Since there has been so much commentary of late on the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog about the alleged Kenyan birth certificate presented by Lucas Smith, I thought I would revisit this topic from a different angle. I originally wrote about it in the recently renamed article Orly files yet another Kenyan Birth Certificate in Barnett case (Update 2). That article dealt with my conclusion that the birth certificate was a fake. However, I want to talk here about the difficulties this document presents to the Birther movement. By nailing down certain details, the Smith certificate makes it harder to spin fanciful tales in order to explain the facts.
Let us enter the birther mindset for a bit and consider the problems the Smith certificate causes.
The Smith certificate names Obama
The Smith certificate nails down the name “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Birth indexes in Kenya are open records. Lucas Smith claims to have traveled to Kenya and anti-Obama author Jerome Corsi certainly did. No one reports a Barack Obama listed on the birth index. Birthers could evade this dart by claiming that Barack Obama was born under another name (say Barack Mohamed Obama)–but not if the Smith certificate stands in the way. One would think that if the Obama’s intended to create a false certificate for their son, they would have not named him the same in both countries, leading to possible discovery of fraud.
The Smith certificate zeros in on Mombasa
Mombasa has always been a problem for birthers, because it is geographically opposite the village of Obama’s family, and had no international airport. While Mombasa is an arbitrary location, it became the only location considered by the Birthers since Phil Berg named this location in his lawsuit. The Smith certificate confirms this problematic location and leaves the birthers having to explain what the Obama’s were doing in Mombasa in the first place.
The Smith certificate tightens the timeline
One of the most bizarre features of the Smith certificate is the fact that it copies the date and time of birth, down to the minute, from the COLB issued by Hawaii. The COLB indicates that the state had the birth registration in hand a scant 4 days after the birth. Birthers could, and have, argued that Obama was actually born much earlier giving time for the family to return to Hawaii and start working on the false paper trail. With the Smith certificate confirming the August 4 birth date, the clock starts ticking impossibly close to the registration. Literally Obama would have to have been born and the family immediately rush out the hospital doors for a day-long cross country trip to the airport in Nairobi, then with layovers a three-day trek back to Hawaii by air (no jets). Such a mad dash with a newborn around the world strains credibility.
Birthers typically get around this problem by positing that a Hawaiian relative filed the birth registration while the parents were traveling, but this is impossible. Hawaiian law requires the parents to file an unattended birth certificate. Someone else can only do this if the parents are “unable” and I can find no scenario where the grandmother could explain why her daughter AND son-in-law were both unable to file the certificate.
Conclusion
By turning general theories that can be reinvented to meet new facts–into hard time lines, names and locations, it becomes more difficult for the birthers to bob and weave and keep their theories alive. Of course, the birthers were quite happy to throw TechDude under the bus, and the first fake Kenyan birth certificate (the Bomford clone). I suspect Lucas Smith will meet the same fate.
Lets break this down point-by-point. Readers will see that Dr. Conspiracy has arrived at conclusion necessary to sell his point, but fail miserably when thouroughly examined.
The Smith certificate names Obama
The Smith certificate nails down the name “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Birth indexes in Kenya are open records. Lucas Smith claims to have traveled to Kenya and anti-Obama author Jerome Corsi certainly did. No one reports a Barack Obama listed on the birth index. Birthers could evade this dart by claiming that Barack Obama was born under another name (say Barack Mohammed Obama)–but not if the Smith certificate stands in the way. One would think that if the Obama’s intended to create a false certificate for their son, they would have not named him the same in both countries, leading to possible discovery of fraud.
What records did they look at? Were those the records of The Republic of Kenya? That’s what I thought. It’s kind of a shame that Obama was born before the Republic of Kenya even existed. So tell us Dr. Conspiracy; how did Corsi look at the records of a government that is no longer in existence? Maybe Corsi would have better luck in England.
No court could possibly accept the “Kenyan BC”. According to Smith, he obtained it by bribing a Kenyan official, which is a felony under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Evidence obtained unlawfully is inadmissible.
Oh, and of course it’s fake, so that is forgery, fraud or perjury.
The Smith certificate zeros in on Mombasa
Mombasa has always been a problem for birthers, because it is geographically opposite the village of Obama’s family, and had no international airport. While Mombasa is an arbitrary location, it became the only location considered by the Birthers since Phil Berg named this location in his lawsuit. The Smith certificate confirms this problematic location and leaves the birthers having to explain what the Obama’s were doing in Mombasa in the first place.
If you were going to take your new bride to Kenya, wouldn’t you take her to a nice place where you current wife wasn’t around? Wouldn’t that permit Obama Sr. to visit family, but also get a summer job where he could stay with his wife?
The answer is; if Kenya, Mombasa makes a lot of sense.
Why would Dr. Conspiracy even consider that Obama Sr. (having lied to Stanley Ann about being married) would bring his new wife to visit his current wife?
You think that Stanley Ann might have figured things out, and that is why she decided to attend school in Washington when her husband had no choice but to return to Hawaii? (He was on scholarship. He couldn’t change schools as easy as she could.) Why else would the young Obama mama want to leave the assistance of her mother?
Vital records from the British Empire were never centralized in England. They were kept buy colonial aithorities in the colony and were transferred to the new states at Independence. Just as in the US they are kept by states, not the feds.
Why is it so hard to admit that a person whose parents lived in Hawaii was born there. 99.9999% of people who don’t live in a war zone or a site of a huge natural disaster (neither of those in Hawaii in 1961), get born where their parents (especially their mother) live. You might even call that a natural law or common sense.
The Smith certificate tightens the timeline
One of the most bizarre features of the Smith certificate is the fact that it copies the date and time of birth, down to the minute, from the COLB issued by Hawaii. The COLB indicates that the state had the birth registration in hand a scant 4 days after the birth. Birthers could, and have, argued that Obama was actually born much earlier giving time for the family to return to Hawaii and start working on the false paper trail. With the Smith certificate confirming the August 4 birth date, the clock starts ticking impossibly close to the registration. Literally Obama would have to have been born and the family immediately rush out the hospital doors for a day-long cross country trip to the airport in Nairobi, then with layovers a three-day trek back to Hawaii by air (no jets). Such a mad dash with a newborn around the world strains credibility.
Birthers typically get around this problem by positing that a Hawaiian relative filed the birth registration while the parents were traveling, but this is impossible. Hawaiian law requires the parents to file an unattended birth certificate. Someone else can only do this if the parents are “unable” and I can find no scenario where the grandmother could explain why her daughter AND son-in-law were both unable to file the certificate.
Dr. Conspiracy conveniently forgets Hawaiian law, which would have permitted any adult to file the birth report.
