Main Menu

Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

This is the first (and so far only) submission in my 1000-word challenge to those who think President Obama isn’t constitutionally eligible to office. Adrien Nash, a prolific writer on the subject, presents a good case that it is difficult to dig up details about obscure events from 50 years ago. The views expressed below are those of solely those of the author and do not represent the opinions of Dr. Conspiracy or this blog. Here is the essay:


Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

The reasons to doubt that Honolulu was the location of Obama’s birth are all tied to what is missing.

It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place. No one remembers him or her. No photos of proud mother with newborn. Wouldn’t someone have taken one of an only child with her firstborn? Not even one photo of pregnancy, -the most dramatic event of Ann’s young life. No hospital claiming bragging rights as the place that a unique President, a Hawaiian supposedly, was born. No public hospital record that the public is allowed to examine. No “half hand written, and half typed” affidavit in possession of the HDOH that anyone has been allowed to examine even though a supposedly real birth certificate is fully public, nullifying privacy concerns.

No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama. No Hawaiian official has ever testified under oath as to anything about Obama’s birth record. No Hawaiian official has released a statement that wasn’t couched in carefully written, legally ambiguous language. No statement made by any Hawaiian official can be taken as true because of a state and party and ideological bias toward supporting their favorite Hawaiian son, -son of one of the most socialistic, welfare-dependent states of all.

The birth certificate image is couched in mystery, with nothing provable about its origin and legitimacy, but everything cloaked in attorney-client privilege, and deliberately so. Even Obama himself was careful to never once mention the long-form bc that he appeared before reporters to present. It was never even allowed in his presence, (plausible deniability).

No unbiased, questioning person was allowed to exam what was supposed created by the Hawaiian DOH. No one can testify that it was not merely a color photocopy of a digital file that was fabricated on a computer using original Obama and non-Obama sources supplied by an insider in the Hawaiian DOH.

No one can explain why the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara was missing from the database, (and presumably the archive) when inquiry was first made. Nor why her brother was barred by the DoH and a judge from obtaining a copy of her long-form even though she died just days after her birth, nor why her registration number, seen on her short-form, is totally out of sequence when that would have been impossible under the strict administration of Verna Lee, -the registrar at that time.

No one can replicate or explain the layers seen in the 9-layer pdf. No one can explain the layers being pure green-gray and not true black. No one can explain how ink came to be located in the exact perfect position in relation to the letter “a” of the name Alvin to result in an unmistakable appearance of a smiling face. If moved the slightest amount in any direction the effect would not exist. How great does one’s gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence?

How can an image, or a print from it, be certified by any legitimate authority when it is unsigned, and unsealed and is nothing more than an abstract digital creation from an unknown and unprovable source? What business or organization in the world would accept a document or contract of major importance without a signature when every legal document created requires one? Who would buy a million dollar bridge offered by a Nigerian “businessman” or “government official” based on trusting in a contract stamped with a facsimile of a signature?

Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being? How can one have confidence that the secretary that wields the signature stamp ever even consults with the registrar?

How can Obama’s birth place be assured when Hawaii allows and allowed out-of-state births to be register for the purpose of obtaining a birth certificate, including foreign nationals with one year of residency?

Why did Obama Sr. not capitalize on having an American child when seeking an extension of his Visa in late August 1961? Why would one not conclude that he didn’t know of his birth even though the State Dept. did? Why is the State Department microfilm record of the cards filled-out by persons entering the U.S. in the first week or 10 days of August 1961 missing from the archive, but no others?

Why is there no record of a marriage between Obama’s parents, nor witnesses, nor photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation? Why did Obama, or his ghost writer, claim that they lived together for two years when they didn’t live together ever?

Where was Ann Dunham between February and August of 1961? Who can prove or show that she was not living in her familiar home-environment of Seattle during many of the later months of her pregnancy? Who can show that she did not want to hand her child over to an adoption agency when that is what a note by a federal official in Hawaii states the parents were considering? Who can show that she didn’t resort to seeking adoptive parents in Canada (Vancouver) because no parents in Washington volunteered to adopt?

Who can show that the Hawaiian witness (and future adoring teacher of Obama) who heard the statement: “Stanley had a baby” did not hear; “Stanley has a baby”, or that either statement indicates the place of birth?

Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances? Why has every court folded and caved to Obama even when, in one glaring instance, his lawyer failed to even show up in court? What naïve fool would assume that Obama-appointed functionaries in the government, including the NSA, IRS, and FBI did not and do not feed his political operatives private information, like that which Harry Reid claimed before the Senate regarding Romney’s supposed non-payment of taxes?

What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government? What naïve fool would assume that key Obama supporters in the Hawaiian government wouldn’t justify “the means” used to provide him a way to present the appearance of having a Hawaiian birth certificate by “the ends” of not seeing his presidential legitimacy crack apart and crumble?

Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could and you can’t tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.

By Adrien Nash july 2013 obama–nation.com

Print Friendly

,

500 Responses to Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 9:48 am #

    The final version of the essay is slightly over 1000 words, but I didn’t chop it off.

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 23, 2013 at 10:05 am #

    Once again, Doc, you prove yourself a class act.

  3. avatar
    john July 23, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    I will also add that the age of 25 on Obama’s BC is incorrect. It should be 27 because at this time, Obama Sr. was reporting his birth year as 1934 which would make him 27 not 25. Later, about year or 2 later, he started reporting his birth year as 1936. Based on the documentation I have seen regarding Obama Sr. and his birthyear, an age of 25 not 27 would seem to be a factual mistake on Obama’s birth certificate.

  4. avatar
    roald July 23, 2013 at 10:31 am #

    I am looking forward to the responses. Since the essay was so long, included so many areas and types of misinformation, and is a mix of assuming-questions-are-answers and outright misinformation, I suggest breaking the essay into paragraphs and methodically dismantling each.

  5. avatar
    john July 23, 2013 at 10:35 am #

    Nash,

    Obot NBC claim they know the technology used to create Obama’s birth certificate because they have been able to replicate the anomolies. Mike Zullo has actually admitted this that Obots have been able to recreate Obama birth certificate scan output showing the anomolies seen on Obama’s birth certificate. The problem is that the Obots have only able to replicate SOME of the anomolies. Zullo is correct that no Obots has been able to replicate a scan output showing ALL the anolmolies seen on Obama’s birth certificate.

  6. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 10:38 am #

    For those who are rational, I give you “Obama born in Kenya? No”:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

    I’m not going to refudiate this neo-Nazi blather, but this should be: No former president living, can meet all of the confirmation points demanded above.

    “their favorite Hawaiian son, -son of one of the most socialistic, welfare-dependent states of all”

    Mississippi is the most welfare dependent state.

  7. avatar
    Loren July 23, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    There’s a term in skeptical circles called “JAQ-ing off,” an acronym for “Just Asking Questions.” It applies to people who don’t want to admit that they’re being unreasonable or denialist, but instead that they’re ‘just asking questions.’

    Above, Adrien manages to pose no fewer than 23 questions. And that’s with a space limitation of 1000 words. One presumes that in order to satisfy Adrien’s curiosity, all of those questions (and whatever additional ones he thinks up) must be answered to his satisfaction.

    But some of the questions are implicitly political and subjective (“What naïve fool would assume…”). Some venture into odd tiny conspiracy theories (“Who can show that she didn’t resort to seeking adoptive parents in Canada (Vancouver) because no parents in Washington volunteered to adopt?”). Some demand speculation on the thoughts of dead people (“Why did Obama Sr. not capitalize on having an American child when seeking an extension of his Visa in late August 1961?”)

    Some are just based on completely false premises. Like “Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being?” Well, Loretta Fuddy’s letter of April 25, 2011 has her actual signature on it. (I assume Adrien’s complaint would then be modified to say that there aren’t *enough* communications with signatures on them.)

    Similarly, Adrien says “Even Obama himself was careful to never once mention the long-form bc that he appeared before reporters to present.” Except the first thing Obama said in his remarks on April 27, 2011 was “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth.” So Obama *did* mention it; is Adrien unsatisfied that Obama didn’t use the specific term “long form birth certificate”? It’s a bizarre definition of “plausible deniability” when he’s giving a televised press conference about a document that was just circulated among the press corps in front of him, where copies were distributed to the press corps, and where the document was scanned in and posted to the White House website. But he thinks there’s somehow “plausible deniability” because Obama didn’t pose for pictures with it?

    He’s unhappy that no Hawaiian officials have shown up to testify in any Birther lawsuits (“No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama.”). But then just two sentences later he asserts that no official from Hawaii should be believed (“No statement made by any Hawaiian official can be taken as true…”). So he demands testimony that he admits he won’t believe?

    And that’s just a cursory view of the general problems above; I’m not about to go line-by-line in detailing the factual errors, logical fallacies, and unreasonable demands.

  8. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    “Why is there no record of a marriage between Obama’s parents, nor witnesses, nor photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation?”

    Why is there no record of Glenn Beck actually giving that poor girl a ride home? No one witnessed her getting out of Glenn Beck’s car.

    The sad truth is that Glenn Beck raped and murdered her. Her corpse has never been found, which leads me to conclude Rush Limbaugh is an accessory after the fact. The only reason Glenn Beck has gotten away with this heinous crime is that he can afford a private lawyer, unlike that Ariel Castro who has to go to the Public Defender.

    For the complete exposé, see this – read it and weep:

    http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirl.blogspot.com/

    A challenge to Adrien Nash: If you disagree with me about Glenn Beck, or that Mitt Romney strangled a girl in 1987, prove me wrong. I am making this public, because I believe in my cause.

  9. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 23, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    One of his claims that no official has been under oath about the subject. Dr Fukino testified before the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee on February 23, 2010:

    For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website. Hawaii is a “closed records” state, meaning that vital records are available on ly to those with a direct and tangible interest as defined by statute; hence they are not subject to disclosure under public records requests.

    Birthers even tried to claim she perjured herself.

  10. avatar
    donna July 23, 2013 at 11:08 am #

    For “Birthers,” Honolulu Mom an Inconvenient Truth

    Eleanor Nordyke is a woman who gave birth in 1961 in the same hospital, within the same 24-hour period as the first African-American president’s mom.

    “I entered the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on early Friday afternoon, August 4, 1961. I was registered and my expected twins were given Hawaii State birth certificate numbers 10637 and 10638. My labor was slow with poor contractions from a distended uterus.

    “Apparently, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama came in shortly after I arrived, because her baby was registered as number 10641. Her labor was strong, and she delivered Barack Hussein Obama early that evening. The next morning my contractions strengthened. The twins finally emerged at 2:05 and 2:12 p.m. Saturday, August 5th. By the way, I don’t want to do that again!”

    Obama and the Nordyke girls also wound up in the same classes at Noelani Elementary School and later at Punahou School from the seventh grade to graduation in 1979.

  11. avatar
    Jim July 23, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    Adrien: “Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could and you can’t tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.”

    Here’s a question Adrien…how many questions have you avoided and does you not answering them mean you concede that the President is eligible?

  12. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    “Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being?”

    When bread falls on the floor, why does it always land buttered side down?

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 11:26 am #

    “What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government?”

    What naïve fool tries to keep a raccoon as a pet?

  14. avatar
    aarrgghh July 23, 2013 at 11:32 am #

    mr. nash poses interesting questions.

    if one thought birth certificates weren’t invented to answer them.

  15. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    aarrgghh: if one thought birth certificates weren’t invented to answer them.

    Are you some sort of commie?

  16. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 23, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    misha marinsky: “What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government?”What naïve fool tries to keep a raccoon as a pet?

    If 7/11 is open 24/7 7 days a week 365 days a year why do they put locks on their doors?

  17. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    “Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed”

    I can’t believe it’s not butter.

  18. avatar
    richCares July 23, 2013 at 11:48 am #

    Adian Nash, the only birther that answers Doc’s challenge. However, Instead of valid arguments, he gives us a recipe for pupu pie.

  19. avatar
    Pastor Charmley July 23, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    The odd things about the birth certificate in terms of layers and the signature actually suggest that it is NOT a forgery. If it were a forgery, the layers would be a product of its creation, or they would be completely irrelevant to the forgery question, would they not? So, if the layers were created by the document being forged, each would represent a stage in the forgery process. But that makes no sense, for what they contain are seemingly random bits and pieces. Just what a computer might do if it were scanning a document, but not what a human forger would do at all.

    The smiley face is also pointless. There is a small wood across the road from the house in which I grew up, and one of the trees in that wood had, in the most obvious way, the outline of a cartoon man with a huge nose. Yet that tree had merely grown that way. We see faces where there are no faces in reality. And why would a forger put such a thing in?

    Finally, the piece all too often asks persons to prove a negative, which is bad argumentation. The onus is on the person making a specific positive claim.

  20. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 23, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    “I don’t believe Obama’s birth certificate is real, because I don’t want to. So there.” –Adrien Nash

  21. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    Loren: There’s a term in skeptical circles called “JAQ-ing off,” an acronym for “Just Asking Questions.”

    Does Adrien Nash put on women’s clothing, and hang around in bars? Is Adrien Nash a lumberjack?

    I’m not accusing Adrien Nash of anything. I’m just asking questions.

  22. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

    Pastor Charmley: one of the trees in that wood had, in the most obvious way, the outline of a cartoon man with a huge nose

    ‘Virgin Mary’ toast fetches $28,000: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4034787.stm

  23. avatar
    JoZeppy July 23, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    Same old birther recycled garbage. We start off with “why no eye witnesses.” Of course, this disregards three things. That people have come forward with knowledge of the events; secondly, that at the time, most people there wouldn’t have given notice to another child born (my youngest daughter was born less than two years ago, I can neither give any details about any other child born at that time, or the names of any nurses), and thirdly, that it was an event that occured 51 years ago. How many people that were old enough to take note of such an event are even alive today. Average nurse age today is mid-40s. Even assmuming nurses were a decade younger at the time, that would put them in their 80s today. Your youngest OBGYN is 28, so even if you had a freshly minted OBGYN in the room, he’d be 79 today. Why are you surprised no eye witnesses are around (particulary since all of the president’s parents are dead)?

    Then he goes off on a list of things that since he has never seen, they must not exist (and for the record, pregnancy pictures weren’t exactly all the rage in 1961…I was born in 71, and my borther in 86, and I think I have seen a total of one picture of my mother pregnant). Pregnant women were still hidden in 61. Particularly an unwed teen mom. But again, just because you haven’t seen a newborn picture of the president, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I haven’t seen newborn pictures of any of the presidents from my lifetime, but I’m willing to bet they were indeed babies at some point in their lives, and that quite possibly pictures of them as such do exist.

    And then of course the other lies about no hosipital claiming him, and no public records. The birth index is a public record, and a hospital has acknowledge that the president was born there….and btw…there is no such thing as “a public hospital record that the public can examine.” Hospital records a private, as dictated by law, covering everyone.

    Wow…those are the lies in just the first paragarph.

    The second paragraph is just a string of unbroken lies. Yes, Hawaiian officials have referenced the original documents (Jul 27, 2009 “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State”). I recall, (please correct me if I’m wrong) that at some point, one of the HOA directors testified before the Hawaiian legislature under oath about the records, and even if they didn’t, so what? There hasn’t been a singe opportunity for them to testify, because no birther suit had any merit to it, never rising above rumour and innuendo. And no, all of the official statements by Hawaiian governemnt officials have been very clear. The president was born in Hawaii. He is a natural born citizen. We have examined the records. And as for protecting a “favorite son” as his reason for ignoring these statements anyway…did he forget that the governor of Hawaii in 2008 was a Republican, working for the McCain campaign? Again, more lies and innuendo. Nothing more. Oh, and no, Alaska is the most socialist state. It requires industry to pay into a fund that get redistruted to all residents of the state…you know…like real socialists would do.

    I really can’t imagine going line by lie. There is so much that is demonstrably false in it.

    Other random lies…no, nothing about the birth certificate that is cloaked in attorney-client privilege. Nada. It is protected by long standing Hawiian privacy laws, that are the same for every citizen of the state.

    Then there are just the plain stupid questions made out of ignorance, which comes down to, “I don’t know the law or how government records work, so it must be false.”

    “How can an image, or a print from it, be certified by any legitimate authority when it is unsigned, and unsealed and is nothing more than an abstract digital creation from an unknown and unprovable source?” It is a provable source. It came form the Hawaiian vital records. Learn about authentication of Government records.

    “What business or organization in the world would accept a document or contract of major importance without a signature when every legal document created requires one?” Same answer. Learn about how Government records are authenticated.

    “Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being?” Probably because most communication you’re getting is either second hand, so you have no idea if it has a real signature, or from a source that doesn’t merit a signature.

    “How can one have confidence that the secretary that wields the signature stamp ever even consults with the registrar?” Same as above.

    :”How can Obama’s birth place be assured when Hawaii allows and allowed out-of-state births to be register for the purpose of obtaining a birth certificate, including foreign nationals with one year of residency?” Because the state never allowed for out of states to be registered as born in the state of Hawaii. Duh

    “Why is the State Department microfilm record of the cards filled-out by persons entering the U.S. in the first week or 10 days of August 1961 missing from the archive, but no others?” They’re not.

    “Why is there no record of a marriage between Obama’s parents, nor witnesses, nor photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation?” Perhaps you just didn’t ask the right people?

    “Where was Ann Dunham between February and August of 1961?” I assume in Hawaii. Do you have any evidence to show otherwise?

    “Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances? ” Because he’s never had to. No court has ever asked for it.

    “Why has every court folded and caved to Obama even when, in one glaring instance, his lawyer failed to even show up in court? ” The courts haven’t caved, it’s just the law and facts are against the birthers. They’re legally frivolous cases.

    The series of “Naive fool” comments are just an admission that you have no evidence what so ever of the president being born anywhere but Hawaii, no law to support birther suits, and not a leg to stand on…but hey, I can throw out wild accusations that can be used to support even the most radical claim without any evidence.

    “Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could and you can’t tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.” That’s just the “well, it is possible” defense. “Anything is possible” is the normal response. You have no evidence to support your claims. Everything you do say is either based on ignorance you would have of any individual you’re not personally aquianted with, or flat out lies. If something is theoretically possible, but all known evidence goes against it, and the odds of people actually going to those lengths is highly unlikely (did you ever even consider why or even how, the President’s mother would travel abroad, alone, to give birth anywhere but Hawaii?), it is equally unlikely that “possible something” actually occured. Very little in our lives are 100% verifiable. Most things, like the President being born in Hawaii, are however, reasonably verifiable (President Obama’s birth is probably the best verified birth of any president). If we intend of having any type of functioning society, we don’t go chasing down rabbit holes just because under some far stretched view of possiblility, someone can concieve of a conspiracy lasting 51 years without anyone slipping, and letting the cat out of the bag.

  24. avatar
    Whatever4 July 23, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

    “It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place. No one remembers him or her. ”

    Monica Danielsson, Mother of Stig Waidelich

    A Swedish woman, Monica Danielsson, 78, may have provided the last piece in the puzzle on where US president Barack Obama was born, when CNN recently went to Hawaii finally lay the matter to rest. “Obama was lying there next to my Stig in the bassinet and I remember him because he was the only black child there and I thought he was very cute,” she said to Swedish daily Expressen…

    Monica, who was born in Traneberg in Stockholm, moved to Hawaii 50 years ago. Her memories of an African-American baby at the maternity ward further corroborate the story. “I have no absolute proof of course, but I saw Obama and I have always thought it was Obama,” she told Expressen.

    When President Obama became a candidate in 2008, Monika noticed his birth date and hospital in an article and remembered that day in the nursery. Since then more memories of Obama growing up has come back to Danielsson. “The memories come rushing back to me. Obama was very into sport and my son was good at tennis, although Obama was more into basketball,” she said.

    In order to see what happens when someone born in Hawaii requests a birth certificate, CNN asked a current resident of the state – Stig Waidelich – if he could get a copy of the document.

    Waidelich was born just hours after Obama in August 1961. Like Obama, Waidelich’s birth was announced at the time in the Honolulu Star Bulletin newspaper. Waidelich, like Obama in 2008, was given a certification of live birth in response to his request.

    Monika Danielson is Stig’s mother and she has vivid memories from the hospital after Stig was born. Monika told CNN that she remembers visiting the nursery after Stig’s birth and seeing a lot of Asian babies, one white baby which was her son, and one black baby.

    Because Monika is from Sweden, she told CNN that she had not seen many black children or babies before, which was why she particularly remembers seeing this black baby in the nursery. When President Obama became a candidate in 2008, Monika noticed his birth date and hospital in an article and remembered that day in the nursery. She believes that baby she spotted was indeed President Obama.

    http://www.thelocal.se/33472/20110429/
    http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/26/cnn-birther-investigation-no-doubt-president-obama-was-born-in-hawaii/

  25. avatar
    Loren July 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    JoZeppy: (and for the record, pregnancy pictures weren’t exactly all the rage in 1961…I was born in 71, and my borther in 86, and I think I have seen a total of one picture of my mother pregnant)

    I was born in 1978. I’m pretty sure my parents have pictures of my mom while pregnant.

    I, however, have no photos of my mom when she was pregnant with me. Not in my house, not on my computer. And there are zero photos on the internet of my mom pregnant with me. If you wanted to see a photo of my mom pregnant with me, you’d have to go to my parents’ house and flip through their photo albums.

    Birthers gloss over this latter distinction. One cannot say that there no photos exist of Ann Dunham while pregnant. They can only point out that the Obama family has never publicly released any photos of the President’s mom when she was pregnant in 1961.

  26. avatar
    gorefan July 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    Question: Are rubber stamp signatures legally binding? I have an agreement where the signature is a rubber stamp sgnature and my signature is a hand written signature

    Answer: Yes, rubber stamp signatures are legal. A signature is the act of putting one’s name at the end of an instrument or agreement to attest to its validity. A signature can be written by hand, printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, or photographed. It is irrelevant with what kind a instrument a signature is made. In addition, the signature itself can consist of any name, mark, or symbol that one chooses as representative of himself.

    http://www.justanswer.com/law/1g07c-rubber-stamp-signatures-legally-binding-agreement.html

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

    There are no such photos of my mother pregnant, and my grandfather was the town photographer. In 1961 (when I was 11), a school teacher would have to leave her job once she started “showing.” Things were different back them.

    Loren: I was born in 1978. I’m pretty sure my parents have pictures of my mom while pregnant.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    Barack Obama Sr. used various dates of birth both before and after the birth of the President. I do not think that any reasonable conclusion can be drawn from his choice on the birth certificate. This is a non-starter. See my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/when-was-obamas-daddy-born/

    john: I will also add that the age of 25 on Obama’s BC is incorrect. It should be 27 because at this time, Obama Sr. was reporting his birth year as 1934 which would make him 27 not 25. Later, about year or 2 later, he started reporting his birth year as 1936. Based on the documentation I have seen regarding Obama Sr. and his birthyear, an age of 25 not 27 would seem to be a factual mistake on Obama’s birth certificate.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    From the article:

    Who can show that the Hawaiian witness (and future adoring teacher of Obama) who heard the statement: “Stanley had a baby” did not hear; “Stanley has a baby”, or that either statement indicates the place of birth?

    The statement is attributed to Dr. Rodney West, a pediatrician an OBGYN who practiced at Kapi’olani hospital. There is hardly any other credible context in which Dr. West would have heard about the birth and the unusual name except through his practice, and that strongly implies a birth in Honolulu.

  30. avatar
    Whatever4 July 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

    “No photos of proud mother with newborn. Wouldn’t someone have taken one of an only child with her firstborn? Not even one photo of pregnancy, -the most dramatic event of Ann’s young life. ”

    That have been released. BTW — I’ve never seen a photograph of my mother or mother-in-law pregnant with any of their children.

    “No hospital claiming bragging rights as the place that a unique President, a Hawaiian supposedly, was born. ”

    Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women & Children does. Page 6, here: http://www.kapiolanigift.org/document.doc?id=22

    “No public hospital record that the public is allowed to examine.”

    HIPAA regulations state:

    “Your Health Information Is Protected By Federal Law

    Most of us believe that our medical and other health information is private and should be protected, and we want to know who has this information. The Privacy Rule, a Federal law, gives you rights over your health information and sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information. The Privacy Rule applies to all forms of individuals’ protected health information, whether electronic, written, or oral. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html

    “No “half hand written, and half typed” affidavit in possession of the HDOH that anyone has been allowed to examine even though a supposedly real birth certificate is fully public, nullifying privacy concerns.”

    When Dr. Chiyome Fukino checked the records, she found “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice…. Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files…. “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,” Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor’s office’s request. ” http://web.archive.org/web/20110413051908/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/

    The Hawaii DOH owns the original records. Obama doesn’t. He can’t grant access or waive privacy rights he doesn’t own. Hawaii law governs.

    I could go on… but Nash won’t believe anything I write or link to, and the rest of us are more rational. Meh, it’s a hobby.

  31. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There are no such photos of my mother pregnant, and my grandfather was the town photographer. In 1961 (when I was 11), a school teacher would have to leave her job once she started “showing.” Things were different back them.

    I was born a few years before you and it just occurred to me that I don’t ever recall seeing any pictures of my mother when she was pregnant.

    She also spent a week in the hospital after I was born so she could “recover”.

    Things have changed a lot.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    Maybe we could “crowd source” a reply. Each person take one paragraph to dismantle.

    My favorite is “Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances?” To which I would challenge: name one court in which he refused to produce it.

    JoZeppy: I really can’t imagine going line by lie. There is so much that is demonstrably false in it.

  33. avatar
    aarrgghh July 23, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    JoZeppy: I was born in 71, and my borther in 86, and I think I have seen a total of one picture of my mother pregnant).

    my mother spent the entire decade 1960-70 giving birth to seven kids. incredibly, if any pictures of her pregnant exist, i’ve never seen them.

  34. avatar
    john July 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

    Dr. Fukino’s statements are at complete odds with Governor’s Abercrombie’s failed request to find Obama’s birth certificate. Abercrombie revealed his investigation found that some state notation archive existed noting the Obama’s birth. This does not sound like a birth certificate. Abercrombie should have been to do the same of that of Governor Lingle for some reason his investigation could not find the birth certificate.

  35. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    Gov. Linda Lingle:

    You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.

    I’ll say this yet again: Linda Lingle is Jewish, and a Republican. She felt McCain/Palin would be better for Israel, than Obama. If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

  36. avatar
    3Fiddy5 July 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

    Notice how almost all of the questions ask proof of a negative.. Is there proof he was not… Did Hawaii ever prove Obama was not….

    Reminds me of a scene in one of my favorite 80′s comedies, “Top Secret”.

    After hiding his rock star identity by telling a couple female fans that he wasn’t Nick Rivers, but actually Mel Torme, the other people at the table became suspicious and start questioning how much they really knew about him..

    So the leader of the group at the table asks an open question.. “how do we know he’s NOT Mel Torme?”.

  37. avatar
    richCares July 23, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    “Obot NBC claim they know the technology used to create Obama’s birth certificate”
    .
    john,john,john, Zullu downloaded a pdf copy, it was an informational copy, it was not a legal certificate, Zullu made no attempt to see the original which was available. He took an informational copy and claims it was a forgery, that is really stupid. Give it up john, this issue is merely a joke now, stop being laughed at.

  38. avatar
    3Fiddy5 July 23, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Misha Marinski

    Does Adrien Nash put on women’s clothing, and hang around in bars? Is Adrien Nash a lumberjack?

    I’m not accusing Adrien Nash of anything. I’m just asking questions.

    “OH he’s a lumberjack and He’s ok.. He sleeps all night and he works all day!!”.

    Did I get the correct reference?

  39. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

    3Fiddy5: Did I get the correct reference?

    Yes.

  40. avatar
    Yoda July 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

    I will not address the bulk of Mr. Nash’s diatribe because it is laughably stupid. And others have made some great points. I would like to add that Mr. Nash falls into the logical trap that the alleged absence of evidence of a fact supports the conclusion that opposite of the fact is true.

    For example, let’s assume that accept the premise that Hawaii has not proven that the President was born there. That, by itself is not evidence of the opposite conclusion, that he was NOT born there.

    In fact, even if we accepted the false premise that the pdf version of the LFBC is a complete fake, what does that prove? The only thing that establishes is that it is a fake. It does not establish that that there is no original lfbc or that the President was not born in Hawaii.

  41. avatar
    Rickey July 23, 2013 at 2:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There are no such photos of my mother pregnant, and my grandfather was the town photographer. In 1961 (when I was 11), a school teacher would have to leave her job once she started “showing.” Things were different back them.

    My mother had seven children, born between 1940 and 1954. I have never seen a photo of my mother which was taken while she was pregnant. As you say, things were different then.

  42. avatar
    Paper July 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    I come from a huge family, brothers and sisters galore, and for the life of me I can’t think of a single picture of my mother pregnant. I, however, did witness one of my sisters being born at home. Well, they brought us into the room after the birth. I suppose they could have snuck her in the window when we weren’t looking.

    Pictures with infants and toddlers yes, pregnant no.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There are no such photos of my mother pregnant, and my grandfather was the town photographer. In 1961 (when I was 11), a school teacher would have to leave her job once she started “showing.” Things were different back them.

  43. avatar
    JD Reed July 23, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

    Loren: I was born in 1978. I’m pretty sure my parents have pictures of my mom while pregnant.I, however, have no photos of my mom when she was pregnant with me. Not in my house, not on my computer. And there are zero photos on the internet of my mom pregnant with me. If you wanted to see a photo of my mom pregnant with me, you’d have to go to my parents’ house and flip through their photo albums.Birthers gloss over this latter distinction. One cannot say that there no photos exist of Ann Dunham while pregnant. They can only point out that the Obama family has never publicly released any photos of the President’s mom when she was pregnant in 1961.

    Bravo!

  44. avatar
    JD Reed July 23, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

    JoZeppy: “I really can’t imagine going line by lie.”
    Is this a typo, or an intentional pun?

  45. avatar
    JD Reed July 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    (John)

    john: I Based on the documentation I have seen regarding Obama Sr. and his birthyear, an age of 25 not 27 would seem to be a factual mistake on Obama’s birth certificate.

    SO?

  46. avatar
    Joey July 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    From the article:

    The statement is attributed to Dr. Rodney West, a pediatrician who practiced at Kapi’olani hospital. There is hardly any other credible context in which Dr. West would have heard about the birth and the unusual name except through his practice, and that strongly implies a birth in Honolulu.

    Dr. West was an Obstetrician/Gynecologist.

  47. avatar
    American Mzungu July 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm #

    Nash’s first essay was much more entertaining. This essay is boring. There’s still time to go before the week is up. Maybe another birther will take up Doc’s challenge and produce something “meaty”.

    However, I think Squeeky and her BBF are the prohibitive favorite to win whatever prize Doc is going to award for writing the best essay.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    Typing without mind in gear again. Thanks.

    Joey: Dr. West was an Obstetrician/Gynecologist.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

    I wasn’t planning any awards. Or as some journals do, I pay in “copies.”

    American Mzungu: However, I think Squeeky and her BBF are the prohibitive favorite to win whatever prize Doc is going to award for writing the best essay.

  50. avatar
    Jim July 23, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I wasn’t planning any awards. Or as some journals do, I pay in “copies.”

    http://i.imgur.com/bzYcAUT.gif

  51. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    john: Abercrombie should have been to do the same of that of Governor Lingle for some reason his investigation could not find the birth certificate.

    That makes sense.

  52. avatar
    Majority Will July 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    CarlOrcas: That makes sense.

    Does john mambo dogface to the banana patch?

    Witness the power of meth.

  53. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter July 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    Well, I don’t agree with Mr. Nash, but I think he did a reasonably good job presenting the Birther case. It reminds me of my very first Internet Article ever, (March 2010?) back when I used to be a Birther. Except for me, the Birthers never seemed to grasp the importance of laying a good foundation for reasonable people to believe in conspiracy theories. Nash’s strategy is, “If you don’t have any answers, then ask a whole bunch of questions!”

    I am surprised that he left out the “born in Kenya” Book Blurb, and the whole “Hawaii can’t legally issue a long form!” stuff. But all things considered, it is much better organized than most Birther blather. And, I kind of miss the cute little happy face in the signature stuff. That was always fun. I even did a poem on that, once, called Artifactish, based on Antigonish.

    Still in all, Mike Zullo will probably have more use for a good Insanity Defense,than this. Or so I hope,

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  54. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    American Mzungu: I think Squeeky and her BBF are the probative

    FIFY

  55. avatar
    Ellen July 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

    Re: “Stanley had a baby” did not hear; “Stanley has a baby”, or that either statement indicates the place of birth?”

    The first fact is that the teacher’s father really was STANLEY. His name really was Stanley.

    The second fact is that she wrote home to her father after hearing of a child being born in Kapiolani Hospital to a mother named Stanley. Very few women are named Stanley, and not that many teachers in Hawaii have fathers named Stanley to write home about the birth of a child to a woman named Stanley. She also said that she was told it by an obstetrician at Kapiolani Hospital (in fact the chief of that unit, Dr West).

    Also, there is an interesting omission from birther postings. They have never shown that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961—and very very few 18-year-olds did. Worse, they have not shown the date on which Obama’s mother’s passport file was created, and it is highly unlikely that if her file was created in 1965 or 1966 that she had a passport in 1961.

    And yet they want rational people to assume that she had a passport, and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying, and that the teacher misheard Dr West, and that the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 are all forgeries.

  56. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

    “No photos of proud mother with newborn.”

    I found it!! I found a photo of Obama’s mother carrying him!!

  57. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    Majority Will: Does john mambo dogface to the banana patch?

    Witness the power of meth.

    Actually I think I’m finally figuring it out. It’s the commies. By the late 50′s they had pretty well failed to directly take over and change America.

    So I’m pretty sure they had a meeting…somewhere…..to answer the question: How do we destroy America?

    Easy answer: Let a black person get elected President. The white folks will go nuts and in short order it will all be over. It took fifty years, of course, but they’re a patient bunch if nothing else.

    It just jelled with me when I read john’s message.

    Diabolical devils!!

  58. avatar
    American Mzungu July 23, 2013 at 4:22 pm #

    misha marinsky: FIFY

    What would we ever do without you, Misha?

  59. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

    misha marinsky:
    “No photos of proud mother with newborn.”

    I found it!! I found a photo of Obama’s mother carrying him!!

    Defiling the progeny of Walt Disney! Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?

  60. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

    CarlOrcas: It’s the commies. By the late 50′s they had pretty well failed to directly take over and change America…How do we destroy America?

    Easy answer: Let a black person get elected President.

    Is Obama a red diaper baby? I’m just asking.

  61. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    misha marinsky: Is Obama a red diaper baby? I’m just asking.

    Do we have any pictures of baby Barack in diapers? Anyone see him in his diapers?

    We need to get to the bottom of this.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

    Unfortunately, they are in black and white:

    http://republican-watch.com/images/Barack-Obama-Campaign/Barack-Obama-baby-picture.jpg

    CarlOrcas: Do we have any pictures of baby Barack in diapers? Anyone see him in his diapers?

    We need to get to the bottom of this.

  63. avatar
    Rickey July 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    john:
    Dr. Fukino’s statements are at complete odds with Governor’s Abercrombie’s failed request to find Obama’s birth certificate.Abercrombie revealed his investigation found that some state notation archive existed noting the Obama’s birth.This does not sound like a birth certificate.Abercrombie should have been to do the same of that of Governor Lingle for some reason his investigation could not find the birth certificate.

    As you have been told innumerable times, Abercrombie wasn’t looking for the birth certificate. He was looking for other records which he might be able to release under Hawaii law. It turned out that there weren’t any records which he could legally release.

    Why would Abercrombie have been looking for the birth certificate? Why would he waste his time on a document which he was prohibited by law from releasing? Everyone knew that Hawaii DOH could not release the birth certificate to anyone who didn’t have a direct and tangible interest in it.

  64. avatar
    Julius B Censor July 23, 2013 at 6:21 pm #

    The guy in the white house casually discusses his past indulgence in illegal activity.
    And the guy in the white house didn’t write his book as he claims, which is document fraud.

    So why is everybody so reluctant to believe the guy in the white house would commit illegal document fraud?

  65. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 6:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Unfortunately, they are in black and white:

    http://republican-watch.com/images/Barack-Obama-Campaign/Barack-Obama-baby-picture.jpg

    Let’s get the Cold Case Posse on this right away and determine if those stripes are red. If they are the kid is toast.

  66. avatar
    Rickey July 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm #

    Julius B Censor:
    The guy in the white house casually discusses his past indulgence in illegal activity.
    And the guy in the white house didn’t write his book as he claims, which is document fraud.

    So why is everybody so reluctant to believe the guy in the white house would commit illegal document fraud?

    Julius B. Censor is an ignoramus. So why would anyone pay attention to anything he says?

  67. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm #

    misha marinsky:
    Obama is a red diaper baby:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2012/05/red%20diaper%20baby-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

    Forget Doc’s striped diapers. This is proof positive, no doubt about it. Let’s get this guy impeached…..now!!

  68. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Julius B Censor: And the guy in the white house didn’t write his book as he claims, which is document fraud.

    Wanna bet?

    But don’t worry the end is near: Misha found pictures of him in red diapers. The guy’s been a commie since he was a baby. Looks like prima facie evidence for articles of impeachment to me.

  69. avatar
    Julius B Censor July 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm #

    Loren: Birthers gloss over this latter distinction

    Generally speaking, nothing beats a generalization.

  70. avatar
    Majority Will July 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

    Julius B Censor: Generally speaking, nothing beats a generalization.

    Is that a Lysander Spoonerism?

  71. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm #

    Rickey: Julius B. Censor is an ignoramus. So why would anyone pay attention to anything he says?

    Don’t respond to that jackass.

  72. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

    Julius B Censor: And the guy in the white house didn’t write his book as he claims

    I’m going to break my pledge. I wrote it – prove that I didn’t.

  73. avatar
    Julius B Censor July 23, 2013 at 7:33 pm #

    BRAVO, Majority Will!

    You cracked the code!

  74. avatar
    Joey July 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

    john:
    Dr. Fukino’s statements are at complete odds with Governor’s Abercrombie’s failed request to find Obama’s birth certificate.Abercrombie revealed his investigation found that some state notation archive existed noting the Obama’s birth.This does not sound like a birth certificate.Abercrombie should have been to do the same of that of Governor Lingle for some reason his investigation could not find the birth certificate.

    As usual, John has his fictions and then there’s what really happened. The following is from the Honolulu Star-Tribune for January 21, 2011.

    Abercrombie drops effort to disclose more information on Obama birth certificate
    By Associated Press

    POSTED: 05:08 p.m. HST, Jan 21, 2011

    Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie will end his quest to prove President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because it’s against state law to release private documents, his office said today.

    State Attorney General David Louie told the governor he can’t disclose an individual’s birth documentation without a person’s consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said.

    “There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document,” said Dela Cruz. “Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president.”

    Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama’s parents and knew him as a child, launched an effort last month to find a way to dispel conspiracy theories that the president was born elsewhere. The governor said at the time he was bothered by people who questioned Obama’s birthplace for political reasons.

    But Abercrombie’s investigation reached a dead end when Louie told him the law restricted his options.

    Hawaii’s privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn’t have a tangible interest.

    So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there’s no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father’s home country.

    Hawaii’s health director said in 2008 and 2009 that she had seen and verified Obama’s original vital records, and birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers were published within days of Obama’s birth at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo again confirmed today that Obama’s name is found in its alphabetical list of names of people born in Hawaii, maintained in bound copies available for public view.

    That information, called index data, shows a listing for “Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male,” according to the department’s website. The president was born Aug. 4, 1961.

