Ask Dr. Conspiracy

Posted on December 31, 2008 by Dr. Conspiracy
Doctor Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

I’m not a real doctor, but I have a Master’s Degree.

If you have a question (or an answer) about an Obama Conspiracy Theory, put it here.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I am not a real doctor. I have a Master's Degree.
This entry was posted in Ask a Theorist and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

292 Responses to Ask Dr. Conspiracy

  1. laughinghysterically says:
    December 31, 2008 at 8:55 am  (Quote)

    There is a claim circulating that Michelle Obama had been disciplined or disbarred. This claim seems to stem from language on her Illinois Attorney Report saying she is on “court ordered inactive” status. Many have seized on the “court ordered” language and run with it believeing it MUST indicate some horrible malfeasance on her part. However, prior to November 1999 former Rule 770 in Il required a court proceeding for an attorney wishing to VOLUNTARILY elect inactive status. Former Rule 770 easily explains the “court ordered inactive” language in Michelle’s report.

  3. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    BerlinBerlin says:Today, 2:14:03 AM“On Wednesday 31st of December
    Plains Radio will show proof that Obama lied!Divorce papers of his parents show one child that was born in Kenya!

  4. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:29 am  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=574

    The above is the link to the divorce papers.

  5. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    Is being gay a crime nowadays? Gay, socialist, radical, communist, usurper, Muslim, racist… Pitting one group against another is wrong.

  6. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    It looks like you’ve answered your own question.

    Some in the anti-Obama crowd will take any information and guess that it means something terrible. Telling lies about ones neighbor, even speculative ones, is evil.

  7. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:36 am  (Quote)

    I agree totally.

  8. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:58 am  (Quote)

    shall not change that – but let us know how the world works out for you – I.O. 12/6

    Wednesday, December 31, 2008
    Obama’s Kenyan Birth Evidence to be Revealed Today, Online

    Permission to copy and post this article’s text is granted, I.O., AW.

    A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.” That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    Hale announced this during his evening Internet broadcast on PlainsRadio.com, Tuesday, 12/30 and confirmed it with I.O. in an online interview, later that night. He reported that certified copies of this documentation have been sent from Hawaii by the investigator to himself and four others. Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.

    Link to PlainsRadio and their message forum
    Link to PlainsRadio and chat window

    The Texan Internet entrepreneur relates he got fed up with the lack of documentation on Obama and decided to discuss ideas with his radio audience. His offer to hire an investigator was met with piecemeal sums of money from listeners to his broadcasts. Hale said some of the information one would expect to find was not available. For example, documentation from Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann’s divorce to her second husband, Lolo Soetoro had vanished. Hale speculates, the reason this forthcoming 1964 divorce decree had not also been “scrubbed” could be that the divorce had been filed not by Obama’s mother, but by Barack H. Obama, Sr. Thus, it may have been overlooked by any plumbers for Obama.

    Hale does admit to incomplete certainty of his investigator’s work until he receives it, partially due to the PI’s accent, the telephone connection, and his slight hearing impediment. However, he is very confident of what he will receive during the day. Mark S. McGrew, who writes about Obama’s natural born Citizen problems for Pravda.ru, accompanied Hale in his broadcast and also expressed confidence. McGrew had sought publication in numerous American news outlets, but they turned down his articles referring to Obama’s apparent ineligibility. Russia’s Pravda however, decided his effort to find and report the truth was not to be redlined.

    As often related, Barack Obama, due simply to his U.K. citizenship at birth via his Kenyan father, is not a natural born Citizen of America, by definition and the original intent of that term. The Supreme Court has turned down cases which make this point, but according to a September decision in a lower federal court (regarding John McCain’s eligibility problem) this would be due to a question of jurisdiction, until Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote on January 8. Further action is to occur, after this date. You may read about this in previous I.O. articles and the sites linked in its sidebar.

    Meanwhile, on the question of Obama’s place of birth, professionals dealing with documents and forensic evidence have testified that the online “certificate of live birth” provided by Obama is not identifiable evidence of American birth. Now, if Obama’s parents’ divorce decree states that he was born in Kenya (as his Kenyan grandmother has repeatedly stated) the second epistemological wheel is coming off his vehicle to the White House.

    Will Congress pay attention and do its Constitutional duty?

  9. Noquitter says:
    December 31, 2008 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    December 31, 2008

    Obama’s Kenyan birth evidence to be revealed today, online

    By Arlen Williams

    Permission to copy and post this article’s text is granted.

    A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.” That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility.

  10. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 2:04 pm  (Quote)

    You just have to ask yourself this question, instead of this being released on PlainsRadio, it would be released on NBC, ABC, CNN or Fox News.

  11. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 31, 2008 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    That report is extremely silly. First, the divorce decree does not say anything about anybody being born in Kenya unless somebody photoshopped it in after the copy I downloaded a week ago. And the second point is that Barack Obama was over the age of 18 when the divorce was filed. Maya is the only child under the age of 18.

    You know, the Russian word “Pravda” means “The Truth”, and the other major paper Izvestia means “the News”. The used to have a saying which translates “In Pravda there is no truth and in Izvestia there is no news.” (or maybe it was the other way around).

    And Obama’s step grandmother does not say that he was born in Kenya, she says he was born in Hawaii when you listen to the whole tape.

  12. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    Doc C.

    No, they are claiming to have the divorce decree from Obama’s mother’s first marriage, marriage to Obama, Sr. However, I do not ever recall seeing the “place of birth” of a child in a divorce decree.

  13. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    The divorce decree posted here is Obama’s mother’s 2nd husband, Lolo Soetoro. But, the above article claimed that “divorce decree” had vanished, so how come Dr. Orly’s blog has it posted? LOL

  14. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 31, 2008 at 4:39 pm  (Quote)

    Oh, something new. X-CUSE me! I wonder if this “affidavit” will be signed XXXXXXXXXXXX too. You know if this thing is a forgery it’s going to look extremely awkward for the pro-Obama faction to call it so, while defending the COLB Obama posted. Of course the point is that neither image proves anything by themselves.

    I wonder of Dr. Ron Polarik is the forger.

  15. bogus info says:
    December 31, 2008 at 4:52 pm  (Quote)

    Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.
    Link to PlainsRadio and their message forum
    Link to PlainsRadio and chat window

    Hale does admit to incomplete certainty of his investigator’s work until he receives it, partially due to the PI’s accent, the telephone connection, and his slight hearing impediment.

    My question would be: Why PlainsRadio?

  16. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 31, 2008 at 11:33 pm  (Quote)

    I’m still a little naive about these things. I thought that if they made such a claim of proof, that they would provide some proof, perhaps forged, perhaps misrepresented, but something. I didn’t realize that the mass of anti-Obama true believers will accept a “no show” and keep on asking for more.

  17. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 1, 2009 at 11:04 am  (Quote)

    Didn’t happen.

  18. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 1, 2009 at 11:08 am  (Quote)

    A major network would want to actually see and verify a document before they reported on it — it’s called credibility.

    Plains Radio, having no credibility, can just make stuff up

  19. bogus info says:
    January 1, 2009 at 11:43 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Bingo, exactly my point!

  20. bogus info says:
    January 1, 2009 at 11:55 am  (Quote)

    [I.O., 12/31, 2:30pm CT: Ed Hale has sent an email stating that his delivery has been delayed until Friday, 1/2. We wait another day for what he has to show. We can be patient in light of how long we wait for Barack Obama to admit the truth of his ineligibility per Article II (and show us the whole truth of his actual Hawaiian birth certificate, besides)]

  21. laughinghysterically says:
    January 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    Over at the Berg mothership the announcement was that the document would be realeased Wed on the plains radio network show. One of the commenters asked how they planned to “release a document on the radio”?
    LOL!
    The Berg people at mothership seem to hate Hale, some sort of bad history there!

  22. bogus info says:
    January 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm  (Quote)

    Here is what is on The Betrayal blog:

  23. bogus info says:
    January 1, 2009 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    Why do some comments get “moderated” and others don’t?

  24. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    Please refer to the site Editorial Policy Item 8.

  25. bogus info says:
    January 1, 2009 at 6:21 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks!

  26. bogus info says:
    January 2, 2009 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    For talking purposes only, IF Obama had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro, how would this affect Obama’s U.S. citizenship status? As a minor child, Obama would have had no control/say in the matter. I’ve googled but cannot find any information regarding this scenario.

  27. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm  (Quote)

    Refer US State Department here.

    Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

    See also here

    Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. … Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual consequently may possess dual nationality.

  28. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm  (Quote)

    That’s actually pretty easy

    Absolutely nothing.

    Now remember, Berg and many of the Birthers claim that Stanley Ann Dunham lost her US Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro. Berg cites the Nationality Act of 1940, but only marriages before 1922 apply.

    However, even if she gave up her US citizenship, (unlikely, the divorce took place in Hawaii and Maya Soetoro has US citizenship via her mother), it wouldn’t apply to Barack Obama. The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401 says:

    “A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:………”

    Section 407 says:

    “A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.”

    The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, section 349 (a) says:

    “From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by — (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”

    and Section 355 says:

    “A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”

    Basically, there is nothing Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done to effect Barack Obama’s US citizenship.

  29. bogus info says:
    January 2, 2009 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    There is a lawyer on the Doc Orley blog who is implying otherwise. So, wanted to check it out. Thanks. Already knew the information you provided but wasn’t sure if it would include the adoption issue.

    Actually, according to the alleged divorce decree that is at Doc Orley’s blog and I also posted it here, the divorce did take place in Hawaii. The divorce decree (Dunham/Soetoro) is posted under Obama/Dunham Divorce decree.

  30. obviously bogus says:
    January 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm  (Quote)

    (note, I am not “bogus info” … I am another bogus !)

    On another message board (Intrade) there is a lively thread discussing Obama’s Birth Certificate.

    One poster there keeps saying that for $12 Obama could get his “long form” BC and why hasn’t he. I responded, speculating that Hawaii’s Dept of Health doesn’t have any procedure in place to produce anything but a computer generated copy of the record in the database.

    He replied that others from Hawaii have requested, received and posted their long forms on the web. I replied that I had looked and not found any “long form” copies posted anywhere that were claimed to be recently requested and received from the Hawaii DOH, as opposed to having been kept in a shoebox for 40+ years. At this point he feigned disinterest in such “minutiae”, and said if I was so interested I should go look for myself!

    So my question is – Has anyone posted a “long form” photo copy of a Birth Certificate that they at least claim to have recently requested and received from the Hawaii DOH. Conversely, is there evidence that such a copy will NOT be provided if a computer generated copy of the record is available.

  31. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm  (Quote)

    My reading of Hawaiian law is that the State is required by law to provide the photocopy to a qualified applicant. My guess is that the fee is $10 and that one would have to make a manual entry on the Application Form under “Other” to designate which type one needs. There is nothing on the State web site about ordering such a document, but the law is clear that the applicant is entitled to get a certified copy of any information in the record, and some information in the record is not on the computer-generated format.

  32. obviously bogus says:
    January 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    (note, I am not “bogus info” … I am another bogus !)

    If you mean …

    §338-13 Certified copies
    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

    My reading of it is that the State’s option of which method to use. but I’m not a lawyer, so my reading of it is worthless.

    The question I was really asking is not so much what anyone thinks might happen if you ask for a photocopy of the “long form”, than has anyone who was born in Hawaii actually requested, received and posted a copy from the DOH, or having requested it been flatly denied?

    It strikes me as something that might have been tried by a “Birther” and I was wondering if anyone here had come across a copy of a “Long Form” posted with the claim “look, if I can get a copy, why isn’t Obama showing us his?”

    If no-one has, that’s fine. I’ve looked a bit, but too much time reading about CoLBs on sites like FreeRepublic starts to make me nauseous, so I’m not expecting anyone to go out on my errands.

  33. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 5, 2009 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    The only old form birth certificate I have seen on the Internet is the “Alan” certificate from 1963.

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    The name of the hospital is a “part thereof” but not on the computer form. To comply with this law the State would have to provide some document that included every part of the certificate they hold, and about the only way that could be done was with a photocopy, or a cumbersome and pointless transcription of the whole thing.

  34. obviously bogus says:
    January 5, 2009 at 10:56 pm  (Quote)

    Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t really address the bulk of your reply, but if you have only seen the 1963 “Alan” certificate, that effectively answers my question.