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department 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.” [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
As most of you will notice, this law had not been changed since 1959. Dr. Conspiracy is going to try to convince you that his parents were both available. Ask yourself this; Did the local registrar of a new state, wanting more people so that they get more benefits from the U.S. government, and more representation, even cared who filed the birth report? Was the local registrar going to give Obama’s mother “the third degree”? Why? The 18 year-old mother could have been recuperating, and the father was Kenyan. How hard do you think it would be to convince the local registrar that he didn’t speak much English? –One of Obama’s grandparents could have easily filed the birth report.
A couple-minute phone call, and a fax could have the question answered. Would it convince everyone? Probably not, but if you’re waiting for something that will, you will never succeed. I know this, it would eleviate the concerns of millions of Americans. Then again, if your objective is to eventually bankrupt and cripple America, who cares about eleviating the concerns of millions.
Is that debt now 13 trillion? I’m a lot better since Obama took office. Aren’t you?
Would you mind explaining what who filed a birth certificate in 1961 has to do with the national debt? Do you mean to say that if it was filed by Kapiolani Hospital then the debt goes down or up, compared to if it was filed by Stanley Ann Dunham? Wow!!!
I’m pretty sure that under the Constitution, only Congress can determine the debt ceiling, so you really don’t make ANY sense. None. Zero.
Oh, goody someone else who thinks the world as it exists now is as it has always been. You need to look up the history of the fax.
Maybe you should read and understand before you decide to comment.
It is our current President that would need to send a fax. Or are you trying to say that nobody has a fax today?
WhoDat
wasn’t that a Abbot & Costello routine? Still funny
I don’t think our current President could have done much with a fax when his mother was 18 years old. Care to try again?
Are there any readers out there who would have interpreted this to imply something PBO would have done?
I think he is stating that President Obama should make a quick call to Kenya or send to a fax so they may provide the information they do not have (i.e. birth index of his birth, certificate, etc.).
history lesson, for WhoDat in the late 1960’s there was the teletype, not the fax, I believe they began using the teletype in 1969 in Hawaii. Proir to that any info from Africa had to be by cable, very expensive. But WhoDat is welcome to dream up more garbage.
Maybe before that they had an LDX.
I have thoroughly debunked the Kenya birth scenario:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html
WhoDat? – You really need to explain how the President sending a fax to Hawaii or Kenya would reduce the national debt. Would it also stop the oil flowing in the Gulf?
To clarify:
“A couple-minute phone call, and a fax could have the question answered” is what President Obama could do on Tuesday.
The problem is that neither he nor any of those defending him wants to put to rest the question of whether or not he is a citizen. (which he would not be if born in Kenya.) He might be an illegal alien, but he’s your illegal alien, and you want him to remain in power. We don’t want to take the chance of Joe being in charge. Do we?
My simplest reply is to go back and read what I wrote, since WhoDat’s entire comment is already anticipated and answered there. But to lay it out simply:
I didn’t forget the law WhoDat? cited, in fact I included it in paraphrase in the article! The problem is that WhoDat? didn’t read carefully the law he pasted: “If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate.” Filing by someone else is allowed IF neither parent is able to prepare a birth certificate, and as I said in the article, I could not find any scenario where an Obama relative could meet this requirement. The law required the parent to file the certificate in the case of an unattended birth. If some relative attempted to file, they would have to show why the parents were unable to do so. (This possibility would be for a mother who died in childbirth without naming a father, for example.)
You can teletype/telegraph all the information from Kenya to the USA you want (maybe), but you cannot explain how the authorities would accept that the mother and father were unable to fulfill their legal obligation to file the certificate themselves. As I have said many times, the grandmother registration just doesn’t work. Since it doesn’t work, the Smith certificate throws a serious problem into the flight to Africa story.
That is not a settled legal question by any means.
Personally I like Biden just fine.
Uh, if the plan was to stay and get a summer job, then why didn’t they stay and get a summer job?
None of what you said in that comment makes any sense except the obvious part at the end that it made no sense for the Obama’s to go to Africa. There’s the expense, the risk to the pregnancy, the hostile family, separation from Ann’s family. The whole thing is preposterous.
I guess that since the Smith affidavit is not notarized, he will just deny signing it.
He’s an aneurysm survivor, like me. I like him, and wish him well. He’d make a great president, too.
We are fortunate to have a deep intellect like Obama. I actively supported him. He will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow.
Better get used to it, birthers.
Dr. Conspiracy didn’t bother to read my comment before doing exacly as I predicted he would do.
Let me repeat my comment, and maybe Dr. Conspiracy will read it.
“Dr. Conspiracy is going to try to convince you that his parents were both available. Ask yourself this; Did the local registrar of a new state, wanting more people so that they get more benefits from the U.S. government, and more representation, even cared who filed the birth report? Was the local registrar going to give Obama’s mother “the third degree”? Why? The 18 year-old mother could have been recuperating, and the father was Kenyan. How hard do you think it would be to convince the local registrar that he didn’t speak much English? –One of Obama’s grandparents could have easily filed the birth report.
Correction: Was the local registrar going to give Obama’s mother “the third degree”?
SB: Was the local registrar going to give Obama’s grandmother “the third degree”?
Representation and transfer payments are determined by the CENSUS, not births.
You have 30 days to file.
All the father has to give is his name and place of birth. He was a student at the University for gosh sakes.
She was a bank employee. Why would she risk her entire career by committing a totally unnecessary fraud?
The mind boggles!
The Lucas Smith BC has the 4 August 1961 date as does the Hawaii BC. Since the Hawaii BC was “filed” 8 August 1961, that means it would have to be reported before then (or at least, by then). Assuming, as you say, the grandmother reported it, how would she have the information in time? Before answering, I recommend you consider the when this happened (early 60s) and the state of the Kenyan phone system then (and even now, apparently).
Both Mombasa and Honolulu had phones and telegraph in 1961. Details of a birth that took place on Friday night in Mombasa could have easily reached Hawaii in time to file. In fact, the 13 hour time difference, Obama’s grandparents could have had the details on Friday the 4th.
Mombasa could have easily reached Hawaii
SURE!
hahahahahahahahahaha
That’s silly. Do you think the British took all the population’s birth certificates with them when Kenya became independent? Think of what utter chaos that would mean with the whole country suddenly without their birth registrations. There was a smooth transition between British rule and Kenyan independence rule as evidenced by the fact that Chapter 149 of today’s Kenyan legal code, the Birth and Death registration law, dates from 1928 🙄
But you might just find Barack Obama II on that Kenyan register, since they register births of the children of Kenyan nationals born abroad. 👿
Get real.
No, I researched this; the link is above. Trans-Atlantic telephone service did not begin until December 1961. The only way was by cable, which cost about $19.61/word in constant dollars.
It is physically impossible:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html
“Get Real”
curious, what did corsi claim he looked at, maybe our Abbot & Costello fan knows, don’t think so though, all he’s been doing is an old Abbot & Costello routine.. Gotta say that birthers have a great imagination (overworked)!