    “The index is just to say who has their records within the department. That’s an indication,” Okubo said. “I can’t talk about anyone’s records.”

    The Obama campaign issued a certificate of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president’s birth date, city and name, along with his parents’ names and races.

  75. avatar
    sfjeff July 23, 2013 at 9:22 pm #

    Joey: As usual, John has his fictions and then there’s what really happened. The following is from the Honolulu Star-Tribune for January 21, 2011.

    I think John’s excuse will be something like this-

    “Who you going to belief- me- or the guy I quoted!

  76. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 9:50 pm #

    Joey: The following is from the Honolulu Star-Tribune for January 21, 2011.

    Abercrombie drops effort to disclose more information on Obama birth certificate
    By Associated Press

    POSTED: 05:08 p.m. HST, Jan 21, 2011

    And we’re supposed to believe something from the same newspaper that contained the dubious Obama birth announcements almost 50 years earlier?

    And then there’s the 2004 AP story that appeared in the Kenyan Standard Times that said Obama was born in Kenya. Yeah, yeah……Snopes says its a phony but who are going to believe???

    How gullible do they think we are? John, john….jump in any time.

  77. avatar
    Rickey July 23, 2013 at 9:56 pm #

    misha marinsky: Don’t respond to that jackass.

    I know, but his claim that hiring a ghostwriter is “document fraud” is so ludicrous that I felt compelled to respond.

    I wonder if he knows that the Hardy Boys books weren’t really written by Franklin W. Dixon?

  78. avatar
    BugZptr July 23, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

    Julius B Censor:
    The guy in the white house casually discusses his past indulgence in illegal activity.
    And the guy in the white house didn’t write his book as he claims, which is document fraud.

    So why is everybody so reluctant to believe the guy in the white house would commit illegal document fraud?

    So you believe the part in the book about the drug use, but you don’t believe that President Obama wrote the book? So surely the drug use part also needs to be ignored.

  79. avatar
    misha marinsky July 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm #

    misha marinsky: Don’t respond to that jackass.

    Rickey: I know, but his claim that hiring a ghostwriter is “document fraud” is so ludicrous that I felt compelled to respond.

    If you don’t respond, he’ll go away like a cockroach when you turn on the lights.

  80. avatar
    john July 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

    Joey: As usual, John has his fictions and then there’s what really happened. The following is from the Honolulu Star-Tribune for January 21, 2011.

    Abercrombie drops effort to disclose more information on Obama birth certificate
    By Associated Press

    POSTED: 05:08 p.m. HST, Jan 21, 2011

    Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie will end his quest to prove President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because it’s against state law to release private documents, his office said today.

    State Attorney General David Louie told the governor he can’t disclose an individual’s birth documentation without a person’s consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said.

    “There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document,” said Dela Cruz. “Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president.”

    Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama’s parents and knew him as a child, launched an effort last month to find a way to dispel conspiracy theories that the president was born elsewhere. The governor said at the time he was bothered by people who questioned Obama’s birthplace for political reasons.

    But Abercrombie’s investigation reached a dead end when Louie told him the law restricted his options.

    Hawaii’s privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn’t have a tangible interest.

    So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there’s no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father’s home country.

    Hawaii’s health director said in 2008 and 2009 that she had seen and verified Obama’s original vital records, and birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers were published within days of Obama’s birth at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo again confirmed today that Obama’s name is found in its alphabetical list of names of people born in Hawaii, maintained in bound copies available for public view.

    That information, called index data, shows a listing for “Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male,” according to the department’s website. The president was born Aug. 4, 1961.

    “The index is just to say who has their records within the department. That’s an indication,” Okubo said. “I can’t talk about anyone’s records.”

    The Obama campaign issued a certificate of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president’s birth date, city and name, along with his parents’ names and races.

    Hmm! Then how did Obama get the birth certificate released in April 2011?

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

    Obama didn’t get his birth certificated released. He got a copy for himself and then he published it. He was able to get a copy because in Hawaii a person has a tangible interest in their own birth certificate.

    john: Hmm! Then how did Obama get the birth certificate released in April 2011?

  82. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 23, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

    john: Hmm! Then how did Obama get the birth certificate released in April 2011?

    He asked for certified copies and got them. Tricky devil isn’t he?

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

  83. avatar
    Keith July 23, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    john: Hmm! Then how did Obama get the birth certificate released in April 2011?

    Hmm! He asked for it.

    Anybody can request a copy of THEIR OWN birth certificate. Abercrombie can request his own birth certificate, but not Obama’s. Obama can request his own birth certificate but not Abercrombie’s.

    So what was the waiver about, you ask? It was a waiver from the rule that only the standard form (AKA the “short form”) will be issued. It is one of the DoH functions to issue BC’s to authorized recipients (i.e. the person named on the BC), you don’t need ‘waivers’ to get that.

    The waiver was not for the release of the birth certificate itself, it was for a deviation from the standard procedure of production, for the preparation of a non-standard birth certificate (AKA the ‘long form’).

    And anyway, the Hawai’i didn’t release that long form in April 2011. They issued it to Obama. Obama released the image on the web; the Hawai’i DoH had nothing to do with the release.

  84. avatar
    bob July 24, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 are all forgeries.

    The Index Data is a public record. You can go to Hawaii, go to Department of Health, and ask to inspect the Index Data for August 4, 1961. And, lo!, President Obama is listed. Don’t believe me? Go to Hawaii and DIY. Can’t afford that? — get someone in Hawaii to do it for you.

    Or: If you ask nicely, the HDOH will send you a copy in the mail.

    But Nash has already said that he won’t believe what any Hawaiian official will say about genuineness of President Obama’s birth there. Because — without any actual evidence –he will claim inconsistently that the Hawaiian government was either in on this imaginary fraud or was duped by an imaginary fraud.

  85. avatar
    john July 24, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    Governor Abercrombie personally knew Obama and was a good friend. How come Abercrombie didn’t just contact Obama and ask him to have it disclosed? Apparently it took a while for Obama to decide to come around. The better reason is there was no birth certificate to be found. Abercrombie’s close friend leaked that out. It was only after the story really started to get alot of attention did the Hawaii AG ran “interference” for Abercrombie and got Mike Evans to change his story. Again this at odds with Obama’s apparent release of his birth certificate later on.

  86. avatar
    john July 24, 2013 at 12:11 am #

    Mike Zullo is right when he says Hawaii is up to their eyeballs in the cover up. This would include Fukino, Fuddy, Abercrombie and the AG’s office. In fact, the birth certificate issue has been a problem Obama since it first came to light. There is reason to believe that Obama was booted from the Hawaii Ballot over this issue. However, Obama was entillted to a hearing which he went to to get it sorted out (That’s when Obama said he going to see his dying grandma. It is speculated that Obama went to Hawaii to attend a hearing to prevent him from booted from Hawaii over the birth certificate issue.)

  87. avatar
    Joey July 24, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    john: Hmm!Then how did Obama get the birth certificate released in April 2011?

    The person named on a birth certificate has a tangible interest and under Hawaii law can request a copy. Please google Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 and read Hawaii law on who is entitled to receive a confidential birth record.

  88. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 1:01 am #

    We have not heard from CO₂ofLife.

    He’s probably over at Stormfront.

  89. avatar
    Soduko July 24, 2013 at 1:28 am #

    SMH. His 1000 word justification is the equivalent of “I can’t hear you and I don’t have believe anything”. Yawn. I couldn’t get to Doc’s for awhile, so please pardon any redundancy, but this “essay” irritated me.
    1. Someone does remember Obama being born.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnAoY_i5UGY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4akojzu9P8
    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2011/04/26/ac.birther.investigation.cnn.html
    2. Yes, the hospital boasts of being Obama’s birthplace. Note how it is on the first page of writing in the Kapi’olani Centennial Magazine, and on page 6 they have more about Obama, including a photo of the letter he wrote to them.
    3. Hospital records are not public. There is index data that is available to the public. Check out the Frequently Ask Questions at HDOH. http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/faq-obama/
    4. Birth certificates are still private, see the relevant law quoted in HDOD link above.
    5. Hawaiian official is on camera referring to an original birth certificate for Obama. See 1 above.
    6. I think you are barking and wagging your tail with your statement that no HI official can be believed because of ideological bias towards supporting their favorite Hawaiian son. You said he was their favorite son!
    7. As for “couched in mystery and attorney-client privilege”, see the link in 3 above. The HDOH posts a link to the image of the LFBC at whitehouse.gov, etc. Big mystery.
    8. As for Obama never mentioning the LFBC, here is a quote: “We’ve posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.” The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” and he referred to it as a “certification” and said they posted it on the Internet. He really distanced himself.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/04/27/president-obama-his-birth-certificate-real-issues-facing-america#transcript
    9. The press was shown one of the certified copies from HDOH, with the seal. A reporter even took a picture of it and a WND reporter said the issue was over for him. I am tired of finding your links.
    10. The differences with registration numbers has been discussed at length at Docs. Read some of his articles. VS was born 8/4/61 and died the next day. Her brother received a BC just like everyone else. He lost his suit for a long-form and the right to be there while it was being done.
    11. Read NBC’s blog about replicating the layers.

    It is just too much trouble to refute everything. He won’t listen anyway. Shrug.

  90. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 24, 2013 at 3:50 am #

    nor why her registration number, seen on her short-form, is totally out of sequence when that would have been impossible under the strict administration of Verna Lee, -the registrar at that time.

    You make an unproven assumption here. You assume that the numbers given out are purely a correlation of time and are sorted by the time of birth. You make the assumption that if someone was born after someone else, they get a higher number.

    Here are the numbers that we know, arranged by numbers…
    [Redacted. Doc.] – Aug 23rd – #09995 (WND claims that this is an authentic birth certificate)
    Susan Nordyke – Aug 4th – #10637
    Gretchen Nordyke – Aug 4th – #10638
    Barack Obama – Aug 4th – # 10640
    Stig Waidelich – Aug 5th – # 10940
    Virginia Sunahara – Aug 4th – # 11080

    If the numbers were strictly chronologically-based, then why does [Redacted. Doc.] have a birth certificate that has a number that’s lower than anybody else’s, despite being born significantly after?

    You know what they say about Assumptions – They make an donkey out of you and me.

  91. avatar
    The Magic M July 24, 2013 at 4:10 am #

    JoZeppy: (and for the record, pregnancy pictures weren’t exactly all the rage in 1961…I was born in 71, and my borther in 86, and I think I have seen a total of one picture of my mother pregnant)

    Same here. Born in 1970, have never seen a photo of my mom pregnant. In fact, there’s only about a dozen photos of my mom from the 10 years before my birth.

    (Maybe one should ask Mr. Nash first if he has any photos of his pregnant mom.)

    Also, I wonder if those parts of Nash’s essay (“nobody remembers…”, “there are no photos…”) wouldn’t have applied to President McCain as well.

    Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could

    Yes, and GWB could be a lizard alien from Sh’grrom’fnoxx IV, and Ronald Reagan could have been a Russian sleeper agent who never was activated, and Mitt Romney could’ve been hypnotized as a child and implanted with the command “as soon as you get hold of the nuclear football, launch all missiles toward France”.

    You see, mere speculation about “what could’ve been” is not particular to Obama and therefore does not give your idle evidence-free speculation any more weight than any other such speculation – zilch.

  92. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 24, 2013 at 6:21 am #

    Loren, the biased naivete of your thinking is revealed by this statement which quotes me: “Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being?” Well, Loretta Fuddy’s letter of April 25, 2011 has her actual signature on it. (I assume Adrien’s complaint would then be modified to say that there aren’t *enough* communications with signatures on them.) ”

    What proof is there that the “exchange of letters” was real? That they were not merely a requisite element of the fraudulent presentation of a concocted long form bc? I wrote an entire exposition exposing the falsity of the communications from Hawaii. So answer us this: how can anyone demonstrate that she signed a document that can’t be proved to have been sent from her? How can one show that the image of a signature is not a photostatic image and not written by her human hand in ink? Where is the supposed real letter and who has examined it?

    “But he thinks there’s somehow “plausible deniability” because Obama didn’t pose for pictures with it?”
    An added element of legal plausible deniability is seen in the fact that Obama’s White House attorney resigned the very same day to get himself, and his connection to the fake pdf, away from Obama and the White House. I’m sorry. I deliberately exaggerated. In order to avoid suspicion, he actually waited until the next day. Then he switch over to being Obama’s personal attorney.

  93. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 24, 2013 at 6:34 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    “One of his claims that no official has been under oath about the subject.”

    Me “No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama.
    No Hawaiian official has ever testified under oath as to anything about Obama’s birth record.”
    “anything” means anything about an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate or the authenticity of the WH pdf as representing a real birth certificate issued to Obama by Hawaii.

    “Hawaii is a “closed records” state,” which becomes irrelevant once one has waived their right of privacy by releasing publicly their Hawaiian birth certificate. Obama only released a counterfeit, hence he didn’t waive his right of privacy regarding what is actually in Hawaii’s archive.

  94. avatar
    interestedbystander July 24, 2013 at 7:01 am #

    I had my children in the 1990′s and not a single photo exists of me pregnant either – many women studiously avoid being photographed while bloated, Demi Moore notwithstanding.

  95. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 24, 2013 at 7:34 am #

    “So, if the layers were created by the document being forged, each would represent a stage in the forgery process. ”

    That is not a claim that I present. It can’t be shown that none of the layers of the pdf are the result of adobe pdf compression algorithms, but it also can’t be shown that ALL of them are. Some are too strange to not have a lot of doubt surrounding them, including the two layers of spots on the background security paper layer. And the “non” layer can’t be logically explained either.

    The smiling face is not a product of nature nor of dirt nor of digital artifact. It simply can not be explained as something other than a covert forger’s signature which is the equivalent to an artist’s signature after completing a work of art.

    “Your youngest OBGYN is 28, so even if you had a freshly minted OBGYN in the room, he’d be 79 today. Why are you surprised no eye witnesses are around…”

    Where did I claim to be surprised? I didn’t. But you should be quite surprised that the Nordyke twins’ mother would not remember her wardmate with whom she may have spent a nearly a week of recovery time and who was white but had a black baby. People do not forget such things. Ever. But they do not and cannot remember them if they never happened.

    “The birth index is a public record, and a hospital has acknowledge that the president was born there…”
    So your expectation is that if a counterfeit birth certificate were to be produced, nothing would have been attended to in order to support its credibility? The birth index would have gone untouched, thereby raising questions that could not be answered? How stupid would such conspirators have to be to not fix it also?

    .and btw…there is no such thing as “a public hospital record that the public can examine.” Hospital records are private”

    You haven’t read enough. From what I’ve read, all hospital admissions are kept in a log and the log is a public record. It is not a medical record. If admissions were secret then how could one prove they were ever in a hospital in order to sue for malpractice or to request an inquiry by the state board regarding their treatment?

    Learn how to comprehend what you are reading: “The second paragraph is just a string of unbroken lies. Yes, Hawaiian officials have referenced the original documents”
    How brain-dead is that mischaracterization? Do you grasp what “Hawaiian” means? How about “hospital” as in original HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL birth certificate. No one in Hawaiian government has ever referenced such a thing, because one does not exist.
    As for the Republican governor, she delegated. She did not examine. She trusted. But she should not have because those who reported to her lied to her.

    “Oh, and no, Alaska is the most socialist state.” I repeat my above admonition. “one of the most” is my quote. Learn how to read.

    “nothing about the birth certificate is cloaked in attorney-client privilege.”
    Let’s see, supposedly requested by an attorney, and procured by an attorney, presented by an attorney, isolated from the fake print-out by an attorney. Yeah, you really grasp reality.

    “Learn about authentication of Government records.” Learn what authentication actually means. I’ve written extensively on the subject. You should read and learn.

    ” “Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being?” Probably because most communication you’re getting is either second hand, so you have no idea if it has a real signature, or from a source that doesn’t merit a signature.”
    “no communication” does not mean “most”. They all have rubber stamp facsimiles or no original is available to check for a real signature and not a photostatic imitation. Is that too hard to grasp?

    “we don’t go chasing down rabbit holes just because under some far stretched view of possiblility,…”

    At no time since the assassination of President Lincoln, could Barack H. Obama have passed a security clearance background check because everyone that guards the President, unlike Obama himself, is required to be citizen-born. They must pass an exhaustive Yankee White screening process, and like those who control American nuclear bombs, they must be natural citizens of the United States. Native birth is irrelevant.

  96. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 24, 2013 at 8:04 am #

    “A signature can be written by hand, printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, or photographed. It is irrelevant with what kind a instrument a signature is made.”

    Such foolishness. By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance. A FACSIMILE is just that. A SIGNATURE is just that. Only humans can produce a signature. That is reality, -regardless of the fiction of law that deems substitutes to be legally acceptable. Get a dictionary and look up the word signature.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    From the article:

    The statement is attributed to Dr. Rodney West, a pediatrician an OBGYN who practiced at Kapi’olani hospital. There is hardly any other credible context in which Dr. West would have heard about the birth and the unusual name except through his practice, and that strongly implies a birth in Honolulu.

    That is true, but then there’s the question as to why he referred to “Stanley” at all, or to a woman who did not supposedly know her and was surprised by her name. What sort of conversation involves such elements? If it happened as quoted, how could it have logically occurred unless they both knew Ann by the same name on a personal basis?

    The quote is not that he heard that a patient named Stanley had a baby. So there remains some big question marks regarding that 50 year old recollection and the words that were actually spoken at that time.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2013 at 8:25 am #

    When a state agency puts a document on their web site, we can reasonably conclude that the agency is asserting the authenticity of the document. I point you to the Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ which states:

    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    What your essay presents is not reasons why the birth certificate is unreliable, but rather petty excuses for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that it is. You say that “this” is not signed while ignoring that “that” is signed. You claim that “that” is worded in such a way as to allow a tortured and wholly absurd reading of it to allow it to say something contrary to what it obviously says. You say that a “verification” does not verify anything, and a “certification” does not certify.

    I don’t know if this is some kind of a per-adolescent game, the kind where everything is challenged by “why” that so irritates adults that they eventually tell the kid to “shut up” or whether you are actually so wrapped up in these fantasies to actually believe you are on to something. The result is the same. The patience of normal people is limited for such nonsense.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: What proof is there that the “exchange of letters” was real? That they were not merely a requisite element of the fraudulent presentation of a concocted long form bc? I wrote an entire exposition exposing the falsity of the communications from Hawaii. So answer us this: how can anyone demonstrate that she signed a document that can’t be proved to have been sent from her? How can one show that the image of a signature is not a photostatic image and not written by her human hand in ink? Where is the supposed real letter and who has examined it?

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2013 at 8:31 am #

    You seem to make a big deal that so-called smiley face can’t be the result of chance due to the precise placement of the elements necessary to make it look like a smiley face.

    Turn it upside down. It looks like a smiley face too (where what looks like a mouth in one is eyes in the other and vice versa.) If the placement were co critical to make the effect, then why does it work inverted? It works because human brains are wired to see faces even when they aren’t there. Look at the higher-resolution AP image and there is no smiley face. Why? Because there is not so much noise in the image so that the brain falsely recognizes a face.

    The Onaka smiley face ranks at the top of the list of most stupid birther claims.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The smiling face is not a product of nature nor of dirt nor of digital artifact. It simply can not be explained as something other than a covert forger’s signature which is the equivalent to an artist’s signature after completing a work of art.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2013 at 8:37 am #

    While best record retention practices today would require that hospitals keep a surgical log in perpetuity, they are not public records. They are subject to subpoena and there is an allowance under HIPAA for their use in health care operations, including quality review, but they are not open to the public.

    You’re ignorant of the legislation and arguing from your fantasy. That’s worthless.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You haven’t read enough. From what I’ve read, all hospital admissions are kept in a log and the log is a public record. It is not a medical record. If admissions were secret then how could one prove they were ever in a hospital in order to sue for malpractice or to request an inquiry by the state board regarding their treatment?

  100. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 24, 2013 at 9:03 am #

    “When Dr. Chiyome Fukino checked the records, she found “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists,”

    She found no such thing and never claimed to have. She said she had “seen the original vital records (plural) *maintained on file* by the” HDoH. That means displayed on a monitor linked to their database. It does NOT indicate looking at paper documents although I believe that she did claim to have done that specifically. But it is her characterization of what she saw that deceives those who read it. She resorts to very ambiguous language to mean something that she did not actually say.

    Adding that what she saw verified that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, Well, if she’s willing to lie about the second thing then how can she be trusted to not be willing to lie about the first? Her politics are written all over her statement by her invoking the Constitution and its undefined (legally speaking) phrase of natural born citizen.

    “She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files”

    She may have claimed that it was signed by a doctor but I don’t recall that she claimed it was “the doctor who delivered Obama”. It may have been a doctor that examined him.

    “The Hawaii DOH owns the original records. Obama doesn’t. He can’t grant access or waive privacy rights he doesn’t own. Hawaii law governs. ”

    Get real. Privacy laws do not exist to protect the State but the mother and child. If they don’t care about privacy then there is zero reason for the state to care. Hawaii doesn’t pass laws to protect the privacy laws that they passed to protect the public.

    CarlOrcas: “I was born a few years before you and it just occurred to me that I don’t ever recall seeing any pictures of my mother when she was pregnant.
    She also spent a week in the hospital after I was born so she could “recover”.

    Pregnancy pictures are no doubt rare from half century ago. My own mother gave birth six times but no pregnancy photos of her exist. But her first was in the 40s not the 60s. What is of note is the week your mother spent in the hospital, as was normal back then, and one could assume would have been true of Ann Dunham also, yet no one remembers a white woman with a black baby, even though a black baby seems to be remembered. Like all of the other oddities about Obama, that one also is unexplainable.

    Dr. C: “I would challenge: name one court in which he refused to produce it.”
    “Refused” isn’t as appropriate as “declined to produce”, which was the case in Georgia where Obama’s lawyer didn’t even show up. But I don’t need to name any court because he has not produced it for any court and never will.

    Squeeky wrote: “Nash’s strategy is, “If you don’t have any answers, then ask a whole bunch of questions!” Pardon me but that is just plain stupid. The reality is that if there are a whole lot (and I mean a WHOLE lot) of questions, then maybe some answers should be sought, expected, required, and offered when the man in question holds the power to destroy the human race.
    As for your poetry, I don’t believe others can appreciate just how marvelous your poetic talent is. I can because I’ve written and rewritten a lot of poetry and it isn’t easy.

  101. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 9:08 am #

    john: Mike Zullo is right when he says Hawaii is up to their eyeballs in the cover up. This would include Fukino, Fuddy, Abercrombie and the AG’s office

    Sounds like a conspiracy, doesn’t it? What does Zullo tell you about filing charges against all those conspirators?

  102. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 9:19 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: They must pass an exhaustive Yankee White screening process

    @CO₂ofLife: Thank you for illustrating my statements about your real motivation. The rest is just circular reasoning, and paranoid blathering.

    @American Mzungu: Notice a pattern?

  103. avatar
    The Magic M July 24, 2013 at 9:19 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: how can anyone demonstrate that she signed a document that can’t be proved to have been sent from her?

    More insane goalpost moving. So a letter with a signature isn’t enough until you have proof that

    1. the person actually signed the letter

    2. the letter was actually sent

    3. the letter was actually received

    Tell me, dear waterproof birther, then how would you “believe” in a “original hospital birth certificate” (again something made up that doesn’t exist everywhere and has no legal relevance) that was “signed” by “someone”? Wouldn’t you then demand proof the person actually signed the BC (quite hard since the doctor who delivered Obama is dead), that it was actually filed in 1961 etc.?

    See, this is why there are laws on what constitutes evidence – so people like you aren’t able to deny anything with “I still need confirmation of this confirmation (which is already a confirmation of a confirmation of a confirmation)”. I mean, who watches those who watch the watchers? ;)

    At least you’re one of those who openly show that no level of proof would ever be enough for them.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: If admissions were secret then how could one prove they were ever in a hospital in order to sue for malpractice or to request an inquiry by the state board regarding their treatment?

    If all you have is an “admission”, how would you go on about proving malpractice? Being admitted to a hospital doesn’t prove what happened to you happened there.
    So no, “admissions” are not required for anything to work. And of course nobody would keep those for 50 years given the statute of limitations (can’t sue for malpractice 50 years later).

  104. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 9:20 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: What proof is there that the “exchange of letters” was real? That they were not merely a requisite element of the fraudulent presentation of a concocted long form bc?

    One could ask the same of you and your internet ramblings.

  105. avatar
    Northland10 July 24, 2013 at 9:20 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    At no time since the assassination of President Lincoln, could Barack H. Obama have passed a security clearance background check because everyone that guards the President, unlike Obama himself, is required to be citizen-born.They must pass an exhaustive Yankee White screening process, and like those who control American nuclear bombs, they must be natural citizens of the United States.Native birth is irrelevant.

    Proof?

  106. avatar
    The Magic M July 24, 2013 at 9:22 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: So there remains some big question marks regarding that 50 year old recollection and the words that were actually spoken at that time.

    Tell me when you’ll start your big investigation about what was spoken about Reagan (or Rand Paul or Rick Santorum) 70 years ago. I bet you’ll uncover an even bigger scandal. ;)

  107. avatar
    The Magic M July 24, 2013 at 9:28 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Onaka smiley face ranks at the top of the list of most stupid birther claims.

    Especially since even if there was an actual smiley face, it wouldn’t make the PDF (or the certified copy of the original) anything less genuine. At best it would reflect on the humour of Alvin Onaka or whoever had his hands on the document before it was scanned. In fact, it there *was* a smiley face, the most probable explanation was that the person who scanned the certified copy put it there.
    Forgers don’t leave traces, and if they do for some reason (like the birther claim that the forger didn’t want to forge the document), they don’t leave traces that do not point to forgery and are therefore pointless.

    If I were the reluctant forger in that birther scenario, I would encode something like “THIS IS FORGED, HELP ME” in binary (dots that appear random at first) and then leak that info anonymously on the net afterwards.

    For example, I’d place the number 61518754 somewhere on the document because 6-15-18-7-5-4 reads FORGED if the alphabet is numbered A=1, B=2, …

  108. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    @CO₂ofLife:

    “Do you have Philip Morris in a carton?”

    “You do? OK, let him out. His dinner’s getting cold.”

  109. avatar
    john July 24, 2013 at 9:48 am #

    Here is an interesting link – http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html

    It’s rather long and complicated to read. In short it discusses the real reason why Obama went to Hawaii just before the election in 2008. It wasn’t to visit his dying grandma. It was for Obama to attend a vital hearing based the the question of eligibility to be on the Hawaii Ballot.

  110. avatar
    Majority Will July 24, 2013 at 10:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know if this is some kind of a per-adolescent game, the kind where everything is challenged by “why” that so irritates adults that they eventually tell the kid to “shut up” or whether you are actually so wrapped up in these fantasies to actually believe you are on to something. The result is the same. The patience of normal people is limited for such nonsense.

    Hear, hear.

  111. avatar
    Majority Will July 24, 2013 at 10:21 am #

    The Magic M: See, this is why there are laws on what constitutes evidence – so people like you aren’t able to deny anything with “I still need confirmation of this confirmation (which is already a confirmation of a confirmation of a confirmation)”.

    And after reading enough of many of these birther bigots’ delusional, paranoid, illogical and anger based ramblings, I’m all for stepped up security and surveillance.

  112. avatar
    American Mzungu July 24, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    misha marinsky: h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: They must pass an exhaustive Yankee White screening process

    @American Mzungu: Notice a pattern?

    A pattern does seem to emerge from his writings. I noticed this pithy line from a comment he added to an article he wrote on July 10, 2013

    “Only a natural born Caucasian can be President

    Now that I have your attention, I can demonstrate how the title is a perfect analogy for actual presidential eligibility.”

  113. avatar
    JoZeppy July 24, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    john: There is reason to believe that Obama was booted from the Hawaii Ballot over this issue. However, Obama was entillted to a hearing which he went to to get it sorted out (That’s when Obama said he going to see his dying grandma. It is speculated that Obama went to Hawaii to attend a hearing to prevent him from booted from Hawaii over the birth certificate issue.)

    Translation: I just made this up and have no evidence to support these claims, but if I use the phrases “there is reson to believe” and “it is speculated” it sounds like less like it is just the product of my wild wet dreams, and perhaps has some basis in the reality based community.

  114. avatar
    gorefan July 24, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: She may have claimed that it was signed by a doctor but I don’t recall that she claimed it was “the doctor who delivered Obama”. It may have been a doctor that examined him.

    The doctor who examined him days or weeks after the birth could not sign the BC as his signature is certification that the child was born alive on the date indicated.

    And we know that President Obama was born at Kapiolani as that is what appears on the LFBC. And that fact has been specifically verified by Dr. Onaka.

  115. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    john: It wasn’t to visit his dying grandma.

    How convenient that grandma was in poor health, huh? Then of course there is the possibility that she wasn’t and they had make her look that way. I’m not saying Obama killed his grandmother, you understand, but just asking a question.

  116. avatar
    Majority Will July 24, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    American Mzungu: A pattern does seem to emerge from his writings.I noticed this pithy line from a comment he added to an article he wrote on July 10, 2013

    “Only a natural born Caucasian can be President

    Now that I have your attention, I can demonstrate how the title is a perfect analogy for actual presidential eligibility.”

    He can get business cards for only a few bucks online with Grand Wizard for a title.

  117. avatar
    JD Reed July 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    JoZeppy: Translation: I just made this up and have no evidence to support these claims, but if I use the phrases “there is reson to believe” and “it is speculated” it sounds like less like it is just the product of my wild wet dreams, and perhaps has some basis in the reality based community.

    As usual, JZ, nail on the head!

  118. avatar
    JD Reed July 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    JoZeppy: Translation: I just made this up and have no evidence to support these claims, but if I use the phrases “there is reson to believe” and “it is speculated” it sounds like less like it is just the product of my wild wet dreams, and perhaps has some basis in the reality based community.

    As usual, JZ, nail on the head!

  119. avatar
    Joey July 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    “When Dr. Chiyome Fukino checked the records, she found “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists,”

    She found no such thing and never claimed to have.She said she had “seen the original vital records (plural) *maintained on file* by the” HDoH. That means displayed on a monitor linked to their database.It does NOT indicate looking at paper documents although I believe that she did claim to have done that specifically.But it is her characterization of what she saw that deceives those who read it.She resorts to very ambiguous language to mean something that she did not actually say.

    Adding that what she saw verified that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,Well, if she’s willing to lie about the second thing then how can she be trusted to not be willing to lie about the first? Her politics are written all over her statement by her invoking the Constitution and its undefined (legally speaking) phrase of natural born citizen.

    “She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files”

    She may have claimed that it was signed by a doctor but I don’t recall that she claimed it was “the doctor who delivered Obama”.It may have been a doctor that examined him.

    “The Hawaii DOH owns the original records. Obama doesn’t. He can’t grant access or waive privacy rights he doesn’t own. Hawaii law governs. ”

    Get real. Privacy laws do not exist to protect the State but the mother and child.If they don’t care about privacy then there is zero reason for the state to care.Hawaii doesn’t pass laws to protect the privacy laws that they passed to protect the public.

    CarlOrcas: “I was born a few years before you and it just occurred to me that I don’t ever recall seeing any pictures of my mother when she was pregnant.
    She also spent a week in the hospital after I was born so she could “recover”.

    Pregnancy pictures are no doubt rare from half century ago.My own mother gave birth six times but no pregnancy photos of her exist.But her first was in the 40s not the 60s.What is of note is the week your mother spent in the hospital, as was normal back then, and one could assume would have been true of Ann Dunham also, yet no one remembers a white woman with a black baby, even though a black baby seems to be remembered.Like all of the other oddities about Obama, that one also is unexplainable.

    Dr. C: “I would challenge: name one court in which he refused to produce it.”
    “Refused” isn’t as appropriate as “declined to produce”, which was the case in Georgia where Obama’s lawyer didn’t even show up.But I don’t need to name any court because he has not produced it for any court and never will.

    Squeeky wrote: “Nash’s strategy is, “If you don’t have any answers, then ask a whole bunch of questions!”Pardon me but that is just plain stupid.The reality is that if there are a whole lot (and I mean a WHOLE lot) of questions, then maybe some answers should be sought, expected, required, and offered when the man in question holds the power to destroy the human race. As for your poetry, I don’t believe others can appreciate just how marvelous your poetic talent is.I can because I’ve written and rewritten a lot of poetry and it isn’t easy.

    Here’s a link to the YouTube video of CNN’s interview with Dr. Fukino. Perhaps seeing her and hearing her in her own words will help.
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3De9D4n6_Uifk

  120. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

    CO₂ofLife: They must pass an exhaustive Yankee White screening process

    For those who are interested, I recommend “The Man,” by Irving Wallace. Wallace was Jewish. It’s available from Amazon.

    As a novel, “The Man” — written before the 25th Amendment to the national Constitution — begins, the Vice-Presidency is vacant, because of the incumbent’s death. Then, while overseas in Germany, the President and the Speaker of the House suffer a freak accident; the President is killed, the Speaker of the House later dies in surgery. The Presidency then devolves onto Douglass Dilman, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a black man earlier elected to that office in deference to racial tokenism.

    President Douglass Dilman’s presidency is marked by white racists, black political activists, and an attempted assassination. Later, he is impeached on false charges for firing the US Secretary of State. Moreover, racially, one of his children, “passing” for white, also is targeted and harassed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_(1964_novel)

  121. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    Joey: Here’s a link to the YouTube video of CNN’s interview with Dr. Fukino. Perhaps seeing her and hearing her in her own words will help.

    And just how do we know this is really Dr. Fukino? Couldn’t it be her doppelganger? Just asking.

    And, of course, let’s not forget that CNN is owned by Time Warner employer of lots of cartoon animators. The whole could be a cartoon…….couldn’t it?

    Adrien, john…..jump in any time and help me fill in the blanks.

  122. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 24, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “So, if the layers were created by the document being forged, each would represent a stage in the forgery process. ”

    That is not a claim that I present.It can’t be shown that none of the layers of the pdf are the result of adobe pdf compression algorithms, but it also can’t be shown that ALL of them are.Some are too strange to not have a lot of doubt surrounding them, including the two layers of spots on the background security paper layer.And the “non” layer can’t be logically explained either.

    Nice shifting of the burden of proof, as well as arguing from ignorance. Your entire argument is that you don’t understand why the compression algorithm would create those layers, so they must have been created by a forger.

    Let me ask you this question. You believe that forgery is a better explaination than a simple computer compression algoritm. Tell me, why would a forger create a word that spans two different layers, such as some of the words in the Obama PDF? Why would a forger create those same layers that you say that a computer algorithm would not create? If it’s a tell-tale sign of forgery, then why would a forger do it? You claim that Obama is an all-powerful dictator who has the power to make judges and political opponents shut up about things that would knock him out of the race, but you also claim that Obama cannot hire a compentant forger? Oh, as far as PDF compression, that’s actually Mixed Raster Compression, and the inventor of that technology (who actually has the patent) says that there is nothing in the PDF that shows any manipulation by a human.

    The smiling face is not a product of nature nor of dirt nor of digital artifact.It simply can not be explained as something other than a covert forger’s signature which is the equivalent to an artist’s signature after completing a work of art.

    Again, why would a forger do it? The human mind is programmed to see faces. The face on Mars is a prime example of this. Tell me this. Why does that face disappear when you go to the higher resolution of the photocopy that was given out to the Press?

    “Your youngest OBGYN is 28, so even if you had a freshly minted OBGYN in the room, he’d be 79 today. Why are you surprised no eye witnesses are around…”

    Where did I claim to be surprised?I didn’t.But you should be quite surprised that the Nordyke twins’ mother would not remember her wardmate with whom she may have spent a nearly a week of recovery time and who was white but had a black baby.

    Because she was a little busy pushing twins out to care who the people surrounding her were. And furthermore, if they weren’t in the same room (which I doubt that they were), why would she have any sort of contact of it, other than maybe seeing the baby. Do me a favor. Go to your mother, and ask her to remember any of the other people giving birth with her in the hospital when you were born. I’ll bet you that there was there. My Nephew was born 10 months ago. I doubt my sister could tell you one other person who was born in the same hospital the same day now. I find it not a big surprise that someone couldn’t remember things 50 years later.

    People do not forget such things.Ever. But they do not and cannot remember them if they never happened.

    You mean like Stig Wadelich’s mother who clearly remembers seeing a black baby in the ward. And I quote: “”Obama was lying there next to my Stig in the bassinet and I remember him because he was the only black child there and I thought he was very cute.” Monika Danielsen, mother to Stig Wadelich.

    The birth index is a public record, and a hospital has acknowledge that the president was born there…”So your expectation is that if a counterfeit birth certificate were to be produced, nothing would have been attended to in order to support its credibility? The birth index would have gone untouched, thereby raising questions that could not be answered?How stupid would such conspirators have to be to not fix it also?
    Nice goalpost moving. Now your argument is that we can’t believe anything, because all the supporting evidence would have been fixed under some elaborate conspiracy 50 years in the making.

    .and btw…there is no such thing as “a public hospital record that the public can examine.” Hospital records are private”

    You haven’t read enough.From what I’ve read, all hospital admissions are kept in a log and the log is a public record.It is not a medical record.If admissions were secret then how could one prove they were ever in a hospital in order to sue for malpractice or to request an inquiry by the state board regarding their treatment?

    There’s two problems with this statement. 1. No, admission records are not public record. You cannot go into a hospital and say, “Give me the name of everybody that was admitted today to the hospital.” and it’s clear that you have no clue how this law actually works. When you’re admitted to a hospital, the hospital asks you whether or not they can tell people whether or not you’re here. Next time you go into the Emergency Room, they’ll ask you that exact question. That’s because without your permission to tell people whether or not you’re admitted, they cannot tell people whether or not you’ve been admitted to the hospital.

    Learn how to comprehend what you are reading: “The second paragraph is just a string of unbroken lies. Yes, Hawaiian officials have referenced the original documents”
    How brain-dead is that mischaracterization?Do you grasp what “Hawaiian” means? How about “hospital” as in original HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL birth certificate.

    They’ve referenced the “original files” on record. The former director of the Hawaii Department of Health has directly said to CNN that she saw it.

    No one in Hawaiian government has ever referenced such a thing, because one does not exist.

    Again, a logical fallacy. argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    As for the Republican governor, she delegated.She did not examine.She trusted.But she should not have because those who reported to her lied to her.

    So, your argument is that the entire Hawaii Department of Health is a bunch of liars, then why would you require any information from them in the first place. You’ve already said that you won’t believe any word that they say, so there is nothing in the world that would convince you that Obama was born in the country. An official Hawaii State Birth Certificate wouldn’t even convince you, because it would have been handled by people you’ve already determined to be liars.

  123. avatar
    JD Reed July 24, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

    john: Here is an interesting link – http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.htmlIt’s rather long and complicated to read. In short it discusses the real reason why Obama went to Hawaii just before the election in 2008. It wasn’t to visit his dying grandma. It was for Obama to attend a vital hearing based the the question of eligibility to be on the Hawaii Ballot.

    Johbn, as usual, halfbaked information and reasoning. We’re to believe that then-Sen. Obama was about to be kicked off the ballot in Hawaii just days before the election? No way that would happen.

    The tip-off is that the Daily Pen, and you, cite the galactically discredited Tim Adams. At the risk of being tiresome, it bears reapeating:
    The title senior election clerk is i nflated. Tim Adams was an $8 an hour temp clerk. Having worked as an $8 an hour temp clerk for the census, I know how much info one in such a position is privy to: aside from the training, instruction and info to do one’s job, zilch. Adams was not privy to election info in Hawaii, and anything he said he got from somebody else is hearsay. Can you tell me specifically where he got the supposed crucial info? Thought not.
    If Obama needed to have a fire put out in Hawaii regarding his placement on the ballot, would he attend to it personally? No, of course not. He’d send minions just to maintain deniability.

