don’t each individual birther’s deal, but don’t tell me it’s a coincidence that the special rules are for the black man with the Muslim name.

  132. avatar
    SRK February 2, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    Reading some headlines, I followed a trail of links and ended up over here, first time reading this blog.

    I think Obama was born in Hawaii and I think the newspaper announcements are real. But what I really don’t understand is why the guy doesn’t just authorize the release of whatever long-form birth certificate is in Hawaii, and end this madness.

    It just seems to me, and I consider myself a reasonable person, that Obama is hiding something.

    And if it’s nothing, why do so many people like you guys here take the “birthers” so seriously? Otherwise, why spend so much time on this?

  133. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 12:45 am #

    SRK: Reading some headlines, I followed a trail of links and ended up over here, first time reading this blog.I think Obama was born in Hawaii and I think the newspaper announcements are real.But what I really don’t understand is why the guy doesn’t just authorize the release of whatever long-form birth certificate is in Hawaii, and end this madness.It just seems to me, and I consider myself a reasonable person, that Obama is hiding something.And if it’s nothing, why do so many people like you guys here take the “birthers” so seriously? Otherwise, why spend so much time on this?

    Well, since you just got here, read on, and your questions will be answered. There have been more than two and a half years of answers to your question as to why he doesn’t release a “long form.”

  134. avatar
    SRK February 2, 2011 at 12:53 am #

    Well, you guys seem pretty smart so maybe someone could do a quick synopsis. Wish I could read 2 1/2 years of explanations but that won’t happen.

    No big deal if it can’t be summarized. But I haven’t seen a clear explanation of this anywhere and I stay pretty well informed.

    Thanks for the time.

  135. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    So, if I tell you, you’re not going to keep asking the same question over and over again like most concern trolls do?

  136. avatar
    obsolete February 2, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    SRK- I’ll answer you by taking you completely at face value, and NOT assume you are a concern troll who is posting the same question they all do.

    Obama is the only Presidential candidate in history to publicly release his birth certificate. He released the only form that the state of Hawaii issues anymore, commonly referred to as a COLB. An independent fact-checking group examined & photographed his COLB, and posted this article which explains Hawaii’s laws and explains common concerns voiced about the COLB.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is an article from Hawaii about his birth certificate, contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements, and the confirmation of all this by Hawaiian officials:
    “Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists” | The Honolulu Advertiser
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

    Here is an official Hawaiian Government link regarding Obama’s birth records, the laws that protect thier privacy, and has pdf files of sworn statements confirming his birth in Hawaii by the head of Hawaii’s DOH & keeper of the records:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    The Congressional Research Service issued a “Report on Obama’s Eligibility”, debunking birther claims for members of Congress. A good place to find that is here:
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/congressional-research-service-report-on-obamas-eligibility/#more-13964

    Obama released the only birth certificate offered by Hawaii, and it has satisfied everyone that matters (Congress, the Courts, The voting public) and the fact that a small (but very loud), fringe group of Obama haters are not satisfied does not change those facts.
    Obama is under no obligation to release any documentation, nor has he been requested to by any court or state. He is certainly not obligated to release more for a group that baselessly called his COLB a forgery, would call anything further released by him a forgery, and who wouldn’t vote for him no matter what was offered.

    Read deeper into the many fine articles on this site, and your questions, if sincere, will be answered.

  137. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 1:04 am #

    obsolete: SRK- I’ll answer you by taking you completely at face value, and NOT assume you are a concern troll who is posting the same question they all do.Obama is the only Presidential candidate in history to publicly release his birth certificate. He released the only form that the state of Hawaii issues anymore, commonly referred to as a COLB. An independent fact-checking group examined & photographed his COLB, and posted this article which explains Hawaii’s laws and explains common concerns voiced about the COLB.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlHere is an article from Hawaii about his birth certificate, contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements, and the confirmation of all this by Hawaiian officials:
    “Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists” | The Honolulu Advertiser
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.htmlHere is an official Hawaiian Government link regarding Obama’s birth records, the laws that protect thier privacy, and has pdf files of sworn statements confirming his birth in Hawaii by the head of Hawaii’s DOH & keeper of the records:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.htmlThe Congressional Research Service issued a“Report on Obama’s Eligibility”, debunking birther claims for members of Congress. A good place to find that is here:
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/congressional-research-service-report-on-obamas-eligibility/#more-13964Obama released the only birth certificate offered by Hawaii, and it has satisfied everyone that matters (Congress, the Courts, The voting public) and the fact that a small (but very loud), fringe group of Obama haters are not satisfied does not change those facts.
    Obama is under no obligation to release any documentation, nor has he been requested to by any court or state. He is certainly not obligated to release more for a group that baselessly called his COLB a forgery, would call anything further released by him a forgery, and who wouldn’t vote for him no matter what was offered.Read deeper into the many fine articles on this site, and your questions, if sincere, will be answered.

    You forgot one obsolete

    “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

    Good luck with that

  138. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 1:06 am #

    This too:

    (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.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.HTM

  139. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 1:06 am #

    SRK: But what I really don’t understand is why the guy doesn’t just authorize the release of whatever long-form birth certificate is in Hawaii, and end this madness.

    If you would read up on the issue, or even go the HI Dept of Health’s own site, you will quickly realize that they DON’T provide long-form birth certificates anymore –in fact, they haven’t for well over a decade. That has been addressed on here repeatedly.

    Go check their actual HI DOH site for yourself, where they answer this clearly in their FAQ.

    If you are getting your news from certain “birther sites” or sites with an “agenda” against Obama, they are providing you with misleading info to make it seem like getting the HI “long form” is some real possibility, when quite simply, it is not.

    Wild Bill H: It just seems to me, and I consider myself a reasonable person, that Obama is hiding something.

    Sorry, you simply have been misled.

    Wild Bill H: And if it’s nothing, why do so many people like you guys here take the “birthers” so seriously? Otherwise, why spend so much time on this?

