The polls are open

i-votedAccording to site statistics, there are thousands of you sitting on the sidelines. Here’s your chance to express your opinion. Introducing Obama Conspiracy Polls. A random poll is located on the right sidebar. Just click your answer and then see the results.

Select “Polls” under the Conspiracies section of the right sidebar to see all the polls.


Discussions about polls and suggestions for new polls may be left as comments to this article. You can discuss each poll in the comments for each.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Lounge, Polls. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The polls are open

  1. catbit says:

    ok, I voted. So where’s my ‘I VOTED’ sticker?

  2. NBC says:

    Voter fraud I tell you, voter fraud

  3. Shrieking wombat says:

    I will not believe in the legitimacy of this poll until I see its birth certificate.

  4. misha says:

    I will not believe in the legitimacy of this poll until I see a signed, notarized certified audit of the results, done by a forensic accountant.

    And I want proof that the accountant is not part of the conspiracy. All those administering the poll must prove to my satisfaction they were born in the continental United States, to parents of European descent who are born citizens of the US, and not naturalized.

    All those involved with the poll must provide proof they have never expressed sympathy for the Soviet Union, its heathen citizens, or ever associated with known communists.

    Jews are OK, but anyone who is at least 1/8 Muslim is disqualified from administering the poll and its results, although it would be better if only gentiles were involved.

  5. myson says:

    I suspect ACORN is behind these numbers !!!!

  6. Here you go!

  7. Joyce says:

    “Jews are OK, but anyone who is at least 1/8 Muslim is disqualified from administering the poll and its results, although it would be better if only gentiles were involved.”

    Though I am not Muslim, I did spend six weeks in Egypt when the US did not have a diplomatic relationship with that country, does that disqualify my vote?

    Oh – almost forgot – I was traveling on a US passport at the time.

  8. Bob says:

    I’ve already “filed” with the U.S. A.G. three 100-page dossiers on this subject!

  9. misha says:

    If you don’t get the answer you want, are you going to confront the AG at a lecture, like Orly did to Roberts?

  10. misha says:

    “I did spend six weeks in Egypt when the US did not have a diplomatic relationship with that country, does that disqualify my vote?”

    Guilt by association, like Palin, her First Dude, and the AIP. Oh wait, that only applies to Obama and his fellow travellers.

    “Oh – almost forgot – I was traveling on a US passport at the time.”

    Impossible. You had to be using a Soviet Union passport in order to get in. You can’t fool me.

  11. Bob says:

    I will drive by his house at night, and repeatedly text him, “y wont u read my filez?”

  12. misha says:

    bcuz orly ahole

  13. I should hasten to add how totally invalid polls like this are. Have you ever heard the phrase “freep this poll”?

    Try it on Google

  14. Shrieking wombat says:

    That ‘invalidity’ would be unpossible Doc, if you had only declared it to be a Citizens Grand Polly.

  15. Hitandrun says:

    Doc, perhaps the poll would be more illuminating if voters were willing to briefly justify their answers on list, starting with our gracious host.


  16. NBC says:

    Courts will not rule on the issue:

    1. Plaintiffs will continue to lack standing
    2. Issues are not resolvable by the Courts: Lack of remedies
    3. Congress has certified elections and qualified the President
    4. President was duly sworn in

    Even if the President were a ‘de facto’ president his act(ion)s are still legally binding, and cannot be challenged as part of an incidental legal principle. This means that for instance, complaints about Obama issuing illegal orders cannot be argued on court as a valid defense. Nor can claims that Obama’s signed acts lack enforcability be argued in hearings were people violate such acts.

    Interesting how the only remedy is through the electorate who elects the President and Congress.

  17. Well, I have 300 web pages here justifying MY vote. Others are welcome to comment as they choose. On the first poll, I voted “no” that a court would decide… It may well be, though that a court will decide Obama’s eligibility to run for re-election!

    On the second poll, natural born citizen, I checked all the boxes. I have come to the conclusion that the Constitution intended “natural born citizen” to mean “citizen from birth” and that they did not intend to define who were citizens from birth, leaving that up to the common law or to the states. This fits in rather nicely with the evidence I have collected. The common law declared those born in the United States to be citizens from birth, and the Naturalization act of 1790 extended citizenship to the children of citizens born overseas.

  18. Expelliarmus says:

    I checked all boxes except “Children born in the United States whose parents are in the US illegally”. I actually believe that under current law (and precedent), such a child would be a natural born citizen, as the courts clearly recognize the citizenship rights of “anchor babies”.

    However, I think there is an argument that can be made that foreigners who are in the US illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. Such people often are living essentially in hiding, perhaps using fake social security number and avoiding contact with law enforcement officials — and of course they are subject to immediate deportation if found.

    I don’t think the courts would actually go so far as to deprive a child of citizenship on that basis, as it would be very difficult to ascertain immigration status of parents in many cases. Certainly the birth certificate would not reflect that information. Also, the immigration laws are in such flux and badly managed that it is often hard to define just who is “legal” and who is not. There are many immigrants in the US who have done everything properly to apply for their visas or green cards, but don’t have the paperwork simply because the immigration services are backlogged and actually run years behind on processing some applications. In other words — there are plenty of technically “illegal” immigrants who have properly subjected themselves to US jurisdiction, and are simply waiting on the government to take action on their paperwork.

    But I do think there would be an argument to be made against a Presidential candidate, assuming that there was clear evidence that the parents had entered illegally. Again, based on the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause.

  19. dunstvangeet says:

    Didn’t U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark actually argue that since someone is subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If there’s an argument that they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, does that mean that an Illegal Alien can commit murder, and then in court claim that he’s not subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and be let go?

  20. The Wong opinion does talk about the jurisdiction of the United States being absolute to those who are within our borders. However, it is a long-standing principle that an invading army holding a portion of the territory is not under the jurisdiction. One might argue that persons here illegally are in some sense “outside the law”. I agree with Expelliarmus that under current law and precedent that the children born in the United States to illegals are citizens, and agree that an argument to the contrary could be made. I do not think, however, that the argument of P. A. Madison a few years back asserting this very thing is any good.

  21. Polls update:

    The polling organization has changed.

    The right sidebar will contain a random poll, but access to the main body of polls is through the Polls link on the right sidebar in the Conspiracies section.

    Now each poll will have its own associated article, poll, and discussion.

    Summary results for ALL polls is available in the main article above.

    Thanks to HitAndRun for the suggestion to create a discussion area for the polls.

  22. Expelliarmus says:

    I was also thinking of the “occupying army” analogy. I also don’t think looking at exercise of criminal law jurisdiction is necessarily enough to make a person “subject to the jurisdiction” for purposes of the 14th Amendment. While it is true that we afford diplomats immunity from criminal prosecution, at the same time our government (and others) asserts jurisdiction over terrorists and war criminals who have never set foot in the US. (Easy example: Gitmo).

    I do think that the complexity of our immigration laws makes for a very perilous road if we were to try to second guess the immigration status of the parents of every child born on US soil…. but there is an argument to be made.

  23. I am aware that the percentage calculation of the last item on the mult-option polls is wrong. This is a known problem in the polling software and I hope for a resolution soon.

  24. With 135 votes on one question, I think the polls are a roaring success. Valid no, but fun yes!

  25. dm9831 says:

    Dr. C. glad to hear you voted for all the citizen categories. so did i. but i am kinda new to this madness. i’ve learned a lot from the regulars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.