Straining at a gnat

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

My “proofer” buddy sent me a link in email to the “American Thinker blog“. The article said in part:

No man or woman in this Country today could successfully apply for a high-level executive position with any corporation without submitting this meager documentation to prove the statements made in a job application.

And what is this “meager documentation”? Well one thing was: “Panahou Academy school records, 5th through 12th grades.”

Now I will be the first to admit that I’ve had a fairly stable employment history, and haven’t applied for a huge number of jobs. But I have been a high-level corporate executive and I  cannot ever remember being asked for a 5th grade school transcript. In fact, I can’t ever remember being asked for high school records at all (since I’m a college graduate). What employer ever asked you for your college financial aid records?

And in fact, I can think of 43 high-level executives (former presidents of the United States) that weren’t asked to provide one, not one of these things.

Well you can see that this is not an article for “thinkers”? It’s an article for people who are being made fools of. This jerk is asking for every scrip of irrelevant information on the current president, while remaining silent on the bald-faced lies being told by him and his clan, including the doctored Grandmother tape, the fake travel ban to Pakistan, the fake Kenyan Birth Certificate, and lies about Hawaii birth certificate law.

He is straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel (or hoping you will).

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

136 Responses to Straining at a gnat

  1. jtx says:


    When are you running to replace the seat soon to be vacated by the Oborter?

    And apparently you didn’t read or (since I’m notoriously charitable toward all Flying Monkeys) didn’t understand what was said.

    But then again, you Enabler Conspiracy guys do so love to take selective quotes out of context to play your little word games.

    Try reading and understanding what was said this time.

  2. jvn says:

    Fact: The constitutional authorities have already decided that the President is eligible, hence, he is President.

    Fact: President Obama has provided the same level of information to those constitutional authorities as any other President has.

    Fact: Unless y’all come up with some proof, some hard evidence that the President is not eligible to be President, there is NO NEED for him or anyone else to provide one additional document to you or anybody.

    You can piss and moan about “why oh why won’t he show us what we’re demanding?” (Which you would just claim was a forgery anyway, lol)

    99.99% of what y’all are alleging would be reasons to not vote for him next time, nothing more, nothing less.

    Aim for that, you might have a better shot at that…

  3. Mary Brown says:

    jtx, never in my working career was I asked for my grammar school records or my high school records since I graduated from college. So why do you need to see the records of a fifth grader. This is silly stuff.

  4. Rickey says:

    It’s also worth pointing out that John McCain never released his elementary school records, nor his high school records, nor his Annapolis records, nor his complete military records. Applying the logic of the birthers, McCain must have been hiding something.

    Obama announced his candidacy in February, 2007. His political opponents had 21 months to “vet” him and they came up with nothing but wild, outlandish and unverified rumors and theories.

    The only Constitutional method of removing a president from office is impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate of high crimes and misdemeanors. No other court, state or federal (including the Supreme Court), has the authority to remove a sitting president from office. The birthers who believe otherwise are deluding themselves.

  5. misha says:

    I wrote several time before on this blog, this bullshit goes back to slavery, when a black person had to prove he was not a runaway slave, and Jim Crow when Africans could show their passport and be exempt.

    The denialists keep moving the goalposts; it’s a fool’s errand to try to reason with them.

    I can’t wait to watch the mental gymnastics when Booker announces in 2016.

  6. brygenon says:

    Seeing the nonsense “proofers” pitch removes any need for a distinction from “birthers”.

    As we’ve seen on this site, doubts of Obama’s eligibility are nonsense. Has Obama shown enough documentation on other matters? That might have been an issue 10 months ago, but the voters decided it. Now it’s either a tantrum or a dishonest attempt to legitimize birthers.

  7. I’m sure you understood the “straining at a gnat” reference.

    I have a problem with propaganda; it stems from a high school English teacher I had. She taught me that using verbal tools to mislead people was immoral.

    I am even uncomfortable with persuasive writing to some extent. This is why most of the time I try to lay out just the facts so that informed people can decide for themselves. I don’t censor obviously false comments and I don’t cover up facts not to my liking (which are fortunately very few).

  8. Bob Weber says:

    Well Doc, I can authoritatively state that the last time I showed an “official record” to anyone was over 40 years ago when I had my high school transcripts and SAT scores sent when I applied to college.

    Since then I have never once shown any diploma, birth certificate, or school record to anyone! Family connections helped get me my first job out of college. After that, it’s been professional reputation and connections. (Having a good professional reputation really helps.)

    Interestngly, each company I’ve been with has been for about twice the duration of the previous. So if I get a new job, “assuming present trends continue,” it’ll take me right to about the age of 100! [:^)

  9. I don’t change jobs. The companies I work for merge and get bought out.

  10. Mary Brown says:

    As a teacher I am required to undergo a check for known pediophiles. I believe my state now is involved in a national registry.

  11. misha says:

    I’m in the national registry of people telemarketers cannot call. (ba-dump)

    Hey birthers: Joseph Farah has never publically denied an affinity for farm animals. And Farah and Bob Unruh have never publically denied they are lovers.

    Unless I see written proof to the contrary, I’ll believe ‘net rumors.

    I also heard rumors Orly Taitz is a double agent with the KGB and the Mossad. She never denied it.

  12. jtx says:


    Utter nonsense!!

  13. jtx says:

    Mary Brown:

    It’s not me who will see and judge them … it will be a court of law.

    And I guess that I missed the fact that you ran for and were elected President. Your buddy Obamaganda has never shown any properly constituted court of law that he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies but, you see, he is required to meet the requirements of the Constitution.

  14. jtx says:


    But McCain did make his original long form BC available … and it clearly shows he (also) is ineligible – but he never did hold the office as does the Oborter.

  15. jtx says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    If you are so offended from HS on (which obviously been a while) by using immoral tools, then why do you do so??

    And if you think there is anything false in the statement that “Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies”, please point out the false information therein.

  16. jtx says:


    The man has told everyone who can hear and read that he was born a Brit. That makes him ineligible under our legal system no matter what the “voters” do (they do not “decide” eligibility but merely vote for someone they ASSUME is eligible.

  17. jtx says:

    Bob Weber:

    And, let’s see, when was it in that sequence that you were elected and sworn in as President … or did we miss that???

  18. Greg says:

    No president has ever shown a properly constituted court of law that he is legally eligible. And no president ever will.

    There will be no court case.

  19. Catbit says:

    The NEVER denied it? Sounds like a ‘conspiracy enabler’ to me if I ever heard one!

  20. Greg says:

    Our legal system doesn’t care whether Britain considers him a citizen. Never has, never will.