    I saw one other “Long Form” somewhere else (can’t remember where) but like the “Alan” BC, there was no claim that it had been recently received.

    I’m just surprised that no Hawaiian born “Birther” hasn’t tried to get their own “Long Form” and had the results widely posted.

    Thanks for you replies anyway.

  35. noquitter says:
    January 8, 2009 at 8:53 pm  (Quote)

    How many lawsuits is it going to take for someone to realize that we have been given every reason by the Obama Camp to believe that he IS HIDING SOMETHING; like his real birth certificate, his congressional records, his college transcripts, his Harvard Law Review papers….another list that goes on & on.

  36. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 8, 2009 at 10:01 pm  (Quote)

    How may lawsuits getting thrown our of court is it going to take before someone realizes that this is a big nothing?

  37. bogus info says:
    January 8, 2009 at 10:07 pm  (Quote)

    Exactly.

  38. noquitter says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:32 am  (Quote)

    Dr, if it’s a big nothing, then why are you devoting so much energy to cover up
    BHO’s lack of transparancy?

  39. Tes says:
    January 9, 2009 at 9:43 am  (Quote)

    As another person who has devoted energy to the issue, I can say that for me – the reason I’ve devoted energy to it is NOT to “cover up” anything but, rather, to provide MORE information to counter the incredible amount of misinformation out there.

    It *takes* time and energy to search for the truth (rather than taking someone’s word for any proposition). That’s not energy spent to cover up – that’s energy spent in search of facts/truth.

  40. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    Tes, it does take a lot of time and energy. Most people will take the easy path, which is why these Obama urban legends persist as long as they do (plus the activities of certain would-be celebrities and tricksters). Nevertheless, the difficult path leads to truth and the satisfaction for a job well done.

    Certainly you have done probably more than anyone else in providing reliable information.

  41. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 10:28 am  (Quote)

    What I want to know is where did the concept that President Obama has to disclose all these records? And where did these people get the idea that they have the right (morally) to publish all these records on these websites? Divorce decrees, questionable real estate records, relatives addresses/phone numbers, etc., etc.? The argument that they present is that they have to provide information to get a job. Well, yes they do, but their private information isn’t posted on websites for the whole world to view. While there may not be anything “legally” wrong with this perhaps, I certainly find this behavior morally wrong and lacking in common decency. And, at some point, Doc Orly, et al will overstep the boundary which will perhaps open the door to legal action by someone. I hope so. I am not an advocate of lawsuits but if anybody ever needed to receive “a taste of their own medicine”, this bunch does. Just my opinion on the matter. And, I am certainly NOT suggesting that anyone sue them.

  42. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C,

    Berg’s petition and/or application before the Supreme Court today, do you think there will be a ruling today or will we have to wait until Monday as we have in some of the other cases?

  43. noquitter says:
    January 9, 2009 at 10:50 am  (Quote)

    No, Bogus. The real test will bew the Doctors case on the 23rd. That one has standing. Your question:

    What I want to know is where did the concept that President Obama has to disclose all these records

    The line “we the people”. It is our country, our laws and our right to ask questions. Out of everything you’ve ever posted that is the most vile.

  44. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 11:11 am  (Quote)

    Noquitter,

    Those same “right to privacy laws” that you and this bunch are trashing also covers you.

    Because I am NOT a lawyer, I have no idea if distributing this material on websites has any legality issues to it. But, my opinion is that this behavior lacks moral and common decency. I would not want this being done to me. And, I really don’t think you would either and I find this behavior to be vile.

  45. noquitter says:
    January 9, 2009 at 11:33 am  (Quote)

    The right to privacy that you site extends in your mind, to give politicans zero accoutablity to the people. It enables fraud and decite. We are talking about publec records and a public employee paid for, by the public.

  46. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 11:45 am  (Quote)

    Noquitter,

    They may be “public records” but I would not want my “public records” plastered all over the internet. As I stated, they may have the “legal right” to do this but in my opinion, this type of behavior lacks moral and common decency. I have a right to my opinion same as you have a right to yours. My wish is that someday you will have your “public records”, plastered all over the internet. Especially information regarding your relatives.

  47. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 11:49 am  (Quote)

    Noquitter,

    “No, Bogus. The real test will bew the Doctors case on the 23rd. That one has standing.”

    I refer you to Dr. C’s remark regarding this case which says it better than I ever could.

  48. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:11 pm  (Quote)

    Writ denied unanimously. They will likely cancel discussion of his emergency application on the 16th as moot.

  49. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    At some point “we the people” becomes vigilantism and some of the rhetoric at least, that I am reading crosses this line. It may be your right to ask questions (freedom of speech) but it may not be your right to individually receive answers; that would lead to chaos and mob rule. Certainly the courts are rejecting in a continuous stream lawsuits from people who are beyond their rights in what they ask. It’s not just one court, or one court system. It is state and federal courts across the country.

    So I would suggest that your understanding of what law is and how it is enforced is flawed.

    Dr. Orly has standing, but her case is unworthy of consideration. We can continue that conversation after the 23rd.

  50. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm  (Quote)

    Obama’s mother is not a public employee. If somebody who had a beef about me started publishing public records about my deceased mother, I would feel violated.

  51. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    Be sweet. You wouldn’t really want that to happen to noq do you?

  52. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:43 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Do you want me to be honest or lie? Yes, in theory, I would so he/she could see how it feels if I were to be “honest”. But, in reality, No, because I would not want anyone to be done like this no matter how much I disagreed with their opinions.

  53. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:49 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C,

    Nor is his father, step-father, 1/2 sisters, 1/2 brothers, aunts, uncles, etc., etc. and this bunch are trying to get records on all these people, some which are considered “private” such as medical records.

  54. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    I’m seriously wondering if Dr. Orly needs to have a few complaints filed against her with the California Bar. I can’t believe this type of stuff isn’t a violation of professional ethics and/or behaviour

  55. laughinghysterically says:
    January 9, 2009 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    Noquitter
    Any FOOL can file a frivolous lawsuit, and many do so. Just because a lot of fools are choosing to do so in thisd matter is in no way evidence that any of the cases have merit. The fact that all of these cases are being dismissed is evidence that the claims have no validity whatsoever!!

    See any of the ten frivolous lawsuits described below if you need proof than any fool can file a lawsuit:

    1. 1991, Richard Overton sued Anheuser-Busch for $10,000. He claimed to have suffered emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss because drinking beer did not make his fantasies of beautiful women in tropical settings come to life, as he claimed it had advertised, driving him to buy and drink more Bud Light. The case was dismissed.

    2. 1995, Robert Lee Brock sued himself for $5 million. He claimed that he had violated his own civil rights and religious beliefs by allowing himself to get drunk and commit crimes which landed him in the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Virginia, serving a 23 year sentence for grand larceny and breaking and entering. What could he possibly have to gain by suing himself? Since being in prison prevented him from having an income, he expected the state to pay. This case was thrown out.

    3. 1996, the family of Patsy Ann Byers sued Oliver Stone, Warner Brother, and others involved in the making and distribution of the movie Natural Born Killers for an unspecified amount. They claimed that the movie caused Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darrus to go on a crime spree which resulted in Edmonson shooting Byers during a robbery, leaving her paralyzed from the chest down. The lawsuit was originally filed in 1995, against Edmonson and Darrus, the actual perpetrators of the crime spree. Stone and the others involved with the film were added in 1996. The portion of the case aimed at Stone and his associates was dismissed in 2001.

    4. 2000, Cleanthi Peters sued Universal Studios for $15,000. She claimed to have suffered extreme fear, mental anguish, and emotional distress due to visiting Universal Studios’ Halloween Horror Nights haunted house, which she said was too scary.

    5. 2001, Linda Sanders and other family members of Columbine High School shooting victims sued 25 movie and video game companies for $5 billion, in a class action lawsuit.They claimed that were it not for movies includingThe Basketball Diaries and videos games including Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Mech Warrior, Wolfenstein, Redneck Rampage, Final Fantasy, and Nightmare Creatures, the massacre would not have occurred, and that the makers and distributors of the movies and games were partly to blame for their loved ones’ deaths. The case was thrown out and the plaintiffs were ordered to compensate the video game and movie companies for their legal fees.

    6. 2002, Edward Brewer sued Providence Hospital for $2 million. He claimed that the hospital was negligent because it had not prevented him from raping one of its patients. The judge ruled that any damage Brewer suffered due to his crime was his responsibility for choosing to commit the crime, and that the hospital had no legal duty to protect him from that choice.

    7. 2003, Andrew Burnett sued Sara McBurnett and the San Jose Mercury News, claiming they had caused him to suffer mental anguish and post traumatic stress disorder. Burnett filed the lawsuit while serving a three-year sentence for killing defendant McBurnett’s dog in a road rage incident, claiming that the incident had caused his suffering. The case was thrown out.

    8. 2005, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Gertrude Walton, who had passed away the year before at the age of 83, after having received notice of her death and a copy of the death certificate. The RIAA claimed that Watson had illegally downloaded and shared over 700 songs. Watson’s daughter claims that she never even had a computer in the house. Although RIAA dropped the case against Watson, it was only one of over 20,000 similar lawsuits filed by the association beginning in 2003. While some of the lawsuits are legitimate cases of piracy, defendants have included a twelve-year-old girl whose parents wound up paying RIAA $2,000, and families who have never owned a computer. Defendants can face charges of $150,000 per song.

    9. 2005, Austin Aitken sued NBC for $2.5 million. He claimed that an episode of “Fear Factor” caused him “suffering, injury, and great pain.” He said that watching the contestants eat rats on television made him dizzy and light-headed, causing him to vomit and run into a doorway. He judge said the case was frivolous and threw it out.

    10. 2006, Allen Heckard sued Michael Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight for $832 million. He claimed to suffer defamation, permanent injury, and emotional pain and suffering because people often mistook him for the basketball star. Heckard dropped the lawsuit later that year.

  56. laughinghysterically says:
    January 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm  (Quote)

    If anyone is so ionclined, the CA atty discipline hotline number is below. If has crossed a line, they would be the ones to do something about it.

    Complaints Against Attorneys
    1-800-843-9053 (toll free in California)
    213-765-1200 (from outside California)

  57. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm  (Quote)

    Cr. C.,

    Password? What is this all about?

  58. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 11:18 pm  (Quote)

    There’s nothing there.

  59. bogus info says:
    January 9, 2009 at 11:25 pm  (Quote)

    Obama’s mother’s original Social Security Number Application

    Am I missing something on this? How would they have gotten this?

  60. George Orwell III says:
    January 10, 2009 at 3:51 am  (Quote)

    Hey Bogus,

    Hope this finds you & yours well…

    The SS numbers for deceased persons gets updated every so often by 3rd party search engines. It’s called SSDI (Social Security Death Index) and I think Ancestory.com has one for free. You plug in the name and any other particulars you might have and it spits out the number (usually that is).

    The numbers for Obama’s mother and her father (or Obama’s grandfather if you prefer) have been known for some time now. Somebody probably just filed something equivalent to a FOIA application to get that hard copy.

    As of a week or two ago, Obama’s grandmother who passed in Hawaii just before the elections has not been added to the index yet.

    The WebOfDeception.com site is great for collecting hardcopies of FOIA and public records stuff just as the PaperlessArchives.com are for cheap copies of just as sensational hardcopies of our government’s activities.

  61. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 10, 2009 at 6:31 am  (Quote)

    And how would a Kansas teenager have a Washington State Social Security Number?

  62. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 10, 2009 at 7:10 am  (Quote)

    And in the SSDI, there are two social security numbers for Stanley A Dunham.

    Born 23 Mar 1918, Died 08 Feb 1992, Last address Honolulu, SSN 514-03-4824, Issued Kansas
    Born 29 Nov 1942, Died 07 Nov 1995, Last address Honolulu, SSN 535-40-8522, Issued Washington

    The first one is Obama grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham and the second for Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

  63. George Orwell III says:
    January 10, 2009 at 7:25 am  (Quote)

    The three digit area number is not hardwired to strictly the place of birth but more so to place first applied for. A snippet from my files…

    Area Number

    The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

    Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.

    Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

  64. George Orwell III says:
    January 10, 2009 at 7:34 am  (Quote)

    … and since it will eventually come up in some discussion:

    Kansas – 509 thru 515
    Washington – 531 thru 539
    Hawaii – 575 & 576
    California -602 thru 626
    Massachusetts – 010 thru 034

    That should cover the most likely places Obama (or his grandmother) may have first applied for a Social Security card.

    To the best of my knowledge that is…

  65. George Orwell III says:
    January 10, 2009 at 7:45 am  (Quote)

    Forgot one (Columbia University days)…

    New York – 050 thru 134

  66. bogus info says:
    January 10, 2009 at 7:55 am  (Quote)

    Hi George,

    Good to see you again. As always, you have good information. I did not know that about SS# on deceased individuals.

  67. bogus info says:
    January 10, 2009 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Berg’s petition/application to the Supreme Court is regarding the lower courts decision regarding standing, correct?

    Doc Orly’s petition/application to the Supreme Court, because the lower court denied with no comment is on merits of the case, correct?

  68. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm  (Quote)

    Berg’s cased was dismissed by federal court in Philadelphia for a list of reasons, among which one was standing, another was that he filed in the wrong court (part of it) and I think another. He appealed to the Supreme Court because he didn’t like the lower court ruling.

    Orly is appealing to the Supreme because she didn’t like the lower court decision either.

    In Berg’s case, Judge Surrick wrote a long and detailed opinion with his denial. In Orly’s case not. Given Orly’s lack of credibility and my lack of legal background, I really don’t know whether this difference makes any difference. But just because Orly’s client has standing (assuming she does) doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will hear the case. They do not hear most cases. Lightfoot v Bowen is a very sloppy case showing the same skill which Orly uses writing for her blog.

  69. bogus info says:
    January 10, 2009 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    I lack legal background also, but based upon the two previous cases–Donofrio/Wrotnowinski, my opinion is that Berg and Orly will both be dismissed. Orly’s is a combination of Berg/Donofrio/Wrotnowinski. Looks to me like lots of fiction and no facts. Berg has lots of fiction, not facts.

    Besides, if the Supreme Court were going to act, they would have done it before Congress counted the votes. Now, that is just my opinion. And they sure would not have denied the applications. Just common sense.

    All these other cases at the State level, will they all appeal to the Supreme Court? And, once Berg/Orly’s get dismissed, will that perhaps discourage the others from appealing?

  70. laughinghysterically says:
    January 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, Orly will be dismissed as well. Although, nothing seems to be enough to discourage these morons. They’ll keep at this untikl they are sanctioned/sued/disciplined or all of the above.

  71. bogus info says:
    January 10, 2009 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    Laughinghysterically,

    Sadly, I think you are right. The one in Washington State that was denied Fri.(Broe v Reed) is going to appeal to the Supreme Court according to reports.

  72. Arlen Williams says:
    January 11, 2009 at 11:06 pm  (Quote)

    And welcome to you, too, Doctor. Consider yourself cross-linked.

  73. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks to the Investigating Obama web site for a link to here (as we link there). There are not a lot of links here yet, but I hope the number will grow.

  74. bogus info says:
    January 14, 2009 at 9:18 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    I just wanted to say Thank you for all the hard work you have put into this website. Facts back up by valid research. And you state things where even a child could understand it. Another big thanks goes to Patrick McKinnion and Laughinghysterically for their contributions. Whatsyourevidence also deserves a big Thank You. Sorting fact from fiction has certainly been hard for people like me who do not have a legal background. Thank you for sharing your research skills will all of us and for putting up with our dumb questions.

  75. laughinghysterically says:
    January 14, 2009 at 9:49 am  (Quote)

    My thanks also goes out to everyone, especially Dr. Conspiracy. I cannot imagine the time and energy you have put into this site, and I am very greateful to you.

    I hope everyone has a HUGE party planned for the 20th (if anyone will be in NY let me know)!!!!!

    Hopefully this conspiracy silliness will die down for the most part after the inauguration (dare to dream!).

  76. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 14, 2009 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    Thanks. It has been a lot of work, but it is also rewarding.

  77. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 14, 2009 at 11:17 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Orly, if memory serves me right, mentioned 31 lawsuits now about Obama. Would anyone venture a guess how many lawsuits are outstanding against George W. Bush (I bet it is 10 times that number)? Every jailhouse lawyer will add to the number of Obama lawsuits, perhaps diminishing their newsworthiness.

    To have sustained silliness, you need news (in my opinion) and the news has been driven by a handful of crank lawyers filing lawsuits. No one would have heard of “Ron Polarik” except for his promotion in lawsuits by Berg, et al. Leo Donofrio seems to have gone home a month ago. That leaves Berg and Orly. With Berg shot down at the Supreme Court (and the inevitability of the same happening to Orly next week), one wonders how much traction those two will continue to have. As soon as Ed Hale is seen as having cried “wolf” for the second (at least) time, I wouldn’t expect him to have much following left either.

    Conspiracy theories have a life of their own, though.

  78. laughinghysterically says:
    January 14, 2009 at 11:47 am  (Quote)

    Some of the Berg mothership folks have created a forum that, so far, they are allowing those banned from Berg’s blog to post on. They have not started banning or deleting comments yet, there may be hope for these few after all. I encourage everyone who is so inclined to go post the facts over there, maybe it will serve to diminish Berg’s following and dry up his funding.

    obamahub DOT net

  79. Tes says:
    January 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting! I especially like the TRUTHS & MYTHS section.

  80. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    It appears that Plains Radio’s forum is open. I saw some very sensible posts on “natural born citizen” over there.

  81. jazz says:
    January 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm  (Quote)

    Ok Dr. I HAVE A QUESTION….there is a conspiracy theory that says if Obama was born outside of the U.S{Which HE WASN’T} dispite his mother being a U.S citizen he still can be a “natural born cirtizen” becuz he’s mother was too young And did not live in the U.S for more then 5 years….ect. Ect. Is this true?

  82. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 17, 2009 at 8:27 am  (Quote)

    I’m not a citizenship attorney, but as best I understand the law, if Barack Obama were not born in Hawaii, then he would not be a US Citizen based on the year of his birth and the length of time his mother resided in the United States.

  83. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 9:02 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    That is the way I understand it too. The law in effect when Obama was born stated that Obama’s mother would have had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 years from age 14. She was a few months shy the way I calculate it. She would have had to have been 19 when she had Obama. Technicallity of law at the time of Obama’s birth. The law was later changed to only two years from age 14 but wasn’t retroactive.(1982 I think) Those who argue that McCain isn’t a NBC base their arguement on a similar technicallity of the law at the time of McCain’s birth. This just points to yet another reason why Congress or SCOTUS needs to pass legislation/precedent as to what a NBC and citizenship is in general and make it retroactive.

  84. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 9:15 am  (Quote)

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=784
    In February of last yearObama and Clair McCaskill tried to change the constitution to legitimize Obama for presidency, later used Gestapo technic

    David Crockett refers to Professor Chin in this article.

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=783
    Hail King Obama: President (Usurper) for life

  85. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 9:53 am  (Quote)

    This is Doc Orly thinks should be done in regard to the first article I posted above:

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-should-be-done.html
    what should be done?
    I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new elected officials and a new judiciary.

    Notice she is still allowing certain anonymous posters as long as they agree with her? LOL

  86. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 10:10 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    There is the law taken from whatsyourevidence?:

    9/8 Update: The U.S. State Department website confirms that:

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad (hat tip: 21stCenturyThinker, at FreeRepublic.com.)

  87. bogus info says:
    January 17, 2009 at 9:19 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Once PE Obama is sworn into office Tues., will the rest of these lawsuits be dismissed one by one?

  88. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm  (Quote)

    My dear Dr. Conspiracy, a conspiracy theory has taken hold of me. It is impossible to disprove, I suspect, but it may be of some entertainment value.

    Have you noticed that many of the conspiracy nuts seem to have delusions of mass protests that will happen as soon as Obama takes office? Something along the lines of “As soon as the usurper takes office, there shall be millions rioting in the streets?”

    Also, have you noticed that these things will never happen in the present, but rather some day in the future? And especially, that they will happen only after all of these lawsuits?

    WHAT IF…Berg and Orly and their ilk are starting these suits in an attempt to keep the crazies from acting on these paranoid fantasies? “No, don’t riot now–wait a week. I know I said that last week, but we filed another case.”

    Further, they might think that the crazies might forget about the violent fantasies or get pressured into a more constructive way of voicing their frustrations.

    Like I said, it’s pretty half-baked.

  89. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 1:34 am  (Quote)

    bogus,
    await judicial action on the following dates:

    Wednesday, January 21:The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition ofBerg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page.
    Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hearBrockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elect’s eligibility.
    Friday, January 23:Dr. Orly Taitz‘case,Lightfoot v. Bowen, goes to Conference, essentially asking the Justices for an emergency stay to keep California’s Electoral College Electors from voting. If the Justices make a decision on this day, the Orders would likely be released between 2 and 3pm ET.This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs include an Elector and a candidate for the vice presidency; theoretically, these two classes of citizens could overcome the standing hurdle.

    The docket officially shows that Dr. Taitz’ suggestion for all Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from being involved with the President-Elect’s inauguration has been received

  90. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 1:39 am  (Quote)

    Keyes v. Bowen: Subpoena Issued for President-Elect’s Occidental College RecordsUnless an objection is made by the Defendants (as prescribed within the subpoena paperwork), these records are supposed to be produced on February 16, 2009 at 10:00am to Mr. Kreep’s office in California.

  91. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 1:41 am  (Quote)

    btw bogus, it’s on in texas next week. it ain’t over until it’s over.

  92. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:36 am  (Quote)

    Interesting. There appears to be a certificate of service attached.

  93. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 5:54 am  (Quote)

    Hi Noquitter,

    Here is another legal term for you. “Motion to quash.”

  94. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 6:22 am  (Quote)

    There was actually someone on Berg’s blog yesterday that was trying to come back to reality/sanity and said that PE Obama’s BC and qualifications had been see “by those who needed to see them”. Of course, she was immediately told she didn’t know what she was talking about. Every now and then you will see a flicker of sanity trying to come through.

  95. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 18, 2009 at 8:15 am  (Quote)

    Since the Supreme Court has already decided not to accept Berg v. Obama, they will certainly dismiss any requests for injunction predicated on them hearing the case. The 16th was nothing more than a technical formality. If Berg was any kind of decent lawyer, he would have known he didn’t have standing before he started this mess. So either he’s a poor lawyer, or Berg v. Obama is a publicity stunt. I vote for BOTH.

    While Lightfoot may have standing, she doesn’t have a case. The Supreme Court hears less than 10% of the cases that come to it.

  96. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 18, 2009 at 8:23 am  (Quote)

    Subpoena is at Obama Waffles blog

    Now will someone explain to me why a college housing record for Barack Obama is relevant to the question of whether he should have been on the California ballot as eligible to be president? I see this as harassment.

  97. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 9:09 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Noquitter thinks that We, the people have the right to see the following:

    1. “vault copy birth certificate”
    2. any and all hospital/medical records
    3. all of Obama’s school records beginning in Kindergarten through law school.
    4. Income tax returns, real estate records, passports, etc., etc.
    5. All of Michele Obama’s records beginning in Kindergarten, BC, etc., etc.
    6. All of Obama’s mother’s records-BC, DC, financial records, etc., etc.
    7. All of Obama’s paternal grandmother’s records-BC, DC, financial records, etc., etc.
    8. All records that have been “sealed in Kenya.”
    9. Anything else that they might decide they want in the future.

    The fact that PE Obama is a elected official gives We, the people the right to any and all documents regarding PE Obama. Elected officials do not have any “rights to privacy.”

  98. laughinghysterically says:
    January 18, 2009 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    I have af ew predicitons, and I’d bet good money I am right.

    Let’s see:
    Jan 21, denied.
    Jan 22, dismissed.
    Jan 23, denied.

    Subpoena, well, motion to dismisswill stopdiscovery, or they can move to quash, quash and quash again! And, I’d bet on those motions: GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED.

    Sorry, but, like I said, I betcha I am correct.

  99. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    Now will someone explain to me why a college housing record for Barack Obama is relevant to the question of whether he should have been on the California ballot as eligible to be president? I see this as harassment.

    Dr. you should not have to ask this phoney question. We want to see how he applied as a canidate for housing and finacial aid.