    I wouldn’t say that we really take the birthers seriously… I think it could better be summed up by saying we view them as all completely nuts or con artists. Some we view as potentially dangerous to themselves or society at large – so there is that reason for monitoring them as well. Some of the things they say come across as so offensive or so anti-patriotic, that it will invoke a serious response of anger or disgust… but beyond that, I wouldn’t say that we take them seriously at all.

    In terms of birther “efforts” on the legal front, etc – well – if you look through this site’s history, you’ll see that the outcomes of those spectacular birther failures were never in doubt by the members here… so, there really wasn’t any “suspense” or serious concern of the outcomes – just the flabbergasted amazement that there could be people out there that truly hung their hopes onto these clearly frivolous attempts and the entertainment value of watching the inevitable play out and the reactions that follow.

    In terms of how/why this site has become a “hobby” to waste time on:
    Well, if you look at the early articles on this site, you will see that Dr. C started the site because the “birthers” were a peculiar phenomenon making quite striking claims during the end of the 2008 campaign and as people started to look into those claims, they turned out to be bunk.

    So, the site started to both investigate these claims as they arose and see if they had any merit and provide correct and more complete info, when debunking of false rumors was required.

    Dr. C in his own words never initially thought this site or this issue would go on for very long, as it became quickly apparent that all evidence pointed to only one conclusion – Obama was born in Honolulu, HI and all evidence in laws supported that he would be NBC.
    However, “birtherism” turned out to be quite an interesting phenomenon – with strange players and “interesting” pseudo-lawyers coming out of the woodwork and filing the craziest of shoddy claims. Then you had the whole fantasy grand jury movement and weird anti-government / seditionist stuff that mixed in.

    So, quickly shock, revulsion and entertainment factors came into play into monitoring the crazy antics of the birthers as well.

    It has been well over 2 years of this phenomenon and we’re pretty much resigned to the fact that these hard-core nuts are impervious to reality and will be muttering “any day now” for the rest of their lives (or at least the remainder of Obama’s term(s) in office). So, this site remains a place of following and commenting on what is going on and is unlikely to run out of things to report any time soon.

    So, this site exists to correct the record on false statements, to monitor the crazy and for a certain level of entertainment value.

  140. avatar
    US Citizen February 2, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: I think our friend Sef was pointing out that the birther klan’s meme is that the Kenyan constitution automatically grants citizenship to anyone born to a Kenyan citizen. It is conditionally granted and one who meets this condition must apply for full citizenship before they reach the age of 23, or they lose their Kenyan citizenship. Of course, President Obama never exercised or applied for his Kenyan citizenship option.

    Ok, I get it now.
    It’s about something that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Kewl. I was confused there for a moment.

    SRK, Hawaii doesn’t have longforms from what I understand.
    Not all states do. (Dr C can correct me if he’d like.)
    But you see, herein lies the problem:

    The thing that *does* grant him proof of citizenship?
    That was used fine legally, but when it was scanned and photographed, many people chose not to believe it was real.

    So if he suddenly said “I went and got my longform for all of you people that don’t believe I had one”, he’d again scan it and again no one would believe him.
    Regardless, it’s not HIS property.
    It’s the health dept’s.
    So what does he do?
    Invite tours to come and inspect it in person?
    Bring special equipment and analysts to the building to analyze it there?
    And who would believe who and why?
    If Obama invited Rush Limbaugh down for a look, that’d be fine for some, but many would be correct in saying that Rush isn’t a document expert.
    How would he know if it’s real or a forgery?

    You have to think one step ahead here.
    How would Obama “just release the long form” if there may not be one in the first place or if he’s not allowed to take it away?

    Would you believe him if he suddenly produced one by putting up scans or had some witnesses there to document it exists and is real?
    If not, why not?

  141. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 1:09 am #

    Correction: All 3 quotes that I responded to in the above post should have referred to SRK instead of Wild Bill H.

    Something went wrong in my using the quote function on this one. Sorry for any confusion.

  142. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    Now let’s hope he/she thanks us for answering that perplexing question instead of being more “concerned.”

  143. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    Okay, I’ll bite…

    SRK: Reading some headlines, I followed a trail of links and ended up over here, first time reading this blog.

    Out of curiosity, what was the trail that lead here? (I understand if you don’t want to do this.)

    I think Obama was born in Hawaii and I think the newspaper announcements are real.

    This kind of statement is frequently made by concern trolls – if you say things like this people will probably assume the worst until you prove otherwise…

    But what I really don’t understand is why the guy doesn’t just authorize the release of whatever long-form birth certificate is in Hawaii, and end this madness.

    How should he ‘authorize the release’? He was criticized for how he released the COLB – what should he do differently? I think most of the Obots here believe that making every scrap of information about himself public would do very little to ‘end this madness’. From what I’ve seen, releasing any additional information will just fuel another wave of unAmerican dirtbags spouting hateful, bigoted lies about the president (and his dead mother) in seditious attempts to incite a coup against President Obama and the Constitution. If you have a logical argument as to why you think the release of documents would satisfy the birthers, we’re all ears but I don’t think you (or anyone else) can do it.

    It just seems to me, and I consider myself a reasonable person, that Obama is hiding something.

    Questions about his birth were raised to which he responded by allowing his birth certificate to be inspected by any media outlet that wanted to and posting a copy of it online. To me this response goes far above the standard of what is ‘reasonable’. What was the result? Personally, if the president ever thinks about how he could satisfy the birthers then he is wasting too much time on them. I have seen nothing that the president has done that I would consider ‘hiding’ from the issue – I think he is ignoring the issue which is exactly what I want him to do (he should spend his time on running the country not satisfying a bunch of irrational bigots (both irrationality and bigotry is on ample display in the birther movement – if you can’t find it yourself, I’m sure people here could provide you with myriad links). I also think that implying that President Obama releasing all of the information necessary to prove himself a natural born citizen is somehow indicative that he’s hiding something goes against some of the basic principles of the United States justice system and the Constitution.

    And if it’s nothing, why do so many people like you guys here take the “birthers” so seriously?

