Paul Jensen
In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 television show May 6, 2010, Terry Lakin’s attorney Paul Jensen said:
In the state of Hawaii there’s a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of Hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, at any age, by going back and filling out a form.
Let’s see it. I want Paul Jensen to go to Hawaii, fill out that form, and get a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate and prove to us that he’s not a lying sack of garbage. And while we’re at it, I want to see Orly Taitz’s Hawaiian birth certificate too!
my neice works at Dept of Health, I asked her about this and she laughed, “What an idiot he is”. Like all birthers they lie and never own up to thier lies, in fact they continue with the lie even knowing it’s false. Birther Syndrome! This idiot is doing great harm to Lakin, and Lakin is too duped to know it.
I have another niece in Hawaii, she works for US Dept of State.(passports)
I believe Jensen is referring to following statute:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
——-
Perhaps Jensen is implying the assumption the parents are legal residences of Hawaii. If this is so, then anyone can get a Hawaiin BC.
In any event, the parents must submit PROOF of legal residence. Of course, it remains to be seen how the burden of proof is regcognized or enforced.
While this statute was created in 1982, the statutes in 1961 were even more liberal and it was very easy for someone to fradulently register someone as being born in Hawaii when they were born somewhere else. Jensen is merely proving by modern statutes that it is very easy to get a Hawaiia COLB.
Does not matter, the law was not enacted until 1982.
Fools
Of course, there is no one saying this is how Obama obtained his BC, but the mere fact that this avenue existed, leaves open the door for speculation.
Obama is not obligated to close that door, but the fact is the door to speculation is open doesn’t go away simply because he chooses to ignore the issue. And he is right to ignore the issue – I’m not suggesting otherwise.
I’m constantly amazed at how insistent those that support Obama are at name calling.
Does it help your argument?
And nowhere does the statute say that the resulting document will state birth occurred in Hawaii. What they will get is a Certificate that lists where in the world the actual birth took place.
My theory is that with the wide variety of languages in the Pacific Rim, it’s handy for foreigners people in Hawaii to have an official English-language document that clearly states the actual birth place.
But this statute has only been in effect since 1982.
Can you post the actual statue valid in 1961? Thank you.
Have you ever heard the phrase, “better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it?”
It is this simple. If you say something foolish or stupid and someone calls you out on it, then it isn’t really name calling as much as telling it like it is.
Same way that when someone is caught in a lie, they are called a LIAR. Like YOU, Scott Brown.
What state were you born in again? Oh that’s right, for weeks you refuse to answer, because it was a lie you were caught in. And when someone dodges the issue repeatedly and can’t come clean about their lie, that is cowardly.
Hence, why you are also called a coward.
So, its not name calling, it is labeling you for what you truly are.
Don’t want to be called a liar? Stop lying.
Don’t want to be called a coward? Stop dodging simple questions and come clean and admit to why you made-up that story.
Don’t want to be called stupid or a fool – they don’t say foolish or stupid things.
There is a huge difference between people having legitimate differences in point of view.
However, being wrong about law, misstating facts and misunderstanding basic concepts and coming up with out there scenarios with no basis in reality is not in the realm of “opinion” – no it is foolishness or willful deception and fully deserves to be called out as such.
Act like an adult for once and you will be treated like one. Act like a liar or fool and you will be treated as such.
And speculation is meaningless, without evidence to support it.
Speculation never goes away, because all speculation comes down to is dreaming up fantasy “what if” scenarios. There is no point to addressing speculation, as it has no basis in the facts on the ground.
Anyone can speculate on anything and dream up new fictional scenarios all day until the cows come home. But when you wake up, reality hasn’t changed at all.
I found this on Free Republic; most inteesting
————–
Preface
This post addresses unanswered legal and factual questions about the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, and how they relate to President Obama. It is by no means a complete analysis of the facts and issues. I welcome any editing suggestions and response posts. Input is welcome, criticism is expected.
Post
Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”
At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.
In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to obtain a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. The following citations are from the original Hawaii Session Laws books recorded on microform. All of the citations can be found on one page here. The other red links below contain the complete history of these laws from before Obama was born to present day:
1. Certificate of Live Birth (Long Form, vault, not to be confused with the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted on his website). In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulted from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician.
The Certificate of Live Birth is the most trustworthy and reliable birth certificate because the doctor’s signature and supporting hospital information can be verified to a reasonable degree of certainty. One would think that if Obama, who claims that he was born in a specific hospital in Hawaii, had one of these, he would produce it to put the matter to rest. The truth is, he has refused to disclose anything other than his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary. His act is suspect because it raises the question – what is he hiding?
2. Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955, reads:
§57-8 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth, or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
This law allowed one of the parents to file a birth certificate for a claimed unattended birth. This procedure is arguably fraught with the potential for fraud because a parent could have given birth to a baby outside of the U.S., brought him to Hawaii, and then claimed that she had an unattended birth (no witnesses) in Honolulu.
3. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-9 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955, reads:
Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided (referring to 57-8), is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.”
This procedure is arguably fraught with the potential for fraud because it allowed the local registrar to prepare a birth certificate for a claimed unattended birth using information from anyone claiming to have had knowledge of the birth. Under this law, a parent could have given birth outside of the U.S., brought the baby back into the country, and then had anyone supply the false information to the local registrar. Furthermore, anyone could have supplied that same information to the registrar while the woman and baby were outside of the country. For all we know, Ann could have been in Kenya, given birth to Barack, instructed someone to supply the information to the local registrar, and then returned to the US at her leisure later on.
4. Delayed or altered certificates, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-18 (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955 reads:
§57-18. Delayed or altered certificates. A person born in the Territory may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting such proof as shall be required by the board, except that no certificate of birth may be filed later than one year after birth.
This procedure is arguably fraught with the potential for fraud. Under this law, a parent could have given birth to a baby outside of the U.S. and brought him back into the country up to a year after his stated DOB, and then filed for the BC using §57-8 or §57-9.
5. Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (2010 Hawaii DOH website talks about it), authorized by the 1911 Hawaii law called Act 96, established the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1911 and terminated it in 1972. An analysis of these two documents is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained…
Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.
This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth procedure is arguably fraught with the potential for fraud.
6. Foundling Report, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-10, (second citation down in left column), enacted 1955 reads:
Registration of foundlings; foundling report.
(a) Whoever assumes custody of a living child of unknown parentage shall immediately report, on a form to be approved by the board, to the local registrar, the following:
(1) Date and place of finding or assumption of custody;
(2) Sex;
(3) Color or race;
(4) Approximate age of child;
(5) Name and address of the person or institution with whom the child has been placed for care;
(6) Name given to the child by the finder or custodian.
(b) The place where the child was found or custody assumed shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.
(c) The foundling report shall constitute the certificate of birth.
(d) If a foundling child is identified and a regular certificate of birth is found or obtained, the report shall be sealed and filed and may be open only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
This procedure allowed anyone to fill out a foundling report, walk into the local registrar’s office and claim that he or she found or assumed custody of a child. The statute required the state to assume that the birthplace was where the child (of any age) was reportedly found, or custody assumed . Furthermore, the statute allowed the finder to name him, approximate his age and the foundling report itself “shall constitute the certificate of birth.”
On a purely speculative note regarding the foundling report statute, Ann Dunham could have brought Barack into the US after he was allegedly born in Kenya, then used the foundling statute to get Barack a Foundling report birth certificate. Ann could have given Barack/Barry any name she wanted, including her or her husband’s last name. The statute does not appear to prohibit the finder from giving the foundling a last name as well as a first name. His age could also have been estimated under the statute (effect is to backdate a birth certificate), and the birth certificate could have read Honolulu, Hawaii, as the place of birth, or where custody was assumed. Anyone else could have also done the same thing by claiming that she assumed custody of a foundling. What an end run around immigration laws that would have been. This might be why Mr. Obama does not want his original 1961 birth certificate disclosed.
freerepublic
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
go away john
may I second this!
I’m not lawyer, but from a point of logic how was the hospital of Kapi’olani Hospital faked? All of these procedures with the exception of “1” would have meant his birth was outside a hospital, but yet Hawaii has a record of a hospital birth and the forementioned hospital did celebrated it’s 100th anniversity with letter from the President commemorating his birth there.
