Main Menu

Decoding the long form (Part 1)

Update:

After writing my new article: Decoding the long form (Part 2), I did additional research into 1961 coding practices. I will mark inserted material to appear underscored.

In truth, I thought I had written this article long ago, but apparently not. Now some new bunk about the long form has surfaced from Penbrook Johannson and Dan Crosby in “Vital Records Indicate Obama not Born in Hospital (Part 2)” at The Daily Pen (Part 1 was debunked in my article: More Birther certificate numbering BS) and it’s time to spend a little effort describing the penciled notations on the President’s long-form birth certificate.

Part 1 of this article deals specifically with the Daily Pen article. Part 2 discusses what can be determined from the pencil marks on the Obama form itself, and publishing for the first time new documentation on the process.

By way of background, my first job out of college was at the Appalachia II District Health Department in Greenville, SC. What I did between 1974 and 1980 was essentially to create their automated data processing operation from scratch. I was in charge of procuring equipment, hiring staff, programming, and overseeing operations. Part of that job involved the direct supervision of data entry operators using key punch machines. I know a lot about the preparation of documents for data entry and what key operators will and will not put up with (still have the scars to prove it). In 1978 I personally designed and programmed a system for issuing birth certificates, and since that time up until my retirement January 1, 2011, I worked with vital records systems and software.

One of the remarkable marks of authenticity, something a naive forger couldn’t have imagined, is the penciled notations on Obama’s long form. In 1961 Hawaii, for the first second time, participated in the National Center of Health Statistics statistical report on births, 1961 Vital Statistics of the US – Volume 1: Natality (VSUS). That report indicates in a footnote that data were submitted on punched cards. The pencil marks on Obama’s form are codes for data entry.

According to the response to my FOIA request to the Department of Health and Human Services, the unpublished manual “Coding and Punching Geographical and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961” that is referenced on PDF page 228 of VSUS could not be found and they suggest that such a document never actually existed. However, they did point me to Geographic coding manual for 1961 and provided tape layouts for that year (but no coding manual). In particular, they told me that the “Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1961” (cited by Johansson and Crosby) with the exception of the Geographic coding manual could not be located. I filed an appeal and they replied that they checked again with  all the subject matter experts, and no such document exists today.

Johannson and Crosby’s article opens with this remarkable claim to anonymous authority:

An intensive examination of the contents of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the most respected experts in vital records accounting and identity investigation reveals that much of the contrived information about his alleged Hawaiian birth simply renders his Natural-born status impossible.

Having been a long time member of NAPHSIS and having served on two national advisory committees, including their Vital Records Fraud Prevention Committee for two years, I think I qualify as an expert. Who are theirs? It’s hard for me to imagine that there are ANY vital records professionals who are birthers.

I want to discuss an exhibit from the Daily Pen that I reproduce here:

image

At this point it might be helpful to include a hyperlink to the complete long form certificate so that you can follow along. I linked to the higher-resolution version of the form, not the White House PDF.

Following are close-ups from the 7-series of blocks on the left and what appear at the same vertical position on the right of the form:

imageimage

What should be obvious is that whatever appears  in the extreme left gutter next to the “7” blocks is formatted differently from what is on the right. That means what we’re seeing on the left is not the right side of a similar form, but some completely different form layout. There is a page of different material and different information beyond the crease on the photocopied book on the left. You can see that it is a form with a question on it based on the surviving question mark to the left of block 7d. What is it? I can give an informed speculation that it is medical information about the birth. The important point is that whatever penciled notation appears to the left of the vertical line is not about what is on the right side but about the blocks that contain it on the left.

Here I add my personal experience, that one would never annotate a data field in the wrong box and expect a data entry operator to pick it up. There is different data in that box, and it needs its own annotation.

Nevertheless, Johannson and Crosby make just that mistake, asserting that a penciled number “6” in the box on the other page is actually an annotation of  the Place of Birth in box 6a on the right page.

image

Johannson and Crosby then go on to turn the “6” into “56” (not an unreasonable conclusion given the image) and then assert that “56” is the code for “remainder of the world” and that’s where Obama was really born.

There are several objections to this theory. First, Hawaii didn’t register out of state births in 1961: That law wasn’t passed until 1982. So no matter what we’re looking at, it can’t be a birth registration from outside Hawaii. The second objection is that the code is on another block on another form, not the 6a place of birth block. The third objection goes to the suggestion that “56” is a place of birth code for “remainder of the world.” Fortunately we have the 1961 coding manual for geographic locations.

image

Here’s what Johannson and Cosby say:

The presence of the “6” next to the “Place of Birth” item is most troubling. As the second digit of the number 56, the 1961 VSIM uses the number 56 to code the location of births which occur outside of the United States but which are processed “in conjunction with” the county of registration. The states and the District of Columbia are numbered in alphabetical order from 01 to 51 while Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were 52 through 55, respectively. This left the number 56 as the code for classifying “Remainder of the World”. This can be found in the 1961, 1962, 1968, 1977, 1993 and 1999 versions of the VSIM. In 1993, number 55 was the code for New York City because of its large birth volume it was classified as its own major birth rate statistical reporting area.

There is just so much wrong with this! First Vital Statistics of the United States is, duh, statistics about the United States. It doesn’t include foreign births, not in 1961 and not today. (The only exception is for a child born in international waters or in the air, and in that case the place of birth is considered the place in the US where the ship or plane landed.) Look at the 1961 VSUS report itself:

image

The report is about births “in the United States.” The statement about “’in conjunction with’ the country of registration” is pure fantasy!

In addition, the part about number “56” is nonsense too. There is no US geographic code “56” used for coding vital statistics. We have the 1961 coding manual, and here are the state codes (note that they are nothing like Johannson and Crosby describe):

image

You can read the whole manual that specifies the coding of 1961 data. It is complete and comprehensive (and 300 pages!). There is no “remainder of the world” allowed by the manual.

There is one other fraudulent representation in the Daily Pen article. Here’s the screen shot (click to enlarge):

image

What they represent as the contents of the 1961 Vital Statistics Manual are actually from the 1969 tape file layout. You can see (click to enlarge) by the little smudge over the ellipsis to the right of “2” and by the peculiar italic appearance of “Chinese” and the broken letters in “Indian” that it’s the 1969 version.

I show the actual layout from 1961 in Part 2, and how very different it is.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

268 Responses to Decoding the long form (Part 1)

  1. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Hi Doc. This is one of your most important articles… You may want to edit this line in the fifth paragraph: “Coding and Punching Geographical and Personal Particulars for Birthers Occurring in 1961” and then strike this comment.

  2. avatar
    donna March 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    QUITE IMPRESSIVE, doc

    i know I HAVEN’T ever thanked you for the TREMENDOUS work you do to keep this going – i’m a newbie here really tho i have been fighting the legal fight over the birthers, the state immigration bills/laws and the healthcare law/lawsuits elsewhere

    i would HARDLY consider myself on your level but i try nonetheless

    you bring knowledge and SANITY to the bucket of mud

    grazie mille

  3. avatar
    nbc March 4, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    Comparison of two contemporaneous SSS filings, Obama and Henderson show how filing date, SSS # and document # are all close within each other. No evidence of fraud, and when aligning the two stamps, the 80 aligns quite nicely, suggesting inking problem with the Obama stamp.

    Much ado about nothing

  4. avatar
    nbc March 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    Note that the Nordyke documents show a 6 and 5 in the left margin as well.

  5. avatar
    Thrifty March 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Extensive work and an impressive professional resume Doc, but…. have you made a YouTube video? Real experts make YouTube videos.

  6. avatar
    justlw March 4, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    “I know a lot about the preparation of documents for data entry and what key operators will and will not put up with ”

    In the mid-’80s, I was asked to write an 029 punch emulator that our data entry people could use on a video terminal.

    The project did not go well; you can probably imagine why.

  7. avatar
    SluggoJD March 4, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    And the Obots win their 39,457th in a row, 99-4.

    Outstanding analysis, Dr. C.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Interesting that you should say that. I also wrote a keypunch emulator, even to the programmable drum card. My folks loved it.

    When we moved from the University computer to an in-house minicomputer, we didn’t have a card reader any more, so the two IBM 129 punches became obsolete. We replaced them with a couple of ADDS 980 terminals and my software. Once the pro’s started using it they had some issues that I had to address, but the emulator was still running 4 years later when I left.

    justlw: In the mid-’80s, I was asked to write an 029 punch emulator that our data entry people could use on a video terminal.

    The project did not go well; you can probably imagine why.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    I understand that Ron Polland says the Nordyke certificates are fake too.

    nbc: Note that the Nordyke documents show a 6 and 5 in the left margin as well.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    I fixed the article, but I’m keeping your comment which is a hoot!

    It turns out that I have typed “birther” so often that I now type it in place of “birth” quite often. I just catch it most of the time.

    Thomas Brown: Hi Doc. This is one of your most important articles… You may want to edit this line in the fifth paragraph: “Coding and Punching Geographical and Personal Particulars for Birthers Occurring in 1961” and then strike this comment.

  11. avatar
    nbc March 4, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Well, of course, they disagree with his interpretation. But really… What is the likelihood of that…

  12. avatar
    SluggoJD March 4, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Extensive work and an impressive professional resume Doc, but…. have you made a YouTube video?Real experts make YouTube videos.

    LOLOL, real experts do what?? Like PooPooPolarik??

    You poor pathetic lying racist little right wing birthers.

  13. avatar
    Reality Check March 4, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Did you notice Polarik concluded this was proof the Nordyke certificates were forgeries as well? He is really a numbnits.

    nbc:
    Note that the Nordyke documents show a 6 and 5 in the left margin as well.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    I didn’t think it was all that big a deal. Johannson has this bad habit of reaching a place in his argument that can’t be supported by the facts, and then just making stuff up. The problem is that he writes SO MUCH and a lot of is is factual, that it’s impractical to check everything he says, particularly because he doesn’t conveniently link to primary sources. Someone like me who knows the material can. of course, spot such lapses easily and I can spend my time documenting the falsehoods specifically.

    This business is unnatural to me because I would never intentionally misrepresent a source or make something up to make a point. If I do speculate, I say so and give the basis for it. When I write, I intend for people to be able to check behind me and so I provide hyperlinks at key points.

    donna: QUITE IMPRESSIVE, doc

  15. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    SluggoJD: LOLOL, real experts do what??Like PooPooPolarik??

    You poor pathetic lying racist little right wing birthers.

    I think that was sarcasm, in which case see “Poe’s Law.”

  16. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I fixed the article, but I’m keeping your comment which is a hoot!

    It turns out that I have typed “birther” so often that I now type it in place of “birth” quite often. I just catch it most of the time.

    I caught it because in 1961 birthers would have only been found in mental institutions.

  17. avatar
    GLaB March 4, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    nbc: Comparison of two contemporaneous SSS filings

    About that:

    “submitted his form 4 days later with the SS Frm # being 19 earlier.”

    You may want to look at that again. The Form # appears to me as almost 3000 later.

  18. avatar
    nbc March 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Oops so much for my editing skills

    The DLN11 are correct…Thanks

  19. avatar
    GLaB March 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    The Form # appears to me as almost 3000 later.

    … er, make that almost 30,000 later.

  20. avatar
    Judge Mental March 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I didn’t think it was all that big a deal. Johannson has this bad habit of reaching a place in his argument that can’t be supported by the facts, and then just making stuff up. The problem is that he writes SO MUCH and a lot of is is factual, that it’s impractical to check everything he says, particularly because he doesn’t conveniently link to primary sources. Someone like me who knows the material can. of course, spot such lapses easily and I can spend my time documenting the falsehoods specifically.This business is unnatural to me because I would never intentionally misrepresent a source or make something up to make a point. If I do speculate, I say so and give the basis for it. When I write, I intend for people to be able to check behind me and so I provide hyperlinks at key points.

    You’re certainly not joking about Johannson’s habit of flat out lying. We’re still waiting for him to produce one single name out of the alleged list of several hundred names of people on Hawaii birth announcement lists who he claimed about a year ago it had been proved were born outside Hawaii. He purported to have got the list from a team of private investigators.

    He was challenged again and again on his blog over a period of months to supply just any one single name that could be checked out……crickets.

  21. avatar
    Joe Acerbic March 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The problem is that he writes SO MUCH and a lot of is is factual, that it’s impractical to check everything he says

    Making the whole list of lies more difficult to see immediately is the very obvious purpose of writing so much.

  22. avatar
    justlw March 4, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Interesting that you should say that. I also wrote a keypunch emulator, even to the programmable drum card. My folks loved it.

    Better folks, better coder, or most likely both… . :-) .

    It’s so long ago that I don’t remember all the showstoppers; I know the keyboard layout was a major issue.

    I think in the end what killed the project — aside from it really being, “Hey, this is something we thought you could do for fun in your copious free time” as far as my management was concerned — was same management realizing they could just tell the operators “Do it like everyone else does it, ‘k?” End of an era.

    This was around the same time that I took a COBOL class where the teacher had everyone punch four cards, just so they could say they’d done so. The next class didn’t even do that.

    (Which followed seeing “learn to use a slide rule” falling off the requirements list in high school.)

  23. avatar
    justlw March 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Thomas Brown: I think that was sarcasm, in which case see “Poe’s Law.”

    I believe it was Jesus Himself who said, “Poe’s Law will be the death of subtlety.”

    Fortunately, I’ve never been bitten by it.

  24. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 4, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    justlw: I believe it was Jesus Himself who said, “Poe’s Law will be the death of subtlety.”

    Fortunately, I’ve never been bitten by it.

    It’s caught me twice, but may do so again; wingnuts today say things so extreme I can’t hardly believe they are real.

  25. avatar
    justlw March 4, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Sorry, I was actually being tongue-in-cheek there, and there’s no reason to believe anyone would catch that, so my bad.

    I’ve been accused on This Very Site of being a birther, because of something I’ve said that I thought was ridiculous enough that surely people would understand it was sarcasm.

  26. avatar
    Jim March 4, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Justlw: “I’ve been accused on This Very Site of being a birther, because of something I’ve said that I thought was ridiculous enough that surely people would understand it was sarcasm”

    Well, what would you expect, with all the ridiculous junk that comes out of birthers!!! hehehe

  27. avatar
    Thrifty March 4, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Yeah it was (my response that Doc’s credentials are impressive but meaningless because he put them in the form of a written blog entry instead of a Youtube video). Most specifically, it was a sarcastic rehash of something one of the many recently arrived Birthers said within the past few days. The specific Birther (I forget his name or where he posted it) was saying that John Woodman’s book had no credibility because John had not made a YouTube video.

    I’m very much an anti-birther, though the sentiment was expressed in sincerity by an actual birther.

    Sorry Sluggo. I guess I inadvertently trolled you.

    Thomas Brown: I think that was sarcasm, in which case see “Poe’s Law.”

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    However, John did make videos, so the birther is sunk. The YouTubes are infallible.

    Thrifty: John had not made a YouTube video.

  29. avatar
    donna March 4, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    doc: However, John did make videos, so the birther is sunk. The YouTubes are infallible.

    are you quoting the DIMWIT louie gohmert from tejas?

    i would like to know the IQs of the people from his district

  30. avatar
    J. Potter March 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Entirely too much factual content in this article. Too useful. Too well-documented. Birthers won’t even know where to begin with it! Thanks for sharing your expertise, Doc.

  31. avatar
    SluggoJD March 4, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Yeah it was (my response that Doc’s credentials are impressive but meaningless because he put them in the form of a written blog entry instead of a Youtube video).Most specifically, it was a sarcastic rehash of something one of the many recently arrived Birthers said within the past few days.The specific Birther (I forget his name or where he posted it) was saying that John Woodman’s book had no credibility because John had not made a YouTube video.

    I’m very much an anti-birther, though the sentiment was expressed in sincerity by an actual birther.

    Sorry Sluggo.I guess I inadvertently trolled you.

    My sincerest apology then, wow, that was some awesome sarcasm lol.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Leo Berman, from Tyler.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VkOoUd-O7yk

    donna: are you quoting the DIMWIT louie gohmert from tejas?

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    Heh. I was in high school before affordable pocket calculators existed. I had maybe one of the only slide rules in my school. My chemistry professor (read “coach”) knew that slide rules gave approximate results, so I got away with just about any answer on a test that was in the right order of magnitude. On occasion I had to explain to the teacher that my answer was actually wrong.

    The class was so bad that some of us college-bound guys hired a professional chemist to teach us outside of school so that we’d not be lost in college.

    justlw: (Which followed seeing “learn to use a slide rule” falling off the requirements list in high school.)

  34. avatar
    RetiredLawyer March 4, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Dr. C.

    I want to thank you for your expertise on this blog. This article is one of the best you have done. You include not only logic and sense, but a unique background in the actual field.

    Your remark about slide rules means I’m really dated. When I was an engineering major at college we were still using slide rules. I still have one that I bought then next to my desk at home. (along with a calculator that does all of the same trig functions, to eight places. Which I bought at the local dollar store for $1.)

  35. avatar
    donna March 4, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    thanks i confused berman’s “infallibles” with another member of the intelligentsia, birther louie gohmert ALSO from tyler

    Tyler is also the home of U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), a member of and Sunday school teacher at Green Acres Baptist Church.

    Gohmert joined a small band of Republicans co-sponsoring a 2009 bill requiring presidential candidates to provide a copy of their birth certificate to the Federal Election Commission.

    The Texas congressman claimed in 2010 the “the terror baby” plot on the floor of the House of Representatives.

    Pregnant mothers, he said, are entering the United States, giving birth and then taking their babies, now U.S. citizens, back to their home countries to be raised as terrorists.

    “And then one day, twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life. ‘Cause they figured out how stupid we are being in this country to allow our enemies to game our system, hurt our economy, get set up in a position to destroy our way of life,” said Gohmert, who said his source was a terrorist grandmother in the Middle East.

    http://www.ethicsdaily.com/fringe-christian-politicians-feed-birther-movement-cms-17484

    is there SOMETHING IN THE WATER?

  36. avatar
    Whatever4 March 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    Excellent work, Doc! I look forward to Part 2!

    Couple of notes: every pencilled notation is in the right portion of the box it refers to. There’s plenty of room for that on the right of all the #6 and #7 boxes. It’s a no-no to change where the notations appear — some on the right, some on the left? No.

    How many LF BCs are out there? Can we accumulate them?

    I found part of the Daily Pen report disturbing: the claim that some demographic coding determines one’s actual race. This quote in particular:

    According to the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM) Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” reveals that he is actually not America’s first “black” president. In fact, by vital statistics reporting standards, he is not even bi-racial. This is significant not to the issue of his race, but to the accuracy of the information on the image in comparison to his widely accepted birth narrative, in general…. Propaganda supporting Obama’s birth narrative pushes the lie that he is America’s first “black” president which would mean that either parents’ race would have to be coded as the number 2, not 9, with other parent being coded number 1. Otherwise, if both parents are not coded as 1 or 9, then the father dictates the race of the child…. This example is just one of the inconsistencies between the data found within Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” and his popular, but false, birth narrative conveyed by propagandists and media abettors.

    EXCUSE ME??? This is unreal. Because some nurse wrote down a number 50 years ago, and a clerk coded it a certain way… Obama isn’t bi-racial? He can’t be considered black? This shows a significant bias against the subject so severe it casts doubt on the rest of his work. (Doesn’t negate in, just makes one more skeptical.)

  37. avatar
    Keith March 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Heh. I was in high school before affordable pocket calculators existed. I had maybe one of the only slide rules in my school.

    Me too, except my math teacher actually encouraged us all to get slide rules to the point of having a slide rule catalog available. Just about everybody in his class got at least a fairly simple one. I think my first SR was probably a Picket N1010SL-ES Super Power Trig (but maybe only the N1010ES Trig Duplex without the square root scales – I remember the square root scales though) which is mysteriously missing at the moment.

    I could never get confident using a slipstick to multiply let alone figure out all the other scales. But for some reason I could get a circular SR to work great. My favorite was this one (or one very like it): SIC 120 Circular Slide Rule which was stolen during my Freshman year at Northern Arizona University (whoever you are, you know who you are, you basturkey).