Well I didn’t read it, and I congratulate you on your ability to weave boundless fiction, but there is a basic problem. How do you convince the local registrar that a student at the University of Hawaii doesn’t speak sufficient English to fill out a birth registration form? And further, the registration happened within 4 days. There’s no requirement for it to go that fast. The mother would have plenty of time to recuperate and then fill out the form. The timing remains the downfall of your theory.
I would say that you are batting 1000 in the fiction department, but nothing you have given us passes even the most basic plausibility test.
How can you “debunk” something that was bunk to begin with?
misha says: It is physically impossible:
.
not for a birther’s imagination, amazing how tortured and convoluted their stories are, hate for Obama causes brain damage!
Hyperbole, dear doctor.
I really like this article, by the way. It’s not too long; it’s easy to understand; and the writing style is a little better than my formulaic republication of newspaper stories.
Apparently, you can pony up $50 and have Kenya search for any birth certificate. Here is the link: https://www.kenyaconsulatela.com/services/gensearchform.aspx
If you are so sure of Obama’s Kenya birth surely a mere $50 would not be too much for you.
You can thank the Jesuits for that. I’m a Jew educated by Jesuits – dangerous.
In all honesty, Jerome Corsi did not go to Africa to prove Obama was born there; he didn’t have such an idea in his head. and he certainly didn’t have such an idea after interviewing Obama’s uncle Sayid Obama (quoted in Corsi’s book The Obama Nation) who described the President’s “first time” in Africa as an adult.
But Lucas Smith claimed to be there and to be trying to prove Obama was born in Africa. He doesn’t even bring the subject of the index up. Although in all likelihood Smith was never in Kenya and was probably unaware that the birth index existed.
Nah, that would spoil their yarns.
Nah, that would spoil their yarns.
.
I didn’t know that, do birthers knit, a good hobby I guess. But how can the truth ruin their knitting?
misha,
Maybe you should do better research. Here’s a link to a great number of books that will demonstrate that international calls from Mombasa would have been available prior to 1961. (405 line British television was also passed over that system)
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1950&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1961&q=international+telephone+service+mombasa&as_brr=0&sa=N&start=20
If the plan was to have granny file the birth report after Obama Jr. was born, why wait any time at all? No reason to delay. If that’s your argument, you need to think it through a little more.
You must think the local registrar cared.
I don’t expect anything I write to pass your “most basic plausibility test”. That’s because you’re extremely bias!
I’ll tell you what is crazy; the fact that the question has remained unanswered for so long when the ability to answer it is readily available and would not involve violating anyone’s privacy. (Oops, I forgot. You probably think the name of the person who filed Obama’s birth report is a matter of his privacy, while I consider it a public act.)
Misha, you will just get the “who’s on first” routine from our Abbot & Costello fan, he has to believe in an African birth, otherwise he can never get rid of Obama, but he will hang in there because he is sure to succeed in 2016. I hope his delusions are not driving his life, that would be sad. (but is often the case with birthers)
Who Dat:
You’ve a grand imagination; stop wasting your talent posting these Grand-Guignol scenarios and go to Hollywood. What with the demise of shows like “24” and “Lost” the networks are desperate for fanciful story lines. Just buy some screen-writing software, learn how to pitch, and you’ll be set.
Here, I’ll even give you some titles . . . “The Man From M.O.M.B.A.S.A.,” “The Kenyan Connection,” “Out of Africa and into the White House,” “Hawaii B.0.,” “Michelle Obama, Medicine Woman,” “The Lying King,” “Everybody Loves Barry,” “Law and Order: Birth Records Department,” “The Fresh Prince of Honolulu,” “Hanging with Mr. O.,” “Honey, I Shrunk My Birth Certificate,” “Judging Barry,” “La Femme Michelle,” “Touched by a Birther,” “Welcome Back Barry.” Now get to it!
“You probably think the name of the person who filed Obama’s birth report is a matter of his privacy, while I consider it a public act”
.
have you requested Obama’ BC from Kenya yet, it’s only 50.00, come back and show it to us (see how to obtain the form in a previous post). But we know you won’t, you prefer fiction!
You have to submit a copy of the original birth certificate with the request, but that shouldn’t be a problem. You can use the one from Lucas.
Got a better one: splurge on the 50 bucks, and have Kenya send you research.
I also clicked on the link, and all it showed me was your library; no specific book.
Fail.
Sigh.
That’s a mark of a conspiracy theorist, the belief that people act against their own interests or contrary to their responsibilities — just so the conspiracy can survive. Fictions pile upon fictions.
I’ve known a few local registrars in my lifetime, having worked with them professionally. You will never find a more nit-picking, regulation bound tribe anywhere else.
If you think the name of the informant on a birth registration is public information, then be sure to tell the State of Hawaii when you ask that I didn’t encourage you.
I think the most effective way to put a stake through the heart of the Smith certificate would be to get some professional help. I have contacted an attorney in Mombasa. We’ll see where that goes.
He’s in the conspiracy, too.
How about a link to ONE of them. I tried a few on your list, and they are not full text copies.
When it ended up not being there, Birthers wouldn’t let that stop them. They would simply say that Obama had bribed someone somewhere to clean the records.
When all else fails, claim a conspiracy theory.
WhoDat?: You must think the local registrar cared.
For your hypothesis to be correct, we would not only have to assume that the registrar was willing to register the birth without any evidence from either parent as legally required. As Barack Obama II would not yet arrived in Hawaii, the grandparent would have needed the registrar to overlook the absence of any evidence of the child’s existence.
So, we would have needed the Obama family to have decided to commit a fraud and then lucky enough to end up dealing with the most incompetent registrar ever. This would be after they would have managed to find the money for difficult and expensive international travel–all so that Mrs Obama could give birth in a poor country whose medical system could not be assumed to meet the standards that would be taken for granted in Hawaii.
If Obama did release his long-form certificate, then it would surely be challenged by birthers who alleged that it was the product of bribing a doctor in Hawaii. Frankly, one wonders wh[y] the birthers haven’t alleged this already, as it is no less plausible than finding a registrar who was happy to to ask no questions and register the birth of a child who may or may not exist.
Actually, I was reminded on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novels which I loved when I was 12-14, especially the early JOHN CARTER and the PELLUCIDAR books.
The premise was always the same: characters would be separated at the start of the novel, and there would be lots of adventures before they became reunited at the end.
(ERB didn’t invent that type of plot, which is likely as old as mankind.)
The Hawaii-to-Kenya-and-back-again saga spun by our poor deluded birthers might have made a half-decent Burroughs novel, with a little more sword fights.
Excellent Misha. In all honesty, I was just directing him more toward the fact that land lines in have not been historically reliable. Even if International calling was available, it would have been extremely difficult, especially to Hawaii.