    And finally, you think the media wouldn’t have sniffed this out? Or do you contend that a compliant media would avert their eyes because of their support for Obama?
    Two things about the media you do not understand, if you subscribe to this:
    One, even if conservatives are in a minority in the mainstream media, they’re a significant minority.
    Second, the spectre of a presidential candidate being tossed off the ballot in the state he grew up in would be such a sensational national story that the reporter who broke it would reap instant fame and professional acclaim. The local media, even if so inclined, couold not suppress it, so they’d have joined in the hunt.
    See, reporters are more biased towards the great story than towards any political story.
    I recall the former ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson, who was considered to be a staunch liberal, was giddy with excitement when he believed that Bill Clinton was about to be ousted from the White House within days or weeks over the Lewinsky scandal.
    Your heroes, such as the Daily Pen writer, might fare better financially if they were to take their fantasies and write a forthrightly fictional tale to be published in the form of a novel.

  124. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Adrien is a busy guy. I just noticed that he has a COVER STORY on ORYR about how Hawaii has been forced to go along with Obama:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/cover-story-hawaii-forced-to-go-along.html

    The first thing I noted was how he managed to get current events into this post with the reference to NSA monitoring of e-mails as a reason Obama sent his attorney to Hawaii to get whatever he (or was it a she?) got. Nice touch.

    Then there is the rock solid assertion that seals can’t be counterfeited followed by a convoluted explanation that someone must have come up with a way to make it look like a real seal. Lame.

    Embossers are available on dozens of sites on the internet and I bet a person wouldn’t have any trouble finding someone to make phony Hawaii dies.

    Anyway, Adrien, points for the current events but nothing for the lame claims about the seal.

  125. avatar
    JoZeppy July 24, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “Hawaii is a “closed records” state,” which becomes irrelevant once one has waived their right of privacy by releasing publicly their Hawaiian birth certificate. Obama only released a counterfeit, hence he didn’t waive his right of privacy regarding what is actually in Hawaii’s archive.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Get real. Privacy laws do not exist to protect the State but the mother and child. If they don’t care about privacy then there is zero reason for the state to care. Hawaii doesn’t pass laws to protect the privacy laws that they passed to protect the public.

    Both of these statements just go to show how genuinely cluess you are about how the law operates (as does your rather silly claims of plausible deniabity). The way Hawaii’s laws are written is to restrict who the state may provide the information to. There is no provision for waiver anywhere. So if the law’s plain language says that the state can’t provide access to anyone that doesn’t have a direct tangible interest, guess what? It means they can’t provide access. End of story. No need to have a further discussion. More to the point, the idea of having a waiver provision undermines the very point of having a closed records state, because the reason people get birth certificates to show it to other people as proof of their age. So anyone who showed it to get a driver’s license, attend school, join little league, whould arguably have waived their privacy rights. Perhaps you should actually read the text of the law?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Pregnancy pictures are no doubt rare from half century ago. My own mother gave birth six times but no pregnancy photos of her exist. But her first was in the 40s not the 60s.

    And I was born in the 70s…and as I said, there is one pregnancy picture of my mom between me and my brother, and she was even avoiding the camera in that one picture. And again, the fact that we haven’t seen one, is not proof that one does not exist. Not every picture of the Obama family has been published.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: What is of note is the week your mother spent in the hospital, as was normal back then, and one could assume would have been true of Ann Dunham also, yet no one remembers a white woman with a black baby, even though a black baby seems to be remembered. Like all of the other oddities about Obama, that one also is unexplainable.

    Besides being false (people have come forward with memories of his birth, and comments about his unusual name), why would it even be of note? My children were born 4 and 1 year ago, and my wife spent 4 days in the hospital for each. I’m pretty sure there were other births that occured in the hospital during that time, but I can’t tell you a single thing about any of them. Perhpas it has something to do with the fact that people tend to be preoccupied about their own families during this time (and the women are pretty wrapped up in either recovering or caring for their own new born)?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: She found no such thing and never claimed to have. She said she had “seen the original vital records (plural) *maintained on file* by the” HDoH. That means displayed on a monitor linked to their database. It does NOT indicate looking at paper documents although I believe that she did claim to have done that specifically. But it is her characterization of what she saw that deceives those who read it. She resorts to very ambiguous language to mean something that she did not actually say.

    More unadulterated b.s. The state of Hawaii does maintain the original paper copies in bound form. Looking at a database is not looking at “original vital records.” The ability of birthers to find ambiguity and make words mean the exact opposite of their clear meaning is quite Orwellian.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “Refused” isn’t as appropriate as “declined to produce”, which was the case in Georgia where Obama’s lawyer didn’t even show up. But I don’t need to name any court because he has not produced it for any court and never will.

    How can he “decline to produce” something, when no court has ever asked for it? And a big reason that no court has ever asked for it, is because it has never been an issue, since all birther arguments are based on junk law, innuendo and rumor.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Such foolishness. By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance. A FACSIMILE is just that. A SIGNATURE is just that. Only humans can produce a signature. That is reality, -regardless of the fiction of law that deems substitutes to be legally acceptable. Get a dictionary and look up the word signature.

    And has we have seen above, it doesn’t matter what the law says. What matter is what you think the law should be. So if you disagree with the law, everyone should bow to your interpretation of the law.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You haven’t read enough. From what I’ve read, all hospital admissions are kept in a log and the log is a public record. It is not a medical record. If admissions were secret then how could one prove they were ever in a hospital in order to sue for malpractice or to request an inquiry by the state board regarding their treatment?

    Sorry, but you read wrong. And thank you again for showing you don’t know the first thing about the law. Admission records are not public. They are part of a patient’s medical records. And as a patient’s medical records, a patient can have access to them, and do whatever they want with them, like use them in litigation. Additionally, when you’re talking about litigation, there are very specific rules regarding disclosure, and use of what are otherwise private records. But again, don’t let the reality of how the law and courts actually function get in the way of your belief how they should work.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: How brain-dead is that mischaracterization? Do you grasp what “Hawaiian” means? How about “hospital” as in original HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL birth certificate. No one in Hawaiian government has ever referenced such a thing, because one does not exist.
    As for the Republican governor, she delegated. She did not examine. She trusted. But she should not have because those who reported to her lied to her.

    The “original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate” is either one of two things. A souvenir document issued by the hospital that has no legal value, or the state document completed by the hospital that form the government’s record, now stored in the archieves. Why would any state official reference anything but the official legal document that they have made repeated reference to?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “nothing about the birth certificate is cloaked in attorney-client privilege.”
    Let’s see, supposedly requested by an attorney, and procured by an attorney, presented by an attorney, isolated from the fake print-out by an attorney. Yeah, you really grasp reality.

    And you fail to grasp attorney client privilege. Attorney client privilege protects the commuications between a client and his attorney. A request to a third party is not privileged. A document procured from a third party is not privileged. Presenting something to a third party would waive any privilege that existed. And anything done to aid a client in violating the law is not privileged. So yah. You really grasp attorney client privilege.

  126. avatar
    gorefan July 24, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: A FACSIMILE is just that. A SIGNATURE is just that.

    Hawaii is not the only state that allows facsimile signatures on vital records:

    Texas

    “(5) Certified copy–An abstract or photocopy of the original record issued as filed with the Bureau of Vital Statistics, and issued on a designated form or security paper which shall bear the “state seal”, the Texas Department of Health-Bureau of Vital Statistics or the seal of their office, and the facsimile signature of the State Registrar or the local registration official.”

    Maine

    “6. Facsimile signature. The state registrar may use a facsimile signature for purposes of making certifications. The facsimile signature and seal of the state registrar on a certification shall have the same force and effect as his holographic signature.”

    Georgia

    ‘(2) When a certified copy is issued, each certification shall be certified as a true copy by the officer in whose custody the record is entrusted, and shall include the date issued, the original signature or authorized facsimile thereof, of the issuing officer, the State Registrar’s authorized facsimile signature, and the impressed seal of the issuing office.”

    Utah allows facsimile signature stamps on the original hospital BC,

    “(3) Certificates acceptable for registration should have the date received and the registrar’s signature entered in the appropriate places. Deputy local registrars, at the discretion of the local registrar, may use a signature stamp of the local registrar’s signature. Stamped signatures should be initialed by the deputy applying the facsimile signature.”

    California

    “103526.5. (a) Each certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage record issued pursuant to Section 103525 shall include the date issued, the name of the issuing officer, the signature of the issuing officer, whether that is the State Registrar, local registrar, county recorder, or county clerk, or an authorized facsimile thereof, and the seal of the issuing office.”

    “103580. The State Registrar, local registrar or county recorder may use a printed, stamped or photographically reproduced facsimile signature in certifying to a record in his or her office provided the certification has the seal of his or her office affixed thereto.”

    North Carolina

    “(h) A certified copy issued under the provisions of this section shall have the same evidentiary value as the original and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the document. The State Registrar may appoint agents who shall have the authority to issue certified copies under a facsimile signature of the State Registrar. These copies shall have the same evidentiary value as those issued by the State Registrar.”

    Mississippi

    “4. When a certified copy is issued, each copy shall be certified as a true copy
    by the State Registrar in whose custody the record is entrusted, and shall
    include the date issued, the signatures of the State Health Officer and State
    Registrar or an authorized facsimile thereof, and an embossed or raised
    seal of the Mississippi Board of Health.”

    The fact that you don’t accept facsimile stamps is irrelevant.

  127. avatar
    gorefan July 24, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “Why is there no record of a marriage between Obama’s parents, nor witnesses”

    Actually, Hawaii provided the record for the marriage and Leo Donofrio reported it. The index data from Hawaii reads:

    MARRIAGE INDEX — OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING
    GROOM — OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
    BRIDE — DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

    http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/obamadunhammarriage.htm

  128. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 6:11 pm #

    CO₂ofLife: By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance. A FACSIMILE is just that. A SIGNATURE is just that. Only humans can produce a signature. That is reality, -regardless of the fiction of law that deems substitutes to be legally acceptable.

    You accept the two facsimile signatures on paper currency. By your logic, all paper currency is counterfeit. Prove you do not accept anything signed with an autopen.

    The birth certificate you have in your possession has a facsimile signature. Prove you did not reject it.

    This is circular reasoning, and it’s nonsense – just like Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers, moon landing hoaxers, everyone who listens to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck (who killed a girl), and buys from Goldline.

    Did you buy your survival seed bank from WND, yet? Hey, did you see the ads for “free electricity”? Power companies hate that machine.

    I once clicked on it, just to see. They were willing to sell me the plans for a perpetual motion machine, for only $110.

    You and your ilk are their market.

  129. avatar
    Sef July 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm #

    JoZeppy: Then he goes off on a list of things that since he has never seen, they must not exist (and for the record, pregnancy pictures weren’t exactly all the rage in 1961…I was born in 71, and my borther in 86, and I think I have seen a total of one picture of my mother pregnant). Pregnant women were still hidden in 61. Particularly an unwed teen mom. But again, just because you haven’t seen a newborn picture of the president, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I haven’t seen newborn pictures of any of the presidents from my lifetime, but I’m willing to bet they were indeed babies at some point in their lives, and that quite possibly pictures of them as such do exist.

    And even if we would have an extant photo of Stanley Ann taken during the 9 months of her pregnancy would the birthers accept it as proof? Witness the pic of Sister Sarah supposedly taken during her pregnancy of which there was much questioning. As we have seen during this entire birther fiasco more data just creates more opportunities for questions.

  130. avatar
    Northland10 July 24, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    At no time since the assassination of President Lincoln, could Barack H. Obama have passed a security clearance background check because everyone that guards the President, unlike Obama himself, is required to be citizen-born.They must pass an exhaustive Yankee White screening process, and like those who control American nuclear bombs, they must be natural citizens of the United States.Native birth is irrelevant.

    Would you please explain this then?

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

    Your statement is 100% incorrect. Did you just make it up?

  131. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 6:30 pm #

    CarlOrcas: And just how do we know this is really Dr. Fukino? Couldn’t it be her doppelganger? Just asking.

    And, of course, let’s not forget that CNN is owned by Time Warner

    The Warner brothers were Jewish. You know how we control newspapers, banks and entertainment.

    Fukino interviewed on CNN? Warner Brothers? Coincidence?

  132. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 6:36 pm #

    CO₂ofLife: Native birth is irrelevant.

    You and your ilk are irrelevant.

  133. avatar
    misha marinsky July 24, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

    American Mzungu: A pattern does seem to emerge from his writings.

    I have an Afro-Judeo cousin. I’d like to hear CO₂ofLife’s opinion.

  134. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 24, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

    Northland10: Would you please explain this then?

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

    Your statement is 100% incorrect.Did you just make it up?

    Even further why does this secret service screening form even include Country of birth on page 5 as a possibility?

    http://www.secretservice.gov/forms/security_clearance_forms.pdf

  135. avatar
    JoZeppy July 24, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Even further why does this secret service screening form even include Country of birth on page 5 as a possibility?

    http://www.secretservice.gov/forms/security_clearance_forms.pdf

    Don’t you just love it when birthers pull something complete out of their backsides, when it is demonstrably wrong?

    The secret service only requires US Citizenship.

    http://www.secretservice.gov/join/

    And “Yankee White” screen also only requires current US Citizenship.

    (e) Citizenship: For individuals born outside the United States, verification of US citizenship directly from the appropriate registration authority; verification of US citizenship or legal status of foreign-born immediate family members (spouse, cohabitant, father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters).

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/bginvest.html

    You’ll note the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requires “Yankee White” screening, and Gen. John Shalikshvili was not only born in Warsaw, Poland, but born to a princely Georgian family.

  136. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

    misha marinsky: Coincidence?

    There are no coincidences!!

  137. avatar
    Rickey July 24, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    From what I’ve read, all hospital admissions are kept in a log and the log is a public record.It is not a medical record.If admissions were secret then how could one prove they were ever in a hospital in order to sue for malpractice or to request an inquiry by the state board regarding their treatment?

    That is utter nonsense.

    I tell you what – why don’t you head over to the nearest hospital and ask to see the admissions log for the past month. Then come back here and tell us how you made out.

    Hospital records aren’t “secret.” They are privileged. A patient is entitled to a copy of his or her own records, and a patient can execute a HIPAA authorization which allows a third party to get the records. The records also can be obtained by a third party with the issuance of a valid subpoena.

  138. avatar
    Keith July 24, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: Don’t you just love it when birthers pull something complete out of their backsides, when it is demonstrably wrong?

    Not only but also, according to Wiki, “Yankee White” only applies to Military personnel working near the President, not Secret Service (who are not Military personnel) that are guarding the President. I assume there is a rigorous security clearance for the SS, but “Yankee White” apparently ain’t it.

    My guess is that Whiskey-breath may have gotten a DVD set of “NCIS” for his birthday.

  139. avatar
    Rickey July 24, 2013 at 10:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While best record retention practices today would require that hospitals keep a surgical log in perpetuity, they are not public records. They are subject to subpoena and there is an allowance under HIPAA for their use in health care operations, including quality review, but they are not open to the public.

    Back in the mid-seventies I was working on a medical malpractice case against the Westchester County Medical Center in New York. The plaintiff claimed that her surgery at the hospital had been botched. The problem was that the hospital couldn’t find any records of her being in the hospital at the time of the surgery. The court issued an order for the records to be produced, and I was sent to the hospital to try to find them.

    The head of medical records told me that they did have records of the plaintiff, but they searched under her patient number and found nothing for the date in question. We knew the date on which the plaintiff claimed that the operation took place, so I asked the head of medical records to see the operating room log for that day. We went down to surgery and pulled out the log for that date, and sure enough the plaintiff’s name was there. It turned out that even though she had been a patient at the hospital previously, she was inexplicably assigned a new patient number for that admission, and all of the records for that admission had been filed separately from her other records.

    We still occasionally encounter problems finding records, usually because there is a discrepancy about the spelling of a name, or the date of birth, or the Social Security Number.

  140. avatar
    Jim July 24, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

    Rickey: “We still occasionally encounter problems finding records…Social Security Number.”

    Especially when we screw up our own. *guilty* :(

  141. avatar
    jtmunkus July 24, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

    The birther lunatic Nash wrote one thing that makes sense:

    “How great does one’s gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence?”

  142. avatar
    misha marinskky July 24, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

    jtmunkus: The birther lunatic CO₂ofLife wrote one thing that makes sense:

    “How great does one’s gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence?”

    How great? Infinite, by looking at Orly, WND and the rest with PayPal buttons.

  143. avatar
    misha marinskky July 25, 2013 at 1:13 am #

    Rickey: I tell you what – why don’t you head over to the nearest hospital and ask to see the admissions log for the past month. Then come back here and tell us how you made out.

    Don’t hold your breath.

  144. avatar
    Rickey July 25, 2013 at 1:48 am #

    Jim:
    Rickey: “We still occasionally encounter problems finding records…Social Security Number.”

    Especially when we screw up our own.*guilty*

    Just yesterday I was working on a case where the plaintiff initially gave his SSN and said that the last four digits were 9686. The next time he was asked, he said that the last four digits were 9680. 9680 is correct, so it would seem that it was an honest mistake when he said 9686. It happens more often than most people would imagine.

  145. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 2:01 am #

    Dr. C: “When a state agency puts a document on their web site, we can reasonably conclude that the agency is asserting the authenticity of the document. I point you to the Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ which states:

    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    That is something I hadn’t see before. I wonder how new it is. But it’s the logical next step in shoring up the flanks of the conspiracy. With the Hawaiian government fully on board, the naive gullible suckers who want to believe the best about their leader will be convinced. As for irrational contorted language, please explain their incredibly stupid statement: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
    What that says is that the pdf is a certified copy of his original C of L.B. because that is all that he posted anywhere. Do you all fail to grasp just how blatant of an attempt that is to manipulate the language so as to manipulate your thinking? Once you swallow such a statement and then stop thinking, you are then fully in the camp of the blind and deceived. That statement is legally worthless since it has no logical meaning. The word “scan” was not left out without forethought. [PS There are no certified copies and none will ever be produced]

    To understand the truth behind the supposed letters, you need to read them -along with my observations of what they do not say and what they say that they should not say. All four with annotation are at obamabc.workdpress.com

    “What your essay presents is not reasons why the birth certificate is unreliable” I did not say “unreliable”. I said in effect “unbelievable”. You can’t reasonably believe about the pdf what you could reasonably believe about every other paper birth certificate issued by Hawaii. And that is in part due to the person who needs it to prevent the collapse of his entire presidency. He is NOT Joe-blow citizen. He’s the top “leader” on the planet but he has never been vetted by any anything or anyone.

    “You say that a “verification” does not verify anything, and a “certification” does not certify.”

    Have you never purchased something that came with a “Certificate of Authenticity”? (It’s authenticity is equal to that of Hawaii’s “certification” of Obama’s pdf image.) It certifies nothing and is not a certificate because it contains no signature of the artist-creator to authenticate the “certificate”. It’s just a worthless printed piece of crap. That is the level of certification that Hawaii has descended to in the modern age. Remove the “full faith and credit” clause and no one would accept what they and all other states are peddling.

    From the Hawaiian website: “The statements speak for themselves and there are no other public records maintained by the department related to these statements that are available to the public.” In other words, “we dare not write any other confirming or validating statements besides those two because no other language would serve to ambiguously obfuscate the truth, but might conflict or not reinforce the pathetic excuse for true information already released. We won’t stick out necks out any further. And don’t seek a Hawaiian FOIA regarding the authoring of those communications because we already deleted those emails.”

    Also from the website: reference to…what? Not physical paper hospital birth certificates but only to a [digital] “database”?

    “Records pertaining to the Department of Health database for vital statistics information are not required to be disclosed…”

    “I don’t know if this is some kind of a per-adolescent game, the kind where everything is challenged by “why”…”

    And those fools a while back were so stupid to have indulged the juvenile conspiracy theorists who had some unanswered questions about something called “the Watergate”? and actually held congressional hearings! Where were the grownups to put an end to such “nonsense”? What a bunch of suspicious whackos!

  146. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 2:13 am #

    Rickey: That is utter nonsense.

    I tell you what – why don’t you head over to the nearest hospital and ask to see the admissions log for the past month. Then come back here and tell us how you made out.

    Hospital records aren’t “secret.” They are privileged. A patient is entitled to a copy of his or her own records,…”

    I didn’t mention hospital records. I mentioned what I’d read about hospital ADMISSIONS. Do attorneys or law enforcement, or investigators really need a court order to examine the log of admissions? Is anyone knowledgeable able to confirm that it is private and not public? Neither possible answer would surprise me.

  147. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:12 am #

    Northland10: Would you please explain this then?

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

    Your statement is 100% incorrect.Did you just make it up?

    Kind of, but based on incompletely recalled information. I agree that it is incorrect in fact but probably correct in essence since the example of Greer is one of a naturalized Brit (Irishman) who honorably served our country in our military and during a time of war. The odds of such a person being a traitor were slim to none. So no risk was taken, especially considering that few countries have contributed more immigrants to the U.S. than Ireland. It is not really considered a foreign country & culture from our perspective. But I’m pleased to have the truth shared since I didn’t have the inspiration and time to pursue it.
    “The secret service only requires US Citizenship.

    http://www.secretservice.gov/join/

    All Secret Service positions require a Top Secret security clearance
    All applicants must undergo a Secret Service-specific suitability and security clearance process regardless of prior or current existing clearance standings
    Candidates must be U.S. citizens
    Age, vision and excellent physical condition requirements may apply
    ~~~
    That last one reveals how politically correct the public face is attempting to be. “May apply”? What BS! They absolutely apply! Along with an absence of foreign alienage via relatives. Citizenship is required. Wow! That’s a shock! Talk about understatement. Darn right its required! -along with no other citizenship (with perhaps exceptions made for those from our foreign roots in the British Empire)

    “And “Yankee White” screen also only requires current US Citizenship.

    (e) Citizenship: For individuals born outside the United States,…”

    Understand that “only requires US Citizenship” cannot be claimed because the word “only” is avoided, -is not used. One should extrapolate that it is the minimum not the maximum of what is required. Nothing in the language made public excludes mandating the criteria for those who guard the President to be born of American fathers. But such “discrimination” is not something that would be revealed publicly. That would be foolish and unnecessary. So I won’t be leaping to the baseless assumption that “only” citizenship is required. But there is clearly no discrimination as to place of birth as long as the father is an American.

  148. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:25 am #

    Sef: And even if we would have an extant photo of Stanley Ann taken during the 9 months of her pregnancy would the birthers accept it as proof?

    The absence of pregnancy photos is not suspicious in itself since that is quite normal, as is true of my own mother who gave birth six times. But that absence leaves a void of what could have been photos that provide proof of something. The presence of the described missing photos would change the conversation in some way or other. But without them only the unknown remains. It is not helpful in determining any facts nor being just pointed toward some possibilities. That void just adds to the lack of information regarding that unknown first year of Obama’s life.

  149. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:38 am #

    misha marinsky: By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance

    I wrote just the opposite. Learn how to read! I wrote the above; you wrote about legitimate currency being counterfeit. That, like your bent and biased viewpoint, is backwards.
    As for all of the other presumptuous drivel you ignorantly ascribed to a total stranger, you should know that I wasn’t as gullible as you since I knew better than to click on any stupid “power saving” scheme. Here’s a tip for you, never click on any link that uses the term “weird trick”. Anything that uses the word “weird” is aimed straight at the mindless gullible souls among us. You are not among them, rather, you are among the semi-mindless presumptuous souls among us who trust in their own ignorant mind to tell them everything about others that even a psychic couldn’t know.

  150. avatar
    The Magic M July 25, 2013 at 3:42 am #

    john: In short it discusses the real reason why Obama went to Hawaii just before the election in 2008. It wasn’t to visit his dying grandma. It was for Obama to attend a vital hearing based the the question of eligibility to be on the Hawaii Ballot.

    And again there’s no more substance than to the “Obama went to the moon for secret KGB spy training” or “Romney is a North Korean sleeper agent” claims.

    Besides, it makes less sense than the Chewbacca defense. So the Hawaiian wing of the Democratic Party was “not in on it” so Obama had to fly there, then they approved him “without proof of NBC status” because they were “in on it”???

  151. avatar
    Helen July 25, 2013 at 3:43 am #

    Whatever4: That have been released. BTW — I’ve never seen a photograph of my mother or mother-in-law pregnant with any of their children. Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women & Children does. Page 6, here: http://www.kapiolanigift.org/document.doc?id=22HIPAA regulations state: “Your Health Information Is Protected By Federal LawMost of us believe that our medical and other health information is private and should be protected, and we want to know who has this information. The Privacy Rule, a Federal law, gives you rights over your health information and sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information. The Privacy Rule applies to all forms of individuals’ protected health information, whether electronic, written, or oral. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.htmlWhen Dr. Chiyome Fukino checked the records, she found “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice…. Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files…. “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,” Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor’s office’s request. ” http://web.archive.org/web/20110413051908/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/The Hawaii DOH owns the original records. Obama doesn’t. He can’t grant access or waive privacy rights he doesn’t own. Hawaii law governs. I could go on… but Nash won’t believe anything I write or link to, and the rest of us are more rational. Meh, it’s a hobby.

    If a birther made that big a mistake he would be laughed off of this board.

    “•If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID.”

    there you go, right from
    http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/how-to-apply-for-certified-copies-of-vital-records/

    I am teeheeing a little bit at that bit of ignorance!

  152. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:46 am #

    gorefan: Actually, Hawaii provided the record for the marriage and Leo Donofrio reported it.The index data from Hawaii reads:

    MARRIAGE INDEX — OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING
    GROOM — OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
    BRIDE — DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

    http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/obamadunhammarriage.htm

    Two things. 1st. That’s the first time I’ve seen that, so I learned something by your post, 2nd Such an index is not the same as an actual marriage license, nor does it sound like a record of one recorded by a church or issuing government office. So both sides win and both sides lose, so to speak. It makes sense that some record exists because a divorce without a marriage doesn’t make any sense at all. I guess one can figure that the so-called wedding was quite informal and unofficial.

  153. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 4:12 am #

    gorefan quoted: “(2) When a certified copy is issued, each certification shall be certified as a true copy by the officer in whose custody the record is entrusted,”

    The first line in preventing counterfeiting is the issuance of a True copy. A true copy is never issued anymore by most, or perhaps all of the states. Hawaii, like most or all, only issues abstracts since they entered the digital age. They replicate but do not reproduce an exact copy, (a True and Correct copy) since their process digitally removes the imagery of the paper the original was typed on. There are no “True Abstract copies” because abstracts aren’t copies so they can’t be true except as replications of the information contained in the original. True copies can be legitimately certified but abstracts cannot except as informational conveyances.

    ” and shall include the date issued, the original signature or authorized facsimile thereof, of the issuing officer, the State Registrar’s authorized facsimile signature, and the impressed seal of the issuing office.”

    Few if any state registrars sign vital statistics records anymore because the population requesting them is too great. That is the second line of defense against counterfeiting that fell. The only way that a stamp can be in the same ballpark as a unique human signature is if it is not reproduced in easily reproducible rubber, but in hardened chrome steel as an embossing stamp. That would cost more but be infinitely less likely to be easily reproducible. The difference in cost might be a hundred times greater, but so would be its assured authenticity. Only a metallurgist could make a replica, and there aren’t a whole lot of them around.
    So inauthenticity is three-fold; no true copy that can be certified, no human signature than can be authenticated, and a state seal that I suspect is formed by a programmable machine using dots and dashes instead of a hardened molded metal die.

  154. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 4:41 am #

    JoZeppy: There is no provision for waiver anywhere. So if the law’s plain language says that the state can’t provide access to anyone that doesn’t have a direct tangible interest, guess what? It means they can’t provide access. End of story. No need to have a further discussion. More to the point, the idea of having a waiver provision undermines the very point of having a closed records state,

    Is it just me or did you just shoot your own foot off? You reference no waivers allowed by law. Ok, so Fuddy-duddy broke the law by granting Obama a waiver per her supposed authority? And about that authority, by law the DoH must provide long form birth certificates to those who request them, and yet the quacks running the dept claim that they only issue the short form, but that is false and not in conformity with the law.
    They never claim that it’s the law. They claim it is what they’ve made it, -the dept. POLICY. That’s what they rightfully call it and that’s all that it is, and yet they pretend its like something written in stone.

    That is part of the cover-up story to explain by Obumer avoided releasing a copy of his long form. After Corsi’s book was about to be released, suddenly the impossible appears, covered by the fake cover letters designed to be propaganda explaining why he couldn’t release his fake pdf image sooner. Where is a hole in the suspicions surrounding such an unbelievable dog and pony show as the release of his never examined birth certificate, -you know, the one he was instructed to not even mention.

  155. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 4:53 am #

    gorefan: The doctor who examined him days or weeks after the birth could not sign the BC as his signature is certification that the child was born alive on the date indicated.

    And we know that President Obama was born at Kapiolani as that is what appears on the LFBC.
    [YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE WORD "KNOW" EVEN MEANS.]

    And that fact has been specifically verified by Dr. Onaka.
    [DO YOU KNOW THAT I VERIFY THAT I'M MARRIED TO HEIDI KLUM AND RICHER THAN WARREN BUFFET? HONEST, I VERIFY IT! (get a clue for God's sake)]

    “could not sign the BC” Yes, he could not because one did not exist. His signature is evidence of nothing since it is merely the appearance of his signature. Where is the real birth certificate? His signature is not on it because it does not exist.

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    I guess is that an extraordinary plot spanning 5 decades with the full resources of the United States covert services could have faked Obama’s birth in Hawaii, but there’s no plausible explanation for why they would do this, how it could have been kept secret so long, and no evidence whatsoever to think it ever happened.

    Anybody can make up a crazy story, claim that everybody is lying and posit an all-powerful conspirator to carry it out, hide all the evidence and fool people. But such things, without evidence, are the stuff of fiction and give no reason for anybody to believe it unless believing it makes them feel better.

    My grandmother didn’t want to ever go to the doctor because she was afraid that he would tell her she had some terrible disease. Birthers don’t want Obama to be President so they just listen to people who say “you’re looking well today.”

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: His signature is not on it because it does not exist.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 8:35 am #

    First, there is no indication that there are any certificate images from 1961 in a Hawaiian image database. This is a Doug Vogt fantasy. If there were, viewing it could not be said to be viewing an “original.” Computer images are copies, not originals.

    Fukino just didn’t say what you are trying to twist her to say. It is common among conspiracy theorists to try to read secret coded language in official statements, either that the speaker is trying to say something they are not permitted to say or that they are using some particular formulation to mislead without lying. What is actually happening is that the conspiracy theorist is torturing logic to arrive at a false conclusion by altering the facts.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: She found no such thing and never claimed to have. She said she had “seen the original vital records (plural) *maintained on file* by the” HDoH. That means displayed on a monitor linked to their database. It does NOT indicate looking at paper documents although I believe that she did claim to have done that specifically. But it is her characterization of what she saw that deceives those who read it. She resorts to very ambiguous language to mean something that she did not actually say.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 8:45 am #

    No, of course that is nonsense. Not issuing a long form certificate is a matter of policy, a policy set in 2001. Obviously if the Director of Health has the authority to set the policy, they have the authority to waive it. See:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Is it just me or did you just shoot your own foot off? You reference no waivers allowed by law. Ok, so Fuddy-duddy broke the law by granting Obama a waiver per her supposed authority?

  159. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 8:54 am #

    That’s a pretty naive view of document security. A signature is one of the easiest things to counterfeit. I served on the fraud prevention committee of the National Association for Public Heath Statistics and Information Systems, the national association of for Vital Statistics in the US. I have some familiarity with the forms of certificates, the actual issue of fraud and the means of preventing it.

    Even back in the 1970′s, certificates in South Carolina were printed en blanc with the state registrar’s signature on them. It was the intaglio printing, secret marks in the machine turning, smooth color transitions and serialization that made counterfeiting difficult.

    Today counterfeit certificates are a minor issue compared to the two big areas of fraud: a person presenting a legitimate certificate that is not theirs, and the fraudulent registration of a delayed birth.

    You pretend to know what you are talking about, but you do not.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Few if any state registrars sign vital statistics records anymore because the population requesting them is too great. That is the second line of defense against counterfeiting that fell.

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 8:57 am #

    Would you care to explain how that makes sense? How in your imagination of how the world works is that index entry different from an index entry of a marriage recorded by a church or issuing government office.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: nor does it sound like a record of one recorded by a church or issuing government office.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 9:15 am #

    Not speaking as an expert, but anecdotally, I know that you can (or could) call a hospital and confirm that some was there. From that one could infer that one might be able to find that out about a past admission.

    However I know of no best practices for admission records that would have them retained for 50 years.

    What I also know anecdotally, having worked with medical records for decades, is that organizations err on the side of caution in areas of disclosure. The last think any hospital would do in a high-profile case such as Obama, is be seen violating HIPAA. I should add that the hospital in Connecticut where George W. Bush was born rather promotes his birth there, but I have not seen them show a copy of his admission record.

    Certainly anyone who argues that the lack of a public hospital admission record is someone significant should be able to provide similar records for other presidents.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I mentioned what I’d read about hospital ADMISSIONS. Do attorneys or law enforcement, or investigators really need a court order to examine the log of admissions? Is anyone knowledgeable able to confirm that it is private and not public? Neither possible answer would surprise me.

  162. avatar
    Greenfinches July 25, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I guess one can figure that the so-called wedding was quite informal and unofficial.

    well if the marriage ended in divorce, sounds like it was official enough….not that I’d know an unofficial wedding myself!

    face it, waterboy, Stanley Ann married Barack Sr. Does this fact hurt you?

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 9:32 am #

    That’s your problem. You ask open-ended questions without bothering to determine whether they are significant or not. You ask questions that by all rights you should know the answer to, and expect people to infer that there are no answers just because you asked the questions. Whether this indicates a propaganda trick on your part or genuine laziness, I cannot say. If you were diligent in digging up the facts, as many here are, rather than rolling around in your doubts, perhaps you wouldn’t be a birther.

    Your own question below is easily answered. The Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ itself goes back at least to the summer of 2009. I wrote an article about it in January of 2010 noting that it had been up since “last summer.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/hawaii-department-of-health-obama-faq/

    The text: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.” was on the Department of Health’s web site on May 5, 2011, just about a week after the document was released. So it’s nothing new, and if you didn’t know about it, it’s your own negligence in searching for the facts.

    You can see the May 5, 2011 version of the page in question here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110504024350/http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    And I should add that this simple statement belies all of the tortured reading you force on various statements from Hawaii.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That is something I hadn’t see before. I wonder how new it is.

  164. avatar
    Majority Will July 25, 2013 at 9:45 am #

    “. . . you are among the semi-mindless presumptuous souls among us who trust in their own ignorant mind to tell them everything about others that even a psychic couldn’t know.”

    Oh, the irony.

  165. avatar
    Majority Will July 25, 2013 at 9:47 am #

    “That void just adds to the lack of information regarding that unknown first year of Obama’s life.”

    Birther’s folly: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    *smh*

  166. avatar
    Jim July 25, 2013 at 9:49 am #

    Is it just me, or does it seem the birthers who have the courage to venture out from their echo chambers seem more and more resigned to the fact that the President will remain in the WH till 2017? Will they ever figure out that Hawaii is not the answer to their prayers?

  167. avatar
    Majority Will July 25, 2013 at 9:55 am #

    I started to count the number of logical fallacies in this birther’s bizarre, asinine and paranoia based drivel but got bored and lost count.

  168. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 25, 2013 at 10:16 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not speaking as an expert, but anecdotally, I know that you can (or could) call a hospital and confirm that some was there. From that one could infer that one might be able to find that out about a past admission.

    Didn’t birther radio host call Peter Boyles call Kapiolani a while back and had them confirm Obama was born there? Since he got fired though I think the link went dead to the call.

  169. avatar
    Jim July 25, 2013 at 10:26 am #

    The silly part to me is, they want to say that the current HDOH is lying, but ignore that facts that in 1961 all the records are accounted for via the index record and the newspaper announcements. So, if there was a crime or fraud committed, it would have HAD to been committed in 1961, not recently. All their efforts, time and money are being wasted on the PDF. I wonder when they’ll figure that out and start actually working on trying to prove the President is ineligible?

    HEY BIRTHERS! The answer to your prayers is NOT in Hawaii!!! Can you figure out why and what you REALLY need to be working on? Zullo doesn’t, he just keeps on begging for money and telling you any day now…hooking your dreams to Zullo is just a dead end!

  170. avatar
    misha marinsky July 25, 2013 at 10:53 am #

    This is going to be my last response to waterboy. Nash is a pathological liar. This is what I wrote:

    misha marinsky: You accept the two facsimile signatures on paper currency. By your logic, all paper currency is counterfeit. Prove you do not accept anything signed with an autopen.

    The birth certificate you have in your possession has a facsimile signature. Prove you did not reject it.

    This is what Nash claimed I wrote:

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: misha marinsky: By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance

    “Birther” is not accurate. They are denialists. They invent theories on the fly, to somehow prove Obama is not really our president. They have disparate reasons, but are united under the umbrella of “let’s smear the president.” Somehow, they collectively believe they can drive Obama from office.

    Orly feels Obama is bad for Israel. The neo-cons fan the embers, because Obama will not take marching orders from them. The rest are a motley bunch of racists and fascists. Readers here will remember Nash compared Ann and Obama Sr’s marriage, to barnyard animals mating.

    When Nash flatly stated fiction as fact, here is how he continued his dishonesty:

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: So no risk was taken, especially considering that few countries have contributed more immigrants to the U.S. than Ireland. It is not really considered a foreign country & culture from our perspective.

    Nice dog whistle.

    Boehner, Cantor, Arpaio and Liz Cheney are fanning the embers, and it’s them I hold responsible. To them, I say j’accuse.

  171. avatar
    American Mzungu July 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    misha marinsky: This is going to be my last response to waterboy TODAY.

    Fixed it for you, Misha.

  172. avatar
    Rickey July 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I didn’t mention hospital records.I mentioned what I’d read about hospital ADMISSIONS.Do attorneys or law enforcement, or investigators really need a court order to examine the log of admissions?Is anyone knowledgeable able to confirm that it is private and not public? Neither possible answer would surprise me.

    As I said, run over to your nearest hospital and ask to see the admission logs for the last month, and see what they tell you.

  173. avatar
    Rickey July 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    Helen: If a birther made that big a mistake he would be laughed off of this board.

    “•If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID.”

    there you go, right from
    http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/how-to-apply-for-certified-copies-of-vital-records/

    I am teeheeinga little bit at that bit of ignorance!

    You’re confusing an authorization with a waiver.

    Obama cannot sign a waiver authorizing Hawaii to release a copy of his birth certificate to anyone who asks for it.

    He can sign an authorization allowing a specific individual to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. That is exactly what he did in 2011 when he authorized Hawaii DOH to release a copy of his LFBC to his attorney.

  174. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 25, 2013 at 12:52 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The first line in preventing counterfeiting is the issuance of a True copy.

    But counterfeit detection is a technically surmountable obstacle to the successful commission of fraud and presumably, were a conspiracy to install an illegitimate President afoot, the wherewithal to create an unassailable “True copy” by means not conventionally understood might be available. So in contemplating what the legally judged relevant vital record facts are for determining Presidential eligibility, the first line in preventing counterfeiting from succeeding, is any court’s ability to personally and repeatedly confirm by as many means as it can willingly conceive (to overcome any chance that such means could be tampered with) what those relevant facts are as revealed by the official keepers of the official record.