    Those images I linked above are from the International Slide Rule Museum

    I enjoy having a play at Slide Rule Simulator every now and again.

  38. avatar
    J. Potter March 4, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The class was so bad that some of us college-bound guys hired a professional chemist to teach us outside of school so that we’d not be lost in college.

    Doc, despite being a child of the 70s (the late 70s), this hit my nostalgia bone. I was the first kid in the history of my town to take Calculus, Bless that school (particularly that teacher!) for making an exception. She did such a great job, I slept through Calc at TU until the prof told me to study Mathematica to avoid wasting my time. Another great teach!

    Keith: My favorite was this one (or one very like it): SIC 120 Circular Slide Rule

    I still have a circular slide rule! Concise No. 28, from Japan. Where did I put that …. oh! here it is!

    Maybe we need a geekiest Obot thread.

  39. avatar
    Sef March 5, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    J. Potter: Maybe we need a geekiest Obot thread.

    One word: Deci-Lon

  40. avatar
    Sef March 5, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    Sef: One word: Deci-Lon

    I also have a Pickett N4-ES from the VERY early 60′s. In its original leather case.

  41. avatar
    RetiredLawyer March 5, 2012 at 12:48 am #

    Sef: te) #

    Sef: One word: Deci-Lon

    I also have a Pickett N4-ES from the VERY early 60′s. In its original leather case.

    I looked and I found the instruction book for my slide rule. ‘How to use trig slide rules” by Michael L Hartung, copyright 1960, which I bought with my Pickett 902 Simplex Trig. However, I think I bought both at college, no earlier than 1967, although it appears the model had to have been in production since 1960. There is a reproduction of the Pickett 902 in the book.

  42. avatar
    veritas March 5, 2012 at 2:14 am #

    yep that proves it. obama was both a natural born citizen and a dual citizen both at the time of his birth. good job dr. con.

  43. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 5, 2012 at 2:38 am #

    veritas:
    yep that proves it. obama was both a natural born citizen and a dual citizen both at the time of his birth. good job dr. con.

    Are we back at dueling? None of the Republican candidates this year would do for you then.

    Romney – USA and Mexican. Santorum – USA and Italian. Gingrich – USA and German (that one got hidden because not only Gingrich is not his daddy’s name, his real daddy did not even have HIS real daddy’s name).

    Only Paul was not a dual citizen at birth. Because he was a TRIUNE citizen: USA, Germany and France (at the time of his birth, France had not yet abolished Huguenot citizenship laws).

    Considering that Gingrich does not even have a birth certificate saying Newt Gingrich was born in the USA, it is funny that he is the only Republican candidate without his band of birthers (halal or not). There must be something with Germans that causes birthers to have no problem with them.

    It’s like Animal Farm, where the slogan “American good! Foreign bad!” is overnight replaced with “American good! German better!”

  44. avatar
    Keith March 5, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    J. Potter: I still have a circular slide rule! Concise No. 28, from Japan. Where did I put that …. oh! here it is!

    That may very well be the model I had too. I can’t be sure since I don’t have it anymore 8-(

  45. avatar
    J. Potter March 5, 2012 at 3:10 am #

    Keith: That may very well be the model I had too. I can’t be sure since I don’t have it anymore 8-(

    If you’d like this one, I can be reached at john.david.potter@gmail.com. Not in perfect condition, but free. :)

  46. avatar
    Keith March 5, 2012 at 3:13 am #

    Keith: I think my first SR was probably a Picket N1010SL-ES Super Power Trig (but maybe only the N1010ES Trig Duplex without the square root scales – I remember the square root scales though) which is mysteriously missing at the moment.

    I was wrong, I found my SR in one of my ‘obsolete trinket’ boxes.

    My first SR was a Pickett N902-ES Simplex Trig which looks exactly like this simulated N909-ES Simplex Trig but the reverse of mine has some usage instructions instead of metric conversion scales.

    Maybe it was my brothers SR that the square and cube root scales.

  47. avatar
    Tomtech March 5, 2012 at 3:36 am #

    May I make a suggestion?

    Since you reference the high definition image, you might consider addressing the source of it and the reason it doesn’t show the embossed stamp and security paper.

  48. avatar
    Lupin March 5, 2012 at 4:10 am #

    Personally, I think all the birther garbage (especially the birth certificate-is-a-forgery item which is the stupidest of the lot) only helps President Obama.

    I think it’s time you folks hand them ropes, anchors, anvils and millstones.

  49. avatar
    The Magic M March 5, 2012 at 5:12 am #

    Whatever4: EXCUSE ME??? This is unreal. Because some nurse wrote down a number 50 years ago, and a clerk coded it a certain way… Obama isn’t bi-racial? He can’t be considered black?

    This struck me as well. The author is obviously so deluded that he believes he could just pull out those data on national TV and everyone would go “oh darn, you’re right, Obama is WHITE, what a scandal!”.

    Then again, according to my ID card from 10 years ago, my eyes are blue and not brown, screw reality! I just wonder when my European socialist Muslim government will force me to wear coloured contact lenses so that reality conforms with the papers again… ;)

  50. avatar
    GreatKimm March 5, 2012 at 6:22 am #

    Polland must have performed some critical thinking to his fraud identifying method. Following a repeated suggestion made here he has tested the Nordyke BC not assuming it beforehand to be authentic. His conclusion is hilarious: the Nordyke BC is a fake ! Because he is not YET ready to admit his major scientific and POLITICAL flaw: prejudice (in a very literal sense: pre – judgement). He is prejudiced, as most birther self proclaimed experts are, when he assumes counter evidence to be authentic without testing it with the exact same standards applied to the object of study. His method is pre-Galilean and therefore un-scientific.
    Mr-Polland is in fact proving that the only fraud he discovered is his computer generated certificate which he then uses as a litmus test. He will inevitably reach the conclusion that ALL birth certificates are fraudulent since they all appear to be replicable in his frankensteinish laboratory: “I (as well) have created the monster from scratch”.
    The man is in urgent need of psychiatric treatment.

  51. avatar
    US Citizen March 5, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    My acid test for people that claim Obama is black and white (and therefore they can’t be racists) is the question “If you saw someone that looked like Obama robbing a liquor, what color would you tell the police he was?”

    (and me too: math teacher taught electronic class poorly, so I coordinated with him to allow me to write the course instead. Got an A.)

  52. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2012 at 6:59 am #

    veritas: yep that proves it. obama was both a natural born citizen and a dual citizen both at the time of his birth. good job dr. con.

    It sounds like you just stated Obama was a natural born citizen. Good job. I assume you realize that the Constitutional requirement is a Natural Born Citizen. It does not say “Natural Born Citizen with no Dual Citizenship.” So, by your words, he is both a natural born citizen and a dual citizen, and therefore, eligible to be President.

  53. avatar
    Sef March 5, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    J. Potter: Maybe we need a geekiest Obot thread.

    OK, I have it. While looking for some otgher things I found my Hexadat. http://www.mechanicalculator.com/addiator/other-size/6282217 Anyone else have one?

  54. avatar
    Reality Check March 5, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    There is another odd numbered birth certificate that we know has number codes. It is the one for [redacted].

    http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/jerome-corsi-paul-irey-and-lucas-smith-team-up-to-shoot-themselves-in-the-foot/

  55. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    Found this on the Internet for the Input of Data for 1960 and 1961

    “Doc NO 1961 Manual
    The title of the manual is:

    Vital Statistics Instruction Manual
    Part II Coding and Punching
    Section C Geographic Code – Final
    NTIS Order Number: PB81-161648

    “This manual covers events occurring in 1960-61. For events occurring in 1959
    no manual is available. To interpret county codes for 1959, this manual may
    be of use.

    Special notice is given that data for Hawaii is included in the 1959 tape file
    eventhough it was not included in published United States figures until 1960.
    In addition, the Vital Statistics of the United States 1959 annual volume was
    not produced using the 1959 tape file. The 1959 tape file was given to the
    Division of Vital Statistics by a group that worked on a combined 1959-61
    mortality special project for the American Public Health Association (APHA).”
    Foreward in the Manual from U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

    As a corollary the blurb about Hawaii is interesting, though not definitive, also it was for Mortality data; though I would think they would have a corresponding one for birth vital statistics.

    Building a System from Scratch

    So why were you purchasing punch card data entry machines when the computer data systems in 1974 (keypunch becoming antiquated equipment) were being phased out in favor of Magnetic Tape Medium with work station data entry beginning in 1972. With IBM equipment almost exclusively by the late 70′s? Did you have economic restrictions forcing you to purchase inferior equipment?

    “By way of background, my first job out of college was at the Appalachia II District Health Department in Greenville, SC. What I did between 1974 and 1980 was essentially to create their automated data processing operation from scratch. I was in charge of procuring equipment, hiring staff, programming, and overseeing operations. Part of that job involved the direct supervision of data entry operators using [key punch machines].” Dr. Conspiracy

    http://www.computernostalgia.net/articles/PunchedCard.htm

    http://www.hpmuseum.net/divisions.php?did=8

    Legacy systems are a given, though I find it curious that you would advocate such a system and it’s cumbersome input method when newer methods were available at the time by IBM. Governments can be difficult, however, it still seems odd?

    Agree with you about which record it belongs to the one preceding Obama’s;

    However; we have a corresponding notation in in Box 6d & 7c on the left margin, preceding record, which if we follow your hypothesis there should be one if the left margin of Obama’s is the right margin of the person preceding his record, however no data input is evident in his LFBC for these boxes, why?

    So why would you not know at the least cursory law on privacy waivers when I responded to you on your “Mike Zullo Lied Article”? You actually wrote an article on it, Precedent for examining birth certificates in Hawaii. Seems incredulous since security would be part your administration and know at least some of intricacies so your lack of knowledge is interesting?

    “I personally designed and programmed a system for issuing birth certificates, and since that time up until my retirement January 1, 2011, I worked with vital records systems and software.” Dr. Conspiracy

    Your dismissal precluded the possibility of a fraudulent birth certificate by affidavit; a distinct possibility under Hawaii Act 96 as Amended in 1955 and in force in 1961 since Hawaii rarely if ever followed up or questioned an application, it could even be done by mail. I made you aware of this possibility in my comments to the Mike Zullo Lied article;

    “There are several objections to this theory. First, Hawaii didn’t register out of state births in 1961: That law wasn’t passed until 1980. So no matter what we’re looking at, it can’t be a birth registration from outside Hawaii.” Dr. Conspiracy

    Again you dismiss fraudulent BC by affidavit under Hawaii Act 96 as Amended in 1955;

    “There is just so much wrong with this! First Vital Statistics of the United States is, duh, statistics about the United States. It doesn’t include foreign births, not in 1961 and not today. (The only exception is for a child born in international waters or in the air, and in that case the place of birth is considered the place in the US where the ship or plane landed.) Look at the 1961 VSUS report itself:” Dr. Conspiracy

    Once Again you dismiss fraudulent BC by affidavit under Hawaii Act 96 as Amended in 1955;

    “The report is about births “in the United States.” The statement about “’in conjunction with’ the country of registration” is pure fantasy!” Dr. Conspiracy

    You also do not enter into or attempt to dispute the extraordinary increase of births outside of Honolulu at a RATE of 41 times higher than the rest of the Nation.

    “However, in the state of Hawaii in 1961, this rate was shockingly disparate with only a 0.40% birth rate to nonresident mothers while population outside of Honolulu increased by an annual rate of 96.4% in just ten years. This means that, in 1961, Hawaii registered births to mothers who were allocated residence in Hawaii on the birth certificate at a rate 41 times higher than the rest of the nation even though the population within the largest city, Honolulu, increased at the same rate as the rest of the nation (about 18.6% in 10 years).” From Penbrook Johannson and Dan Crosby Article

    I believe this is attributable to Act 96 and the ability to acquire a LFBC by Affidavit and widespread Birth Certificate fraud for non-residents and illegal immigrants. That is an incredible increase of 677% over the average of 16.51% for the entire United States in 1961.

    You do not dispute the oddity of the odd number entry for Obama’s LFBC his BC ended in 41, making it an odd numbered certificate which was not subject to annotation and data entry under USHEW requirements for 1961;

    The requirement for only even numbered documents requiring annotation and data entry in 1961 seems a stretch that a government worker would make extra work for themselves, anything is possible, though unlikely.

    I am going to leave it with this quote from the Penbrook Johannson and Dan Crosby article, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Latin for The Thing Speaks for Itself in light of Justiagate leading up to the election in 2008.

    “Aside from the contextual contradictions revealed by Obama’s alleged 1961 birth records, it can never be dismissed that, according to centuries of legal and doctrinal precedence, the fact that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth forever disqualifies him from ever being eligible to hold the office of president unless the Constitution were to have been legally changed prior to his presidency.

    A natural-born citizen is one born of geographic and biological circumstances, and to have remained under those citizenship metrics from birth to election, which make it impossible for any authority or public perception to consider him or her allied with any status other than naturally-born as a citizen of that nation.

    Being born in a geographic location which is under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to two citizen parents are two of the three major components of natural-born citizenship according to historical authority defining the term. The third requirement of natural-born citizenship is continuity of that status without renouncement, voluntary or not, by expatriation, extradition or [adoption to foreign parents].”

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

  56. avatar
    Obsolete March 5, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    “Justiagate”
    LOL

  57. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 5, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Great, Al. Now all you need to do is get the US LEGAL SYSTEM and Congress to agree with that preposterous, never-in-force, pulled-out-of-someone’s-ass definition of Natural Born Citizen, and you’re all set!

    Maybe when Sasquatch is appointed to the Supreme Court.

  58. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Al Halbert: Being born in a geographic location which is under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to two citizen parents are two of the three major components of natural-born citizenship according to historical authority defining the term. The third requirement of natural-born citizenship is continuity of that status without renouncement, voluntary or not, by expatriation, extradition or [adoption to foreign parents].”

    Not by any historical authority my friend.

    Being born on US soil, not just a geographic location under the protection of our Constitution, and no requirement that both parents are citizens, or that they did not expatriate.

    Educate yourself.

    Under US v WKA natural born was found to have been left undefined in the Constitution and thus its meaning had to be found in Common Law. In the US, it was English Common Law which was at the foundation of much of the laws of our nation.

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    Sigh…

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    I built the new system minicomputer system from scratch. Those key punch machines in use before I arrived and used for something else (not sure). Pretty soon afterwards we moved to optical scanning for a good bit of the data entry.

    But yes, the State actually obstructed local departments from purchasing computer hardware and developing systems. Basically any funding in that area had to come from grants.

    Al Halbert: So why were you purchasing punch card data entry machines when the computer data systems in 1974 (keypunch becoming antiquated equipment) were being phased out in favor of Magnetic Tape Medium with work station data entry beginning in 1972. With IBM equipment almost exclusively by the late 70′s? Did you have economic restrictions forcing you to purchase inferior equipment?

  60. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Given that the article hyperlinks to it, and I show screen shots from it, I’m not sure you paying adequate attention.

    That document, however, only deals with geographic codes. What’s missing is volume 1 and Sections A and B of volume 2.

    So why is the codes missing on Obama’s 6b, 6d and 7c Boxes, which is the same as the preceding record and shown left of the left margin of his BC, since these three boxes deal with geographical location? The preceding records annotation is way outside of the box as compared to Obama’s, I ask this question rhetorically, though a guess would be nice I won’t hold you to it.

    What about the 677% increase in births outside Honolulu, could Hawaii Territorial act 96 have anything to do with it, again rhetorical though conjecture is not unwarranted, since we have a corollary to today’s rampant illegal immigration in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida.

  61. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I built the new system minicomputer system from scratch. Those key punch machines in use before I arrived and used for something else (not sure). Pretty soon afterwards we moved to optical scanning for a good bit of the data entry.

    But yes, the State actually obstructed local departments from purchasing computer hardware and developing systems. Basically any funding in that area had to come from grants.

    Thought so.

  62. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    nbc: Not by any historical authority my friend.

    Being born on US soil, not just a geographic location under the protection of our Constitution, and no requirement that both parents are citizens, or that they did not expatriate.

    Educate yourself.

    Under US v WKA natural born was found to have been left undefined in the Constitution and thus its meaning had to be found in Common Law. In the US, it was English Common Law which was at the foundation of much of the laws of our nation.

    Sigh…

    Wong Kim Ark was a logic pretzel with the opinion being written by Justice Gray, he was appointed by Harding who just so happened had an Article II Sec.1 Natural Born citizenship himself. He contradicted the opinion in the Slaughterhouse case to arrive at the opinion he did, if he had not and Harding was found unconstitutional there would go his seat on the SCOTUS bench. However the all the legal and verbiage somersaults were not needed as Chine and the United States had a treaty recognize the sovereignty of each others citizens under the circumstance in Kim.

    Minor v. Happersett is the only case where SCOTUS declares definitetively what a “natural born citizen is, by a unanimous decision of the court in 1875;

    “The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”[12] The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”

    The meat of the opinion;

    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”[12]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett

  63. avatar
    G March 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    *yawn*

    What we see here is a desperate concerted effort at yet again, moving the goalposts back to trotting out long debunked and dead arguments that failed to catch traction the first time.

    We’ve got 3 Concern Trolls on 3 different posts who have all appeared over the past few days to pick at irrelevant nits at weave a “the birth certififcate is fake” meme, yet again.

    As this is all old news and well worn failed ground, the bigger picture here is really what this latest meme tells us: The Birther propagandists are in abject panick and their recent failures and therefore are simply again moving away from currently failing memes and trying to bait and switch the conversation to a different tactic.

    Their main meme for awhile now has been the “2 citizen parents” myths. However, those have been spectacularly thrashed in all the Ballot Challenges.

    Then WND tried to ressurect the PDF nonsense with Arpaio. That has been a spectacular DUD as well.

    So all of a sudden, there is a concerted effort in Birtheristan to re-trot out the even older failed themes of “the birth certificate is fake” and attempt to refocus and rebrand on that silly angle.

    The problem with their obvious “throwing sphaghetti against the wall and hoping something will stick” strategy is that they’ve been failing at this for so long that there is nothing NEW for them left in their bowl to throw against the wall.

    All they’ve got is picking up some moldy strands of sphaghetti from the floor and lamely trying to throw it at the wall again…

    That is what is really going on here in a nutshell.

    Al Halbert: So why is the codes missing on Obama’s 6b, 6d and 7c Boxes, which is the same as the preceding record and shown left of the left margin of his BC, since these three boxes deal with geographical location? The preceding records annotation is way outside of the box as compared to Obama’s, I ask this question rhetorically, though a guess would be nice I won’t hold you to it.

  64. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Al Halbert: Minor v. Happersett is the only case where SCOTUS declares definitetively what a “natural born citizen is, by a unanimous decision of the court in 1875;

    No, in the dicta of Minor, the court found that a child born on soil to two US citizens definitely was a natural born citizen, but observed that it was not going to address the issue if children born to foreigner(s) were (natural born) citizens.

    Remember that under US Constitution there are only natural-born and natural-ized citizens. In US v Wong Kim Ark, the Court addressed the meaning of the term natural born when it had to decide if a Chinese person, who by US statute could not be naturalized, was still a US citizen.
    Observing that the Constitution talks about natural-born citizen, and observing that the term had been left undefined in the Constitution, the Court found that its meaning had to be found in common law practices.

    Since Common Law in the early Republic was shown to have been based largely on English Common Law, and certainly for concepts such as Natural Born citizen, the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.

    The dissenting Judge observed how unfair it was that under the Majority ruling, a child born to two aliens could run for President while a child born abroad to two us citizen could not.
    Also, the government, when appealing raised the issue as “Did the lower Court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen”.

    They all understood,

    Anything else I can help you with?

    Remember the Court in Ankeny v Daniels, and others all cited US v WKA when finding that a child born on US soil, is a natural born with minor exceptions due to common law including children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military.

  65. avatar
    JPotter March 5, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Sef: Anyone else have one?

    Looks familiar, but nope, not me!

    i do have a vintage, 1984 Mr. Happy from a Hardee’s Kids Meal.