I’m in a similar situation – an Atheist educated by Anglicans. Except, in my case, it just makes me irritable.
As a fellow local government employee, I have to say that I’m deeply offended by the accuracy of your remark… 😉
misha-Stop with the phone lines. These people were pros working for the CIA. Or the KGB. Likely for both once. They didn’t need no stinkin’ phone lines. Surely you’ve heard of the famous Dunham family spy ring? You haven’t? That’s how good they were.
Posts like yours really make me miss the “like” button. I’d like to like your post officially, but unfortunately I can only like it like this.
By the way, I’d suggest “CSI: Honolulu” but they’re already bringing back “Hawaii Five O.” Maybe they’ll have a birther storyline, feature a screeching Russian harridan? “Let me feeeneesh!”
The document is clearly a fax. There were no such thing in 1961.
Why would a government official sign a FAX?
Anyone who takes the time to think about misha’s claim would know that it makes no sense. Almost $20 per word? And they stayed in business?
(If you look at the source of misha’s claim, you will see that he used a cost from 1902.)
A base fee plus an additional charge per word (or blocks of words) makes a lot more sense. By 1928 the base charge included 50 words.
http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/telegram.html#How Tolls Are Computed
Rates for night messages were discounted dramatically (the available bandwidth), and it was possible to reverse the charges. (like a collect call).
If baby Barack was born in Kenya, who doesn’t think his grandparents would pay for the telegram?
If baby Barack was born in Kenya, who doesn’t think his grandparents would pay for the telegram?
.sure, dear deluded birther!
Why would they?
No, seriously.
If Baby Barack was born in Kenya his grandparents, had they had any dreams of his future, would likely have seen him gravitate towards becoming an English barrister or doctor. At that time, their eyes would have been turned towards the UK.
Also, with his mom being an American, even if they had given any thoughts to him wanting some day to move to America,m they would have thought likely that mother and child could have gone to thew US Embassy in Nairobi and do the paperwork for him to get US citizenship.
If we’re engaging in fiction, there is absolutely no convincing reason whatsoever that his grandparents would have ever wanted to engage in such a silly conspiracy.
I apologize in advance for what I’m going to say next, but one of the most annoying delusions of numerous Americans is that their country is so much better than the rest of the world than everyone wants to move there. That delusion runs so deep that American EMIGRATION is almost a taboo subject in sociological studies.
In any event, historical records prove that the #1 destination of immigrants from former British (or French) colonies is, unsurprisingly, the UK or France — not America.
It takes the addled minds of birthers to imagine that such a conspiracy would be credible at all.
whodat?,
what a tortured path your delusions weave,
here’s a good link for you, use it!
http://www.find-a-therapist.com/
Here’s what I’m working on:
Grandmom: Hi, I’d like to register a birth.
Registrar: OK, birth certificate please.
Grandmom: Don’t have one; it was an unattended birth.
Registrar: The parents have to register unattended births.
Grandmom: Uhhh, they’re not here. Left right after the birth.
Registrar: Can I see the infant whose birth you’re trying to register?
Grandmom: Uhhh, the baby’s not here either. Left with the parents.
Registrar: So you have no birth certificate, no parents, and no baby?
Grandmom: Yes.
Registrar: No proof that a baby actually was born at all?
Grandmom: Yes.
Registrar: Get out.
Lupin,
Thanks for providing the point of view of a Frenchman.
If you would take the time to know the U.S. law regarding children born abroad, you would know that Obama’s mother (being 18) could not have possibly met the five years after the age of 14 requirement. Therefore, a trip to the Embassy in Nairobi would have been fruitless.
I’m glad to see Dr. Conspiracy enforcing his zero tolerance policy against personal attacks.
asking you to see a therapist is not an attack, but a concern for your health.
.
a neighbor returning from a family reunion told me how it was ruined by his wife’s brother who insisited Obama is a Keyan born usurper. He said “My sick brother in law ruined our reunion, he is out of his mind”.
.
maybe the therapist can help you avoid ruining your family reunion. If you oppose Obama and his politics then find and support a candidate to oppose him in 2012. This birther nonsense takes you nowhere., it’s a dead issue,
Dr. C, let me contract your timeline a great deal farther. Since this form is purported to be from the hospital it is the “long form” & starting point for any other documents. The clock would have needed to start on Aug 8, instead of Aug 4. The 8th is the date the attending physician “signed” this “certificate”. The parents would have needed this form to take to a U.S. consulate or embassy to get a passport for the baby. They would not have gotten an instant passport, so you need to add in a few more days. I realize that Kenya is in a different timezone than Hawaii, but it is not 4 days ahead.
Are you seriously suggesting that an 18 year-old would know the fine points of citizenship statutes? There was no internet to look things up. Such research would require a trip to a law library. Where in Kenya was there a law library with up-to-date US statutes?
By the way, just in passing, legal experts (as opposed to internet wags) actually have significant doubts as to how a real court would have applied such statutes. The law is more than the statutory text; it includes case law and there are no cases to say how this would have been applied.
Anyway, Grandma Dunham is just supposed to take the word of her 18-year daughter on the fine points of the law and go and risk ger entiore career and even jail by committing fraud. Poppycock! No one would do that. She would do what any sane person would do, go and see a lawyer. And not an ambulance chaser like Taitz or Apuzzo, she would sek out a lawyer who pracxtizes in citizenship and immigration. And when she found that lawyer, guess what, since this is not an everyday situation, the lawyer would have to do research (that’s what real lawyers do). And Aug 4, 1961 was a Friday, so even if she found the lawyer that day, the next 2 days were a weekend. And the lawyer was supposed to give her a definitive answer in time for her to go down and register on Tuesday, Aug 8. You’ve obviously never dealt with lawyers on complex issues.
Besides, there was no need for Grandma to risk her career and jail as there was a simple, perfectly legal solution to your fictional situation:
1. Get the baby a British passport
2. Go to the US embassy and get him a US visa (as thousands of Americans who adopt foreign children do every year)
3. Bring the child to the US where they can live happily as a resident alien.
4. The child can naturalize at 18.
Think! Does someone not travelling need a passport? Until the Spring of 1962, we have no indication that Barack II travelled anywhere. Further, you cannot document Obama II or mother to be anywhere in the U.S. from February 1961 until Spring of 1962.
Weren’t you the brainiac who claimed that the Port Reitz Airport only served military flights in 1961? Do you think East African Air and Canada Air were military airlines?
And they would have needed to wait until at least the 8th to apply for a British passport. (see my recent post)
Mr. WhoDat?, asking a man consumed by delusions to seek help from a therapist is not an attack, it is concern for the deluded man’s welfare. People consumed by hate, whether wing nuts or birthers, need help to overcome their hate. We wish you well and hope you recover as being consumed by hate is very painful.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about re. airports & military flights.