  100. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 12:53 pm  (Quote)

    Dr., please try and keep up!

    Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

  101. laughinghysterically says:
    January 18, 2009 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    NQ

    Please do familiarize yourself with two types of motions 1) Motion to Dismiss 2) Motion to Quash

    This absurd subpoena will go nowhere, just like the prior discovery requests in other cases.

    Sorry, thanks for playing, try again.

  102. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    Why are you sorry?
    You addition of the word “absurd” shows your bias.
    One mans junk is another man’s treasure.

  103. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    NQ,

    What “we” want will not be what “we” get. LOL

    At least quote things right: “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”

  104. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:25 pm  (Quote)

    i wasn’t qouting.

  105. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:26 pm  (Quote)

    It’s not a phony question. What could his housing and financial aid application possibly have to do with his qualifications for president?

  106. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    are you into game playing today?
    Let’s give each other a little respect!
    anyone that’s here knows the issues.

    but i will answer you. If he claims to be not a citizen of the USA we would say we have a clear case.

  107. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm  (Quote)

    That doesn’t make any sense. Barack Obama grew up (from age 10) in Hawaii. How/why could he call himself a foreign national?

    This is one of things that come out of the whole world being reinvented under the assumption that Barack Obama cannot be president. It turns the conservative enemy of all things liberal Supreme Court into wusses (Donofrio), scared whatever, it calls every member of Congress and every state Secretary of state trators. It makes liars out of Hawaiian officials, it turns the words “Location of Birth Honolulu” into “born anywhere”, it makes laws passed in 1982 effective in 1961, it turns an official government document (selective service registration) into a fake, it rewrites citizenship law, rewrite court decisions, rewrites the Constitution, denies every form of evidence prevented, encourages desertion in the armed forces, an armed rebellion against the government, harassment against anyone who’s name is even remotely similar to Obama, and turns a kid who grew up in Hawaii into a foreign student.

    This is absurd. That’s not a bias, that a rational conclusion based on the evidence.

  108. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    money, admissions or maybe truth

  109. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm  (Quote)

    I would be amazed if a college kept 25 year old financial records on anybody, and I would suppose Keyes knows this. The reason they are subpoenaing the records is that they the know they don’t exist and then they can claim “THE RECORDS WERE BURNED” and continue the smear.

  110. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    NQ,

    Truth? Many, many people have tried to point you to the “truth” and you ignore them all. You prefer to believe all the misleading, false and lies that have been spread in this issue. And you keep spreading all that false information.

  111. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    NQ,

    Doubtful if those records still exist. Besides, do you really think that the all powerful, evil Obama would not have already had those documents “scubbed” as your bunch always claims. One minute you say the records have been sealed/scrubbed then the next minute want to subpoena them.

  112. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Those records are coming up on being 30 yrs. old.

  113. noquitter says:
    January 18, 2009 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Then why are you still on this issue?

  114. Hitandrun says:
    January 18, 2009 at 3:43 pm  (Quote)

    Place your bets, Doc.

    Do you believe the sealed vault document is a properly attested hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth?

    Do you believe Mr Obama will ever release said document for public inspection, whether of his own volition or under legal compulsion? Should he?
    Curious,
    Hitandrun

  115. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm  (Quote)

    Don’t rule out “cash cow” as well. The party faithful are always willing to donate to Berg / Taitz / Pidgeon / whoever.

  116. Patrick McKinnion says:
    January 18, 2009 at 3:49 pm  (Quote)

    Thank you!

  117. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm  (Quote)

    NQ,

    Entertainment. To see what kind of crazy theory all of you will come up with next. LOL And to watch “fools and their money soon part.”

  118. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm  (Quote)

    The answer to the first question is a confident “yes”.

    As for whether we’ll ever see the vault record, your guess is as good as mine. My opinion is that he should not release the vault record based on how the Selective Service System document was received, claimed fraudulent and added to the massive cover up world view of the conspiracy theorists. I would certainly like to see the thing released just so I could say “I told you so”, but my personal satisfaction over being right is not the most important thing.

  119. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 18, 2009 at 6:14 pm  (Quote)

    Do you believe the sealed vault document is a properly attested hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth?

    I’m sure it’s properly attested (though I don’t know if it’s supposed to be hospital-generated), but I don’t think I’ll ever get the chance to collect, since we’ll never see the document.

    If you like, I’ll bet you a dollar that it’s properly attested, provided that that dollar is subject to continuously compounded interest of 5% APR.

  120. bogus info says:
    January 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm  (Quote)

    Well, all the “conspiracy blogs” are in complete meltdown. And of course they are still “donating” to the cause.

  121. noquitter says:
    January 19, 2009 at 12:07 am  (Quote)

    Obama hasn’t held all the cards all the time. He only recieved 1% more voted then GWB did in “04.
    If he isn’t legit, people already have the proof.
    I’m sure the FBI has his complete history.
    They’ll use when ready. In the mean time, suckers are looking for the answers.

  122. bogus info says:
    January 19, 2009 at 6:19 am  (Quote)

    NQ,
    Then why do you keep posting things the ‘suckers” are doing?

  123. noquitter says:
    January 19, 2009 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    from pravda:

    America is said repeatedly, to be a “Nation of Laws”. It is not. It is a Nation under the control of mob rule. When the American public understands that, America will be a Nation of Anarchy.

    and i love history

  124. Tes says:
    January 19, 2009 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    Do you believe the sealed vault document is a properly attested hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth?
    (1) What sealed vault document? No birth certificate documents have been sealed. The Hawaii DOH has verified that Obama’s vault BC is being treated in the same manner as any other BC.

    (2) As for whether Obama’s “vault” BC is properly attested, etc., the DOH has verified that it was “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” Therefore, I’d bet that it is a properly attested BC, showing Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Aug. 1961.

    Do you believe Mr Obama will ever release said document for public inspection, whether of his own volition or under legal compulsion?

    Maybe. He may elect to produce it in the context of some biography or history of the 2008 election. I’d bet that he’ll never be legally compelled to produce it.

    Should he?
    Should he – legally? No. A properly certified Hawaii COLB showing Hawaiian birth is sufficient proof of citzenship for state and federal purposes. Therefore, from a legal perspective, even if, in the unlikely event that he were compelled to produce proof of birth, he’d only be required to produce the COLB – not the vault BC.

    Should he – politically? Not at this time, anyway. He’s got the highest approval rating since Reagon -80%. The majority of Americans were satisfied with his eligibility on Nov. 4. The vast majority of Americans are currently satisfied with his performance. There will always be some dissatisfied, and there will always be conspiracy theories. It would serve no political purpose to release it. In fact, it would only encourage the conspiracy theorists to develop more claims that he would then have to dispute.

  125. bogus info says:
    January 19, 2009 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    NQ,

    “Dr., please try and keep up!”

    Dr. C. left you behind a long time ago. It is you who needs to “please try and keep up!”

  126. noquitter says:
    January 19, 2009 at 11:28 am  (Quote)

    Then why does he ask stupid questions?

  127. bogus info says:
    January 19, 2009 at 11:51 am  (Quote)

    NQ, Why do you make “stupid statements?”

  128. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 19, 2009 at 12:33 pm  (Quote)

    What you might take as a “stupid question” is actually an intentionally naive-sounding question asked in that way for the purpose of pointing out the utter implausibility of the scenario about which the question is being asked.

    It’s like some when someone is running on and on about the Hawaiian Foreign Born Registration law and someone else askd: what dies that little “L 1982” in the corner mean?

  129. laughinghysterically says:
    January 19, 2009 at 1:03 pm  (Quote)

    My favorite desperation moment yet was the search for Sarah Connor Wiggensten (or whatever) and the fact that NONE of them got that it was a joke. That actually made me feel a little bad for them (not very much, though) as it is not nice to take advantage of the stupid.

  130. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 19, 2009 at 2:06 pm  (Quote)

    And what is your suit, EuthyphroDr. Conspiracy? are you the pursuer or the defendant?

  131. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 19, 2009 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    Alas! The strikeout markup doesn’t work.

  132. bogus info says:
    January 19, 2009 at 2:37 pm  (Quote)

    LH, That crazy person on The Betrayals blog–Ms. Ericson said something about a “book” deal. The crazy thing about it is that just the opposite might really be a “best seller.” LOL. Someone who would compile all the crazy stuff this bunch has done and believed might just be a “best seller.”

  133. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 19, 2009 at 2:43 pm  (Quote)

    Are you sure the strikeout doesn’t work?

    You have to use the button that looks like ABC. If you want to enter HTML coding into your comment, click the little HTML button and type in the window that comes up.

  134. Andrew A. Gill says:
    January 19, 2009 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not sure why it didn’t work. I did exactly what you said.

    In fact, I’m looking at the n’t, and the WYSIWYG says it’s supposed to be a strikeout. We’ll see what happens after I post.

  135. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    OK, I think I understand the problem. The editor is generating a code for the underline that is not one of those allowed for guest security level. The only way for you to get strike through is through the HTML editor, entering the following, which is a different code for underlining. If I find a fix, I’ll fix, but this isn’t my software.

    <del>This text is stricken from the record</del>

  136. noquitter says:
    January 19, 2009 at 11:31 pm  (Quote)

    Thank you for an honest answer. No need for game playing. In the spirit on an open debate let’s post openly in our intent. Your questions are an insult to anyone following the story.

  137. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 19, 2009 at 11:46 pm  (Quote)

    While the questions were artificially naive in tone, they are still valid (and unanswered). Calling them “insulting” is not an answer but an evasion.

  138. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 12:18 am  (Quote)

    This may be fixed now. I added SPAN to the allowed tabs list for comments.

  139. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 9:16 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Where does Doc Orly get the authority to do this?

    Dr. Orly Taitz – We need volunteers
    Posted on January 20th, 2009 by David Crockett
    We need volunteers to serve subpoenas on BO and governmental oficials in DC. Please contact Lisa Ostella lisaostella@hotmail.com

  140. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 10:02 am  (Quote)

    Under some court rules, an attorney, who is considered an officer of the court, may issue a subpoena and this seems to be the case for the subpoena I saw to Occidental College, which had only an attorney signature, and no indication that the clerk of court had approved it. See Wikipedia article on subpoena. See also Concise Evidence Law specifically in regard to “fishing expeditions”.

  141. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    Dr.,

    I had read the first link you posted. So cut to the chase for me. What does this mean? What are the chances of getting that subpoena served today?

  142. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    So the court could consider this to be a fishing expedition and/or oppressive? It also said that a valid subpoena is issued by the court? Explain please.

  143. laughinghysterically says:
    January 20, 2009 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    Happy Inauguration Day everyone!!

    Enjoy this great moment in history!

    And, I think we can look forward to a total birther meltdown by the end of the week, if not by 2:00 p.m. today!

  144. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 12:52 pm  (Quote)

    Pretty cool, huh. Even with the little blurp with CJ Roberts and President Obama on the oath. Just makes both more real/human.

    Great moment in history. Happy Inauguration Day!

  145. TRUTH says:
    January 20, 2009 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    As the illustrious Chris Matthews said… “I got a tingly feeling running up my leg today”.

    Moment in history, it SURE is … Enjoy it, heck yeah knock yourself out. . . but Great? That’s definitely a personnel opinion.

    I accept him, and hope I am very wrong of what I think he will do. Funny thing is you listen close, he has already started running for the next election. Before Nov. 4th it was all about the great things he would do for this country, now its about how very long it will take to do them. OH well, I have my job and will be tracking my income and taxes very close, we’ll see how well he keeps a promise. Good luck, your going to need it.

  146. TRUTH says:
    January 20, 2009 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    Hilarious… it doesn’t matter what he does, hes your Messiah. If he’s right hes right, if hes wrong hes right. Bogus is getting that tingly feeling.

  147. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm  (Quote)

    I would think zero. You can’t just saunter into the Oval Office and say “tag, you’re it”. They would reasonably serve it on Obama’s attorney, I suppose, and he or she would file an objection with the court (see “harassment”, “fishing expedition”). Or maybe there is no subpoena. Who knows?

    Kinda takes the edge off their effort now that the inauguration is over.

  148. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    By some court rules, attorneys may issue subpoenas.

  149. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 1:50 pm  (Quote)

    You KNOW the nObamas will make something HUGE out of that slip up.