    Any controversy involved in the above referenced determination of which facts are deemed relevant to reckoning Article Two eligibility, and what standards of verifying proof are adequate for each stage of the eligibility determining process, must ultimately be decided by the courts, including the judiciary’s decision about how much additional judicial involvement is reasonably merited by endlessly contrived and fantastically convoluted conjectural doubts.

    Any current legal meaning of what a laws expressed in written words has always meant, is often subject to official interpretation to a degree of variance that is not disputable in the sense that one might dispute the validity of an easily disproved claim of a new value for a traditional physical constant. Where the operational meaning of written law is concerned, the determination of the judicial branch of our government for how that law shall be applied, trumps all private competing “superior” means of reckoning how, in practice, that law should otherwise be applied.

    That eliminates all nefarious obstacles to getting to the truth, save dishonesty on the part of the official record keepers, against which no protection may be had without hard evidence. Why hard evidence? Because without such evidence, conjectural doubting would cloud every legal use of such records for everyone.

    Laws must mean something sensible and understandable by all. Under our Constitution, they mean the “something” that the above described determining procedure announces they mean. Anyone can dispute the justness that derives from the determinations thus arrived at when law so interpreted is consequently applied.

    In the United States, laws always get their meaning by legally defined consensus, including agreement on how the individual words they are composed of are to be interpreted. So your alternative personal interpretations of law and legal procedure here cannot lawfully be applicable, and are as irrelevant to the current legal reality of Obama’s Presidential eligibility, as all of your doubt-casting narrative’s conclusory allegations are.

  175. avatar
    misha marinskky July 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    American Mzungu: Fixed it for you, Misha.

    Thank you – I needed a way out of my pledge. I’m sure Nash will write something egregious, and then I’ll feel compelled to refudiate it.

    Readers here will remember I said I have an Afro-Judeo cousin, and I asked Nash for his opinion of her status. No answer, of course.

  176. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    dunstvangeet All of your questons are intelligent ones and ones that should be asked and answered.
    “Your entire argument is that you don’t understand why the compression algorithm would create those layers” Argument? What argument? Observations, questions and speculation are not arguments.

    “why would a forger create a word that spans two different layers,..?”

    That can only refer to the word “none”. I explained that two years ago in “The Significance of None”. It’s not an air-tight explanation but is better than merely random freakishness when there is no other example like it. I’ve also created graphics which illustrate the issues. The gist of what I wrote:

    “Some significant letters in the Obama PDF have been shifted to the background layer, plus the last digit in the registration number, along with about 3 dozen insignificant letters or bits of text. But something totally different is seen in what happened to the word “None” in the box stating the mothers occupation outside the home.

    Instead of all four letters being part of the text layer,or a letter or two being shifted to the background, the 1st three letters are contained in a completely separate layer, or box, containing nothing else.
    “The word “none” is split, with the “e” being placed on the background, but most notably, being pure black in appearance, while the letters “n-o-n” are greenish gray. That indicates that they were part of an editing process and added where a word like “housewife” once appeared. Since his mother wasn’t a housewife, it would have to be changed by erasing letters such as “housewif” with the added letters not being pure black, but pure, pale greenish-gray. That shows they were acquired or affected via a process that used color, instead of only black & white. The greenish tint may be related to the green background but the pale grayishness in place of pure black is related to nothing conceivable and is even contrary to text reproduction protocol which seeks to achieve pure black and avoid gray.”

    “why would a forger [make the smiling face?] I also wrote “The Significance of the Smiling Face” to explain exactly why it was created. It gives the only possible explanation. It’s here in pdf. http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/6_smoking_guns3b_txt.pdf

    “Why does that face disappear when you go to the higher resolution of the photocopy that was given out to the Press?”

    Check out the graphic comparison I recently made and you’ll see that it looks not like it disappeared but that it was etched a bit, like with the tip of an exacto knife or something. It’s also at http://obamabc.wordpress.com

    “…Stig Wadelich’s mother who clearly remembers seeing a black baby in the ward.”
    Did you know about the ex-Marine who in about 1980 was talking to a young black man in Honolulu, who, after he’d told him that his unit had just recently been stationed in Mombasa Kenya, replied; “I was born in Mombasa!” Check out his video interview on YouTube. One significant testimony kind of neutralizing another. The mystery remaining.

    “Now your argument is that we can’t believe anything, because all the supporting evidence would have been fixed under some elaborate conspiracy 50 years in the making.”

    More like days or weeks than 50 years. Why do obama loyalists think that his actual place of birth is proven by the normal newspaper appearance of relayed State vital statistics when they only prove a birth registration, -not its location? He wouldn’t deliberately allow his publisher’s bio to place his birth in Kenya for nearly two decades if there was a conspiracy before his election to the U.S. Senate.

    ” An official Hawaii State Birth Certificate wouldn’t even convince you, because it would have been handled by people you’ve already determined to be liars.”

    And therein lies the insurmountable roadblock. With those loyal Democrats protecting his back from inquiry and revelation, the actual truth cannot be uncovered to prove anything for him or against him. But their statements in the past had never once referred to an original hospital birth certificate filled out by a Hawaiian hospital. It was always lawyerly language about “vital records” “original birth certificate” but from where? and in what form?

    Now they have their website declaring that the pdf is the certified copy from Hawaii (the pdf is a paper document?) so they have become bolder in their openness since there is no authority or reporter willing to counter-question anything. It’s like the investigations of Nixon’s role in the Watergate cover-up which were at a dead-end until the WH tapes were revealed. We need the equivalent in regard to the DoH and its complicity in protecting the presidency of an unconstitutional president via supporting the irrelevant assumption that native-birth makes one a natural born citizen (as they have so declared when no government official has ever had the standing to make such a claim).

  177. avatar
    Joey July 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “could not sign the BC”Yes, he could not because one did not exist.His signature is evidence of nothing since it is merely the appearance of his signature.Where is the real birth certificate?His signature is not on it because it does not exist.

    When Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse went to Hawaii and visited Verna K.L. Lee in her Honolulu nursing home, she confirmed her own signature as local Registrar on the copy shown to her of the Obama long form birth certificate.
    The widow of Dr. David A. Sinclair, Ivalee Sinclair also confirmed her deceased husband’s signature on the copies of the Obama long form.
    Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b), point 9, if any judge of a court of competent jurisdiction wants to inspect the original long form, the judge can issue a court order for it for purposes of inspection. Over five years and 201 original jurisdiction lawsuits, 90 state and federal appellate rulings and 25 petitions and applications at the Supreme Court of the United States, no judge has felt the need to issue a court order for inspection of the original document. Nor has any Chair of a Congressional Committee issued a Congressional Subpoena for inspection of the original Long Form Birth Certificate for President Obama.

  178. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    misha marinskky July 25, 2013: “Why hard evidence? Because without such evidence, conjectural doubting would cloud every legal use of such records for everyone.”

    THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE. “Everyone” is not the one person with the power to destroy all human life. He is one in 300 million. How is that related to “everyone”? It is not connected at all. You sheepishly take the position that we should all just shut down our minds, stop thinking and asking normal questions, and just look the other way. That is the obama loyalist’s version of “If you see something. -don’t say something.”

    “…laws always get their meaning by legally defined consensus, including agreement on how the individual words they are composed of are to be interpreted.”

    What you really mean is that the meaning of laws evolves to fit the current consensus, even though their actual meaning is rooted and embedded in the minds of those who authored and passed them.

    Language and interpretation of words can and is bastardized over time to match the preference of future people who come to power. To comprehend how much the original meaning & intent has been bastardized one must return to the original era and occasion of their passage. But the entire legal establishment is aligned against doing that because it would over-throw a hell of a lot of illegitimate precedent, and sheep don’t like it when the apple cart is overthrow. It concerns them because they then are no longer sure what to believe in, and they want and need the security of knowing exactly what they are supposed to think,

    “So your alternative personal interpretations of law…cannot lawfully be applicable, and are as irrelevant to the current legal reality of Obama’s Presidential eligibility, as all of your doubt-casting narrative’s conclusory allegations are.”

    That is for sure. Yet there is no truth that cannot be slapped with the label of “interpretation” even when it isn’t. Is it my interpretation that the earth revolves around the sun? I can’t prove that it does or doesn’t, so it must be an interpretation of what I’ve learned previously. Well, that it is, and yet it is not simply that because it is actually the truth.
    When are you going to start caring about what is actually the truth and not just what holds up in a court with all of the legal systems sclerotic arteries?

    If you have a problem with the facts I present then you need to specifically address and refute them. Otherwise a lot of wise generalities are pointless in seeking to understand the difference between reality and consensus fiction.

  179. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

    Joey: When Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse went to Hawaii and visited Verna K.L. Lee in her Honolulu nursing home, she confirmed her own signature as local Registrar on the copy shown to her of the Obama long form birth certificate.
    The widow of Dr. David A. Sinclair, Ivalee Sinclair also confirmed her deceased husband’s signature on the copies of the Obama long form.

    Wow! What is this, kindergarten? Only the human hand can produce a signature. Dead people can’t, machines can’t, technology can’t. All they can produce are facsimiles. Facsimiles are to signatures what counterfeit money is to legitimate currency. It this really too hard to grasp? Learn how to think. What forger would forge or use a facsimile that didn’t look like the real thing? Of course the image on the non-original copies and pdf are replicas of the real signatures.

    ” Over five years and 201 original jurisdiction lawsuits, 90 state and federal appellate rulings and 25 petitions and applications at the Supreme Court of the United States, no judge has felt the need to issue a court order for inspection of the original document. Nor has any Chair of a Congressional Committee issued a Congressional Subpoena for inspection of the original Long Form Birth Certificate for President Obama.”

    Study history for God’s sake. It is full of examples of the entire establishment rejecting and condemning any deviation from orthodoxy, and sending people who discovered the truth to their death by cruel means. It took the Vatican 500 years to apologize to Galileo.

  180. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

    misha marinskky:I said I have an Afro-Judeo cousin, and I asked Nash for his opinion of her status. No answer, of course.

    Do I have to answer such a grade-school question? She is a political HYBRID. Cross a peach with a plum, what do you get, a peach or a plum or neither? NEITHER. You get a hybrid nectarine. Maybe you prefer it more in terms you’re familiar with; -if you cross a Lycan with a Vampire, what do you get…?

  181. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

    Marinsky lied thusly: “Readers here will remember Nash compared Ann and Obama Sr’s marriage, to barnyard animals mating.”

    Let’s have the quote. You can’t find it? Of course since it doesn’t exist except in your over-exercised imagination. And you dare to accuse me of being the liar? Wow! Talk about self-delusion.

    As for other birthers, I’m not aligned with any of them and none of them endorse me. You wish they did so you could paint me with the same brush, but that would be delusional also. When they publish things I’ve written they are not making me their spokesperson or mouthpiece; just another source of truth about the usurper in the White House. I in fact once sent him an email defending the pdf after comprehending that the randomness of assigning bits of text to the background could not possibly have been deliberately done my a human, and had to have been done via software, -or something to that effect.

  182. avatar
    Joey July 25, 2013 at 4:23 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Wow!What is this, kindergarten?Only the human hand can produce a signature.Dead people can’t, machines can’t, technology can’t.All they can produce are facsimiles.Facsimiles are to signatures what counterfeit money is to legitimate currency.It this really too hard to grasp? Learn how to think. What forger would forge or use a facsimile that didn’t look like the real thing?Of course the image on the non-original copies and pdf are replicas of the real signatures.

    ” Over five years and 201 original jurisdiction lawsuits, 90 state and federal appellate rulings and 25 petitions and applications at the Supreme Court of the United States, no judge has felt the need to issue a court order for inspection of the original document. Nor has any Chair of a Congressional Committee issued a Congressional Subpoena for inspection of the original Long Form Birth Certificate for President Obama.”

    Study history for God’s sake.It is full of examples of the entire establishment rejecting and condemning any deviationfrom orthodoxy, and sending people who discovered the truth to their death by cruel means.It took the Vatican 500 years to apologize to Galileo.

    Back here in the United States and no longer in the 17th Century with Galileo at the Vatican, you might want to glance at Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on Self-Authenticating Documents and Federal Rule of Evidence 1005 on Copies of Public Records to Prove Content.
    Since those who have challenged Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility have used the civil court system exclusively as their modus operendi, the copies of Barack Obama’s birth records, along with the Letters of Verification for those records from the Hawaii state Registrar are 100% consistent with proper procedure for entering evidence in a court proceeding.
    And again, if any judge in America would like to inspect the original, vault copy, they can issue a court order for it under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b). The same is true for any committee of Congress such as the House Oversight and Govermental Reform Committee, the primary investigative committee of the House of Representatives under Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA).

  183. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 4:24 pm #

    Magic M: “So a letter with a signature isn’t enough until you have proof that

    1. the person actually signed the letter

    2. the letter was actually sent

    3. the letter was actually received

    Tell me, dear waterproof birther, then how would you “believe” in a “original hospital birth certificate”

    Let me see…-300 million Americans and their certified legitimate birth certificates, …and one, uno, Presidente who is not even eligible to serve as President because he must be what he isn’t, a natural born citizen, -and whose whole presumption of eligibility is falsely premised on the false belief that native birth translates to natural citizenship, and what do you have if the man knows that he has no verified nor verifiable birth record which places the irrelevant location of his birth in the United States? You have a compelling motive to create a legitimacy-supporting fraudulent imitation of a legitimate birth certificate.

    Please explain to me how many other Americans have such a motive and a need to lie, or the power to get such a thing done via his personal and political influence?

    With the stakes being higher than any in history outside of war, there is no way that anything said by obama’s minions in his Hawaiian homeland would be admissible in the court of common sense. You know that and yet you choose to ask the dumb question with an obvious answer anyway? Why? Low blood sugar?
    If you don’t know better than you must have been born yesterday. Many of us were glued to the radios and TV when something similar was going on with the Nixon White House. Have you learned nothing at all from history? People lie. Politicians lie the most. Their supports lie to protect them. Even Anthony Weiner’s wife participate in the lie that he had “recovered” from his addiction to lewd tweeting, which he returned to. If there is anything at stakes, the lies will come forward to offer protection. That is what occurred with Obama’s birth certificate situation. He could not show the one that he has used all of his adult life because of something that it reveals, so he had to have a counterfeit produced.

  184. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Would you care to explain how that makes sense? How in your imagination of how the world works is that index entry different from an index entry of a marriage recorded by a church or issuing government office.

    One would be hand-written by a witness, or typed by a clerk while the other would merely be a computer data-base entry.

  185. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    Joey: the copies of Barack Obama’s birth records, along with the Letters of Verification for those records from the Hawaii state Registrar are 100% consistent with proper procedure for entering evidence in a court proceeding.

    Why are you failing to differentiate between legal evidence -or proof, and actual evidence and proof. Tell me what sort of document is humankind incapable of counterfeiting except the latest technological remedies against currency counterfeiting?

    Just because a thing must be accept by court procedure does not validate it. Only a true expert can do that. The honor system in government judicial systems, like the honor system in purchasing antiquities and rare art, (like Hitler’s Diaries) cannot provide any assurance of authentication.

    If you have the “trust” part without the “verify” part, then you’ll get cheating because at least 10% of the human race is made up of liars and cheats. Probably much higher in this amoral age. Most students these days will willingly cheat on tests. There was a major scandal a few years back where cheating was an institutionalized practice at, I believe, the Air Force Optometry College. It was on 60 Minutes.

    Everyone needs to recognize that no imitation of a signature is worth anything. They are only used for the purpose of psychological assurance of authoritative origin. But even with the silly things, nothing changes because they do not and cannot provide authentication because they themselves are inauthentic.

    How does a known pathological liar provide authentication that he is not lying? If his word good enough? The source must be authentic. Liars and imitations and simulations and facsimiles are not authentic and thus are totally worthless. A purely useless pretense. Real thumbprints are authentic. Same with DNA, retinal scans, and actual signatures. They are all one-of-a-kind. They provide proof of the certifier’s authentication. Nothing less can do that regardless of whether or not that is impractical because of the Constitution and large numbers of documents that must be “certified”.

    When in the movies, a President must authentic his nuclear missile launch order with a retinal scan, should a rubber stamp impression of his signature be accepted as just as authentic?

  186. avatar
    misha marinsky July 25, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    I am going to break my no-response pledge:

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: misha marinskky July 25, 2013: “Why hard evidence? Because without such evidence, conjectural doubting would cloud every legal use of such records for everyone.”

    You have attributed this quote from someone else, to me. Please provide the exact link.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Cross a peach with a plum, what do you get, a peach or a plum or neither? NEITHER. You get a hybrid nectarine.

    You are clinically insane.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Marinsky lied thusly: “Readers here will remember Nash compared Ann and Obama Sr’s marriage, to barnyard animals mating.”

    Let’s have the quote. You can’t find it? Of course since it doesn’t exist except in your over-exercised imagination. And you dare to accuse me of being the liar? Wow! Talk about self-delusion.

    “Obama: An Unnatural Hybrid Native
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/an-unnatural-hybrid-native/

    By natural law one is the same as one’s parents. Lions don’t give birth to donkeys, Natural inheritance is an inviolable law of nature. Members don’t give birth to non-members, nor do non-members give birth to members anymore than donkeys give birth to lions. If fathered by an outsider, one is not a natural member even if membership is granted by permission.”

    Remember now?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: And you dare to accuse me of being the liar?

    This is what I wrote:

    misha marinsky: You accept the two facsimile signatures on paper currency. By your logic, all paper currency is counterfeit.

    This is what you claimed I wrote:

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: misha marinsky: By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance

    Yes, you are a pathological liar, in addition to being a neo-Nazi. The pathological liar was funny on SNL. Unfortunately, this is not SNL, and your sewer website only appeals to a handful of malcontents.

    How do I know you are a malcontent? Because I twice read Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents.

    When you’re done reading that book, we can have a discussion.

  187. avatar
    Majority Will July 25, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    misha marinsky: Yes, you are a pathological liar, in addition to being a neo-Nazi.

    Nash would be right at home on stormfront.org.

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

    Birth certificates, like currency, is serialized. You can make a perfect copy of a serial number, but you can’t put that serial number on somebody else’s name and get away with it.

    But my larger reply is that once you throw out the omnipotent enemy argument, you have conceded that you’re not convinced by evidence, and once you admit that, you really have no argument among rational thinkers.

    I would tell you some of the security features in some birth certificates, but then I would have to…you know.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Tell me what sort of document is humankind incapable of counterfeiting except the latest technological remedies against currency counterfeiting?

  189. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

    H2O, you’re being intellectually dishonest…

    First, you say the following:

    It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place. No one remembers him or her.

    So, we give you Monika Danielson, who was a mother in the same hospital as Stanley Ann Durham at the same time, who specifically remembers Obama being in that hospital. That directly contradicts your “absence of any eyewitness”, and specifically goes to falsify that statement. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you bring up a story from an unreliable person who states that 30 years ago that Obama told him that he was born in Kenya, but somehow didn’t remember it until 3 years into the Presidency of Obama, even though Obama had been a National Figure for 4 years before that. He has no supporting evidence that Obama ever met him, and he admits that he doesn’t even know that it was Obama. It’s an oddly convenient story.

    So, let me ask you this one question. Are you willing to admit that there is eyewitness testimony from someone who saw Obama in the Hospital? If not, you’re being intellectually dishonest. If you are willing to state that, then doesn’t that completely destroy your meme of the absence of eyewitnesses?

  190. avatar
    Jim July 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Why are you failing to differentiate between legal evidence -or proof, and actual evidence and proof.

    I’m confused, is he now saying he doesn’t want to remove the President legally? Of course, he’ll probably also say evidence is whatever he can make up in his little imagination, so I guess that somehow makes him feel better.

  191. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 25, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

    I love how he states, “Now, this may be legal proof in any court of law. But it’s not enough proof for me, so I’m going to call it not actual proof.”

    The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a legal term, so shouldn’t legal proof be sufficient to establish it?

  192. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 25, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: How does a known pathological liar provide authentication that he is not lying?

    Good question. Why don’t you give it a try and let’s see how it works.

  193. avatar
    nbc July 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

    I have found yet another clue that the document was indeed created on a workcentre 7655… It involves the quantization matrices used in the embedded jpeg.
    So far, everything lines up nicely…

    I am sure h2ooflife will eventually come to appreciate my findings, although he is already moving the goalposts…

    Data has to give way to his beliefs… Fascinating to observe

  194. avatar
    misha marinsky July 25, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    Because I cannot post pictures in my comments, this is Nash’s idea of humor. He is obsessed with inter-marriage and sex. This belies his claims to the contrary:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2013/07/adrien-nash-aka-h-co-neo-nazi.html

  195. avatar
    Northland10 July 25, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    I love how he states, “Now, this may be legal proof in any court of law.But it’s not enough proof for me, so I’m going to call it not actual proof.”

    The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a legal term, so shouldn’t legal proof be sufficient to establish it?

    In his own way, he has admitted that his opinion of what should be and the actual law are different. That is a change from what we normally hear. Though we disagree with his opinion, he is moving into the realm that he thinks the law is wrong. I don’t know of any other Birthers who have gone there.

  196. avatar
    misha marinsky July 25, 2013 at 7:58 pm #

    Northland10: I don’t know of any other Birthers who have gone there.

    They all have, Donofrio and Apuzzo are the ringleaders.

  197. avatar
    bob July 25, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Why do obama loyalists think that his actual place of birth is proven by the normal newspaper appearance of relayed State vital statistics when they only prove a birth registration, -not its location?

    Because no one has supplied any evidence that the index data and newspaper annoucements included foreign births. And no one has supplied any evidence that President Obama’s birth was registered in manner not expected for those born in Hawaii in a hospital. And the State of Hawaii has verified that President Obama birth certificate indicates he was born in Hawaii in a hospital.

    All of the evidence demonstrating President’s Obama Hawaiian birth would be valid in any court of law. The Arizona Secretary of State — the official in charge of elections in Arizona — received a certified verification from Hawaii that President Obama was born in Hawaii, and was satisfied that President Obama was born in Hawaii. The officials tasked (by the people) to make these very kinds of decisions have made them.

    He wouldn’t deliberately allow his publisher’s bio to place his birth in Kenya for nearly two decades if there was a conspiracy before his election to the U.S. Senate.

    There is no evidence President Obama was ever aware of what his biography said. Especially considering the publishing company has stated it wrote his biography for him: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html

    One would be hand-written by a witness, or typed by a clerk while the other would merely be a computer data-base entry.

    You really are ignorant of how official documents are generated. A marriage certificate (like a birth certificate) is signed by a person who witnessed the event. That certificate is then entered into the state’s records. The index data is a summary of the data that has been entered. And there is no evidence to disprove that these events occurred as recorded.

  198. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

    misha marinsky: This is what you claimed I wrote:

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: misha marinsky: By that logic, counterfeit currency is legitimate because it bears the same appearance

    Like your transparently false claim about barnyard sex and the Obama marriage, you also misunderstood–misrepresented what I wrote above. Please notice the absence of quotation marks around the sentence. That is because it is my statement, not yours. Your name is included so readers know whom I’m responding to….I think, but I don’t have the reply in front of me to confirm.

  199. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 9:11 pm #

    dunstvangeet: So, let me ask you this one question. Are you willing to admit that there is eyewitness testimony from someone who saw Obama in the Hospital?

    Clearly there is someone who I won’t presume is a lying obamunist who remembers a black baby. How can that recollection logically cancel its countering-memory of the ex-Marine who spoke to a young man in Hawaii who said he was born in Mombasa. Neither can be proven to not be someone other than Obama, so how does one trump the other? We are left scratching our head because of a lack of proof but the presence of credibility. But bear in mind that as I queried, no one remembers a young white mother with a black baby, -something that no one would forget. Were they invisible? Did she leave the hospital promptly after birth? Or was she never there? Since there is no evidence that she was there, nor any witness, no physical record, no photos, no nothing, so why would a sane person believe something for which there is no evidence when there is a gigantic motivation to lie and produce a fake record, and no reason to believe that the people involved are angels and above lying to protect their dear leader?

  200. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

    nbc: I am sure h2ooflife will eventually come to appreciate my findings, although he is already moving the goalposts…

    Data has to give way to his beliefs…

    Isn’t that backwards unintentionally? I’ll assume it’s intended to reflect my assumed mindset. As for your findings, I await them as evidence of something previously unknown. “Let the truth be known though the sky falls.”

  201. avatar
    Kate1230 July 25, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “…Stig Wadelich’s mother who clearly remembers seeing a black baby in the ward.” Did you know about the ex-Marine who in about 1980 was talking to a young black man in Honolulu, who, after he’d told him that his unit had just recently been stationed in Mombasa Kenya, replied; “I was born in Mombasa!” Check out his video interview on YouTube. One significant testimony kind of neutralizing another. The mystery remaining.

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

    It’s disingenuous for you to pretend that Monika Wadelich’s memory of PBO’s birth and a former member of the U.S. military stationed in Hawaii sometime in 1980 are in any way equivalent. We have the proven word of a mother who gave birth in Kapi’olani hospital at the same time as President Obama was born vs. that of a former member of the military who suddenly remembers speaking to a young man that he alleges to have been Barack Obama approximately 3 years after he was inaugurated. He says that Obama said he was born in Mombasa when it is just as realistic to believe that he was told, “my father was from Mombasa” especially since he didn’t remember the conversation for over 30 years. He sounds as if he was looking for his 15 minutes of fame although he could have seen Barack Obama in Hawaii, his lack of memory for the first few years of his Presidency doesn’t ring true.

    How do you and other birthers explain the idea that Ann Dunham-Obama gave birth anywhere in Africa when she wouldn’t be allowed to enter the country without the required immunizations that she was unable to receive due to being pregnant? While there are many intelligent men who are able to see how preposterous the concept of a young woman, pregnant for the 1st time, traveling thousands of miles from home, away from husband and family, those that are birthers refuse to open their eyes to this idiocy. There’s also the fact that Ann Dunham later wrote about the differences between giving birth in a foreign country, Indonesia, and giving birth in the U.S.

    If those people who hate President Obama so much weren’t so emotionally invested in their need to believe that he is not a legitimate President, they would see how ludicrous their ideas are. No young woman is going to travel halfway around the world while almost 9 months pregnant (never mind the lack of a passport or required immunizations) to meet her husband’s family for the first time, along with his other wife and a father-in-law who is upset that his son married a white woman. When these questions are brought up, they are either ignored or unproven answers, direct from WND or other birther sites, are given with the belief that they will be accepted without a second thought. If one newspaper publishes an erroneous statement that President Obama was born in Kenya, that is accepted by birthers, while the thousands of newspapers and articles that state otherwise are ignored. Considering birthers put their faith in people like Orly Taitz, Klayman, Berg, Apuzzo, etc. yet no reputable attorneys stepped forth to echo their agreement, they should have realized that there was nothing there, but they’d have to admit they were wrong and that’s something we know will NEVER happen, despite almost 6 years and 210+ losses in court.

  202. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 25, 2013 at 10:36 pm #

    bob: All of the evidence demonstrating President’s Obama Hawaiian birth would be valid in any court of law. The Arizona Secretary of State —

    And yet none of your so-called evidence has been allowed in any court of law. But what a judge will allow is irrelevant to what the truth actually is. False testimony and evidence is allowed in court because there is no one to contest it. Being in court does not make false “evidence” true.

    As for the letter to Bennet, you need to read my exposure of its worthlessness. Perhaps you already have but choose to ignore what you learned. Here it is as a blog post (repeating it as a previous web page): h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/mendacious-fabricated-letters-of-verification/

  203. avatar
    misha marinsky July 25, 2013 at 10:59 pm #

    Kate1230: How do you and other birthers explain the idea that Ann Dunham…gave birth anywhere in Africa when she wouldn’t be allowed to enter the country without the required immunizations that she was unable to receive due to being pregnant…how preposterous the concept of a young woman, pregnant for the 1st time, traveling thousands of miles from home, away from husband and family, those that are birthers refuse to open their eyes to this idiocy.

    “thousands of miles from home”: ~11K miles.

    Thank you. I debunk the whole physically impossible scenario here:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

  204. avatar
    aarrgghh July 25, 2013 at 11:22 pm #

    Kate1230: … a former member of the military who suddenly remembers speaking to a young man that he alleges to have been Barack Obama approximately 3 years after he was inaugurated.

    what is often forgotten about this story is that this ex-serviceman, also a member of wingnut watering hole free republic (a sheer coincidence i’m sure), confessed to initially skeptical fellow freepers that his recollection, while true, began as a work-in-progress for … (wait for it) … his creative writing class. [rimshot!]

    so only an obot or a troll (same difference) could ever doubt this man.

    “i met a young man from mombasa …”

  205. avatar
    misha marinsky July 25, 2013 at 11:57 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Like your transparently false claim about barnyard sex and the Obama marriage, you also misunderstood–misrepresented what I wrote above.Please notice the absence of quotation marks around the sentence.That is because it is my statement, not yours.Your name is included so readers know whom I’m responding to….I think, but I don’t have the reply in front of me to confirm.

    Pledge alert: “you also misunderstood–misrepresented what I wrote”

    Ahh, but you make it sooo easy.

    [snore]

  206. avatar
    aarrgghh July 26, 2013 at 12:04 am #

    Northland10: In his own way, he has admitted that his opinion of what should be and the actual law are different. That is a change from what we normally hear. Though we disagree with his opinion, he is moving into the realm that he thinks the law is wrong. I don’t know of any other Birthers who have gone there.

    freeper diogenesLamp comes close, evidently pining for the days of the magna carta:

    “It is my personal opinion that the entire Judiciary is filled with people who do not actually understand the meaning, the purpose, and the intent of Article II. They have all been taught wrong, going back centuries.

    Till the legal system has been educated to correct their wrong understanding, they will rule wrongly on this every single time.”

    so much for the concept of precedent.

  207. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Like your transparently false claim about barnyard sex and the Obama marriage

    Really? You wrote this, not me:

    misha marinsky quoting Nash:

    “Obama: An Unnatural Hybrid Native
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/an-unnatural-hybrid-native/

    By natural law one is the same as one’s parents. Lions don’t give birth to donkeys, Natural inheritance is an inviolable law of nature. Members don’t give birth to non-members, nor do non-members give birth to members anymore than donkeys give birth to lions. If fathered by an outsider, one is not a natural member even if membership is granted by permission.”

    Remember now?

    And this brilliant attempt at elementary school humor:

    misha marinsky: Because I cannot post pictures in my comments, this is Nash’s idea of humor. He is obsessed with inter-marriage and sex. This belies his claims to the contrary:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2013/07/adrien-nash-aka-h-co-neo-nazi.html

    Hello?! Anyone home?

    There goes my pledge.

  208. avatar
    Rickey July 26, 2013 at 12:37 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: And yet none of your so-called evidence has been allowed in any court of law.

    Neither has any of it been disallowed in any court. It has not been necessary to present any evidence because the birther lawsuits have all been fatally flawed from the start.

    If it ever become necessary for Obama to prove that he was born in Hawaii, he will simply produce a certified copy of his Hawaii birth certificate. That document is prima facie evidence of where and when he was born, and would be accepted as admissible evidence by every court in the land.

  209. avatar
    John Reilly July 26, 2013 at 12:44 am #

    Mr. H20ofLife states “Now, this may be legal proof in any court of law. But it’s not enough proof for me, so I’m going to call it not actual proof.” That is his approach to any proffered evidence that was good enough for Secretary Bennett or Gov. Lingle. There is simply nothing which would persuade him of the error of his conclusion. He is persuaded by the “fact” that no one remembers Pres. Obama at various times but ignores that everyone responsible for deciding whether Pres. Obama is eligible–Congress, courts, Chief Justice–has ignored the Birther case.

    And now he suggests that even if you get some document admitted in court that it is not enough for him. So even if the Birthers get their case on the merits, if it is decided against them he won’t accept it.

    Sounds like the goal posts are moving at ludicrous speed.

  210. avatar
    gorefan July 26, 2013 at 12:48 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: And yet none of your so-called evidence has been allowed in any court of law.

    And every time your evidence has been presented it was dismissed by the courts as being hearsay or meaningless.

    Read the Georgia and Indiana ballot challenge transcripts. Read the New Jersey ballot challenge transcript.

    You got nothing but lies, half-truths, rumors and speculation.

  211. avatar
    John Reilly July 26, 2013 at 12:59 am #

    Gorefan, I seem to recall that on a few occasions Birther evidence–the “forged” birth certificate and found to prove that the President was born in Hawaii.

    it’s midnight here so I’m not motivated to go looking.

  212. avatar
    nbc July 26, 2013 at 1:09 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: As for your findings, I await them as evidence of something previously unknown. “Let the truth be known though the sky falls.”

    So have you taken a look at them or would you not invite the risk of being shown wrong?

    I have now found that the Quantization Matrices also are the same as the WH 7655 created tax documents.

    I think we have the forger. Now what?… Moving the goal posts? You claim to be interested in the truth… Let the value of your words be shown through your actions or inactions…

    You said you would look at the data and were it would lead…

    Good luck

  213. avatar
    nbc July 26, 2013 at 1:13 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: And yet none of your so-called evidence has been allowed in any court of law. But what a judge will allow is irrelevant to what the truth actually is. False testimony and evidence is allowed in court because there is no one to contest it. Being in court does not make false “evidence” true.

    You are too much invested in a forgery that you cannot longer think rationally… That’s too bad. Your hatred for our President has destroyed your inquisitive mind.

  214. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 2:31 am #

    Northland10: The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a legal term, so shouldn’t legal proof be sufficient to establish it?

    In his own way, he has admitted that his opinion of what should be and the actual law are different.

    …he is moving into the realm that he thinks the law is wrong. I don’t know of any other Birthers who have gone there.

    [ADMITTED? I don’t know what exactly you are referring to but the words natural born citizen are not a “term” nor a legal “term of art” as I’ve continually emphasized to Apuzzo. In fact it has no place in actual law that anyone can point to other than a law in 1813 that required that all officers aboard U.S. naval ships be natural born citizens, as well as 3/4ths of the crew.

    As for thinking the law is wrong, again I don’t know what you think that I think is wrong but what I actually think is not that the law is wrong but that the conventional consensus opinion of the law is what is wrong. In other words, people who administer the law do not know what the actual law is because erroneous policy alone has been the law of the land since 1898 thanks to the Attorney General misconstruing what the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Wong case meant for alien-born children in America. He wrongly wrote a new federal policy that extended citizenship beyond children born of immigrants to children born of anyone except ambassadors.
    Were it not for that policy, native-born children of foreigners who are not immigrants would not be mistakenly viewed as U.S. citizens.
    So what I say is that the actual law is one thing but the erroneous policy is another. I don’t hold an opinion about what the law should be, -just an opinion that the policy enforced should be based on the actual law and not an opinion that’s is based on nothing but the imagination of one Attorney General from over a century ago. (A.G. Griggs, -or his successor who took over the same year.)
    By that policy, Obama is viewed as being a U.S. citizen, -without that policy, -by nothing but the Wong holding alone, he would not. Hence I assert that by actual law he is not a U.S. citizen, but by U.S. policy that is treated as the law, he is.

  215. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 2:36 am #

    nbc: …you cannot longer think rationally… That’s too bad. Your hatred for our President has destroyed your inquisitive mind.

    ~shows what you know. If anything, I hate the fact that I like Obama when I should despise him more. Not for his personality but for his ideology, dishonesty, and incompetence.

  216. avatar
    Adrien Nash July 26, 2013 at 2:50 am #

    nbc: So have you taken a look at them or would you not invite the risk of being shown wrong?

    I’ve looked at the images you linked to at reality check blog, but got the impression that you were referring to something new that hasn’t been put online yet. I would welcome any results that replicate the sort of layers that the bc pdf show. But I won’t assume that that can be done until it is actually done, which may not be possible.
    For layers to be created is not the same as the same layers being created, nor similar layers. But one can’t see the results so far and opine that further & closer results aren’t possible.

    But I have to side with what is likely rather than what may be possible. What is UNlikely is the recreation of the word “none” as it exists in the pdf. For the “e” to be shifted to the background while the “non” is removed from the text layer altogether and boxed as a separate layer makes no sense, and was not replicated by your results, -and probably can’t be.
    And the split “accepted by” date stamps are highly suspicious as well, though not nearly as much since your results showed something somewhat similar, -a random like splitting of words.

    What can’t be shown is any logical reason for the kind of splitting that is evident in both the pdf and your results.
    I’ve speculated that is may be randomly done intentionally as a security feature that is non-counterfeitable, being unique due to the randomness of the splits.

  217. avatar
    jtmunkus July 26, 2013 at 3:00 am #

    Well, I’m sure that birther lunatic Nash changed a lot of minds here at Doc’s site. Obviously, we’re covering up a 50+ year conspiracy that spans several countries and (hundreds of?) thousands of people (who have never spilled the beans) to breed the perfect international Manchurian Candidate for future president of the USA: a biracial boy with the unassuming African name of Barack Hussein Obama.

    The main goal of the conspirators: after grooming a black, pot-smoking teenager for this job by making him live in Indonesia (to keep things hush-hush) as a child and sending him to the finest schools (and planting perfect grades at each), giving him a fake law license, appointing him to a couple of local and federal Senate seats, and fooling hundreds of millions of Americans into believing he won two presidential elections resoundingly, so he could impose Sharia law – all while remaining the incognito, secretly foreign Kenyan Muslim communist. Effortlessly pushing his entire secret agenda through a compliant and complicit US Congress.

    The conspirators? The entire US federal government staff (from 1961-2013), including every single one of Obama’s pretend opponents, Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Verna K. Lee, every Hawai’ian administration since it became a state, Doc C., Foggy, me, Bill Ayers and his parents, 1961 editors of both prominent Hawai’ian newspapers, the Library of Congress, the US Archives, 200 judges and justices, Arizona’s Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett, globalist Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Orly Taitz. Plus a whole lot more people who have kept the lid on the crime of the millennium.

    So they all could get discounted health insurance, on behalf of the New World Order.

    Got it.

  218. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 3:20 am #

    John Reilly:
    Mr. H20ofLife states “Now, this may be legal proof in any court of law.But it’s not enough proof for me, so I’m going to call it not actual proof.”

    That is his approach to any proffered evidence that was good enough for Secretary Bennett or Gov. Lingle
    …. that everyone responsible for deciding whether Pres. Obama is eligible–Congress, courts, Chief Justice–has ignored the Birther case.

    So even if the Birthers get their case on the merits, if it is decided against them he won’t accept it.

    It seems that you are unaware that the quote attributed to me is the product of another’s imagination and a misinterpretation of my supposed thinking. It’s becoming like the lie that got half-way round the world before the truth could get its pants on.

    What does “accept it” even mean? You live on a two-dimension plane where everything is black or white. “Truth” is only dispensed by judges who are as flawed as you are. How does any judgement of any court change what is true or false? It doesn’t. So if “accept” means acknowledge that a court has rendered its “opinion of the court”, how would that be a difficulty?

    You must be too young to not look at such men through eyes of respect and deference. My deference is only to the facts. Most judges my age are retiring, so they are not my seniors nor my superiors.
    Speaking of facts, Obama’s presidential eligibility is equivalent to the Piltdown Man. This Piltdown President is as phoney as the Piltdown fraud that the whole secular humanist, atheist world embraced as scientific truth for half a century, until an unbiased younger anthropologist looked at it without half a century of brain-washing affecting his perspective.
    His observations then blow down a whole gigantic wide-spread intrenched house of cards that had deceived all of academia that had wanted to be deceived because it confirmed what they wanted to believe.
    So drink the Kool-Aid and don’t ask any questions and you will one day be able to join them in their humiliation with your picture along side of that of the fraudulent Piltdown President.