    And my christmas tree decor consists of: black*, white, and silver balls, blue lights, and a 3-way split between Star Wars, Star Trek, and Oakland Raider decorations. Ahhhh, the joys of the single life LOL.

    * Except for that rare year that someone decides black is trendy, it’s really hard to find black ornaments. Even online. Style nazis!

  66. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    What about the 677% increase in births outside Honolulu, could Hawaii Territorial act 96 have anything to do with it

    Unlikely since that deals with certificates of Hawaiian birth not birth certificates. And we know that Obama never got such a certificate.

    Goodness sakes my friend. Educate yourself

    If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

    Such a birth was also considered to be a delayed birth.

  67. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Al Halbert: Justice Gray, he was appointed by Harding who just so happened had an Article II Sec.1 Natural Born citizenship himself.

    Harding was President from 1921-23, and the WKA case was in 1896, so how could hhe have appointed Justice Gray? And yes, Harding was a natural born citizen as all Presidents have been.

  68. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Don’t confuse Al with facts my friend… Trust and Verify… Especially the latter one…
    Al forgets that US v WKA is the latest binding precedent.

  69. avatar
    G March 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Sounds a lot like my Christmas tree… except replace Oakland Raider stuff with Cleveland sports teams (mainly Indians & Browns) and Ohio State / Penn State stuff… and add some comic book and LOTR characters into the mix as well.

    JPotter: And my christmas tree decor consists of: black*, white, and silver balls, blue lights, and a 3-way split between Star Wars, Star Trek, and Oakland Raider decorations. Ahhhh, the joys of the single life LOL.

  70. avatar
    JPotter March 5, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    G: Sounds a lot like my Christmas tree…

    Sweet! But thinking about it, I may have strayed into dork territory …. sorry, Sef!

  71. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    nbc: No, in the dicta of Minor, the court found that a child born on soil to two US citizens definitely was a natural born citizen, but observed that it was not going to address the issue if children born to foreigner(s) were (natural born) citizens.

    Remember that under US Constitution there are only natural-born and natural-ized citizens. In US v Wong Kim Ark, the Court addressed the meaning of the term natural born when it had to decide if a Chinese person, who by US statute could not be naturalized, was still a US citizen.
    Observing that the Constitution talks about natural-born citizen, and observing that the term had been left undefined in the Constitution, the Court found that its meaning had to be found in common law practices.

    Since Common Law in the early Republic was shown to have been based largely on English Common Law, and certainly for concepts such as Natural Born citizen, the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.

    The dissenting Judge observed how unfair it was that under the Majority ruling, a child born to two aliens could run for President while a child born abroad to two us citizen could not.
    Also, the government, when appealing raised the issue as “Did the lower Court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen”.

    They all understood,

    Anything else I can help you with?

    Remember the Court in Ankeny v Daniels, and others all cited US v WKA when finding that a child born on US soil, is a natural born with minor exceptions due to common law including children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military.

    If you knew anything about SCOTUS rulings dicta is just fluff, not legally binding it discussion about some issue of the opinion. Minor is opinion is direct and is precedent!

    One more time, precedent shown below;

    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  72. avatar
    Obsolete March 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Al Halbert: The meat of the opinion;

    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”[12]

    Hey, Al Herbert, why did you leave the next part of the quote out?

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    Maybe because it disproves your claims?
    You should see if your photograph is here:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dishonesty

    BTW, here is the full quote that makes the birthers cry:
    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

  73. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Scientist: Harding was President from 1921-23, and the WKA case was in 1896, so how could hhe have appointed Justice Gray?And yes, Harding was a natural born citizen as all Presidents have been.

    Stand corrected, sorry, meant Chester Arthur, who was rumored to have Sec. II Art. 1 issues himself! Who appointed Gray who wrote the opinion.

  74. avatar
    G March 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Too bad all the courts seem to disagree with you.

    Al Halbert: If you knew anything about SCOTUS rulings dicta is just fluff, not legally binding it discussion about some issue of the opinion. Minor is opinion is direct and is precedent!One more time, precedent shown below;“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  75. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Al Halbert: Stand corrected, sorry, meant Chester Arthur, who was rumored to have Sec. II Art. 1 issues himself! Who appointed Gray who wrote the opinion.

    Yawn..No one cares. Obama will be re-elected and will serve until 2017. End of story

  76. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Al Halbert: Stand corrected, sorry, meant Chester Arthur, who was rumored to have Sec. II Art. 1 issues himself! Who appointed Gray who wrote the opinion.

    You do believe in rumors but what about the facts?
    And even if there was a link, it remains an often cited precedent in determining birth right citizenship.

  77. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    Obsolete: but never as to the first

    “but never as to the first” which means a Citizen born to two Citizen Parents, a “Natural Born Citizen” what other first were they referring to, duh?

    The “first” Citizen versus aliens or foreigners;

    it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    They HAD already found Virginia Minor a Natural Born Citizen!

    Her case arose from the Missouri Supreme Court over a Voting Rights issue she wanted to vote, she lost in court for that but they FOUND her a Natural Born Citizen by the virtue of being Born to two Citizen Parents, the the FIRST definition, they defined, they did not need to go any farther;

    “but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”

  78. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    Still ignoring that the case was pure dicta, that Minor refused to address children born to alien parents…

    Pathetic…

  79. avatar
    y_p_w March 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Al Halbert: So why is the codes missing on Obama’s 6b, 6d and 7c Boxes, which is the same as the preceding record and shown left of the left margin of his BC, since these three boxes deal with geographical location? The preceding records annotation is way outside of the box as compared to Obama’s, I ask this question rhetorically, though a guess would be nice I won’t hold you to it.

    Probably because they don’t correspond to any kind of statistical code in a model birth certificate reporting scheme.

    6b was for “Island”. 6d was for whether or not one was born in a city or town limits. 7e was for the usual residence of the mother.

    “Island” typically wouldn’t correspond to any kind of reporting category. It’s somewhat unique to Hawaii because it’s an archipelago. I’m not sure if being in a town or city limits was reported in federal statistics. There are absolutely no marks on the usual residence of the mother. None of these marks (or lack thereof) are unusual. The so-called “ALAN” birth certificate from 1963 doesn’t have notations in these boxes either.

  80. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    nbc: You do believe in rumors but what about the facts?
    And even if there was a link, it remains an often cited precedent in determining birth right citizenship.

    Why is that, because it helps Obama! Minor is the correct citation direct and on point, unequivocal and unanimous, however it was scrubbed from Justia.com on the run-up to election in 2008 along with 25 other SCOTUS cases that cited Minor! Was somebody that scared about Minor?

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

    Why would someone need to do this if it was such an inconsequential case? We also have the week of Obama’s birth of all the INS records for Honolulu on microfiche records at National Records for 10 years, oops only that one critical week Aug 1 thru 7th 1961 that are missing? Both uncanny coincidences and random events, minor being carved out of Justia was surgical precision and so is the missing microfiche.

    Which is a 1/520 chance of happening, however it becomes a factorial given the randomness and it is literally millions to one that any one week would become missing that is so important to answer yet another Obama question. So yes it is peculiar with all the records, lost or under lock and key for what, I just ask why?

  81. avatar
    sfjeff March 5, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Al Halbert: since we have a corollary to today’s rampant illegal immigration in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida.

    Just conjecture- but what is the number one striking difference between those states and Hawaii?

  82. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Al Halbert: So yes it is peculiar with all the records, lost or under lock and key for what, I just ask why?

    Because God wants Obama to be President, Al. Face that fact. God hates the birthers and is NOT going to let them win, not in court, not in the electoral arena. He will send plagues on them like he did on the Egyptians-boils, locusts, smiting of the firstborn. Passover is coming. You have been warned.

  83. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    nbc:
    Still ignoring that the case was pure dicta, that Minor refused to address children born to alien parents…

    Pathetic…

    THEY DID NOT NEED TO, they had found her a Citizen, much less a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Since it was a VOTING rights case specific to Virginia Minor, who else are they finding for? They first needed to find HER (SINGULAR) to be a Citizen so that they could apply the Constitution to her CASE, they did so and stopped when they found HER to be NATURAL BORN!

    “but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”

    Bring up you concern up to the Long Dead and Gone Justices…………

    Definition;

    “In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative [though not binding], because of the authority of the person making it.[1]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum

    DICTA is not Precedent MINOR is Precedent!

  84. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Al Halbert: DICTA is not Precedent MINOR is Precedent!

    If it’s precedent, it’s been overturned. Minor is invalid law. Women vote; ergo, the Minor court was wrong!

    Remember Al, God wants Obama to be President. Adonai. The Big Guy.

    Did you notice that I can use !s too? Just like you!

  85. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Al Halbert: THEY DID NOT NEED TO, they had found her a Citizen, much less a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Yes, but you are making the logical fallacy

    A woman born on soil to two US parents is a natural born citizen

    is not the same as

    natural born REQUIRES one to be born on soil to two US parents

    Which is why the Court rejected to discuss the latter.

    Dicta is not precedent my friend, certainly not when it is irrelevant to the case.

    And US v Wong Kim Ark did address the issue Minor v Happerset did not address. As far as precedent goes, that’s the one. Which is why courts have been citing US v WKA and not Minor.

    It’s that simple: Natural Born – Born on soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. This encompasses Minor but also anyone else born on soil, including even children born to illegal aliens.

    Oh the shock…

  86. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Al Halbert: Why is that, because it helps Obama! Minor is the correct citation direct and on point, unequivocal and unanimous, however it was scrubbed from Justia.com on the run-up to election in 2008 along with 25 other SCOTUS cases that cited Minor! Was somebody that scared about Minor?

    Real lawyers do not use Justia… As to the scrubbing, it was a minor regular expression error with some devastating consequences to those who could not afford a real legal research tool. Of course, there are various other free resources such as Google Scholar which provide much of the same access.

    Minor is irrelevant to birth right citizenship, US v Wong Kim Ark is the reigning precedent which encompasses the finding in Minor but extends it to include anyone born on soil with minor exceptions (pun intended).

    Minor never ruled that children born to aliens on US soil were not natural born citizens, it just observed that Minor, by virtue of location of birth to two US parents surely was one.

  87. avatar
    Obsolete March 5, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    Obsolete: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    So how do you birthers twist this into “Minor” resolving all doubts?
    “Minor” said it would not resolve doubts about children born within the jurisdiction to alien parents. “Wong” resolved those doubts.

  88. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    Scientist: If it’s precedent, it’s been overturned.Minor is invalid law.Women vote; ergo, the Minor court was wrong!

    Remember Al, God wants Obama to be President.Adonai. The Big Guy.

    Did you notice that I can use !s too?Just like you!

    Minor has not been overturned, Minor is a definition of Natural Born Citizen and the portion that could be overturned is that Virginia Minor could be granted the right to VOTE, already happened.

    No case has come before SCOTUS that challenges the definition of Natural Born Citizen. So if Minor is not important why was it scrubbed from Justia.com for at least two years or more years? It was random, just a fluke? and it got scrubbed after Obama released his COLB again coincidence in the run-up to the election in 2008?

  89. avatar
    sfjeff March 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    Al Halbert: Why is that, because it helps Obama! Minor is the correct citation direct and on point, unequivocal and unanimous, however it was scrubbed from Justia.com on the run-up to election in 2008 along with 25 other SCOTUS cases that cited Minor! Was somebody that scared about Minor?http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagateWhy would someone need to do this if it was such an inconsequential case? ?

    I think we all agree with one point- why would anyone do this? Since Justia is not exactly the only internet reference to Supreme Court cases- and not incidentally the one I use.

    But Al…..

    Why…..why didn’t anyone but a Birther notice that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible?

    This is the thing that I never can seem to get Birthers to answer- so step up and be counted. Do you:

    a) Believe that the courts and voters were all mistaken in their understanding- that in essence do you believe that Obama was not eligible, but everyone believed he was in error and that the election should be reversed because we are all wrong
    or
    b) do you believe that everyone knew it, but pretended not to?

    I ask this because I knew Barack Obama was eligible because he was born here- my daughter knew because she had learned the same definition of NBC that I learned way back in about 1970.

    Literally no one made this claim prior to Obama being elected. Isn’t it odd, that Birthers suddenly found out that the Constitution said he wasn’t?

  90. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    Al Halbert: Minor has not been overturned

    Yes it has, just like Dred Scott.

    You don’t get it, yoou cannot win. The Lord is against you.

  91. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Al Halbert: Minor has not been overturned, Minor is a definition of Natural Born Citizen and the portion that could be overturned is that Virginia Minor could be granted the right to VOTE, already happened.

    Minor is part of a definition of a natural born citizen but as Wong Kim Ark showed, it includes more than just those born on soil to two US citizens.

    Just read Ankeny v Daniels, Thisdale v Obama, Farrar v Obama to understand these simple facts.

    Or check out Luria v US, another Supreme Court ruling

    Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

    Ouch. Poor Al, all these courts disagreeing with him…

  92. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Minor = overturned. Women have the vote
    Scott = overturned Blacks are no longer slaves

    The Presidency is an ELECTIVE office. The people vote and CHOOSE the President.

    Al cannot see it, for he is blind.

  93. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Scientist: The Presidency is an ELECTIVE office. The people vote and CHOOSE the President.

    Subject to certain eligibility requirements, the same applies to Senate and House. However, the big difference is that only the Presidential Elections are purely a federal issue, where the states merely get to contribute the electoral voters. Remember the people vote and choose the electoral college not the President.

  94. avatar
    richCares March 5, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Minor vs. Happerett has not been overturned because it hasn’t needed to to be. It was rendered null 45 years after it was decided.

    Minor was a women’s suffrage case in 1875 that contested the language of a Missouri law that read, “every male citizen of the U.S. shall be entitled to vote.” SCOTUS ruled against Minor on grounds that the Constitution restricted women from voting, which was true at the time. Their ruling was nullified in 1920 when the Constitution was amended to give women the vote.

    The nullification of Minor is likely one of many factors underlying the dismissal of the three birther lawsuits that have made it up to the Republican-controlled Supreme Court since Pres. Obama was elected.

  95. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

    Al Halbert:
    “but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”

    Al, you shot yourself in the foot with this one. Your quote, “but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]” sinks your theory.

    Read as if for the first time, this time without assuming what it means, and see what it actually says. It says since Minor was unquestionably a citizen, even under the narrowest possible definition. Not an NBC, a citizen. Even better, it goes on to prove what everyone has been telling you, and all those plaintiffs in the birther suits, “that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth” by the Court. Which means they didn’t rule on it. Which means it is dicta.

    Checkmate.

  96. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Obsolete: So how do you birthers twist this into “Minor” resolving all doubts?
    “Minor” said it would not resolve doubts about children born within the jurisdiction to alien parents. “Wong” resolved those doubts.

    Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling. The United States and China had a Treaty regarding this issue, the Treaty took precedence in this case, though was ruled anyway.

    Chinese citizens were subject to being put to death for seeking citizenship in another country if they naturalized then went back to China. this Treaty absolved anyone that Naturalized of Chinese descent from this fate if they sought to seek citizenship in the United States. He was found to be Born a Citizen not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Read John Jay’s letter to Washington on the Natural Born Citizen issue as he saw it as paramount to the security of our fragile Nation since the President is also the Commander in Chief, John Jay was our first Supreme Court Chief Justice. We also have the Federalist Papers that discusses this issue as well, which are the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Jay as they advocated for the adoption of the Constitution. Madison used the name “Publius”.

  97. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 5, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    “Even if I’m wrong, I’m right! No matter what actual Judges find, they’re wrong and I’m right! Even if my arguments make no sense, and are supported by almost no-one, I’m right! If I write 400-word comments that can be refuted in 40, that means I win! Because I’m never wrong, no matter what! Any issue I’m plainly wrong on, I’ll just ignore. And my snotty, arrogant, dismissive tone just proves I’m right. So there!” –Al Halbert

  98. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Scientist:
    Minor = overturned.Women have the vote
    Scott = overturnedBlacks are no longer slaves

    The Presidencyis an ELECTIVE office.The people vote and CHOOSE the President.

    Al cannot see it, for he is blind.

    The Founders used the Natural Born Citizen to guard against someone from having divided loyalties? What do you propose? Elections do not TRUMP the Constitution only an Amendment can change it, don’t like the Natural Born Citizen in Article II Sec. 1, amend it to remove this Constitutional requirement for President! We are stuck with it for NOW.

  99. avatar
    JoZeppy March 5, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Al Halbert: Since it was a VOTING rights case specific to Virginia Minor, who else are they finding for? They first needed to find HER (SINGULAR) to be a Citizen so that they could apply the Constitution to her CASE, they did so and stopped when they found HER to be NATURAL BORN!

    Actually, the parties had stipulated to her citizenship. It wasn’t briefed, and as you said, since they didn’t need to address the question of those with non-citizen parents, the statements on Natural Born Citizenship become dicta (the statements were not required for the Court to reach their holding, thus, dicta). Contrasted with Wong Kim Ark, where the question to be resolved was his citizenship (versus a voting rights case were citizenship was stipulated and unbriefed), and the subject was well briefed, and the Court’s rational went into great depth on the subject of NBC/S, and the Court upheld the lower court’s ruling without exception, that held Wong Kim Ark a Natural Born Citizen, you can clearly see why WKA is precedent, and not Minor….that is if you actually know the difference between dicta and precedent.

  100. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    nbc: Subject to certain eligibility requirements, the same applies to Senate and House

    In theory. I am not convinced that in practice those are truly binding if the voters said otherwise. The House and Senate have both sat members who were under the minimum age and did so in the time of the Founders. We will probably never know for sure, but i suspect that Congress would not oppose the choice of the people. this is not some fundamental human right like free speech or religion.

    Al Halbert: Read John Jay’s letter to Washington on the Natural Born Citizen issue as he saw it as paramount to the security of our fragile Nation since the President is also the Commander in Chief, John Jay was our first Supreme Court Chief Justice.

    the concern had to do with a junior member of a European royal family coming here and ruling. It certainly never was meant to apply to thoose born here. I’m not even sure it was meant to applly to ordinary immigrants.

    Anyway, Minor is simply as dead as the dodo and the carrier pigeon. It is an ex law. bereft of life, pushing up the daisies, gone to meet its maker, deceased.

  101. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    Al Halbert: The Founders used the Natural Born Citizen to guard against someone from having divided loyalties?

    And excepted natural-ized citizens from the office of the President.

    Simple..

  102. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 5, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    Oh, wow! I never knew ‘Publius’ was Madison! Because none of us here know any American history! Oh, thank God you were here to educate us! ‘Cause we’re all just morons who had never heard of the Minor case! Seriously, how can we ever express our gratitude?!

  103. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    richCares:
    SCOTUS ruled against Minor on grounds that the Constitution restricted women from voting, which was true at the time. Their ruling was nullified in 1920 when the Constitution was amended to give women the vote.

    Close, but no cigar. SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution did not give anyone the right to vote, so that the Missouri Supreme Court ruling was affirmed. As such, the ruling was not nullified in 1920.

    “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

    AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162#t13

    .

  104. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    Al Halbert: The Founders used the Natural Born Citizen to guard against someone from having divided loyalties?

    In answer to your questiion, no they did not. Read the history of the time. The concern was European royalty. Read the Prince William or Harrry, nope. Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, yes. it’s simple if you use your gray matter.

  105. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Linda: Al, you shot yourself in the foot with this one. Your quote, “but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”sinks your theory.

    Read as if for the first time, this time without assuming what it means, and see what it actually says.It says since Minor was unquestionably a citizen, even under the narrowest possible definition.Not an NBC, a citizen.Even better, it goes on to prove what everyone has been telling you, and all those plaintiffs in the birther suits, “that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth” by the Court.Which means they didn’t rule on it.Which means it is dicta.

    Checkmate.

    Then who is a Natural Born citizen if it is not a Child born to two citizen parents? Because they had FOUND her to a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN based on common law, not the Constitution!

    “it was [never doubted] that all [children born] in a country of [parents who were its citizens] became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or [natural-born citizens], as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Who are they talking ABOUT?

  106. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling. The United States and China had a Treaty regarding this issue, the Treaty took precedence in this case, though was ruled anyway.