    Birthers are waging a propaganda war against President Obama and the Constitution of the United States – I take that very seriously. While this does not hold true for all birthers, their loudest voices hardly take a break from spewing treasonous lies in a seditious attempt to delegitimize the lawful POTUS. These birthers are vile, unAmerican traitors who are attempting to rape the US Constitution – I believe that filth like this should be fought and their lies debunked.

    Otherwise, why spend so much time on this?

    Because if the birthers hateful lies are exposed then no one will believe their seditious propaganda. You may think that I’m being harsh (and I will admit that I am deliberately casting things in their worst light) but I don’t think that I have said anything untrue here, and I hope I’ve given you an idea of at least why I spend time on this.

    Charo,

    You didn’t really answer my question – was the anomaly significant (i.e. pertinent to the president’s eligibility)?

  144. avatar
    gorefan February 2, 2011 at 1:50 am #

    SRK: It just seems to me, and I consider myself a reasonable person, that Obama is hiding something.

    As a reasonable person what do you make of the following:

    President G. W. Bush and Vice President Cheney refused to testify under oath and separately before the 9/11 Commission. They testified at the same time, not under oath, and no written transcripts were made.

    Compare that to President Clinton and Vice President Gore. Both testified under oath, separately and the testimony was transcribed.

    Would a reasonable person say that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had something to hide?

    As to President Obama, he did what any other American would do. He needed a copy of his birth certificate, so he contacted the state where he was born and requested one. They sent him his birth certificate and he posted it for everyone to see on the internet. Now, no other president or presidential candidate has done this.

    So would a reasonable person assume that the other presidents had something to hide?

  145. avatar
    gorefan February 2, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    charo: H-born gave some relevant insight that I hope to direct the blogger to so that if she chooses, she can address.

    This might interest you.

    “Newspaper Industry

    Punched paper tape was used by the newspaper industry until the mid 1970’s or later. Newspapers were typically set in hot lead by devices such as a linotype. With the wire services coming into a device that would punch paper tape, rather than the linotype operator having to retype all the incoming wire stories, the paper tape could be put into a paper tape reader on the linotype and it would create the lead slugs without the operator re-typing the stories. This also allowed newspapers to use devices such as the Friden Flexowriter, to convert typing to lead type via tape. Even after the demise of the Linotype/hot lead, many early “offset” devices had paper tape readers on them to produce the news-story copy.”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/punched-tape#ixzz1CmXv53Ki

    Is it possible that the same type paper tape was used to print the first 25 birth announcements?

    Also a neat video on a linotype.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0hDWOrnWA&feature=player_embedded

  146. avatar
    The Magic M February 2, 2011 at 6:01 am #

    > And if it’s nothing, why do so many people like you guys here take the “birthers” so seriously?

    Catch-22?

    If the birthers are ignored, it’s “because there’s something to hide” or “because they’re afraid we’re onto something”.

    If the birthers are not ignored, it’s “proof they’re onto something”.

    Funny how this game is always played by interested political parties. For example, it’s also happening with people criticizing Obama’s role in the current Egyptian crisis. If he stays out of it, it’s “because Mubarak is a socialist and so is Obama”; if he intervenes, it’s “because Obama wants the Muslim Brotherhood to take over since he is a Muslim”. So predictable.

    And in a personal note, I always aim at correcting blatantly false notions as they have a tendency to spread at exponential rate whereas correct information crawls.
    Things like “I can cancel any contract within 14 days” or “I can commit any crime on my website as long as the homepage tells cops to stay out” are among the crazy stuff I refute wherever I read it.
    The birther crap is another example of this. Because the birther movement itself shows how lies and inventions can become “facts” if only they are spread on a sufficiently high number of websites. Gullible people will think “if everyone talks about it, there must be something to it”.

  147. avatar
    Keith February 2, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    G: …and yet you find some need to mention his middle name… but you say you don’t care about that … so why did you even bring it up? Especially when there is nothing else to your paragraph that in any way explains what “opened your eyes”…

    Actually, there was a rumor that his middle name was really Mohammed and he was covering it up. That was the official “Fight the Smears” reason for publishing the Birth Certificate.

    Then somebody got the idea that they could caste doubt on the validity of the BC and the rest is history.

  148. avatar
    Keith February 2, 2011 at 6:36 am #

    Slartibartfast: These birthers are vile, unAmerican traitors who are attempting to rape the US Constitution

    I agree absolutely with everything you have said, except this. They aren’t traitors. The Constitution very carefully defines treason, and Birthers don’t fit.

    Maybe Fifth-Columnists would be better. But that begs the question: who are the first four columns?

  149. avatar
    Jules February 2, 2011 at 6:36 am #

    US Citizen:
    You’re right. I haven’t been keeping up with conspiracy theories.
    But as far as the law, Obama had NO UK ties or allegiances when born whatsoever.
    He was 100% a US Citizen when born. Period.
    The UK’s statutes do not trump ours. Period.
    It matters WHERE he was born, not who his father was. Period.
    Thanks for playing, but you have to “keep up” using contemporary laws.
    He has and never has had ANY ties to the UK since he was BORN IN THE USA.

    Your rather confusing the matter. The UK alone gets to decide who does and does not hold British citizenship. The US alone gets to decide who does and does not hold US citizenship.

    If Obama was born a British national, then British law did not purport to “trump” US law on nationality. Rather, British law said that he held certain rights and responsibilities to the British government and US law said that he held the rights and responsibilities of a natural-born US citizen.

    The British Nationality Act 1948 may have imposed Citizenship of the UK and Colonies on Obama because he was born outside the UK and Colonies to a father who was a CUKC otherwise than by descent. If this was the case, the former Kenyan Constitution granted Obama Kenyan citizenship on Kenyan independence and Obama lost his status as a CUKC at that time by virtue of the Kenya Independence Act 1963. (Until 1983, all Kenyan citizens, like all other Commonwealth citizens, were British subjects. However, since the passage of laws subjecting “non-patrial” British subjects to immigration control in the 1960s, that status became largely academic.)