That leaves only procedure “1” a hospital birth.
As a birther I am sure you will go into your bag of conspiracy theories to explain that.
Sure Scott ignore the arguments and focus on the occasional ‘name calling’
Fool
And yes, it’s called irony
What part of prima facie legal evidence do these fools fail to understand?
Sigh…
Fool. Nothing to support your logic.
Sure, go ahead and continue to bring up issues from the 2008 election that failed to keep Obama from being elected. Why don’t you just bring up his affiliations with Rev. Wright and William Ayers? Oh, that’s right, you still do. Well what about his sexism against Hillary and Sarah? After all, with the job he gave Hillary, he obviously thinks women should only be secretaries. Right, you do that, too. Or maybe just keep saying that he’s racist against white people. Well gosh darn it, you still say that as well!
So what makes you think that repeating these talking points will get him removed from the presidency or keep him from winning in 2012? Not that I’m complaining, you understand. I love that you just can’t let go of failed talking points from the 2008 campaign. That will most likely result in Obama winning in 2012. Not that he probably wouldn’t anyway.
I not sure what the story is about the letter, but I do know that when the letter was read and posted on the website, sources started to investigate the letter and the hospital became really hush hush on it. Addition, the White House denied confirming that Obama actually wrote the letter.
We have been infected with trolls that are immune to evidence, real evidence makes them throw up after saying stupid things.
If you don’t like Obama, find and support a candidate of your choice for 2012. Stop wasting time with this birther stuff (or haven’t you noticed that Obama is still president)
You may make Lakin your pen pal while he serves in prison, that would be helpful. Or you can donate to the Mental Health Clinic, that would help john. Do something useful. Hating Obama every day will get boring.
Scott or Scotta, the Governor checked Obama out while she was campaigning for Senator McCain. Why do you suppose she checked. I will tell you. To see whether the the Senator was lying. She checked, she verified. He was born in Hawaii. He owes you nothing. But you do owe us the name of the State you were born in. Just tell us tonight and all this questioning of your veracity will be over.
Well it must be true…doesn’t Lying Lucas Smith have one? 😉
Birthers believe that if you add zero to itself enough times, you get something non-zero.
The comment gives us all the information needed to show that the foundling report is impossible: The Parents’ names, present on the COLB, are not on the foundling report. There is also the matter of the TIME OF BIRTH, present on the COLB and not applicable to a foundling report. Just more chaff to keep the birthers confused.
As I’ve said before, perhaps he leaves “the door open,” so that miserable people with no life, such as yourself, have something to be excited about.
You’re a nutcase.
The fact that you are is not my fault. Using the word to describe you is not my fault either – because all I’m doing is pointing out the obvious.
i’m more amazed that you mock the ninth commandment.
he can only fool the gullible (like john)
The weakness of that “evidence” should convince anyone that the birthers are not bona fide in their concerns.
They denied confirming the letter?
What, exactly, does that mean?
how may cases has apuzo won on this? is it 0?
Gibb’s responded
And the WND spun it and now foolish people repeat the claim.
Fools.
Whatever4: Can you post the actual statue valid in 1961? Thank you.
When you look at a Hawaiian statute, at the bottom you will see the legislative history. When the law is passed, you will see something like L-1982 for a law passed in 1982. Then when it is amended, there are additional notations. The section Lakin’s attorney cited has L-1982 and nothing else, meaning there was nothing in that section before it.
The vital records statutes in effect in 1961 date back to 1959. Unfortunately, there is no copy on the Internet that I am aware of. I have a copy purchased from a commercial supplier, but I am not licensed to reproduce it. There were no out-of-state registration or foreign born adoption certificates mentioned in the 1959 laws.
Whatever4: My theory is that with the wide variety of languages in the Pacific Rim, it’s handy for foreigners people in Hawaii to have an official English-language document that clearly states the actual birth place.
No. The out of state registration is ONLY available to residents of Hawaii for one year preceding the birth.
Scott Brown: I’m constantly amazed at how insistent those that support Obama are at name calling. Does it help your argument?
No, it doesn’t help the argument, and further it gives your opponent something to complain about when they can’t score points on the substance of the argument.
Ahhh Munro v Merchant
Temporary sojourn…
As pointed out in “International law chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States”, Vol. 1, By Charles Cheney Hyde
John: While this statute was created in 1982, the statutes in 1961 were even more liberal
Could you cite the particular 1961 statute and show how it was more liberal?
No you can’t because you just made that up. I know because I have a copy of the 1961 laws, and it is very unlikely that you do.
ROTFL. So true.
Gibbs is obviously the dumbest person on the planet with this remark:
“….obviously, and I don’t know the name of the exact hospital.”
Gibbs seems wholly ignorant given Lingle’s recent remark:
“….we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact..”
It seems that Gibbs is ignorant to such blatant fact that Lingle seems to protray.
Gibbs statement was well before Lingle made her statement
You fool…
Unlike the crazies like us who watch you birthers with slack-jawed fascination, Gibbs has to worry about things like nuclear weapons. Universal healthcare.
Birthers have such BIG heads! They’re like three-year olds – “Everyone likes the exact same stuff as me!”
John & Scott Brown:
There is more information you can get if you email or write to the Vital Dept. in Hawaii:
I copy/paste this from their website:
Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, and type of event is made available to the public. The director, in accordance with HRS §338-18(d), has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.
Index data referred to in HRS §338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu. The public will be asked to provide identification and sign in to inspect the names and sex of all births, deaths and marriages that occurred in the state. Data are maintained in bound copies by type of event with names listed alphabetically by last name.
The index data regarding President Obama is:
Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male
To request a search for index data, provide a first and last name of the individual, and the type of event along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Requests must be sent in writing to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
There may be a cost for search, segregation and copying based on the request
OVERWHELMING evidence Barack H Obama II was born in Hawaii.
Kweli Shuhubia Affidavit
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVITexhibit2.pdf
“I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at
the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the
Provincial Civil Registrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to
Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with
an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator
Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H.
Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama,
Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s
Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information.”
The thing I find amazing about this is the insane belief that a state government would issue a birth certificate with a location of birth it knows to be false. One of my children is adopted, and we are able to get birth certificates from our state of residence as a convenience I genuinely appreciate. But those certificates state the actual country of birth.
It’s just common sense.
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/AlienBirth.pdf
Children Born in the United States to Aliens Should Not, by Constitutional
Right, Be U.S. Citizens
By WILLIAM J. OLSON, HERBERT W. TITUS AND ALAN WOLL
John says:
Well, John actually has a lot of authority on the subject here, since he is someone who constantly comes off as the dumbest person on the planet with his remarks.
Hate to tell you this, John, but you lost that argument over 100 years ago with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
So, if you’re arguing that Barack Obama isn’t a U.S. Citizen because of his father being an alien, then I suggest that you look up U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and start there.
But they are…
So propose a constitutional amendment.
Fools
Really? You are going to trot out that long discredited fraud? Shuhubia? Really? ROTFLMAO!!!
Wow John, just when I think you can’t be any dumber or more gullible, you continue to surprise me!
Yep, you truly work hard to earn your “dumbest person on the planet” award!
As obviously, no scam is too lame for you to fall for it, I think there is a Nigerian Prince who would like to talk to you about helping him deposit his money safely over here…LOL!
Funny John has started spamming to hide his failures.
Oh what a delightful fool we have in our midst.
No bonus for John/James this month.
Wow. I think you just earned another prize for longest post of worthless and debunked BS ever cut & pasted here.
Apuzzo is such a sham fraud loser that he eventually ran scared because he couldn’t hack it here. Now he sulks at his personal website where he can spew all his weak lies to his gullible birther flock and try to fling poo from a distance.
But keep plucking that chicken, John. Failure obviously wears well on you!
John has realized he has lost another argument and is now trying to hide his discomfort with spamming.
Hilarious
Here comes the conspiracy theories!!
why answer john, he is a dip$hit, see his comment on the phoney Kweli Shuhubia Affidavit. Dr. C covered this some time ago
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/kerchner-v-obama-and-the-whole-country/ will you keep up john. but john is way far gone to respond to reason. He constantly hangs his hat on old silly stories. Anyone believing that Kweli crap is insane. No sense answering an idiot, Just ignor him, you can’t teach a pig how to fly by putting lipstick on him.