    Hilarious… But I am glad how you accept that Wong Kim Ark as relevant precedent. As to the comments on the treaty, it is clear that you have not read or at least not comprehended the ruling.

    Remember how WKA spent tens of pages on exploring the meaning of natural born and how the dissenting judge, lamented how WKA was natural born…

    But Al is unable to see the facts.

  107. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    Al Halbert:

    Then who is a Natural Born citizen if it is not a Child born to two citizen parents? Because they had FOUND her to a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN based on common law, not the Constitution!

    The two are related… The term Natural born is undefined in the Constitution and thus its meaning is to be found in common law. Under common law, the definition is ‘born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents’

  108. avatar
    sfjeff March 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Al- since you claim that we would need an amendment to ‘change the current definition of NBC”- why didn’t you answer my question?

    Why…..why didn’t anyone but a Birther notice that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible?

    This is the thing that I never can seem to get Birthers to answer- so step up and be counted. Do you:

    a) Believe that the courts and voters were all mistaken in their understanding- that in essence do you believe that Obama was not eligible, but everyone believed he was in error and that the election should be reversed because we are all wrong
    or
    b) do you believe that everyone knew it, but pretended not to?

    I ask this because I knew Barack Obama was eligible because he was born here- my daughter knew because she had learned the same definition of NBC that I learned way back in about 1970.

    Literally no one made this claim prior to Obama being elected. Isn’t it odd, that Birthers suddenly found out that the Constitution said he wasn’t?

  109. avatar
    JoZeppy March 5, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling.

    How could Gray cover for something that according to birthers was only discovered a few years ago? And the Supreme Court very frequently contradicts prior rulings. Take for example Brown v. Board of Ed, and Plessy v. Furguson…It’s called overturning precedent. Nothing new. The Court regularly corrects itself.

    Al Halbert: The United States and China had a Treaty regarding this issue, the Treaty took precedence in this case, though was ruled anyway.

    Actually they didn’t. It was a treaty regarding naturalization. As Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, born in the US, he was never naturalized.

    Al Halbert: Chinese citizens were subject to being put to death for seeking citizenship in another country if they naturalized then went back to China. this Treaty absolved anyone that Naturalized of Chinese descent from this fate if they sought to seek citizenship in the United States.

    WKA was never naturalized, and in fact, Chinese aliens were prohibited by the Chinese Exclusion act from being naturalized. The treaty was irrelevant.

    Al Halbert: He was found to be Born a Citizen not a Natural Born Citizen.

    The Supreme Court upheld, without exception, the lower court ruling that he was a natural born citizen….and why exactly do you think J. Gray spent all that time in his rationale discussing how nbc comes from the common law natural born subject, which equals born on soil, if he wasn’t upholding WKA as a NBC?

    Al Halbert: Read John Jay’s letter to Washington on the Natural Born Citizen issue as he saw it as paramount to the security of our fragile Nation since the President is also the Commander in Chief, John Jay was our first Supreme Court Chief Justice. We also have the Federalist Papers that discusses this issue as well, which are the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Jay as they advocated for the adoption of the Constitution. Madison used the name “Publius”.

    None of which say anything about parents. It’s all irrelevant

  110. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    sfjeff: Why…..why didn’t anyone but a Birther notice that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible?

    Especially his opponents in the primary and the general election. According to Al, if Schwarzenegger announced tomorrow that all the current Republican candidates are boobs (he would be correct about that) and he was getting in the race, no one would say, “Ahem, but you were born in Austria”.

  111. avatar
    sfjeff March 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    it is quite the rabbit hole that Birthers dug for themselves.

    First of all making up a new definition of Natural Born Citizen and then going to find justification for it.

    One of their first problems was when someone discovered we had indeed had another President in Obama’s situation. So then Birthers had to make up a story about why there was a conspiracy about Chester Arthur also.

    Then someone points out that Wong Kim contradicts their theory- so they make up a new conspiracy theory that one of the justices was in on it to protect Chester Arthur…

    And meanwhile we Americans- we just all are too stupid to understand the ‘real definition of Natural Born Citizen’- Birthers just are that much smarter than all of the rest of us.

    Did I leave anything out…oh Vattell but that silliness is sort of distracting in its whole convolutions of fiction.

  112. avatar
    Obsolete March 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Al Halbert: Then who is a Natural Born citizen if it is not a Child born to two citizen parents? Because they had FOUND her to a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN based on common law, not the Constitution!

    “it was [never doubted] that all [children born] in a country of [parents who were its citizens] became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or [natural-born citizens], as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Who are they talking ABOUT?

    They are saying someone born in the United States, to two citizen parents, is undoubtedly a natural-born citizen. They do not say that is the ONLY kind/definition of natural born citizen.

    In the following part of the quote, which you dishonestly keep cutting off, they say that some people ALSO consider a child born in the United States to alien parents a natural-born citizen. They go on to say there are some who doubt this. They then go on to say that it is not necessary for them to resolve those doubts and decide whether or not a child born in the United States to alien parents is a natural-born citizen.
    So, they left it open. They didn’t decide. in other words, they DID NOT settle the issue.
    But “Wong” did.

    Here is the full quote- the part you keep leaving off is bolded:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    If this part, which you keep leaving off, is not fatal to your argument, why don’t you include it?

  113. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Scientist: In answer to your questiion, no they did not.Read the history of the time.The concern was European royalty.Read the Prince William or Harrry, nope.Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, yes.it’s simple if you use your gray matter.

    Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal at the time of their birth their Parents were not Naturalized so they are not Natural Born, there is a nasty rumor about Romney as well I want to see cleared up. What else could our founders have done? I would never believed that I would live in a Nation that would ditch our freedom for security and with it execute our citizens by Secret Panels in defiance of the absolute right to due process of law in the 5th amendment.

    “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

    I would have never thought that Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus both vital Constitutional guarantees against abuse from our Government would be made impotent. Or that it would be thrown out as well and the Nation being declared a War Zone with citizens subject to Military arrest and imprisonment without charges or trial indefinitely. However all of these things have come to PASS under Obama in the last NDAA he signed into law.

    We are stuck with this Natural Born Citizen requirement under the Constitution the only way to remove is by an amendment, not twisting logic and law to suit ones purpose.

  114. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Poor Al… So many facts of which he was clearly not aware… Let’s hope he will learn from this…

  115. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    Al Halbert: We are stuck with this Natural Born Citizen requirement under the Constitution the only way to remove is by an amendment, not twisting logic and law to suit ones purpose.

    Exactly, and yet that is all you have offered so far.

    Why is that?

    The simple fact is that the meaning of Natural Born is found in US v WKA, just as the courts in Ankeny v Daniels, TIsdale v Obama and Farrar v Obama have found.

    Then there is Luria v US…

    Al has no defense against all these legal references, all he has is his foolish understanding of Minor and now also US v WKA.

  116. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Al Halbert: What else could our founders have done?

    Most countries manage just fine without any such restriction. The Founders could have just said no Euro trash royalty.

    Al Halbert: However all of these things have come to PASS under Obama in the last NDAA he signed into law.

    Did Obama make it himself or did the Republican-controlled House pass it?

    Al Halbert: We are stuck with this Natural Born Citizen requirement under the Constitution

    We aren’t stuck with YOUR interpretation. I don’t recall seeing your name on the Supreme Court or in Congress. Did I miss it?

  117. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Al Halbert: However all of these things have come to PASS under Obama in the last NDAA he signed into law.

    So that’s your real reason, and the eligibility is just a smoke screen? Thought as much.

    I applaud your honesty.

  118. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Obsolete: As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    Parse the language to porridge;

    “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the [first]. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    Which is Virgina Minor, they found to be a Natural Born Citizen, the case was about her and being denied the right to vote in Missouri, to apply the Constitution they needed to find whether she was a citizen so that they could adjudicate the matter. They did not need to go any farther than they did after they found to be a Natural Born Citizen;

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” about others “As to this class there have been doubts”

    So they moved on! This case was not about finding who is a citizen in every kind, stripe and flavor, it was simply about Virginia being denied the right to vote.

  119. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Al Halbert: So they moved on! This case was not about finding who is a citizen in every kind, stripe and flavor, it was simply about Virginia being denied the right to vote.

    So actually the case is irrelevant to who the President is. It took a while, but we got there.

  120. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    Al Halbert: “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the [first]. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    So Minor never addressed these doubts. US v WKA did and found that the doubts were unwarranted.
    Simple…

    What part do you continue to fail to comprehend

    Have you read Luria v US, US v WKA? Anything particular that you learned from it? Did you read the dissenting opinion where the Judge realizes that WKA was natural born. Did you read the complaint by the Government where they asked if the lower court was wrong in finding WKA natural born?

    Did you?

    Of course not.

  121. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    Scientist: So actually the case is irrelevant to who the President is. It took a while, but we got there.

    Ouch… Poor Al, so confused.

  122. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Al Halbert: Minor has not been overturned, Minor is a definition of Natural Born Citizen and the portion that could be overturned is that Virginia Minor could be granted the right to VOTE, already happened.

    No case has come before SCOTUS that challenges the definition of Natural Born Citizen. So if Minor is not important why was it scrubbed from Justia.com for at least two years or more years? It was random, just a fluke?and it got scrubbed after Obama released his COLB again coincidence in the run-up to the election in 2008?

    SCOTUS has ruled on NBC since Minor. That means that even if Minor defined NBC (which it doesn’t), it was overturned.

    The reason, IMHO, that Minor got “scrubbed” was because birthers misunderstood it. I believe what was “scrubbed” was the links to cases that quoted Minor, like in US v Wong Kim Ark. The Court referenced it as follows: “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

    Understand what the Court did. It referenced Minor and does NOT say it defined NBC. Like everyone is telling you.

  123. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    nbc: Ouch… Poor Al, so confused

    He’s probably too confused to enlighten us as to what he did between February 2007 when Obama announced he was running and October 2008. Here was this supposedly ineligible candidate and Al said nothing. Nor did Hiillary or Edwards or McCain or Biden or Palin or any member of Congress. I mean, even if Justia was “scrubbed” (it wasn’t) all the Supreme Court cases are in any law library in hard copy. Surely Al isn’t too lazy to get his butt down to a law llibrary. Nor are the legal teams of the candidates.

  124. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling.

    So Gray had to give cover to Chester Arthur while Chester Arthur was sworn in by Justice Waite from Minor v. Happersett fame. Did Waite forget about his own definition?

  125. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Al Halbert: We also have the Federalist Papers that discusses this issue as well,

    Please show us where the Federalist Papers discusses the issue.

  126. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Al Halbert:
    Which is Virgina Minor, they found to be a Natural Born Citizen, the case was about her and being denied the right to vote in Missouri, to apply the Constitution they needed to find whether she was a citizen so that they could adjudicate the matter.

    Bravo! You are getting closer, but you are not there yet. The SCOTUS recited that Minor was a citizen because they needed to do that to see if she could have been able to vote in Missouri, not to adjudicate the case. They rule in cases about non-citizens.

  127. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    Let me predict 78 and let me point out that it has no relevance. But Al is just repeating that which he so foolishly has accepted as truth…

  128. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    Linda: Bravo! You are getting closer, but you are not there yet. The SCOTUS recited that Minor was a citizen because they needed to do that to see if she could have been able to vote in Missouri, not to adjudicate the case. They rule in cases about non-citizens.

    Cool, someone else educating poor Al. Let’s hope he appreciates the efforts we are putting into this.

  129. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    nbc: So that’s your real reason, and the eligibility is just a smoke screen? Thought as much.

    I applaud your honesty.

    So what are your MOTIVES, do you like having 5 Trillion in deficits in 3 years, going to 6 Trillion by November all of it spent without a BUDGET, 1000 plus days since this nation had a budget, last one was GWB for year 2009. The Senate refuses to bring to the FLOOR. Obama has deficit spent at a rate that is 5X Bush in half the time it will 6X by November, oh and did I mention in half the time of Bush. Bush only deficit spent approximately 250 Billion per year in 8 years, Obama 5x that in 3 years, 1.25 Trillion. My children will have a far different future than I had, this debt if not managed will crush our children and grand children. Throw Health Care into the mix and the ship will sink. Washington and our President have been irresponsible with our Nations Treasure and guess what Obama wanted the Big Boy Chair he got, it should be up HIM to lead, where is he, he’s MIA.

    Now all everyone does is make excuses for him with the media being first in line behind the presidents supporter and the democrats close behind. Irresponsible is what I say it is and a Nation that allows this, deserves all the retribution that comes with this type of behavior. All we ever hear is Tax the Rich and Corporation are evil, well guess what built this Nation, hard work and sacrifice, the only difference between the rich and poor in this Nation is that rich earned it by hard work and sacrifice, why is this such an outmoded NOTION? This is after all the promise of Freedom in our capitalist system where anyone can become all they wish to be.

  130. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    Blah, blah, blah, Al. Most of that is b.s., but if you believe it, then man up and make your arguments why Obama should not be re-elected. If he’s as bad as you say, the election should be a landslide. But instead of trying to convince your fellow citziens of your views, you come with a load of b.s. about birth certificates and Minor. You have basically lied to us all over about 200 posts.

    For shame!

  131. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Al Halbert:

    So what are your MOTIVES, do you like having 5 Trillion in deficits in 3 years, going to 6 Trillion by November all of it spent without a BUDGET, 1000 plus days since this nation had a budget, last one was GWB for year 2009.

    My motive is purely scientific and involves evaluation of claims made to undermine the legitimacy of our President. And contrary to your beliefs, there is no freedom in a capitalist system, unless you are one of the owners of capital.

    As to deficit spending, Bush never included the war, tax cuts and other expenses.

    From 2001 to 2009, Bush’s policies, including two wars, higher Pentagon spending in addition to those wars, tax cuts, higher discretionary spending and the prescription drug program contributed $5.1 trillion to the nation’s debt. From 2009 to 2017 (using projections for 2011-2017), Obama’s policies have added or will add $983 billion. Not even in the same ballpark.

    Source: Daily Kos

    Surely you do not care about these facts though. You’d rather be misled by others as long as it supports your beliefs.

    I understand.

    But you’ve been had, once again… Trust and confirm my friend…

  132. avatar
    Al Halbert March 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    Scientist:
    Blah, blah, blah, Al.Most of that is b.s., but if you believe it, then man up and make your arguments why Obama should not be re-elected.If he’s as bad as you say, the election should be a landslide.But instead of trying to convince your fellow citziens of your views, you come with a load of b.s. about birth certificates and Minor.You have basically lied to us all over about 200 posts.

    For shame!

    Principles matter.

  133. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Al Halbert: the only difference between the rich and poor in this Nation is that rich earned it by hard work and sacrifice

    While many rich people work hard and sacrifice many poor people do as well. The single mom who scrubs toilets, the waitress, the teacher, the grocery clerk. And i know some rich people who are lazy as hell.

  134. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    Al Halbert: Principles matter.

    Not lying about my motives is one of my principles. You are not an honest person.

  135. avatar
    Majority Will March 5, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Al Halbert: So what . . .

    What a steaming load of fright wing crap.

  136. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    Al Halbert: Principles matter.

    But they may help understand why you object to Obama’s eligibility. You call them ‘principles’… Others may call them biases and principles do not excuse one for not telling the truth.

  137. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    Al Halbert: However all of these things have come to PASS under Obama in the last NDAA he signed into law.

    Al, I don’t know what your source of info is, but you should consider an update, or if all else fails, read the material yourself. I disagree with the wording the NDAA, particularly as it pertains to US citizens on US soil. HOWEVER, the issues you bring up did not occur under Obama, but began with Bush post 911. The NDAA, in the evil counterterrorism section 1021, says the following:

    “(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

    It means it is not adding to anything already in place, which means any of the bad stuff was already there.

  138. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    Al Halbert: only difference between the rich and poor in this Nation is that rich earned it by hard work and sacrifice

    That’s overly simplistic. Sad to hear you believe this myth…

  139. avatar
    Graham Shevlin March 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Al, let me cut to the chase. You are the emperor with no clothes in this discussion. Every single point that you have made has been slowly, carefully, and comprehensively refuted. There is nothing left of your incorrect argument that Minor v. Happersett is precedent for the definition of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen”. As somebody explained, dicta and precedent are not the same thing, a fact that you seem unwilling to process. You are now reduced to juvenile sniping.
    Time to find a better argument (or actually, any sort of argument at all).

  140. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    Northland10: So Gray had to give cover to Chester Arthur while Chester Arthur was sworn in by Justice Waite from Minor v. Happersett fame.Did Waite forget about his own definition?

    Well played indeed!

  141. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 5, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Isn’t it?

    So it’s not about Obama, but it really is, huh Al? Has the white hood come off at last?

  142. avatar
    Majority Will March 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    Al Halbert: All we ever hear is Tax the Rich and Corporation are evil,

    Your blind support for corporate welfare and bigotry doesn’t change the fact that the President is a natural born citizen and still eligible for the office.

  143. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    Graham Shevlin: Time to find a better argument (or actually, any sort of argument at all).

    His history shows that he will move to another poorly informed position. But perhaps he can be saved… Nobody willingly allows oneself to be manipulated by others through myths and falsehoods. Finding out one has been is an opportunity for healing

  144. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Al Halbert: This is after all the promise of Freedom in our capitalist system where anyone can become all they wish to be.

    Hello?….. you made a claim that the Federalist Papers discussed the issue and have not backed it up. I have asked where you found this. Now you are changing the subject. Back up you claim or state you were wrong.

  145. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    Majority Will: Al Halbert: All we ever hear is Tax the Rich and Corporation are evil,

    Well, corporations have become evil, and the Founders understood the potential for corporations to do so. As to taxing the rich, is it not fair that they pay their fair share?

  146. avatar
    Whatever4 March 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    Al Halbert: So what are your MOTIVES, do you like having 5 Trillion in deficits in 3 years, going to 6 Trillion by November all of it spent without a BUDGET, 1000 plus days since this nation had a budget,last one was GWB for year 2009.The Senate refuses to bring to the FLOOR.Obama has deficit spent at a rate that is 5X Bush in half the time it will 6X by November, oh and did I mention in half the time of Bush.Bush only deficit spent approximately 250 Billion per year in 8 years, Obama 5x that in 3 years, 1.25 Trillion.My children will have a far different future than I had, this debt if not managed will crush our children and grand children.Throw Health Care into the mix and the ship will sink.Washington and our President have been irresponsible with our Nations Treasure and guess what Obama wanted the Big Boy Chair he got, it should be up HIM to lead, where is he, he’s MIA.

  147. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    Al Halbert: Then who is a Natural Born citizen if it is not a Child born to two citizen parents?Because they had FOUND her to a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN based on common law, not the Constitution!

    Natural born citizen means simply and only a citizen at birth. It means one is born a citizen and does not require naturalization as immigrants do. That is all it means in the Constitution. The law in the US, the Colonies, at the time of the writing of Constitution was the same as it was in England. Those born in the country, with the exception of ambassadors and occupying armies, were natural born citizens. (The US also excluded Indians not taxed and slaves.) That the was law, that was the meaning of the term. If the Founders used that term, that is what it meant. They could have used any qualification for president they wanted. It could have been 40 years old with two citizen parents, but it wasn’t.

  148. avatar
    Majority Will March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    nbc: Well, corporations have become evil, and the Founders understood the potential for corporations to do so. As to taxing the rich, is it not fair that they pay their fair share?

    Did you catch my reply to Al about “blind support for corporate welfare and bigotry”?

  149. avatar
    Whatever4 March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    Al Halbert: So what are your MOTIVES, do you like having 5 Trillion in deficits in 3 years, going to 6 Trillion by November all of it spent without a BUDGET, 1000 plus days since this nation had a budget,last one was GWB for year 2009.The Senate refuses to bring to the FLOOR.Obama has deficit spent at a rate that is 5X Bush in half the time it will 6X by November, oh and did I mention in half the time of Bush.Bush only deficit spent approximately 250 Billion per year in 8 years, Obama 5x that in 3 years, 1.25 Trillion.My children will have a far different future than I had, this debt if not managed will crush our children and grand children.Throw Health Care into the mix and the ship will sink.Washington and our President have been irresponsible with our Nations Treasure and guess what Obama wanted the Big Boy Chair he got, it should be up HIM to lead, where is he, he’s MIA.