    The former Kenyan Constitution did provide that someone who was a dual citizen at age 21 had to renounce his non-Kenyan nationality and declare allegiance to Kenya in order to avoid the loss of Kenyan citizenship. As Obama did not do this, he lost whatever Kenyan citizenship he may have held. (There is a provision of the new Kenyan Constitution that theoretically may allow someone in Obama’s situation to register as a Kenyan citizen whilst retaining his non-Kenyan nationality. However, I think it’s safe to say that Obama has no need for a Kenyan passport and will not choose to become Kenyan once again.)

    Of course, all of the above is a matter of UK and Kenyan law, much of which has since been repealed. Obama holds no form of British or Kenyan nationality today. He was born a US citizen by virtue of birth in the US and has not chosen at any time to relinquish this status. It is for this reason that he has always been a natural-born citizen and is eligible to be President of the United States.

  150. avatar
    Bovril February 2, 2011 at 6:45 am #

    I agree absolutely with everything you have said, except this. They aren’t traitors. The Constitution very carefully defines treason, and Birthers don’t fit.

    Maybe Fifth-Columnists would be better. But that begs the question: who are the first four columns?

    Whilst not “traitors” per se, they most certainly are traitorous and seditious in intent

  151. avatar
    The Magic M February 2, 2011 at 7:49 am #

    > Obama holds no form of British or Kenyan nationality today.

    Even if he did, that wouldn’t matter as all that matters, by the clear wording of the Constitution, is whether he’s a natural born US citizen (not that dual citizenship at birth would prevent that, mind you), not whether he later became a citizen of another country, as long as he still keeps his US citizenship.

    > If Obama was born a British national, then British law did not purport to “trump” US law on nationality.

    I’m not sure that argument covers all the bases. After all, the birthers could argue, if they had more than two brain cells, that US law recognizes British law in that regard (i.e. if he’s a British citizen by British law, he’s a British citizen by US law). And the “dual citizenship” birthers don’t all claim that British citizenship trumps US citizenship, just that dual citizens (at birth) are disqualified.

    But as I’ve written before, this would lead to the absurd situation that British law could indirectly render all US citizens unable to become parents of a natural born citizen child.

    So by “reductio ad absurdum” and the fact that the Founders weren’t stupid dimwits who couldn’t look farther than their nose, it follows that they could not have possibly meant “natural born = no dual citizenship at birth”.

  152. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    Magic M: You are correct that nothing in the law bars a dual citizen from office, even if the dual citizenship is currently in force. That said, there could be a reasonable political issue with a candidate who was a dual citizen at the time they were running for President. But that can be handled through the political process in an adversarial campaign. Those who want to write all kinds of restrictions into the law are taking the position that the American people are idiots who can’t make democratic decisions for themselves. That simply isn’t true. And if it really were true, let’s not have any illusion that laws and Constitutions will save us. History shows that they don’t.

  153. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 8:59 am #

    Keith: I agree absolutely with everything you have said, except this. They aren’t traitors. The Constitution very carefully defines treason, and Birthers don’t fit.Maybe Fifth-Columnists would be better. But that begs the question: who are the first four columns?

    Well, certain ones have crossed the line and called for “stringing up” Obama, Pelosi, judges, etc… to me that goes way to far.

    Certain ones keep calling for an uprising of themselves or the military against our lawful government…

    Certain ones keep calling for fantasies of a new Civil War or taking arms up against local or government officials…

    Certain ones have talked about “taking out” everyone who didn’t listen to them or who voted for Obama…

    ALL of those cross the line to me. I WOULD call all of those that advocate for any of those violent acts as traitors, would be criminals and anti-patriotic seditionists.

  154. avatar
    charo February 2, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    Slartibartfast: Charo,

    You didn’t really answer my question – was the anomaly significant (i.e. pertinent to the president’s eligibility)?

    If issues like alleged anomalies in the printing of the birth announcement are completely irrelevant to Obama Conspiracy Theories, hence eligibility, then why is the birth announcement ever discussed?

  155. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    charo: If issues like alleged anomalies in the printing of the birth announcement are completely irrelevant to Obama Conspiracy Theories, hence eligibility, then why is the birth announcement ever discussed?

    Because, since Seinfeld was cancelled, this is the best place to find discussions that are “about nothing”. Truly, charo, the birthers have no significance beyond entertainment. None. Zero. It’s time you faced facts, dear. If you want to know what matters, listen to Randy Newman

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-e4rz-SkVk

  156. avatar
    charo February 2, 2011 at 9:33 am #

    Scientist:
    Because, since Seinfeld was cancelled, this is the best place to find discussions that are “about nothing”.Truly, charo, the birthers have no significance beyond entertainment.None.Zero.It’s time you faced facts, dear.If you want to know what matters, listen to Randy Newmanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-e4rz-SkVk

    I like all the Toy Story movies. Brilliant and good theme music.

  157. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    charo: I like all the Toy Story movies. Brilliant and good theme music

    Great stuff!

  158. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Scientist:
    Because, since Seinfeld was cancelled, this is the best place to find discussions that are “about nothing”.Truly, charo, the birthers have no significance beyond entertainment.None.Zero.It’s time you faced facts, dear.If you want to know what matters, listen to Randy Newmanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-e4rz-SkVk

    Apt and well said.

  159. avatar
    US Citizen February 2, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Jules: The UK alone gets to decide who does and does not hold British citizenship. The US alone gets to decide who does and does not hold US citizenship.

    So then, you believe the UK can call up any of its “dual citizens” to answer to the crown? To fight their wars? To participate in their elections should they see the need?
    And is this only for 23 year olds and younger?

    Oh and the really important question:
    If my father is British, is it ok for me to drive on the opposite side of a road in the US at 20 years old?
    I would expect to have any possible traffic offenses handled in the UK since citizens in both countries are provided with courts and due process.
    Can I follow British rules when driving or can they demand I follow their rules when driving in the US?
    Are there any problems with this idea?
    You see, my mom is German and they have the autobahn and my father is British where they drive on the opposite side of the road.
    Since I would have triple citizenship, can I drive as fast as I can on the other side of the road now?
    Why do I have to follow US laws then?
    (Sure am glad I’ve not been levied my TV tax too.)