It’s always a great start to an affidavit to lie about your name.
I’m still fuzzy how a lawyer lets someone sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury under a pseudonym and think they can file it without alerting the court that it’s a pseudonym!
Why don’t you get state and/or federal representives to make this a constitutional law?
“Does it help your argument?”
Yes.
SATSQ.
OTOH there’s no speculation about you being a liar.
This is like the ultimate oil spill of stupidity in one single giant burst.
I stand corrected. This is even more egregiously stupid than the earlier freeper post.
And now the bedsheets and burning crosses.
Mario is like the entry drug to the KKK.
doc is there away that you can delete walls of text copied from other sites; that can be considered a copyright violation.
Sarah Obama said Barack Obama Jr. was an orphan.
Wonder why the CNN Obamabot used the words..native born citizen and not natural born citizen..did he get this from White House attorneys..to use native born and not natural born..
Having watched your commenting “performance” on several blogs, you demonstrate the truth of Ron White’s statement: “You can’t fix stupid.”
Ignorance is one thing. Everyone has a number of things they’re ignorant about. That can be fixed. Someone who does know explains it to you, you get pointed to information about the subject, and you learn something new. Stupid is when all of that happens, and you keep repeating things that have been proven wrong.
Scott, you’ve run from blog to blog, spouting assertions which get rebutted on every one of them. Then you complain about being called an idiot, stupid, moron, cretin, and other synonyms for a lack of mental capacity. It happens to you not because people are mean, but because you keep demonstrating that it’s true.
Native born and natural born are the same thing. Also CNN is not to the Obama administration as Fox was [not] the Bush administration.
DraggingCanoe: Wonder why the CNN Obamabot used the words..native born citizen
Lakin was expressing doubts as to where Obama was born, therefore that he was not a native-born citizen. It accurately describes Lakin’s delusion.
If you think White House attorneys are advising CNN, you’re delusional just like Lakin.
When was that? I mean, he’s one now.
Hawaiiborn: doc is there away that you can delete walls of text copied from other sites; that can be considered a copyright violation.
I can delete anything. If a copyright holder complains, I will immediately delete any infringing content. As for John dumping stuff from Apuzzo, I doubt Apuzzo objects to his screed being rebroadcast. I have the following editorial policy:
I was seriously considering not approving either of John’s long dumps (for some reason, they moderated automatically). I want to encourage original content.
John: Children Born in the United States to Aliens Should Not, by Constitutional Right, Be U.S. Citizens By WILLIAM J. OLSON, HERBERT W. TITUS AND ALAN WOLL
This paper argues that the 6-2 decision of the Supreme Court in US v Wong was wrong. One cannot argue from a legal basis that President Obama in ineligible because the Supreme Court is wrong.
That’s rather misleading. British allegiance is not only to the sovereign but also to the civil government. This is obviously the case because when the sovereign dies, all the subjects do not become stateless. If the Supreme Court decision in Wong that Constitutional citizenship follows English common law (the law in which the framers lived and for those who were lawyers, the law they practiced) is wrong, then many Supreme Courts, lower federal courts and state courts were wrong too.
Just remember that if there two sides every issue, one of them is wrong.
1. The “affidavit” is given under a fake name.
2. None of the officials mentioned is given a name
3. How would an official freely and openly discuss “top secret” material
4. Why would the writer be told to go to another official who would also discuss “top secret” material.
It’s not even good fiction. Birth records in Kenya are public.
You know, Doc, I got to the end of page 1 and closed the file; it’s that obviously a tissue of lies.
Poor John, even the ridiculous “article” he cites fails to make his case. Let’s look at the following quote from the apalling Dred Scott case:
“I say, to be of the country, it is
necessary to be born of a person who
is a citizen;”
Barack Obama was indeed born of a person who is a citizen-his mother.
Even the authors of this screed are only questioning the status of the child of 2 illegal aliens. Not even they question the citizenship of someone born to a citizen, especially one whose other parent was lawfully admitted.
This may be John’s most epic fail yet, and that’s saying a lot.
I have seen the light!
Obama was an adult in 1982 when he filed for his own birth certificate.
Obama used school records to prove his father and mother had declared Hawaii as their residence in 1960.
Obama further used a Kenyan birth certificate to prove they were his parents.
Through a mis-interpretation of the procedure or via curruption the representative of The Department of Health listed the date filed on the Kenyan birth certificate as the date filed on the new Hawaiian birth certificate.
Through another mis-interpretation of the procedure the corrupt or incompetent representative of The Department of Health listed Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu.
Obama cannot produce a long form birth certificate since that is the Kenyan birth certificate and it, along with the application for has Hawaiian birth certificate, would prove he is not eligible to be President.
Since Obama didn’t have a Hawaiian birth certificate until after 1982 his school and travel records will show Kenyan birth so they must remain sealed or the gig is up.
Hallelujah! I have seen the light!
(/snark, but I’m sure this scenario will show up on the Post and Snail by the end of the day)
Will richCares, Dr. Conspiracy, and many others from this blog return to Hawaii after Obama leaves office?
my or may not, 2016 is a long way off.
WTF?: Will richCares, Dr. Conspiracy, and many others from this blog return to Hawaii after Obama leaves office?
I’ve never been to Hawaii.
but seeing that the comment system are already difficult to read through, wouldn’t it be better to just delete to just one paragraph and then link to the site/page that he stole the text from.
I know that Apuzzo wouldn’t mind, but think of us readers who have to wade through that wall of nonsense. There is a reason why some of us don’t go to birther sites; we dont want to see their inane crap. And it also adds to the load time of this page
Will you return when Obama leaves office?
Return where? You’re such a fool WTF. Shown to be without arguments, reasons and logic you now continue to show an ever darker side of yourself.
Have you no self respect my friend?
Or does losing your bonus smart 😉
Just out of curiousity I decided to look at identity theft and government documents fraud in the state of Hawaii compared to other locations. It should be high in Hawaii if it’s easy for a foreigner to obtain a birth certificate when he’s born outside of Hawaii.
http://www.ftc.gov/sentinel/reports/sentinel-annual-reports/sentinel-cy2007.pdf
According to the FTC’s 2007 report, “The metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of reported identity theft are Napa California; Madera, California; and Greeley, Colorado.” Isn’t Greeley, Colorado where Lakin is from?
Top 10 ten states for victims of identity theft are:
Arizona, California, Nevada, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Maryland. Hawaii is #39.
In 2007 in Hawaii there were 25 complaints of Government Documents or Benefits Fraud and 21 complaints of attempted identity theft.
nbC,
Will you return to Hawaii after Obama leaves office?
I’ll be going to Hawaii soon, my niece’s son has been accepted into West Point, we will celebrate. You are welcome to not join us.
Thanks for not offering richCares. Will Dr. Conspiracy and nbC be returning to Hawaii with you?
Sorry for the confusion nbC. Maybe it’s a communication problem. I did not mean to insult you as your reply would indicate. I was simply asking if you had plans to return to Hawaii when Obama left office. I don’t know if that will be in 2013 or 2017.
Returning to Hawaii WTF?
How many more times do you allow yourself to made look foolish by your ill-informed misrepresentations?
Have you really no self respect?
Why are you assuming that I would be going anywhere. The word return suggests that I am somehow a (former) native of Hawaii.
Fool
nbC, I knew that richCares was a native of Hawaii, but did not think that you were. Besides wondering if you would return, I now must wonder how someone could be a “former native”.
Back pedaling again eh WTF… Why do you not stick to facts rather than appear foolish…
nbC,
Is there something you’re not telling us? Why won’t you just answer the question? Will you all be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office?
Oh what a fool…
Sad really, first his arguments were totally demolished and now he goes down another path of ignorance.
I never lived in Hawaii, I never intended to live in Hawaii, I will likely never live in Hawaii in the near 2-5 year future.
Your suggestion of ‘returning’ makes presumptions of which you have no knowledge and in fact are false.
Par for the course my dear friend, par for the course.
Why these insane questions I wonder?