    I knew it. MY motives are that I think everyone should be arguing the same set of facts. When Bush was in office, I debunked lies, rumors, and misquotes from his opponents. Now that Obama is in office, I debunk lies, rumors, and misquotes from HIS opponents. I started visiting Birtherville 4 years ago arguing that McCain was eligible. I’ve argued for McCain, Jindal, and Rubio eligibility.

    What really bugs me about birthers (or Obama eligibility deniers) is that most are using the eligibility issue as a way to get someone they hate out of office. That leads fo what we’ve seen from Al and friends — argue the layers, argue the stamps, then change topics and argue Indonesian adoption and/or Kenyan birth, then it doesn’t matter anyway as he’s a dual citizen, OMG — you need 2 citizen parents! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Finally, it’s “None of that matters, he’s an evil man doing evil things!!!”

    Be honest from the beginning. You want Obama out. Well, so do millions of others. Drop the eligibility nonsense. The 2-citizen parent thing is going to bite you in the ass in the future if you reject talented politicians based on misunderstanding of 100 year old court cases.

    Plus don’t argue here about Obama’s policies. It makes your eligibility arguments look like sour grapes.

  150. avatar
    justlw March 5, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur

    Do you know what Arthur’s response to the WKA ruling was? Look it up; it’s fascinating. A “must read,” even.

  151. avatar
    Majority Will March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    Whatever4: I knew it. MY motives are that I think everyone should be arguing the same set of facts. When Bush was in office, I debunked lies, rumors, and misquotes from his opponents. Now that Obama is in office, I debunk lies, rumors, and misquotes from HIS opponents. I started visiting Birtherville 4 years ago arguing that McCain was eligible. I’ve argued for McCain, Jindal, and Rubio eligibility.

    What really bugs me about birthers (or Obama eligibility deniers) is that most are using the eligibility issue as a way to get someone they hate out of office. That leads fo what we’ve seen from Al and friends — argue the layers, argue the stamps, then change topics and argue Indonesian adoption and/or Kenyan birth, then it doesn’t matter anyway as he’s a dual citizen, OMG — you need 2 citizen parents! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Finally, it’s “None of that matters, he’s an evil man doing evil things!!!”

    Be honest from the beginning. You want Obama out. Well, so do millions of others. Drop the eligibility nonsense. The 2-citizen parent thing is going to bite you in the ass in the future if you reject talented politicians based on misunderstanding of 100 year old court cases.

    Plus don’t argue here about Obama’s policies. It makes your eligibility arguments look like sour grapes.

    Well said.

  152. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I built the new system minicomputer system from scratch.

    Doc is a rockstar!

  153. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Gotta love the denying the antecedent fallacy…

    Here’s the entire birther argument on Minor v. Happersett…

    A: You are born to 2 Citizen Parents
    B: You are a Natural Born Citizen

    If A, then B.
    Not A
    Therefore Not B

    To show you why this is a fallacy, let’s use a little example…

    A: You are the Queen of England
    B: You are a human.

    If you are the Queen of England, then you are Human. You are not the Queen of England, therefore you are not human!

    I’ve just proven that every birther is not human!

  154. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Al Halbert:
    The meat of the opinion;

    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”[12]

    Dead wrong. The meat of the opinion is the following:

    “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

    AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162#t13

  155. avatar
    Whatever4 March 5, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Al Halbert: nbc: You do believe in rumors but what about the facts?
    And even if there was a link, it remains an often cited precedent in determining birth right citizenship.

    Why is that, because it helps Obama! Minor is the correct citation direct and on point, unequivocal and unanimous, however it was scrubbed from Justia.com on the run-up to election in 2008 along with 25 other SCOTUS cases that cited Minor! Was somebody that scared about Minor?

    “Citations” refers to other courts, not to people on the internet. Google Scholar shows which SCOTUS and appeals courts have cited which cases in their opinions. NONE of the citations for Minor have been for its definition of natural born citizen. MANY of the citations for Wong Kim Ark have been. The citations show which case is controlling, and that’s WKA.

  156. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Whatever4: What really bugs me about birthers (or Obama eligibility deniers) is that most are using the eligibility issue as a way to get someone they hate out of office.

    I would say ALL of them are. I have spent the last 3 years searching for the pro-Obama birther, the person who can honestly say, “I like Obama and think he’s a very good President, but unfortunately, he isn’t eligible.” I have had no success to find such a person, and have concluded they either do not exist or, like the ivory-billed woodpecker, if I spot one, no one will believe me.

  157. avatar
    Whatever4 March 5, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Al Halbert: THEY DID NOT NEED TO, they had found her a Citizen, much less a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Since it was a VOTING rights case specific to Virginia Minor, who else are they finding for? They first needed to find HER (SINGULAR) to be a Citizen so that they could apply the Constitution to her CASE, they did so and stopped when they found HER to be NATURAL BORN!

    Here’s an analogy. There’s a stack of papers with combinations and permutations of place of birth and number of citizen parents. On the top is 2 citizen parents and born in the US. Next down is born in the US, 1 citizen parent, born in the US, 0 citizen parents, born in the US, unknown citizen parents, born outside the US to 2 citizen parents, born outside the US to 1 citizen parent some residency applies.

    The Minor court picked up the first one and compared it to Virginia Minor. A Match! No need to go further. In WKA, they needed to go further. They did.

    Minor was low hanging fruit. WKA required a step ladder. McCain requires a longer ladder, but the court hasn’t dragged it out yet.

  158. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling.

    You are babbling now. The Wong case was decided in 1898, Arthur died in 1886.

  159. avatar
    Whatever4 March 5, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Gotta love the denying the antecedent fallacy…

    :::Snip:::

    To show you why this is a fallacy, let’s use a little example…

    A: You are the Queen of England
    B: You are a human.

    If you are the Queen of England, then you are Human.You are not the Queen of England, therefore you are not human!

    I’ve just proven that every birther is not human!

    Uh… the Queen of England is a Reptiloid. Like the Bush family. Just ask that Ickes guy.

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    Just so you know, If Harding had been declared ineligible, he could only be removed from office by Impeachment. (See political question doctrine). Further, even if Harding had been removed by Impeachment and Congress had decided he was ineligible, it would NOT have have affected the judgeship of Justice Gray because of the de facto officer doctrine:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/whats-done-is-done-the-de-facto-officer-doctrine/

    You really shouldn’t pretend (to yourself or the commenters here) that you know a lot about this because you obviously don’t. Four years ago, I didn’t know a lot and I had some popular misconceptions about the law, but I tried to listen more than I talked, and in the interim I learned some things. There’s still a lot I don’t know and I probably still have some popular misconceptions, but I’m willing to listen when people suggest things, and look up the background material. I’m also not ashamed to just say I don’t know and ask questions. And I would be extremely reluctant to say that a court had decided wrong without some heavy backup (e.g., when saying Taney was wrong in Dred Scott).

    Oh, and that part about citizenship in the Slaughterhouse Cases was dicta.

    Al Halbert: Wong Kim Ark was a logic pretzel with the opinion being written by Justice Gray, he was appointed by Harding who just so happened had an Article II Sec.1 Natural Born citizenship himself. He contradicted the opinion in the Slaughterhouse case to arrive at the opinion he did, if he had not and Harding was found unconstitutional there would go his seat on the SCOTUS bench. However the all the legal and verbiage somersaults were not needed as Chine and the United States had a treaty recognize the sovereignty of each others citizens under the circumstance in Kim.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    The Slaughter-house cases was a 5-4 split in the court: Wong was 6-2 (one justice not voting).

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling.

  162. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    So Al is upset that at age 77 he believes that he is leaving a country to his children and grandchildren which is in poor shape. Fine, but then based on flawed facts, myths and innuendo he has chosen to blame President Obama, while totally unfamiliar with the facts.

    The right wing ‘media’, Fox News, and others, as well as the right wing blogosphere are doing much damage to people by making them believe in myths and fairytales. These hapless people go out to ‘evangelize’ their knowledge only to find out they have been lied to and our country is of for the worse.

    Come on AL, familiarize yourself with the facts, not what you want to hear, before you make foolish assertions and accusations. Our country and your off spring deserve nothing less…

    Will you attempt to truly make a difference for our future or will you let yourself be misled by some who do not have your well being in mind?

    The choice is fully yours.
    I’ll keep you in my prayers.

  163. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Linda: You are babbling now. The Wong case was decided in 1898, Arthur died in 1886.

    He is just repeating the myths and rumors he hears on other websites. Unable to verify, he just trusts and is misled time after time in making poorly informed comments that undermine his credibility and serve to undermine the future of our nation.

    A hapless victim but there is hope.

  164. avatar
    justlw March 5, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

    Linda: The Wong case was decided in 1898, Arthur died in 1886.

    I figured if I’d said “dig up what Arthur said about WKA,” it would have been too much of a giveaway.

  165. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    Linda: Dead wrong. The meat of the opinion is the following:

    Poor Al so wrong yet again. Has he no pride? Why is he so mindlessly repeating these talking points and not doing the research? He has access to the Internet so he can look up the opinion and read it.

    Why would anyone allow ignorance to guide him?

  166. avatar
    G March 5, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    Well, they do to most of us, who simply care about facts, evidence, honesty and the actual law.

    But NO, folks like you, who are driven to unfairly restrict the freedoms and eligibility of those you either disagree with or dislike…

    …who strive to smear and cheat because you can’t abide competition on an honest and fair playing field…

    …who think that personal *motive* justifies dishonest and arbitrary treatment of those you “disapprove” of…

    …and who is so limited in projecting their own pettiness that they cannot even imagine a world where people simply abide by rules and laws and don’t *need* “motive” in order to do so…

    NO sir, those are the behaviors of someone who merely spouts the term “principals”, yet who has no idea what that actually means and who certainly doesn’t demonstrate any.

    Al Halbert: Principles matter.

  167. avatar
    Graham Shevlin March 5, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Actually what Al meant when he said “principles matter” is that only HIS principles matter. Ours are merely the uninformed gabblings of gullible Obots.

  168. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    nbc: Poor Al so wrong yet again. Has he no pride? Why is he so mindlessly repeating these talking points and not doing the research? He has access to the Internet so he can look up the opinion and read it.

    At least he is consistent? I continued to be perplexed by those who seem so concerned, yet believe the latest viral email, without trying to confirm it from a recognized authority.

  169. avatar
    Linda March 5, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    justlw: I figured if I’d said “dig up what Arthur said about WKA,” it would have been too much of a giveaway.

    Smoooooth!

  170. avatar
    nbc March 6, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Linda: At least he is consistent? I continued to be perplexed by those who seem so concerned, yet believe the latest viral email, without trying to confirm it from a recognized authority.

    Yes, that’s the typical birther for you. So concerned about our President that they are unwilling to educate themselves and are willing tools for others. And in the end, they show no remorse for having allowed themselves to be used by others, and allowed themselves to look foolish in the public eye.

    I find that quite fascinating… A total surrender to perceived authority… Scary really.

  171. avatar
    sfjeff March 6, 2012 at 1:09 am #

    Al Halbert: Principles

    Yet you still haven’t answered what I consider the question that gets to the heart of ‘principles’ of the Birther movement

    Why…..why didn’t anyone but a Birther notice that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible?

    This is the thing that I never can seem to get Birthers to answer- so step up and be counted. Do you:

    a) Believe that the courts and voters were all mistaken in their understanding- that in essence do you believe that Obama was not eligible, but everyone believed he was in error and that the election should be reversed because we are all wrong
    or
    b) do you believe that everyone knew it, but pretended not to?

    I ask this because I knew Barack Obama was eligible because he was born here- my daughter knew because she had learned the same definition of NBC that I learned way back in about 1970.

    Literally no one made this claim prior to Obama being elected. Isn’t it odd, that Birthers suddenly found out that the Constitution said he wasn’t?

    So tell me about these principles that include suddenly finding a completely new definiton of Natural Born Citizen?

  172. avatar
    David March 6, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    You guys are trying so hard to disprove allegations made by Americans who are simply asking questions and finding good reasons to wonder about this president. Are you willing to admit that you also have confirmation bias?

  173. avatar
    David March 6, 2012 at 1:20 am #

    Is it possible Obama is a fraud?

  174. avatar
    nbc March 6, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    David: Is it possible Obama is a fraud?

    Sure, anything is possible. But plausible? Give us your thoughts and perhaps some data?

    Is it possible you are a fraud? Let’s discuss… You open…

  175. avatar
    nbc March 6, 2012 at 1:30 am #

    David: . Are you willing to admit that you also have confirmation bias?

    You cannot have confirmation bias when you’re basing your arguments on facts. But yes, anyone could suffer from confirmation bias. But somehow it is always the birther who makes unfounded accusations long since rebutted.

    Does that not worry you?

    And if you have any examples that would show confirmation bias on our parts, feel free to do so.

    Good luck. Oh and these ‘americans’ are not simply asking questions, they are making accusations based on their ignorance and fed by misleading propaganda and talking points. When they show themselves unwilling to learn from their mistakes, they deserve to be called out.

    Sorry, one of my short comings is that I do not suffer fools gladly.

  176. avatar
    G March 6, 2012 at 1:34 am #

    AGREED. Well said & I echo what you wrote.

    Of course, our latest pop-up-out-of-nowhere “David” is not hear for real dialogue or questions.

    All he’s doing is yet another weak attempt at Concern Trolling.

    HINT to “David”: Actually, we don’t have to try very hard at all. Very easy when all the facts and evidence is on our side and we’ve already spent the past 4 years doing the homework. But hey, you go out of your way to come over here…seems like you are the one with some desperate agenda to fill…

    nbc: You cannot have confirmation bias when you’re basing your arguments on facts. But yes, anyone could suffer from confirmation bias. But somehow it is always the birther who makes unfounded accusations long since rebutted. Does that not worry you?And if you have any examples that would show confirmation bias on our parts, feel free to do so. Good luck. Oh and these americans’ are not simply asking questions, they are making accusations based on their ignorance and fed by misleading propaganda and talking points. When they show themselves unwilling to learn from their mistakes, they deserve to be called out.Sorry, one of my short comings is that I do not suffer fools gladly.

  177. avatar
    nbc March 6, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    G: All he’s doing is yet another weak attempt at Concern Trolling.

    Well, he can be legitimately concerned. Let him present his arguments.

  178. avatar
    richCares March 6, 2012 at 2:12 am #

    Hey David, why did Corsi & Zulo not contact Hawaii nor did they ask to see both Birth Certificates that Hawaii sent to White House, nor check with reporters that saw it (including WND reporter), was it confirmation bias or just sloppy investigation?

  179. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 6, 2012 at 2:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I understand that Ron Polland says the Nordyke certificates are fake too.

    I suspect that that’s a false rumor since their BCs are not Abstracts but some form of photocopy. which clearly displays the age and discoloration of the originals.

  180. avatar
    JPotter March 6, 2012 at 2:47 am #

    David: good reasons

    C’mon, you guys gave him a pass on that?!?

    “Good” reasons such as …. ? Welche Gründe sind gute, Herr David?

  181. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 6, 2012 at 2:53 am #

    Northland10: It sounds like you just stated Obama was a natural born citizen.Good job.I assume you realize that the Constitutional requirement is a Natural Born Citizen.It does not say “Natural Born Citizen with no Dual Citizenship.”So, by your words, he is both a natural born citizen and a dual citizen, and therefore, eligible to be President.

    The logic behind a claim that Obama is both a natural citizen and a dual-citizen is defective because it’s premised on a false assumption. It assumes that there is no difference in the nature of the two types of dual citizenship, but there’s in fact a huge difference. One is the result of birth within a foreign country which is willing to bestow citizenship or conditional citizenship on such a child, while the other is due not to where one was born but to whom one was born, i.e. a foreign father and not an American father.
    Having dual nationalities in one’s parentage makes one a dual citizen by nature, -not by the capricious will of the government based on a domestic birth location. Two parents with competing national jurisdiction and allegiance is the form of dual-citizenship that make a dual-citizen/ natural born American an oxymoronic label. It’s an impossibility. Just as one can’t be both an Eskimo and an African, nor a dog and a cat, so one cannot be both a natural American and a natural Kenyan simultaneously. For a whole lot of clarity on the issue, read the essay I wrote today titled:
    UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP for LIFE http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/unlimited-citizenship.pdf
    A.R. Nash http://obama–nation.com

  182. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 6, 2012 at 3:48 am #

    Thomas Brown:

    nbc: No, in the dicta of Minor, the court found that a child born on soil to two US citizens definitely was a natural born citizen, but observed that it was not going to address the issue if children born to foreigner(s) were (natural born) citizens.

    Remember that under US Constitution there are only natural-born and natural-ized citizens. In US v Wong Kim Ark, the Court addressed the meaning of the term natural born when it had to decide if a Chinese person, who by US statute could not be naturalized, was still a US citizen.
    Observing that the Constitution talks about natural-born citizen, and observing that the term had been left undefined in the Constitution, the Court found that its meaning had to be found in common law practices.

    Since Common Law in the early Republic was shown to have been based largely on English Common Law, and certainly for concepts such as Natural Born citizen, the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.

    The dissenting Judge observed how unfair it was that under the Majority ruling, a child born to two aliens could run for President while a child born abroad to two us citizen could not.
    Also, the government, when appealing raised the issue as “Did the lower Court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen”.

    They all understood,

    Anything else I can help you with?

    Remember the Court in Ankeny v Daniels, and others all cited US v WKA when finding that a child born on US soil, is a natural born with minor exceptions due to common law including children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military.

    Your thinking is stuck in a quagmire of confused and misleading human opinion. The actual truth is that human opinion is irrelevant to the truth of the matter since it is not derived from opinion or legal rulings, nor legislation. It’s derived from Natural Law and nothing else. One of the principles of natural law that undergirds our legal system is the immutable law of natural membership. It’s seen in the animal as well as the human realm. Being unaware and ignorant about that principle results in the mistaken view that opinion can settle the question of who is a natural citizen and what governs natural citizenship.
    If you’d like to have the light of truth shine into the morass of foundationless opinion that makes up your view of a subject that isn’t based on human law, then you can need to consider reading some of the illuminating writings that cover the subject. I strongly urge you to do so and that isn’t due to the irrelevant fact that I was the person that wrote them. They, and the facts contained in them, speak for themselves and will convince anyone of the truth of the matter. Once you’ve read them you will know the truth, even if you are unwilling to accept it due to your personal bias.
    THE IMMUTABLE LAWS Of CITIZENSHIP -a Primer for an ignorant age
    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the-laws-of-citizenship.pdf

    THE FOUNDATION of NATIONS/ Natural Rights & Unnatural Citizenship
    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the-foundation-of-nations.pdf

    A.R. Nash http://obama–nation.com

  183. avatar
    Whatever4 March 6, 2012 at 3:56 am #

    Adrien Nash: For a whole lot of clarity on the issue, read the essay I wrote today titled:
    UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP for LIFE

    OK, I read your essay. But there’s no reference to anyone who agrees with you. No reference to courts, laws, correspondance, books, anything except the Vermont quote, which doesn’t say what your next 2 paragraphs does. Without references, it’s merely your own opinion and has no more force than anyone else’s.

  184. avatar
    G March 6, 2012 at 4:12 am #

    Exactly. What it simply comes down to is that folks like Adrian simply suffer from irrational xenophobia and desperately wish our laws would punish folks born with dual citizenship.

    They can write all their wish-list fantasies that they want. It still will have ZERO impact on how our laws actually work.

    The silliest part of the whole anti dual-citizenship “argument” is how weak these folks view America in their eyes. As if our sovereign nation has to somehow become subservient to other’s citizenship claims over our own. It is one of the most anti-patriotic arguments out there…

    Whatever4: OK, I read your essay. But there’s no reference to anyone who agrees with you. No reference to courts, laws, correspondance, books, anything except the Vermont quote, which doesn’t say what your next 2 paragraphs does. Without references, it’s merely your own opinion and has no more force than anyone else’s.