  150. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm  (Quote)

    I will start tingling when my 401-K goes back up.

  151. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Yes they will but who cares.

  152. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    My understanding was that the case had not even been filed yet so I don’t understand how Doc Orly could have issued subpeonas on a case that had not even been filed…….?

  153. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Sadly, they are already trying to.

    “Fox news just reported that Obama was not sworn in according to the wording in the Constitution and this could end up in court.”

  154. TRUTH says:
    January 20, 2009 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Oh Dear HEAVENS!! Lets NOT challenge the U.S. Constitution. It’s just some silly old document a bunch of old style men wrote to long ago to apply to today’s CHANGEs. FOX News must be off their rocker for thinking anyone is going to uphold that silly old document. They are really going to have to get onboard with all the other Democrat Media stations and become like one.
    Lets all hold hands now and hum some kum-bye-yah. I feel GREAT Today, but then again I left the TV and Radio off all day too.

  155. TRUTH says:
    January 20, 2009 at 2:44 pm  (Quote)

    No WOrries, your new Prez heard money is made of paper, Paper comes from Trees, we have LOTs of Trees so he is throwing money around like it Grows on trees. “here a trillion there a trillion, every another trillion, ole’ obama is the prez, e-i-e-i-ohhhhh”

    Do the teach Economics at Harvard or Columbia Univ. ?

  156. George Orwell III says:
    January 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm  (Quote)

    After the initial Obama false start, didn’t Chief JusticeRoberts insert “faithfully” in the wrong place?

    The actual oath as in Article 2 of the Constitution:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Chief Justice Roberts omitted the word “faithfully” and added it after “United States”, no?

  157. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:14 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, Roberts bumbled it. I knew it was wrong the moment he said it, and so did Obama which is why he hesitated.

    He was too busy fumbling with the handcuffs to think what he was saying.

  158. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    Saint Paul said of the law: “The letter kills, but the spirit gives live.” That’s what I see over all these nObama web sites. They flyspeck the words and trample on the principles. There’s nothing more despicable to me than someone using claims of Patriotism to justify evil.

    Is digging out a 16th century Swiss philosopher (cited by Supreme Court losing opinions) in order to prevent the duly-elected president from taking office showing respect for the Constitution? I consider such things a sham.

  159. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    As long as he got the God part right, I’m OK with it.

  160. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    We’ll have to look at one of the 100 YouTube videos and see exactly what happened. I think that Roberts made the first mistake (the one time I heard it).

  161. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    I think the supply of paper money actually stays about the same (around $900 Billion). Most of the money is electronic. We have plenty of electrons.

  162. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:41 pm  (Quote)

    Orly’s been quiet today after the early morning salvo from Lt Col Earl Graef, “My public voice regarding issues before us and surrounding the office of the President of The United States will soon and for the moment fall silent; as my Oath and Military law requires.” But what I found most offensive was when he said:

    I am so thankful for the courage and valor of “Dr. Orly” and have truly been moved to tears by one who came here from another land and has taken upon herself to fight those gaining power that would seemingly have so little regard for our Constitution and our Freedom. I am proud of her beyond words.

    “Tears” is not quite the physical reaction I had.

  163. TRUTH says:
    January 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm  (Quote)

    What was said today is no big deal. NOTHING negative Obama has done his entire political career has meant one iota to the media or anyone else… HE DOES NO WRONG. So today is surely no concern. He IS the President, rightfully or not, so lets move on and see how many of you are still cheering in four years. My guess, all of you, because if you can’t see his faults now you never will. You might be able to quote the law, or the bible or the constitution, but you would’nt know a bad politician if he taxed you stole your money out of your front pocket.

  164. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 5:00 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    They are making a big deal of this on the blogs–implying that Doc Orly/Pidgeon could file lawsuit. Knowing Doc Orly, she will try.

  165. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm  (Quote)

    Truth, Oh yea I know a bad politician and he just left the White House–Bush and his side kick VP.

  166. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 7:28 pm  (Quote)

    I predict that Orly will not file a lawsuit based on the reordering of words in the oath of office by Justice Roberts and Barack Obama. I don’t see how it fits her agenda. It doesn’t give her a chance to display that dirty ragged laundry list of misinformation that she attaches to the other lawsuits. It’s not a vehicle to advertise her “cleverness”. This cause of action is too simple for her, and frankly I think a significant fraction of even her fans would think it silly.

  167. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm  (Quote)

    I still think Jimmy Carter was a great American.

    But out of deference to you, Truth, I won’t talk about Ronald Reagan.

  168. bogus info says:
    January 20, 2009 at 7:39 pm  (Quote)

    Been there lately? They have “cranked” up again. You would think they would at least give it a rest for one day. Geeze.

  169. Robert says:
    January 21, 2009 at 1:58 am  (Quote)

    Seems like if BHO was born in Africa, that he would have told someone along the way. They could attest to that conversation. It would be hearsay, but would be interesting.

  170. bogus info says:
    January 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    If you have the time, I wish you would do a article debunking the accusations that Michelle Obama was disbarred. Thanks.

  171. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 24, 2009 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    It would be a worthy topic, but how does one prove what a secret document that no one has seen says? I don’t know how to get my hooks into it.

  172. bogus info says:
    January 25, 2009 at 9:44 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    They removed a post on the Betrayal blog for “security reasons”. I know which one it was–it had the “alleged comments by the Kenyan govt” about Obama being a “son of our soil.” There were three links in it. I thought I posted it here but can’t find it.

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=865
    I removed a posting

  173. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    This comment was posted on Berg’s blog. Because you are way up to speed on the COLB issue, I am referring it to you.

    Does this make any sense?
    written by Thalightguy, January 29, 2009

    “In President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” you can see, in the lower right hand corner, the legal notice: [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] and then please go to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov and on the right hand click on Hawaii Revised Statutes.
    HRS 338-19 is a birth certificate issued as a “copy” relying on documents that were too old to be used, and or otherwise in such condition that they could not be used. The statute is contradictory because if the documents were too old or in too poor a condition to be used to certify, then why did the State of Hawaii issue a “copy” that was based on possibly non-legible material? It makes no common sense. The Statute is contradictory, overly vague, overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.
    HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, HRS 338-17 and HRS 338-18. These are for birth certificates that are issued one year or more after birth, and for certificates that have been altered, and/or both. This set of statutes also gives a party legal standing to request a judicial determination of the validity of the birth certificate because it was issued one year or more after birth and/or altered.“

    Wow– great catch Lightguy !!

    “1. Right, IF the original BC is ILLEGIBLE, then how could Fukino & the registrar see whether Obama was born in HI or elsewhere? And, IF he did — which is the most relevant piece of information and the REASON BHO permitted the Official statement in the first place — then why not say so IN the official statement? And, if NOT legible to see place of birth, then WHY does Okubu SAY Obama was born in Hawaii? ”

    “2. The second part above mentions essentially AUTOMATIC STANDING to obtain a copy of Obama’s Vault BC b/c EITHER it is too illegible to be certain of the contents and must be INSPECTED to be certain what it says . . .OR . . .the BC has been ALTERED . . .and would also need to be INSPECTED to verify that the COLB and BC reflect the same information. ”

  174. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm  (Quote)

    Reading comprehension has never been a birther strong suit.

    First the legal notice at the bottom of Obama’s birth certificate is the same notice on all Hawaiian COLBs. (This reminds me of the same loony argument made about the language on John Kerry’s military discharge form, which was a standard form that everybody gets.)

    §338.13b: (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    and

    §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]

    It does not say that the documents are illegible, but rather that they are too fragile to handle and so a copy is made. Lightguy is inserting words in to the law that are not conceptually there.

    But the whole thing is silly. If Obama’s vault record is illegible, then where did the computer record from which the COLB was printed come from? Duh.

  175. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm  (Quote)

    Here is another one from Doc Orly’s blog. Anything factual to this or just trying to rile people up?

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/usurper-obama-wants-military-to-pledge.html

    Thursday, January 29, 2009

    Usurper Obama wants military to pledge allegiance to him, not to Constitution

  176. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 2:47 pm  (Quote)

    Unnamed spokesperson, public quote from classified document? What do you think?

    This is what Mark Davis would call “disinformation”.

    I posted a reply back at the source, http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/military-to-pledge-oath-to-obama-not.html where the commenters don’t believe it either.

  177. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    Here is another post off Berg’s blog: Freedom of Information Act (United States) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the U.S. law. For freedom of information in other countries, see freedom of information legislation. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United States. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 (Amended 1996, 2002, 2007), and went into effect the following year. This act allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States Government. The Act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants nine exemptions to the statute. [1] …. With the ongoing stress on both constitutional and inherent rights of American citizens and the added assertion of government subservience to the individual, some thought it was necessary for government information to be available to the public. ………. The purpose of freedom of information legislation and sunshine laws is to increase the openness and transparency of government. On a national level, the federal Freedom of Information Act was signed into law on July 4, 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson. Each state has its own open records legislation that governs documents at the state and local (cities, counties, school districts) level. The first open records law was passed in Wisconsin shortly after it became a state in 1848. A number of states passed their open records legislation in the 1970s in the wake of Watergate. The provisions of these state laws vary significantly with respect to issues such as the time period within which an agency must provide the requested documents, how much an agency is allowed to charge for providing documents, whether the state government provides an ombudsman, whether the document requestor must give a reason for wanting the documents, and so on. Specific legislation may require that all government meetings be open to the public, or that written records be released upon request. The usual intent of these laws is to enable citizens and journalists to examine government activity to detect political corruption, or to allow them to have input into government decisions that affect them. Many consider strong laws guaranteeing freedom of information to be vitally important to journalism, especially investigative journalism. Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States) Additionally, if you click (or cut and paste) the following link, you will be directed to Hawaii’s Open Records Law. It is titled Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA, June 200 Very interesting…especially Part III, page 24. —————————————————————————————————————————————- Anyhow, perhaps looking into what could be accomplished by citing either the FOIA or the UIPA or both could bear some significance. I’d be most welcome to read your thoughts.

    Hawaii FOI
    written by bottdog, January 29, 2009

    Sandi made a great catch. Even more interesting are the pages above and below (pages 23 and 25) stating that HI could share these docs. with other governmental agencies, if needed. On Page 25 it lists the documents that are excluded. BC is not one of them. Hmmm…..

    Any validity to this?

  178. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 3:01 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    I hope you don’t mind me directing this stuff to you but you say things way better than I ever could. Get your point across verywell. Thanks.

  179. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 3:02 pm  (Quote)

    You help supply content to the blog for the benefit of our other readers.

  180. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm  (Quote)

    Birthers are not known for reading the whole document. Exceptions are made for those documents in which individuals have a privacy interest, including

    “The UIPA lists some specific examples of the types
    of information in which an individual has a significant privacy interest. The list includes information about an individual’s: (1) Medical history, condition, and treatment;”

    and

    OIP has further recognized that an individual has a significant privacy interest in his or her home contact information, date of birth, and ethnicity.

    Lazy nObots make work for the rest of us.

    That is not to say that in certain situations a government agency may request a birth record (different statute).

  181. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    I try to spot “false rumors” and bring them back to you to provide evidence that they are “false rumors”. I think the “false rumors/misinformation” has beenwhat has kept this bunch viable. And, you can direct people to the truth IF they really want the truth. Some don’t. Thanks for all that you do. Very much appreciated. I believe Doc Orly’s might be one of the worst about this. I don’t think she ever researches anything for being “factual.” Thus, she is proven wrong and looks rather well…..dumb? much of the time.

  182. mimi says:
    January 29, 2009 at 5:27 pm  (Quote)

    The article is Tagged SATIRE. Go back to the source document at Jumping in Pools and look at the tags at the end of the article.
    Orly’s site commenters are now claiming it was an “Obot” who wrote the article to discredit them. How funny is that.

  183. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    Mimi,

    There have been numerous articles posted by Doc Orly on her blog that have not been factual or researched properly. This was not the first. So, are O-bots to blame for those too. Her followers are beginning to pick up on this. Another recent one is when Doc Orly suggested that her followers petition the Senator from Alabama be recalled–Senator Sessions. Duh! Alabama is not a recall state plus there is a U.S. District Court decision from Utah that ruled that it would violate the Constitution to recall U.S. Senators in Utah. Now, would that same decision hold up in all States? What do you legal eagles say?