I’m sorry nbC. I did know that richCares was originally from Hawaii. If richCares said that we (meaning you and Dr. Conspiracy) would be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office, would that not be correct? Is that not the plan?
I’d suggest that you stop making up strawman arguments and you may be able to hold on to the little credibility that you have been left with through your own inabilities to apply reason, logic and facts.
A concerned friend.
nBC,
I can’t say who told me, but I heard the someone said “we will be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office”. I’m pretty sure they were talking about you and Dr. Conspiracy. I’m just looking for answers. Was that person wrong?
That mythical person again?
I thought someone told you to ignore their voices? Am I somehow mistaken ?
nbC,
I’m sure you can understand the confusion. By saying that you would be returning, I just assumed that you had been there before. How was I to know that you and Dr. Conspiracy had never been there before?
Where did I make that statement?
Were it the voices again? Am I mistaken that I remember someone who told you to stop paying attention to the voices?
Fool 🙂
nbC,
I don’t see why you are so upset about someone saying that the three of you would be returning to Hawaii. If it’s not true, you can say so. If it is true, just admit it.
I am not upset about the question, which I believe came from some ‘voices’ you may remember. What I am concerned about is how you believe that I made such statements.
Foolish ignorance at best. But the fact that I seem to remember someone telling you to not listed to these ‘voices’ concerns me more.
I did not say that you made such statements. I was only concerned with whether or not you would be returning to Hawaii. For some reason you don’t want to say if you will or will not.
What part of “by saying that you would be returning” do you not remember writing?
What part of my response to you describing my intents do you fail to comprehend?
At best you’re just foolish but that you backpedal on your own statements or refuse to acknowledge that I did respond to your question really concerns me.
Those voices… Have they grown stronger?
WTF? Will you be returning to your home planet once your secret mission here on Earth is completed?
I sincerely apologize for the confusion. I think I understand why you are finding it to be of such difficulty. It is not that you may be going to Hawaii after Obama leaves office, but that you will not be returning. My wording caused you a problem because it implied that you had been there before. Is that correct?
And it implied that I had made such a statement, or that others had…
And no it did not cause ME any problems, the problems clearly were created by you and for you.
nbC,
You keep adding to the confusion, while I am trying to relieve it. I never said that you stated anything. I got my information from someone else. I thought it was a problem with the wording of the question. Please excuse.
If it is not a problem with the question, will you be returning to Hawaii when Obama leaves office? Yes or No?
WTF-I find it very strange that you think where any of the posters here live has anything to do with who is in the White House. Why would anyone here move to Hawaii because Obama’s term is over (or not over)? President Obama’s himself hasn’t lived in Hawaii since he left for college, 30 years ago, so I doubt even he will move to Hawaii when his Presidency ends. I know he vacations there and will probably continue to do so, but so do millions of people from all over the world. If I had to guess, I would suppose he will return to Chicago where he has lived for the last 20 years. But he’d be welcome here in NY, just like Bill Clinton. Michelle could even run for the Senate if Schumer retires.
You still seem to be suffering from a short term memory problem:
As to responding to your question, I already have.
Just ask those ‘voices’
Scientist,
How about you? Will you be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office?
previously posted in the wrong place.
Scientist,
How about you? Will you be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office?
I think I now see the problem is with my usage of the American language. By asking if richCares, Dr. Conspiracy, and others if they would be returning to Hawaii, it somehow implied that all of them had been to Hawaii before. I did not mean to imply that. How should I have worded the question?
Oh those voices make them stop…
Fool.
Sure blame your command of the English language…
Can we blame that for all your foolishness?
just asking
nbC,
No reason to act like that. I apologized for the confusion and asked for clarity.
How should I have worded the question so as not to imply that all of you had been there before?
Repeat after me
liam owada foo … liam owada foo
Rinse and repeat.
Once again, why do you think blog posters would decide where to live based on who is in the White House?
nbC,
You have no reason to complain about the wording of my question when you refuse to provide assistance when asked. You think you are so high and mighty. Rather than act like a moke you could help with clarification.
Scientist,
I don’t think blog posters decide where to live based on who is in the White House. I think the question was pretty clear.
Will you or will you not be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office? This is not a difficult question.
I’ve never lived in Hawaii and don’t plan to. Nothing against it. I visited once and it’s beautiful, but it’s a bit far from family and friends.
What about you? Will you return there (or anywhere else)? Are your choices of residence guided by who the President is?
Scientist,
I never said that you lived in Hawaii before.
I have no plans to return there. I do hear that it is nice.
This is officially the weirdest chain on this blog. STOP IT. “It’s worse than Who’s on first?”
No you got that wrong, who is the president of China.
I do agree it’s strange but WTF was he thinking…
Yes, blame the victim… If you can not even be held responsible for the ‘questions you ask’, why should I/we be interested in further discussions of your foolish notions?
You can always claim that we misunderstood…
Continue your foolish games my friend. Just don’t listen to them voices…
I think I now understand. You mean that someone cannot return to someplace without having been there before. That presents a problem with the wording of my question. Would it have been correct to ask “Will richCares be returning to Hawaii after Obama leaves office, and will the rest of you go with him”?
nbC,
I am delighted that you refer to me as your friend. Can I come to visit when you return to Hawaii?
Sure, the day I return you may come and visit. Somehow I guess this means that we will likely not meet.
“Sure, the day I return you may come and visit. Somehow I guess this means that we will likely not meet.”
That is dependent on when you plan to return. Is it not? If you tell me when you plan to return, I may be able to return around the same time.
Let me check. The next time easter and pentecost fall on the same day. Check any good calendar.
Looking forward to that moment in time.
As for Hawaii, I have to return in 2014, that is our 50th anniversary Homecoming at University of Hawaii. That will be great as I left Hawaii in 1969. (though I vacation and visit my relatives often). Wonder why WTF cares, maybe I should ask him in pidgin.
Scientist,
I hear that Molokai is very nice. Would you ever like to return to there?
nbC,
Pentecost is 50 days after Easter. They cannot ever be on the same day.
Does that mean that you will never return to Hawaii?
Bummer…
nbC,
Did you hear something bad about Hawaii? Why do you act like you would never want to return there? The water and volcanoes are exciting and beautiful.
I thank all of you for trying. Some things are clear and others are not. The comments left by Dr. Conspiracy, nbC and others indicate that in order to return to Hawaii, someone would have had to be there before. I feel stupid for not knowing that. The birthday saying of “many happy returns” makes no sense. A person cannot return to something that hasn’t happened before.
I thank all of you for trying. Some things are clear and others are not. The comments left by Dr. Conspiracy, nbC and others indicate that in order to return to Hawaii, someone would have had to be there before. I feel stupid for not knowing that. The birthday saying of “many happy returns” makes no sense. A person cannot return to something that hasn’t happened before.
That was the strangest thread I have ever seen.
I wonder what WTF’s native language is and where WTF is from? Obviously, we’re not dealing with an American citizen here.
Obviously, WTF doesn’t understand english that well at all. No wonder WTF seems to also have trouble understanding how our country and laws work too. It could explain why WTF has difficulty understanding our arguments or explanations as well. Sounds like a major language translation barrier here.
G,
If you weren’t so interested in making fun of me you could have helped to clarify the issue. How was I to know that the wording of my question was wrong? To me it makes sense that if one of the persons involved had been there before, all of the persons involved could be said to be returning.
Question: How come at one point they discuss the birth of Obama III and then Obama Jr.? Can’t they even get their lies straight?
WTF,
Well I had no idea that you didn’t understand our language. I don’t recall ever seeing a post where you mentioned where you are from or what you speak. Will you please address those questions?
Because this site deals with the eligibility of an American president, it is natural to assume that most people that would care about this issue would be from this country or lived here (Of course, Lupin is a regular poster here and is from France, but he points that out all the time).
Otherwise, why would you care if it has no effect on you at all?
Therefore, in that strange thread, it was not clear if you were just goofing around or why you were asking the “return to Hawaii” question. As it didn’t really pertain to me (nor make any sense to me until your final post where you explained why), I just stayed out of it.
Honestly, I’m willing to try to be nicer to you in the future, if you can also post in a professionally conversational tone.
However, if you get testy or rude, I’ll throw it right back at you with force, as you well know already.