  185. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 6, 2012 at 4:18 am #

    Al Halbert: Wong was NOT needed, it was done by Gray to give cover to Chester Arthur and he contradicted Slaughterhouse a previous ruling.The United States and China had a Treaty regarding this issue, the Treaty took precedence in this case, though was ruled anyway.

    Chinese citizens were subject to being put to death for seeking citizenship in another country if they naturalized then went back to China. this Treaty absolved anyone that Naturalized of Chinese descent from this fate if they sought to seek citizenship in the United States.He was found to be Born a Citizen not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Read John Jay’s letter to Washington on the Natural Born Citizen issue as he saw it as paramount to the security of our fragile Nation since the President is also the Commander in Chief, John Jay was our first Supreme Court Chief Justice.We also have the Federalist Papers that discusses this issue as well, which are the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Jay as they advocated for the adoption of the Constitution.Madison used the name “Publius”.

    The treaty between China and the US was drafted to protect naturalized Chinese Americans. It didn’t deal with the sticky issue of the jurisdiction of children born to them in America. So it’s not correct to say that it dealt with “the issue” of Wong. The only issue in regard to Wong was whether or not he was an American or a foreigner. It had nothing at all to do with the nature of his citizenship. (natural or non-natural citizenship) but solely with the issue of “citizenship? or no citizenship?” Don’t illegitimately drag the issue of presidential eligibility into the case. It is totally unrelated.

  186. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 6, 2012 at 4:40 am #

    Al Halbert: Minor has not been overturned, Minor is a definition of Natural Born Citizen and the portion that could be overturned is that Virginia Minor could be granted the right to VOTE, already happened.

    No case has come before SCOTUS that challenges the definition of Natural Born Citizen. So if Minor is not important why was it scrubbed from Justia.com for at least two years or more years? It was random, just a fluke?and it got scrubbed after Obama released his COLB again coincidence in the run-up to the election in 2008?

    Minor is merely a common sense observation, -a description, NOT a definition since it lacks one of the two qualifiers needed to constitute a definition. They are “all” (which it has) but also “only”, which it lacks. The absence of the word “only” precludes it from being a definition. But there’s a greater problem at work here, and that is the time frame. No one who is incapable of elucidating a clear and logical explanation of who is and isn’t a natural citizen in 1789 is capable of shedding any light on the subject. You all on both sides need to stop relying on “authorities” who were nothing more than flawed men fully capable of making flawed judgements just as you see your opponents making. You need to return to the year that the Constitution was written and try to ascertain the truth as it was understood in that period, -a truth so clear and universally understood that it needed no explanation as it was sent out to the citizens of all 13 colonies to decide if they felt it should be ratified or not. What it meant then was not a matter of the opinion of “experts” or “authorities” but of commonly understood English. It you want to understand that meaning then you need to leave the blur of legal reasoning and go back to the simple understanding of what the words mean and what they don’t mean. Read an essay I wrote that explains the incontestable truth of the matter. THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the-nature-of-things.pdf

  187. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 6, 2012 at 5:03 am #

    Al Halbert:I would never believed that I would live in a Nation that would ditch our freedom for security and with it execute our citizens by Secret Panels in defiance of the absolute right to due process of law in the 5th amendment.

    “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

    I would have never thought that Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus both vital Constitutional guarantees against abuse from our Government would be made impotent.Or that it would be thrown out as well and the Nation being declared a War Zone with citizens subject to Military arrest and imprisonment without charges or trial indefinitely.However all of these things have come to PASS under Obama in the last NDAA he signed into law.

    The protection of the 5th Amendment was not written to cover traitors securely living abroad while they wage war against the United States. In such a case there are competing rights of the many which out-weigh the rights of the one and those rights are the right of self-defense and the right of securing justice. Those are two unalienable rights possessed by the American people and by extension the nation. I wrote about this today in: UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP for LIFE http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/unlimited-citizenship.pdf
    Al Awlaki’s right to live did not outtweigh the right of his fellow Americans to live also, and since he was beyond the capability of bringing him to justice, all that was possible was to bring justice to him.

    As for the fear that the NDAA has abridged Constitutional rights, you’re surprisingly unaware that no mere Congressional legislation ever trumps the Constitution nor the amendments added to it. And how is it that you assume that the Republican House voted for something that Stalin would love? No doubt they didn’t. I heard in passing a brief mention on a news segment that it only can be invoked during a time of Congressionally declared something or other, either war or national emergency. So it isn’t something that the President has in his pocket that he can pull out at his whim and threaten American citizens with. That scenario is purely fictional.

  188. avatar
    Majority Will March 6, 2012 at 5:15 am #

    Adrien Nash: The logic behind a claim that Obama is both a natural citizen and a dual-citizen is defective because it’s premised on a false assumption.It assumes that there is no difference in the nature of the two types of dual citizenship, but there’s in fact a huge difference.One is the result of birth within a foreign country which is willing to bestow citizenship or conditional citizenship on such a child, while the other is due not to where one was born but to whom one was born, i.e. a foreign father and not an American father. Having dual nationalities in one’s parentage makes one a dual citizen by nature, -not by the capricious will of the government based on a domestic birth location.Two parents with competing national jurisdiction and allegiance is the form of dual-citizenship that make a dual-citizen/ natural born American an oxymoronic label.It’s an impossibility.Just as one can’t be both an Eskimo and an African, nor a dog and a cat, so one cannot be both a natural American and a natural Kenyan simultaneously.For a whole lot of clarity on the issue, read the essay I wrote today titled:UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP for LIFE

    That’s truly vile, asinine and disgusting racism and xenophobia and thoroughly anti-American rubbish.

    Do you fantasize about a Master Race and racial hygiene too?

  189. avatar
    Lupin March 6, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    G: Exactly. What it simply comes down to is that folks like Adrian simply suffer from irrational xenophobia and desperately wish our laws would punish folks born with dual citizenship.

    They can write all their wish-list fantasies that they want. It still will have ZERO impact on how our laws actually work.

    The silliest part of the whole anti dual-citizenship “argument” is how weak these folks view America in their eyes. As if our sovereign nation has to somehow become subservient to other’s citizenship claims over our own. It is one of the most anti-patriotic arguments out there…

    Quite right.

    As I pointed out before, they also seem mostly obsessed with “inferior races” (or “inferior nations”) infiltrating the Holy White Sanctum of Pure America.

    I have yet to read a screed from one of them saying out loud that, following their logic, they would relegate all Jews (for example) to being second-class citizen.

  190. avatar
    Northland10 March 6, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    Adrien Nash: One of the principles of natural law that undergirds our legal system is the immutable law of natural membership.

    That is BS and nothing more than a racist comment. You obviously no nothing of actual Natural Law as read by the founders.

    Natural Law speaks of the personal sovereignty that all persons have. The only reduction of that sovereignty is the power held by parents during minority and the jurisdiction of the nation-state where we reside. Even that nation-state would have only the power provided to it by the people (and in US, the states) who are sovereign but have chosen to relinquish certain sovereign rights for a common welfare. As such, by Natural Law, it would be more likely that Jus Soli would be the most likely citizenship at birther result (granted, by some of Locke’s writing, citizenship by choice could be argued).

    From what I can tell, Natural Born Citizenship is not a Natural Law concept anyway but a term of art which can only be defined through the common law understood by the the drafters of the Constitution.

    Sorry, Natural Law and “It’s Not Natural” is not the same thing.

  191. avatar
    Sef March 6, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    Gotta love the denying the antecedent fallacy…

    Here’s the entire birther argument on Minor v. Happersett…

    A: You are born to 2 Citizen Parents
    B: You are a Natural Born Citizen

    If A, then B.
    Not A
    Therefore Not B

    To show you why this is a fallacy, let’s use a little example…

    A: You are the Queen of England
    B: You are a human.

    If you are the Queen of England, then you are Human.You are not the Queen of England, therefore you are not human!

    I’ve just proven that every birther is not human!

    Or, to use the birthers’ argument that Minor contains the definition of NBC, you could say that the definition of being human is to be the Queen of En\gland.

  192. avatar
    The Magic M March 6, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    dunstvangeet: Gotta love the denying the antecedent fallacy…

    Here’s the entire birther argument on Minor v. Happersett…

    A: You are born to 2 Citizen Parents
    B: You are a Natural Born Citizen

    If A, then B.
    Not A
    Therefore Not B

    To show you why this is a fallacy

    Actually, the birfers’ Minor fallacy is even more ridiculous.

    Minor said “Spot is a dog with four legs, therefore it is a mammal. Since mammals are animals, we can rule the following: …”.

    The birfers read this as “only dogs with four legs are mammals; cats with four legs or dogs with three legs aren’t mammals, nor is any other animal”.

    The point is that Minor didn’t have to state that Spot had four legs, but it didn’t hurt either. That’s the “dicta” part of it.

    Another good example is SR 511, something birthers also like to point to.
    It basically says “McCain was born on a US base in Panama in 1936 to two citizen parents and is therefore a natural born citizen”.
    Not only does that not mean you can’t be an NBC any other way, it also doesn’t mean the Senate wanted to say that you need to have been born in Panama in 1936 (in addition to having two citizen parents and being born on a US base) to be an NBC.

    See, there’s the problem – birthers like to cherry-pick their arguments by deciding what is “dicta” (US base, panama, in 1936) and what is part of the alleged NBC definition (two citizen parents, US soil).

  193. avatar
    JoZeppy March 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Meaningless psychobabbleP>

    I’m sorry, but you genuinely don’t have the first clue about the law. I don’t know why you think you are so special that you just get to make up a set rules, and expect the rest of the country to care two bits about what “you think.”

    Your musing are utterly meaningless. They have no basis in the law, and they are flat out, 100% wrong, meaningeless, and we are are a little dumber for having to been subjected to it. There is no “Natural Law” as you purport to pull out of the dark recesses of your back side. There are two sources of the law. Judge made case law, and statutory law made by the legislature. As you can see, you are in neither of those catagories. You don’t even qualify as a legal scholar whose published writings (which obviously your festering t*rd of a blog does not constitute as published legal writing), which would be considered persuasive to a court. I generally try not to be this blunt, but I cannot for the life of me understand, how a person thinks they can dream up a fanciful diatribe about a legal term of art with centuries of history behind it, and think it would somehow constitute a legally binding definition? Seriously, are you that narcissistic?

  194. avatar
    nbc March 6, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Adrien Nash:

    Your thinking is stuck in a quagmire of confused and misleading human opinion.

    You mean legal precedent… How confusing can that be. Sorry my friend, natural law is just of little relevance to the right of a Nation to chose who are its citizens.

  195. avatar
    Linda March 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Adrien Nash: You need to return to the year that the Constitution was written and try to ascertain the truth as it was understood in that period, -a truth so clear and universally understood that it needed no explanation as it was sent out to the citizens of all 13 colonies to decide if they felt it should be ratified or not.

    Good advice, but you don’t follow it in your essay or opinions. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, in US/Colonies and in England, the term “natural born citizen” meant simply “born within the realm”. England had exceptions for the children of ambassadors and occupying armies, the US/Colonies added had them for Indians not taxed and slaves. There was no parental citizenship requirement, no exclusions for children who were also also granted citizenship by their home country of their parents, etc.

  196. avatar
    white collar crime kills March 6, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    I’ve read only halfway.
    this is new to me (not one of my interests), but Virgina Minor (as quoted) looks about as pertinent as trying to read tea leaves in a cup that never held tea…
    Wong Kim Ark looks pertinent.

    snotty, arrogant, dismissive tone
    i didn’t notice that. i notice persistence. i foresee a bright future for al in sweeping the ocean back off the beach. or keeping the woods clean of kudzu. or grinding stumps with his bare teeth.

  197. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    You would make a lousy birther.

    white collar crime kills: Wong Kim Ark looks pertinent.

  198. avatar
    Alamaker March 8, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    You provide some great insights into this highly technical and almost tedious subject matter. The fact that you continue to discuss it serves to maintain its important relevance at this time. Thank you.

    However, there are several parts of your analysis which warrants questions.

    Is it true that NCHS coding protocols originate and coordinate with decadal census data coding protocols which essentially means they do not change much between decades (1940, 1950, 1960, 1970 etc.)?

    Is it true that natal statistics were recorded using single digit references for race categories until recoding occured in the late 1960s? This would mean that “9″ has never been anything other than “not stated”, correct? No matter when “Filipino was added. Guamian had to be added as code “0″ because they NCHS sought to maintain a single digit reference for race classification, correct?

    The Natality Detail file from 1969 shows on page 13 that Geographic coding data is according to the 1960 census, therefore, is it unreasonable to conclude that 1961 coding protocols are based on the 1960 census also and therefore might be uniform for the entire decade? Reference information eludes to a close coordination of statistical methodology between the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.

    The NCHS created a coding manual (Part I and II, and Section A Natality Data Coding) for 1961 for internal office use only. It is available for in-house review at the NCHS office in Hyattsville. It is not available for public disbursal. You may have confused the undestanding of “it doesn’t exist” with “it is not available for publication”. What was your source in this declaration?

    Are you aware of natality data reporting regulations which coordinate Census data enumeration with natality data in which birth rate calculations must coordinate with population growth indicators?

    Are you aware, as stated in the C1960 Special Report, the MSVSA and the VSUS (1945-1970) that “Usual Place of Residence” of the mother, when residence is in the U.S., is declared the place of occurence when actual place of occurence is not provided or when the first medical examination of the child prior to U.S. certificate issuance is by a licensed medical authority in the U.S?

    Beginning in the 1950s, in order to address the disparity between crude birth rate and overregistration of native births, were you aware that American Hospital Association statistics were published in conjunction with Census data in order to coordinate population growth with birth in hospital data cited on birth certificates?

  199. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Why the white halo around the type? I have absolutely no experience verifying documents, but have nearly 20 years working with electronic media. I can think of no “natural cause” for this regardless if a paper document is scanned or photographed or generated electronically. Also, layers do not upset me however, why is the background on a separate layer? There is no automated explanation for that.

    I always thought birthers were crazy, But I did watch Sheriff Joe’s press conference and did download the .PDF from the White House’s site and in my eye it does not hold up. I’m doing research now and I’m trying to get both sides so that’s why I’m here.

    I wonder why all the hateful statements, though. Am I a racist for questioning? It seems the burden of proof is on the President, why would he hide this? Why are school records sealed? I’m just looking for answers. Thanks for the work you’ve put in here. I look forward to reading though more of your posts.

  200. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Timmy: Why the white halo around the type? I have absolutely no experience verifying documents, but have nearly 20 years working with electronic media. I can think of no “natural cause” for this regardless if a paper document is scanned or photographed or generated electronically.

    Simple: It’s called MRC compression which tends to generate halos where the boundaries as not sharp.

    See Mara Zebest Part 1 – Debunking the Halo

    MRC compression is used by many PDF programs to reduce the file size by splitting the picture into background and mono-color (bitmap) foreground (text). They get compressed differently, one using JPEG the other one using run-length encoding or similar approaches.

    The burden of the proof is on those asserting Fraud. The president has shown two documents now which prove his natural born status, both confirmed by the DOH of HI.

  201. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Alamaker: You provide some great insights into this highly technical and almost tedious subject matter. The fact that you continue to discuss it serves to maintain its important relevance at this time. Thank you.

    Yes, we have some very good researchers here. As to the ’9′ category it refers to others, since the race was obviously states (African).

    Are you aware, as stated in the C1960 Special Report, the MSVSA and the VSUS (1945-1970) that “Usual Place of Residence” of the mother, when residence is in the U.S., is declared the place of occurence when actual place of occurence is not provided or when the first medical examination of the child prior to U.S. certificate issuance is by a licensed medical authority in the U.S?

    The certificate shows President Obama born on 8/4 and certified as such on 8/7 by the mother and 8/8 by the doctor. What is your scenario? Are you now doubting the location of birth of any and all child and one has somehow now prove that one was not in Kenya. We are not talking census data or census procedures here, but rather registration of live birth.

    And the C1960 Special Report is about the Census not official birth certificates. Apples and Oranges… Anything specific you would like to argue here?

  202. avatar
    JPotter March 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Timmy,

    Research MRC compression. it is a common compression scheme, particularly in office settings. Developed at Xerox and offered on their equipment. Other companies have devceloped similar schemes. The acronym stands for Mixed-Raster Content. The intent of the technique is to maintain legibility while maximizing compression. To that end, it overlays text with higher-resoultion but lower color depth objects, lowers the resolution of background images and compresses them, then layers the text overlays onto the compressed background.

    The halo is a side-effect. background patterns and overall low contrast ratios throw a wrench in the process as it attempts to “knock out” the background behind the text and define trapping. The solution is to simply, arbitrarily, overcompensate. You can see a similar effect on old, poorly aligned spot color printed publications and packaging … white space created by the misalignment of background and foreground plates.

    I am concerned that you’re concern trolling, playing at innocence. Time will tell.

  203. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Adrien Nash: I suspect that that’s a false rumor since their BCs are not Abstracts but some form of photocopy. which clearly displays the age and discoloration of the originals.

    ROTFL… The pictures you have seen with the browning are inverse pictures of the white text on black background photostats… Really… Hilarious….

  204. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    @nbc, thank you. I visited the link and can confirm her explanation and example are consistent with what I would expect. However, this halo she describes is typically at most 1 or two pixles. The halo on the certificate does not appear to be the same to me. However, i do appreciate the link and your response. Thanks.

  205. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Two parents with competing national jurisdiction and allegiance is the form of dual-citizenship that make a dual-citizen/ natural born American an oxymoronic label.

    So much wrong here. First of all it is not the allegiance of the parents that make the child a citizen, it’s the allegiance of the child while on territory of the US, under full jurisdiction since he was not born to invading military or foreign dignitaries. While in the US his parents were both under US jurisdiction and under our (temporary) allegiance.

    Dual citizenship is an inevitable outcome where there are competing laws guiding the granting of citizenship. In the US, birth on Soil grants one natural born citizenship, while England extends Natural born citizenship to children born to its parents while abroad.

    Have you read US v Wong Kim Ark? It’s not that hard, in the early days of our Nation, natural born clearly meant born on soil…

  206. avatar
    Majority Will March 8, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Timmy: Why are school records sealed?

    FERPA

    The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.

    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

    Have you demanded to see all school records (starting with kindergarten) from McCain, Bush, Romney, Gingrich or any candidate?

    If not, why not?

  207. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    Timmy: However, this halo she describes is typically at most 1 or two pixles. The halo on the certificate does not appear to be the same to me. However, i do appreciate the link and your response. Thanks.

    I agree that the Mara explanation of the Halo is not very convincing, given that the background is not pure white and the halo is consistent with what is observed when MRC is applied to known examples.

    1-2 pixels is what is expected looking at the halo I see a similar clear 1-2 pixel band in many of the examples even Mara applies 1-2 pixels to match the halo she observes.

  208. avatar
    G March 8, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    Timmy, you are being unreasonably defensive and reacting to accusations that have never been made towards you in the first place here. So settle down and simply ask reasonable questions yourself, if you wish to be treated reasonably in return.

    1. As already mentioned, the burden of Proof is on those making accusations, not the President. That is how US law has always generally worked. Extraordinary claims also require an extraordinary burden of evidence to surmount that burden.

    In a situation where the official authority involved (HI DOH) consistently backs up and confirms the date from the documents we’ve seen (official certified birth certificates showing place of birth as Honolulu, HI), then any accusations of “fraud” have an extremely high burden to overcome to dispute that evidence and authority.

    Mere speculation and suspicion is NOT evidence. Not at all. Simple as that.

    2. School records are sealed by the school, not the individual. That is pretty standard privacy laws in practice there. Again, nothing unusual and no different than how these schools treat any individual’s records. Why do you seem to demand that this President be treated to a lesser degree of privacy law protection than every other person in this country? You seem to want to hold him to a different standard, which is unfair.

    3. If you are seriously just looking for answers, then you will find most of your questions already have been investigated in detail and addressed in detail at this site. Please feel free and spend some time looking around. There are some helpful tools in the menu options to help you find the topics and answers you are looking for.