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

    “In 1967, a recall campaign was waged against Church by Ron Rankin, a Republican county commissioner in Kootenai County in northern Idaho. Rankin unsuccessfully sued Idaho’s secretary of state to accept recall petitions.”
    “The U.S. District Court for Idaho ruled that the state’s recall laws did not apply to U.S. senators and that such a recall would violate the U.S. Constitution. Allan Shepard, Idaho’s attorney general at the time, agreed with the court’s decision.”
    “It must be pointed out that a United States senator is not a state officer but a federal officer whose position is created by Article I, Section I of the United States Constitution,” Shepard wrote in a June 17, 1967, opinion for the secretary of state. “”There seems to be no provision for canvassing the votes of a recall election of a United States senator.” Most commentators at the time believed that the recall attempt strengthened Church politically by allowing him to play the role of political martyr.”

  185. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    I guess if you have your critical thinking control turned all the way down to zero, even the most ridiculous stuff gets by. My alarm went off after the first sentence.

  186. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 7:53 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C., Looks like this bunch doesn’t care if something is a “hoax” or not. They are actually going to spread this false information. Unbelievable!
    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=908

    I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OBAMA OF THE DIVIDED STATE OF AMERICA”

  187. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Have you by chance happened to see “Lisa, Berg’s assist.” posts on Berg’s blog, posted by Linda Starr? If you have seen them, I don’t want to post them here. There are two and pretty long.

  188. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 8:41 pm  (Quote)

    I see this one from ‘Lisa, Berg’s Assistant” by Linda Starr:

    Linda, because of this person’s lack of legal education and training, you tell these folks they are not to POST their theory of the LAW without prior approval from us. I’m tired of people trying to litigate issues and quote the law when they have NO clue what they are talking about.

    (I don’t know how to grab a hyperlink over there)

    Pot/Kettle/Black

    Sounds like she’s giving orders to people as to who can comment on the law and who cannot. And they say Obama is trying to turn the country into a dictatorship! Sheesh.

    Nevertheless, the birth certificate comments that precede look about right.

    Keep in mind that we have two nObama warring factions, the birthers and the NBC’s. If you’re looking for short term profits, invest in the NBC’s and sell the birthers short.

  189. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 8:55 pm  (Quote)

    This one was really sad:

    In my 56 years of living …
    written by Sam Lowry, January 29, 2009
    … I haven’t been this scared, since the Cuban missile crisis. My uncle worked in the Omaha underground complex. He called my aunt and said, “Pack up the kids in the car and start driving.”

    Only this time around, where can we drive TO?

    Sam, in times of crisis make sure you have enough bread and milk.

  190. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C., Yes, that man is very sad. I don’t think Doc Orly, et al have a clue as to what they are “promoting.” All they see is $$$$$/publicity/=fame/fortune. The fear and hate they are inciting may backfire on them. But, the Sam’s are the victims of all this. And, he’s probably “donated” to Doc Orly’s cause.

    My son, who is a Junior in High School, came home yesterday and told us that a friend of his told him that his teacher was having the class write a required paper comparing President Obama to Hitler. My son is not in this teachers class. My son also made us promise we would not go up to the school because he (my son) did not want to get involved. We live in a very rural area and my son’s entire Juniorclass is only 26 kids. The entire school is under one roof. LOL And, the majority of this area is Republican–no blacks. So, as you can see, my son could possibly suffer the consequences if we went up to the school and protested. My husband and I are still trying to figure out how to handle this information but I assure you, we are not going to let it slide. We justare tryingto figure out a way to get this information to the Superintendent without involving our son.

  191. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 29, 2009 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    I hope your are surprised by your neighbors and that there are more decent folks than you imagine.

  192. bogus info says:
    January 29, 2009 at 10:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,
    I hope so. I cannot believe a teacher would do this. And I’d be just as upset if he was having them write a paper comparing McCain to Hitler. It has nothing to do with President Obama.

  193. Jeff Hack says:
    February 4, 2009 at 12:58 am  (Quote)

    In March 2008, Obama’s passportwas accessed (along with McCain’s and Clinton’s)by a contractor to the State Dept. “..two contractors involved in the Obama search were dismissed before investigators had a chance to interview them.” Were Obama’s records altered to clear up his Indonesian passport issue?

  194. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 4, 2009 at 7:47 am  (Quote)

    Jeff, nice little trick of wording. The naive reader might just think that because the two employees were dismissed before they were interviewed implied that they were not interviewed. But of course that’s silly. Dismissing the employees was no barrier to their being interviewed. And to be accurate only two of the three employees who peeked at records were dismissed. The third was only disciplined.

    Press reports at the time say that the records were accessed, not altered. Auditing systems would have reported any alteration. The FBI investigated the case. And of course, Obama never had an Indonesian passport.

    And finally, a passport file would not contain things about travel to other countries in the first place. The State Department said passport files do not contain information on visas or details of where the passport holder has traveled, but do include information such as name, social security number, birthplace, physical description and possibly details about occupation and emergency contacts.

    A followup Senate judiciary committee hearing was held in July. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200807/071008a.html

    I should add that Obama’s “Indonesian Passport Problem” is something fabricated by Obama opponents. It stems from the lie about a travel ban to Pakistan and a lie about Obama becoming an Indonesian citizen (which is legally impossible). See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-traveled-to-pakistan-on-an-indonesian-passport/

  195. bogus info says:
    February 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    This “Fairness Doctrine”. Why is this bunch so bent out of shape over this?

  196. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 4, 2009 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not an authority, but this is my opinion. The “Fairness Doctrine” as practiced by the FCC when I was growing up required that broadcast stations present both sides of issues. So if you interviewed the head of the NRA who blasted gun control for half an hour, you’d have to let someone speak in opposition some time. A better example is when the networks follow the State of the Union speech with a response from the other party (something we expect now, but which was started in response to the fairness doctrine).

    Given that conservatives dominate talk radio, introduction of a “fairness” rule would dilute their influence hugely. It is my opinion that having conservative media outlets with absolutely no opposing views is essential to maintaining the current level of conservative political influence.

    It’s like the story, only the little child is not allowed to say “the emperor has no clothes”. The fairness doctrine would let the child speak.

  197. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm  (Quote)

    The Russians are coming!

    Some of you may have noticed a comment here in Russian with a reply in Russian, and that this comment has been deleted.

    I think the harmless message was a spam test because after I approved the comment, the comment spam attacks rolled in. After I deleted it, they seem to have subsided.

    The comment basically said “Interesting blog, how often do you update it?”

    Readers here don’t see the spam (typically advertising mail-order drugs, pornography and gambling) be cause it’s all caught by the software before it appears. It is because of this spam that some comments are moderated before they appear to the public.

  198. Jeff Hack says:
    February 7, 2009 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy,
    My apologies for giving you the impression that I was trying to”trick” you or any naive readers (there are none on this site!). However, I found your explanation a little “tricky.” The link you provided was rather useless, if you actually read the content (do you know of any usefullinks of the actual results of these “investigations?”) Furthermore, you indicate “Auditing systems would have reported any alteration” even though the link you provided clearly says “The report also found alarming security gaps in the State Department’s system” and “Mukasey testified that the Inspector General’s office had referred the matter to the Justice Department, and that the criminal division was investigating the matter.” So, here we are almost 1 year later and no one went to jail for accessing thefiles of 3 Presidential candidates? Can you say “conspiracy?”

  199. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 7, 2009 at 8:43 am  (Quote)

    My comment, “auditing systems would have reported any alteration”, is based on my professional opinion (I have over 30 years experience with government information systems for local, state and federal government agencies). The most basic security systems record the date a record is modified and by whom. Better systems record when a record is looked at and by whom. Even better systems detect when a record is accessed improperly. The fact that the Department of State system was able to do the last, implied to me that it would be able to do the first. No report I know of alleges that any information was altered and I don’t know of any reason anyone would want to alter a record (since the travel ban to Pakistan has been proved non-existent). I don’t know what the “alarming gaps” were but I doubt they included a missing audit trail of updates–that is just too basic. I suspect the “alarmist” language was an exaggeration mainly for political effect.

    The most reasonable and plausible explanation of no one going to jail is that the Justice Department determined that no crime had been committed. What crime to you think they committed?

  200. mimi says:
    February 7, 2009 at 4:34 pm  (Quote)

    Might not be a crime, but certainly would be against the agency rules and regs.
    I assumed someone was snooping about all the candidates.
    I know in certain agencies you are flagged if you would attempt to access records of any celebrity. And, if you didn’t have a good reason, you would be either disciplined or fired.
    I would assume it is similar in most agencies and businesses. What happened to those hospital workers who sell info to the tabloids?

  201. Jeff Hack says:
    February 8, 2009 at 7:10 pm  (Quote)

    Plague on the way?
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489595,00.html

    Great way to ensure marshall law, socialized everything. Your thoughts?

  202. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 5:59 am  (Quote)

    “The State Dept admitting Barry never had a US Passport?”

    Dr. C.,

    They keep saying the above at OC. Have you ever seen any evidence/reliable source for the above statement?

  203. bogus info says:
    February 13, 2009 at 6:07 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    “Right and Lisa is pulling an all nighter to get it done.”

    The above is a comment on OC regarding the “opposition to the motion to dismiss” due today in the Hollister case.

  204. bogus info says:
    February 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Did that Michael Medvel or whatever his name is ever respond to Orly?

  205. bogus info says:
    March 2, 2009 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Do you haven to remember what thread the news article from WDN where they stated that Obama’s BC was authentic? George O., III posted here somewhere and I can’t find it. Help.

    Is Politijab down?

  206. bogus info says:
    March 4, 2009 at 10:20 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    Note the questions above.

    Also, don’t you have the chinese guy who has a Hawaiian BC 1906 on this website somewhere? I thought you did but I can’t find it. Help.

  208. Bob says:
    March 11, 2009 at 11:55 pm  (Quote)

    Sometimes you see references to Obama’s step-sister, Maya, having a Hawaiian COLB.

    Does she? Or, more specifically, is there a copy of it floating around on the Internet?

  209. Expelliarmus says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:37 am  (Quote)

    Bob, there is no evidence of such a certificate that I have seen, and I do NOT believe that Maya has one.

    I think that Maya would have a Consular Report of Birth Abroad — see:
    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_825.html

    This would be the normal and customary document to be obtained for the daughter of an American citizen born overseas, and would provide sufficient documentation of birth and citizenship for all functions (issuance of passport, ID for driver’s license, etc.) — so there would be no need for any other documentation.

  210. Expelliarmus says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:45 am  (Quote)

    Here’s my theory of where the myth of a COLB for Maya developed.

    When Obama first released his COLB on the internet, a blogger called “Techdude” claimed the COLB to be a fraud, and also claimed he had examined the document and could see where Obama’s name had been superimposed upon his sister Maya’s name– his assertion was that the Obama certificate was really a forgery that was made from a certificate belonging to his sister.

    Techdude was later exposed as a total fraud — he had “stolen” the identity and CV of some other person and represented it as his own, and World News Daily reported that its own investigation that Techdude had altered the images he worked, essentially inserting the artifacts that he claimed were proof of forgery.

    I think that Techdude was unaware that Maya was born in Indonesia at the time he made up his forgery story -and it just seemed plausible that a siblings certificate would be used, so that’s what he suggested.

    But since then, the birthers have turned around that element of a flawed theory and now claim it as “evidence” that a foreign-born child can get a COLB. That claim appears to be false — Hawaii would issue a different document (“Certificate of Foreign Birth”?) – not a COLB in that case.

  211. Ian Gould says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:48 am  (Quote)

    My thoughts are that bubonic plague is not a major public health threat in any developed modern country.

    Tell me, if there isn’t a plague epidemic in the next few months will you rethink your apparent belief that Obama is planning to declare martial law and establish a dictatorship?

  212. Ian Gould says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:52 am  (Quote)

    Is there any way in which someone in the same circumstances as Obama – i.e. the child of an American citizen and a non-citizen born in the US – could go to court to test whether they are a Natural Born Citizen?

  213. Expelliarmus says:
    March 12, 2009 at 5:05 am  (Quote)

    Ian, I don’t think there is any way to get a binding determination from a court. I do think that it would be fairly easy for the candidate to get standing before a lower court for a declaratory relief action — fairly early on, the issue would have to be raised in relation to qualifying for primary ballots. A test case could be structured in which an opposing candidate would agree to mount a challenge before the primary, requiring both parties to go to court for a determination.