  219. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 3:28 am #

    Rickey: If it ever become necessary for Obama to prove that he was born in Hawaii, he will simply produce a certified copy of his Hawaii birth certificate. That document is prima facie evidence of where and when he was born, and would be accepted as admissible evidence by every court in the land.

    That is true except for the fact that it DOES NOT EXIST! He can’t present what he does not possess. He does have a birth certificate just like we all do, he’s had it all of his adult life, but it shows something that he can’t allow the American people to know otherwise he would have posted it online instead of a fabricated one concocted in 2008 after he took to running for the presidency.

  220. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 3:34 am #

    jtmunkus: Obviously, we’re covering up a 50+ year conspiracy that spans several countries and (hundreds of?) thousands of people

    You should get some kind of a Pulitzer Prize for the most imaginative of strawman type ridicule strung together in years.

    I don’t believe in 50+ years and hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators. I believe in billions of co-conspirators who span the entire universe from the beginning of time. See that, exaggeration and imagination should know no bounds, as you seem to embrace.
    But honestly, someone should get this guy up to speed. Maybe ask him to quote someone who believes what he is spewing.

  221. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 3:42 am #

    aarrgghh: what is often forgotten about this story is that this ex-serviceman, … confessed to initially skeptical fellow freepers that his recollection, while true, began as a work-in-progress for … (wait for it) … his creative writing class. [rimshot!]

    “i met a young man from mombasa …”

    That would be a significant thing to know, but I can’t know it without any link to a source.

  222. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 3:53 am #

    misha marinsky:
    Because I cannot post pictures in my comments, this is Nash’s idea of humor. He is obsessed with inter-marriage and sex. This belies his claims to the contrary:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2013/07/adrien-nash-aka-h-co-neo-nazi.html

    Here’s a challenge to you, one which you will not take up in your lifetime: re-edit Obama’s COLB short-form and do it in a humorous way, -like MAD Magazine would appreciate. And do it in half an hour. See what words you can reuse from the original because you can’t add any other text (other than the registration number).
    If you were to make an attempt at it you’d quickly discover that your choices are quite limited, and using the ones I choose would be about the only ones available to you.
    Remember, you can’t add any outside text, only rearrange what is already there.

  223. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 4:18 am #

    Majority Will: Nash would be right at home on stormfront.org.

    Speaking of Nazis, check out my favorite photos of Hitler that I personally edited to optimize their quality. I think you’ll love them!
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/arnash/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color/nazi-collage_zps339d87ba.jpg~original

  224. avatar
    Northland10 July 26, 2013 at 6:44 am #

    aarrgghh: what is often forgotten about this story is that this ex-serviceman, also a member of wingnut watering hole free republic (a sheer coincidence i’m sure), confessed to initially skeptical fellow freepers that his recollection, while true, began as a work-in-progress for … (wait for it) … his creative writing class. [rimshot!]

    so only an obot or a troll (same difference) could ever doubt this man.

    “i met a young man from mombasa …”

    You debunked it 2009, and Loren wrote about him again in 2011.. So, h20 restates it again as if everyone here forgot.

    Note to Birthers: You may have issues with memory, but we do not.

  225. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 7:38 am #

    Northland10: You debunked it 2009, and Loren wrote about him again in 2011.. So, h20 restates it again as if everyone here forgot.

    Note to Birthers:You may have issues with memory, but we do not.

    A birther like Nash evidently feels compelled to lie, obfuscate and misdirect in a bizarre and clumsy attempt to cover the sheer stupidity and implausibility of birther bigot claims.

    This is not rational behavior.

  226. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 8:21 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: And yet none of your so-called evidence has been allowed in any court of law.

    That’s actually not true, In one of the the cases (Grinols I think), the Judge specifically commented about the evidence and said the only real evidence he’d seen is the verification from the Hawaii DOH. All your evidence was hearsay and opinions by non-experts.

  227. avatar
    American Mzungu July 26, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    I think most of you have missed the “greater truth” of what Adrien Nash is revealing to us. If you go to his h2ooflife site and read a sampling of his expositions, you will see that he is talking about the true nature of things as they are set forth in natural law. That’s the way things really are. The courts in their decisions have departed from correctly interpreting the true nature of things. Society has departed from following the true nature of things.

    Obama is not a natural born citizen because of the nature of things. It’s not because of Vattel. It’s not because of he was born in Kenya. The conspiracy to cover up his ineligibility is probably real, but it doesn’t really make any difference. Who really knows what the facts are anyway. If you understand the true nature of things, you understand that Obama is ineligible by nature. We all just need to comprehend the depth of Nash’s expositions about the true nature of things and then it all makes sense.

    Or something like that.

  228. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 9:22 am #

    Dear Readers: I received an e-mail from Nash, AKA CO₂ofLife. Waterboy indignantly denied being a neo-Nazi.

    He then included a link to his Flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnash

    That page is a display of Third Reich rallies, along with loving portraits of Adolf Schicklgruber.

    He fatuously stated that Obama is a fascist and socialist, just like Schicklgruber.

  229. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 9:31 am #

    American Mzungu: misha marinsky: This is going to be my last response to waterboy TODAY.

    Fixed it for you, Misha.

    You were right. Oh, well.

  230. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    misha marinsky: He fatuously stated that Obama is a fascist and socialist, just like Schicklgruber.

    And he proudly notes that all the Nazi phots for digitally enhanced by A.R. Nash.

    They’re on another one of his sites that I’ve seen. One picture of Hitler makes a point in a post. Dozens of the – digitally enhanced – speaks volumes about Mr. Nash.

  231. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    CarlOrcas: And he proudly notes that all the Nazi phots for digitally enhanced by A.R. Nash.

    Hmmmmmm, wonder how many birthers are also skinheads?

  232. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    Sorry, but that just isn’t true. The original certified copy of the birth certificate was shown to the White House press corps in a briefing the morning of the press conference where Obama announced its release. NBC News correspondent Savannah Guthrie snapped a photo of it.

    You can talk and assert until you are blue in the face, but that changes nothing. In the words of the Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ:

    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    That is a fact. It is verified. It is certain. You are wrong.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That is true except for the fact that it DOES NOT EXIST! He can’t present what he does not possess. He does have a birth certificate just like we all do, he’s had it all of his adult life, but it shows something that he can’t allow the American people to know otherwise he would have posted it online instead of a fabricated one concocted in 2008 after he took to running for the presidency.

  233. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    No less than 10 judges have ruled, specifically in the case of Obama, that you are wrong. You can type until your fingers fall off, but don’t expect to convince anyone outside the echo chamber where birthers pass this nonsense around. The fact that persons born citizens in the US without regard to the citizenship of their parents are natural born citizens is “well-settled,” says federal Judge Gibney.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/

    While I can try to be polite, I cannot take you seriously, and you should not expect to be taken seriously.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: By that policy, Obama is viewed as being a U.S. citizen, -without that policy, -by nothing but the Wong holding alone, he would not. Hence I assert that by actual law he is not a U.S. citizen, but by U.S. policy that is treated as the law, he is.

  234. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    “He does have a birth certificate just like we all do, he’s had it all of his adult life, but it shows something that he can’t allow the American people to know . . .”

    Typical idiotic, delusional and paranoid birther bigot propaganda.

    That is truly pathetic.

    If you look real closely, there’s a frowny face in the letter p in pathetic.

  235. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 11:09 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Marinsky lied thusly: “Readers here will remember Nash compared Ann and Obama Sr’s marriage, to barnyard animals mating.”

    Let’s have the quote. You can’t find it? Of course since it doesn’t exist except in your over-exercised imagination. And you dare to accuse me of being the liar? Wow! Talk about self-delusion.

    “It’s the civic equivalent to dogs having off-spring with cats.”

    - http://patriotpost.us/commentary/19149

    “It is determined by the natural connection between parents and their off-spring, -whether animal or human.”

    - http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/the-british-roots-of-presidential-eligibility/

    Remember now?

  236. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 11:13 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Once again, Doc, you prove yourself a class act.

    You and Dr C were right. I was wrong.

  237. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    Jim: the Judge specifically commented about the evidence and said the only real evidence he’d seen is the verification from the Hawaii DOH. All your evidence was hearsay and opinions by non-experts.

    You ignorantly mischaracterize, -unless… courts consider signed affidavits by witnesses to be hearsay. I speak of the E-Verify results regarding Obama’s Social Security number. They may have been inconclusive and even irrelevant though.

    Those affidavits and the testimony of experienced and knowledgeable witnesses may have been 100% accurate but that doesn’t make it 100% provable nor even credible to skeptical minds who are inclined to discount anything and everything that doesn’t come with more veracity than that of the Roger Patterson footage of Bigfoot taken back in the 1960s.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence when confronting the legitimacy of the administration in power. What is needed is something equivalent to the Nixon White House tapes since no witness on the inside will ever spill any beans.

  238. avatar
    bob July 26, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    Nash–

    Using the level of satisfaction you expect of President Obama, please demonstrate the birthplace of the previous president, George W. Bush.

    If it is as simple as you claim it is to prove someone’s birthplace, I’m sure you’ll have no problem demonstrating its simplicity.

  239. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sorry, but that just isn’t true. The original certified copy of the birth certificate was shown to the White House press corps in a briefing the morning of the press conference where Obama announced its release.

    Oh my! How can someone with a reputation for seeking the truth make such an unsupportable statement? Backed by nothing! With all your knowledge, how can you claim to know what was presented when the marvel of color copying machines exist by the tens of millions?

    I’d be very curious to hear an explanation as to exactly how a perfect color copy or print-out of the pdf would immediately be recognized as a fake substitute. Is the “original” in 3D?
    No, wait! the (non-existent) original,unlike the pdf, is clearly embossed with the distinct State Seal of the HDoH! (only it isn’t and no one can see what is not there. A super-faint outline of a ring is not an embossed seal impression in anyone’s dictionary.
    The White House presented a Piltdown practical joke and no one in the audience had the moral courage to question it validity because the man himself was going to appear and, as you say, announce its release.

    Only he failed to do so, he avoided mentioning any new birth certificate, which was the purpose of his appearance everyone thought. But being a lawyer, and being advised by another one, he kept his distance to such a degree that the fraudulent “thing” presented was not even allowed in the room when he appeared. No mention, no contact, no proximity. It was surreal. Clearly deliberate and purely for legal considerations.

  240. avatar
    jtmunkus July 26, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You should get some kind of a Pulitzer Prize for the most imaginative of strawman type ridicule strung together in years.

    But honestly, someone should get this guy up to speed.Maybe ask him to quote someone who believes what he is spewing.

    Dear Mr. Nash:

    Please quote someone who believes what you are spewing.

    Specifically, a judge, a lawyer, a scholar, a historian, a justice, an educator – someone who is not a hate-riddled birther lunatic like yourself. Better yet, someone whom you’ve convinced with your imaginary drivel.

  241. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

    bob:
    Nash–

    Using the level of satisfaction you expect of President Obama, please demonstrate the birthplace of the previous president, George W. Bush.

    If it is as simple as you claim it is to prove someone’s birthplace, I’m sure you’ll have no problem demonstrating its simplicity.

    The birthplace of Bush could be “proven” via the same sorts of “proof” as obama loyalist’s embrace regarding Obama’s birthplace, i.e., the validity of documents along with eye-witnesses, including his mother who, I believe, was there at the time.

    Such “proofs” and not actual proof, aside from eye-witnesses, unless the documents are original and signed by the hand of witnesses to his birth, like the attending doctor. That is testimony that is reasonably accepted as proof even though it’s not actual proof such as film of his mother with newborn in a hospital bed with some unmistakeable Texas landmark visible through a window.

    But place of birth is irrelevant to presidential eligibility. Americans born abroad are just as eligible, as long as they are natural Americans and not simply legal Americans naturalized by statute. If Obama had been born in a Panamanian hospital like John McCain, would he be viewed as eligible? No, because he would not even be an American at all. If he was born in Vancouver, same thing.

  242. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

    jtmunkus: Please quote someone who believes what you are spewing.

    Specifically, a judge, a lawyer, a scholar, a historian, a justice, an educator – someone who is not a hate-riddled birther lunatic like yourself. Better yet, someone whom you’ve convinced with your imaginary drivel.

    You ask for the wrong thing. There may be no one who holds a view that conforms with the truth that I’ve discovered, but there is no one who can refute what I’ve written about citizenship. No one can nor has.

    All they can do is throw out opinions expressed by uninformed persons who happened to have held positions of authority. But opinions can be held and expressed in the total absence of any origin or principle to back them up. Such is the situation regarding views on citizenship. The Left is wrong, the Right is wrong (Apuzzo) because the truth is in the natural law middle. People belong to their family and their nation by inherited natural connection, unless born of one or two outsiders. Then law is needed to determine their national status. Parents from different tribes, different clans, different nations, -to which do their children belong? Permission must be given to allow for the adoption of children of outsiders.

    No one who is a citizen by law, an adopted citizen, is allowed to be President even if their adoption began at birth. He must be a natural member of the American family, not an adopted member.

    So far, I’m on my own. I don’t hear anyone echoing what I’ve shared about the nature of citizenship because no one has been informed about the principles involved. They have been forgotten for many generations. It’s like the lack of knowledge about one’s own roots. Not knowing about your ancestors does not mean they did not exist. Ignorance of the truth doesn’t alter the truth.

    Everyone believed in the Piltdown man because everyone else believed in the “facts” regarding him. They, like those who believe in the eligibility of our Piltdown President, were wrong. They were all conned.

  243. avatar
    ballantine July 26, 2013 at 2:33 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    As for thinking the law is wrong, again I don’t know what you think that I think is wrong but what I actually think is not that the law is wrong but that the conventional consensus opinion of the law is what is wrong.In other words, people who administer the law do not know what the actual law is because erroneous policy alone has been the law of the land since 1898 thanks to the Attorney General misconstruing what the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Wong case meant for alien-born children in America.He wrongly wrote a new federal policy that extended citizenship beyond children born of immigrants to children born of anyone except ambassadors.Were it not for that policy, native-born children of foreigners who are not immigrants would not be mistakenly viewed as U.S. citizens. So what I say is that the actual law is one thing but the erroneous policy is another.I don’t hold an opinion about what the law should be, -just an opinion that the policy enforced should be based on the actual law and not an opinion that’s is based on nothing but the imagination of one Attorney General from over a century ago. (A.G. Griggs, -or his successor who took over the same year.) By that policy, Obama is viewed as being a U.S. citizen, -without that policy, -by nothing but the Wong holding alone, he would not.Hence I assert that by actual law he is not a U.S. citizen, but by U.S. policy that is treated as the law, he is.

    Good grief. You have now showed yourself to be a liar or simply a moron. It has been explained to you over and over that the holding of Wong Kim Ark included the notion that we adopted the English common law in both the original Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The common law does not only exclude children of immigrants as the Court clearly explains, at least for those capable of reading English.

    And, you simply have no understanding of what “holding” is. Why do you pretend otherwise? All legal propositions necessary to resolve the case is considered part of the holding, or as it is sometimes called, the ratio decidendi of the case. Either way. it all is binding precedent. Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen because we adopted the common law, which included children of immigrants like him. The precedent is we adopted the common law. The Court expressly stated the rule is that all native born children are included except children of ambassadors, invading armies and Indians. Can you really not read English? Do you have a learning disability?

    I can understand people with no understanding of law, like you, getting things wrong. To keep repeating nonsense that people have shown you over and over to be wrong means you are simply being dishonest on purpose or a moron. Of course, our attorney generals understand how to read law and they are right in their interpretation and you are wrong. In fact, they would laugh at your interpretation. It is sad that there are people like you with no education in law that are so delusional that they think their own ignorant interpretations of law trump the government and our courts. Many such people wind up in jail. I suggest you think about that.

  244. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    American Mzungu:
    I think most of you have missed the “greater truth” of what Adrien Nash is revealing to us.

    I’m waiting for the Reader’s Digest Condensed version.

  245. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    Jim: I’m waiting for the Reader’s Digest Condensed version.

    That isn’t bat guano psychotic.

  246. avatar
    nbc July 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: If anything, I hate the fact that I like Obama when I should despise him more. Not for his personality but for his ideology, dishonesty, and incompetence.

    ROTFL… Sure…

  247. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    misha marinsky:
    Dear Readers: I received an e-mail from Nash, AKA CO₂ofLife. Waterboy indignantly denied being a neo-Nazi.

    He then included a link to his Flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnash

    That page is a display of Third Reich rallies, along with loving portraits of Adolf Schicklgruber.

    He fatuously stated that Obama is a fascist and socialist, just like Schicklgruber.

    Now you’re just making stuff up. I did not email you. Or maybe I did it in an alternate dimension. I know I responded to a comment with one of my own. But it was very late, 2:00 AM-ish and Flickr was off-line for maintenance, so I couldn’t check it to confirm that you would find there what I wanted you to find.

    Today, I find that it is not there because I made my ultimate Hitler/ Nazi collage weeks after uploading the individual images and posters. And worse, I found that the mini-version on my blog’s homepage did not link to the full-size version, which is inexplicable.
    I corrected that last night and now you can see what everyone needs to see and will want to download and share. You’ll love it! It’s simply wonderful!~~~ Your kids will be delighted. They’ll want a poster to hang on their wall.

    http://smg.photobucket.com/user/arnash/media/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color/nazi-collage_zps339d87ba.jpg.html

    click on the magnifying glass in the lower right corner for full screen, and then click it again for full-size. (It’s big)

    It will accurately inform you about my feelings for Adolph.

    PS, I’ve never referred to Obama as a Nazi, you’ve confused me with someone else. But he is a democratic socialist.

  248. avatar
    nbc July 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

    But I have to side with what is likely rather than what may be possible. What is UNlikely is the recreation of the word “none” as it exists in the pdf. For the “e” to be shifted to the background while the “non” is removed from the text layer altogether and boxed as a separate layer makes no sense, and was not replicated by your results, -and probably can’t be.

    Yes, the exact location of the splits is not always repeatable unless you have the exact same document. Of course there is nothing unlikely about the None issue which is merely an artifact not found on the AP copy.

    The background layer was subsampled at 150DPI and saved as jpeg, the monochrome objects were subsampled at 300 DPI and save as JIBI2Stream. The subsequent preview step retained the JBIG2 data but formatted it as FlateDecode since PDF 1.3 does not support JBIG2.

    There is no evidence of any manipulation and the total PDF is fully consistent with a Xerox WorkCentre.

    Including the embedded jpeg comment and the Quantization matrices… They all match the PDF created on a WH Xerox 7655 workcentre, which was used to capture the POTUS tax forms.

    And of course, there is no explanation why a ‘forger’ would do this especially since all the objects match what is expected from a Xerox work flow scan…

    Therefore the work centre hypothesis remains so far the best explanation given all the known data.
    There are no consistent ‘forger’ explanations.

  249. avatar
    nbc July 26, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

    If you look at the AP pdf you notice how the None has some problems and the algorithm separates it out.

    The fact that the e does not make it into one monochrome layer but into another is just a matter of ‘coincidence’ as we do not control all the variables.

    It’s the overall picture that strongly contradicts the findings by the CCP wrt the PDF being forged.

    Much had been made of the fact that they had failed to find any MRC software that would create multiple foreground bitmaps…

    I did better than that. I found the software/hardware combination, found a matching printer/scanner at the Whitehouse and showed they match in the hidden information in the jpeg.

  250. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    No one who is born into a family is called “adopted” nor is anyone who is born a citizen of a country.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: No one who is a citizen by law, an adopted citizen, is allowed to be President even if their adoption began at birth. He must be a natural member of the American family, not an adopted member.

  251. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: But opinions can be held and expressed in the total absence of any origin or principle to back them up.

    Amen, brother. Amen.

  252. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 4:17 pm #

    John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, not Panama.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: If Obama had been born in a Panamanian hospital like John McCain,

  253. avatar
    jtmunkus July 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Natural law, schmatural law.

    The United States of America is governed by the US Constitution and 237 years of case law and precedent.

  254. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm #

    The transcript of the press briefing is available, and it clearly shows that the original certificate was shown to the entire gathering. Guthrie published her photo and said that the “felt the raised seal.”

    Now you can claim that this document is a forgery, a perfect one, but the State of Hawaii said:

    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    You could say that invisible Martians are actually standing behind each member of Congress, influencing them with mind control, and really, I wouldn’t even try to prove you wrong.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Oh my! How can someone with a reputation for seeking the truth make such an unsupportable statement? Backed by nothing! With all your knowledge, how can you claim to know what was presented when the marvel of color copying machines exist by the tens of millions?

    I’d be very curious to hear an explanation as to exactly how a perfect color copy or print-out of the pdf would immediately be recognized as a fake substitute. Is the “original” in 3D?

  255. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

    ballantine: The Court expressly stated the rule is that all native born children are included except children of ambassadors, invading armies and Indians.

    You are self-deluded. The court expressed no such thing. “expressly stated the rule is…”
    Do you fully think about what you are writing, or do you write first, think later?

    Please quote where in their holding they expressly stated a rule. It’s not there nor is it in their dicta. You falsely employed the word “is” to refer to “the rule” in Britain as if it “is” the rule in the United States when in fact it had no standing in the national government or federal law of the United States, hence the total absence of cases supporting such an asinine baseless claim.

    And further proof is the fact that it was not the federal government suing to make Wong a citizen but to block him from citizenship, as it would have done in any such case since the founding of the nation.
    It was the biggest lie in judicial history that the British common law was the law of the United States from before its founding up until the Wong case. Regarding citizenship, the very opposite is true.

    ballantine:To keep repeating nonsense that people have shown you over and over to be wrong means you are simply being dishonest on purpose or a moron.
    Wow! That’s exactly the case in regard to how Apuzzo responds to the facts that I’ve made clear to him in irrefutable fashion.

    ballantine:
    Of course, our attorney generals understand how to read law and they are right in their interpretation and you are wrong.

    Oh, I see, they are right because you declare them to be. Just like they were right about the incarceration of 100,000 Americans in concentration camps, or right about the federal gestapo having the authority to dictate that a man cannot grow food on his own land for himself and his animals (Wichard v Filburn 1942) Wake the heck up! The whole government is dominate by power-loving statists.

    ballantine:
    It is sad that there are people like you with no education in law that are so delusional that they think their own ignorant interpretations of law trump the government and our courts.

    It’s sad that people like your farm your thinking out to others because you worship at the alter of divine human legal authority. Grow the heck up and learn how to think for yourself, you sheep.
    I state facts about the law, facts are not opinions nor interpretations. I express opinions about opinions, and interpretations are simply opinions. If I state that humans had ancient ancestors, that is a fact. If you state that one of them was the Piltdown Man, that is an opinion, and just as bogus as the belief that the Supreme Court holding in Wong covered any child other than those of domiciled, permanent-resident foreigners. That was their holding. Nothing else, no matter how you delusionally reinterpret it.
    No one has to believe either of us because they can read it for themselves, along with the dissenting opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

    The falsities, deceits and outright lies of justice Gray are laid bare here: http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/

    and here: naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

    You confuse “the law” with the execution of the perceived law, the adopted legal policy supposedly based on “the law”. There is never any guarantee that an Attorney General’s interpretation of a Supreme Court holding or Congressional act will reflect it accurately. Look at what Holder is attempting in regard to Texas. Is he interpreting the recent court ruling correctly or not? Is it not merely a matter of opinion and not fact? You’ve confused the two by drinking too much of the wine from the temple of the goddess of human authority.
    “The Man never makes a mistake.” seems to be your motto.

  256. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

    Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you have been refuted is not the same thing as not being refuted. People who are proven, but fail to admit it, are left by the wayside.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: There may be no one who holds a view that conforms with the truth that I’ve discovered, but there is no one who can refute what I’ve written about citizenship. No one can nor has.

  257. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

    I have shown “P. A. Madison” (not his real name) deliberately misrepresents his sources and uses logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to trick weak-minded readers into thinking that he has a legally and historically valid argument.

    He does not. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/madison-v-madison/

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The falsities, deceits and outright lies of justice Gray are laid bare here: http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/

  258. avatar
    Dave B. July 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

    Senator McCain’s citizenship, unlike President Obama’s, DID depend upon a statute, and without an applicable statute Senator McCain wouldn’t have been born a US citizen. And the view within the US government at the time of his birth was that the applicable statute didn’t make anybody born in the Canal Zone a US citizen. That deficiency was corrected when Senator McCain was nearly a year old with passage of the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat 558), which remains in effect to this day as Sec. 303 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as 8 USC 1403. And under that same law, and presuming that Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone, if President Obama had been born in the same place as Senator McCain he would’ve been born a US citizen. Except when he was actually born, not almost a year later.
    So Adrien, what do you think happens when somebody tries to acquire a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or a Certificate of Citizenship, or a US passport based upon this “natural law” of yours?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: But place of birth is irrelevant to presidential eligibility. Americans born abroad are just as eligible, as long as they are natural Americans and not simply legal Americans naturalized by statute. If Obama had been born in a Panamanian hospital like John McCain, would he be viewed as eligible? No, because he would not even be an American at all. If he was born in Vancouver, same thing.

  259. avatar
    Arthur July 26, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: our unwillingness to acknowledge that you have been refuted is not the same thing as not being refuted. People who are proven, but fail to admit it, are left by the wayside.

    Take for example, this fellow, Lt. Hiroo Onoda, who refused to admit that WWII was over.

    “Onoda first saw a leaflet that claimed the war was over in October 1945. When another cell had killed a cow, they found a leaflet left behind by the islanders which read: “The war ended on August 15. Come down from the mountains!”2 But as they sat in the jungle, the leaflet just didn’t seem to make sense, for another cell had just been fired upon a few days ago. If the war were over, why would they still be under attack? No, they decided, the leaflet must be a clever ruse by the Allied propagandists.

    “Again, the outside world tried to contact the survivors living on the island by dropping leaflets out of a Boeing B-17 near the end of 1945. Printed on these leaflets was the surrender order from General Yamashita of the Fourteenth Area Army. Having already hidden on the island for a year and with the only proof of the end of the war being this leaflet, Onoda and the others scrutinized every letter and every word on this piece of paper. One sentence in particular seemed suspicious, it said that those who surrendered would receive ‘hygienic succor’ and be ‘hauled’ to Japan. Again, they believed this must be an Allied hoax.

    “Leaflet after leaflet was dropped. Newspapers were left. Photographs and letters from relatives were dropped. Friends and relatives spoke out over loudspeakers. There was always something suspicious, so they never believed that the war had really ended.” http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/soldiersurr.htm

    Just like H20, Onoda’s convictions could not be refuted; as result, he wasted 30 years of his life clinging to an illusion. My guess is that our watery friend will take his illusions to the grave.

  260. avatar
    ballantine July 26, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    Please quote where in their holding they expressly stated a rule.It’s not there nor is it in their dicta.You falsely employed the word “is” to refer to “the rule” in Britain as if it “is” the rule in the United States when in fact it had no standing in the national government or federal law of the United States, hence the total absence of cases supporting such an asinine baseless claim.

    LOL. Why are you pretending to be a legal expert when you have no idea what “dicta” even means? Seiously, your gibberish is embarrasing. Here is what the conclusion of the case was based upon and which is, of course, part of the holding of the case which is binding law in the United States ( however, I know it apparently contains too many big words for you to actually understand):

    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

    Plan English, such definition includes, but is not limited to children of resident aliens, and only excepts children of ambassadors, persons born on foreign public ships, alien enemies or indians. That’s it. A complete definition for those who can read English. DUH.

    That is, of course, is the English common law. And it also says the rule in England previaled under our orignal Constituion and that our common law is the same as England. In fact, it says that over and over. Again, you are either a liar or a moron.

    “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. 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.”

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    It was the biggest lie in judicial history that the British common law was the law of the United States from before its founding up until the Wong case.Regarding citizenship, the very opposite is true.

    Uh, the court points out that, and cites, every significant legal scholar, court and our executive department prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment saying we adopted the British common law and, of course, the 14th Amendment restated such rule. Their opinion counts, not yours. Of course, we know all our scholars and courts were wrong and you are right even though you can’t cite any authority to support you.

    That’s exactly the case in regard to how Apuzzo responds to the facts that I’ve made clear to him in irrefutable fashion.

    You have never stated any facts. You merely say you are right because you say you are right because you say so. Again, you cannot cite a single authority of any significance who has ever agreed with you. You simply have made up your own law like the pathetic tax protesters or sovereign citizens who believe they are entitled to make up their own law.

    Oh, I see, they are right because you declare them to be.Just like they were right about the incarceration of 100,000 Americans in concentration camps, or right about the federal gestapo having the authority to dictate that a man cannot grow food on his own land for himself and his animals (Wichard v Filburn 1942)Wake the heck up!The whole government is dominate by power-loving statists.

    They are right because the Court plainly said they are right. It is not a matter of interpretation. English is English. The court said what it said and no honest person would state otherwise unless they are totally ignorant in how to read case law.

    It’s sad that people like your farm your thinking out to others because you worship at the alter of divine human legal authority.Grow the heck up and learn how to think for yourself, you sheep. I state facts about the law, facts are not opinions nor interpretations.I express opinions about opinions, and interpretations are simply opinions.If I state that humans had ancient ancestors, that is a fact.If you state that one of them was the Piltdown Man, that is an opinion, and just as bogus as the belief that the Supreme Court holding in Wong covered any child other than those of domiciled, permanent-resident foreigners.That was their holding.Nothing else, no matter how you delusionally reinterpret it. No one has to believe either of us because they can read it for themselves, along with the dissenting opinion.

    Again, you have no idea what holding means, so why do you pretend otherwise? Your arrogant gibberish that you think you can make up your own interpretations of law and have any relevance is pathetic. You state no facts about anything. You are misrepresenting what the court has said and simply insist your unsupported opinion is fact. You clearly have no idea what a fact is. Seriously, do you really have no life to write article after articile on this BS that no one will ever actually read or pay attention to?

  261. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: What is needed is something equivalent to the Nixon White House tapes since no witness on the inside will ever spill any beans.

    The Nixon Tapes you say? You mean the ones with the 18 minute gap? The ones that some people think were edited? Those tapes?

  262. avatar
    ballantine July 26, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have shown “P. A. Madison” (not his real name) deliberately misrepresents his sources and uses logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to trick weak-minded readers into thinking that he has a legally and historically valid argument.

    He does not. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/madison-v-madison/

    Yes, Madison’s another amateur who misrepresents law and history and is pretty much wrong about everything he says. Speaks for itself that such is all Adrien can cite. Is he going to cite Orly next? Justice Gray’s opinion has been the law of the land for more than a century and has never been challenged by a subsequent court. That is a fact. The unsupported opinions of amateurs is not even if they claim to be the only person in the universe to understand natural law.

  263. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Now you’re just making stuff up. I did not email you.

    Here’s the e-mail:

    http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag16/Michael_Marinsky/nashemail2_zpsb4ea9ff5.jpg

    When a blog comment is posted, it first goes to my e-mail account to be screened, and is then posted to my blog. I have it set to filter spam, and to allow automatic blog posting. I read your comments from the e-mail account.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Flickr was off-line for maintenance, so I couldn’t check it to confirm that you would find there what I wanted you to find.

    Today, I find that it is not there because I made my ultimate Hitler/ Nazi collage weeks after uploading the individual images and posters.

    I just checked the link within the last 5 minutes – http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnash – and all the Nazi rally photos are there, along with your loving portraits of Schicklgruber.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: PS, I’ve never referred to Obama as a Nazi, you’ve confused me with someone else. But he is a democratic socialist.

    “…your statist IDOL, H!TLER -that great defender, like Obama, of personal liberty…”

    http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag16/Michael_Marinsky/nashemail2_zpsb4ea9ff5.jpg

  264. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 26, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

    The federal government has never (and would never) filed suit arguing against the citizenship of any caucasian child born in the US to non-citizen parents—surely a much more frequent scenario than the circumstances of Mr. Wong’s birth. Why is that?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: And further proof is the fact that it was not the federal government suing to make Wong a citizen but to block him from citizenship, as it would have done in any such case since the founding of the nation.

  265. avatar
    ballantine July 26, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    And further proof is the fact that it was not the federal government suing to make Wong a citizen but to block him from citizenship, as it would have done in any such case since the founding of the nation.

    The position taken by the government in the 1880s and 1890s and argued in the Wong Kim Ark case was never the position of the United States prior to the 1880s. Such later interpretaion was obviously rejected by the Court which pointed out that our State Department and Attorney Generals since the beginning of the republic had aways followed the common law. Is Adrien lying again or is he just completely ignorant of history? For example:

    “I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Secretary of State Marcy, (1854).

    “In reply to your letter of the 7th, I have to say that a free white person born in this country, of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. (Lynch vs. Clarke et al., 1. Sandford Ch. R., p. 583.)” …Attorney General Black, 9 Op Atty Gen 3 73-74 (1859)

    “A child born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, is by the fact of birth a native-born citizen of the United States, entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.” Attorney General Bates, 10 Op. A. G., p. 328 (1862).

    “One Francois A. Heinreich, now resident in Austria, was born in the city of New York in 1850, of Austrian parents, who were then temporarily residing in that city, but who never became naturalized….As a general rule, a person born in this country, though of alien parents who have never been naturalized, is under our law deemed a citizen of the United States by reason of the place of his birth, (10 Opin., 321, 328, 329; and see also section 1 to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.) But the article of the convention just quoted—the right of an American citizen to change his national character, and become a citizen of Austria—is clearly recognized; but it is required that he shall have had a residence of five years in that country, besides being naturalized there, before the United States are bound to consider and to treat the person so naturalized as an Austrian citizen. In the case under consideration, therefore, though the said Francois is a native of this country, and as such was originally clothed with American nationality, yet, he having resided in Austria uninterruptedly far beyond the period mentioned, the question submitted resolves itself practically into this inquiry, whether during that time he has acquired Austrian citizenship?” Attorney General Williams (December 21, 1872)

    “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.” Secretary of State Fish, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394. (1871)

  266. avatar
    bob July 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The birthplace of Bush could be “proven” via the same sorts of “proof” as obama loyalist’s embrace regarding Obama’s birthplace, i.e., the validity of documents along with eye-witnesses, including his mother who, I believe, was there at the time.

    From your non-answer, I infer you cannot prove where George W. Bush was born, nor the nationalities of his parents at the time of his birth.

  267. avatar
    JoZeppy July 26, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The birthplace of Bush could be “proven” via the same sorts of “proof” as obama loyalist’s embrace regarding Obama’s birthplace, i.e., the validity of documents along with eye-witnesses, including his mother who, I believe, was there at the time.

    Such “proofs” and not actual proof, aside from eye-witnesses, unless the documents are original and signed by the hand of witnesses to his birth, like the attending doctor.That is testimony that is reasonably accepted as proof even though it’s not actual proof such as film of his mother with newborn in a hospital bed with some unmistakeable Texas landmark visible through a window.

    That would be a pretty impressive Texas landmark to be seen all the way from New England (George H.W. Bush was born in Mass, and George W. Bush was born in Conn.).

    Big surprise, you know the birthplaces of our presidents as well as you know the law.

  268. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

    I so enjoy reading Ballantine’s stuff…especially after wading through the BSer’s BS. Thanks…and I think you should bill Adrien $100 for the citizenship lesson. :D

  269. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    The impression that I got from the Government’s argument in Wong was not that the common law didn’t apply, but that the common law was subservient to legislation, in this case the Chinese Exclusion Act. The point was not that Wong would not have been a citizen before the Act, but that he could not become a citizen afterwards. The government argued that a country has the inherent power to say who its citizens are, and that the Congress is the appropriate vehicle for the expression of the popular will, and the Chinese Exclusion Act is that expression.

    That argument didn’t fly with the Supreme Court, not because legislation cannot override common law, but because legislation cannot override the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment thereof.
    .

    ballantine: The position taken by the government in the 1880s and 1890s and argued in the Wong Kim Ark case was never the position of the United States prior to the 1880s. Such later interpretation was obviously rejected by the Court which pointed out that our State Department and Attorney Generals since the beginning of the republic had always followed the common law. Is Adrien lying again or is he just completely ignorant of history? For example:

    “I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Secretary of State Marcy, (1854).

  270. avatar
    JoZeppy July 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Is it just me or did you just shoot your own foot off? You reference no waivers allowed by law. Ok, so Fuddy-duddy broke the law by granting Obama a waiver per her supposed authority? And about that authority, by law the DoH must provide long form birth certificates to those who request them, and yet the quacks running the dept claim that they only issue the short form, but that is false and not in conformity with the law.
    They never claim that it’s the law. They claim it is what they’ve made it, -the dept. POLICY. That’s what they rightfully call it and that’s all that it is, and yet they pretend its like something written in stone.

    Again…keep putting your utter lack of knowledge of the law on display. First off, we’re talking about two entirely different things here. Who can get a copy, and the form of the copy. So even if they were both covered statute, the fact that the statute grants exceptions in one, is not dispositive of something similar in the other. Secondly, in this case the law dictates who can lawfully get a copy of the document. It does not dictate the form of that document. So there is absolutely no such thing as a “waiver of privacy” in the state of Hawaii in terms of accessing a birth certificate. However, the Hawaiian DoH has the ability to grant a waiver of there is waiver of their DoH POLICY to only issue “short forms.” Again, the use of the short form is not LAW. It is DoH policy. And yes, they do provide exceptions to that policy (certain Hawaiian land grant programs require proof of being native Hawaiian, info not contained on the short form). So again, no waiver of who can get a copy since that is covered by statute. Waiver of policy as to the form.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That is part of the cover-up story to explain by Obumer avoided releasing a copy of his long form. After Corsi’s book was about to be released, suddenly the impossible appears, covered by the fake cover letters designed to be propaganda explaining why he couldn’t release his fake pdf image sooner. Where is a hole in the suspicions surrounding such an unbelievable dog and pony show as the release of his never examined birth certificate, -you know, the one he was instructed to not even mention.

    Oh, God…birthers and their stupid “plausibile deniability” theories….which, besides the fact that they’re so stupid, they are no protection from prosecution…and he did talk about it in his presser. And really, “fake cover letter.” The President’s attorney’s and the Hawaiian DoH confirm all the events in the letter, so why excatly would they be fake? Oh yeah…it’s all part of that massive conspiracy, invovling hunderes of people spanning 5 decades, but they’re so good no talks, but so incompetent that every amatuer birther call the purported forgeries obvious….and if you recall, the release had very little to do with Corsi, and was in response to a certain billionaire trying to build up media coverage (since his reality show was losing rating), running around claiming he had investigators on the ground finding “shocking” things. Then CNN did a big multi-day story on the “birther issue” and during that time, the President requested a waiver of policy. Nothing mirculous there. Up to that point the President did what any responsible person would do in response to a bunch of nutters chasing their tails. He ignored them. Much harder to ignore a egomaniacle billionaire media whore. The state never claimed the original didn’t exist. Nothing shocking or unusual about the chain of events, except for the fact that there were people dumb enough to buy Trump hype. But he got his when the President made him the butt of this jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shortly thereafter.