  21. Mary Brown says:

    He has to show Congress. Once he is in office impeachment is the way to remove him or any other President. Go to your Congressman or a like minded Congressman and ask that the Congressman to offer Articles of Impeachment. They were willing to offer Articles of Impeachment for an affair surely you can get someone to offer them for this serious matter. Seriously, jtx, that is your route. It is harder and requires more than rhetoric. I am waiting.

  22. dunstvangeet says:

    Again, mind citing the specific law that makes him ineligible under our legal system.

    If you’re relying upon an interpretation of a law (or phrase), you have to provide specific case law supporting your point. Only binding case law will be accepted. That means you have to quote from the Opinion of the Court (not a concurring opinion, or an opposing opinion).

    Please show me where it says that the British Nationality Act has anything to do with United States Nationality Law.

  23. As a matter of historical fact, John McCain did not make any birth certificate publicly available. The certificate on the Internet was provided by an dodgy fellow from Panama and filed in a lawsuit against McCain (Hollander). Upon examination, it proved an obvious forgery, as discussed on this blog some time back.

    One journalist (Dobbs) reported that he had been shown a McCain birth certificate by a McCain staffer.

  24. Bob Weber says:

    jtx says:

    “And, let’s see, when was it in that sequence that you were elected and sworn in as President … or did we miss that???”


    Well, JTX, I’m glad you asked me that question. I have run for political office, though I didn’t win. I did sign a statement under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, I was eligible. But no, neither the FBI, nor the CIA, nor any other agency ever did a deep background check on me.

    Little did they know that I am the secret love-child of Joe Stalin, born and raised in the Kremlin, and I am a deep-cover mole sent to infiltrate and destroy America on behalf of the International Communist-IslamoNazi Conspiracy! (The Jews and Catholics are part of it, too.) My mission is to prepare a list of undesirable persons to be sent to the secret FEMA camps.

    Wouldn’t you like to know if you’re on the list? Well, YOU’LL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH! BWAHAHA! BWAHAHA!

  25. Rickey says:

    The idea that McCain was born at Colon Hospital makes no sense. In 1936 McCain’s parents were living on the Coco Solo Submarine Base. The base had its own hospital. The notion that the McCains would choose to have their child born in a civilian hospital when they had the availability of a Navy hospital is, of course, preposterous on its face.

    In addition, a newspaper announcement of McCain’s birth was published on August 31, 1936. It says that he was born at the submarine base hospital (the announcement is on page two).

    Of course, this has nothing to do with my original point, which is that McCain never released his school records or his complete military records.

  26. Gordon says:

    Yes it is. They have decided to treat the POTUS like an undocumented runaway slave.

  27. sponson says:

    jtx is not justing practicing denial, he is a plain liar. Obama has never once said that he is British. Period. Cite the quotation or shut up. jtx lies on this forum constantly about various facts, but now he is putting scandalous statements in the President’s mouth. Cite where Obama said he was a British subject, jtx, or shut up on this topic.

  28. Ian Gould says:

    “It’s not me who will see and judge them … it will be a court of law.’

    Any day now.

    Any day now.

  29. Hiram says:

    Obviously a bit of cherry picking on this one on the part of the dear Doctor.

    The missing grade school records is NOT what this is all about. It is, rather, but one more example of the ABSURD lengths to which Obama and his willing minions in the press will go to hide ALL records revealing ANYTHING about his life prior to his entry in public “service”.

    What is missing includes:

    his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

    Of course, there is, too, the oh so elusive long form birth certificate…but we won’t mention that hot potato…


  30. Bob says:

    And absolutely none of those documents are relevant to eligibility.

    If you feel you don’t know enough about Obama, you are free to not vote for him. In 2012.

  31. BlackLion says:

    Interesting article over at Politijab…It is a good legal overview of why there will never be a court case, no matter how much JTX and others hope there will…

    “We all have seen the current problems with the birther cases. No one has standing. Assuming someone did (either a military officer objecting to a direct order from the usurporious commander-in-chief or a dismissed federal employee serving at the pleasure of the president), would the case get to trial?

    Probably not. On one of two grounds.

    First, assuming someone had standing, the case is probably not justiciable. In other words, it’s the kind of lawsuit involving the co-equal branches of government that one of them can’t resolve.

    Second, assuming a plaitiff existed with standing, and a court found the matter justiciable, there is always summary judgment. “Summary judgment” is a procedure whereby a case is decided on the law when the facts are not in dispute. All Barack Obama’s lawyers would have to do is file a motion for summary judgment, attach a certified copy of the Hawai’ian birth certificate, and ask the court to take judicial notice of it. (The “short form “certification.”) That document is, in every state of the union, and in every Federal court, prima facie evidence (sufficient evidence) to prove Obama was born in the U.S.A. And that’s all that any judge will find, as a matter of law, is necessary for “natural born” status.

    But, but, how about all those “questions”? By raising them won’t the birthers be able to demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute over a material fact (place of birth)? When there is a genuine dispute over a material fact, summary judgment will be denied — the facts are in dispute, and that’s why you have a trial.

    Nope. In order to demonstrate a genuine dispute, the plaitiff in this case would have to come up with admissible (competent) evidence that he was not have been born in the United States. Where is it?

    All of the birthers’ claims have been thoroughly debunked. Beyond that, nothing they have asserted can be competently asserted by a percipient witness. No admissible evidence exists that a court would consider that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Honolulu.

    So, this is a case where the birthers will never have their day in court that will satisfy them. Of course, anything except a total victory will not satisfy them. And as the courts dispose of their frivolous claims exactly as courts do in other kinds of cases on a daily basis, these birfoons will cry treason and fraud. Little do they know that they should be looking in the mirror when they shout those epithets.”

  32. Hiram says:

    You are correct. But they were pretty much required reading for all recent past Presidents, weren’t they? The press, and folks like yourself, were pretty insistent that we know all about everything from McCain’s medical records to Bush’s Guard records to Reagan’s damn polyps! Yahoo! While a President’s school records, medical records, state Senator records, etc. are, indeed, “not relevant” (in a LEGAL sense) to O’s eligibility, they sure are curiously absent for one who promised utmost openness and transparancy, aren’t they??

    And then there is the long form birth certificate… which is too hot of a potato to even bring up in polite conversation it seems.

    I’m on the same page as Reagan was when he said to old Gorby, “Trust, but verify”.


  33. Bob says:

    But they were pretty much required reading for all recent past Presidents, weren’t they?

    For example, where are Bush’s elementary school records?

    The press, and folks like yourself, were pretty insistent that we know all about everything from McCain’s medical records to Bush’s Guard records to Reagan’s damn polyps!

    You have no idea what I was insistent about. But why wasn’t Fox all over this when it might have mattered, in 2008?

    While a President’s school records, medical records, state Senator records, etc. are, indeed, “not relevant” (in a LEGAL sense) to O’s eligibility, they sure are curiously absent for one who promised utmost openness and transparancy, aren’t they??