  160. avatar
    Sef February 2, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    US Citizen:
    So then, you believe the UK can call up any of its “dual citizens” to answer to the crown? To fight their wars? To participate in their elections should they see the need?
    And is this only for 23 year olds and younger?Oh and the really important question:
    If my father is British, is it ok for me to drive on the opposite side of a road in the US at 20 years old?
    I would expect to have any possible traffic offenses handled in the UK since citizens in both countries are provided with courts and due process.
    Can I follow British rules when driving or can they demand I follow their rules when driving in the US?
    Are there any problems with this idea?
    You see, my mom is German and they have the autobahn and my father is British where they drive on the opposite side of the road.
    Since I would have triple citizenship, can I drive as fast as I can on the other side of the road now?
    Why do I have to follow US laws then?
    (Sure am glad I’ve not been levied my TV tax too.)

    You seem to have a problem understanding the term “jurisdiction”.

  161. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    charo:

    Slartibartfast: Charo,

    You didn’t really answer my question – was the anomaly significant (i.e. pertinent to the president’s eligibility)?

    If issues like alleged anomalies in the printing of the birth announcement are completely irrelevant to Obama Conspiracy Theories, hence eligibility, then why is the birth announcement ever discussed?

    Since you seem to keep ducking my question, I guess I’ll have to answer it myself – the anomaly Ladyforest found was of absolutely no significance to the president’s eligibility. So what I’d like to know now is, what was the point of investigating it more deeply. If you wanted to find out some obscure details about how some Hawai’ian newspapers were published 50 years ago – mission accomplished. But we’ve seen this over and over again with the birthers – the attempt to raise an irrelevant (or fake) issue to prominence and then claim it is somehow ‘evidence’ against the president. A partial list:

    Ms. Tickly’s announcement anomalies
    Indonesian citizenship
    British/Kenyan citizenship
    Adoption by Lolo Soetoro
    De Vattel
    Pakistani travel ban
    Dr. Dunham’s ‘loss’ of citizenship (passport records may have sunk this for good…)
    ‘forensic’ analysis of the COLB

    I could go on, but I think you get the point – why should anyone continue to believe these charlatans and ignoramuses?

  162. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    Keith: I agree absolutely with everything you have said, except this. They aren’t traitors. The Constitution very carefully defines treason, and Birthers don’t fit.

    Your right, of course – many of the birthers spew traitorous speech (if one considers the birther movement an enemy to the United States) but an accusation of treason requires an overt act… You might be able to make the case for a couple of people (like Walter Fitzpatrick or the birther minister of hate, Mr. Manning – he can call himself ‘Dr.’ but I don’t have to…) but you are correct, most birthers are just seditious, not traitors.

  163. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    Keith: I agree absolutely with everything you have said, except this. They aren’t traitors. The Constitution very carefully defines treason, and Birthers don’t fit.

    You’re right, of course – many of the birthers spew traitorous speech (if one considers the birther movement an enemy to the United States) but an accusation of treason requires an overt act… You might be able to make the case for a couple of people (like Walter Fitzpatrick or the birther minister of hate, Mr. Manning – he can call himself ‘Dr.’ but I don’t have to…) but you are correct, most birthers are just seditious, not traitors.

  164. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    If issues like alleged anomalies in the printing of the birth announcement are completely irrelevant to Obama Conspiracy Theories, hence eligibility, then why is the birth announcement ever discussed?

    Since you seem to keep ducking my question, I guess I’ll have to answer it myself – the anomaly Ladyforest found was of absolutely no significance to the president’s eligibility.So what I’d like to know now is, what was the point of investigating it more deeply.If you wanted to find out some obscure details about how some Hawai’ian newspapers were published 50 years ago – mission accomplished.But we’ve seen this over and over again with the birthers – the attempt to raise an irrelevant (or fake) issue to prominence and then claim it is somehow evidence’ against the president.A partial list:Ms. Tickly’s announcement anomalies
    Indonesian citizenship
    British/Kenyan citizenship
    Adoption by Lolo Soetoro
    De Vattel
    Pakistani travel ban
    Dr. Dunham’s loss’ of citizenship (passport records may have sunk this for good…)
    forensic’ analysis of the COLBI could go on, but I think you get the point – why should anyone continue to believe these charlatans and ignoramuses?

    Other reprehensible, thoroughly debunked myths:
    Malcolm X – father, Frank Marshall Davis – father, grandparents were his actual parents, mother posed for nude photos and/or porn, thousands to millions spent hiding his past or sealing documents, Executive Order 13233 was signed to hide his records, McCain showed his birth certificate to Congress and/or there was testimony and a binding resolution, he’s a radical Muslim, Obama won’t say, or doesn’t know the Pledge of Allegiance, Obama was sworn into office on the Quran, he was endorsed by the KKK, his campaign was funded by Hugo Chavez, his mother was too young for him to qualify as a natural born citizen, he filed a lawsuit requiring banks to make loans to poor people, Barack and Michelle surrendered their law licenses for questionable reasons, Obama’s November, 2010 trip to India cost taxpayers $200 million per day, Michelle said that her husband was born in Kenya, a welcome sign in Kenya identifies that country as the President’s birthplace, Obama did not attend Columbia, he nominated Elena Kagan as a reward for getting nine eligibility challenges dismissed, he canceled the National Day of Prayer, he’s a Socialist, he’s a Marxist, he’s a Manchurian candidate, he hates America . . . . and many, many, many more.

    To quote and reiterate from Slartibartfast’s post:

    “Why should anyone continue to believe these charlatans and ignoramuses?”

  165. avatar
    obsolete February 2, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    SRK- are you still here?
    Did you follow up on the links we posted?

    Perhaps SRK was truly curious after seeing birther propaganda, and his fears have been laid to rest. Or, perhaps SRK was a VERY short-lived drive-by concern troll. A one-hit wonder.