  271. avatar
    Dave B. July 26, 2013 at 8:57 pm #

    I don’t believe it ever came before a court, but the State Department’s record isn’t perfect on the matter.
    “The decisions of the Department of State do not appear always to have agreed with those of the courts. For example, in Hausding’s Case (1885) Secretary Frelinghuysen supported Mr. Kasson, U.S. minister to Germany, in the opinion that one Ludwig Hausding, who was born in the United States of a Saxon subject, but who had resided in Saxony since his infancy, was not entitled to a passport as a citizen of the United States. And this is in spite of the fact that his father had, subsequently to his birth, become a naturalized citizen of the United States. “The fact of birth under circumstances implying alien subjection, establishes of itself no right of citizenship.” This case may possibly be harmonized with the Chinese cases, cited above, on the theory that Hausding had never shown any fixed or definite intention to return, such as was manifested in the case of the subjects of the emperor of China. But the fact remains that the State Department gave the Fourteenth Amendment a different construction from that given by the Federal Courts. This former construction of the State Department has, however, since been abandoned.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=8UrgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=ludwig+hausding&source=bl&ots=xGaE35WNMH&sig=fWsVSkYoaH1P2xgc9tTX4mqzM_o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgzzUbKcEumxiQLIyIHgBg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ludwig%20hausding&f=true

    The “Chinese cases” referred to are U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, In re Look Tin Sing, and Ex parte Chin King.
    Minister Kasson presumed that Ludwig Hausding hadn’t acquired US citizenship at birth, which was at odds with the position repeatedly asserted by the State Department, as can be seen by the Justice Gray’s citation of Secretary Fish’s 1871 letter to the American minister to Italy (at paragraph 80 here: http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark ).

    Minister Kasson’s determination was based strictly on “the derived citizenship of minors under the Revised Statutes, section 2172.”
    Sec. 2172 can be read here:

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=452

    Chief Justice Fuller referred to Hausding’s Case in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark.
    Minister Kasson’s letters to Secretary Frelinghuysen can be read here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=dZwFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=ludwig+hausding&source=bl&ots=gTPkhecnp5&sig=XBchYdMrKg1AsZi0PgQXSElMwN4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgzzUbKcEumxiQLIyIHgBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ludwig%20hausding&f=true

    Slartibartfast:
    The federal government has never (and would never) filed suit arguing against the citizenship of any caucasian child born in the US to non-citizen parents—surely a much more frequent scenario than the circumstances of Mr. Wong’s birth.Why is that?

  272. avatar
    Dave B. July 26, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

    Secretary Frelinghuysen’s response to Minister Kasson can be read here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Dr4yAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=ludwig+hausding&source=bl&ots=W2TBb2VZXA&sig=N7duz89HHw37cIrpiocn1UtURds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QaGAUav-AsLoqgHSyYCIDg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ludwig%20hausding&f=true

    Dave B.: I don’t believe it ever came before a court, but the State Department’s record isn’t perfect on the matter.

  273. avatar
    Paper July 26, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    The principles you espouse here have been rejected, not forgotten, as they comprise an utterly un-American viewpoint. Your views will never be accepted unless there is an apocalypse and the worst survivors adopt them. In the meantime, the American enterprise of creating a more perfect union, a union comprised of different communities, continues to move directly away from your “natural” views.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    So far, I’m on my own.I don’t hear anyone echoing what I’ve shared about the nature of citizenship because no one has been informed about the principles involved.They have been forgotten for many generations.It’s like the lack of knowledge about one’s own roots.Not knowing about your ancestors does not mean they did not exist.Ignorance of the truth doesn’t alter the truth.

  274. avatar
    Dave B. July 26, 2013 at 10:34 pm #

    That’s pretty much nuts, Adrien.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You ask for the wrong thing.There may be no one who holds a view that conforms with the truth that I’ve discovered, but there is no one who can refute what I’ve written about citizenship.No one can nor has.

    All they can do is throw out opinions expressed by uninformed persons who happened to have held positions of authority.But opinions can be held and expressed in the total absence of any origin or principle to back them up.Such is the situation regarding views on citizenship.The Left is wrong, the Right is wrong (Apuzzo) because the truth is in the natural law middle.People belong to their family and their nation by inherited natural connection, unless born of one or two outsiders.Then law is needed to determine their national status.Parents from different tribes, different clans, different nations, -to which do their children belong?Permission must be given to allow for the adoption of children of outsiders.

    No one who is a citizen by law, an adopted citizen, is allowed to be President even if their adoption began at birth.He must be a natural member of the American family, not an adopted member.

    So far, I’m on my own.I don’t hear anyone echoing what I’ve shared about the nature of citizenship because no one has been informed about the principles involved.They have been forgotten for many generations.It’s like the lack of knowledge about one’s own roots.Not knowing about your ancestors does not mean they did not exist.Ignorance of the truth doesn’t alter the truth.

    Everyone believed in the Piltdown man because everyone else believed in the “facts” regarding him.They, like those who believe in the eligibility of our Piltdown President, were wrong.They were all conned.

  275. avatar
    Dave B. July 26, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

    There’s something about that comment that I just can’t bring myself to put my finger on.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: ~shows what you know.If anything, I hate the fact that I like Obama when I should despise him more.Not for his personality but for his ideology,dishonesty, and incompetence.

  276. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

    Well, that goes and muddies my point all to hell.

    poo.

    What does standard birther doctrine suggest I should do here? Ignore you? Repeat my point with additional emphasis? Move goalposts? Maybe I should accuse you of attacking me personally… hmmm… I know, I’ll admit that you have a valid point (I would suck at being a birther).

    Still, I don’t think that there is any evidence of a caucasian who’s status was or would have been changed by the 14th Amendment, which makes a similar argument against the case of our friend dihydro monoxide vitae.

    Dave B.: I don’t believe it ever came before a court, but the State Department’s record isn’t perfect on the matter.

  277. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you have been refuted is not the same thing as not being refuted. People who are proven, but fail to admit it, are left by the wayside.

    A failure to communicate. The refutation I await is one based on logic, facts, and /or principles, not opinions. All of the refutation I ever get is that of throwing out the erroneous opinions of men who were ignorant of the foundation of the subject they opined on. That’s the bottom line of what Mario Apuzzo does even though he does it brilliantly.
    I don’t care if the opinion comes from the Left or the Right, both fail to grasp reality or understand it. It’s all nothing but their opinions and presumptions. The refutation from each are presented with impressive authority. The problem is that either the logic given is wrong, or the principles involved are ignored, or completely unknown or unacknowledged by both sides.

    The certainty you feel about the incorrectness of the truth I share is not superior to the criticism that Apuzzo dishes out in complete opposition to your views and mine. My “opinion” is that you are both wrong and as pig-headed as you think me to be.

    The difference is that you have the entire establishment on your side while I only have irrefutable logic and principles of Natural Law on mine. I’ll take my position any day over the other opposing two.

    I don’t buy into the tyrannical philosophy that government has any place whatsoever in determining whether or not you belong to your own family or your own nation. It is a matter above the pay-grade of the closed system that is government. It’s in the universal open system of Natural Rights.

    Remember something about beliefs and how wrong they can be: Einstein believed, like the universal consensus status quo opinion, that the Milky Way constituted the entire universe.
    Once, not one scientist on Earth believed the proposed theory of tectonic plate movement.
    Once everyone believed that slavery was banned in the United States. But that also is false. You don’t believe me? Just read the 13th Amendment very, very carefully.

  278. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 26, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

    Paper: The principles you espouse here have been rejected, not forgotten, as they comprise an utterly un-American viewpoint.

    I espouse that the fundamental position of the United States government is that via the doctrine of citizenship equivalency all citizens are equal regardless of how or when they became citizens. Regardless of ancestors or race or ethnicity or national origin.
    There exists no exceptions to that unchanging position except one that was wisely written into the Constitution regarding the position of Commander-in-Chief of the United States military power. Only he and the VP (12 Amendment) were singled out as being required to be 100% American. No one else is not subject to such a requirement.

  279. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    Northland10: You debunked it in 2009,(the ex-Marines story of Mombasa birth place statement) and Loren wrote about him again in 2011.. So, h20 restates it again as if everyone here forgot.

    Note to Birthers: You may have issues with memory, but we do not.

    Surprise! I never heard of the guy until a month ago. You see, I was rarely a follower this this august website so how would I know anything about what you discussed? Second, I was not able to watch videos because I endured internet access solely via dial-up for 11 years. Get the picture?

  280. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    I figured we’d all be big enough to handle that little bump in the road, such as it is; dealing with the facts not as we would have them be, but as they are, is what makes us different from…them.
    I think you’ve hit on the point where Minister Kasson and Secretary Frelinghuysen got it wrong: both of them relied upon Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes to determine native citizenship. Sec. 1992 read

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    which was the wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and which was of course not the same as the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted two years and three months after the Civil Rights Act was enacted, which spoke not of persons “not subject to any foreign power”, but of persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&
    recNum=422

    Frelinghuysen was twice a US Senator from New Jersey, first appointed to fill a vacancy and later being elected for one term in his own right, but he wasn’t part of the Senate that passed the Civil Rights Act and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment.
    I think it’s somehow appropriate to insert here President Andrew Johnson’s message to the Senate on his veto (which was overridden) of the Civil Rights Bill:

    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_10veto2.html

    Any of that sound familiar?

    Slartibartfast:
    Well, that goes and muddies my point all to hell.

    poo.

    What does standard birther doctrine suggest I should do here?Ignore you?Repeat my point with additional emphasis?Move goalposts?Maybe I should accuse you of attacking me personally…hmmm…I know, I’ll admit that you have a valid point (I would suck at being a birther).

    Still, I don’t think that there is any evidence of a caucasian who’s status was or would have been changed by the 14th Amendment, which makes a similar argument against the case of our friend dihydro monoxide vitae.

  281. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 12:52 am #

    JoZeppy: The President’s attorney’s and the Hawaiian DoH confirm all the events in the letter, so why excatly would they be fake? Oh yeah…it’s all part of that massive conspiracy, invovling hunderes of people spanning 5 decades,

    You just loves them straw-men don’t you! Please, oh dispenser of all truth, name one person on earth that claims belief in any conspiracy that began before about 2006 or 7. There are none except in your fetid brain.
    As for the validation of the fake letters exchange, -I’m the dog guarding the hen house, only I’m really a fox in dog clothing: “Where’s the missing hens, my “master” asks? I’ll investigate and report later, eventually. But all in all, everything looks pretty normal.”

  282. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    “The federal government has never (and would never) filed suit arguing against the citizenship of any caucasian child born in the US to non-citizen parents—surely a much more frequent scenario than the circumstances of Mr. Wong’s birth. Why is that?”

    It’s because they were not related to the Chinese Exclusion Act and were not stopped at a U.S. port and denied entry. I think you need to rethink your question and its point of view as to the government filing suit or not. It was Mr. Wong who sued the U.S., not the other way around. If one is not denied entry, there’s no reason to sue.

  283. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 1:23 am #

    JoZeppy: Oh, God…birthers and their stupid “plausibile deniability” theories….which, besides the fact that they’re so stupid, they are no protection from prosecution…and he did talk about it in his presser.

    Birthers…plural? I’m unaware of anyone other than myself that has ever mentioned the scam perpetrated under the cover of attorney-client confidentiality and the deniability that attended Obama’s avoidance of any connection to what might end up like the fake that Dan Rather lost his career over. Name one other birther who espouses the scenario that I first authored. Educate me if you can. I assume you can’t.

    Plus you blow pure smoke with the falsehood that Obama “talked about” his long form bc. Saying merely that some more information was released is not a mention of a birth certificate, and you know it. Confess!

    “no protection from prosecution…” You ignorantly confuse deniability with attorney-client privilege. Obama has deniability in the court of public perception since there is zero video of him with the fake bc, and zero audio of him ever mentioning it. Gee, I wonder why that is? It is in case it was somehow exposed at a fraud. Which it has been thanks to crap like the deliberate smiling face forger’s artist signature mark.

  284. avatar
    Rickey July 27, 2013 at 1:28 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That is true except for the fact that it DOES NOT EXIST!He can’t present what he does not possess.He does have a birth certificate just like we all do, he’s had it all of his adult life, but it shows something that he can’t allow the American people to know otherwise he would have posted it online instead of a fabricated one concocted in 2008 after he took to running for the presidency.

    Come back and see us when you have evidence of Obama’s “real” birth certificate.

  285. avatar
    John Reilly July 27, 2013 at 1:30 am #

    If I understand Mr. Nash’s point, it is that there is an undeniable truth, covered up for years, that folks like Mr. Obama are not eligible. This truth is so remote that Nicolas Cage could not discover it in National Treasure III but Mr. Nash could. And it is handed down orally, since it is not written anywhere. Heaven save us if an Attorney General should die in office without having passed the secret on, unless, of course, it is inscribed in coded form in a secret hiding place in his desk. This is the stuff of Dan Brown.

    And generations of Attorneys General have been implementing the wrong policy, even though there is no evidence of such a policy, like a picture of an Attorney General holding the policy with a view of Washington outside his window. A picture which could be photoshopped with ease, but which you will accept while rejecting the official statements of multiple Hawaii officials. Heck, you would have accepted a picture of a baby George Bush being held in the loving arms of Barbara Bush so long as we could see a steer with the window with the Bush ranch brand and Southfork Ranch in the distance.

    Mr. Nash, this is far more complicated than it needs to be. However, by reading your posting I’m able to distill the essence of your research and analysis into five words.

    Ready?

    Here it is: “Black people can’t be President.”

    There. FIFY. No need to write 1,000 words next time. That will give you more free time to hang with your Nazi friends.

  286. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 2:10 am #

    Wow! These are some real gems in support of what they espouse. But there’s a huge problem.

    ballantine: the Court which pointed out that our State Department and Attorney Generals since the beginning of the republic had always followed the common law. Is Adrien lying again or is he just completely ignorant of history? For example:

    “I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Secretary of State Marcy, (1854).

    You should pitch a tent next to “under the IMPRESSION”. Since when does an IMPRESSION result is the expression of something other than an opinion? One that could be completely wrong? It is not as if any Attorney General ever took a course in the fundamental principles of citizenship, and therefore understood them.
    They all just presumed that their impressions were valid even when they weren’t. Those from states which granted citizenship to children of immigrants knew no other practice, and so they falsely assumed that what they were accustomed to must be universal nationwide. THEY WERE WRONG!

    ballantine: “In reply to your letter of the 7th, I have to say that a free white person born in this country, of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. (Lynch vs. Clarke et al., 1. Sandford Ch. R., p. 583.)” …Attorney General Black, 9 Op Atty Gen 3 73-74 (1859)

    “A child born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, is by the fact of birth a native-born citizen of the United States, entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.” Attorney General Bates, 10 Op. A. G., p. 328 (1862).

    More opinion, -no law, no court holding, just impressions. Note something highly significant. They both fail to use specificity, and so when reading what they said, if one fails to parse it closely, one will miss what was not said, and it changes everything.
    What was not said, nor implied, is that “foreign parents” and “alien parents” constitute a group that includes all foreign ambassadors. So by their loose language, and elementary thinking and statements, the children of all foreign ambassadors are born as U.S. citizens.
    You have to either accept that they knew what they were saying, meant it, and were dead wrong, or that they did not realize what they were saying was so juvenile in its logical implications that it was deeply flawed. Those are the only two possibilities.

    Their failure. They failed to recognize in their words that not all foreign parents are alike, some are different from others. Some are subject to the full authority of the United States and some are not.

    [see my latest exposition: Alien Babies versus Immigrant Babies @ http://obama–nation.com

    Children of those who are fully subject (immigrants) should, and eventually were, legally accepted as citizens. (Wong Kim Ark) but those who are not (visitors, -guests), well they were eventually also accepted as citizens, but that acceptance was not based on Wong but on an erroneous misinterpretation of it.

    That became the new national policy as promulgated by the Attorney General and handed down to the State Department, INS, Customs, etc. Citizenship by federal policy. That’s all that Obama possesses. It could be rescinded by him or Holder with a mere signature on an executive order.
    They could do that regardless of any court rulings to the contrary because they would be upholding their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, including errant court rulings. Remember, they are the executive branch, -not the courts. They do the executing of the law. Ultimately, they, like the high court, answer to no one unless they are willing to. Obama and Holder are not willing to be held accountable nor willing to hold anyone under them (and loyal) accountable either.

  287. avatar
    Suranis July 27, 2013 at 2:16 am #

    If the supreme court’s view was correct, then the only way to remove the born citizen requirement would be to amend the US constitution, not to pass legislation.

    There were a similar issue with the Irish Constitution. To quote Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

    “Prior to 1999 the right to citizenship by reason of birth in Ireland existed in ordinary legislation. The only people who had a constitutional right to citizenship were those who were citizens of the Irish Free State when the constitution came into force. For those born after 1937 the Constitution stated that the “future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.”

    The good friday agreement referendum in 1998 codified this in the Irish constitution, replacing article 2 with

    “It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.”

    This however created issues with pregnant women coming to Ireland in the later stages of pregnancy, in order to have an Irish citizen child and therefore be granted right of Residence in Ireland to bring up an Irish Citizen child. So we had a referendum to change the constitution, and it was approved in 2004. This added a new section to article 9

    Article 9.2:

    ” 1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
    2 This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section. ”

    So its clear that constitutional amendments are the way to change constitutional provisions

    So appeals to natural law seem pretty diffuse

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The impression that I got from the Government’s argument in Wong was not that the common law didn’t apply, but that the common law was subservient to legislation, in this case the Chinese Exclusion Act. The point was not that Wong would not have been a citizen before the Act, but that he could not become a citizen afterwards. The government argued that a country has the inherent power to say who its citizens are, and that the Congress is the appropriate vehicle for the expression of the popular will, and the Chinese Exclusion Act is that expression.

    That argument didn’t fly with the Supreme Court, not because legislation cannot override common law, but because legislation cannot override the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment thereof.
    .

  288. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 2:24 am #

    John Reilly: Mr. Nash’s point, it is that there is an undeniable truth, covered up for years, that folks like Mr. Obama are not eligible.

    You sir, are a dolt. There is no truth that was covered up. It was simply never known. You never knew it, and still don’t. Blind men can’t see their own face. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
    I discovered it only when my subconscious put together separate and seemingly unrelated facts. The result was like puzzle pieces being assembled resulting in an image that was unknown because the box was missing.
    You clearly have zero interest in learning anything new, anything that de-legitimizes the socialist savior. But if you did, you should start by getting acquainted with “my Nazi friends”. [Humility is the best friend of learning.] Then you might figure out which direction is North and which is South.

  289. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 2:48 am #

    Suranis: a person born in the island of Ireland,…who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen… is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.

    So appeals to natural law seem pretty diffuse

    Very interesting citizenship history, and revealing as well. But it’s connection to Natural Law is not diffuse, it is central. It declares that only those who inherit membership in the Irish nation from citizen parents or at least one, are not Irish citizens regardless of native birth in Ireland. As I’ve harped endlessly in a hundred expositions, native-birth is irrelevant except in obtaining citizenship by law. Natural citizenship is something inherited through one’s parents, just like family membership is naturally inherited and not bestowed by law.

    If Obama was born in similar circumstances but in Ireland under that new Constitution, he would definitely be an Irish citizen, but what type of citizen is another issue. Our American statutes contain no such allowance for citizenship being passed from one parent, the married mother, to her children except for cases born abroad of a foreign father. Obama, consequently, did not inherit his mother’s citizenship since she was not the legal head of the household. And…since his father was not an immigrant, and thus not subject fully to Washington’s authority over citizens and immigrants, his son was not born under such subjection either, -being born solely as a British subject since his father was merely a guest and not a legal member of American society.

  290. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 2:59 am #

    ballantine: The position taken by the government in the 1880s and 1890s and argued in the Wong Kim Ark case was never the position of the United States prior to the 1880s. Such later interpretation was obviously rejected by the Court which pointed out that our State Department and Attorney Generals since the beginning of the republic had always followed the common law.

    I hope that you can fully grasp what you’ve written because it proves one of my points. The actual law of the land is what is passed by Congress or handed down by the Supreme Court. What legal position is taken by “the government” i.e., the executive branch led by the A.G., is strictly POLICY and not actual law. It can be changed overnight or by a new administration, like the current one determined to fundamentally change previous law AND policy.
    “The court pointed out”, more like the court falsely claimed but couldn’t support with any evidence.

  291. avatar
    interestedbystander July 27, 2013 at 3:00 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That would be a significant thing to know, but I can’t know it without any link to a source.

    Oh the irony. And yet you acepted racebannon’s story without any corroborating evidence, even though he was an acknowledged birther for some time before he suddenly remembered that he held the one key piece of evidence that proved his theory.

    I am slowly catching up with this thread, so I am hoping Loren has already popped in to link to his demolishing of racebannon’s credibility – demonstrating with links that he changed this story as it spread in birtherdom, and blatantly lied abut another story even after Loren proved to him that the story could not have happened.

    Incidentally, I presume you know that there is documented proof that Obama senior didn’t leave the US in the time frame that you believe Stanley went to Kenya to give birth? So you believe she decieded to go on her own to meet her husband’s family, who live hundreds of miles from Mombassa?

  292. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 4:34 am #

    Wong Kim Ark holding:

    ballantine: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens,…with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

    Your worshipful attitude toward the judicial Kings of the United States leaves you blind toward what is right in front of your eyes. That is because you have abdicated your duty to think for yourself. You need to learn something; neither you nor the Gray court, nor any since, has had a clue as to what “in the allegiance’ even means. Over a long, long, long process of learning and contemplating a wide range of subjects, it finally became clear what it actually means. I’ve shared in numerous expositions what that meaning is.

    But you can learn here and now what one very important thing means: “born of resident aliens”. Gray did not write “born of aliens” because that was not what they were approving. Not all aliens are resident aliens. Native-born American Indians are not resident aliens because they were not residents of the United States. Residents are legal members of American society. Aliens are everyone who isn’t; -that included foreign ambassadors, Indians, foreign guests, hostile invaders, and Gypsies.
    They are known in government parlance as “non-immigrant aliens”. They were not subject to American jurisdiction as are citizens and immigrants. The could not be drafted and sent to their death in war. Their children were not covered by the naturalization force of the 14th Amendment because they were not born subject to “the allegiance, the power, the authority, the obedience, as are members of the nation, -whether citizen or immigrant.

    ballantine:
    That is, of course, is the English common law. And it also says the rule in England previaled under our orignal Constituion and that our common law is the same as England. In fact, it says that over and over. Again, you are either a liar or a moron.

    Or…I understand something that you don’t. I understand, since I am not a naive child like you, that what “it says” must be weighed against the facts, and as I’ve claimed earlier, what was said was the biggest lie ever told by any Supreme Court justice. I gave you a link so you can learn why. If you prefer to remain ignorant, then words won’t reach you. Lincoln asked: “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so.” Same with repeating a lie.

    ballantine:
    “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of… 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.”

    That’s the lie to which I refer. I’ve never read anything about the citizenship clauses of the constitutions of the original 13 states except that only four of them allowed automatic naturalization at birth for children of foreigners, -Virginia being one of them. Anyone born and raised in one of them would have assumed that the others had similar provisions but in fact they barred citizenship to children of everyone but Americans. Become an American and then your wife and children will also be Americans. That was the law of the land, percentage wise.

    ballantine:
    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . ”

    The problem is that no one understands what that means. “born in the allegiance” means something profound. It referred in England to children of actual subjects. It did not refer to children born of foreign visitors nor ambassadors because the allegiance referred to was from cradle to grave, birth to death with no right whatsoever of self expatriation, or naturalization as a member of another nation or subject of another king.
    In the U.S. there is no such thing as allegiance to the United States, -as in the U.S. government. It is the government that must display allegiance to the People of the United States, not the other way around. The only allegiance for Americans is to the Constitution and to one’s religion, one’s God.

    He then revealed his ignorance by making a baseless leap from subject to citizen, (which is the exact opposite of a subject); writing “natural-born citizens” exposing by the hyphen between natural and born, that he has no clue what the phase meant.
    The word “natural” modifies the word “citizen”, NOT “born, (i.e., “natural citizen”). His simplistic claim that all born under the authority of Washington (born in the allegiance) are natural-born citizens is essentially correct in about 97% of the births, but for the rest it is not true. He made the juvenile error of just rounding it off to a nice round 100%. (why split hairs?, that takes too much thinking)

    The truth is that nearly all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens, but some are only naturalized-at-birth citizens, while others are not citizens at all. It’s all determined by parentage, and to which government one’s father is exclusively tied. One government: -(American?; One government: foreign?; or two governments? (both). The answer determines which type of citizenship one is born with.

  293. avatar
    American Mzungu July 27, 2013 at 7:21 am #

    Jim: I’m waiting for the Reader’s Digest Condensed version.

    Here is an excerpt from an article that captures much of the essence of Nash’s argument, as best I can tell. I’ve done some editing to condense.

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/lady-and-the-tramp/

    “Tramp produced a son named Scamp. Scamp was by no stretch of the imagination a Cocker Spaniel but took after his father. Similarly, Obama Jr. is by no stretch of the imagination a natural American because he legally took after his father who was a British subject of Kenya. No citizen with mongrel parentage is eligible to the Office of the President because he/she is not a natural American citizen, just as the off-spring of Lady & The Tramp are not eligible to be registered with the American Kennel Association as pure-bred Cocker Spaniels.

    What the children are is determined by what the parents are. Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation…

    Therefore, Barack Obama fails the test of the requirement that he be a natural American citizen by birth, but it could be worse. His willingness to produce two digital birth document images that bare strong evidence of being forgeries, leads to inescapable speculation that his place of birth was not in a hospital in Hawaii, and may not have been in Hawaii at all…

    Because, in 1961, if his mother, who was not yet 19 when he was born, gave birth outside of the U.S. to a child fathered by a foreigner and not an American, then the child would, by the law then in effect, be deemed to not be an American citizen. So he then would go from not being a natural citizen to not being a citizen at all!”

  294. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 7:44 am #

    The word in the Constitution is “jurisdiction” not “allegiance.” However, we can talk about allegiance:

    One might think that the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court would know a thing or two about the law (and a hell of a lot more than some blogger on the Internet), and it was he who wrote, 6 years after the ratification of the US Constitution, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books (1795) which says:

    The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.

    It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…

    The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.

    Pg. 163, 167

    It seems ludicrous to me for anyone to claim a personal ownership of the definition of any word. Words mean what the general public says that they mean, what recognized authorities say that they mean, and in specialized jargon (terms of art) what the specialists say that the mean (here legislators and judges). The definitions of words do not float down from Heaven for the exclusive knowledge of the chosen.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You need to learn something; neither you nor the Gray court, nor any since, has had a clue as to what “in the allegiance’ even means. Over a long, long, long process of learning and contemplating a wide range of subjects, it finally became clear what it actually means. I’ve shared in numerous expositions what that meaning is.

  295. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 7:52 am #

    Failing to acknowledge that you have been refuted by logic, facts and/or principles is not the same as not being refuted by logic, facts and/or principles.

    Labeling fact as opinion is just your mode of denial.

    So let me give you a few facts:

    1) The Hawaii Department of Health said: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
    2) The copy posted by Obama says he was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, at the Kapiolani hospital. The copy posted by Obama was signed by a doctor and from a hospital.
    3) The Hawaii Department of Health (despite your delusional and tortured opinion denying it) provided official verifications to two state secretaries of state that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    4) 10 Courts have ruled in the case of Obama that your opinion of presidential eligibility is wrong.
    5) You have no standing as an expert and your opinions rewriting history according to your internal moral compass have no relevance to the actual meaning of the Constitution.

    Here’s my opinion based on these facts: You are a deluded crank with a hyperinflated opinion of his own competence.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: A failure to communicate. The refutation I await is one based on logic, facts, and /or principles, not opinions. All of the refutation I ever get is that of throwing out the erroneous opinions of men who were ignorant of the foundation of the subject they opined on

  296. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 8:09 am #

    Well that was a good selection, and shows which way Hermitian is bent.

    It is my personal interpretation of natural history that views such as those expressed by Hermitian represent an evolutionary throwback.

    American Mzungu: What the children are is determined by what the parents are. Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation…

  297. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 8:13 am #

    There is also statistical proof that Obama’s mother didn’t go to Kenya either at least by air, a detail in all birther stories. According to INS statistical reports for 1961-62, no US citizen left Kenya and arrived in the US by air that year. Zero.

    interestedbystander: Incidentally, I presume you know that there is documented proof that Obama senior didn’t leave the US in the time frame that you believe Stanley went to Kenya to give birth? So you believe she decided to go on her own to meet her husband’s family, who live hundreds of miles from Mombassa?

  298. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 8:17 am #

    No one who has read the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Wong could honestly say what you have said.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “The court pointed out”, more like the court falsely claimed but couldn’t support with any evidence.

  299. avatar
    Jim July 27, 2013 at 8:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No one who has read the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Wong could honestly say what you have said.

    Read? Birthers read? I thought they just went straight to the conclusion, and if it matched their preconceived notions it must be gold.

  300. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 8:49 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Marinsky lied thusly: “Readers here will remember Nash compared Ann and Obama Sr’s marriage, to barnyard animals mating.”

    Let’s have the quote. You can’t find it? Of course since it doesn’t exist except in your over-exercised imagination. And you dare to accuse me of being the liar? Wow! Talk about self-delusion.

    How “Lady and The Tramp” Debunks Obama’s Eligibility
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/lady-and-the-tramp/

    Just as Cocker Spaniels are Cocker Spaniels by birth to Cocker Spaniels, so Citizens are citizens naturally by birth to citizens. What if one of the parents is not a Cocker Spaniel? Will the off-spring be natural Cocker Spaniels or be something else? Even a child knows the answer after seeing Lady & The Tramp.

    Tramp was not a Cocker Spaniel and thus his progeny were not Cocker Spaniels but were instead hybrid mongrels. No hybrid mongrel is a natural anything since it’s a mixture of two different origins.

    Definition of Mongrel: 1. an animal or plant produced by the crossing of different breeds or varieties; esp. a dog of this kind. 2. Anything produced by the mixture of incongruous things. adj. of mixed breed, origin, race, or character.

    Obama Sr. produced a son named Obama Jr. They had something in common besides race and that was that they were both subjects of the British United Kingdom & Commonwealth. Tramp produced a son named Scamp. Scamp was by no stretch of the imagination a Cocker Spaniel but took after his father. Similarly, Obama Jr. is by no stretch of the imagination a natural American because he legally took after his father who was a British subject of Kenya.

    Mongrel Citizenship -
    No citizen with mongrel parentage is eligible to the Office of the President because he/she is not a natural American citizen, just as the off-spring of Lady & The Tramp are not eligible to be registered with the American Kennel Association as pure-bred Cocker Spaniels
    . What the children are is determined by what the parents are. Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation.”

  301. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 27, 2013 at 8:51 am #

    Toilet water-o-life doesn’t seem to remember “Rule #1 of the Internet”, once you say something, its there for all the world to see. There is no going “I never said that!”

  302. avatar
    American Mzungu July 27, 2013 at 8:52 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well that was a good selection, and shows which way Hermitian is bent.

    That was a selection from Nash. Hermitian is bent otherwise.

  303. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 8:58 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You sir, are a dolt…You clearly have zero interest in learning anything new…Then you might figure out which direction is North and which is South.

    Mr. Reilly is a USAF Academy graduate. A fighter pilot is the ultimate intellectual and physical achievement. It is the zenith of achievement.

    And you?

  304. avatar
    American Mzungu July 27, 2013 at 9:01 am #

    Misha, I set that one up on a tee for you to hit with a 2 wood. Well struck.

  305. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 9:06 am #

    American Mzungu: Misha, I set that one up on a tee for you to hit with a 2 wood.Well struck.

    [Takes a bow.]

  306. avatar
    Jim July 27, 2013 at 9:07 am #

    I love how birthers claim to not be racists and bigots and then go out of their way to prove how much of a racist and bigot they are.

  307. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 9:11 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Toilet water-o-life

    CO₂ofLife

  308. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: A failure to communicate.

    “What we got here is… a failure to communicate.” – Cool Hand Luke

  309. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 27, 2013 at 9:50 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I understand something that you don’t.

    and that you claim includes “Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation.”

    But “nations” are ultimately entities defined formally or informally by the traditional activity or intellectual consensus of their constituting people. Each resulting identifiable nation reserves to itself the right to define what qualifies as citizenship for that nation, and most importantly, what means that nation will recognize as legitimate for settling disagreements among its citizens as to what that definition of citizenship is. That would include defining any different types of citizenship.

    You propose to usurp that right of our nation to have chosen through its establishment of government, to accept our judiciary’s definition of the dimensions of citizenship status of the people of the United States of America.

    You claim your private interpretation of these matters is intellectually superior to the process that actually evolved legally in the United States, and then state that the process we actually use is therefore, in effect, illegitimate.

    Your’s is the view of a King or anarchist. Consequently, for all of your professed concern about the sanctity and importance of correctly defining citizenship, you are a terrible and disloyal citizen, your Highness.

  310. avatar
    Jim July 27, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    Benji Franklin: and that you claim includes “Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation.”

    Wasn’t there a famous German Chancellor who thought the same thing about racial purity? Is Adrien sad that we weren’t defeated in WW II so he could follow the leadership of his hero?

  311. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 10:18 am #

    Jim: Is Adrien sad that we weren’t defeated in WW II so he could follow the leadership of his hero?

    I believe CO₂ofLife is.

  312. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 10:30 am #

    Dr C: You were correct with your ’1000 Word Challenge.’

    Shine a light.

    I have to say, this is fun.

  313. avatar
    John Reilly July 27, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    Anyone who calls the President a “mongrel” or “hybrid mongrel” as does Mr. Nash is a Nazi. There can be no rational discussion.

  314. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 11:05 am #

    John Reilly: If I understand Mr. Nash’s point, it is that there is an undeniable truth, covered up for years, that folks like Mr. Obama are not eligible.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You sir, are a dolt…You clearly have zero interest in learning anything new, anything that de-legitimizes the socialist savior.But if you did, you should start by getting acquainted with “my Nazi friends”…Then you might figure out which direction is North and which is South.

    misha marinsky: Mr. Reilly is a USAF Academy graduate. A fighter pilot is the ultimate intellectual and physical achievement. It is the zenith of achievement.

    And you?

    John Reilly: There can be no rational discussion.

    CO₂ofLife is clinically insane, and a neo-Nazi. He only deserves ridicule.

  315. avatar
    Paper July 27, 2013 at 11:33 am #

    Your notion of 100% American is what has been rejected. There are no 99%, 86%, 73% or 12% Americans. Moreover, your notion of “natural,” on which you base your definition of 100%, has been rejected. These are not unknown or forgotten notions as you like to characterize them. We have rejected them.

    As imperfect as our founding was, we rejected it even then. Eligibility for political office in general, relatively open, was itself just such a rejection. We have more perfectly expanded that principle to include women and all races, but for the times, it was nonetheless a rejection. As such, the presidency was not so much a singled-out exception as much as a leftover, a leftover based on political concerns of the times, not on “natural” purity or percentages. The Constitution itself allows those who were citizens at the founding to be eligible, regardless of their “natural” purity, a rejection right from the start of your notion that loyalty is equated to parentage.

    Percentages came into play in one circumstance, the counting of slaves as three-fifths. Status? Rejected. We do not accept percentages.

    We do not accept percentages even regarding your notion of natural born citizenship. All citizens are 100% American, just some are younger than thirty-five, some haven’t lived here fourteen years and some were not born American, some not born here.

    In terms of your personal notions, being born of American parents does not make you 100%; it just makes you second, third, fourth generation, or more. Such distinctions are not about political inclusion, and, beyond anything else, it is deeply un-American, against our founding principle of being a country of citizens, to tie the presidency to such distinctions. Indeed, if any form of government is concerned about the parentage of its leaders, it is monarchy, and, you guessed it, we rejected that approach.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I espouse that the fundamental position of the United States government is that via the doctrine of citizenship equivalency all citizens are equal regardless of how or when they became citizens.Regardless of ancestors or race or ethnicity or national origin. There exists no exceptions to that unchanging position except one that was wisely written into the Constitution regarding the position of Commander-in-Chief of the United States military power.Only he and the VP (12 Amendment) were singled out as being required to be 100% American.No one else is not subject to such a requirement.

  316. avatar
    Majority Will July 27, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife

    Nash is Ob-NOxious.

  317. avatar
    John Reilly July 27, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    Pres. Obama is 100% American. There. FIFY.

  318. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 11:58 am #

    Majority Will: Nash is Ob-NOxious.

    Nash gets his NOx from hanging around Orly.

  319. avatar
    Arthur July 27, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I discovered it only when my subconscious put together separate and seemingly unrelated facts. The result was like puzzle pieces being assembled resulting in an image that was unknown because the box was missing.

    Jesus H. Christ-on-a-Crutch, but that’s rich! H2, you are a regular gnostic mystic. O great seer, what other truths will your subconscious reveal? Perhaps something to do with the Masons and the Knights Templar?

  320. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I discovered it only when my subconscious put together separate and seemingly unrelated facts. The result was like puzzle pieces being assembled resulting in an image that was unknown because the box was missing.

    Can you grow those magic mushrooms all year around in Vermont?

  321. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Can you grow those magic mushrooms all year around in Vermont?

    CO₂ofLife does not live in Vermont. Vermont is the most liberal state in the Union.

  322. avatar
    Arthur July 27, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife does not live in Vermont.

    Didn’t he say he divides his time between a large tent on the moon, and a pineapple under the sea? Somewhere near Bikini Bottom, isn’t it?

  323. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    Arthur: Didn’t he say he divides his time between a large tent on the moon, and a pineapple under the sea

    CO₂ofLife spends most of his time in Berchtesgaden.

  324. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife does not live in Vermont. Vermont is the most liberal state in the Union.

    That’s right…..easy to confuse him with steve e.

    It doesn’t really matter where he lives. It’s clear magic mushrooms are at the root of the problem.

  325. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife spends most of his time in Berchtesgaden.

    Mushrooms grow well in the Alps.

  326. avatar
    jtmunkus July 27, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    For Mr. Nash to believe that a natural born American citizen must equate with the Nazi notion of Aryan racial purity is to ignore that the USA went to war and eradicated his hero Adolf Hitler and his real followers from the face of the earth.

    Ignorance of facts seems to be how the deluded, would-be race warrior Mr. Nash is able to contrive his far-fetched scheme to disqualify our first black president based on the color of his skin, and his lineage.

    Nash’s ignorance and hate-based reasoning don’t make a lick of sense even inside his and the birthers’ echo chamber(s). Comforting he so lacks influence that he spends his days in vain, begging and pleading to convince rational progressives of his Nazi-American fairy tales.

    History has proven not only the preposterous nature of Nash’s vile claims, but also that humanity does not, and will never, accept them.

  327. avatar
    jtmunkus July 27, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

    CarlOrcas: That’s right…..easy to confuse him with steve e.

    It doesn’t really matter where he lives. It’s clear magic mushrooms are at the root of the problem.

    I’ve never known magic mushrooms to inspire such hateful, irrational thinking.

    Bath salts, maybe?

  328. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

    So I take it then that you are merely “under the IMPRESSION” that you’re not crazy as a betsy bug.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    Wow!These are some real gems in support of what they espouse.But there’s a huge problem.

    You should pitch a tent next to “under the IMPRESSION”.Since when does an IMPRESSION result is the expression of something other than an opinion?One that could be completely wrong?

  329. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

    Okay, so is the fellow that writes something like that crazy as a betsy bug or what?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You sir, are a dolt.There is no truth that was covered up.It was simply never known.You never knew it, and still don’t.Blind men can’t see their own face.That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I discovered it only when my subconscious put together separate and seemingly unrelated facts.The result was like puzzle pieces being assembled resulting in an image that was unknown because the box was missing. You clearly have zero interest in learning anything new, anything that de-legitimizes the socialist savior.But if you did, you should start by getting acquainted with “my Nazi friends”.[Humility is the best friend of learning.]Then you might figure out which direction is North and which is South.