I did not realize that you might not understand everything we say or that the words you type might not mean what you intend when we see them, until now.
Therefore, I will take note of that and try to treat you kinder and ask questions to clarify if what you say “seems silly” to me, instead of jumping straight to making fun of you.
Fair enough?
G,
Thanks G. Am I to conclude that if I said “we would return to Hawaii” means that all of the people who make up the “we” had been there before? Did I interpret it wrongly?
Yes, that is correct.
Using the word “return” always implies that you have been there before.
Therefore, it is not possible to “return” to somewhere you haven’t been yet.
Now that you know this, you can see why your statements caused such utter confusion.
If you want to ask if someone wants to go to Hawaii in the future, just ask if they want to “go there” or “travel there”. Either way is safe, as there is no implication on whether they have been there before or not. Al you are asking about is the future.
Please also note that everyone had a second point of confusion with your statement – what it meant in the first place.
We still do not understand why there would be a connection between Obama leaving office at the end of his presidency and why people would travel to Hawaii as a result.
Even though you did not ask me, I will try to give you my own personal answer, if it helps:
I have never been to Hawaii, but I have friends who live there. I even have friends that I grew up with and went to High School with here in Ohio that now live in Hawaii and I still keep in touch with them online and they sometimes return to our hometown to visit.
I would love to visit Hawaii someday, but I have no current plans to do so. Most people I know list it as one of their top dream vacation destinations. It definitely would be for my wife and I as well. I hear it is very beautiful there. I love living in Ohio, so I have no plans to move to any other state; just vacation to see as many of them as I can someday.
Obama’s past (or future) would have no impact on my decision to visit Hawaii, or Chicago for that matter. I have been to Chicago on multiple occasions in the past and I also have both friends and family that live in that area too.
I hope that is helpful. Thanks for politely asking.
Don’t let WTF fool you, his command of English is far better than he is letting on. He is just pretending…
What The Fool indeed
G: Using the word “return” always implies that you have been there before.
I was also confused by the use of the similar words “go back” from Paul Jensen in the Anderson Cooper 360 interview. He said anyone could go back and fill out a form to get a Hawaiian birth certificate, and assigned this ability to “anyone.” I think this Freudian slip indicates that even Jensen really believes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Thanks G.
Yesterday I was reading Obama’s book “Dreams of my father” when I came across a section where Obama was quoting his mother. She said “Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies.”
I was confused. Obama says that he went to Kenya for the first time around 1983, but the statement of his mother implies that they had all been there before. That statement does a lot to support the claims of his Kenyan birth, or some other visit in his early childhood.
I’m sorry I could not just present the question as it is, but I wanted to get an unbiased opinion from the people on this thread blog. I’m sure that you can now see why this has caused such confusion. I would have expected Obama’s mother to say something more along the lines of “You father planned to return to Kenya after his studies, and we agreed that you and I would go along”.
G,
I must apologize again. I should have provided the page. It is on page 126 of “Dreams of my father”.
G: Because this site deals with the eligibility of an American president, it is natural to assume that most people that would care about this issue would be from this country or lived here
Surprisingly, Alexa.com says that 25.5% of the visitors to this site are Canadian, 65.7% from the US and the balance from the rest of the world.
Doc can you ban this idiot? He just wasted half the page asking if people would return to hawaii. This adds nothing to the conversation and is simply spamming.
I see, and you believe this is similar to your foolish examples?
Sigh…
Bob Ross: Doc can you ban this idiot?
If I banned all the idiots, there would be nothing to talk about.
Wow. Interesting stats. Weird too.
For those who want to know, that means that 8.8% are from other countries besides Canada or the US. Still surprised by the high Canadian interest or interest from outside the US at all, for that matter.
I saw your new article on that already too, thanks.
Thanks WTF.
From the sentence you wrote, it does appear odd at first glance.
Thanks also for the page reference. I don’t have the book myself, so I’ll have to find it sometime and read the whole section to understand the full context of what is being said. Without that, it is hard to understand what she means.
LMAO. Too funny! Sadly, probably all too true.
I think this is clearly the BEST birther evidence so far!
G: Using the word “return” always implies that you have been there before.
Ye fell for it.
G,
I was able to find it by performing a Google search for the entire sentence.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hu437EM5jCcC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=%22Then+you+were+born,+and+we+agreed+that+the+three+of+us+would+return+to+Kenya+after+he+finished+his+studies%22&source=bl&ots=g5BdoPmQtA&sig=1-Cu_vN6xc_MYIUHB1mwVafoI90&hl=en&ei=f13nS-y4BsTflgeb6enkAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Then%20you%20were%20born%2C%20and%20we%20agreed%20that%20the%20three%20of%20us%20would%20return%20to%20Kenya%20after%20he%20finished%20his%20studies%22&f=false
I could not believe that a book so recent was available on the internet.
Doc awards WFT? one strategy point.
Not everyone living in a foreign country is a foreigner…I am an expat living in Japan and have been checking this blog for a long time.
Israel has “The Law of Return”, by which any Jew or person of Jewish ancestry has the right to move to Israel and claim citizenship. Such a person may never have been to Israel in their life nor may any ancestor have been there since biblical days. Yet they are considered to be returning.
A second point is that Obama is relating a conversation that took place years before he wrote the book with someone who was dead by the time he wrote the book. All such conversations, unless they were recorded contemporaneously are reconstructed from memory and shouldn’t be assumed to be word-for-word, but rather to capture the general sense of the conversation.
Good luck in court with such an argument.
BTW, Isn’t parsing the last refuge of scoundrels?
Wow, thanks for the link WTF!
That is really cool! I’m extremely surprised that its all available out there too. Good find!
I promise to take a gander and read that whole section soon and get back to you with further feedback. Thanks!
WTF? I agree that your little game here was well played, but if you post large numbers of comments to win points in the future, I will ban you. This blog is about information and argument, not games.
John sez:
On a purely speculative note regarding the foundling report statute, Ann Dunham could have brought Barack into the US after he was allegedly born in Kenya, …
Pardon the ad hominem, but that is a flat-out stupid statement. How would the infant get into the US unless he had a passport? He couldn’t have entered on a parent’s passport, because of the necessary alteration of the picture portion.
How could a passport be obtained for the infant? Only by registering his birth at a consulate. If that had happened, it would have been a felony (IANAL, so some legal eagle please check me on this) to try to register him again in the US. Plus, if that had been the case there would be a passport record for SAD before leaving the country for Indonesia. Birther lies are so transparent.
Dear WTF,
Well played sir! So I too give you a point.
Just to be clear, you are earning a point for pointing out that I was WRONG to say that “Using the word return’ always implies that you have been there before.”
Based on what you’ve provided and what I found upon further introspection, I was WRONG to say ALWAYS instead of SHOULD. .
I still hold that it is clearer and more proper to use a term like “go with” instead of “return” in a situation where at least one of the parties involved has not been there before.
However, as your example seems to indicate, as well as other English sources, sometimes “return” is used interchangeably in situations where “go” would be more apt and a much clearer description. I personally agree that this can be confusing.
However, as even Biblical translations to English of the same phrase shows, “go” and “return” ARE used interchangeably in situations where the implication of “we will return with you” actually only means “we will go back with you”, as this example illustrates:
Different English translations of the Bible – Ruth 1:10
http://bible.cc/ruth/1-10.htm
Literature also seems to bear this out, as per this example, from “A Prisoner of the Metropolis” by Clarence M. Boutelle.
In the story, which I’ve excerpted the full relevant context below for you, the protagonist is writing to his nephew that he has never met to come visit him, with the promise that he will return with him afterwards. As the nephew comes from the west, where the protagonist has never been, it would have been more proper for him to say he would “go” with his nephew when it is time for the nephew to return from whence he came:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OS4ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=%22i+will+return+with+you%22&source=bl&ots=ueNxVtGzKd&sig=018ObRI6mV86Q7PM2N_K0Pk9YoU&hl=en&ei=O3_nS_D0I8L48AbI7aGGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22i%20will%20return%20with%20you%22&f=false
Therefore, your quote from Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father”, is likely using the term “return” in that same interchangeable manner with “go”, in consideration of the broader context of the quote you provided:
Thank you for providing that link. I did want to point out a correction that you referred me to page 126, when page 190 is where the quote actually appears, according to the link you provided.