  166. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    Majority Will: Other reprehensible, thoroughly debunked myths:

    Thanks for adding to my list (and I really like the use of the word ‘reprehensible’…). One small factual correction: Bush signed EO#13233 – Obama signed EO#13489 which was nearly identical to EO#12667 signed by Reagan. And speaking of reprehensible – we shouldn’t forget the allegations that the president had homosexual sex (the allegations are reprehensible, not gay sex…).

  167. avatar
    Rickey February 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    charo:
    If issues like alleged anomalies in the printing of the birth announcement are completely irrelevant to Obama Conspiracy Theories, hence eligibility, then why is the birth announcement ever discussed?

    By themselves, the birth announcements prove nothing. However, they do corroborate the essential information which appears on Obama’s COLB. That’s why birthers have worked so hard to try to cast doubt on the authenticity of the birth announcements. They first tried to claim that the announcements could have been placed by Obama’s grandmother. That argument sank (for the most part) when it was determined that the birth announcements came directly from DOH (or the Health Bureau, as it was know then). So, as birthers always do, they moved the goalposts and began to claim that the announcements contain “anomalies” which suggest that the microfilm has been forged.

    However, birthers such as Miss Tickly have never been able to explain how the vast Obama conspiracy was able to sneak altered microfilm into every college, school and library which keeps microfilmed copies of the Hawaii newspapers – not to mention the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s own archives.

    If the birthers could produce evidence that the Honolulu newspapers did not carry an announcement for Obama, when every other birth in Honolulu in 1961 was announced, they would be on to something. But there it is, in black and white, and in both newspapers.

  168. avatar
    The Magic M February 2, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    > birthers such as Miss Tickly have never been able to explain how the vast Obama conspiracy was able to sneak altered microfilm into every college, school and library which keeps microfilmed copies of the Hawaii newspapers

    Unless you count those few that actually claim the conspiracy started 50+ years ago – and a quick Internet search reveals there’s quite a bunch of people way crazier than the birthers who consider just about everything as “part of the conspiracy”, some even include the Constitution (and the Founders) itself in a big conspiracy that spans more than 300 years.

  169. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Thanks for adding to my list (and I really like the use of the word reprehensible’…).One small factual correction: Bush signed EO#13233 – Obama signed EO#13489 which was nearly identical to EO#12667 signed by Reagan.And speaking of reprehensible – we shouldn’t forget the allegations that the president had homosexual sex (the allegations are reprehensible, not gay sex…).

    Thanks for the correction. Yes, Bush’s EO 13233 of November 1, 2001 was revoked. And Bush revoked Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989.

    Important note: NEVER ask Larry Sinclair’s lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley why he wears a kilt to press conferences.

    But in case you’re curious, the video where Sinclair’s lawyer, Sibley explains why he wears a kilt:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKf1IdlDErc

    More on Sibley and Sinclair:
    http://overlawyered.com/2008/05/montgomery-blair-sibley-suspended/
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050302233.html
    http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/06/larry-sinclair-attorney-montgomery-sibley-practicing-law-while-suspended/

  170. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    Now, here’s a question for the klan:

    If President Obama can forge a Hawaii COLB, have the state lie for him, and no one in a position of authority will question it, as the birther klan claims, then why doesn’t he just forge a “long form” and get it over with?

  171. avatar
    Sef February 2, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Now, here’s a question for the klan:If President Obama can forge a Hawaii COLB, have the state lie for him, and no one in a position of authority will question it, as the birther klan claims, then why doesn’t he just forge a “long form” and get it over with?

    Plus the fact the if the COLB actually had been forged with the attendant changes to the State of HI databases wouldn’t they have covered their tracks so completely that no one could ever discover any problems with it? Birthers never think things through to their logical conclusion.

  172. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Sef:
    Plus the fact the if the COLB actually had been forged with the attendant changes to the State of HI databases wouldn’t they have covered their tracks so completely that no one could ever discover any problems with it? Birthers never think things through to their logical conclusion.

    Yup, Sef, everybody’s lying, altered state documents, and even put ads in the paper 50 years ago knowing what would happen 50 years into the future. As Doc pointed out earlier on another thread:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    This is a symptom of something I have pointed out before. Birthers are denialists. They have no coherent alternate theory of events; they just say “no” to everything that supports President Obama’s eligibility to be president.Because they have no alternate version of events to explain all the facts (except that “everybody’s lying”) they will naturally contradict themselves often.

    They can say now that they will accept something he releases now, but as history has shown, they will eventually end up contradicting themselves once again even if their assertions go to the most absurd extremes

  173. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    Their problem is that they fail to see the bigger picture. They take each one of these things as if they exist in a vacuum, and provide an alternative explanation of how each particular event could have happened. They fail to take the totality of all thee events put together and address the probability that they all could have happened without President Obama actually being born in Hawaii. Could any one of their alternative explanations have happened on its own? Sure, anything on its own is possible. However, when you take all the events that prove that President Obama was born in Hawaii as a totality, the probability that they all could have occurred without a core of truth to it is absolute zero; not only is it not probable that he was born somewhere else, it’s also not possible.

  174. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 2, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    There is an array of facts that prove President Obama was born in Hawaii, and taking each fact on it’s own to provide an alternative explanation to each one on its own fails to explain why they have all occurred together. It’s too much to have occurred by coincidence and its too much to have occurred by a vast conspiracy that spans thousands and thousands of people and dozens of years

  175. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Their problem is that they fail to see the bigger picture. They take each one of these things as if they exist in a vacuum, and provide an alternative explanation of how each particular event could have happened.

    FUT,

    This is common (universal?) amongst conspiracy theorists. They focus on individual pieces of evidence – most of which are extremely weak or downright fraudulent – and seem to think that the sum of all of their trivial and false evidence is somehow credible, while completely failing to understand that their chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.

  176. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    Slartibartfast: FUT,This is common (universal?) amongst conspiracy theorists. They focus on individual pieces of evidence – most of which are extremely weak or downright fraudulent – and seem to think that the sum of all of their trivial and false evidence is somehow credible, while completely failing to understand that their chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link .