  330. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

    The stupid is strong with this one.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Our American statutes contain no such allowance for citizenship being passed from one parent, the married mother, to her children except for cases born abroad of a foreign father. Obama, consequently, did not inherit his mother’s citizenship since she was not the legal head of the household. And…since his father was not an immigrant, and thus not subject fully to Washington’s authority over citizens and immigrants, his son was not born under such subjection either, -being born solely as a British subject since his father was merely a guest and not a legal member of American society.

  331. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    “During the debates in the senate in January ary and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.’ Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked ‘whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?’ Mr. Trumbull answered, ‘Undoubtedly;’”

    http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

    (paragraph 103)
    And the language of the Fourteenth Amendment even more explicitly included
    those persons.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: But you can learn here and now what one very important thing means: “born of resident aliens”. Gray did not write “born of aliens” because that was not what they were approving. Not all aliens are resident aliens. Native-born American Indians are not resident aliens because they were not residents of the United States. Residents are legal members of American society. Aliens are everyone who isn’t; -that included foreign ambassadors, Indians, foreign guests, hostile invaders, and Gypsies.
    They are known in government parlance as “non-immigrant aliens”. They were not subject to American jurisdiction as are citizens and immigrants. The could not be drafted and sent to their death in war. Their children were not covered by the naturalization force of the 14th Amendment because they were not born subject to “the allegiance, the power, the authority, the obedience, as are members of the nation, -whether citizen or immigrant.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Your worshipful attitude toward the judicial Kings of the United States leaves you blind toward what is right in front of your eyes. That is because you have abdicated your duty to think for yourself. You need to learn something; neither you nor the Gray court, nor any since, has had a clue as to what “in the allegiance’ even means. Over a long, long, long process of learning and contemplating a wide range of subjects, it finally became clear what it actually means. I’ve shared in numerous expositions what that meaning is.

    Putting aside for a moment the rapidly-accumulating mass of evidence that you’re just plain nuts, It wasn’t “the Gray Court.” Horace Gray was an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. Melville Fuller was Chief Justice, so we call it “the Fuller Court.”
    I belabor the details with you because you have at least a glimmer of a chance of becoming not so abysmally ignorant when it comes to such details. When it comes to matters of concept, your defects are most likely beyond repair.

  332. avatar
    Arthur July 27, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    Dave B.: crazy as a betsy bug

    Where I’m from, it’s “crazy as a bed bug.” You sure you’re not a foreigner? You don’t sound like a natural-born citizen to me! A natural-born citizen emerges from a pure-born vagina with a innate knowledge of all idiomatic speech–just ask Magic Waters.

  333. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    “There is no reasonable doubt existing at this time, nor has there been in England, for nearly four hundred years, that the common law acknowledges no such principle, but, to use Lord Kenyon’s language in Doe v. Jones, 4 Durnf & East 308, that “the character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only. Whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born within the allegiance of the King, constituted a natural-born subject;” and consequently, anterior to any of the statutes, the being born out of the allegiance of the king, constituted an alien.”

    Horace Binney, “The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Current Naturalization Laws” (1853), page 6:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=7y4wAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Note that “Whatever were the situations of his parents.”
    You wouldn’t like Mr. Binney, Adrien. His “Alienigenae of the United States” argued that the provisions of the Act of 14th April, 1802, that “the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” excluded from citizenship those born to such citizens who acquired US citizenship, by birth or naturalization, after that date– and your “natural law” be damned.
    And Congress and the Courts agreed with him. In response, Congress passed the Act of February 10, 1855:
    “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of
    the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens
    thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of
    citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United
    States.” (Section 1, 10 Stat. 604; Sec. 1993 Revised Statutes)

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=422

    Mr. Binney is cited by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

    ” ‘The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ Page 22, note. ”

    http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

    (paragraph 29)

    And your “natural law” be double-damned!

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The problem is that no one understands what that means. “born in the allegiance” means something profound. It referred in England to children of actual subjects. It did not refer to children born of foreign visitors nor ambassadors because the allegiance referred to was from cradle to grave, birth to death with no right whatsoever of self expatriation, or naturalization as a member of another nation or subject of another king.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: In the U.S. there is no such thing as allegiance to the United States, -as in the U.S. government.

    8 USC 1101(a)(22) The term “national of the United States” means
    (A) a citizen of the United States, or
    (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

  334. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    Why that’s just crazy talk. Everybody knows that it’s the betsy bugs that’re the crazy ones. Bed bugs have the good sense to come in where it’s warm and nice. Betsy bugs can’t even find their way off the porch.

    Arthur: Where I’m from, it’s “crazy as a bed bug.” You sure you’re not a foreigner? You don’t sound like a natural-born citizen to me! A natural-born citizen emerges from a pure-born vagina with a innate knowledge of all idiomatic speech–just ask Magic Waters.

  335. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 4:22 pm #

    Dave B.: so is the fellow that writes something like that crazy as a betsy bug

    You ain’t from around here. You a ferner or somethin’? We don’t like your kind, you best be movin’ on.

  336. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

    Arthur: A natural-born citizen emerges from a pure-born Aryan maiden’s vagina

    FIFY

  337. avatar
    Majority Will July 27, 2013 at 5:00 pm #

    misha marinsky: FIFY

    Only if the virgin Aryan maiden was impregnated with the clean and powerful sperm of the clearly superior and pure in blood Aryan Knight who carries smart genes that have the Pledge of Allegiance encoded in the DNA.

    Right Nash?

  338. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

    I want to address this as well as Mr. Nash’s approach in general.

    First, his notion that the US-born children of foreigners are not liable for military service is just false. There’s no truth at all to it, and why Barack Obama registered for the Draft like every other American male.

    But as I was pulling weeds, I thought about the general approach made by Nash. It is an argument from principles. The problem with that approach is that an argument from principles only works when those in the argument agree on the principles. Nash made up his own, and ones contrary to the historical statements of the founders of the Country.

    When people argue, they can do it from a number of directions: there’s evidence, authority, emotion, logic, law and principles. Since we don’t agree with Nash’s principles, his argument becomes an argument from authority: himself. He is the one who discovered the principles behind his thesis and any claim he has to them being correct must rely on his own standing as an expert–a standing which does not exist.

    When amateurs argue a technical topic (and I would put the discussion of the meaning of “natural born citizen” among the lay participants of this blog in that category) a very appropriate argument is one from authority, and so I am very comfortable and confident making an argument based on the ten court decisions that say that Barack Obama is not disqualified from the presidency based on the alien status of his father. Nash rejects that argument, the competence of the ten judges (and appeals judges) and claims that he himself is the sole competent authority. Put plainly like that, it’s clear how utterly silly it is.

    Look at what authority Nash rejects: Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, US Supreme Court decisions, US Attorneys General, state and federal judges, US Senators, media legal consultants and the Congressional Research Service’s legislative attorney. Nash claims to understand the principles and the history better than they, even though he has no qualifications except doing some reading and having a web site.

    An argument from unqualified authority isn’t going anywhere.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: NOTE; Allegiance has zero connection to minors, especially babies. Also, it has no connection to American principles. Our principle is purely one of citizenship responsibility or obligation, -the obligation to defend the defenseless and the nation as a whole. That obligation falls solely on the shoulders of adult male citizens and residents. It does NOT fall on the shoulders of guests of our government nor to their children born within our borders who are also guests.

  339. avatar
    Kate1230 July 27, 2013 at 6:10 pm #

    misha marinsky: “thousands of miles from home”: ~11K miles.

    Thank you. I debunk the whole physically impossible scenario here:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

    Thanks, Misha. Great blog, it really covers the impossibility of Ann Dunham-Obama giving birth in Kenya or anywhere else in the world other than Hawaii.

  340. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I wrote: That obligation (military service) falls solely on the shoulders of adult male citizens and residents.
    Dr. C. wrote: his notion that the US-born children of foreigners are not liable for military service is just false. There’s no truth at all to it,

    Failure to communicate. In the juxtaposition of citizens with residents, what you failed to grasp though I’ve repeated it a hundred times (what kind of listening is that?) immigrants & their children (who are of draft age) must register. “Resident” refers unclearly to legal residents, iow, immigrants.
    Dr. C. wrote: “An argument from unqualified authority isn’t going anywhere.”

    Exactly, they are all unqualified authorities because they do no comprehend the fundamentals of citizenship, neither did their teachers nor their teachers’ teachers.
    No one is an authority in things that they do not understand. That is your position as well as mine.

  341. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    Majority Will: Only if the virgin Aryan maiden was impregnated with the clean and powerful sperm of the clearly superior and pure in blood Aryan Knight who carries smart genes that have the Pledge of Allegiance encoded in the DNA.

    Right Nash?

    When are you going to get off of your lazy behind and check-out my “collage homage to Hitler”? Til you do you are simply making an ass of yourself. You’ll see why.

  342. avatar
    Monkey Boy July 27, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    Wow! That’s more than an hour that I spent reading this thread and links that is gone forever. Nash’s fulminations oscillate between the crazily bizarre to the just plain stupid.

    On the subject of The Lady and the Tramp, their offspring while neither cocker spaniel nor nondescript (man made designations), they are undeniably canine. A cross between a Granny Smith, and a Mackintosh does not produce a new kind of fruit, the result is still an apple. The mating of a blond person with a brunette does not produce some different kind of person, but one of the infinite variation of a species.

    As an aside, I wonder if in Nash’s twisted ideology , a Roan were mated with Grey, would the result be something other than a horse.

    Of course, all this has nothing to do with nationhood nor citizenship, but is merely a vehicle that Nash uses to spout his racist views.

    Communities are man made devices whether consensual or imposed; and the laws of a community are entirely human derived–again, either by covenant or imposition. They are not determined by a Deity, nor by Nature. What more, unique circumstances of each community shape it laws. There is NO Natural Law! The circumstances in Europe, after the collaspe of the Roman Empire, led to the laws and institutions of Feudalism; however, in the South Pacific no such institutions arose. Europe’s Law of Conquest was alien to sub-saharan West Africa where land and natural resources were communally owned.

    Similarly, laws of citizenship are unique to a given community, and determined by that community–not by Nature.

  343. avatar
    Jim July 27, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    An argument from unqualified authority isn’t going anywhere.

    Yeah, the one point he misses is that we live in the USA and not Nashi Germany.

  344. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 9:05 pm #

    Dave B.:
    “There is no reasonable doubt existing at this time, nor has there been in England, for nearly four hundred years, that the common law acknowledges no such principle, but, to use Lord Kenyon’s language inDoe v. Jones, 4 Durnf & East 308, that “the character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only.Whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born within the allegiance of the King, constituted a natural-born subject;” and consequently, anterior to any of the statutes, the being born out of the allegiance of the king, constituted an alien.”

    That quote is detached from reality. Why? It proceeds from a false premise, the premise that natural-born subject is and always was a legal term of art. That is a brain-dead presumption. The words originally mean just what they say, but over the centuries they became bastardized to mean anyone that the king claimed as his subject, regardless of not meeting the actual definition of what the words mean. 1. A Natural Subject, (fathered by a free Englishman) 2. A Born Subject. -fathered by either a natural subject or a foreign immigrant subject, (resulting in an “alien-born subject”) 3. A Natural Born Subject . -one who was not alien-born but was natural born of an English father.

    There were two competing sides, one arguing that people had rights, natural rights, including the inheritance of membership in the father’s nation, while the other argued that the King’s rights superseded all rights of residents of his domain and who belonged to him because they were born under his dominion. Eventually the latter lost when the British Nationality Act of 1772 was passed. From thenceforth one was not recognized as having been born as a British subject if their father was not “born within the allegiance of the King,”.

    Guess what that does NOT mean. It does not mean within the *territory* of the king. It means under obedience to the king via birth to a law-abiding, government-authority-recognizing subject father. The children of a Robin Hood were not subjects because they were out of the obedience even though within the territory. They were outlaws and foreigners in effect.

    Dave B.:
    Horace Binney, “The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Current Naturalization Laws” (1853), page 6:

    Note that “Whatever were the situations of his parents.”
    You wouldn’t like Mr. Binney, Adrien.His “Alienigenae of the United States” argued that the provisions of the Act of 14th April, 1802, that “the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” –excluded from citizenship: those born to such citizens who acquired US citizenshi, by birth or naturalization, after that date– and your “natural law” be damned.

    Wow! Now you’ve devolved to simply lying and mischaracterizing a quote, which actually is:
    and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States”
    Not a word about exclusion from citizenship other than foreign born children of foreign born Americans who never lived in the Unites States. Such children are natural citizens of the land where they were born, being children of natives. Where did you get such a misrepresentation?

    Dave B.:
    And Congress and the Courts agreed with him.In response, Congress passed the Act of February 10, 1855:
    “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of
    the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens
    thereof, are DECLARED to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of
    citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United
    States.”

    That declaration was not declaratory of a grant of citizenship but declaratory of the fact of citizenship. It was declared to all working for state and federal immigration and naturalization services so people wouldn’t suffer what Mr. Wong had to endure at the hands of such officers and government lawyers.

    Dave B.:
    Mr. Binney is cited by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

    You need to find and read the facts about Gray’s quote from Binney. I believe it was Leo Donofrio (or Apuzzo) who exposed the truth, which is that he deliberately used a quote from the first and misprinted version, which was corrected in all subsequent versions. Somehow Gray found a twenty five year old copy of his obscure pamphlet’s first and flawed printing and made it like a center piece, doing so in a most egregious and openly dishonest manner. It all hinged on a single word, or two, or a single misprinted phrase which changed its meaning 180 degrees. I wish I had the link for you. It’s buried somewhere in my endless bookmarks. Other than that, Binney was a great support of the natural law view. Citizenship descends through the head of the family.

    “And your “natural law” be double-damned!

    8 USC 1101(a)(22) The term “national of the United States” means

    (A) a citizen of the United States, or
    (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
    ~~~
    Again you quote something that is pure error. American Nationals (Samoans and others, are not U.S.citizens and that fact is stamped on their U.S. passports.

    U.S. Nationals, like U.S. immigrants and U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to no government on earth. Do you not even grasp what the word “permanent” means?

    It means no right of self-expatriation. That’s the one on which the American Revolution was founded, and over which the War of 1812 was fought. And just ask yourself and answer if you can; “how can someone who is not even a U.S. citizen, possibly owe permanent allegiance to a government that does not allow him to be a member of its nation? That is insane on its face. Learn how to think about what you are so confidently quoting. If you can.

  345. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

    Dave B.:
    “During the debates in the senate in January ary and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.
    ’ Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked ‘whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?’ Mr. Trumbull answered, ‘Undoubtedly;’”

    It wasn’t “the Gray Court.”Horace Gray was an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.Melville Fuller was Chief Justice, so we call it “the Fuller Court.”
    I belabor the details with you because you have at least a glimmer of a chance of becoming not so abysmally ignorant when it comes to such details.When it comes to matters of concept, your defects are most likely beyond repair.

    Thanks for the correction. The truth is always welcome even if it is contrary to assumptions I’ve written and promulgated. Such as some of what I spend much of the day writing. [Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong (about citizenship & slavery)]
    The answer of Trumbull is counter to what I expended many words asserting, and I had read his words previously but had forgotten them. That is because my focus is not on law or legal authorities but on the principles and examples of natural law. Yours is the exact opposite.

    Since natural law trumps human law, my limited knowledge of it is the price paid for expending an enormous amount of time contemplating it, writing about it, and disputing those who know nothing of what underlies the entire matrix of human law. It is like an alternate dimension from your perspective, and yet as quantum physics research shows, the dimensions we are familiar with are not all there is to reality.

  346. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

    interestedbystander: Oh the irony.And yet you acepted racebannon’s story without any corroborating evidence, even though he was an acknowledged birther for some time before he suddenly remembered that he held the one key piece of evidence that

    Incidentally, I presume you know that there is documented proof that Obama senior didn’t leave the US in the time frame that you believe Stanley went to Kenya to give birth?

    I don’t know who racebannon is. I don’t believe that Obama was born in Kenya. I theorize that he was born in Vancouver and have written an exposition on that; The Vancouver Scenario

  347. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 9:48 pm #

    Dave B.:
    The stupid is strong with this one.

    The reason there is no statute ascribe an American mother’s citizenship to her child if born in the U.S. is because of the consensus via of the 14th Amendment providing it. But that view does not parse the question as to what kind of citizen such a child is if fathered by a foreigner.

  348. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    nbc: Of course there is nothing unlikely about the None issue which is merely an artifact not found on the AP copy.

    Artifact? In the AP copy? I think you are confusing something since the AP image is not a pdf.
    Is the splitting of the word none replicable and explainable? If one or more letters were split from the text layer and embedded in the background layer, that would be understandable. That is not what happened. It was not removed intact to the background nor to a separate layer of its own. Rather, it was split between the text layer and a new separate layer. That is also what happened to the ‘accepted by” date stamps. I believe I recall something similar in your results but as having occurred with different elements. I’ll need to reexamine your images to see if anything like the none split happened.

  349. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    What you actually said was:

    ” That obligation falls solely on the shoulders of adult male citizens and residents. It does NOT fall on the shoulders of guests of our government nor to their children born within our borders who are also guests.”

    You said that persons born in the United States to non-resident aliens do not have to register for the draft. That is simply false except for the families of ambassadors, and that qualification is not relevant to this discussion. It is not a confusion about citizens and aliens. You said “born within our borders.”

    Maybe you are the one who is confused about who is a citizen and who is an alien, since you reject all authority on the topic in favor of your inner muse.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Failure to communicate. In the juxtaposition of citizens with residents, what you failed to grasp though I’ve repeated it a hundred times (what kind of listening is that?) immigrants & their children (who are of draft age) must register. “Resident” refers unclearly to legal residents, iow, immigrants.

  350. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    The consensus view among experts, historical and current, is that they are “natural born citizens.”

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: But that view does not parse the question as to what kind of citizen such a child is if fathered by a foreigner.

  351. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: When are you going to get off of your lazy behind and check-out my “collage homage to Hitler”?

    Where would I find your “collage homage to Hitler”?

  352. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 27, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The reason there is no statute ascribe an American mother’s citizenship to her child if born in the U.S. is because of the consensus via of the 14th Amendment providing it.But that view does not parse the question as to what kind of citizen such a child is if fathered by a foreigner.

    Oh, so you’re Neo-Nazi scum AND one of those “sacred sperm of citizenship” whack-jobs. Lemme guess, you’re also a Sandy Hook denier too.

  353. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 27, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

    Monkey Boy:

    On the subject of The Lady and the Tramp, their offspring while neither cocker spaniel nor nondescript (man made designations), they are undeniably canine. A cross between a Granny Smith, and a Mackintosh does not produce a new kind of fruit, the result is still an apple.

    You are a deliberate and desperate deceiver. You know full well that I never used such comparisons. Apples are apples, so what? I asked what you get if you cross a peach with a plum (comparable to the child of two people from two different nations) Do you get a peach or a plum (speaking of which I’m blowing my day answering good and horribly stupid comments when I should be jarring about four gallons of plums from my tree) or do you get something different? You get a HYBRID! which YOU KNOW but dare not reveal since your aim is to deceive.

    ” if in Nash’s twisted ideology , a Roan were mated with Grey, would the result be something other than a horse?”
    Duffus! Where is a mention of my comparison to mating a horse with a donkey, producing a sterile mule which belongs to no group because it can’t reproduce to create a group? It is a HYBRID! Like Obama. Racially and politically and ideologically. He is a combination not produced by like sources. He is either Black or he’s White, -which is it? He’s both? But that is a hybrid, he can’t be that can he? He is
    American and he is Kenyan. He is a democrat and he is a socialist. He is a “christian” and a “muslin” He is not a natural member of any group because he is a hybrid.

    He is a hermaphrodite of citizenship and other things. That is reality. Hybrid citizenship is barred from eligibility to serve as President. The president must be 100% American, -not 50-50, half-&-half. He must be a natural citizen by birth, not a hybrid citizen by birth,

    “Of course, all this has nothing to do with nationhood nor citizenship, but is merely a vehicle that Nash uses to spout his racist views.”

    What do you think of my collage-”homage” to Hitler? You too afraid of what you might discover? Coward.

    “Communities are man made devices whether consensual or imposed; and the laws of a community are entirely human derived–again, either by covenant or imposition. There is NO Natural Law!”

    Ha! that is funny. I recall that I wrote a hypothetical on just what that would mean. No one would have any connection to anyone else. Parents would be no more the owners and guardians of their children than strangers because there would be no natural connections between anyone. You would not be a member of your family because families would not exist since they would have to be the consequence of how humans are wired by natural law but natural law does not exist. It goes on and on with the absurdities of your foolish supposition.
    Human society is grounded on human families, which form clans, which form tribes, which form countries, which form nations. Everything is grounded on natural relationships and primal responsibilities to each other. Otherwise, let the baby find his own food.

  354. avatar
    Paper July 27, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

    If you would like to update your own arguments, he is the guy you yourself mentioned as having told the story of supposedly meeting a young Obama.

    Here are your own words from above:

    “Did you know about the ex-Marine who in about 1980 was talking to a young black man in Honolulu, who, after he’d told him that his unit had just recently been stationed in Mombasa Kenya, replied; “I was born in Mombasa!” Check out his video interview on YouTube. One significant testimony kind of neutralizing another. The mystery remaining.”

    h2ooflife: I don’t know who racebannon is.I don’t believe that Obama was born in Kenya.I theorize that he was born in Vancouver and have written an exposition on that; The Vancouver Scenario

  355. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

    Says you. But then, you’re an idiot.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B.:
    “There is no reasonable doubt existing at this time, nor has there been in England, for nearly four hundred years, that the common law acknowledges no such principle, but, to use Lord Kenyon’s language inDoe v. Jones, 4 Durnf & East 308, that “the character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only.Whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born within the allegiance of the King, constituted a natural-born subject;” and consequently, anterior to any of the statutes, the being born out of the allegiance of the king, constituted an alien.”

    That quote is detached from reality. Why? It proceeds from a false premise, the premise that natural-born subject is and always was a legal term of art. That is a brain-dead presumption…Guess what that does NOT mean. It does not mean within the *territory* of the king. It means under obedience to the king via birth to a law-abiding, government-authority-recognizing subject father. The children of a Robin Hood were not subjects because they were out of the obedience even though within the territory. They were outlaws and foreigners in effect.

  356. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 11:43 pm #

    Says you. But then, you’re an idiot. I suggest you read page 28 of Mr. Binney’s “Alienigenae”, which is where I drew that particular quotation from. You read the whole thing, Adrien, and if you still think I’ve “mischaracterized” it– oh, wait, you’re already an idiot. Never mind.
    But as it is, if you’re trying to pass yourself off as having read Binney’s “Alienigenae”, I say you’re lying. Because Binney sure as hell said what I say he did.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B.:
    Horace Binney, “The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Current Naturalization Laws” (1853), page 6:

    Note that “Whatever were the situations of his parents.”
    You wouldn’t like Mr. Binney, Adrien.His “Alienigenae of the United States” argued that the provisions of the Act of 14th April, 1802, that “the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” –excluded from citizenship: those born to such citizens who acquired US citizenshi, by birth or naturalization, after that date– and your “natural law” be damned.

    Wow! Now you’ve devolved to simply lying and mischaracterizing a quote, which actually is:
    and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States”
    Not a word about exclusion from citizenship other than foreign born children of foreign born Americans who never lived in the Unites States. Such children are natural citizens of the land where they were born, being children of natives. Where did you get such a misrepresentation?

  357. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Lemme guess, you’re also a Sandy Hook denier too.

    CO₂ofLife is a Holocaust denier.

  358. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    Adrien, did somebody put up a string between your front door and your mailbox? I don’t see how you could manage the trip otherwise.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B.:
    And Congress and the Courts agreed with him.In response, Congress passed the Act of February 10, 1855:
    “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of
    the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens
    thereof, are DECLARED to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of
    citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United
    States.”

    That declaration was not declaratory of a grant of citizenship but declaratory of the fact of citizenship. It was declared to all working for state and federal immigration and naturalization services so people wouldn’t suffer what Mr. Wong had to endure at the hands of such officers and government lawyers.

  359. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 11:48 pm #

    Leo and Mario? Really?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B.:
    Mr. Binney is cited by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

    You need to find and read the facts about Gray’s quote from Binney. I believe it was Leo Donofrio (or Apuzzo) who exposed the truth, which is that he deliberately used a quote from the first and misprinted version, which was corrected in all subsequent versions. Somehow Gray found a twenty five year old copy of his obscure pamphlet’s first and flawed printing and made it like a center piece, doing so in a most egregious and openly dishonest manner. It all hinged on a single word, or two, or a single misprinted phrase which changed its meaning 180 degrees. I wish I had the link for you. It’s buried somewhere in my endless bookmarks. Other than that, Binney was a great support of the natural law view. Citizenship descends through the head of the family.

    “And your “natural law” be double-damned!

  360. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

    Adrien, I’m a US national. ALL US citizens are US nationals. Some US nationals are not US citizens. That “pure error” I quoted is US law. For your sake I hope that string is sturdy and well-secured.
    I’ve encountered that other ort of ignorance before, put forth by one P. Noz-something. He, and you, confuse “permanent allegiance” with “perpetual allegiance.” Your ignorance may not be so exceptional as it seems– it is considerable, but I’m sure there are many other people as ignorant as you who don’t parade their ignorance so flamboyantly. The difference is they’re just not as STUPID as you are.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B.: 8 USC 1101(a)(22) The term “national of the United States” means

    (A) a citizen of the United States, or
    (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
    ~~~
    Again you quote something that is pure error. American Nationals (Samoans and others, are not U.S.citizens and that fact is stamped on their U.S. passports.

    U.S. Nationals, like U.S. immigrants and U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to no government on earth. Do you not even grasp what the word “permanent” means?

    It means no right of self-expatriation. That’s the one on which the American Revolution was founded, and over which the War of 1812 was fought. And just ask yourself and answer if you can; “how can someone who is not even a U.S. citizen, possibly owe permanent allegiance to a government that does not allow him to be a member of its nation? That is insane on its face. Learn how to think about what you are so confidently quoting. If you can.

  361. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

    Dave B.: Adrien, did somebody put up a string between your front door and your mailbox?

    CO₂ofLife also uses tin cans with a string between them. That’s why what we write has zero effect – his string is broken.

    When CO₂ofLife goes farther than his mailbox, he leaves breadcrumbs. He doesn’t need to worry about their being eaten. They’re moldy.

  362. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 12:04 am #

    You’re welcome.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Thanks for the correction.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That is because my focus is not on law or legal authorities but on the principles and examples of natural law. Yours is the exact opposite.

    I’ll take that as a compliment.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Since natural law trumps human law, my limited knowledge of it is the price paid for expending an enormous amount of time contemplating it, writing about it, and disputing those who know nothing of what underlies the entire matrix of human law. It is like an alternate dimension from your perspective, and yet as quantum physics research shows, the dimensions we are familiar with are not all there is to reality.

    You got that alternate dimension part right. That was an understatement. So was the part about your “limited knowledge.”

  363. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    So in other words, nobody agrees with you. How do you reckon that works out?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The reason there is no statute ascribe an American mother’s citizenship to her child if born in the U.S. is because of the consensus via of the 14th Amendment providing it.But that view does not parse the question as to what kind of citizen such a child is if fathered by a foreigner.

  364. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 12:13 am #

    Hey, I caught part of a really bad movie on SyFy today– they were having a Shark-a-Thon– and it had the greatest line since Rhett Butler. They’d called out the Army (who else, right?) to deal with this shark that could walk on its fins and jump out of the water and bite jets; and the Army shows up with this special tank with big feet, that gets up and walks, too. For some reason. Anyway, the Army guy tells the heroine about it, and she says “A walking tank for a walking shark– brilliant!”
    Anyway, that made me think of our buddy H. Hooflife.

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife also uses tin cans with a string between them. That’s why what we write has zero effect – his string is broken.

    When CO₂ofLife goes farther than his mailbox, he leaves breadcrumbs. He doesn’t need to worry about their being eaten. They’re moldy.

  365. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2013 at 2:59 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Since natural law trumps human law, my limited knowledge of it is the price paid for expending an enormous amount of time contemplating it, writing about it, and disputing those who know nothing of what underlies the entire matrix of human law. It is like an alternate dimension from your perspective, and yet as quantum physics research shows, the dimensions we are familiar with are not all there is to reality.

    The psychosis comes into focus.

  366. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2013 at 3:10 am #

    “We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race. We all share the same basic values.”

    - Kofi Annan

    As quoted in Simply Living: The Spirit of the Indigenous People (1999) edited by Shirley A. Jones.

  367. avatar
    Lupin July 28, 2013 at 3:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The consensus view among experts, historical and current, is that they are “natural born citizens.”

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: But that view does not parse the question as to what kind of citizen such a child is if fathered by a foreigner.

    Even in countries like France where the “only fathers can transmit citizenship” system once prevailed (cf. my posts of a few months regarding Emile Zola born of an Italian father and a French mother, who therefore had to be naturalized French upon reaching the age of majority) one should note two facts that make h2ooflife’s ramblings completely off the mark:

    1) such a system was abandoned in the early part of the 20th century, ending this discrimination in favor of fathers vs mothers; I know of no country today where such discrimination is still in force; thereby it wouldn’t likely be in force in the US either even if it had ever been (which it hadn’t of course).

    2) none of the countries who had such a system prevented naturalized citizens from running for high office (unlike the US), so Emile Zola could have run for French President had he wish to do so; so, again, if one drew a purely hypothetical parallel with Obama’s situation, being borm from a non-US father would still make him legitimate to run for president.

    In order for the birther’s reasoning to become true, you’ve got to patch up things from different legal systems in time and space and come up with your own Frankenstein Monster of a system that newver existed anywhere, anywhen.

  368. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2013 at 4:50 am #

    I thought Nash’s bizarre ramblings sounded strangely familiar.

    “Look at the madness that goes on, you can’t prove anything that happened yesterday. Now is the only thing that’s real. Everyday, every reality is a new reality. Every new reality is a new horizon, a brand new experience of living. I got a note last night from a friend of mine. He writes in this note that he’s afraid of what he might have to do in order to save his reality, as i save mine. You can’t prove anything. There’s nothing to prove. Every man judges himself. He knows what he is. You know what you are, as i know what i am, we all know what we are. Nobody can stand in judgement, they can play like they’re standing in judgement.”

    “Animals shouldn’t be hunted and nature shouldn’t be disturbed, even destroyed, to benefit the whims of mankind.”

    “No sense makes sense.”

    “Total paranoia is just total awareness.”

    “We`re not in Wonderland anymore, Alice.”

    “In my mind’s eye my thoughts light fires in your cities.”

    “Sanity is a small box; insanity is everything.”

    - Charles Manson

  369. avatar
    Keith July 28, 2013 at 5:07 am #

    If there is anything about tribal membership (i.e. citizenship) that an appeal to “natural law” (of the kind that H20 is apparently trying to invoke) can inform us about, it is that the only thing about a new born baby that one can know for sure is is who the mother is. When the midwife sees the child exit the birth canal, she knows exactly whose birth canal it is. No one, however, can say with any absolute certainty who the semen donor was. In fact there was a time when humans didn’t even know that a semen donor was required.

    There is a large body of opinion in anthropological studies that holds that before the sexual link was discovered, society was more or less balanced, with men having the responsibility of hunting and protection, and women the responsibility of gathering and child raising.

    The discovery of cultivation and animal husbandry tipped the balance of power to women and society was essentially matriarchal. The overwhelming and obvious magical power of women (they could create life, there is no more powerful magic than that), meant women dominated the religious life as well. Anthropological and archaeological evidence for this is overwhelming – just look to he many thousands of prehistoric ‘venus’ figurines found every where from Europe to China and beyond.

    Eventually the rise of Priestly Religions allowed males to regain the ‘upper hand’. Women were now subjugated and controlled. Because the father could not, with certainty, be determined, women were locked away in ‘hareems’, made to withdraw from view when their magic was at its most powerful (menstrual periods and childbirth), and treated as possessions.

    To this day, some societies still lock their women away, and are required to hide themselves from view when not behind walls. To this day some societies still judge tribal membership by maternal descent, the Jews being the most well-known.

    Any system of natural law that fails recognize the simple biological fact that the mother is always known with certainty, but the father is never know with certainty, is a failure. That is the fundamental law in human nature: mothers give birth, men don’t. If anything, natural law would dictate that Citizenship follows the Mother, not the Father.

    By such a natural law, the citizenship status of Obama Sr. is irrelevant. By such a natural law, Stanley Dunham was unquestioningly a US Citizen and so is her son.

  370. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 28, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife is a Holocaust denier.

    That doesn’t surprise me one bit. Birthers are comprised of the worst humanity has to offer, after all.

  371. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 1:59 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The children of a Robin Hood

    Here is an illustration of that:

    http://www.johnhartstudios.com/wizardofid/strips/2009/july/wiz0727jhg.gif

  372. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm #

    Actually it had been in force in the US. Under Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes:

    “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States,”

    which was originally enacted as the Act of February 10, 1855, US citizen mothers couldn’t transmit citizenship to their children born abroad with alien fathers. And from the Department of State:

    “a. In about 1912, the Department began to hold that a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother (before May 24, 1934), acquired U.S. citizenship through the mother if she previously had resided in the United States. It was considered that in the absence of a legally recognized father, the mother, as the sole parent, would have the rights normally attributed to a U.S. citizen father. This also avoided statelessness for the child.
    b. This view was overruled in 1939 by the Attorney General who stated that in such cases Section 1993, R.S., must be held to preclude transmission of citizenship because Section 1993 R.S., as originally enacted, did not permit women to transmit citizenship (39 Op. Atty. Gen. 290).
    c. The Attorney General, who recognized the harshness inherent in his holding,
    expressed hope that legislative relief could be given retroactively. This was
    done in section 205 NA (see 7 FAM 1134.5-4).”

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    (page 49)
    Sec. 1993 had been amended by the Act of May 24, 1934 (Section 1, 48 Stat. 797) to allow transmission of citizenship by all US citizen mothers, but had only been prospective. Sec. 205 of the Nationality Act, which went into effect on January 13, 1941, was retrospective but only applied to out-of-wedlock births. Persons born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, were finally allowed to acquire U.S. citizenship through U.S. citizen mothers by the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-416), effective October 25, 1994.

    Lupin: 1) such a system was abandoned in the early part of the 20th century, ending this discrimination in favor of fathers vs mothers; I know of no country today where such discrimination is still in force; thereby it wouldn’t likely be in force in the US either even if it had ever been (which it hadn’t of course).

  373. avatar
    ballantine July 28, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    You need to find and read the facts about Gray’s quote from Binney.I believe it was Leo Donofrio (or Apuzzo) who exposed the truth, which is that he deliberately used a quote from the first and misprinted version, which was corrected in all subsequent versions.Somehow Gray found a twenty five year old copy of his obscure pamphlet’s first and flawed printing and made it like a center piece, doing so in a most egregious and openly dishonest manner.It all hinged on a single word, or two, or a single misprinted phrase which changed its meaning 180 degrees.I wish I had the link for you.It’s buried somewhere in my endless bookmarks.Other than that, Binney was a great support of the natural law view.Citizenship descends through the head of the family.

    Wow, you never stop lying, and, of course, Donofrio’s an idiot that never gets anything right. Binney’s entire paper was on the English common law. He was telling Congress that unless they amended our naturalization laws, all children born overseas to American citizens were aliens since we adopted he English common law. His entire point was that there was no citizenship by descent in England or the United States without a statute. He was following up on the same point made by James Kent. Congress listened and cited Binney for the proposition that unless they changed the law, all children of citizens born overseas were aliens. The Supreme Court has at least 3 times said Binney was right and such remains the law.

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    Sorry, such is reality. Anchor babies are natural born citizens and foreign born children of citizens are aliens unless naturalized by statute. Your lunatic rantings have no bearing on such reality.

  374. avatar
    ballantine July 28, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

    For example, Here is chief Justice Taft on Binney:

    “No change was made in the law until 1855. Mr. Horace Binney had written an article, which he published December 1, 1853, for the satisfaction of fellow citizens and friends whose children were born abroad during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. 169 U.S. 169 U. S. 665. He began the article as follows:

    “It does not probably occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case, for it is not worthwhile to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States, viz., the case of a child so born whose parents were citizens of the United States on or before the 14th day of April, 1802.”

    “It has been thought expedient, therefore, to call the attention of the public to this state of the laws of the United States that, if there are not some better political reasons for permitting the law so to remain than the writer is able to imagine, the subject may be noticed in Congress and a remedy provided.”

    Mr. Binney demonstrates that, under the law then existing, the children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and whose parents were not citizens of the United States on or before the 14th of April, 1802, were aliens because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)

    “[B]ecause, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” Not really that hard.

  375. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

    From Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

    “In 1854 Horace Binney, one of the country’s leading lawyers and a recognized authority on the immigration laws, published an article entitled ‘The Alienigenae of the United States’ in which he argued that the words ‘who now are, or have been’ in the 1802 predecessor of R.S. 2172 had the effect of granting citizenship to the foreign-born children only of persons who were citizens of the United States on or before the effective date of the 1802 statute (April 14, 1802), in other words that the statute had no prospective application. Foreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens, Mr. Binney argued. In 1855 Congress responded to the situation by enacting the predecessor (10 Stat. 604) of R.S. 1993. The provision had retroactive as well as prospective effect, but was clearly intended to apply only to children of citizen fathers.
    The view of Mr. Binney and the 1855 Congress that the Act of 1802 had no application to the children of persons who were not citizens in 1802 has found acceptance in the decisions of this Court. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 673—674, 18 S.Ct. 456, 466, 42 L.Ed. 890; Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 663—664, 47 S.Ct. 772, 773—774, 71 L.Ed. 1284; see also Mock Gum Ying v. Cahill, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 940. The commentators have agreed. See 2 Kent, Commentaries, at 53; 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, 222; cf. Matter of Owen, 36 Op.Atty.Gen. 197, 200. Finally Congress has repeatedly stated and acted upon that premise. See, e.g., H.R.Rep. No. 1110, 67th Cong., 2d Sess., at p. 3.”

    http://openjurist.org/366/us/308/montana-v-f-kennedy

    (paragraphs 9-10)
    From Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927):

    “Mr. Horace Binney had written an article, which he published December 1, 1853, for the satisfaction of fellow citizens and friends, whose children were born abroad during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. 169 U. S. 665, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 2 Amer. Law Reg. 193. He began the article as follows:
    ‘It does not, probably, occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there, frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case; for it is not worth while to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States, viz. the case of a child so born, whose parents were citizens of the United States on or before the 14th day of April, 1802.
    ‘It has been thought expedient, therefore, to call the attention of the public to this state of the laws of the United States that, if there are not some better political reasons for permitting the law so to remain than the writer is able to imagine, the subject may be noticed in Congress and a remedy provided.’
    Mr. Binney demonstrates that under the law then existing, the children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and whose parents were not citizens of the United States on or before the 14th of April, 1802, were aliens, because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because under the common law which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens. Mr. Binney was not interested in the citizenship of the second generation of children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and nothing in this article was directed to the question of the meaning of the words contained in the Act of 1802, ‘provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.’
    The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney’s suggestion, was entitled ‘An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof,’ and read as follows:
    ‘That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States…”

    http://openjurist.org/274/us/657

    (paragraphs 15-20)

    Of course, Adrien would rather turn to Leo the Parakeet, who is probably not a bad bass player.

    ballantine: Wow, you never stop lying, and, of course, Donofrio’s an idiot that never gets anything right. Binney’s entire paper was on the English common law. He was telling Congress that unless they amended our naturalization laws, all children born overseas to American citizens were aliens since we adopted he English common law. His entire point was that there was no citizenship by descent in England or the United States without a statute. He was following up on the same point made by James Kent. Congress listened and cited Binney for the proposition that unless they changed the law, all children of citizens born overseas were aliens. The Supreme Court has at least 3 times said Binney was right and such remains the law.