    Also, if you come here with sincere intentions and treat others with respectful inquiry, you will find the community of posters here are very happy to respond with sincere answers.

    However, if you come here with a pre-conceived attitude of accusing the folks here, you are only fostering an environment towards negativity and making your own motives suspect. In other words, you get out of a conversation what you put into it.

    Timmy: I wonder why all the hateful statements, though. Am I a racist for questioning? It seems the burden of proof is on the President, why would he hide this? Why are school records sealed? I’m just looking for answers. Thanks for the work you’ve put in here. I look forward to reading though more of your posts.

  209. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    Timmy: Why are school records sealed?

    Privacy Act… Good luck on your research. Dr Conspiracy has some excellent resources and others can be found on my blog.

  210. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Timmy: Am I a racist for questioning?

    Not necessarily.

    Timmy: It seems the burden of proof is on the President, why would he hide this?

    Hide what? And why is the burden on him? When has any Presdient ever shown a birth document? Of any of the candidates runninng this year?

    Timmy: Why are school records sealed?

    Have previous Presidents posted theirs? Current candidates? President Obama graduated Columbia and Harvard Law-would knowing what classes he toook change your vote?

  211. avatar
    JPotter March 8, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Timmy: this halo she describes is typically at most 1 or two pixles.

    Timmy, as I described above, and as the name “Mixed-Raster Content” implies, the layers are at two different resolutions, The background is at 150dpi, the text at 300dpi.
    Therfore, relatively speaking, the pixels in the background image are twice as large as those in the text overlays. If you’re judging “1-2 pixels” based on the pixelation easily seen in the text overlays, then the 1-2 pixell halo will appear to be 2-4 pixels wide.

  212. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    Majority Wil: Have you demanded to see all school records (starting with kindergarten) from McCain, Bush, Romney, Gingrich or any candidate?

    No, I have not. However, these individuals have not at one time been cited by the AP and NPR to have been born overseas. Also, when former candidates McCain and GWB were questioned, they quickly presented their documentation. In fact, I we do toe every time we accept employment.

    nbc: I see a similar clear 1-2 pixel band in many of the examples even Mara applies 1-2 pixels to match the halo she observes.

    This is going to be fodder for flaming, but it just doesn’t look right to me. In the example, you’ll see a very tight halo, in the certificate it is dispursed and inconsistent. I’m currently looking the first line of type in boxes 12b and 14. The halo is just not consistent.

    nbc: the burden of Proof is on thosemaking accusations

    You are correct. I was stupid to phrase it the way I did.

    >Why do you seem to demand that this President be treated to a lesser degree of privacy law protection than every other person in this country?

    I do not blame the schools for keeping the records sealed, I blame the president for not releasing them. If my education was brought into question, I’d supply transcripts. Perhaps I’m just not confrontational enough, but I don’t understand why he’d want secrecy.

    >Please feel free and spend some time looking around.

    This is excellent advice and should have been my first step. Thank you for your thoughts!

  213. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    JPotter: The background is at 150dpi, the text at 300dpi.

    Why would that be?

  214. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    Scientist: Have previous Presidents posted theirs? Current candidates? President Obama graduated Columbia and Harvard Law-would knowing what classes he toook change your vote?

    It seems a man who is very vocal about open government is very secret about personal information. When other candidates were called into question they produced. This President fought for years. Not that it’s wrong to fight, but it raises questions at to motive.

  215. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Timmy: However, these individuals have not at one time been cited by the AP and NPR to have been born overseas.

    Neither has Obama

    Timmy: Also, when former candidates McCain and GWB were questioned, they quickly presented their documentation

    McCain never presented anything. Nor did Bush. You seem like a reasonable person, so I am sure you will either link to their documents or retract ylour statement, right?

    Right?

  216. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    Timmy: It seems a man who is very vocal about open government is very secret about personal information

    Really? He wrote an autobiography that iincluded a lot of negative information about himself. Seems open to me. Besides, open government and telling all about your personal life are quite different things.

    Timmy: When other candidates were called into question they produced

    Such as?

    Here’s an example. How many years of tax returns did Rmoney release? One + an estimate for 2011. How many did Obama release? Back to 2000. Where is Rmoney’s b.c.? Where was he born?

    Please answer or retract your statements. Thanks. Much obliged.

  217. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Timmy-Let me save you some work here-
    No McCain b.c. ever released. Shown to 1 reporter for 10 minutes, no copies allowed
    No GWB b.c. ever released. He may eventually put copy in his presidential library (possibly)
    No Rmoney, Sanctorum, Gingrich or Paul b.c. released

    No school records released by any of the above. GWB records were leaked by some unknown person at Yale (illegally).

    So, are you interested in a FACTUAL discussion or not?

  218. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Scientist, thanks for your post.

    Scientist: Please answer or retract your statements.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm In June of 2004 the Associated Press claimed “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat…”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177 In October of 2008 NPR identified the birthplace of Barack Obama as Kenya. This was retracted in April 2010.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-10-bush-records_x.htm In February 2004 The White House released pay records in an attempt to document President Bush fulfilled his National Guard service obligations.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?_r=1 In May 2008 the New York Times claimed reporters were permitted three hours to review and take notes on the 1,173 pages of Mr. McCain’s medical documents, spanning 2000 to 2008

  219. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Timmy- The so-called AP story is not an AP story and the link doesn’t load. It has been debunked as a misprint.

    The NPR story says the following-”She also describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Sen. Barack Obama, whose father was born in Kenya.” Father. Got that? It’s confusing when a son and a father have the same name, but that’s life.

    Yes Bush released National Guard pay records. Obama released his b.c. twice. Score it Obama 2- Bush 1.

    McCain did allow reporters some access to medical records and that’s good. He did so because of his advanced age and history of melanoma. Obama is a young man with no history of health problems. Bush and Clinton didn’t release their medical records either. Age does matter. It matters more to me every year.

    You really aren’t painting a picture of Obama being secretive compared to other Presidents. Sorry.

  220. avatar
    Majority Will March 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Timmy: cited by the AP

    Paul Colford, director of media relations for the Associated Press: “The AP has never reported that President Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, AP news stories about the state of Hawaii have confirmed that he was born there. The Kenyan paper that you cite rewrote a 2004 AP story, adding the phrase ‘Kenyan-born.’ That wording was not in the AP version of the story.”

    http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/26/obama-birthplace-lawyer-submits-suspect-document/23981/

  221. avatar
    y_p_w March 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Majority Will: FERPA
    The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.
    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

    It’s somewhat complicated. It’s not necessarily an absolute that every school must legally protect the educational records of their students. However, the receipt of federal funds is contingent on protecting said records. Any research university that receives federal grants or one where students receive Pell grants isn’t going to want to put those funds at risk.

    I could imagine a private school where they receive no federal research grants and don’t allow students to receive federal scholarship money. However, even in that case I’d think most schools would protect their students’ records privacy.

  222. avatar
    Judge Mental March 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Timmy…..if you didn’t know already when asking your question, you will certainly have found out by now that, contrary to your assertion, in fact neither McCain nor Bush produced or published any of their birth certification….none, zada, zip. It isn’t exactly a secret that this is the case as this false assertion about McCain and/or Bush has arisen many times all over the internet and been corrected with facts again and again.

    Now I’m going to ask you a couple of questions. I want to see if you are prepared to answer honestly. Did you already know very well that McCain/Bush had never produced their birth certification before deliberately making the false assertion that they had or was it a genuine misapprehension which you held? I’m assuming and hoping that your answer to this in going to be ‘no’.

    If it was just a genuine misapprehension that you held you must have gained that misapprehension from hearing or reading somewhere else the false assertion that McCain/Bush had produced their birth certificates and foolishly believing it. It’s not the kind of subject which just routinely comes up in normal everyday life so you must know where and how you picked this up. Therefore please advise some brief details of from what source you gained this completely erroneous notion that McCain/Bush had produced their birth certificates. If it was a website, perhaps you can link to it.

    The manner in which you answer this may go a long way towards indicating to some of us what nature and tone of discussion in which you are genuinely seeking to engage.

  223. avatar
    Majority Will March 8, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    Timmy: It seems a man who is very vocal about open government is very secret about personal information. When other candidates were called into question they produced. This President fought for years. Not that it’s wrong to fight, but it raises questions at to motive.

    How do you know Rick Santorum is a natural born citizen of the U.S.?

  224. avatar
    Majority Will March 8, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    y_p_w: It’s somewhat complicated.It’s not necessarily an absolute that every school must legally protect the educational records of their students.However, the receipt of federal funds is contingent on protecting said records.Any research university that receives federal grants or one where students receive Pell grants isn’t going to want to put those funds at risk.

    I could imagine a private school where they receive no federal research grants and don’t allow students to receive federal scholarship money.However, even in that case I’d think most schools would protect their students’ records privacy.

    Good point. Thanks.

  225. avatar
    G March 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    More importantly, this example completely fails to meet the “public record release” threshold that Timmy seems to purport.

    Privately showing one’s records for a very limited 3-hour timeframe, in which only notes can be taken is certainly not “public record” by any sense of the term.

    Timmy, I think you need to be open and honest here and admit that you are coming to this entire issue with a pre-determined bias. It is clear that you are trying to justify holding Obama to a different level of standards than you hold any other former President, candidate or even citizen. You seem to be continuously selectively cherry-picking examples to justify your bias AGAINST one person (Obama) and in FAVOR of anyone else…

    You need to be honest with yourself here and admit that you are just focused on looking for excuses to view Obama suspiciously and do not apply that same standard to others.

    Scientist: McCain did allow reporters some access to medical records and that’s good. He did so because of his advanced age and history of melanoma. Obama is a young man with no history of health problems. Bush and Clinton didn’t release their medical records either. Age does matter. It matters more to me every year.

    Timmy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?_r=1 In May 2008 the New York Times claimed reporters were permitted three hours to review and take notes on the 1,173 pages of Mr. McCain’s medical documents, spanning 2000 to 2008

  226. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Scientist: Father. Got that?

    Yes, I understand the story was about the father’s place of birth. However, for a year and a half NPR seemingly incorrectly stated the President was born in Kenya. They have since retracted this. However, this information was in the public forum for a long time.

    I did not know the AP story was debunked. If so, I apologize. But you’ve got Kenyan officials, the President’s Grandmother, and an employee in Hawaii all collaborating the Kenya place of birth. In light of this, it seems odd, at least to me, the president is so secretive about his records.

    Scientist: It matters more to me every year.

    Ha! You and me both!

    I’m really not here to start a war; you probably deal with the same questions I’ve got every day. I’m going to sign off for now but I’ll be back…ready to read. Thanks for your thoughts, I really do appreciate the time you’ve given to me.

  227. avatar
    Timmy March 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    Others, I need to go but will return. Thank you.

  228. avatar
    Majority Will March 8, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Timmy: But you’ve got Kenyan officials, the President’s Grandmother, and an employee in Hawaii all collaborating the Kenya place of birth.

    All soundly debunked here and elsewhere.

  229. avatar
    J. Potter March 8, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Timmy, refer to my first response to you: look into MRC compression. Here’s an assist:

    http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=MRC+Compression

    The goal is to preserve legibility while maximizing compression. It’s a clever scheme. Educate yourself a bit.

    Timmy: Why would that be?

  230. avatar
    Whatever4 March 8, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    Timmy:
    It seems the burden of proof is on the President, why would he hide this? Why are school records sealed? I’m just looking for answers. Thanks for the work you’ve put in here. I look forward to reading though more of your posts.

    The President released 2 official certified birth certificates. That meets his burden of proof.

    All educational records are sealed. Yours, mine, President Obama’s. No candidate voluntarily releases them as there’s no upside for it. (Bush’s were illegally obtained by the press.) Good grades mean the candidate is elite, bad grades mean stupid. Courses in Economics mean the candidate either didn’t learn anything or should know better. Courses in political thought mean marxist/socialist/fascist. Were all the electives in easy courses? Manipulating the system. Were they in Art History? Elitist.

    Grades from college 30 years ago have no current meaning, except as a negative.

  231. avatar
    G March 8, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Surely you would agree that all that really matters is the eventual correction. Errors go unnoticed all the time in reporting; until someone bothers to pay attention to them and point them out for correction.

    I would seriously hope that you are not suggesting that any validity is gained for incorrect data, merely based on it being around for awhile. That would almost be as bad a suggestion as supporting the notion that repeating a lie over and over again will make it true.

    However, if your point is merely that incorrect information can accidentally seep into the public consciousness over time; then I think we all agree. Unfortunately, as part of human nature, it happens all the time – both by endless innocent accidents…and unfortunately, by a lot of intentional misinformation as well.

    The true test of one’s character and integrity is whether they are able to correct themselves and adjust to the facts, when corrections are presented. Unfortunately, too many would simply prefer to cling to bad data and lies that support their internal biases instead of simply deal with reality and adapt their understanding to what the data, facts and evidence actually show.

    Timmy: Yes, I understand the story was about the father’s place of birth. However, for a year and a half NPR seemingly incorrectly stated the President was born in Kenya. They have since retracted this. However, this information was in the public forum for a long time.

  232. avatar
    Majority Will March 8, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    Majority Will: Timmy: But you’ve got Kenyan officials, the President’s Grandmother, and an employee in Hawaii all collaborating the Kenya place of birth.

    All soundly debunked here and elsewhere.

    And these birther myths have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (repeat several thousand more times) . . . . . . again.

    As staunch political enemies, birther sites like WND enjoy spreading blatant lies and bigotry.

  233. avatar
    Whatever4 March 8, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Timmy:
    Scientist, thanks for your post.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm In June of 2004 the Associated Press claimed “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat…”

    The same paper issued a retraction in their next issue. http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm

    “Simultaneous with Obama’s rising stature is the increasing desire by Kenyans to identify with him. Typical newspaper headlines and messages flying around the Internet tend to lead with the theme “Kenyan-linked”, or “Kenyan-American”, or even, erroneously, “Kenyan-born”.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177 In October of 2008 NPR identified the birthplace of Barack Obama as Kenya. This was retracted in April 2010.

    Bad fact-checking. It was a caption, not the actual broadcast. They fixed it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?_r=1 In May 2008 the New York Times claimed reporters were permitted three hours to review and take notes on the 1,173 pages of Mr. McCain’s medical documents, spanning 2000 to 2008

    McCain is much older and has more health issues, having had both skin cancer and serious injuries during the Viet Nam war. Obama’s health records were released in the form of a doctor’s letter.

  234. avatar
    Thomas Brown March 8, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    Whoa… Another skeptical but not dogmatic visitor. Welcome, Timmy. We will be happy to explain why WND, Sheriff Joe, Orly Taitz, etc. give a thousand reasons why BHO is an ineligible usurper but every Court, every Judge, every Elections Officer (including those who happen to be conservative Republicans) find otherwise.

    It may take a while.

  235. avatar
    Whatever4 March 8, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    Timmy:

    But you’ve got Kenyan officials, the President’s Grandmother, and an employee in Hawaii all collaborating the Kenya place of birth. In light of this, it seems odd, at least to me, the president is so secretive about his records.

    This very site has over 1,000 articles on every aspect of the Obama eligibility conspiracy.

    Start here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

    For your specific questions, check here:
    Grandmother: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/

    Hawaiian Employee: I assume you mean Tim Adams, the temporary seasonal worker in the Elections Department, who claims his supervisors told him there was no birth certificate for Barack Obama. Doc C has a whole category on Tim and his delusions. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/tim-adams/

    Kenyan Ambassador: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/birther-math-part-1/

    We like it better if you do a bit of research first.

  236. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Timmy: Others, I need to go but will return. Thank you.

    Look Timmy, in November it be Obama vs Romney All the rest is ancient history. So let’s review the score

    Birth certificates Obama 2 Romney 0
    Tax returns Obama 10 Romney 1
    School records Obama 0 Romney 0
    Medical records Obama 0 Romney 0

    Obama is in the lead by a substantial margin, so I guess you will be voting for him. unless Romney does a huge data dump between now and election day, right? Unless this issue really doesn’t matter-in which case why did you bring it up?

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    Obama released a medical records summary from his doctor in 2008.

    Scientist: Medical records Obama 0 Romney 0

  238. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    I’m not sure what your point is, but I’ll just say: Presidential eligibility is based on facts, not “gotcha.”

    Timmy: Yes, I understand the story was about the father’s place of birth. However, for a year and a half NPR seemingly incorrectly stated the President was born in Kenya. They have since retracted this. However, this information was in the public forum for a long time.

  239. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Obama released a medical records summary from his doctor in 2008

    That is true and that is what almost all candidates have released. It’s likely Romney will do the same. McCain did allow a reporter to look at more complete information, but that is unusual and due to his age and history.

  240. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Timmy: This is going to be fodder for flaming, but it just doesn’t look right to me. In the example, you’ll see a very tight halo, in the certificate it is dispursed and inconsistent. I’m currently looking the first line of type in boxes 12b and 14. The halo is just not consistent.

    The Halo is determined by the background as well. Do not expect a consistent halo when the letters and the background are so variable. If you were to see a very consistent halo then you would have a simple 1-2 pixel border like Mara did.

  241. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    Whatever4: But you’ve got Kenyan officials, the President’s Grandmother, and an employee in Hawaii all collaborating the Kenya place of birth

    The grandmother never collaborated (sic) the place of birth in Kenya and the others have no access to the direct data.

    You have those directly in charge who have certified his birth on Hawaiian soil and you want to believe those who have nothing more than hearsay?

    Why is that?

  242. avatar
    nbc March 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Timmy: I do not blame the schools for keeping the records sealed, I blame the president for not releasing them. If my education was brought into question, I’d supply transcripts. Perhaps I’m just not confrontational enough, but I don’t understand why he’d want secrecy.

    Why? People will be fools no matter what. It’s not about secrecy it’s about giving in to blackmail. You just do not do this, not unless you want to spend the next 10 years providing any and all irrelevant data.

    Some people will never accept the facts, they claim he never attended columbia, Harvard and yet there are people and data showing that he did. Why help those poor sods?

  243. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    Timmy: When other candidates were called into question they produced.

    That is an interesting statement can you actually cite examples?

  244. avatar
    Keith March 8, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

    Timmy: No, I have not. However, these individuals have not at one time been cited by the AP and NPR to have been born overseas.

    McCain is absolutely, positively, known to have been born overseas. The AP and NPR have never said Obama was born overseas, though they may have reported what conspiracy theorists have attempted to assert.

  245. avatar
    Keith March 8, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    Timmy: Why would that be?

    Compression. Minimizing the size of the output file, while still retaining the readability of the ‘important’ part of the document.

    In general, the software attempts to separate the background areas of the document that contains very little information, from the foreground areas that contain the important detail information.

    The background is basically large areas of repetitive pixels that can be compressed very effectively and then decompressed with a great deal of fidelity.

    The foreground is basically small areas of non-repetitive pixels that cannot be compressed easily without losing the fidelity of the image. One technique for reducing the size of the foreground is to attempt to distinguish text from graphic image, however that is also troublesome because even if you have perfect character recognition, you also need to recognize the font and styling.

    So a ‘normal’ text document is going to have maybe an 85% background to 15% foreground. You don’t need anywhere the bit sampling to recognize that 85% of a page is all white, as you do to recognize that 15% is more or less minute detailed text image. Thus the 150bpi is fine for the background, but 300bpi (or more) is required for the foreground.

  246. avatar
    y_p_w March 9, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    Keith: McCain is absolutely, positively, known to have been born overseas. The AP and NPR have never said Obama was born overseas, though they may have reported what conspiracy theorists have attempted to assert.

    McCain would have been an interesting case because of US nationality law dealing with the Canal Zone and the children of US workers in Panama. I’ve read that there was only jus soli non-citizen US nationality for those born in the Canal Zone after a certain date.

    There were less restrictive rules on passing on US citizenship in the Canal Zone compared to a child born overseas. There were no residency requirements per se and nothing that was based on residency in the US past a certain age. Also – anyone born in Panama itself whose parent(s) were US government or Panama Railroad Company (or successor company) employees was automatically a US citizen at birth.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2012 at 1:23 am #

    Alamaker:
    You provide some great insights into this highly technical and almost tedious subject matter. The fact that you continue to discuss it serves to maintain its important relevance at this time. Thank you.