To your point of not needing a passport for travel within the U.S. you are quite right, which provides additional proof of an HI birth.
My take is that Obama was probably born in Hawaii. He does have a BC and Hawaii Officials have said he was born in Hawaii. Having said this however, I do believe there is mounting and compelling evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Clearly there is a problem with Obama’s original BC and he does not want the people to see it. Obama is clearly hiding something when he has spent millions of dollars to keep the BC sealed. Hawaii obviously knows that there is problem with BC and is clearly covering up for Obama. If Obama’s orginal BC really shows he was born at Kapoloni Hospital n 1961, we would have seen it long long ago; probably right around when Berg filed the first lawsuit. As far as the logistics of Stanley and Obama Sr. going to Kenya to have the baby; definitely possible as Obama Sr. was quite involved in the Kenyan Government and could have easily gotten the funds for such a trip. As for grandmother falsely making the claim; quite possible given the extremely loose and liberal laws of the time period and fact that Hawaii had just become a state.
Ahh scientist. The benefits of a naive mind. You must not recognize the benefits of U.S. citizenship!
You also must not plan ahead.
Even in Hawaii, in 1961, a young white girl giving birth to a black baby (whose father is nearly 8 years her senior) would have raised a few eyebrows.
But I’m sure you think every thing was cool. That’s why a 19 year-old mother would choose to go to school in Seattle, with her infant baby, instead of remaining in Hawaii, where her grandparents could provide assistance.
Madelyn Dunham was not a stupid lady. The plan was likely for Obama Jr. to be born in Mombasa. That was the social problems would have been avoided.
Most of us would have assumed that the child of a citizen, would become a citizen…no matter where born. But when granny checked into it, she found that her 18 year-old daughter could not pass citizenship.
I’m sure most of you, like I do, think the 5 years after the age of 14 requirement is pretty stupid. Here’s the good news.- When Grandma Dunham explained the ridiculous dilemna to the local registrar, and was emphatic about how important U.S. citizenship would be, it was probably the local registrar who provided the remedy. I have no problem envisioning the local registrar suggesting that a report of extra-institutional birth be filed, and I can see grandma recognizing that as a remedy. After all, Hawaii had only recently become a state. The benefits of citizenship would have been a strong selling point.
Obama is benefitting from the ignorance of the young Americans. They have no idea how things were done in the 60s.
How did little Barack get back in the U.S.? Why via Canada, of course. Flying in on Canada Air, he and mom would have crossed the border with her only needing to show a U.S. driver’s license.
I wonder how long the list of sock puppets is. Do the just line up & take turns or is there a central controlling authority as to who posts on which days?
One of the biggest gaps in the Kenyan theory from my point of view- well one of many but the one I wish to mention is the incredibly wierd series of events and motivations that would all have to take place
a) pregnant mom decides to leave Hawaii to go to Africa to give birth.
b) Not just anywhere in Africa but the area where only a couple years before the newspapers were full of tales of the Mau Mau uprisings and whites being massacred
c) pregnant mom goes to Africa to give birth- but cables her mother in Hawaii- asking her to commit fraud in writing- fraud which will be read by at least two other people in transit- in order to register her son as an American citizen.
Why did she do this? If she was concerned about his U.S. citizenship, why didn’t she just stay to give birth in Hawaii?
If she only found out after she arrived in Africa, when and how did she find out?
And why in the heck would she commit her fraud request to Mom back in Hawaii on a paper form that would be read by others?
The string of implausabilities and complete lack of coherent motivations boggles the mind.
“has spent millions of dollars”
john, how can you expect respect when you push an old and discredited claim, How convoluted a birther needs to be to accept make believe. It’s much too late for your usurper theory to remove Obama. this issue is over. All you ever do is repeat debunked talking points, get a life will you.
John- basically you are just wrong about everything
” compelling evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.”
Really- tell me about your evidence- not speculation but evidence that could be used in a court of law.
“Clearly there is a problem with Obama’s original BC and he does not want the people to see it. Obama is clearly hiding something when he has spent millions of dollars to keep the BC sealed.”
Nope- he hasn’t. If you have evidence otherwise, post it for all of us to read.
“Hawaii obviously knows that there is problem with BC and is clearly covering up for Obama. If Obama’s orginal BC really shows he was born at Kapoloni Hospital n 1961, we would have seen it long long ago; probably right around when Berg filed the first lawsuit.”
So John- you are saying that the Republican Governor of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Director of Health are all part of a vast coverup? I am curious as to why you think they would do this.
” As far as the logistics of Stanley and Obama Sr. going to Kenya to have the baby; definitely possible”
It would have been really tough even with enough money- it was a very, very long trip in those days. See Misha’s excellent summary.
” as Obama Sr. was quite involved in the Kenyan Government and could have easily gotten the funds for such a trip.””
Ummm no he wasn’t. He was a college student with no connections to the government in 1961. There is no evidence that Obama Sr. had any access to wealth at that stage of his life.
” As for grandmother falsely making the claim; quite possible given the extremely loose and liberal laws of the time period and fact that Hawaii had just become a state.”
I love how blithely Birthers say that Obama’s grandmother committed fraud. Personally, I would be very offended by people calling my beloved grandmother a criminal, but Obama is a better man than i am when it comes to this. Oh and a good way to slander the entire state of Hawaii too.
And just for emphasis- there is no evidence that any of this took place- none. Its all a string of conjectures, each one implausible by itself, let alone when combined together.
The birthers seem to think that if you add enough zeroes together you will eventually get a positive number.
I agree the chance for Obama to be removed is zero. At this point it is really matter of truth. Obama needs to release his BC and other records to prove he is eligible to to serve. When Obama serves his term, history can record the truth; Obama served at 44th President of the United as an ineligible candidate. I don’t think any lawsuit has any chance of succeeding; the Kerchner lawsuit is sure to get dismissed. However, I think birthers should drop everything and get behind LTC Terry Lakin since he is probably the best and only hope of getting to the truth. Since Lakin in a criminal case; that changes the ball game entirely. Please support LTC Terry Lakin.
WhoDat? You seem to afraid to address my question (justifiably since your position is untenable). How would an 18 year-old know what complex statutes said? How would she be able to interpret their applicability when even legal scholars are unsure? And why would her mother rely on the legal wisdom of an untutored teenager and put her career and freedom at risk, rather than getting an opinion from a lawyer with expertise in that area of law. We have many lawyers here-were any of you experts on citizenship law at 18? If your parents faced a legal issue did they depend upon your teen-aged opinions or go see an actual practising lawyer?
And if you wish to make categorical statements regarding how the statutes were applied, please cite case law. Show us a case where the child of a US citizen mother a few months short of the statutory requirement was actually denied citizenship and that decision was upheld by a court. Waiting, waiting…
Instead of crickets I picture lemmings.
Please support LTC Terry Lakin
.