    That is one of the best, most concise descriptions of the problem with conspiracy-minded thinking I have seen!

    Well done & I totally agree!

  177. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    G:
    That is one of the best, most concise descriptions of the problem with conspiracy-minded thinking I have seen!Well done & I totally agree!

    Thanks. I’ve seen this same pattern demonstrated by birthers, 9/11 truthers, and moon hoaxers (I think the moon hoax debunkers have it easiest – they can prove they are right by bouncing a laser off of the moon). I also see some similarities in the cintelligent designists, although strict creationists don’t tend to use any thought process that could be described as ‘reasoning’. Now if we could just come up with a concise way to demonstrate this to a conspiracy theorist, we could cure the birthers – maybe if they were exposed to a conspiracy they were not already biased towards…

  178. avatar
    G February 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Now if we could just come up with a concise way to demonstrate this to a conspiracy theorist, we could cure the birthers – maybe if they were exposed to a conspiracy they were not already biased towards…

    Wow…that is a really interesting idea!

    Although, I wonder if they would have some sort of perception-blindness where they can’t see themselves in that same pattern.

    Similar to how Mubarek as a dictator in Egypt is making such obvious blunders in his response and seems completely ego-wise, incapable of realizing how his people view him…

  179. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I think the moon hoax debunkers have it easiest – they can prove they are right by bouncing a laser off of the moon

    They also move goalposts. I heard a lunar-tic reluctantly concede (but still extremely skeptical) that NASA may have launched a robot to drop the laser reflector on the moon – so to him, humans landing on the moon was and is still impossible.

  180. avatar
    SRK February 2, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    Thanks all. I’ve been off line for the day but will try to read everything and catch up.

  181. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    Majority Will:
    They also move goalposts. I heard a lunar-tic reluctantly concede (but still extremely skeptical) that NASA may have launched a robot to drop the laser reflector on the moon – so to him, humans landing on the moon was and is still impossible.

    Yeah, but we don’t have ANY lasers… πŸ™

    I once did a back-of-the envelope accounting of what happened to the TeraJoule of gravitational potential energy in the World Trade Center the morning of September 11, 2001 and was told by a truther that work did not convert one form of energy into another form of energy – whether they’re ignoring the Constitution and the SCOTUS, giant laser beams and the Mythbusters ;-), or the law of conservation of energy and the work of James Joule I think their M.O. is pretty much the same: rationalize away what they can and ignore the rest (and they’ve got great big confirmation biases with which to rationalize…). But it’s pretty hard to convince someone that we didn’t go to the moon when they’ve seen someone bounce a laser off of a mirror that was left there – I don’t think it is as easy (although it is still possible) to inoculate someone against birtherism or trutherism.

  182. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 2, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    SRK: Thanks all.I’ve been off line for the day but will try to read everything and catch up.

    Wow – you’ve got a bit of reading to do… πŸ˜‰

  183. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast: But it’s pretty hard to convince someone that we didn’t go to the moon when they’ve seen someone bounce a laser off of a mirror that was left there

    I’d like to agree but you and I both know to never bet on rationality or even Occam’s Razor over the stubbornness and delusions of a hardcore conspiracy theorist.

    Exempli gratia:

    http://www.fakeapollo.com/2009/08/lunar-laser-reflectors-is-this-joke.html

    And sadly, many more like that.

  184. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Wow – you’ve got a bit of reading to do…

    Stage two concern troll in 4 . . 3 . . 2 . .

  185. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 3, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    G:
    Wow…that is a really interesting idea!Although, I wonder if they would have some sort of perception-blindness where they can’t see themselves in that same pattern.Similar to how Mubarek as a dictator in Egypt is making such obvious blunders in his response and seems completely ego-wise, incapable of realizing how his people view him…

    The Mubarek analogy is an interesting one – although ‘dictators on the verge of being toppled by their people’ is a pretty small group to make generalizations about… I think that trying to use another conspiracy to expose the cognitive dissonance in someone’s mind would be dependent on there being a ‘bridge too far’ conspiracy or a conspiracy that they could be inoculated against. Someone who is sympathetic to any conspiracy theory that they are exposed to (like Dr. Kate) is probably beyond hope, but it might be possible to save some of those who aren’t so far gone.

  186. avatar
    G February 3, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    Majority Will: They also move goalposts. I heard a lunar-tic reluctantly concede (but still extremely skeptical) that NASA may have launched a robot to drop the laser reflector on the moon – so to him, humans landing on the moon was and is still impossible.

    I like that term “lunar-tic” for the moon landing deniers. I think I’ll use it, since I had been incorrectly calling them “moonines” for too long.

    Anyways, your situation reminded me of one I had about 2 years ago with a “lunar-tic”, when at an out of town event. He went beyond their usual “it was staged by Hollywood” meme and actually claimed that the entire thing was done with computer CGI!!!

    I started laughing and tried to point out to this young fella (looked like early-mid 20s is my guess) that CGI didn’t exist back in the late 60’s & early 70’s.

    Did that phase him at all…no. With an egotistical sneer and straight face, he explained that the military is “always 30+ years ahead” on technology and thus, they’ve had ultra-fast computers and advanced, movie quality CGI capabilities way back then…

    He was quite cocky and arrogant about that point and felt that just his stating it was absolute *proof* that it was true….that and something about the stealth bombers as his additional proof…about how they had been viewed as “UFOs” for several years until finally being revealed to the public and that the military has been controling our perceptions through computes and television since the 50’s and have faked a lot of events through CGI. Then he went off some tangent about how the military is secretly behind Hollywood and determines what movies will be shown to “influence the public” and that if you pay attention to the “themes” in major movies released in a given year, you might catch the “coded messages” they are trying to project…or something like that. And he insisted as further proof that he was right and brilliant somehow had something to do with the fact that he was nearly done with his MBA program…a connection that even made less sense than all the other crazy stuff he’d said…

    It was just…bizarre…

  187. avatar
    G February 3, 2011 at 12:27 am #

    Slartibartfast: I think that trying to use another conspiracy to expose the cognitive dissonance in someone’s mind would be dependent on there being a bridge too far’ conspiracy or a conspiracy that they could be inoculated against. Someone who is sympathetic to any conspiracy theory that they are exposed to (like Dr. Kate) is probably beyond hope, but it might be possible to save some of those who aren’t so far gone.