I have now had time to read the pages leading up to that quote and just after it to get a better understanding of the context involved. Unfortunately, the site you provided does not allow me to cut/paste, otherwise I would have provided that for everyone, starting near the top of page 189, where Obama starts off saying “My mother noticed a letter addressed to my father in my hand…” and continuing through her story throughout page 191. I would have liked to read past that point, but the preview link you provided does not provide pages 192-194.
From what I could gather from the story, it is at this point in Obama’s life, when his mother notices the letter, that she decides to explain to Barack Jr. why she & his father split up and share a bit of information about their relationship.
I saw nothing in the story that indicated his mother or Barack Jr. were ever in Kenya before. Nor does it say that they weren’t. I’m sure reading the whole book would give a lot broader context, but on a much broader level, we’ve heard him speak a synopsis of his life story and we know both Obama and his COLB have stated he was born in HI.
Therefore, as the research I’ve provided above shows, the quote you’ve provided could definitely be interpreted in more than one way in the English language.
Obviously, your interpretation is that you think the mother meant that all of them (her, Obama Sr. & Obama Jr.) have been to Kenya prior to that and would return there.
However, as I have demonstrated, her words and use of grammar could simply mean that Barack Obama Sr. has been there (obviously) and that the rest of them (her & Jr.) would go with him to Kenya if Sr. returned back there after he finished with his studies at Harvard. That interpretation seems more likely, as it is consistent with the data we already know.
Perhaps of greater value to all the readers of this site is the other information his book states right there on page 190, just a bit above what you quoted, where his father’s original marriage status is discussed:
eh. why you like know? whatchu tink going for help with wether o’ not i go Hawaii. Whachu tink it going help wit?
Not to beat a dead horse, but I would just like to add my $0.02. I think the construct “return with” probably means that it is only necessary for the person with whom you are going to have previously been at the remote location. That person is providing the means & logistics for trip.
The quote in the book is not “return with” so it is unfortunate. The passage of time can distort memories, so we are not sure if this is Obama’s mother’s exact quote. Still, it is the context that is important & there is no evidence that Obama had ever been to Kenya prior to the time mentioned in the book.
Doc is a patient man. I can’t imagine anyone read all of that nonsense.
Both Sarah Obama and his Uncle Sayid are both record as saying that the President’s “first time” in Kenya was as an adult. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Liar liar liar!
Lying scum!
So, where is your PROOF?
You have not produced a single document to backup you accusations.
In short, you are a LIAR!
Does anyone know what the purpose of the Hawaiian law is? Idaho, the state where Sarah Palin was born, issues “Certificates of Foreign Birth.” The purpose is to provide birth certificates for children who were adopted from abroad. Idaho’s law was passed in 1982, too.
“I.C., § 39-259A, as added by 1982, ch. 122.” § 1, p. 348.”
John says (from Free Republic):
To a genealogist, the above sounds ridiculous.
In 1999 I obtained a certified copy of a Massachusetts birth certficate for a birth that took place in 1833. It was produced by a computer and printed on plain white photocopy paper with a manufacturer’s watermark. Obviously, computers didn’t exist in 1833. The information had to be transcribed, but it’s all kosher. The birth certificate is a certified “Copy of Record of Birth.” It has a raised seal and is certified as a “true copy.” It’s a certified birth certificate.
John:
WhaT do I think?
A waste of space..
Snooper is still spewing his hatred and his strange view of the Natural Born Citizen clause. Those who would like to help debunk him can vist http://www.snooperreport.com/snooper-report/2010/5/10/the-bigamy-of-obamas-citizenship.html?lastPage=true#comment8361184
Granite, for some reason the spam filter picks on just about everything you post. I pull them out when I see um.
There are two kinds of certificates in Hawaii for those not born there: Out of State births and Foreign Born Adoptions. We can put the latter aside as not applicable to our discussion. I must admit that right now I don’t know much about the registration of out of state births. If you “Google” the term, you will get information about obtaining a copy of your birth certificate when you no longer live in the state, which is not what we’re talking about.
But I could envision a couple from Hawaii visiting Bugwundaland and giving birth (prematurely?) and then returning to Hawaii. They need a birth certificate for all sorts of reasons, and the Bugwundaland birth certificate is in the Bugwundi language that no one in Hawaii understands. It would seem to be a convenience for Hawaii to verify the foreign certificate and issue a local one, stating that the child was born in Bugwundaland, but in English and on a recognizable form.
Gordon: Doc is a patient man. I can’t imagine anyone read all of that nonsense.
You think I read all this nonsense? I read a lot, but I skim some.
Thanks. I just haven’t seen a clear explanation as to why they have a certificate for out of state births. Maybe richcares or nbC know? I could be mistaken, but I don’t think it’s common practice in other states to record out of state births. I’ve come across New Englanders who have their births recorded in two different towns, but I haven’t come across anyone yet with births in two different states, unless you count border changes where a town was once in Massachusetts and is now in NH. The only thing I can think of is that Hawaii is far from the mainland and found the practice necessary for geographical reasons.
I found an article in Google Books which said the reason someone would obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth for a child is to prove US citizenship. It was given to children born in Hawaii of alien parents. So that explains the purpose of that certificate. I think it’s fair to deduce that Obama couldn’t have a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, because he was born of one alien parent, not two. Furthermore, that type of certificate was a delayed one. Obama’s was not. The original birth certificate has to be a Certificate of Live Birth.
Yeah but he’s not an idiot with a purpose which is to distort. He’s an idiot asking completely pointless questions of people who have never lived in Hawaii with no other purpose but to muddle down this page with pointless comments.
The more significant portion of Obama’s recollection of his conversation with his mother was omitted by WTF. On page 126 Obama quotes his mother:
But your grandfather Hussein was still writing to your father, threatening to have his student visa revoked. By this time Toot had become hysterical – she had read about the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya a few years earlier, which the Western press really played up – and she was sure that I would have my head chopped off and you would be taken away.
If Obama’s mother was that worried about her daughter’s safety after Obama was born, one can only imagine how distraught she would have been if Stanley Ann had actually considered going to Kenya while she was pregnant.
It’s worth noting that a 1957 film, “Something of Value,” portrays Kenya as a very dangerous place. It stars Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier. The film is based upon a 1955 best-selling novel of the same name by Robert Ruark. It would not be surprising if Obama’s grandmother had read the novel and/or seen the film. In fact, one could plausibly argue that Kenya in 1961 was a more threatening place than Pakistan in 1981.
I know one other state that registers out of state births, but I don’t want to mention the state unless I can get some background information to explain the process.
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is only available for late registrations (one year after birth or more). It’s primarily for older Hawaiians who never had birth certificates before, to prove their US citizenship. The program was ended some years back. Today, such persons would just get a regular delayed certificate. The infamous Sun Yat-Sen fraudulent certificate was a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
Anderson Cooper take 2 on Lakin
Seems things may not have gone to well again…
I have no idea WTF WTF was thinking.
I am, however, going to bottle Hawai’i, Kandor-style, so no one can return there at all unless I receive… ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!!
*pinky to mouth*
Come on, Bob. Paint some happy trees ; )
In all seriousness, though – yes, that was just a putrid waste of electrons on WTF’s part.,
I would be painting happy trees and happy clouds if I wasn’t distracted by the inanity of wtf’s posts
When one argument doesn’t work, then it is time to move the goal posts.
I have to wonder and maybe John can answer this question. I am doing a scientific study regarding birthers and have found that many were kicked in their heads by butterflies when they were kids. Did this happen to you, John?
If there is a statute that requires that, I haven’t seen it; and 17.8 specifies no requirement for the applicant to even state place of birth, let alone prove it. And anyway, what would constitute proof? A birth certificate, maybe??
And yes, I realize it makes no sense to record HI as the birthplace in that situation; but then it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for HI to be registering out of state births to begin with.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how you get that out of §338-17.8, which I read as saying the applicant – who can be the prospective registrant – must submit proof that the parents *had* declared residence in HI for at least a year before birth. No time limit for application is specified.