Yes john, Lakin will need it, breaking rocks is hard, very hard.
hey john, what will be your next OMG moment after Lakin goes down (most likely on June 11)
WhoDat,
You seem to be birther. Please support LTC Terry Lakin at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/
June 11, 2010 is Lakin’s first hearing of the court martial process. If you can attend please do. The hearing will be in Washington DC and every Birther who can attend should. Unfortunately, I can’t but I encourage others to attend.
Here’s a good reference for misha to look at.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KBmGpaD36cMC&pg=PP1&dq=Encyclopedia+of+African+airlines+By+Ben+R.+Guttery&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Commercial air service to Mombasa was available in 1961. Though the airport was just a regional airport (which would have required all passengers to go thru customs in Nairobi), it would have been possible to fly from Hawaii to Mombasa.
Contrary to the claims of many, the Boeing 707 was in use by a number of airlines.
Here’s a home video of a Boeing 707 in Nairobi in 1963.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlB-OPwsmzc
Great John- we agree on one thing!
“I agree the chance for Obama to be removed is zero.”
” At this point it is really matter of truth. Obama needs to release his BC and other records to prove he is eligible to to serve.”
Actually he already provided clear, legal evidence that were sufficient for the voters.
“When Obama serves his term, history can record the truth; Obama served at 44th President of the United as an ineligible candidate”
This is where you show your stripes John. Your first post starts off saying Obama was probably born in Hawaii- citing such trivialities as his BC and confirmation from the state of Hawaii- and then you finish here with your conclusion that Obama was ineligible. You apparently can’t even agree with yourself.
President Obama has no obligation to prove his eligiblity to you, he already proved it to the voters. Lakin is going to get court martialed for disobeying orders, and he should.
On this Memorial Day lets remember all the soldiers who died while following orders. And remember- some other soldier is in harms way because Lakin refused his deployment.
Unless I misheard something in grade school when I learned about number ordering 1963 came after 1961.
I should add that a flight from London to Bombay (India) only took about 8 hours in 1961.
Good find Whodat!
Now just some actual evidence that Ann Dunham went to Africa in 1961. I have given up on a cogent explanation of what her motives would have been, but just some evidence.
Well Sef, I’ll make sure to put in an order for a home video from 1961.
I found that after performing a quick search.
“Air India introduced the Boeing 707 (left) and Alitalia the DC-8 (right) to Nairobi in 1961.”
http://www.mccrow.org.uk/eastafrica/NairobiAirport/Nairobi%20Airports.htm
Happy now Sef?
So…to make this really plausible we just need to find
a) Jet service from Hawaii to London- and transit times.
b) Jet service from London to Nairobi- and transit times
c) Actual passenger flights from Nairobi to Mombassa and transit times.
Or….actually I don’t care.
By conservative standards- using today’s jet speeds- it is about 10 hours from Hawaii to the East coast. Add another 5 hours from East Coast to London. Then London to Nairobi. Nairobi to Mombassa.
Of course its possible. But it would be exhausting and is highly improbable and unsupported by any evidence.
It’s always better to provide relevant data rather than that which is easily debunked. Now, what were the flight itineraries of Air India’s 707s in 1961?
“1959 Pan Am begins Jet aircraft service to Hawaii on the Boeing 707 airliner. This event more than any other made the Hawaiian Tourism Industry what it is today.”
http://www.pacificaerospace.org/history.html
I think that whole “puddle-jumper” claim presented by some has been completely demolished.
John, If you have a way of contacting LTC Lakin, make sure to point out how ridiculous it would be to expect the Secretary of Defense (an Obama appointee) to challenge the Presidents qualifications. The military will likely say that it would have been the duty of the Sec. of Defense to present the challenge. It must be pointed out that such a premise would present a conflict of interest. The Sec of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President. Questioning his qualifications is not a good way to remain in his pleasure.
Lakin’s best defense is “if not me, then who?”
By the way- another great link Whodat. I may disagree with you, but always appreciate links to actual sites with information
And Bush appointee before that…
Yet, the Secretary of Defense as part of the National Command Authority could lawfully contermand and order of the President.
Congress!!
Though my knowledge of military processes is extremely limited, it seems to me the President does not give deployment orders. The President usually only gives the broad order and/or approval on using troops in a particular theater. What units are eventually deployed would be determined by the Joint Chiefs and/or the Unified commands. Only much later down the chain would the actual rotation of personnel be determined.
If this is correct, then, how are we to know that Lakin’s deployment was part of the troop buildup or just a replacement of personnel deployed by Bush.
We have established jet service from Hawaii to the mainland, and the mainland to London, and from London to Bombay, and from Bombay to Nairobi.
Things get even more interesting when we find that Stanley Ann did not attend the U of Hawaii in the Spring of 1961. She could have travelled at any time after Dec. 1960. There are claims that she was married to BHO Sr. in Honolulu on Feb. 2nd 1961, but even those are not supported by documentation.
SFJeff,
You are envisioning travel as a burden rather than an adventure.
This may have been seen as a honeymoon for the newlyweds. A day or two in Los Angeles, NYC, London, or Bombay would have been a pretty cool experience for an 18 year-old young woman.
For those who remember Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” even the President has strict limitations as to what he can do.
I have no desire to spend time researching flight itineraries from 1961 to check whether travel from Mombasa to Honolulu in four days was possible. If someone else has the time and inclination to do so, then I will enjoy reading the result.
A quick search on opodo.co.uk reveals that someone who flies from Mombasa to Honolulu today would land in Honolulu not fewer than 44 hours after the first flight segment left Mombasa. Even if it was possible in 1961 to travel between Mombasa and Honolulu in four days, it would probably have taken longer than it does today (given that flights are more frequent today) and required that Mrs Obama and son depart almost immediately after she gave birth. (Someone with more knowledge about airline policies in 1961 can comment as to whether a newborn would have been allowed on a plane.)
As Barack Obama II would have gone straight from hospital to plane, he would not have had a passport of his own or be listed in any passport or other travel document held by someone else. Needless to say, this would create difficulty in entering the US and any other countires through which he would have travelled on his way.
Are we supposed to assume that Mrs Obama not only managed to engage in a trans-Atlantic journey with her infant son without any documents for him, but also managed to register her son’s birth in Hawaii despite the scrutiny that would come from travel and entry to the US in the circumstances?
I guess when you already live in Paradise a journey to Hell would seem like an adventure.
Still no answer regarding the “legal expertise” of an 18 year old.
Still no answer regarding a grown woman taking legal advice from her teen-age daughter.
Still no answer regarding an actual case where citizenship was denied based on the mother’s age.
You still got BUPKIS!!!
Jules,
You’re looking for the impossible trip. Stanley Ann did not travel with or without Obama II shortly after giving birth. She would have remained hospitalized for tow or three days after giving birth. -That was the norm in 1961.