    But that wouldn’t really be binding. In the first place, they’d probably end up in a state court– since it would be a matter of qualifying for state ballots — and even if a federal district court took the case and rendered a decision — that wouldn’t preclude the possibility of the Supreme Court deciding something different later on.

    Ultimately I think it is a “political” question and even if the standing issues were resolved, I think the Court would say that it is up to Congress to make the determination. The ONLY way I see the US Supreme Court getting involved would be if, after the election, Congress decided that the President-elect was ineligible and designated the Vice-President as President. I think at that point the electee would clearly have standing to seek an adjudication of his rights to the office to which he had been elected it.

    Short of that, the question simply isn’t ripe for decision.

    In other words, the only person who truly has standing is the person who has an actual claim to be legally entitled to the office.

  214. thisoldhippie says:
    March 12, 2009 at 7:23 am  (Quote)

    I had no idea about “Techdude” being a complete fraud. Thanks for the info. Where can I find that? (Not that I believed the forgery story, just that I still see his info being posted).

  215. thisoldhippie says:
    March 12, 2009 at 7:40 am  (Quote)

    How many times does this crap have to be debunked? Why is it being re-hashed over and again???
    http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/show/991473

  216. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 8:56 am  (Quote)

    The short answer is, “forever”. I went over there and replied.

  218. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 8:59 am  (Quote)

    I was thinking about a mock trial before a retired federal judge.

  219. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    I’ve looked at the Hawaiian laws, and Maya would not have been entitled to receive a certificate under the resident out of state registration program because her mother would not have met the residency requirements and the law wasn’t passed until 1982 anyway.

  220. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    She does not. It’s not legally possible.

  221. thisoldhippie says:
    March 12, 2009 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    Excellent post. Problem is, most of those “over there” won’t be able to accept any of it.

  222. Bob says:
    March 12, 2009 at 10:20 am  (Quote)

    Thanks for replies. It is one of those factoids that is uncritically parroted, yet I had never seen this alleged COLB that people not only take for granted, but assert as proof.

  223. Bob says:
    March 12, 2009 at 10:26 am  (Quote)

    This one-U.S.-citizen-parent parent would have to actually run for president, as that’s the only nothing else requires natural born citizenship (plain ole citizenship suffices). And then an opponent (or the state) would have to challenge this candidate, on the basis of natural-born citizenship.

    As for the doctor’s suggestion of a mock trial, while interesting, wouldn’t be legally binding. The losing side would most likely say the mockness of the trial caused punches to be pulled, but a real trial would have a different outcome.

  224. bogus info says:
    March 12, 2009 at 1:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C.,

    This is on Orly’s blog.

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/12/fbi-raids-office-of-dc-cto-obama-appointee.aspx
    FBI RAIDS OFFICE OF DC CTO, OBAMA APPOINTEE

  225. Bob says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm  (Quote)

    Sit down: Orly is wrong.

    The Obama appointee, Vivek Kundra, was not the target of the arrests. Kundra was no longer D.C.’s CTO:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hlD_-HOsPYVnBOpGikCuYa5vNZMg

  226. bogus info says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    “Sit down: Orly is wrong.”

    Nothing new. Orly is always wrong. LOL I was just about to post what you posted as a follow up.

  227. bogus info says:
    March 12, 2009 at 2:28 pm  (Quote)

    This guy may be nuttier than Orly. Possible?

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/12/open-letter-to-the-british-embassy.aspx
    Open Letter to the British Embassy

  228. Bob says:
    March 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm  (Quote)

    That letter writer, David A. Earl-Graef, is a doctor doing rather impressive things:

    http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_David_Earl-Graef.html

    Whether the prolific poster (and letter writer) on Taitz’s site is actually that Dr. Earl-Graef has yet to be proven.

  229. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm  (Quote)

    I think a mock trial might sway some people though. Something a law school could do.

  230. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 5:55 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, but it’s related to something before Obama’s time.

  232. Bob says:
    March 12, 2009 at 8:40 pm  (Quote)

    What? No OSC for sanctions (a la Judge Robertson)? No withering critique of the lawsuit or its litigators?

  233. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks very much. Will add to the docket!

  234. NBC says:
    March 12, 2009 at 10:36 pm  (Quote)

    Wow that’s quite a downer for the birthers

  235. NBC says:
    March 12, 2009 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, it is almost over, the subpoena to Occidental was quashed and the demurrers sustained

    From theRightSideofLife.com

    A Tentative Ruling is not final and counsel for parties will be afforded an opportunity for oral argument tomorrow, if they so request. But in practice, it is extremely rare for California Judges to deviate from tentative rulings, and the very detailed statement of law include in this ruling will probably be incorporated in the final order.

  236. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    One more in a very long line rejected.

  237. HowieMi says:
    March 15, 2009 at 11:17 am  (Quote)

    Bottdog, I need to contact you if you’re the same bottdog that goes on OC.
    I have some info for you. my email is Howertonhouse@yahoo.com

  238. Gordon says:
    March 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    I am new here, great site. I was reading up on Dr. Orly Tatiz, and was interested to learn her “law degree” is from William Taft Law School, distance learning law school. I didn’t know you get get a law degree online. Found the school is a non-accredited California school. You can take the California Bar, but cannot be a member of the A.B.A I was wondering, wouldn’t Dr. Tatiz have to apply and get credentials from the U.S Supreme Court Bar Association, in order to litigate a case before the SCOTUS. And has she received these credentials.

  239. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 21, 2009 at 7:37 pm  (Quote)

    Apparently Orly Taitz has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court (unless this document is a fake).

    This article from the Submitted to a Candid World blog may be of interest for your question also. Quite interesting.

  240. Jeff Hack says:
    March 25, 2009 at 9:51 pm  (Quote)

    What is hiding in President Obama’s college transcripts, especially sincd his academic career led him to Harvard Law School and to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago?

  241. Expelliarmus says:
    March 25, 2009 at 9:55 pm  (Quote)

    Maybe he got a B in one of his classes?

  242. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 26, 2009 at 5:35 am  (Quote)

    Given the fact he got into Harvard, there are probably some really good things in it.

  243. Jeff Hack says:
    March 27, 2009 at 2:19 am  (Quote)

    Here are my thoughts. Either his college transcripts and other college related documents will reveal that he has never done well without a teleprompter and/or he attended school with financial aid as a foreign born student. Your thoughts?

  244. Expelliarmus says:
    March 27, 2009 at 7:33 am  (Quote)

    Are you joking?

    I realize that this foreign student/financial aid theory seems to appeal to the birthers, probably because none of them have actually attended college. If they had, they would know that it is very difficult for international students to get aid dollars. There are many colleges that promise to meet full need of American students, but very few make the same promise to foreign students.

    Permanent residents are eligible for federal aid such as subsidized loans and Pell grants — but so are US Citizens, so there is certainly no advantage in pretending to be a foreigner.

    So the last thing any American student would want to do is to pretend to be a non-citizen — it would significantly diminish their ability to get financial aid.

    In any case, a college transcript would have no record of financial aid — all of the financial records would be with the financial aid office and the college bursar’s office, and none of that information would be included with a college transcript.

  245. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 27, 2009 at 7:35 am  (Quote)

    a) There was no teleprompter during the presidential debates, so the first is absurd.
    b) He was never a “foreign student”, so the second is absurd also.

  246. kimba says:
    March 27, 2009 at 8:59 am  (Quote)

    Oh, they don’t want just the transcript. They want every and any scrap of paper anywhere that says “Obama”, or something close, on it. Look at how they chase these Zabasearch records of names that even resemble “Barack Obama”, suggesting he has “hundreds” of “known” addresses all over the country, even a Starbucks in Seattle. They have no idea what they are looking for, they want it all and they just know the “smoking gun” is there somewhere. They just know it.

  247. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 27, 2009 at 11:25 am  (Quote)

    It couldn’t be true. That information is confidential.

  248. Jeff Hack says:
    March 28, 2009 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy, presidential debates are a joke and we both know it. Both candidates recite prepared statements regardless of the questions. Are you suggesting that Obama does not overuse a teleprompter?
    I don’t know why Obama won’t release any of his transcripts. Obviously you feel my suggestions are absurd. Why do you think he won’t do it?

  249. Jeff Hack says:
    March 28, 2009 at 12:41 am  (Quote)

    Ok Expelliarmus, maybe I’m nuts. But why wouldn’t such a distinguished, well-educated President release his transcripts? It doesn’t make any sense to me. What is your theory?

  250. Expelliarmus says:
    March 28, 2009 at 3:18 am  (Quote)

    Jeff, has any other President ever released their college transcripts?

    Why should Obama follow a different set of rules.

    He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard — so you know he was at the top of his class there. He would have needed a strong GPA at Occidental to be accepted as a transfer at Columbia, and as strong GPA from Columbia to get into Harvard. Columbia has a rigid core curriculum and Obama majored in political science with a concentration on international relations, so its pretty easy to reconstruct the general nature of the courses he took while at Columbia; law school coursework is very standardized as well.

  251. Expelliarmus says:
    March 28, 2009 at 3:27 am  (Quote)

    Presidential candidates do not generally release their college transcripts, and Obama – just as anyone else — would keep them private for the sake of respecting the privacy of his professors.

    The first thing a journalist or investigator would do with the transcript is use the information to hunt down every professor for every class he had, and start interviewing people, and also start digging into the backgrounds of the professors as well in order to tarnish Obama with any dirt they could dig up on the profs.

  252. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 28, 2009 at 6:15 am  (Quote)

    I am suggesting that there is an oil tanker full of evidence that President Obama can function at a superior level without a teleprompter, and that the discussion about teleprompters is silly and irrelevant.

  253. thisoldhippie says:
    March 28, 2009 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    I believe that the last 8 years of a President who regularly mangled his speeches and the English language is proof positive to use a teleprompter, lol.

  254. Jeff Hack says:
    March 28, 2009 at 11:15 am  (Quote)

    Gore arrived at Harvard with an impressive 1355 SAT score, 625 verbal and 730 math, compared with Bush’s 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 math. In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore’s grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush’s transcript from Yale.
    In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
    Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D’s in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years

  255. Jeff Hack says:
    March 29, 2009 at 8:48 pm  (Quote)

    How would you feel if one day while you were visiting yor medical doctor about a serious health condition, you looked over your shoulder and you noticed that he was only reading from a teleprompter? What if every time you came to see him he did the same thing? Please give me the oil tanker’s address on the web, because all I seem to see is a talking head? He must be just as bad of a public speaker as Bush – is this the best we can do?

  256. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm  (Quote)

    It is not at all unusual for my doctor to consult his PDA for prescribing guidelines for a particular drug, or to look up other material. You are being totally silly.

    President Obama without teleprompter (first press conference):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAhsj9HTNdU&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zX-ixwNijE&feature=player_embedded

  257. Jeff Hack says:
    March 29, 2009 at 11:50 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C. Let’s be real with each other – ok? “Consulting a PDA” is quite different from “reading a teleprompter everytime” since his first news conference.
    Your clips were nice (not the oil tanker I was truly hoping for), but Obama pre-selects the questioners (and presumably the questions)(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html)
    I’ve dome some public speaking myself and I rarely use notecards – you still have not answered the question as to why he uses these things everywhere he goes:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/obamas-teleprompter-crutc_n_172222.html

  258. Jeff Hack says:
    March 29, 2009 at 11:53 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus, hopefully you saw my notes about Gore, Bush and Kerry’s transcripts (feel free to google many links for those).

    Can you please provide your insights as to why no one (apparently inclusig you, Dr. C and Kimba) have no issue with this lack of informaiton on Obama? Why is he so special? Aren’t you a little curious? Especially in today’s information age and vetting process – this information is still lacking on Obama – what gives?

  259. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 30, 2009 at 6:40 am  (Quote)

    There is no suggestion in the WSJ article that the questions were preselected. So your presumption seems to be only your prejudice speaking. In fact the Wall Street Journal article said:

    Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren’t White House favorites.

    You are impeached by your own witness.