    The main reason I bring it up is that Johannson and Crosby wrote a birther article on the subject, and birthers are my business. I try to provide reliable information for people who see birther stuff and want to know how to evaluate it.

    However, there are several parts of your analysis which warrants questions. Is it true that NCHS coding protocols originate and coordinate with decadal census data coding protocols which essentially means they do not change much between decades (1940, 1950, 1960, 1970 etc.)?

    Glossing over technicalities, the best answer to your question is “no.” The reason is twofold. First vital statistics are gathered and coded for public health purposes and census data is gathered for policy purposes. The different purposes lead to differing coding categories. The second reason is that changes to birth coding correspond to the changes in the US Standard Certificate, which is released on a different schedule than the Census. For example the last standard certificate was in 2003 with some tweaking in 2005. There are, of course, overlapping categories and codes; however the serious efforts towards the development of standardized taxonomies in public health is relatively recent. Past decades are characterized by silo systems.

    See: http://www.cdc.gov/phin/activities/vocabulary.html

    Is it true that natal statistics were recorded using single digit references for race categories until recoding occured [sic] in the late 1960s? This would mean that “9? has never been anything other than “not stated”, correct? No matter when “Filipino was added. Guamian had to be added as code “0? because they NCHS sought to maintain a single digit reference for race classification, correct?

    I am going to address this in detail in part 2 of my article on the codes. The short answer is that I do not agree with your statement.

    The Natality Detail file from 1969 shows on page 13 that Geographic coding data is according to the 1960 census, therefore, is it unreasonable to conclude that 1961 coding protocols are based on the 1960 census also and therefore might be uniform for the entire decade? Reference information eludes to a close coordination of statistical methodology between the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.

    Well, first there is no justification for looking at the 1969 Geographic coding manual for 1961 data, since we have the 1961 manual — the one I cited in the article — that lists every single code. It is the definitive list of all codes that may be used for 1961 data; there is no other.

    Going into tutorial mode…

    I think that you may be confusing a couple of concepts. One is a coding system and the other is a code set. A coding system is a vocabulary describing some domain. A code set is a list of acceptable codes drawn from within a coding system and applicable in a particular situation. A good example is the OMB Ethnic Coding system that has an extensive vocabulary of ethnicities (with codes). However the HL7 2.3.1 Immunization messages use the OMB codes, but allow only two values, basically Hispanic and non-Hispanic.

    To apply that principle here, an item called Birthplace on a Census form would by necessity have to make allowances for persons born outside of the United States and would draw from a Vocabulary that has provision for such persons. The same could be said for birthplace of the mother, an item coded for current births, but not in 1961. In 1961, the two items that were geocoded were Mother’s Usual Residence and child’s place of birth. The rules stated that if the Mother’s Usual Residence was outside the United States, then the birthplace address was used. Likewise since Natality of the United States refers to births in the United States (and not births in Kenya), all birthplaces are in the United States. For that reason the Code Set, which again is completely specified in the 1961 manual, does not include any values from a Coding System that might include results for other countries. And in case you missed the link to the 1961 codes, here it is again:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/Inman_IIa.pdf

    The NCHS created a coding manual (Part I and II, and Section A Natality Data Coding) for 1961 for internal office use only. It is available for in-house review at the NCHS office in Hyattsville. It is not available for public disbursal. You may have confused the undestanding [sic] of “it doesn’t exist” with “it is not available for publication”. What was your source in this declaration?

    I received a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services in response to my FOIA request that they had consulted with subject matter experts and determined that no copies of the document could be found. That is not to say that it doesn’t exist, but that DHHS told me that it didn’t. Now, what is the source for your claim that it is available at the HCHS office in Hyattsville? Do you have an office, a name, a telephone number?

    Certainly Johansson and Crosby misrepresented the images in their article as from the 1961 manual when they were really from 1969. So I have no reason to believe your claim without a means of verifying it.

    Are you aware of natality data reporting regulations which coordinate Census data enumeration with natality data in which birth rate calculations must coordinate with population growth indicators?

    Are you? I don’t play games.

    Are you aware, as stated in the C1960 Special Report, the MSVSA and the VSUS (1945-1970) that “Usual Place of Residence” of the mother, when residence is in the U.S., is declared the place of occurence [sic] when actual place of occurence [sic] is not provided or when the first medical examination of the child prior to U.S. certificate issuance is by a licensed medical authority in the U.S?

    Please provide a verifiable reference to the text. I think you may have mangled your paraphrase.

    Beginning in the 1950s, in order to address the disparity between crude birth rate and overregistration of native births, were you aware that American Hospital Association statistics were published in conjunction with Census data in order to coordinate population growth with birth in hospital data cited on birth certificates?

    Provide the documentation. Don’t send me on a scavenger hunt.

    Penbrook, you didn’t have to use a pseudonym. (The misspelling of “occurrence” here and in your reply to Dr. Polland at The Daily Pen gave you away — besides the writing style and use of source material.) What happened to your lack of “interest in shallow oboticism?”

  248. avatar
    Rickey March 9, 2012 at 1:49 am #

    Timmy:
    I do not blame the schools for keeping the records sealed, I blame the president for not releasing them. If my education was brought into question, I’d supply transcripts. Perhaps I’m just not confrontational enough, but I don’t understand why he’d want secrecy.

    In 2008 I questioned why McCain did not release his entire Navy records, including his fitness reports. Those records likely would have explained why he never attained a rank higher than Captain. Alas, McCain didn’t care about my questions and never released his records.

    What was he hiding?

  249. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    Bush refused too.

    Rickey: Alas, McCain didn’t care about my questions and never released his records.

  250. avatar
    John Reilly March 9, 2012 at 3:06 am #

    My understanding of Sen. McCain’s situation is that he graduated at the bottom of his class. Releasing his school records any further would not help. In addition, over a long active career he lost 7 planes. One was shot down. I don’t disparage John McCain’s courage, but from my experience in the Air Force losing 7 planes is above average and not designed to get you to flag rank. (In 18 years in the Air Force I lost 0, although a few had damage which required repairs. On the other hand, I did not have to deal with the North Vietnamese, who had better equipment relatively than the Iraqi’s, both times, and the Afghans.) His medical records were shown to a reporter, who could not copy them. Sen. McCain has a host of medical issues, some from old age and some from his POW experience. Releasing recods which list a bunch of problems would not help any more than showing President Roosevelt in a wheelchair would have helped him.But, hey, anyone in favor of full disclosure by President Obama just has to demonstrate that he demanded the same thing of a white President.

    And, most basically, I still do not think we have seen John McCain’s birth certificate. Why is that? Was he born in Panama? I think Misha would agree that the logistics of giving birth in Panama are possible, compared to Cdr. Kerchner’s science fiction.

  251. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 9, 2012 at 5:32 am #

    Majority Will: That’s truly vile, asinine and disgusting racism and xenophobia and thoroughly anti-American rubbish.

    Do you fantasize about a Master Race and racial hygiene too?

    Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance of he whom you choose to attack, along with any ability to counter-argue anything I wrote. It’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and let people think you are ignorant than to open your mouth and prove it. You should grow up. PS When does a xenophobe marry a poor foreign ethnic-minority woman who can’t even speak English?

  252. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 9, 2012 at 5:49 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    Gotta love the denying the antecedent fallacy…

    Here’s the entire birther argument on Minor v. Happersett…

    A: You are born to 2 Citizen Parents
    B: You are a Natural Born Citizen

    If A, then B.
    Not A
    Therefore Not B

    To show you why this is a fallacy, let’s use a little example…

    A: You are the Queen of England
    B: You are a human.

    If you are the Queen of England, then you are Human.You are not the Queen of England, therefore you are not human!

    Your example is totally irrational. It should read: A. You are the Queen of England B. You are the titular head of the British Commonwealth. If A, then B. B=A How can you be intelligent and dumb at the same time? It’s a mystery related to bias blindness.

  253. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 9, 2012 at 6:07 am #

    sfjeff: Yet you still haven’t answered what I consider the question that gets to the heart of principles’ of the Birther movement

    So tell me about these principles that include suddenly finding a completely new definiton of Natural Born Citizen?

    You want to know about principles? Read the extensive volume of essays I’ve written on the subject: THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/the-principle-of-natural-membership-amicus-curiae2.pdf
    WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT?
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/a-natural-american/.
    The Nature of Natural Citizenship
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-nature-of-natural-citizenship/
    Without principles all you have is a house built on sand with no foundation. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they fashioned a government that was meant to endure.

  254. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 9, 2012 at 6:29 am #

    JoZeppy: I’m sorry, but you genuinely don’t have the first clue about the law.I don’t know why you think you are so special that you just get to make up a set rules, and expect the rest of the country to care two bits about what “you think.”

    Your musing are utterly meaningless.They have no basis in the law, and they are flat out, 100% wrong, meaningeless, There is no “Natural Law” There are two sources of the law….Judge made case law, and statutory law made by the legislature. I generally try not to be this blunt, but I cannot for the life of me understand, how a person thinks they can dream up a fanciful diatribe about a legal term of art with centuries of history behind it, and think it would somehow constitute a legally binding definition?Seriously, are you that narcissistic?

    ” I cannot for the life of me understand…” That I agree with. You can’t understand because your mind is encased in a thick encrustation of legalisms and you are incapable of thinking outside of that confining, mind-altering little box. Allow me to ask what exactly did you find that was illogical? The answer is revealed by your pathetic response which was incapable of arguing against a single fact that I shared. Not even one. How lame is that? This isn’t even a debate when one side refuses to, or simply can’t address the subject matter.
    If Natural Law does not exist as I portrayed it then neither does your unalienable right to life, liberty, or free speech. We therefore are just a majority-vote away from dictatorship and killing fields.
    Please tell us where did Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and apostle Paul get their law degrees? What? they didn’t have law degrees? They didn’t quote “experts”? Then they were just fools full of hot air I guess because, Lord knows, if something doesn’t come out of a Law book then it can’t be true.
    You have so much to learn. You’re like the boy born blind who doesn’t know what blindness is. Too bad your reasoning ability doesn’t match your vocabulary. Then we might be on the same plain and able to debate something. AN

  255. avatar
    Majority Will March 9, 2012 at 7:58 am #

    Adrien Nash: Your imagination

    Your disgusting racist opinions and bizarre, illogical rants speak for themselves.

    And your hubris is laughable and pathetic.

    “Just as one can’t be both an Eskimo and an African, nor a dog and a cat, so one cannot be both a natural American and a natural Kenyan simultaneously.”

    Idiotic, bigoted drivel.

  256. avatar
    Majority Will March 9, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    Adrien Nash: Please tell us where did Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and apostle Paul get their law degrees?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  257. avatar
    Majority Will March 9, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    “Then we might be on the same plain (sic) . . .”

    Oh, the irony.

  258. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    Scientist: Harding was President from 1921-23, and the WKA case was in 1896, so how could hhe have appointed Justice Gray? And yes, Harding was a natural born citizen as all Presidents have been.

    Tardis my friend

  259. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    Timmy: Yes, I understand the story was about the father’s place of birth. However, for a year and a half NPR seemingly incorrectly stated the President was born in Kenya. They have since retracted this. However, this information was in the public forum for a long time. I did not know the AP story was debunked. If so, I apologize. But you’ve got Kenyan officials, the President’s Grandmother, and an employee in Hawaii all collaborating the Kenya place of birth. In light of this, it seems odd, at least to me, the president is so secretive about his records.Ha! You and me both!I’m really not here to start a war; you probably deal with the same questions I’ve got every day. I’m going to sign off for now but I’ll be back…ready to read. Thanks for your thoughts, I really do appreciate the time you’ve given to me.

    “Seemingly incorrectly stated the President was born in Kenya”. You’ve shown no proof of this claim nor that it was a claim that had to be retracted if it never existed in the first place.

    Kenyan officials? Who do not have access to records. You have one kenya official who said something on the senate floor at the same time that they also claimed America had 51 states and falsely attributed an Eleanor Roosevelt quote to her husband.

    The grandmother never said he was born in Kenya but instead said 3 different times he was born in Hawaii. Do you even do research?

  260. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Whatever4: Hawaiian Employee: I assume you mean Tim Adams, the temporary seasonal worker in the Elections Department, who claims his supervisors told him there was no birth certificate for Barack Obama. Doc C has a whole category on Tim and his delusions. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/tim-adams/

    Also don’t forget the interview RC Radio did with Tim Adams

    Here’s the transcript: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52195796/RC-Radio-03-31-2011-with-Tim-Adams.

    I don’t have access but can someone post the link to the show?

    It should be in here: http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/03/rc-radio-march-31.html

  261. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    y_p_w: McCain would have been an interesting case because of US nationality law dealing with the Canal Zone and the children of US workers in Panama. I’ve read that there was only jus soli non-citizen US nationality for those born in the Canal Zone after a certain date.There were less restrictive rules on passing on US citizenship in the Canal Zone compared to a child born overseas. There were no residency requirements per se and nothing that was based on residency in the US past a certain age. Also – anyone born in Panama itself whose parent(s) were US government or Panama Railroad Company (or successor company) employees was automatically a US citizen at birth.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    From my understanding of it The Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated US territory and because of this anyone born there would have been a national but not a citizen. Because of his parents status they would have had to submit his paperwork and he would become a citizen just not at birth.

  262. avatar
    Sef March 9, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    JoZeppy: It’s about on par with Einstein having a discussion about relativity with a high school student.

    I’m sorry, but this is not a very apt analogy. The Theory of Relativity is not that complex, at least in its basics. Maybe the math is too complex for some high school students, but the principle is straightforward. I think Einstein would have liked to have a discussion with some of today’s hight school students.

  263. avatar
    JoZeppy March 9, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    Sef: I’m sorry, but this is not a very apt analogy. The Theory of Relativity is not that complex, at least in its basics. Maybe the math is too complex for some high school students, but the principle is straightforward. I think Einstein would have liked to have a discussion with some of today’s hight school students.

    I was going to put Steven Hawkins, and a discussion on the origins of the universe….but I wasn’t quite sure what Hawkins’ ablility to have a “discussion” is in light of his lou Gehrig’s disease (can have “converse” or is he limited to a lecture due to the time it takes for him to respond with the equipment he communicates with?)…a bit off topic, but…there we go.

  264. avatar
    G March 9, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    No, YOU are the one who is simply living in a fantasy world of your own made-up interpretations, which are completely disconnected from the reality of our actual laws and how they work.

    You can waste all the time you want on coming up with your “Natural Law” nuttiness. But it simply remains a piece of personal fantasy fiction.

    The Courts have repeatedly weighed in and come to the same conclusion on this topic and they all say your notions are wrong.

    We now have an ever growing list of states that have concurred with the Ankeny ruling in IN, which was based on the USSC’s Wong Kim Ark decision. They have ALL agreed that Obama is NBC and have reinforced the same reasoning that born on US soil = NBC.

    VA, GA, IN (again) and now AZ have all explicitly said that. The USSC has also had numerous Birther cases make it up to their docket in the past and they have summarily dismissed them every time. Such dismissal by the USSC is a reaffirmation of the lower court’s rulings. If there really was any “Constitutional crisis” as the Birthers claim, the USSC would not be always dismissing the issue out of hand.

    Your Natural Law nonsense is simply a bogus mix of quasi-religious hooey and has no basis in actual law.

    Adrien Nash: ” I cannot for the life of me understand…” That I agree with. You can’t understand because your mind is encased in a thick encrustation of legalisms and you are incapable of thinking outside of that confining, mind-altering little box

  265. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    This is a remarkably revealing question from Penbrook Johannson (using the pseudonym Alamaker).

    Johannson’s article, you see, shows a fake 1961 race code table from what he claims is the “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM).” The table he shows is really from 1969, and is available on the Web (you can tell that it is from 1969 by imperfections in the image, but it is not from the VSIM).

    He’s bluffing about the manual existing at an office that I can’t readily visit, while probing what I know. It’s unlikely that he could know that the document exists since to do that he would just about have to have visited the office and if he had done that he could have used the real race code table instead of a fake one. Also, if he knew this for a fact, he would have presented the fact and proved that I was wrong, rather than asking me how I knew otherwise.

    Further, he is trying to justify the use of the 1969 code table values as a backup plan, should his fake table be discredited. The problem is that the 1961 table is different and code “9″ is not the code for “no stated.” This invalidates a big portion of his article. All I can say is that it is foolish to make an argument based on fraudulent information.

    If fact, the FOIA response told me that the documents could not be found. However, much to Mr. Johansson’s discomfiture, I did obtain the tape layouts from 1961 that prove the fraud in his article. I don’t use words like “lie” and “fraud” lightly, but in this case, we see a deliberate lie, and then that lie used as a material part of his subsequent argument. There is a reason why the Daily Pen appears under my “Ugly” links rather than the “Bad” links.

    Naturally, before publishing any of this, I printed a copy of Johannson’s article to PDF.

    Alamaker: Is it true that natal statistics were recorded using single digit references for race categories until recoding occured in the late 1960s? This would mean that “9‘ has never been anything other than “not stated”, correct? No matter when “Filipino was added. Guamian had to be added as code “0‘ because they NCHS sought to maintain a single digit reference for race classification, correct?


    The NCHS created a coding manual (Part I and II, and Section A Natality Data Coding) for 1961 for internal office use only. It is available for in-house review at the NCHS office in Hyattsville. It is not available for public disbursal. You may have confused the undestanding of “it doesn’t exist” with “it is not available for publication”. What was your source in this declaration?

  266. avatar
    y_p_w March 9, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): From my understanding of it The Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated US territory and because of this anyone born there would have been a national but not a citizen. Because of his parents status they would have had to submit his paperwork and he would become a citizen just not at birth.

    This is 8 USC 1403:

    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    I don’t believe there was any paperwork per se, although I’d like to see a real Panama Canal Zone birth certificate (the State Dept issues them out of D.C. now).

    http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_5055.html

    The State Dept states unequivocally that they won’t issue a Consular Report of Birth Abroad for anyone born in a US Territory, including the Canal Zone. I’m not sure if there’s any paperwork per se that indicates US citizenship at birth for anyone born in the Canal Zone, unless that was an optional part of the birth certificate process. I don’t see any indication it was.

    http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

    If you were born in one of the following locations a Consular Report of Birth is not available. You must obtain your birth record from the respective Vital Records Office:

    Puerto Rico
    U.S. Virgin Islands
    American Samoa
    Guam
    Swains Island
    The Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979
    The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands prior to 1986
    The Philippines before July 4, 1946
    The former U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands

  267. avatar
    JoZeppy March 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    Alamaker: The NCHS created a coding manual (Part I and II, and Section A Natality Data Coding) for 1961 for internal office use only. It is available for in-house review at the NCHS office in Hyattsville. It is not available for public disbursal. You may have confused the undestanding of “it doesn’t exist” with “it is not available for publication”. What was your source in this declaration?

    Dr. Conspiracy: He’s bluffing about the manual existing at an office that I can’t readily visit, while probing what I know. It’s unlikely that he could know that the document exists since to do that he would just about have to have visited the office and if he had done that he could have used the real race code table instead of a fake one. Also, if he knew this for a fact, he would have presented the fact and proved that I was wrong, rather than asking me how I knew otherwise.

    Of course, some of can visit that office, as we live very close by….so if our dear friend claims to know it exists only for in-hose review, I’d be happy to take the name and number of his contact, that told him it’s there and check for myself.

  268. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    y_p_w: This is 8 USC 1403:I don’t believe there was any paperwork per se, although I’d like to see a real Panama Canal Zone birth certificate (the State Dept issues them out of D.C. now).http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_5055.htmlThe State Dept states unequivocally that they won’t issue a Consular Report of Birth Abroad for anyone born in a US Territory, including the Canal Zone. I’m not sure if there’s any paperwork per se that indicates US citizenship at birth for anyone born in the Canal Zone, unless that was an optional part of the birth certificate process. I don’t see any indication it was.http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

    Wasn’t 1403 enacted 2 years after McCain’s birth?

333333 44444
5555555
6666666