The only plausable explaination for a birth in Kenya and a birth report filed in Hawaii 4 days later, is to have one of Obama’s relatives file the birth report.
That’s why Obama will not release the original filing. It’s also why the registration number was redacted on the COLB. -How was Obama to know that the registration number would not give away the fact that it was filed as a non-instutional birth?
What “super-secret” information did they think the registration number would contain?
Let me just add that at least I, for one, will be glad to listen to any REAL evidence which makes sense, cannot be refuted and is consistent with all the other real, true facts.. To do otherwise would be what is called “prejudice”.
If Barack Obama’s mother and/or grandmother had figured out a way to register the birth within a few days of the birth of a child, then surely it would have required considerable research well in advance. Someone doing such research would surely have come to the conclusion that it would be a far better option simply to stay in Hawaii to have the child and not to go to Kenya. (Of course, the more likely scenario is that the purported trip to Kenya was never considered and giving birth in Hawaii was simply chosen by default; giving birth at a hospital near one’s home would seem like the normal and obvious choice to nearly any person.)
Jules,
Can you even contemplate the social stigma associated with an 18 year-old woman impregnated by a black man who was almost 8 years her senior? Do you know what that would have been like in the early 60s?
What do you think drove a 19 year-old woman to attend college in Seattle, rather than stay in Hawaii with her infant son?
Obama African side of the family will tell you what Obama doesn’t want you to know.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200408160533.html
The Dunhams were not very happy with Stanley Ann. Sending her to Kenya solved their problem and hers. A black child born in Kenya would not have been out of the ordinary.
Which, as has been shown above, would not have been possible. Besides, Stanley Ann had already used up all her deus ex machina credits in just getting to Mombasa, Zanzibar (Mombasa was still part of Zanzibar. If there was a BC created in Mombasa in 1961 it would have been registered in Wete)
Of course. The time to make the trip and show the child to the paternal grandparents, if that was the intent,was AFTER the child was born. I couldn’t have gotten my wife to go 50 miles away from home when she was pregnant. The idea of going to Kenya would have gotten peals of laughter.
In the event a US citizen does have a child overseas, there are legal ways to bring that child back to the US (whether or not the child is a US citizen). Thousands of Americans adopt foreign children every year and bring them home; I have friends who have done it. The barriers are placed by the home country not the US; if it’s your biological child, youave an automatic right to bring them to the US, regardlessof their citizenship. That was the case in 1961, as well. No fraud was necessary and no fraud ever happened.
That’s the simple truth. Those who claim otherwise are (I won’t say the L-word)
If the Dunhams did this this what would have been their incentive to commit a crime in registering the birth in HI? Come on, at least think up something half-way plausible.
None. A US citizen (which Stanley Ann was) can always bring their biological child into the US, regardless of the child’s citizenship. And to think that Stanley Ann’s mother, who worked in banking, would risk her career by committing fraud, when simple legal means were available, is preposterous.
So the Dunhams wanted to avoid having a mixed-race child seen to be born to their daughter, but then went to extraordinary lengths to see that the child was registered as born to parents of different races and could be brought back to the United States?
With regard to the supposed registration of the birth by Mrs Obama’s parents: You go to great lengths to find a statute that allows registration of births other than by parents, but then say that it would have been violated by the registrar. Not only do you think that it would have been violated, but that the registrar would have allowed such an extreme violation as to register births of children who cannot be shown to even exist. In effect, you are saying that the statute that you cited did not matter because it was not followed.
What evidence do you have that the registrar broke the law and registered births that could not legally be registered?
Sef, If you would do some research, instead of listening to Obot voices or the lies told by Jerom Corsi, you would find that Mombasa was not part of Zanzibar. It was Part of the East African Protectorate. I don’t expect you to believe me, so here’s a British publication from 1922, known as “The Statesman’s Yearbook”.
http://books.google.com/books?id=TR8NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&dq=%22mombasa,+kenya%22+%2Beast+african+protectorate&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
As you can see, Mombasa is part of the Kenya colony.
If you want something closer to Obama’s birth, I suggest you go to a library that has a copy of “Kenya to-day : social prerequisites for economic development” (1962). It not only makes it clear that Mombasa was part of the Kenya Colony (A British East African Protectorate), but it also mentions the research work of Obama Sr. that went into compiling data for the book.
Those “simple legal means” would not have provided the benefits of U.S. citizenship the child born abroad to an 18 year-old woman.
For those interested in finding out that Mombasa was indeed part of Kenya (a British East African Protectorate) in 1961, here’s a good place to start.
http://books.google.com/books?as_q=Mombasa+Kenya&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1959&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1962&as_isbn=&as_issn=
You will find a plethora of books published from 1959 to 1962 that identify Mombasa to be in the colony of Kenya.
How long has the lie about Mombasa being part of Zanzibar existed? What was the motivation?
Thank you for your elucidation on Mombasa. Your hypothesis of an African birth has still not been proven.
The problem for birthers is this little thing which the State of Hawai`i has created & verified (the COLB) . They have not provided any Kenyan state created & verified evidence which would show an African birth. Off-the-wall scenarios are not evidence. Until the birthers have real evidence it is very difficult to take them seriously.
If Lakin is your “best and only hope.” you are truly SOL.
However, you can console yourself by the fact that the truth is already out there:
1. Obama was born in Hawaii.
2. Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
3. Obama is the duly elected President of the United States, voted into office by We the People.
4. Terry Lakin will be granted no discovery regarding Obama.
5. Terry Lakin will either negotiate a plea agreement or he will be convicted.
You can take all of it to the bank.
I’m reminded of that every day. Unfortunately, no one is being very candid.
Let’s look at what we have.
1. A birth report was filed in Hawaii. -We don’t know who filed it, and Obama even went to the lengths of redacting the registration number from the COLB. Can you come up with a good reason to redact the registration number?
2. If it was just me saying I think he may have been born in Kenya, I’d see that as a problem. However, it’s not just me.
The Kenyan News has stated on multiple occasions that Obama is Kenyan-born.
The Minister of Lands says that Obama is not a native-born citizen of the United States.
Michelle Obama says that Kenya is Barack’s “home country”.
I think we can alll acknowledge that birth in Kenya (even if not likely) is possible. If Obama was born in Kenya, it would mean that Obama knowingly lied in order to obtain the highest office in this country. It would mean that a non-U.S. citizen has acquired that position by means of fraud.
We’re not asking Obama to leap some tall building. We’re saying that questions have been presented, and we want you to make one phone call, and perhaps send a signed fax, so that those questions can be settled. I just don’t find that to be too much to ask, and I sure can’t see how it would be an invasion of his privacy.
I don’t want a non-U.S. citizen to occupy the White House. Do you?