Lakin’s attempt to bring the issue of President Obama into his court-martial has been denied by the investigating officer, who has ruled that Obama’s eligibility is irrelevant.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32418934/Ruling-on-Defense-Request-for-Witnesses-and-Evidence-in-LTC-Lakin-s-court-martial-6-1-2010
Wow- what a surprise. Much of what has been outlined here before, but also a clear statement that in the officers opinion only Congress can determine the eligiblity of the President.
Thanks for posting that Rickey! I have a feeling you’ve just earned the honors of scooping what will be Dr. C’s next blog article! 😉
I don’t think the IO understands the defacto officer doctrine. The defacto officer doctrine applies to those who accept the flawed officer as authority and follow orders, i.e. the subordinate cannot state at a later date the flawed officer did not have authority and the subordinate is not subject to the officer’s authority. The defacto officer doctrine does not apply to those who reject the flawed officer and demand proofs the officer is properly credentialed.
The IO’s ruling should be appealed.
Rickey:
Thank your for posting the link to the Scribd document. It appears that Lakin’s strategy has failed him.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand de facto officer doctrine — the IO has it right.
And I don’t believe there is any right for the defense to take an interlocutory appeal. I might be mistaken on the procedure… but I think Lakin’s appeal of the IO’s order will have to wait until after his conviction.
I don’t think you’re a lawyer and I think you should stop giving legal advice.
How many careers and lives will you birthers ruin before you’re satisfied that you’ve misunderstood something about the law?
It is my recollection that Lakin had his video taping session with Jensen prior to the time that he would have had to deploy; IOW I believe Jensen counseled him to disobey orders. If that is true is Jensen guilty of a crime?
I don’t have the de facto officer doctrine wrong.
Think about it. Lakin was unable to complain about the eligibility of the CiC when he was President-elect because he wasn’t the CiC yet. After he was sworn in, according to your theory of de facto officer doctrine, Lakin couldn’t object the CiC due to flawed credentials because he has been sworn in and the de facto officer doctrine apples.
Why have a de facto officer doctrine? You should state no one is eligible to object to the flawed credentials of an officer in charge after he is sworn in?
The de facto officer doctrine has been used to prevent convicted criminals from asserting some flaw in an officer of the court’s credentials to obtain a new trial or overturn a conviction. SCOTUS has ruled the de facto officer doctrine does not apply to a defendant who objects to the credentials of an officer in charge before the defendant submits to the authority officer.
It’s called due process. A defendant has the right to object to venue, jurisdiction, procedure. etc …
A convicted criminal is assumed to have waived their right to object when the verdict is read.
Or was he reading Orly Taitz: ““I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.””
If Jensen did this, it would be a crime.
You really do. You’re quoting cases about the de facto officer doctrine in cases of an individual trial judge and trying to extrapolate that to the presidency.
If you’re so right, why hasn’t Lakin’s defense already offered this argument?
And exactly how many officers will be court-martialed before you realize that you’re wrong?
Rickey, thanks very much to the link to the Lakin court document, which forms the basis for a new article.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I think we can reasonably infer Lakin asserts the CiC is ineligible and remains ineligible until he proves he is eligible with documents under the control of the US government, i.e. his SSN application form, his IRS tax returns, passport applications, etc …
Again, I know you get this and you’re trying to muddy the water, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply to defendants who object before trial. After trial and verdict, your right to objection to the credentials of the officer are assumed to have been waived.
For example, you meet a blind date and during this date your companion pulls out a cigarette and begins smoking. You say nothing and smile. You continue to date and eventually marry.
Later, you object to your partner’s smoking and want to separate. If you do this, your abandoning the relationship because your right to object to smoking has been waived. And you’ve broken your boyfriend’s heart, you scoundrel.
Why do these birthers continue to get the “burden of proof” doctrine totally bass ackwards?
Lakin has been criminally charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagen has the votes for confirmation, yet the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary want to see documents relevant to her during work for the Clinton administration. The volume is estimated at 160,000 pages. Regardless of what is found in those documents, it is believed Kagen will be confirmed. Still, everything is on hold until those documents are delivered to the Senate Judiciary committee.
The Lakin prosecutor can convict Lakin regardless of what information is on Obama’s BC, his tax returns, his passport applications, etc …; by ruling the information is irrelevant. Yet, the prosecution is so scared the birth records will be embarrassing to the President, he’s not going to allow those documents to see the light of day.
Justice can only be served if Lakin is allowed to defend himself. The prosecution can rule the evidence is irrelevant after it’s entered into the record. As shown in the Kagen example, the burden of producing Obama’s eligibility documents is minimal.
Once again a birther argues about how the law should be read, how the law should be- and how everyone but him is understanding it wrong.
There is no parallel with the Kagen nomination. All presidential nominations are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Her documents are relevant to gaining that concent. Even if it is a foregone conclusion, the documents requested are a relevant part of the Senate’s job to vet presidential nominations. The documents Lakin wanted have nothing to do with his charges, and are irrelevant to his cm.
And you are correct. The burden of proof to convict Lakin is on the prosecution. However, all of Obama’s records are irrelevant to the charges against Lakin. If a militatry court is anything like a civilian court (and judging by the ruling of the IO, I’ll guess they are), irrelevant documents are not admissable. It has nothing to do with embarrassing anyone, they just don’t have anything to do with the case. And it’s not the prosecution that rules on anything, it is the IO (or judge in a civilian case). And information that is irrelevant, and not calculated to lead to admissable evidence, is non-discoverable. And irrelevant information certainly does not become part of the record.
And Lakin is being given every opportunity to defend himself. However, the right to defend himself doesn’t give him the right to harass people who have nothing to do with his trial.
Lakin asked for all documents under control of the US Government relevant to this case. The prosecution said they provided all the documents.
If this stands, the prosecution is deciding what is relevant and what is not relevant without oversight.
The documents are certainly not relevant. He is charged with disobeying direct orders and missing movements. Obama has nothing to do with those charges. And the prosecution said they would provide all relevant documents. Again, Obama’s eligibility has nothing to do with his charges, so even if Obama was an illegal alien from the planet Melmack, they would still be irrelevant, because the orders he is charged with disobeying were not signed by Obama.
And this will stand. And it is not the prosecution that decided what is relevant, it is the IO. Lakin’s attorneys made the argument for why they thought it was relevant. The prosecution said why they thought it wasn’t, and the IO, decided. The IO is the oversight.
When are you birthers just going to accept that you don’t know the law? Every time you predict the way something is going to turn out, the reality based world tells you it won’t. You kick and scream that we’re wrong, and in the end, big surprise, every single time, we’re right.
No, you are pretending the rules about de facto officer when applied to judges can be lifted out of context and slapped down onto a complaint about the President.
Obama is not Lakin’s judge.
Then Lakin’s lawyers asked for the documents to be compelled, and the IO asked for briefing on the issue and ruled that the documents were irrelevant.
That’s oversight.
And, that’s exactly how it happens in any court case!
Your misunderstanding of all things legal knows no bounds!
En Garde!
I don’t understand the relevance of GOP efforts to obstruct the confirmation of Kagan have to do with LTC Lakin. Nor am I so silly as to think you want your concerns addressed, but I will anyway.
LTC Lakin is permitted to defend himself. But his claims are not a defense. They do not become a defense just because his pathetic lawyer says so.
Suppose you are arrested for shoplifting, and your lawyer tells the judge, my client is not guilty because the Mayor is wearing polka-dotted underwear, and shoplifting is not a crime when the Mayor is wearing polka-dotted underwear, so we need to subpeona the Mayor to question him about his underwear. You would be surprised to find that the judge would not permit this, unless you can clarify where the law makes some connection between underwear and shoplifting.
Jensen has not released the argument he made to the IO about why the President’s eligibility is related to obeying orders or missing movement. But we do know that the IO wasn’t persuaded — or perhaps Jensen didn’t bother to make any argument at all.
And while you’re playing lawyer, “Dick,” how did that big hearing in Barnett v. Dunn go yesterday?
You voted in a California election … so, as an Obot, you must live in Texas.
You tell me. How crooked is the judge?