    If you feel Obama hasn’t fulfilled this promise, then don’t vote for him. In 2012.

    And then there is the long form birth certificate… which is too hot of a potato to even bring up in polite conversation it seems

    The short form, by law, derives its information from the long form. So if the COLB says he was born in Hawaii, the long form will the exact same thing. End of conversation.

  34. misha says:


    I have never seen Orly Taitz’ medical records. There is circumstantial evidence she had two abortions when she lived in the Soviet Union. What is she hiding?

    She has never publically discussed this. She never denied it, nor confirmed it. Why?

    And is her relationship with Joe Farah completely professional? They seem very close. I think it should be investigated.

  35. Hiram says:

    Well, so much for a serious exchange. Typical Alinsky tactic too, I might add – when cornered with something one doesn’t wish to confront, just change the topic! The topic of conversation was our President’s Constitutional qualifications – and, as a side note, his overall general lack of openness and transparency about himself. Obama is President, if I may remind everyone. Not Joseph Farah or Orly Taitz or Joe Schmoe. Barak Obama is President. He is at the nexus of this very Obama Consipiracy blog we are on right now, yes?

    Bob, you are right. I have no idea what you personally were insistent about. Not a good claim on my part. But on the part of many on the left, these things were important (medical records, school records, etc.) for all recent past Presidents. This is historical fact.

    You do still miss the refence to elementary school records, however. It is but one example in a lengthy list of documents that have either been sealed, hidden, destroyed or have otherwise become “missing”.

    Think of it for but a moment. The man is basically a blank slate – even his school records, even his elementary school records (!), are not to be found. That is pretty amazing, don’t you think?

  36. Bob says:

    Typical Alinsky tactic too, I might add – when cornered with something one doesn’t wish to confront, just change the topic!

    Oh, the irony.

    The topic of conversation was our President’s Constitutional qualifications

    The issue is eligibility, and there’s no evidence that Obama is ineligible.

    his overall general lack of openness and transparency about himself.

    Other than the two books about himself that he wrote.

    But on the part of many on the left, these things were important (medical records, school records, etc.) for all recent past Presidents.

    If it was truly important to “the right,” “the right” should have raised that issue. In 2008.

    You do still miss the refence to elementary school records, however.

    That you make demands that were not made of past presidents?

    It is but one example in a lengthy list of documents that have either been sealed, hidden, destroyed or have otherwise become “missing”.

    Obama is protected by exact same privacy laws that protect everyone else. Nothing nefarious about that.

  37. Hiram says:

    OK. I give up. Tell me what is wrong with the notion of “show me”? Why in the world does ANYONE have a problem with asking to see the man’s long form birth certificate? Where is the harm in that? So much could be put to rest so quickly with just that simple action. Not for everyone, I know. But for many who don’t understand all of the efforts (going on close to a YEAR now) to silence by legal actions, or to silence by ridicule (another neat Alinski “lesson”…) people who are making a simple, honest inquiry – this action would satisfy the questions of I dare say most people.

    Tell me, if you tell me nothing else, what is wrong with asking the man to show his long form certificate? Why is such a simple request such a big deal to so many folks? It is mind boggling that anyone would have any problem with such a simple, easy, basic request as this.

  38. Well Hiram, it’s this way. Back in June of 2008, the conservative bloggers were vehemently demanding a birth certificate. Obama published the ONLY FORM OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE CURRENTLY ISSUED BY THE STATE OF HAWAII, and instead of putting things to rest, a cottage industry of doubters was created saying it was a forgery, or it was a fraud, or Hawaiian officials were lying, or that the certificate number was wrong, or that the father’s race was wrong — NONE OF WHICH WAS TRUE.

    So if the birth certificate mark 1 created more doubt, more gigabytes of traffic on the Internet, more calls for a cascading list of other documents, why should document mark 2 do anything else.

    It think that it naive to believe that the bulk of Obama denialism has anything whatever about getting at the truth. It is about overturning the truth.

    See you Monday.

  39. Bob says:

    Tell me what is wrong with the notion of “show me”?

    It is a Whitewaterian witchhunt, unrelated to the presidency and part of a permanent opposition campaign. The relevance of such documents passed in 2008; however, they may be relevant in 2012.

    Why in the world does ANYONE have a problem with asking to see the man’s long form birth certificate?

    Because the COLB provides the relevant information (born in Hawaii); the rest is just a fishing expedition.

    So much could be put to rest so quickly with just that simple action.

    Folks here, and most likely Obama, believe that releasing extra documentation will end absolutely nothing. Birfers are amazing adapt at moving the goalposts.

  40. richCares says:


    The head of Hawaii’s Health dept told us they no longer supply “long” form. So why do birthers keep asking for something that is not available. The head of Hawaii’s health dept (a Republican) told us Obama was born in Hawaii, so what else do you need?

  41. Well, why don’t you take that little list of documents, and track down the availability of them for all the presidential candidates for the past 3 elections. Make up a nice table an present it here. You can put it in a Word document and email it to me, and I’ll put it in a nice main article. I just love original research. Start with birth certificates: Obama – yes, everybody else – no.

    On and please provide links to verify everything. I know you hang out on some pretty dodgy web sites.

  42. I was going to make up a board game called BirthOpoly, but the Hawaii addresses wouldn’t fit in the little squares. 🙄

  43. Nullifidian says:

    What is missing includes:

    his kindergarten records,

    Because this is obviously vitally important. What are you hoping to find? Information that Kathy Boudin was his nanny?

    his Columbia thesis

    I can’t speak for Columbia, but my university puts its students’ theses among the stacks or on microfiche and they’re completely accessible to the public and students. Surely, there must be a single student at Columbia who could be convinced t to have a peek.

    and his adoption records.

    Which might not exist. How do you distinguish between ‘hiding’ records and not being able to show records that don’t exist?

  44. Hiram says:

    OK. Granted, not EVERYONE (don’t mean to shout – just can’t do italics for emphasis) will be satisfied with anything that may be produced. Granted. But is it an excuse to not produce something that would be ostensibly so EASY to produce because not 100% of everyone would be satisfied? That in my book is not a reasonable, logical, rational argument for not producing such an historically valuable document – one that could be produced by the President simply picking up the phone for moment or two. It really doesn’t wash.

    Asking for a higher level of proof is not a “fishing expedition” either. It is a matter of verification. Many on this blog are convinced that a COLB is proof positive enough. But there is very real controversy about what a COLB actually shows or “proves”. Because there is just such controversy, and because it can be so easily settled, I have to ask again, in all sincerity, why not? Why not show the thing and move on? Because it may still not convince 100% of the so-called “Birthers”? Is this what it all hinges on? Because it won’t convince everyone? Is this the argument?