    Great points about the “bridge too far”.

    Although it seems that certain people are just susceptible to conspiracy-thinking in general. If you look at many of the hard-core birthers, they frequently spout off about many other paranoid conspiracy stuff about NWO, Bilderbergs, Illuminati, truther nonsense, various jewish conspiracies, various tax-protester & militia/anti-govt myths, north american union nonsense, chem trails, etc, etc, etc…

    Sometimes, you have to put up with hearing them rant about their conspiracy du jour for awhile before any of these others start slipping into their conversation…so it can be hard to uncover the extent of their paranoia early on.

    For those types, I wonder if there is such a thing as a “bridge too far” for them…

  188. avatar
    US Citizen February 3, 2011 at 12:29 am #

    Agreed. They themselves have provided more evidence suggesting he was born in Hawaii than any other place.
    Very nicely, they also tested some theories in court, thus reinforcing many people’s opinion that the court system works.
    They found out about making their own grand juries, citizens arrests, disobeying orders and the cost of wasting the court’s time.
    They showed a lot of law students how NOT to write a brief, claim or answer a demand.

    The more they do, the more they help the other side.
    Perhaps Obama is wise in ignoring them.
    They’re much more useful as idiots.

  189. avatar
    US Citizen February 3, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    Don’t show that one Lunar-tic this video below.
    It’ll offer proof that everything was faked on CGI…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

  190. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 3, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    Majority Will:
    Stage two concern troll in 4 . . 3 . . 2 . .

    Come on, give him some time to do the reading (and some rope to hang himself…) πŸ˜‰

  191. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 3, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    Majority Will:
    I’d like to agree but you and I both know to never bet on rationality or even Occam’s Razor over the stubbornness and delusions of a hardcore conspiracy theorist.Exempli gratia:http://www.fakeapollo.com/2009/08/lunar-laser-reflectors-is-this-joke.htmlAnd sadly, many more like that.

    Yup – an example of the power of the closed mind to deflect unacceptable truths… it would take about 5 minutes to debunk this to any rational person an eternity to convince the author that he is wrong.

  192. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 3, 2011 at 12:56 am #

    G: For those types, I wonder if there is such a thing as a “bridge too far” for them…

    I don’t think so – I think that you would probably have to teach them critical thinking from scratch (or use the methods from ‘A Clockwork Orange’). Theoretically, it could be done, but in practice you couldn’t get someone to sit still for it. It’s too bad that doing psychological experiments on birthers would be unethical because it would certainly be fascinating research… All in all, I think that it would be similar to deprogramming a cult member (with similar success rates for various techniques).

  193. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    G: I like that term “lunar-tic” for the moon landing deniers. I think I’ll use it, since I had been incorrectly calling them “moonines” for too long.

    Thanks, I actually just made that up thinking lunatic (i.e., moonstruck) didn’t have enough impact. Enjoy!

  194. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    G: He was quite cocky and arrogant about that point and felt that just his stating it was absolute *proof* that it was true…

    Where have we witnessed that before? Hmmmm. πŸ˜‰

  195. avatar
    G February 3, 2011 at 1:16 am #

    Slartibartfast: All in all, I think that it would be similar to deprogramming a cult member (with similar success rates for various techniques).

    Wow…again…another good analogy & idea!

  196. avatar
    The Magic M February 3, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    > wouldn’t they have covered their tracks so completely that no one could ever discover any problems with it? Birthers never think things through to their logical conclusion.

    You know, a conspiracy theory has answers to *everything*. πŸ˜‰ That’s why it’s so appealing – no coincidence, no fate, no forces of nature beyond man’s control, no forces of society beyond a single person’s control…

    Their answer to this is usually “at least one person must have tried to sneak some hints into the forgeries so that enlightened people like us can read between the lines”.

    I saw a movie the other day where a shop owner having a robber with a gun hiding behind his counter typed a tally of $19.11 in the counter, then put his finger over the initial “1” and made a begging face to his customer to get the “911 = call the police” message across.
    Conspiracy theorists believe that some patterns or “imperfections” in their “proofs” are actually proof of such a “hidden message”.

  197. avatar
    G February 3, 2011 at 4:31 am #

    The Magic M: I saw a movie the other day where a shop owner having a robber with a gun hiding behind his counter typed a tally of $19.11 in the counter, then put his finger over the initial “1‘ and made a begging face to his customer to get the “911 = call the police” message across.
    Conspiracy theorists believe that some patterns or “imperfections” in their “proofs” are actually proof of such a “hidden message”.

    I watched Hancock again on FX this past weekend too. πŸ™‚

  198. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2011 at 7:45 am #

    G: ALL of those cross the line to me. I WOULD call all of those that advocate for any of those violent acts as traitors, would be criminals and anti-patriotic seditionists.

    Seditious yes, I agree absolutely.

  199. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 3, 2011 at 9:18 am #

    G: I watched Hancock again on FX this past weekend too.

    Upon us all Hancock… upon us all

  200. avatar
    Jules February 3, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Sef:
    You seem to have a problem understanding the term “jurisdiction”.

    Indeed.

    I have been resident in the UK for several years. My status as a US citizen did not change merely because I chose to leave the jurisdiction of the United States. The US Embassy has confirmed this by kindly processing my passport renewal application and issuing a new passport that lists my nationality as “United States of America”.

    Of course, whilst I am located in the UK, only the British authorities can arrest me if I am accused of an offence against any country. This does not, however, change the fact that US law imposes an obligation on me to file tax returns with the IRS and (until I turned 26) to register any change of address with Selective Service. It does not eliminate my right to cast ballots in Presidential and Congressional elections.