Poor, poor birthers…must be rough living in a world where despite a lack of any legal education at all, only you know the law, and are held back by a world where every judge in the United States has been mysteriously bought off or threatened, and have managed to hide every shred of evidence of the threats, pay offs, or the fact of where Obama was born, or what has been the law in the United States for the past century.
I’m really curious about that too. Taitz has nothing to say about it on her blog, and I can’t find anything anywhere else. Maybe there wasn’t a hearing? Maybe this was just, um, misinformation?
You kept saying “Dunn is done.” Well, guess what? There was no hearing. The court’s docket is online; do you see entries indicating there was a hearing yesterday? (And if there was a successful hearing, you know Taitz would have updated her blog to mention it.)
And why was there no hearing? Because there’s no indication on the court’s docket that Taitz (errr, “Barnett”) properly scheduled a hearing. Typical.
The election is on Tuesday. Tick, tock….
Great article in the Washington post regarding the SCOTUS and Constitutional intent….A must read…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060203496.html
“It should become the philosophical shot heard ’round the country. In a remarkable speech that received far too little attention, former Supreme Court justice David Souter took direct aim at the conservatives’ favorite theory of judging.
Souter’s verdict: It “has only a tenuous connection to reality.”
At issue is “originalism,” an approach to reading the Constitution whose seeming precision has given conservatives a polemical advantage over the liberals’ “living Constitution” idea that appears to let judges say our founding document means whatever they want it to mean.
The problem is not only that “constitutions have a lot of general language in them in order to be useful as constitutions,” but also that the U.S. Constitution “contains values that may very well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony.”
This means that “hard cases are hard because the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision for the cases in which one of the values is truly at odds with another.”
Souter attacked the fatal flaw of originalism — which he relabeled the “fair reading model” — by suggesting that it would have led the Supreme Court in 1954 not to its Brown v. Board of Education decision overturning legal segregation but to an affirmation of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling upholding “separate but equal” public facilities.
For those whose exclusive norm of constitutional judging is merely fair reading of language applied to facts objectively viewed, Brown must either be flat-out wrong or a very mystifying decision,” Souter said
Did the judges of 1954 cross some limit of legitimacy into lawmaking by stating a conclusion that you will not find written in the Constitution?” Souter asked rhetorically. “Was it activism to act based on the current meaning of facts that at a purely objective level were about the same as Plessy’s facts 60 years before?”
The core problem with originalism is that it overlooks what the historian Gordon Wood has observed about the Founders’ work: that it is exceedingly difficult to discern the “true meaning” of the Constitution since it is the product “not of closet philosophizing but of contentious political polemics.”
As a result, “many of our most cherished principles of constitutionalism associated with the Founding were in fact created inadvertently.” The historian Joseph Ellis offered a parallel argument in The Post last month.
Thank you, Bob.
As an undocumented, guest lawyer, I’ve had a few judges cancel hearings at the last minute.And you know what I said to each and everyone of them … that’s right, nothing.
Thank you, Bob.
As an undocumented, guest lawyer, I’ve had a few judges cancel hearings at the last minute.And you know what I said to each and everyone of them … that’s right, nothing.
Doc, I’m getting error messages. Is that you or the feds?
Well, it’s no news that we have a lot of undocumented agricultural workers — but now we have undocumented lawyers too?
What’s that word? Oh, yeah: bullshit.
If there’s scheduled hearing, and if it is continued to another date, there’s order on the court’s docket indicating the rescheduling.
Translation: As someone who has no legal training whatsoever, but have represented myself in traffic court
As usual, you have it backwards. Lakin has to make a prima facie case that the requested documents are relevant before the court will require their production. In this case, Obama’s records are irrelevant because, as the investigating officer has noted, the legality of military orders has nothing to do with the eligibilty of the President.
The courtroom is not the place to be conducting a fishing expedition. No competent judge will allow it.
Let me illustrate my point with an example I studied while attending the Sven Magnussen School of Law.
A guy was charged with murder. He claims he’s innocent because he was a work that day and the crime occurred on the other side of town.
He demanded his time card, his payroll record, his supervisor and coworkers be entered into the record and allowed to testify to discredit the prosecution’s assertion he was the crime scene and committed the murder.
Judge Rick Eee denied the request because the circumstances of the defendant’s employment status when the crime occurred was completely irrelevant to whether or not he committed the crime he was charged with.
The IO assumes the records concerning Barack Obama under control of the US Government (SSN application, passport application(s), IRS records, I-94, etc) are irrelevant because he wants them to be irrelevant. The IO will have to examine the evidence before he can make a determination as to relevancy, but he’s afraid Lakin will be proven correct and found not guilty.
That’s one crappy “school” you attended.
Evidence that the defendant was at work is relevant because it established an alibi (which refutes one of the main elements of the charged crime: that the defendant was the doer).
The IO concluded the evidence requested was irrelevant because there no obvious connection between the records and the charged crimes, and the defense failed to explain the link between the two.
Even someone of limited intelligence can understand the difference. Not being anywhere near the crime, and having albi witness are a defense. Even if President Obama was an illegal alien that had snuck across the border the night before the election is not a defense for Lakin, as President Obama did not give the order, and Lakin did not provide an acceptable excuse for missing movement. In short, all the information he asked for is irrelevant, because even if all true, it is not a defence for what he is accused. If the facts of the charges are proven, he is guilty, even if we assume President Obama is ineligible.
JoZeppy;
I heard a rumor FBI Director Mueller has a copy of his handwritten notes placed in the sames file containing Barry Soetoro’s CLN. The handwritten notes allegedly refer to an order issued by POTUS for Lakin to deploy.
Just a rumor. It may not be true. But, I think Lakin is entitled to see Barry Soetoro’s /Barack Obama’s FBI file.
A poor analogy, as it alleges a factual defense.
What we have here is evidence that cannot raise a factual defense.
The better analogy would be that the defendant hopes to introduce evidence that he had a good-faith belief that the victim was an abortionist and that fetal lives were going to be saved if he murdered the victim. He wants to raise a defense of others defense.
In some states, this evidence has been excluded entirely. In the recent Kansas murder case, it was allowed, but only for the limited purpose of showing that he had an honest but incorrect belief that force was required to prevent imminent harm to others, i.e. manslaughter.
The best analogy is that the defendant hopes to introduce evidence that, although he murdered the victim, he was justified in doing so because Obama was in office illegally. Here, the proffered defense has no relation to the case as a matter of law! There is no possibility that Obama’s alleged illegitimacy could justify the crime. It would only introduce irrelevant and potentially confusing issues.
The IO was within his rights to deny the introduction of evidence that would go to a defense which is no legal defense as a matter of law.
And as usual…what you think and what the state of law are, are two very different things, with very little overlap.
That’s nothing compared to the rumors I’ve heard about you, a goat, a copy of Vanity Fair and a copy of an album by the artist formerly known as Prince.
I won’t repeat the rumor, since it might not be true, but I think that the prosecutor in this case should be allowed to see the video-tape, on the off-chance that it might implicate Lakin. I’m not sure how it could, but who knows.
Of course those are relevant. If we pursue this analogy, though, Lakin’s defense is that the detective who busted him cheated on the promotion exam. Even if that were true (and it isn’t) it has nothing do with his guilt or innocence.
By the way, Obama’s tax returns for the last several years are publically available. Here is 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president-obama-2010-complete-return.pdf
I’l let you find previous years on your own. You should know that the IRS rejects returns where the SSN and name don’t match. Clearly President Obama is using an SSN that properly belongs to him.
Greg:
You wrote, vis a vis Dick Whiteman’s rumor mongering “That’s nothing compared to the rumors I’ve heard about you, a goat, a copy of Vanity Fair and a copy of an album by the artist formerly known as Prince.”
O.M.G.! I heard the same rumor. TMZ says the goat’s name is Goldie Wilbur, and that Goldie and Dick were caught discovered in a Motel 6 listening to a bootleg version of “When Goats Cry.” According to posts made at the American Grand Jury website, while Goldie doesn’t deny meeting Dick for drinks in his motel room, she vehemently denies having sex with him. “I’d rather do it with that fat-ass Charles Lincoln III than little ol’ Dick,” she bleated. “Still and all,” she added, batting her eyelashes seductively, “that Dick sure knows how to treat a she-goat like a lady.”