    For richCares…Hawaii is still in possession of the long forms. They have not been destroyed. It is not clear that the paper still exists, but if not, there is an image of the paper. Let us put that myth to rest – that the long form, or copies thereof, no longer exists.

    For the record, I believe it is almost certain that Obama was born in Hawaii. But I have yet to hear a convincing, logical, reasoned, compelling argument as to why there is any harm in producing the long form.

    If there is emotionalism going on in this debate, from what I can tell, it is just as prevalent on one side as it is on the other. There are “true believers” in both camps.

  45. richCares says:

    myth to rest – that the long form, or copies thereof, no longer exists.

    no one said they don’t exist, Hawaii said they no longer supply it

  46. richCares says:

    There are “true believers” in both camps.

    this true beliver accepts the statements of the Republican head of Hawaii Health when she said “…verifying Barack Hussein Obama
    was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
    Official statement is at:

    Now that’s a true believer, isn’t it!

  47. kimba says:

    Here is a convincing argument: The State of Hawaii decided it would provide only a Certification of Live Birth generated from a database as proof of birth in Hawaii. The COLB is suitable to prove citizenship and for every other reason identification would be needed. Accepted as such everywhere. If Hawaii released President Obama’s long form, copy, original, whatever, it would suggest that they agree the form of identification and proof of Hawaiian birth they have decided to issue, is not enough. If it’s not enough for Barack Obama, then why would it be good enough for anyone else born in Hawaii? Hawaii will never do that. If I had a dollar for every proofer who came here and claimed they personally believe Pres Obama was born in Hawaii, but they don’t see the harm in releasing the long form, I could retire a rich little Kimba. You are a proofer, a sub-category of birther. Why do you want more proof from Pres Obama than you have gotten from the previous 43 Presidents? No “true belief” is needed for those who are satisfied Pres Obama is a natural born citizen: the preponderance of the evidence supports that he indeed is. The birther-proofer-twofer nation has yet to provide any reasonable proof he is not.

  48. And I fail to see how the production of document, the relevant contents of which we already know, makes any difference.

    I frankly think that if you did your own research, rather than listening to me OR WorldNetDaily, you would become satisfied.

    You can enter the HTML EM tag to get italic output.

    <em>This text would be italic.</em>

  49. Hiram is largely the reason I created the “proofer” category.

  50. brygenon says:

    Hiram: Tell me what is wrong with the notion of “show me”?

    At least say it right: “Your papers, please.”

    What’s important is that the rules for Barack Hussein Obama are the same as the rules for William Jefferson Clinton and Ronald Wilson Reagan. No previous president showed an official birth record, but when Obama shows his perfectly good, perfectly legal, and perfectly ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate, somehow in his case it’s not enough.

    Birthers want to treat this president vastly differently from his predecessors. It’s important that we don’t let them.

  51. Bob says:

    But there is very real controversy about what a COLB actually shows or “proves”.

    There is not a “real controversy.” The COLB proves two operative facts: Obama was born in Hawaii (and thus the U.S.), and that he’s over 35. These facts are uncontested, and nothing on the long form will change this.

    Yes, some do dispute the validity of the COLB, but they do so on the basis of speculation, as they lack both facts or law to have a genuine (or even reasonable) dispute.

    Why not show the thing and move on?

    Again, it will change absolutely nothing. Those who already think Obama was born in Hawaii don’t need to see another document, and those who don’t will not be satisfied by the long form.

    But I have yet to hear a convincing, logical, reasoned, compelling argument as to why there is any harm in producing the long form.

    You’ve actually heard several; you choose not to acknowledge them. Do you see the theme developing here?

    There are “true believers” in both camps.

    The only “true belief” required to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii is believing the Hawaiian government is not choc full of liars or patsies, and is doing the exact same job that it have done for literally millions of other Hawaiian citizens.

    You repeatedly have expressed your displeasure at Obama not being sufficiently forthcoming, and that is your prerogative. Your recourse is to vote him out of office in 2012 (or perhaps vote into office in 2010 a Congress that will impeach him). But Obama’s (perceived) failings are no reason to remove him from office (in some extraconstitutional manner).

    And italics are done through normal HTML coding (but use “i”, not “em”).

  52. Mary Brown says:

    Did John Mc Cain release his records from Annapolis or George Bush from Princeton? I won’t even broach the subject of Elementary and High School records- that is silly. These people have some right to privacy. They need to meet the Constiutional requirements. We are so blessed that the authors of the Constitution were wiser than some who comment here.

  53. Bob Weber says:

    Dr. C,

    Sorry to hijack the thread, but one thing I’ve always wondered about is just where the notion of “Obama was born in Coast General Hospital, Mombasa” came from. The Mombasa meme changes the “Born in Kenya” notion from merely wildly implausible to completely ridiculous. (Maybe this fits into the thread as the “swallowing a camel” counterpoint to straining at a gnat.)

    A birth in Kisumu (nearest large settlement to Obama, Sr.’s native village of Kogelo) or Nairobi, the capital city, has at least some tiny shred of credibility compared to Mombasa. And yet, the birfers settled on Mombasa. This notion obviously did not fall out of the sky: someone must have said it first, but who was it?

    Maybe some internet whiz knows how to do a chronological search, but it’s completely beyond me.

  54. The meme stems from the Grandmother tape, as best I can tell, and derives from the question by Ron McRae:

    MCRAE: OK. Uh, when I come in December I would like to go by the, the place, the hospital where he is born. Uh, could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

    (Long pause. Puzzled sound from Translator Ogombe in background: “naah?”)

    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (to McRae): No! Obama was not born in Mombasa! He was born in America!
    MCRAE: Wh-whereabouts, whereabouts was he born? I, I thought he was born in Kenya.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: No he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

    This grew in the telling to waiting rooms and Sarah Obama holding the baby and such nonsense that is not on the tape. It is reported that Mombasa didn’t even have an international airport in ’61. If McRae had asked a more informed question, we might be talking about Nairobi today.

  55. Hiram says:

    The long form would constitute a higher level of proof, the ultimate, if you will. As to the COLB being reflective of the actual Birth Certificate – maybe. There is real controversy (as opposed to “contrived” controversy, if you will) as to what Hawaii did in practice (not what they were theoretically supposed to do) with home births, delayed births, foreign births, etc. and how these were reflected, or NOT, on the COLB. There is only ONE way to find out and that is to see the long form. So, again, I ask, what is wrong with wanting to see and verifiy with certainty with one’s own eyes? Why is this such a big problem for folks on the other side of this issue? Some folks on the “anti-Birther” side sound just as hysterical and/or fearful when the suggestion is made to do what is so clearly called for – show the thing so we can move on (from at least this particular aspect of the citizenship question).