  376. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 28, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    Dave B.: Nash wrote: Wow! Now you’ve devolved to simply lying or mischaracterizing a quote, which actually is:

    “and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States”

    Not a word about exclusion from citizenship for foreign born children of Americans

    Failure to communicate. I proclaimed that you mischaracterized, not Binney but the Naturalization Act of 1802. Forget about readings Binney’s quote of it, -read the act itself. It is what I quoted and it says nothing like what you claimed. Americans born abroad being deemed to not be Americans? to be aliens? -in need of naturalization by statute? Prove that to me and you will blow my mind because it would be 100% in violation of natural law and American natural rights.

  377. avatar
    Adrien Nash July 28, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    ballantine: His entire point was that there was no citizenship by descent in England or the United States without a statute. He was following up on the same point made by James Kent. Congress listened and cited Binney for the proposition that unless they changed the law, all children of citizens born overseas were aliens. The Supreme Court has at least 3 times said Binney was right and such remains the law.

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,…Wong Kim Ark

    You fail to understand the subject that we are discussing, which is the nature and the law of citizenship. Citizenship has a certain describable nature and origin. If follows the principle of natural membership, (just as families do) unless one is not a natural member or is born of a foreigner.
    To claim that there was no natural citizenship by descent is a totally unsupported claim and no one can support it by anything because it is preposterous on its face. What is actually true is that there is no citizenship by descent by statute (not without statute).
    Citizenship by descent is so fundamental and organic and primal that no lawmaker would think to write such a self-evident truth into a statute because he would look as foolish as he would if he wrote one declaring that all children are legal members of their own natural family. Think about that because it reveals just how totally out of touch you are with the reality of natural citizenship.

    As for the quote from Wong, it is flat out stupid and unsupportable by a single quote from any legislation every passed by Congress. Congress determined the issue, not a few judges, and they never wrote such a thing into law. If you claim that they did then support it by facts not opinions. Take note that if an angel tells me something that I suspect is wrong, I am not going to take his word for it. Show me proof!

    As for what Donofrio (?) found, you can’t dispute it because you haven’t read it. But if you read what Binney wrote and then read what Gray quoted, you will see the deceitful discrepancy, since he quoted the erroneous uncorrected first edition which was out of circulation and publicly retracted with full acknowledgement of the error. Yet Gray ran with it anyway because its error suited his aim.
    By the way, I seem to recall in Fuller’s dissent reading something by Binney that totally destroyed Gray’s mischaracterization of what he had written, though I can’t say if it was the same paragraph. But it was devastating.

    The whole Wong ruling almost hinged on that one great misquote of Binney because it falsely justified their intellectually dishonest opinion. That is not to say that they didn’t use unjustified means for a justified end. In the larger sphere of national culture, it may have been the most expedient means to make alien-born American children into American citizens.

  378. avatar
    Monkey Boy July 28, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You are a deliberate and desperate deceiver.You know full well that I never used such comparisons.Apples are apples, so what?I asked what you get if you cross a peach with a plum (comparable to the child of two people from two different nations)Do you get a peach or a plum (speaking of which I’m blowing my day answering good and horribly stupid comments when I should be jarring about four gallons of plums from my tree) or do you get something different?You get a HYBRID! which YOU KNOW but dare not reveal since your aim is to deceive.

    ” if in Nash’s twisted ideology , a Roan were mated with Grey, would the result be something other than a horse?”
    Duffus!Where is a mention of my comparison to mating a horse with a donkey, producing a sterile mule which belongs to no group because it can’t reproduce to create a group?It is a HYBRID!Like Obama.Racially and politically and ideologically.He is a combination not produced by like sources.He is either Black or he’s White, -which is it? He’s both?But that is a hybrid, he can’t be that can he?He is
    American and he is Kenyan.He is a democrat and he is a socialist.He is a “christian” and a “muslin”He is not a natural member of any group because he is a hybrid.

    He is a hermaphrodite of citizenship and other things.That is reality.Hybrid citizenship is barred from eligibility to serve as President.The president must be 100% American, -not 50-50, half-&-half. He must be a natural citizen by birth, not a hybrid citizen by birth,

    “Of course, all this has nothing to do with nationhood nor citizenship, but is merely a vehicle that Nash uses to spout his racist views.”

    What do you think of my collage-”homage” to Hitler?You too afraid of what you might discover? Coward.

    “Communities are man made devices whether consensual or imposed; and the laws of a community are entirely human derived–again, either by covenant or imposition. There is NO Natural Law!”

    Ha! that is funny.I recall that I wrote a hypothetical on just what that would mean.No one would have any connection to anyone else.Parents would be no more the owners and guardians of their children than strangers because there would be no natural connections between anyone.You would not be a member of your family because families would not exist since they would have to be the consequence of how humans are wired by natural law but natural law does not exist.It goes on and on with the absurdities of your foolish supposition. Human society is grounded on human families, which form clans, which form tribes, which form countries, which form nations.Everything is grounded on natural relationships and primal responsibilities to each other.Otherwise, let the baby find his own food.

    You are a plain liar. Perhaps, your twisted ideology clouds your thinking.

    You know full well that I never used such comparisons.Apples are apples, …
    I asked what you get if you cross a peach with a plum (comparable to the child of two people from two different nations … .

    Last I looked, peaches and plums were different fruits. All homo sapiens are the same species–even offspring produced by different nationalities and different (man designated) racial classifications.

    Duffus!Where is a mention of my comparison to mating a horse with a donkey, producing a sterile mule which belongs to no group because it can’t reproduce to create a group?It is a HYBRID!Like Obama.

    It would be useless to say that this is over the top offensive, but is it also dishonest and incredibly stupid. I know you birther scum like to claim that the President’s parents were something other than human, but the fact is that they both were homo sapiens and produced a homo sapien–not a hybrid.

    And, incidentally, the hybrid mule is in some ways superior to its ancestors. It is hardier than a horse and requires less feed, while it is stronger than a donkey and is more malleable. So, hybridization is not a bad thing, per se.

    What do you think of my collage-”homage” to Hitler?You too afraid of what you might discover? Coward.

    Dipshit, your paean to your hero just doesn’t interest me any more than Zullo’s fake “forensic” report; they are both crap.

    Ha! that is funny.I recall that I wrote a hypothetical</b. on just what that would mean. ….

    Henry VIII once wrote a treatise in defence of Papal authority. Merely because some fool puts pen to paper (metaphorically) and expels bilge does not require me to take note of it.

    I repeat: There is no “natural” law that we are obliged to observe.Do parents love their offspring? Generally, but not always so. So, you see, bonding between parents and children, between siblings, and between a person and his community is not a law, but merely customary.

    That’s nothing, fool.

  379. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 28, 2013 at 8:41 pm #

    Dave B.: The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney’s suggestion, was entitled ‘An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof,’ and read as follows:
    ‘That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States:

    Dave B, I once read all about the situation that Binney pointed out regarding the limitation of the Naturalizaton Act of 1802 and its inadequite legalese. There are two big problems from your stance. First is that Binney failed to understand the nature of citizenship and therefore thought as you do that it is within the authority of Congress to determine the national status of children of Americans. You aren’t sure if Congress has any such authority, which it does not, because it was not given any such authority in the Constitution. That is because all children of citizens are natural Americans unless their parents have never even lived in the nation of their nationality.
    American children are by definition not aliens but Americans. Binney foolishly held the erroneous belief that one’s mother’s location during delivery determined something as fundamental and central to life as nationality and the society to which one belongs. He didn’t realize that place of birth doesn’t alter what one is by birth. A foreign place of birth cannot made an American into an alien no matter how many fools fail to realize that fundamental natural law truth. Like father, like son. That is nature and that is the American way, -not that of the English despot.

    It was a mischaracterization of reality for him to assume that if Congress did not declare American children to be Americans then they were either aliens or stateless aliens. In fact, no legislation was needed to “fix” the oversight because membership in their father’s nation is the natural right of all children. It always has been since nations were first created.

    The 1802 Act did not grant citizenship to such children, it merely acknowledged and declared it for those too ignorant to understand natural membership, such as Binney (a lawyer who could only see the legal trees and not the natural law forest.)

    But even worse for you, that case perfectly illustrates what I’ve shared about Obama’s citizenship existing solely as a federal policy. By Binney interpretation, all of those children were not Americans by actual American law but only via the presumption of the executive branch. If he had never rang alarm bells, the situation would have been totally ignored and all of those children would have been “falsely” presumed to be American citizens according to his erroneous view.

    I’m saying that same thing about Obama. His citizenship does not follow actual American law or SCOTUS holding, but merely the policy put into place in 1898 following the Wong ruling, which only dealt with children of immigrants, -not children of foreigners. Not all foreigners are immigrants even though all immigrants are foreigners. Only immigrant fathers are fully subject to American authority, not foreign visitors, and that subjection is what their native-born sons were born under and into in an indirect latent manner which only comes to fruition at adulthood.
    Then, even though they are or are not Americans, (depending on where they were born) they are under the obligation to defend the nation if called. Children of visitors are not because their fathers are not since they are not members of American society nor recognized as such by the American government.

  380. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 28, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

    Monkey Boy: So, hybridization is not a bad thing, per se.

    I would presume that hybridization is almost always a good thing. Most of the food we eat is the result of it. Especially corn and rice. And, as an aside, some of the most beautiful women in the world are hybrids. In the eyes of many, Black black can be too black and White white can be too white. Something is the middle is quite appealing.
    As for natural connections, and natural bonds, you’ve obviously never been a wife and mother. Maybe you were adopted or worse.
    As for the Hitler collage, would someone please give him a heads-up? He needs to be ushered away from his presumption.

  381. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    If you once “read all about” it, how come you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about when you said I’d mischaracterized it? Not that you know any better now, of course. Binney’s understanding was so deficient that he was only able to convince the US Congress, the State Department and the Supreme Court that he was right. Remind me, what effect has your fantasy had other than making you look like a delusional idiot?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B, I once read all about the situation that Binney pointed out regarding the limitation of the Naturalizaton Act of 1802 and its inadequite legalese. There are two big problems from your stance. First is that Binney failed to understand the nature of citizenship and therefore thought as you do that it is within the authority of Congress to determine the national status of children of Americans. You aren’t sure if Congress has any such authority, which it does not, because it was not given any such authority in the Constitution. That is because all children of citizens are natural Americans unless their parents have never even lived in the nation of their nationality.

  382. avatar
    Monkey Boy July 28, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I would presume that hybridization is almost always a good thing.Most of the food we eat is the result of it.Especially corn and rice.And, as an aside, some of the most beautiful women in the world are hybrids.In the eyes of many, Black black can be too black and White white can be too white.Something is the middle is quite appealing. As for natural connections, and natural bonds, you’ve obviously never been a wife and mother.Maybe you were adopted or worse.
    As for the Hitler collage, would someone please give him a heads-up?He needs to be ushered away from his presumption.

    That’s nothing fool.

  383. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

    That’s a nice fantasy, but fantasies don’t cut it in the real world, Adrien.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: American children are by definition not aliens but Americans. Binney foolishly held the erroneous belief that one’s mother’s location during delivery determined something as fundamental and central to life as nationality and the society to which one belongs. He didn’t realize that place of birth doesn’t alter what one is by birth. A foreign place of birth cannot made an American into an alien no matter how many fools fail to realize that fundamental natural law truth. Like father, like son. That is nature and that is the American way, -not that of the English despot.

  384. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm #

    No, it’s a “mischaracterization of reality” for you to assume that you’re not a blooming idiot.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: It was a mischaracterization of reality for him to assume that if Congress did not declare American children to be Americans then they were either aliens or stateless aliens. In fact, no legislation was needed to “fix” the oversight because membership in their father’s nation is the natural right of all children. It always has been since nations were first created.

  385. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm #

    That ain’t how it works.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The 1802 Act did not grant citizenship to such children, it merely acknowledged and declared it for those too ignorant to understand natural membership, such as Binney (a lawyer who could only see the legal trees and not the natural law forest.)

  386. avatar
    Adrien Nash July 28, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

    Keith: That is the fundamental law in human nature: mothers give birth, men don’t. If anything, natural law would dictate that Citizenship follows the Mother, not the Father.

    By such a natural law, the citizenship status of Obama Sr. is irrelevant. By such a natural law, Stanley Dunham was unquestioningly a US Citizen and so is her son.

    Such a form of natural law is not based on the real world. In the real world the wife and mother are the ones that the men risk all to defend, along with their own mother and sisters and especially daughters. That is what is the pattern of nature. The male, if stronger, defends his family and his group from aggression by outsiders like hyenas. The men of all nations bear the responsibility to defend the defenseless. I’m anticipating writing a “final” exposition titled: The Strength of Men, the Bedrock of Nations
    Without their strength and discipline and dedication and sacrifice, nations fall and then men are slaughtered and women are gang raped and taken into slavery. (historically speaking). The duty of men is to prevent that and to resist that, even at the cost of their own lives. The women and children of nations are the reason that they fight, along with the motivation to preserve the liberty of all.

    The citizenship of mothers was never the basis of inherited citizenship for the simple reason that they were not the head of the family. Society followed a traditional and biblical pattern in which each family had a head. That was the father unless he was dead, unknown, or divorced out of the picture early. I’ve looked at my ancestors entries in the 1880 and 1930 census. It includes a column to delineate the relationship of every individual to the head, as either being the head, the wife, the child, or something else. That was the nature of Western Civilization until the later 20th Century, and that includes the time when Obama was born. His mother’s citizenship was not a part of the picture since he was born in the U.S. and presumably covered by the 14th Amendment. I’ve discovered and shown why that presumption is erroneously based. Just as Binnery was similarly erroneously presumed to have done.

  387. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

    You’re overlooking, among so, so many other things, that Mr. Binney was a highly regarded and influential American statesman, who beat Daniel Webster when the Devil couldn’t, and you’re just a crackpot living your unique life in that unique environment you’ve told us about, with a string to find your way to the mailbox and back. Take a look through this here and see how you measure up:

    http://archive.org/details/lifeofhoracebinn5493binn

    So when you “say the same thing about Obama”, who’s supposed to take you seriously?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: But even worse for you, that case perfectly illustrates what I’ve shared about Obama’s citizenship existing solely as a federal policy. By Binney interpretation, all of those children were not Americans by actual American law but only via the presumption of the executive branch. If he had never rang alarm bells, the situation would have been totally ignored and all of those children would have been “falsely” presumed to be American citizens according to his erroneous view.

    I’m saying that same thing about Obama. His citizenship does not follow actual American law or SCOTUS holding, but merely the policy put into place in 1898 following the Wong ruling, which only dealt with children of immigrants, -not children of foreigners. Not all foreigners are immigrants even though all immigrants are foreigners. Only immigrant fathers are fully subject to American authority, not foreign visitors, and that subjection is what their native-born sons were born under and into in an indirect latent manner which only comes to fruition at adulthood.
    Then, even though they are or are not Americans, (depending on where they were born) they are under the obligation to defend the nation if called. Children of visitors are not because their fathers are not since they are not members of American society nor recognized as such by the American government.

  388. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 28, 2013 at 9:38 pm #

    Dave B.: If you once “read all about” it, how come you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about when you said I’d mischaracterized it?

    I’ve written over a quarter of a million words so my mind is more focused on thinking than remembering things that are of minimal significance.
    I said and say that you mischaracterized the Act itself since its language does not say what Binney claimed that it meant. You simply related Binney’s mischaracterization of its implications. By the authority invested in me I hereby declare Binney to be completely in error 100%. He made an assumption based only on interpretation and opinion, while oblivious of the fundamentals of American principles.

  389. avatar
    Adrien Nash July 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm #

    Dave B.: So when you “say the same thing about Obama”, who’s supposed to take you seriously?

    Anyone who takes anyone seriously in such matters is a fool unless he understands the principles involved. There are no authorities living who have been taught the fundamental principles of citizenship because such knowledge has been lost and overlooked by generation after generation detached from primal reality. Why were tales of the wild West so popular world-wide? Because people knew that they were living cloistered lives detached from the harshness of primal existence.

    I’ll check-out the Binney link later.

  390. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

    No, you moron, I didn’t mischaracterize anything. You just don’t have the good sense to understand plain English. I’ve read the Act. The 1802 law, when enacted, only applied to the children of persons who THEN WERE or HAD BEEN citizens of the United States. It didn’t apply to the children of persons who WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME citizens of the United States, whether through birth or naturalization. Congress recognized and remedied that deficiency with passage of the 1855 Act.
    You can h2oof and p2oof all you want about your “natural law” fantasies, but here in the real world, they’re nothing but a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying…nothing.
    And I don’t expect that to be any more effectively communicated to you than anything else I’ve said.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dave B.: Nash wrote: Wow! Now you’ve devolved to simply lying or mischaracterizing a quote, which actually is:

    “and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States”

    Not a word about exclusion from citizenship for foreign born children of Americans

    Failure to communicate. I proclaimed that you mischaracterized, not Binney but the Naturalization Act of 1802. Forget about readings Binney’s quote of it, -read the act itself. It is what I quoted and it says nothing like what you claimed. Americans born abroad being deemed to not be Americans? to be aliens? -in need of naturalization by statute? Prove that to me and you will blow my mind because it would be 100% in violation of natural law and American natural rights.

  391. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Geez, talk about out of touch with reality– US lawmakers have been writing such statutes for over two centuries.

    Adrien Nash: Citizenship by descent is so fundamental and organic and primal that no lawmaker would think to write such a self-evident truth into a statute because he would look as foolish as he would if he wrote one declaring that all children are legal members of their own natural family. Think about that because it reveals just how totally out of touch you are with the reality of natural citizenship.

  392. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Dave B.: No, you moron, I didn’t mischaracterize anything. You just don’t have the good sense to understand plain English.

    CO₂ofLife is a crackpot, pathological liar and neo-Nazi.

  393. avatar
    ballantine July 28, 2013 at 10:27 pm #

    Adrien Nash: You fail to understand the subject that we are discussing, which is the nature and the law of citizenship.Citizenship has a certain describable nature and origin.If follows the principle of natural membership, (just as families do) unless one is not a natural member or is born of a foreigner. To claim that there was no natural citizenship by descent is a totally unsupported claim and no one can support it by anything because it is preposterous on its face.What is actually true is that there is no citizenship by descent by statute (not without statute).Citizenship by descent is so fundamental and organic and primal that no lawmaker would think to write such a self-evident truth into a statute because he would look as foolish as he would if he wrote one declaring that all children are legal members of their own natural family.Think about that because it reveals just how totally out of touch you are with the reality of natural citizenship.

    Are you drunk? There is no natural citizenship except in your imagination. Every nation gets to define their law of citizenship and they are all different. No nation cares about your delusions as they are going to define their own rules. It is simply an historical fact that there has never been any citizenship by descent in the United States unless Congress has allowed it. That is what our courts, state department and Congress has said over our entire history. There have been millions of foreign born people born of citizens who have never been treated as citizens. These are simple facts that you don’t even try to counter. We cite authority and you just keep saying you are right because you are right because you say so. I have never seen someone older than 5 make such arguments.

    As for the quote from Wong, it is flat out stupid and unsupportable by a single quote from any legislation every passed by Congress.Congress determined the issue, not a few judges, and they never wrote such a thing into law.If you claim that they did then support it by facts not opinions.Take note that if an angel tells me something that I suspect is wrong, I am not going to take his word for it.Show me proof!

    The Supreme Court has repeated the same thing over and over and such is the law. Sorry you can’t accept that. For example:

    “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright 523 U.S. 420 (1998)

    “Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright 523 U.S. 420 (1998)(Scalia, J., concurring)

    Sorry, the opinion of the Court counts, not yours. And you don’t believe the Supreme Court saying Congress changed the law to agree with Binney in Weedin v. Chin Bow and Kennedy v. Montana? Of course, they are lying. Well, you can read the Congressional record where they acknowledged the better view was that the common law did not include a rule of consent and hence they had to adopt a statute of such foreign born children would be aliens. For example:

    “By the common law, the better opinion always was, although there was a few dicta to the contrary, that children born out of the allegiance of the crown, and under the allegiance of another dominion, were aliens to the former and were subjects to the latter, or not, according to the municipal regulations of the country in which the birth might have happened to take place….I have had sent to me a pamphlet written by one of the most eminent lawyers in the United States, whose fame is known from the northern extreme to the southern boundries of our country, I refer to Horace Binney…He has published an elaborate pamphlet intending to draw attention to the subject to which I have now invited the attention of this house.” Rep. Cutting, Cong. Globe, 33rd. Cong., 1st Sess. pg. 170 (1854)

    They then all agreed they needed to change the law. Duh.

    As for what Donofrio (?) found, you can’t dispute it because you haven’t read it.But if you read what Binney wrote and then read what Gray quoted, you will see the deceitful discrepancy, since he quoted the erroneous uncorrected first edition which was out of circulation and publicly retracted with full acknowledgement of the error.Yet Gray ran with it anyway because its error suited his aim.By the way, I seem to recall in Fuller’s dissent reading something by Binney that totally destroyed Gray’s mischaracterization of what he had written, though I can’t say if it was the same paragraph.But it was devastating.

    I have read it. There were two different versions of Binney article and they both said that we adopted the English common law and there was no rule of descent. Hence, he argued we had to adopt a statute. Such was the whole point of the paper. Donofrio does not know which version Congress read, but they got the message that we had no rule of descent and they had to change the law. Again, the Supreme Court for more than 100 years has agreed with Binney and Wong Kim Ark. No one cares what idiots like you think when you can’t cite anyone in history to agree with you. Fuller said nothing that was devastating about Binney. Never mentioned his name. BTW, you do know that Fuller lost and his opinion means nothing.

    The whole Wong ruling almost hinged on that one great misquote of Binney because it falsely justified their intellectually dishonest opinion.That is not to say that they didn’t use unjustified means for a justified end.In the larger sphere of national culture, it may have been the most expedient means to make alien-born American children into American citizens.

    Keep lying. Binney was one of dozens of authority Gray relied upon. Indeed, he cited every legal giant in the early republic and they all said you are wrong. Again, their is reality which is represented by the Court’s opinions. Then there is fantasy of morons on the internet who make up their own law. Stomp your feet all you want but anchor babies will still be citizens and foreign born children of citizens will still be aliens unless Congress has provided for them. You really need help.

  394. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 28, 2013 at 10:28 pm #

    ballantine: because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” Weedin v. Chin Bow,

    This statement is quadruply flawed. It first presumes falsely that all acts or interpretations of acts of Congress are constitutional. The NDAA and obamacare glaringly disprove that right here in our own lives.
    Second is the falsehood that English common law was the law of The United States sovereign federal government. It never was. Third is that English common law preempted the constitutions and statutes of the sovereign states which dealt with citizenship and naturalization by their own preferences. Such matters were major matters and all major matters were dealt with via positive State laws or Constitutional provisions. They were not left undetermined and at the mercy of an English judge’s opinion from long ago.
    Forth is the conclusion that citizenship of American children does not exist unless Congress says it exists. Congress has no authority over such a thing because it is from above and beyond the reach of human law since it’s rooted in the universe of universal human rights.
    No government has the legitimatel authority to rule that your children do not belong to you or that you did not belong to your parents, nor that you do not belong to your own country just because your entrance into the world was outside of its borders.

    I exposed Apuzzo’s error by asking him about families: “children born in their parents’ own home are natural members of their family.” His view that natural citizens cannot be born anywhere other than on U.S. soil in effect declares that that is not only true but that only that is true. In other words, if you are born under the roof of your grandmother’s home, (England) or your aunt, (France) or a hospital, or anywhere other than under your parents’ roof, then you are not a member of your family.

    In other words, if you are born under the roof of another country then you do not belong to your national family, -your parents’ country and nation, even if its border was just two feet away and your twin was born on the other side. You therefore would be an ALIEN with no natural right whatsoever to be an American and never eligible to serve as President!

    Is there nothing wrong with this picture? (nothing can reach a mind that embraces such a view) It is totally devoid of any comprehension of natural relationships and the primal principles of natural law.

  395. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I would presume that hybridization is almost always a good thing. Most of the food we eat is the result of it. Especially corn and rice. And, as an aside, some of the most beautiful women in the world are hybrids. In the eyes of many, Black black can be too black and White white can be too white. Something is the middle is quite appealing.

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/lady-and-the-tramp/

    Tramp was not a Cocker Spaniel and thus his progeny were not Cocker Spaniels but were instead hybrid mongrels. No hybrid mongrel is a natural anything since it’s a mixture of two different origins.

    Definition of Mongrel: 1. an animal or plant produced by the crossing of different breeds or varieties; esp. a dog of this kind. 2. Anything produced by the mixture of incongruous things. adj. of mixed breed, origin, race, or character.

    Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation.”

  396. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 10:42 pm #

    ballantine: Are you drunk?

    No, CO₂ofLife forgot his Seroquel.

  397. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 28, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

    Mr. Nash,

    You implied that being adopted is some sort of pejorative.

    As someone who is adopted, I’d like you to get out of my country you unAmerican piece of filth! Every word you write dishonors all of the men and women who labored to build a country where even an obviously defective individual such as yourself is free to spout such ignorant and seditious drivel.

    Doc,

    My apologies to you. I agree with what you wrote about respectful language and tolerance and try to exercise it, but Mr. Nash, in my view, has amply demonstrated that he is undeserving of any such considerations and I could not help but take his comment personally. Your experiment here has indeed shown a clear difference between your integrity and the vile dishonesty of birther scum like Mr. Nash.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I would presume that hybridization is almost always a good thing.Most of the food we eat is the result of it.Especially corn and rice.And, as an aside, some of the most beautiful women in the world are hybrids.In the eyes of many, Black black can be too black and White white can be too white.Something is the middle is quite appealing. As for natural connections, and natural bonds, you’ve obviously never been a wife and mother.Maybe you were adopted or worse.
    As for the Hitler collage, would someone please give him a heads-up?He needs to be ushered away from his presumption.

  398. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Maybe you were adopted or worse.

    Slartibartfast: Mr. Nash CO₂ofLife,

    You implied that being adopted is some sort of pejorative.

    As someone who is adopted, I’d like you to get out of my country you unAmerican piece of filth!

    See my comment, above:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/07/why-obamas-birth-certificate-cant-be-believed/#comment-277799

    CO₂ofLife is a neo-Nazi.

  399. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    Dr C: You have opened a Pandora’s Box, and it’s time to close and lock it.

  400. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 11:17 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You implied that being adopted is some sort of pejorative.

    Dave Thomas, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison were adopted, to name just three.

  401. avatar
    Dave B. July 28, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

    You can’t defend what Donofrio wrote because you haven’t read it. And you haven’t read what Binney wrote, and you haven’t read what Justice Gray wrote. If you have– oh yeah, we’ve already covered that.

    Adrien Nash: As for what Donofrio (?) found, you can’t dispute it because you haven’t read it. But if you read what Binney wrote and then read what Gray quoted, you will see the deceitful discrepancy, since he quoted the erroneous uncorrected first edition which was out of circulation and publicly retracted with full acknowledgement of the error.

  402. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 28, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

    I can’t say that I disagree with anything you’ve written on this thread, Misha. At first I thought Nash was just another run-of-the-mill birther, but he’s shown himself to be a truly vile and despicable excuse for a human being.

    misha marinsky:
    See my comment, above:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/07/why-obamas-birth-certificate-cant-be-believed/#comment-277799

    CO₂ofLife is a neo-Nazi.

  403. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

    Slartibartfast: At first I thought Nash was just another run-of-the-mill birther

    They’re all cut from the same cloth.

  404. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 29, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    Ballantine wrote:
    “There is no natural citizenship except in your imagination.”

    Here’s your next assignment; do an advanced internet search of “natural citizen” -not a normal search. It would return “natural born citizen”. You must select “exact words”.

    ” Every nation gets to define their law of citizenship and they are all different.”

    That is false. All they can do is pick which system they will follow. Each comes with its own principles and rules. They can tweak them but that’s about all because you can’t reinvent the wheel and get something different.

    “It is simply an historical fact that there has never been any citizenship by descent in the United States unless Congress has allowed it. That is what our courts, state department and Congress has said over our entire history.”

    No, a few ignorant people raised in states that allowed jus soli may have claimed that but that does not change the fact that it is no where to be found in American federal law, nor the Constitution. (Neither is citizenship by descent.)

    There is no law by which you are an American unless you had a foreign parent. Only then do you need the permission of law, -not simply because of a foreign birth location. Location as the factor is an error not supported by anything but ignorant opinions since it is found nowhere in Congressional statute. You can claim that it has been American policy, but the United States government that appealed the Wong initial ruling would have vigorously disagreed.

    In addition, it is unsupported (I’m told) by English law as seen in the Nationality Act of 1772.

    “There have been millions of foreign born people born of citizens who have never been treated as citizens.”

    You talk about proving things? Prove that! Those who could not be treated as citizens were those who could not show that they had an American father and mother. The government has the duty to verify claims of citizenship when birth is outside of America. Without any evidence to support such a claim, such a status cannot be bestowed on a child who may not have been born in conformity to American statutes which cover foreign birth when having a foreign parent.

    ~Show me proof!~
    “The Supreme Court has repeated the same thing over and over and such is the law. For example: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright
    “Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ” (Scalia)

    What a load of crap! All talk and no proof. You fail to grasp the meaning of proof. Claims, assertions, and opinions are NOT proof of anything. The Constitution contains no such statement! God! The ignorance extends all the way to the top! SHOW ME THE LAW! (good luck with that since it doesn’t exist, -if it did we all would have known about it long before now)

    “I refer to Horace Binney…He has published an elaborate pamphlet intending to draw attention to the subject to which I have now invited the attention of this house.” Rep. Cutting, Cong.
    They then all agreed they needed to change the law.

    Ha! They all agreed that what Binney said made sense from their ignorant perspective. Binnery had a warped view that the United States was not sovereign as a nation independent of English law, nor one that did not follow the principles inherent in it, (which happened to included allegiance to the King and the Church of England).

    If his fundamental assumptions were right, then everything he wrote was correct. I argue that his fundamental assumptions were actually wrong because he worshipped at the alter of human and English law and ignored the principles by which our Revolution was inspired and justified. It’s like the Declaration of Independence did not exist to him. Unalienable rights were just talk, not real. Law and precedence were god. That was a huge error in his thinking.

    “Again, the Supreme Court for more than 100 years has agreed with Binney and Wong Kim Ark. No one cares what idiots like you think when you can’t cite anyone in history to agree with you.”

    You fail to grasp how juvenile your validation is. The government that you hold up as the ultimate authority is the same one that for half a century thought one thing while the 1802 Act supposedly meant something different. So which was the fool, the Act or the government that ignorantly wrote it and embraced it? -or those who look to the opinions of others to know which direction is up or down?

    You are right about one thing, I don’t know of anyone in history that I can cite that agrees with me. That isn’t very surprising since the entire issue hasn’t even come up as anything of significance until the election of an unconstitutional president. Then bam! All the spotlights on at once. No one in history previously had any reason to contemplate all the things that have come to my attention and my realization.
    So why continue? Because two plus two equals four no matter how many people insist that it equals five. Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not make it a leg.

    ” Binney was one of dozens of authority Gray relied upon. Indeed, he cited every legal giant in the early republic and they all said you are wrong.”

    Please! Get real. Fuller’s dissent completely demolished all the fake legs that Gray’s bastardization of fact and history relied upon to reach his pre-determined conclusion, thereby writing new law from the bench and usurping the power of Congress.

    “but anchor babies will still be citizens and foreign born children of citizens will still be aliens unless Congress has provided for them.”

    That is true but then you can’t fix stupid. It is all a matter of entrenched, institutionalized error that is embraced by all as the law of the land, as it has been for over a century.
    But it is not the first widespread error that has endured for over a century. The Piltdown error didn’t, but it sure illustrates perfectly how all the authorities can be proven to be fools and self-deceivers when they embrace the conventional wisdom, the consensus opinion, the status quo without doing their own original thinking. Original thinking is something that you seem to be incapable of since you defer everything to “authorities”. Your mind is wired to be sycophantic toward the opinions of your superiors. I look around and can’t find any superiors. There is only truth or error.

    * “worshipped” was flagged as misspelled. I knew it wasn’t. The dictionary confirmed that both spellings were correct. (worshiped) Just goes to show that something can be considered to be wrong even when it actually is right. Similarly, when two possibilities are presented, instead of one being right and the other being wrong, both can be wrong, but both can’t be right

  405. avatar
    Soduko July 29, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    misha marinsky: Dave Thomas, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison were adopted, to name just three.

    Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, too.

  406. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 29, 2013 at 12:21 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    Mr. Nash,

    You implied that being adopted is some sort of pejorative.

    As someone who is adopted, I’d like you to get out of my country you unAmerican piece of filth! Every word you write dishonors all of the men and women who labored to build a country where even an obviously defective individual such as yourself is free to spout such ignorant and seditious drivel.

    Lose the ignorant presumption. One of my sisters (RIP) was adopted from a dirt poor Latin American country, and I went to the ends of the earth for her. (she was perhaps half black btw) I even traveled to her country during Christmas break and married her sister to help with her homesickness (she wasn’t an orphan, just born to a mother with too many children and no decent way to support them).

    “adopted, or worse” means stuck in a situation worse than not being with your own natural family, but being with people who abused and neglect you, -they not being adoptive parents, but one parent who would love to see you gone. Also, I was like a foster care uncle for ten years.

  407. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 29, 2013 at 12:38 am #

    Dave B.:
    Geez, talk about out of touch with reality– US lawmakers have been writing such statutes for over two centuries.

    Statutes that declare a principle of citizenship that citizens’ children are governed by and established by the authority of Congress? (citizens, being plural, implies both parents)
    Well I’ve yet to see anyone quote one and I’ve read a heck of a lot of comments and law quotes in three years. What I’ve always said is that no such thing is a part of our original Constitution. So it was a presumptuous assertion issued like a challenge in regard to Congressional statutes. I’ll be very interested in being proven wrong. So prepare a big dish of humble pie because we can’t both be right and one of us should have to eat it.

  408. avatar
    misha marinsky July 29, 2013 at 12:42 am #

    CO₂ofLife is a neo-Nazi. He has featured Nazi rallies and loving portraits of Schicklgruber on his Flickr page.

    Here is a video of concentration camp atrocities.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fA8Q6pVn3o

    At 16:00, there is footage of the townspeople being forced by the Allies to walk through Buchenwald. They were forced to file by a table of horrors taken from Ilsa Koch’s house, which was on the outskirts of Buchenwald.

    There are lampshades and parchment made from human skin, and shrunken heads. There are human ears, pickled in jars.

    This is what CO₂ofLife is an apologist for.

    To Boehner, Cantor, Arpaio and Liz Cheney, I say J’accuse.

  409. avatar
    misha marinsky July 29, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    Soduko: Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, too.

    Thank you.

  410. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 29, 2013 at 1:17 am #

    Dave B.: US citizen mothers couldn’t transmit citizenship to their children born abroad with alien fathers.

    Great (as in fascinating) group of quotes. It’s amazing how looking at real history of citizenship law is like a cup of cold water in the politically correct face of our modern mind-set. It’s not what we expect at all because we are so post-this and post-that.
    It’s like rummaging through old laws governing slavery or something. A very, very different world.

    One of them referred to retrospective something, which reminded me of Congress eventually granting citizenship retrospectively to children of American women who lost their citizenship due to the Naturalization Act of 1907 by marrying foreign men. Their children were born solely as foreigners, and it took an act of Congress decades after the law was rescinded by the Cable Act (1922) to provide those children membership in their divorced or widowed mother’s nation.

    It can be pointed out that if Obama had been born when his grandparents were born, he would not be an American citizen except by those naturalization laws which allowed such children to apply for citizenship. How, in any universe, is such tenuous citizenship to be considered to be “natural citizenship” which the government does not grant, can’t rescind, and can’t regulate?

    Such citizenship has a name, (which i’ve given it): legal citizenship. Other forms of legal citizenship are 14th Amendment citizenship, derivative citizenship (foreign-born children of the naturalized), provisional citizenship, mandated citizenship (Puerto Rico, Guam, Vietnamese boat-people), and other statutory avenues of citizenship for the foreign born of one foreign parent.

    Those rather rare forms of citizenship (percentage-wise) come without eligibility to serve as President, but with eligibility to serve in every other capacity in the nation (except direct access and control of nuclear bombs, or guarding the President) People with those positions must be natural citizens even though that is not spelled-out in any application.
    I served as a Marine Guard protecting the entries to a Naval Air Station. It held nuclear bombs though I had no idea where (it was a huge place). Those who guarded them were a special group, and I and my fellow Vietnam Vets were like civilians to them. They operate under orders to shoot any intruder. We knew that no sane commander would let any of use anywhere near them. We were too tightly wound. Rules were so tight that we would go to jail if we allowed the American flag to touch the ground when raising or lowering it. We did so in trepidation.

  411. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ July 29, 2013 at 1:29 am #

    misha marinsky: CO₂ofLife is a neo-Nazi. He has featured Nazi rallies and loving portraits of Schicklgruber on his Flickr page.

    You missed a comment from yesterday where I provided the missing link to what you need to see. My Flickr page lacks it since I made it weeks later and never returned to my Flickr account.
    The original photos were the usual lousy unenhanced imagery like I’ve worked to fix over about 15,000 times (having edited about that many photos).

    The Nazis need to be seen as real, -as real as possible, and not just as old, dull, ancient-history images in black (gray) and white. They can’t depict reality. Now no one can look at my editing results without being seriously disturbed, -as you were. That is the idea.
    Now look at the shocking collage I created. It’s on the top of my homepage and now (as I thought before) is linked to the full-size poster-size collage of six photos with comments to chill your spine.

  412. avatar
    Keith July 29, 2013 at 2:21 am #

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: membership in their father’s nation is the natural right of all children. It always has been since nations were first created.

    The only natural law principle that could possibly be argued with regards to a childs membership in a tribe (nation) is through maternal descent. There can be no argument about whose birth canal a child entered the world through, but there is no way of knowing whose sperm fertilized the egg.

  413. avatar
    Lupin July 29, 2013 at 3:20 am #

    Dave B.: Actually it had been in force in the US. Under Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes: [deleted]

    Thank you; that was very informative.

    The 1990s, gadzooks, that was rather late in histotry to fix that problem, wasn’t it? If memory serves we French closed the last loopholes of that kind in the 1950s when de Gaulle came to power.

  414. avatar
    Lupin July 29, 2013 at 3:21 am #

    H2O’s lunatic ramblings are fairly vile in addition to being nonsensical. They also bear no relevance as far as I can see on Obama’s eligibility.

  415. avatar
    The Magic M July 29, 2013 at 4:45 am #

    Adrien Nash: Citizenship by descent is so fundamental and organic and primal that no lawmaker would think to write such a self-evident truth into a statute

    StAG (German Law of Citizenship, translations by me):

    3 I StAG: “Citizenship is acquired by 1. birth (4), …”

    4 I StAG: “A child acquires German citizenship by birth if one parent has German citizenship. …”

    According to you, German lawmakers are stupid by writing such an “obvious” thing into law?