  260. Jeff Hack says:
    March 30, 2009 at 9:27 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C – I request the oil tanker and your personal thoughts on why Obama is so attached to his teleprompter? I also did not see your comments regarding my earlier post on the transcripts of Gore, Bush and Kerry. Why are you protecting this guy? (Is this the real conspiracy?)

  261. Jeff Hack says:
    March 30, 2009 at 9:30 am  (Quote)

    Ok – I’m impeached. Now that the messenger is dead, why do you think Obama has to rely on his teleprompter so much? Is he an empty suit?

    Please send me that oil tanker when you have a moment and please share your thoughts on my earlier post about the college transcripts of Gore, Bush and Kerry.

  262. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 30, 2009 at 10:56 am  (Quote)

    Given that Obama is effective with and without a teleprompter, the “empty suit” comment is “empty rhetoric”.

    I’m sure that you know that politicians employ professional speech writers. If one is giving a prepared speech, a teleprompter is one good way to go. Given the tremendous press scrutiny of every word a president utters, presidents take great care to prevent “gaffs”. It’s not that they are unable, but just being prudent.

    I couldn’t care less what Obama’s grades were, or if he was kicked out of the dorm for smoking pot. Such things are only useful for a smear campaign, and that’s not what I do.

  263. Heavy says:
    March 30, 2009 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    Noone cared that Slick Willy didn’t “Inhale” either. Look where THAT got us!

    Are liberals really that gullible or just plain dumb?

  264. thisoldhippie says:
    April 3, 2009 at 8:23 am  (Quote)

    I was on Plains Radio this morning just to check out the crazies and a poster known as “SC” who I have sparred with before and was the reason I was banned the first time, has posted a comment about Michelle Obama that is so blatantly racist and disgusting as to reveal this poster entirely for the pig he/she is. How in the world do you read these things for your site on a daily basis without losing faith in mankind???

  265. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 3, 2009 at 9:36 am  (Quote)

    Growing up as I did in rural Alabama in the 1950’s, I had to deal with racist attitudes a long time ago. In any measure of civic virtue probability theory tells to expect a few very good and a few very bad scores, and to popularize the Central Limit Theorem: most people are about average.

  266. thisoldhippie says:
    April 3, 2009 at 10:27 am  (Quote)

    I grew up in the 60s and 70s and in a very open minded and liberal home, so while I know there is racism – hope springs eternal with me that one day comments such as that one will end.

  267. Gordon says:
    April 13, 2009 at 12:45 am  (Quote)

    Hey Do, time for an article on the Tea Parties. Ties in nicely with your Conspiracies and Mobs.

  268. Joyce says:
    April 20, 2009 at 11:30 pm  (Quote)

    What is the source of Obama’s Kenyan birth?

  269. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 21, 2009 at 7:05 am  (Quote)

    The closest thing to a “source” for the Kenyan birth is an affidavit by “Rev. Shuhubia” (a false name) filed in the original Berg v. Obama lawsuit. “Shuhubia” was present with Sarah Obama during the infamous “grandmother tape” which was edited to say Obama was born in Kenya (but the full version says he was born in Hawaii). Shuhubia claims to have then talked with an unnamed “regional registrar” in Kenya who said he had the birth certificate, but that it was “top secret”.

    Shuhubia’s affidavit is here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/affidavitexhibit2.pdf

    Unedited grandmother tape link here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/

    Beyond this, I don’t know of any “evidence” of a Kenyan birth for Obama that ties back to what someone actually said. There are statements floating around that this or that Obama relative said something, but it doesn’t appear that they really did. We have other Obama relatives, including Obama’s Uncle Sayid saying that Obama wasn’t in Africa until he was an adult, visiting his father’s grave.

  270. bonnie says:
    August 19, 2009 at 11:24 pm  (Quote)

    I read, on blogs and comments all over the web, that Prez Obama has spent huge amounts of money defending against the birther lawsuits. But there is never a source listed to explain how these posters obtained the defense expense numbers. Do you know? Since none of these suits has gone to court, I don’t understand how they need all that much defending.

  271. Shrieking Wombat says:
    August 19, 2009 at 11:33 pm  (Quote)

    Simple bonnie. You see all those naturally-occurring numbers fluttering above your head? You just pluck some out of the air, add six zeroes, and voila!

  272. Bob says:
    August 20, 2009 at 2:10 am  (Quote)

    The birfers look at the FEC reports for Obama’s campaign, which lists his campaign’s expenses, including legal fees.

    Since October (or so), Obama’s campaign has paid the law firm of Perkins Coie approximately $1.4 million. (With approximately $2.5 million in legal fees over the course of the campaign.)

    Birfers presume that all of that money was spent of eligibility suits. There’s no evidence, of course, for that presumption.

    An obvious contraindicator is how much money McCain spent on lawyers (approx. $1.5 million total). In other words: running a national campaign is not cheap.

    Another contraindicator is Obama’s latest FEC report that indicated $400,000 was paid to Perkins Coie in the last quarter. In the last quarter, however, the only thing Perkins Coie did in regards to an eligibility lawsuit was to send a nasty letter saying Obama’ll seek fees, costs, and sanctions if an appeal isn’t dismissed.

    Perkins Coie may be a top-drawer first, but even it doesn’t charge $400,000 for one letter.

  273. Whatever4 says:
    August 20, 2009 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    Dear Doc:

    I love your site, and truly appreciate your efforts. I’ve been through most of it. I love original documents — thanks for the links! I do my little bit to debunk where I can and send people to your site all the time.

    Couple of things I’d like more info on. On Nightline the other night, Ron Jacobs said that in his book “Obamaland”, he interviewed someone who was there at the birth in Hawaii. Any idea who that was? Birthers keep claiming no one has come forward.

    Also, I keep seeing that “hearings were held” on McCain’s eligibility. I can’t locate anything on that, just an off-topic question at a different committee hearing between Leahy and Chertoff.

    Thanks again!

  274. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 21, 2009 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    I think it very unlikely that any authentic interview has taken place with someone present at Obama’s birth. There was a woman who gave birth at the same hospital about the same time, but she never claimed to have seen Obama.

    I’m not sure about any hearings on McCain’s eligibility. I couldn’t find any. There is this record of the debate in the 2008 Senate Resolution 511:

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S2950&position=all
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S2951&position=all

  275. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 21, 2009 at 2:01 am  (Quote)

    If memory serves me right, speculation about large legal fees preceded the discovery of the legal fees to the campaign.

  276. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    August 21, 2009 at 2:02 am  (Quote)

    You don’t see a source because there isn’t one.

  277. Sandi says:
    September 5, 2009 at 8:51 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks for the website. I spent months fighting birther over at YouTube. This site just ROCKS!

  278. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 5, 2009 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Hi Sandi. Thanks and welcome.

    I don’t know of any birther who has ever come to their senses. It’s a lost cause, but it can be entertaining at times, and you learn neat stuff refuting them.

  279. Carol says:
    September 8, 2009 at 12:46 am  (Quote)

    Maybe the answer to this is buried somewhere on this site, but what happened to Obama’s stepfather Lolo Soetero? Is he still alive, and if so, can’t we just ASK HIM STUFF?

  280. NBC says:
    September 8, 2009 at 12:47 am  (Quote)

    good question. I have no idea.

  281. NBC says:
    September 8, 2009 at 12:48 am  (Quote)

    According to Wikipedia Lolo died

    2 March 1987 (aged 52)
    Jakarta, Indonesia

  282. Carol says:
    September 8, 2009 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    OK, thanks! I have a question regarding the Soetero divorce document which I found online. Altho’ there’s been so much commotion about the fact that Mr. Soetero registered little Obama in an Indonesian school under his name, I’ve heard nothing about this. The Complaint filed by Obama’s mother (in 1980) states: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.” (It goes on to say that Mr. Soetero is not required to provide support for the children, so I don’t know what the point was.) It’s just curious that this document isn’t being waved around as “proof” that Obama was adopted… Does anyone have an explanation of why a stepchild would be listed thus on a divorce document? (And yes, I understand that being adopted/not adopted has nothing to do with his citizenship or eligibility for the Presidency. And I want to clarify that altho’ I started my own searching to rebut all the stupidity out there, it’s become a pretty interesting education in the tangles of citizenship laws, etc.)

  283. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 8, 2009 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    It is sometimes waved about as proof that Obama was adopted, although not all that often.

    One would have to look at other divorce decrees involving adopted and non-adopted step children to see what was customary in Hawaii in 1980.

    It might be that the lawyers/court didn’t know whether Obama was Soetoro’s biological child, adopted child or just a child of the marriage. Since there was no request for child support and Obama was over 18, it really didn’t matter. You should note that in this section, they were filling out a form, a form that lacked the flexibility to specify details like the relationships of the parties.

    Is there a divorce lawyer in the house?

  284. Carol says:
    September 9, 2009 at 12:28 am  (Quote)

    Thanks. That makes a certain amount of sense altho’, like I said, I can’t believe “those people” haven’t made more of this document. I noticed the number “1” in the spot for children over 18 is not in alignment with the “1” for children under 18. Being old enough to remember manual typewriters… it looks as though one number was added afterward.

  285. Joyce says:
    December 30, 2009 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    Birthers claim they need to see Obama’s college records to determine how his tuition was paid, and who paid it. Do colleges record the source of tuition payments?

  286. Expelliarmus says:
    December 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    It is extremely unlikely that there would be any long term record of the source of payments.

    While a student is IN college, the anticipated source of payments is reflected in billing statements prepared by the college bursar. By “anticipated” sources would include loans and grants, which would be subtracted out from the bill that would be sent to the student and/or his parents.

    But once the money is received, it would be reduced to numbers, and there could be changes from what was anticipated by the bursar. For example, a student might apply for and get an additional scholarship, or decide to increase or decrease the amount of loans. The bursar wouldn’t care where the money comes from — they just want the totals to add up properly.

    I doubt seriously that the financial records would be kept for 20+ years, and even if the accounting records are kept, the underlying records documenting the statements that would be issued are unlikely to exist.

    What birthers fail to understand is that the private colleges Obama attended as an undergraduate typically award financial aid to needy students in the form of grants and scholarships, which come from the colleges’ own endowments or are funded by private donors. So the “source” of Obama’s tuition was probably a combination of money paid by his mother or grandparents, college grant or scholarship money, and student loans. The would also likely have been eligible for a federal Pell grant (previously known as a Basic Opportunity grant)

    See: http://www.chessconsulting.org/financialaid/history.htm

    The federal grants and subsidized loans are given only to citizens and permanent residents — so the birthers’ suggestion that Obama could receive more money as a “foreign” student is preposterous. The bulk of college scholarship money goes to students who qualify for the federal subsidies — again, available to US citizens & permanent residents only.

  287. Joyce says:
    December 30, 2009 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    Thank you.

    The justification for examining Obama’s college records was to check up on his “associations”, the concern being that Obama’s tuition might have been paid by one of them rich socialists or communists.

  288. Expelliarmus says:
    December 30, 2009 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    If it comes by way of a check or cash, I don’t think there’s any record of source. It just shows up on the bursar’s statement as a payment or credit.

  289. Rickey says:
    December 31, 2009 at 2:03 am  (Quote)

    Joyce says:

    The justification for examining Obama’s college records was to check up on his “associations”, the concern being that Obama’s tuition might have been paid by one of them rich socialists or communists.

    Even in the unlikely event that Obama’s tuition was paid by “rich socialists or communists,” it is unlikely that Occidental or Columbia would have known about it. If something like that had happened, undoubtedly the tuition money would have been given directly to Obama and he would made the tuition payment himself.

    The most likely source of tuition funds, of course, was some help from Obama’s grandparents, scholarships, grants and student loans — pretty much the same way everyone else pays his or her way through college.

  290. NbC says:
    December 31, 2009 at 3:17 am  (Quote)

    The justification for examining Obama’s college records was to check up on his “associations”, the concern being that Obama’s tuition might have been paid by one of them rich socialists or communists.

    So basically no justification other than speculation…

    How sad.

  291. G says:
    December 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm  (Quote)

    NbC, you beat me to the punch in your reply on this one.

    Although, I would have added even a little more clarification:

    So, basically no justification other than utterly paranoid and vindictive speculation.

    …FIXED!

  292. Expelliarmus says:
    December 31, 2009 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    Well, the bottom line is that Obama’s “associations” have nothing whatsoever to do with his eligibility to be President.

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.