    And no I don’t trust “official” statements (without corraborating proof) by anyone in government when it comes to most anything. And you shouldn’t either. And I don’t care if they have an R or a D in front of their name – the name of the game is verification.

    As to the higher level of proof notion, consider this analogy. Officer Friendly stops you on your way to work to give you a speeding ticket. She asks for your license. You hand the officer a copy of your license – not the actual license itself. You explain that this copy is in fact closer to the original license than the Obama COLB is to his Birth Certificate – in that the COLB is a partial summary, an abstract, of the real thing and is not an exact copy of the certificate as is your xerox copy of your drivers license.

    Now…do you think most officers would accept a copy of your license? Do you think they should?

    If you answer no to either of those questions, you may be…a closet Birther…

  56. richCares says:

    so tell us, since Hawaii does not supply a long form, how do you propose to get one? My daughter was born in Hawaii in 1965, my request for a long form was met with “we no longer supply a long form”. so again what is your point in asking?

  57. racosta says:

    as for copies, here is Hawaii’s Law:

    §57-16. Same as to certified copies.
    (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 57-19, 57-20 and 57-21, the registrar general shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate or any part thereof.
    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the bureau of public health statistics or any part thereof, certified by the registrar general shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 57-19, 57-20 and 57-21. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.17; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 17.]

  58. BlackLion says:

    I saw this post by Mario over at the tROSL. I was just wondering where he got his conclusions from….

    From Mario…..
    You state that “citizen” as used in the Article II grandfather clause is an obsolete provision. It is not obsolete. Rather, the Founder’s purpose for the clause was not only to grandfather to be eligible to be President those “citizen” who were born “natural born subjects” of England by being native born in the colonies before July 4, 1776 or in some other foreign country or those “citizens” who were native born in the United States or in some other foreign country after that date and before the adoption of the Constitution, but also to inform the world that after the adoption of the Constitution (which was 1789) one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “citizen” to be eligible to be President.

    The Framers did not define the term “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was part of the law of nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). There are other numerous authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered “universal law” and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the “civilized world.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law in the United States.

    The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present. Indeed, the Founders believed that the common law was “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” So since the Constitution does not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900).
    We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon E. Vattel and The Law of Nations, as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. The Founders knew that the law of nations as per Vattel defined a “citizen” simply as any member of society. They also knew that a “natural born Citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the definition of your “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions (The Venus, Shanks v. Dupont, Minor, Ex parte Reynolds, Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, and more) and the framers the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

    Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. England was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. England did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. England was not have been concered with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen- parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President.

    Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. That is another lengthy explanation which I will not go into her for space reasons. This inconsistency is further proof that the Founders did not look to English common law in defining “natural born Citizen.”

    That Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark was willing to disregard the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” and make Wong a U.S. citizen does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define “natural born Citizen.” Also, as I have stated numerous times, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), I might add given the unique facts of that case but also by disregarding well-established case law and the 14th Amendment’s and Civil Rights Act of 1866’s framers’ intent and clear instructions on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

    With one exception, you are also mistaken in stating that statutes may extend “natural born citizen” status to anyone. The only statute that did that was the Naturalization Act of 1790. The “natural born” language was repealed in 1795. The 1790 statute has been misread and misapplied by many, including the constitutional law scholars that made Senator McCain a “natural born Citizen.” I will be writing another article on this statute soon (I have already written one.).

    It is convenient for you to label as “eccentric” legal standards that are not to your liking. I guess you would label our whole immigration structure in the U.S. “eccentric,” including the rule that a naturalized citizen cannot be President.

    We Birthers do not “imagine” that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. That is the law that has been well established among civilized nations including the United States since time immemorial.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  59. kimba says:

    How disingenuous. A photocopy of your driver’s license is not the same as a certified Certification of Live Birth that says at the bottom “prima facie evidence of birth”. A COLB is not an “abstract”. I believe you know this Hiram. I believe you also know that everything that is pertinent to proving citizenship is on the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth. People like you who insist that they must see the “long form” or the “original” Barack Obama birth certificate, just to “check” or “verify” don’t you know, are simply nosey, hoping to find out something about President Obama that no one has heard before. Name one thing you think might be on a “long form” that would change anything about President Obama. You should ask yourself Hiram, why do you keep asking for more identification from President Obama than you have seen from the previous 43. I think it’s because proofers, birthers and twofers are really racists who can’t stand a black man in the White House. But keep talking Hiram, because the more you say, the more your real problem with President Obama shows.

  60. Hiram says:

    To richCares…you may have trouble procuring one (a long form version), but do you think President Obama would?

    To kimba…very Alinsky of you…brand someone a racist just because they ask a question? Are we not allowed to ask questions anymore? Questions are not allowed under the new regime? And do you fully trust everything that comes out of Washington? Please tell me not.

    kimba, I don’t care what party the man belongs to, what race he is, what religion he follows, if any, etc. I judge a man by what is in his head and what is in his heart. You have trouble believing though that anyone actually believes that the Constitution has any meaning in today’s world. It’s an archaic document, right? And anyone who raises Constitutional concerns doesn’t REALLY have Constitutional concerns, it is just a cover for being a racist? Is that where you are coming from?

  61. racosta says:

    And anyone who raises Constitutional concerns doesn’t REALLY have Constitutional concerns

    bull pupu!

  62. kimba says:

    Please. Save your Alinsky whiney crap. You aren’t “questioning”. You aren’t “raising Constitutional concerns”. All the real evidence shows that Barack Obama is exactly who he he says he is, born where he says he was born. No birther proponent has been able to present anything that proves otherwise. And yet you keep it up. What you people are doing is harassing President Obama like a cop harasses a black man he thinks is driving in the “wrong” neighborhood. You think this is 1850 and you’re enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act: the black man has to prove who he is. You want the black man to show more identification than you asked for from the 43 previous holders of the office. Racist. The more you say, the more it shows. You are also a troll.

  63. richCares says:

    for the troll, State of Hawaii says:
    “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

  64. richCares says:

    Are we not allowed to ask questions anymore?

    sure, but ask real qustions, that Obama was born in Hawaii has been settled, not a court in the US would dispute that, especially after the official comments from Hawaii, Kimba is right, the only reason you question it is Obama is black.

  65. Rickey says:


    Your analogy doesn’t hold water. A photocopy of a driver’s license is not certified, does not have a raised seal and signature, and is not prima facie evidence of anything.

    Obama’s COLB is certified, has a raised seal and signature, and is prima facie evidence of both age and birthplace.

    Some people apparently do not understand what “prima facie” means. A person who offers up prima facie evidence is not required to do anything more. Prima facie evidence shifts the burden of proof to someone who wants to challenge it. This means that the burden is on you and all the other birthers to produce EVIDENCE that either the COLB is a forgery or that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

    And there is no “controversy” about how Hawaii handles birth certificates. While it is true that foreigners can obtain birth certificates from the state of Hawaii, those birth certificates do not reflect that the person was born in Hawaii. Officials in Hawaii have made this abundantly clear. If Obama had been born anywhere else, his COLB would not say that he was born in Honolulu.

    Obama has not “sealed” any of his records. His school and medical records are protected by the same privacy laws which protect your records and my records.

  66. Heavy says:

    THE ONE, or his minions, CANNOT be questioned! We MUST take what they say as gospel. ANY questioning is viewed as RACISM!

    This is how they came to power… White guilt!

    This will also be their undoing.

  67. kimba says:

    Troll alert! Heavy’s here for his daily cup of Troll Chow. Don’t feed him.

  68. Heavy says:

    The mere fact that your messiah is still in power is ALL the nourishment I need! The fact that you and your fellow traitors will go to great lengths to protect this fruad is what drives me.

  69. richCares says:

    “Don’t feed him.”
    I agree, OK!

  70. Bob says:

    AP: Obama birthplace flap evokes Arthur debate

    If Arthur has nothing to hide, why doesn’t he just release his long-form birth certificate?

  71. Hiram: “There is real controversy (as opposed to “contrived” controversy, if you will) as to what Hawaii did in practice (not what they were theoretically supposed to do) with home births, delayed births, foreign births, etc. and how these were reflected, or NOT, on the COLB. ”

    There is only a lack of diligence in study, not a real controversy.

  72. dunstvangeet says:

    The analogy is default, because the Drivers License in of itself is a summery of a few things.

    The better analogy would be…

    Oficer Friendly stops you on your way to work to give you a speeding ticket. You hand him your drivers license. He says, “This isn’t good enough. I need a full documentation of your test. Hand me the hard copy of the drivers license test, and all paperwork on your test from the DMV.”

    You say, “I’m sorry, but the DMV doesn’t offer that paperwork. This license proves that I passed the test.”

    Officer Friendly says, “If you actually did pass the drivers test, you should have no problem producing the test. What are you trying to hide?”

    Now, would you actually believe that this happened? But that’s closer to what the Birthers are trying to say, than what your analogy says.

  73. It is patently absurd to say that the qualifications for citizenship are a matter of international law. When was there any uniformity in such requirements between countries? When were they ever constant?

    Then Apuzzo attempts a slight of hand switching the “law of nations” as international law into “The Law of Nations” a philosophical tract by a Swiss philosopher and jurist on natural law and its relation to various national laws. Even De Vattel himself asserts that citizenship is defined by individual states, and not in any universal method:

    It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.

    De Vattel, The Law of Nations § 215

    Apuzzo is impeached by his own witness.

  74. jtx says:


    Nonsense … you’re welcome to think he was born in HI – or Kenya – or Canada – or Costa Rica.

    I’ll wait for verified, trustable evidence in a court of law.

    In the meantime, as has been said since the man has told everyone he was born a Brit, where he was born matters little. He could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom and STILL not be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies – you and your ilk seem to willingly forget that.

  75. Greg says:

    Further, it strains credulity to imagine that the Founders would have thought it so obvious to all readers that they were overturning 400+ years of British and Colonial common law.

    British common law viewed “natural born subject” to include people born there without regard to alienage of the parents since 1368. Nothing in American Colonial legislation supplanted this definition of “natural born subject.”

    The Founders, being smart people, would have said something to confirm that they were completely overturning the common understanding of natural born by appending the word “citizen” to it.

    And the reference to Vattel, well, if they really were using Vattel, wouldn’t we expect them to say “indigenes” and not “natural born citizen?”

    It was so completely not a common understanding of “natural born citizen” to be overturning natural born subject on this point that Tucker was able to say in 1803 that aliens by birth were those born outside the dominions of the US after 1776. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was able to say in 1813 that someone born in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a citizen. Rawle was able to say in 1829 that everyone born in the US was a natural born citizen, regardless of their parents’ alienage status. And finally, the judge in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844 was able to trace an unbroken line from English Common Law to the then modern day on the issue of natural-born.

    You can contrast the treatment of “natural born” with that of permanent allegiance. The Founders did not like permanent allegiance and said so. There are numerous writings from the Founders, citing Locke, and, ironically, Calvin’s Case, arguing that allegiance should not be permanent. Against this, there is an echoing silence on the issue of natural born. As far as I can tell, there’s not a single word uttered by one of the Founders suggesting they wanted to adopt Vattel’s formulation of “natural born” in lieu of Blackstone’s.

  76. jtx says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Better do some re-reading as you do not understand what was said … perhaps intentionally so.

    There was no claim that all nations had any uniformity is their citizenship requirements or in requirements between countries. You should check out the citations given.

  77. jtx says:


    “… all the evidence …”??? Guess you haven’t read too many of the things about the matter on the web – nor even in the man’s own writings and those of his enablers (which includes you).

    We’ll see when things get to a court of law on the matter of eligibiity. There is a lot of evidence that he is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies – including his own statements that he was born a Brit.

    You may as well stop your race-baiting (which you frequently do on this blog) as the issue has nothing to do with that … but since you are apparently black yourself and thin-skinned, go right on lying about it to assuage your own psyche.

  78. jtx says:


    Dufus alert!!! Kimba’s here (partly at least) trying his continual Enabler nonsense to try to make his hero eligible even though has told everyone he’s not eligible – just don’t listen like the Wizard of OZ decrying “the man behind the curtain”.

    Just BELIEVE!!

  79. jtx says:


    He didn’t need to, he was born in VT but was not a natural born citizen since his father was not a US citizen until Chester was 134 years old – and he kept that fact carefully hidden until it was uncovered in late 2008.

    He even destroyed all of his records that he could obtain. That being said, the man was never elected as President (as Obama was) and the public did not have a clue that he was not eligible.

    Obama is his irrational haste to make everyone love him admitted he was born a Brit but only now are most people realizing that means he is not eligible … but we’ll let the court decide that, OK?? You Enablers don’t get to make that determination.

  80. Greg says:

    As has been said, the fact that British law considered him a citizen matters not a whit to US Constitutional law.

    You and your ilk seem to willingly forget that!

  81. kimba says:

    jtx the Troll is here! Don’t feed the Troll! (He prefers Monkey Chow, by the way.)

  82. As a political strategy, the nObama movement needs to create the fiction of a historical consensus behind their novel view. This is why they tried to smear Chester A. Arthur, since his precedent demolishes that fiction.

    I presume the denialist movement (the propagandists and those they dupe) is primarily a smear campaign focused on the next election, not these frivolous lawsuits and crank legal theories that have proved over and over again that they are going nowhere. The aim is to create enough fear, uncertainty and doubt to subtract a few percentage points from Obama in the election. What they don’t factor in is that the only people would would believe such nonsense wouldn’t vote for Obama in the first place.

    Apuzzo and Kerchner’s lawsuit are just a paid attack ad for the 2012 presidential campaign.

  83. Heavy says:

    Liberals will anything to silence their critics. They may even Vince Foster your ass!

  84. Bob says:

    And thank for thoroughly missing the point.

  85. Bob says:

    How very Alinsky of you to say something like that.

  86. Greg says:

    There’s not a speck of evidence that Arthur’s father’s naturalization wasn’t known at the time. It just wasn’t an issue, which is how the judge in Lynch v. Clarke was able to write in 1844 that it was universally accepted that no one would ask the citizenship of someone’s parents when judging whether they were eligible to run for office!

    Oh, and no court will ever decide the issue. You birthers will be sorely disappointed. (And some of you will be sanctioned for wasting the courts’ time.)

  87. Bob says:

    he kept that fact carefully hidden until it was uncovered in late 2008.

    You learned that in “late 2008.”

    Others have been on the case since at least 1884.

  88. Nullifidian says:

    To kimba…very Alinsky of you…

    Please knock off the Alinsky crap.

    Every time you refer to his name, you show two things: that you’ve never read a thing he wrote, and you demonstrate the political bias that is causing you to adopt this ridiculous proofer position with a crystal clarity. Saul Alinsky was waved around as red meat for the far-right during the course of the elections to tar Obama. Presumably, it was recycled from a planned attack on Hillary Clinton, since she had a far clearer connection to Saul Alinsky than Obama did.

    The Alinsky thing was meant to appeal to two inchoate tendencies of the far-right, red-baiting and anti-Jewish bigotry. What better tool to tar a candidate with who happened to be on the real political left (not the soi-disant “liberal-left”) and who was also Jewish?

  89. The irony being that two of the big names in the birther movement are Jewish themselves, (Berg and Taitz).

    I’ve always found it odd that they willingly ally themselves with groups willing to hate them due to their faith.

  90. Arthur has the REAL long form birth certificate, a family bible. It starts at “the beginning”.

  91. Obama Conspiracy Theories is the only place on the web (so far as I know) that hosts the actual text of Hinman’s 1884 book, How a British Subject became President of the United States.

  92. Bob Weber says:

    I’ve always suspected it was a spur-of-the- moment kind of thing. Only a nitwit would have picked Mombasa.

    Mombasa didn’t have anything like a real airport in 1961, just an airstrip used by locals and charter flights.

    Kisumu, on Lake Victoria, actually had scheduled flying boat service until the 1950’s. It was discontinued after Nairobi got a full international airport in 1957.

    Researching the birfer phenomenon has led me to some interesting bits of history. I’ve always thought flying boats were really cool.

  93. kimba says:

    OT – wasn’t something supposed to happen with Kerchner v. Obama today?

  94. Bob says:

    IIRC, Appuzo’s motion for leave nunc pro tunc to file the second amended complaint is on the court’s calendar.

    It’ll most likely be denied as moot when the court gets around to dismissing the complaint.

  95. Bob says:

    WND: Obama’s MySpace page says Obama born before Hawaii was a state.

  96. BlackLion says:

    Another WND story. They are ridiculous. Remember they are the same group that authenticated the COLB. Now President Obama is lying about his age. This is getting ridiculous. First of all if anyone thinks that the Presdient has a MySpace page, I have a bridge to sell you. What is more pathetic is that WND is hyping this as a story. What a bunch of garbarge…

  97. Gordon says:

    Even an American child who had dual citizenship, would have to formally renounce his U.S citizenship upon reaching adulthood. Obama never did that.

  98. richCares says:

    What do you expect, after all, WND is “the Onions” biggest competitor. But seriously, what right wing site doesn’t publish such garbage?

  99. Expelliarmus says:

    My dog has a myspace page. And 44 doggie friends. Really.

  100. Expelliarmus says:

    Oh, my dog’s myspace says she is 59 years old. Older than Obama! Actually she’s way older than that. About 85. In dog years, of course. In people years, not so much.

  101. Resetting Deadlines as to [36] Cross MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Verified Complaint and Petition for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto. Motion set for 8/17/2009 before Judge Jerome B. Simandle. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (js)

  102. I’m still shaking my head over this one. At least Mr. Apuzzo didn’t have the audacity to publish that trash over here.

    He is saying that definitions of citizenship are part of “the law of nations”, or international law and somehow that “law of nations” was incorporated (without reference) into the US Constitution (actually the words “The Laws of Nations” does appear in the Constitution, but not in relation so citizenship, and not as an indication that they are copied wholesale into the Constitution). However, he cites no such international law compendium (since such does exist), but rather refers to a Swiss philosopher’s book the short title of which is coincidentally has the words “The Law of Nations” as part of its longer title, a book which says that there is no uniformity in laws regarding citizenship, and that one must follow local laws on the subject.


  103. BlackLion says:

    But you know what is going to happen…The birthers are now going to say that he was not born in the US and of course a MySpace page will be considered to be better evidence than the COLB…Watch, you are going to see that very soon…

  104. Bob says:

    Latest WND “story”: Birth certificate fraud has been done before!

    Recounts how a Hudson County, N.J., official was caught in 2004 selling fake birth certifcates.

    Causation is also not a strong point in birfer logic.

  105. Yes, I’m well aware of this disgraceful case of official corruption. I have always said that there is always the possibility of fraud. But as you say, the possibility of fraud is not evidence of fraud.

  106. Welsh Dragon says:

    They’ve already started:

    “That would also mean, by Obama’s own admission, if Obama is in fact 52-years-old he was not born a Natural born citizen of the United States of America because Hawaii was not a state in 1957 it was a territory of the U.S. then, and that was it’s status from about 1900 until statehood in 1959” from (via FR)

  107. Bob says:

    It would also mean Obama’s mother was 13 when Obama was conceived, and Obama Sr. was still in Kenya.

  108. dunstvangeet says:

    Welsh Dragon, they forget the precedent of Charles Curtis. Charles Curtis, who was the Vice President under Herbert Hoover, was born in the TERRITORY of Hawaii [Kansas, Doc. C], yet was considered a Natural Born Citizen.

    He’s one of the guys who expands the definition of Natural Born Citizen under.

    Al Gore (born in Washington, D.C.) is another one.

    At the very least, you have to say that people who are born in a Territory that later becomes a state, and people who are born in the District of Columbia are both Natural Born Citizens. It’s probably the case that if you’re a Natural Born Citizen, if you’re a citizen from birth, no matter where you were born.

  109. Welsh Dragon says:

    And Barry Goldwater’s failed presidential bid and John McCain’s.

    In fairness even some of the freepers thought this idea to be BS. But it’s just another example of the alternative reality that is Birfistan!

  110. jtx says:


    British law didn’t “consider him a citizen”.

    The Oborter hizzself says that at birth he was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Once a Brit, always a Brit (as far as the Brits are concerned).

    That makes him anything BUT a natural born citizen.

  111. jtx says:


    Great stuff there, eh? That’d make mama – what – 15 when she had him??? This cataclyusmic circus gets funnier all the time.

    I’m just waiting for him to prove that he’s eligible under our laws to hold the office he now occupies.

  112. Nullifidian says:


    British law didn’t “consider him a citizen”.

    The Oborter hizzself says that at birth he was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    And Obama’s word is law? Wow, the unitary executive is back with a vengeance!

  113. Greg says:

    And if Britain changed the British Nationality Act of 1948?

    What if they said that all people who go by the initials jtx are considered natural born subjects of Britain.

    Once a Brit, always a Brit (as far as the Brits are concerned)?

    What if they said that all people who have any British ancestors are natural born subjects of Britain? (Google jure sanguinis)

    Once a Brit, always a Brit (as far as the Brits are concerned)?

    Show me where, in the Constitution, it says that the British Nationality Act of 1948 trumps the Constitution.

    I want to see a Supremacy Clause that says:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land except British Nationality Acts which shall be even more supreme

    Where is it, jtx?

  114. Welsh Dragon says:

    cataclyusmic ?

  115. Mary Brown says:

    Look on WND friend. Read the article where they name a baby sitter who took care of him when mom was back at college shortly after his birth. I thought it was interesting that they had that article along with the 52 years old stuff. They and you need to get your story straight. Look it up, don’t believe me.

  116. jtx says:


    You seem to miss the point that Obama’s claimed daddy was a furriner (a Brit by law) and therefore the Brits had claim on the son also – and that’s what Obama’s own website was saying.

    THe Brits have no claim on me no matter what laws they pass; my ancestors have been here for a mighty long time.

  117. jtx says:


    Nice to have your suyper-learned insight!!

  118. jtx says:


    Nope – wrong-O!!

  119. jtx says:

    Welsh Dragon”

    Yep … that’s cataclysmic misspelled but I guess you DO have too much time on your hands!

  120. jtx says:

    Mary Brown:

    Actually, that’s just reporting … it’s Obama who needs to get his story straight.

    He’ll soon have the opportunity to do so in court.

  121. SFJeff says:

    “He’ll soon have the opportunity to do so in court.”

    To paraphrase “The Princess Bride”, I don’t think soon means what you think it means.

  122. Greg says:

    You said it yourself, Obama’s dad was a Brit by law. If Britain passed a law saying YOU were a natural born subject, then you would be a Brit by law.

    Google jure sanguinis. There are countries out there that, like Britain back when the US was formed, don’t recognize naturalization and impose their citizenship regardless of how many generations have passed since your ancestors left their shore.

    Why should Britain’s claim by law over Obama’s dad be any better than its claim by law over you, or anyone else?

    And why should Britain’s claim by law trump Obama’s citizenship granted by Constitution?

    Where in the Constitution does it say that British laws trump everything written therein?

  123. I have this little rule of thumb that seems to work pretty well. When in Britain, British rule, when in the United States Americans rule. It really makes some of these citizenship questions really simple.

  124. Mary Brown says:

    How funny. You seem to believe everything else they say. You are so funny.

  125. jtx says:


    The Oborter seems to think so …

  126. jtx says:


    It’s your hero, the Big O, that is making that claim – not me and not the Constitution. The Brits consider him “one of theirs” due to their own laws.

    If you didn’t know it, Britain is a sovergign nation different from the U S of A. They no longer write our laws nor we theirs. But they believe they have “first claim” on “British subjects” – which O says he was born as. Tell us how that makes him a natural born citizen?

  127. Greg says:

    Because, “Britain is a sovergign nation different from the U S of A. They no longer write our laws nor we theirs.”

    Our Constitution doesn’t give a flying leap what their laws consider subjects.

    Our Constitution doesn’t give a flying leap what the British Naturalization Act considers a British Subject.

    Why do you think that British Naturalization laws should trump our Constitution?

  128. dunstvangeet says:

    If you didn’t know it, Britain is a sovergign nation different from the U S of A. They no longer write our laws nor we theirs. But they believe they have “first claim” on “British subjects” – which O says he was born as. Tell us how that makes him a natural born citizen?

    And within the United States, the United States has first claim on any citizens. Tell me the exact law where the British Nationality Act trumps any law within the United States? I’d really like to see where foreign law actually applies to nationality law.

    The U.S. doesn’t care what the British Nationality Act says, and Britian doesn’t care what U.S. Nationality Law says. You have yet to prove otherwise.

    Britian doesn’t trump who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen. No matter how many times you say that, it doesn’t make it true. So, my question to you is why would the U.S. give any foreign nation veto power over determining who can and cannot be President of the United States?

  129. SFJeff says:

    Ahhhhh JTX- fast and furious with theories, short on facts.

    Once again- I ask- put up or shut up- show me any authority- anyone other than a right wing conspiracy shill- who agrees with your theory that someone born with dual citizen ship cannot be a NBC? I know you have time to post all sorts of other stuff- come on- post something to support your claim other than your own theory.

    Oh and under your theory- Iran could proclaim all U.S. Citizen’s Iranian citizens, and we could never ever have someone eligible for President again.

  130. Welsh Dragon says:

    ” The Brits consider him “one of theirs” due to their own laws”

    Eh No. Birthers keep saying that but he lost his UKC citizenship in 1963 when he gained his Kenyan citizenship which in turn he lost when he came of age and failed to renounce his US citizenship.

    ‘Once a Brit, always a Brit (as far as the Brits are concerned)’

    No again, not since 1870.

  131. Bob Weber says:

    It would be hilarious if the next time a birfer testified in court, opposing counsel moved to strike his testimony on the grounds that Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury!

  132. jtx says:


    … nor is “think” what you think, clearly.

  133. jtx says:

    Mary Brown:

    You think a baby sitter statement proves anything relevant to his birth or whether he’s eligible to hold the office he now occupies???

    Wow – talk about uninformed.

  134. jtx says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Does that “little rule” also work in Kenya???

    You’ve apparently never read (nor understood) the United States Constitution.

  135. dunstvangeet says:

    And Apparently, you haven’t either. Every post that you post shows that you’ve never read the constitution. I even had to point you multiple times to the fact that Vice Presidents had to be eligible for the Presidency to be eligible for the Vice Presidency.

  136. jtx says:


    Golly, gee!! What an astounding whiz-bang pronouncement. THAT surely rocked me back on my heels and will no doubt change history!!! When did you slip that into the document???

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.