On the birther allegation that Obama’s birth was fraudulantly registered:
The birthers are correct that Obama, if born in Kenya, would not have been a US citizen at birth because of his mother’s age. From this the birthers infer that Obama’s grandma had a motive to fraudulantly register his birth in order to get him citizenship.
This story did not make much sense to me when I first heard it because I could not believe that US immigration law would not allow a mother to naturalize her son.
So I did the research. Sure enough, I found that under the laws at the time, even if Obama were born in Kenya, as the minor child of a US citizen, he was eligible for naturalization. See Title III, section 322 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Moreover, there would not have been any need to wait until hie was 18, as some have speculated on this thread. He would have been eligible to apply immediately upon his return to the US.
And of course, it goes without saying that a minor child of a US citizen was eligible for a non-quota immigrant visa (See Title II, section 205).
So the whole brither story falls appart. Why on earth would grandma Dunham risk a felony conviction and fraudulantly register her grandson’s birth, when mama Obama could have obtain US citizenship.
In summary, if Obama had been born in Kenya, here’s all his mom would have to do, and it would be all perfectly legal:
1) Go to a US consolate or embassy in Kenya with her son, and present proof of her maternity as well as US citizenship. That would be sufficient for her son to get a US immigrant visa.
2) Get her son a British passport.
3) Take him back to Hawaii on his British passport and US visa.
4) Upon her arrival in the US, fill out a an application for naturalized citizenship.
Again, why on earth would anyone risk fraud to obtain something that could be gotten legally by following those simple steps above?
I asked you to provide case law that citizenship would not have been granted. You have not. I say it would have been granted. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
However, let’s pretend citizenship wasn’t granted. So what? The child can live in the US as a legal permanent resident, go to school, work, apply to college and receive financial aid on the same basis as a US citizen and then be naturalized at 18. They would have all the opportunities for the American Dream. Hardly worth fraud?
WhoDat said:
Those “simple legal means” would not have provided the benefits of U.S. citizenship the child born abroad to an 18 year-old woman.
Yes they would have. Even though he would not have been a citizen at birth, as the minor child of a US citizen, he would have been eligible for naturalized citizenship immediately upon his return to the US. See my post above.
There simply was no need to commit fraud to secure any benefits for him.
Your whole story holds no water.
Scientist wrote:
So what? The child can live in the US as a legal permanent resident, go to school, work, apply to college and receive financial aid on the same basis as a US citizen and then be naturalized at 18.
It’s even better than that. He could have naturalized immediately upon his entry to the US. Well, to be fair, his mother could have applied for it upon his behalf immediately upon his return. It probably would have taken a few months for it to go through :).
See my post above for the relevant sections of immigration law in effect at the time.
Adam-You may well be correct that the natural child of a US citizen could have been naturalized immediately upon arrival in the US. Either way, they could certainly live here and become a citizen. So the only motive for this huge fraud would be if they knew he would become President. Bwahahaha!!!
If his parents pulled of such a fraud, why would they tell him? It’s more likely they would have kept it from him. Your supposition that he lied fails.
Another problem the birthers have is their ASSUMPTION that PBO has knowledge of where he was born. If he has an Hawaii issued COLB & he has been always told he was born in Honolulu he has not been fraudulent. The only people potentially guilty of fraud are long-since dead.
I agree the State of Hawaii knows there is a problem with Obama’s BC; otherwise The Hawaii DOH would not have passed the recent law to quash the birther requests but instead would went through some process of allowing Obama to produce the orginal vital record or make it available for public inspection.
§338-18 Disclosure of records:
b) The department shall not PERMIT INSPECTION of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
Adam, Who don’t you do us all a favor and quote the specific clause that you’re interpreting, and a hyperlink to your source?
Adam-I believe you are correct. The child of a US citizen would not have to go through naturalization. The parent would simply apply for a certificate of naturalization.
Good research!
http://immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_3.html
Since the child must be physically present in the US persuant to a lawful admission, fraud would have been quite counterproductive, since it could have jeopardized citizenship.
This is truly an epic birther fail!
http://immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_3.html
(a) A parent who is a citizen of the United States may apply to the Attorney General for a certificate of citizenship on behalf of a child born outside the United States. The Attorney General shall issue such a certificate of citizenship upon proof to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission.
(3) The child is under the age of 18 years and in the legal custody of the citizen parent.
(4) If the citizen parent is an adoptive parent of the child, the child was adopted by the citizen parent before the child reached the age of 16 years and the child meets the requirements for being a child under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 101(b)(1).
(5) If the citizen parent has not been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years-
(A) the child is residing permanently in the United States with the citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, or
(B) a citizen parent of the citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
(b) Upon approval of the application (which may be filed abroad) and, except as provided in the last sentence of section 337(a), upon taking and subscribing before an officer of the Service within the United States to the oath of allegiance required by this Act of an applicant for naturalization, the child shall become a citizen of the United States and shall be furnished by the Attorney General with a certificate of citizenship.
(c) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to the adopted child of a United States citizen adoptive parent if the conditions specified in such subsection have been fulfilled.
When you combine Michelle’s statement that Kenya is his “home country” with the fact that he has continually refused to release the original record, I think it will be pretty easy to convince a jury that he knew. In addition there would be much more investigation to prove that he knew the facts of his birth.
Please explain to us why there is much more hoopla on March 17 each year in America (Boston, NYC, etc) than in Dublin. Michelle was referring to “heritage”, not physical birth.
Yes, I can. It’s like the redacting of a social security number. Basically, nobody at the campaign knew whether or not this Number led to any other information other than the registration of it. Furthermore, once the decision was to be made to release this, they released it in such a rush that they couldn’t get anybody at the Hawaii Department of Health on the phone to tell them if that birth certificate number would lead to anything. So, in order to be safe, they redacted it. They later allowed Factcheck.org to photograph the Birth Certificate including the Certificate Number and release every one of those photos. So, we know exactly what that registration number is: 151 1961-010641 You can view it here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
And you’re intentionally mis-interpreting what they’ve said. They say that he was born of a Kenyan, which he is. You intentionally take anything that slightly resembles what you want yourself to believe, and turn it “proof” that it’s some grand conspiracy. Frankly, I don’t care if a newspaper half a world away directly says that he was born in Mombassa, Kenya to Stanley Ann Durham, and Marshall Davis. You really expect a newspaper report from newspapers half a world away to trump a U.S. Government Document?
No, he never said that. He said, again, that Obama was born to a Kenyan (therefore, being Kenyan Born).
And newspapers continually referred to John F. Kennedy’s “Home country” as Ireland. I guess that means that JFK was actually born in Ireland, and not the United States.
I think that FactCheck put it quite right when they said, “We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.” What you’re asking us to do is believe that a conspiracy consisting of thousands of people over the span of 50 years of either incompetence (with absolutely no proof of the incompetence) or outright lying and corruption in order to make your theory work.
Good thing that the Government of Hawaii has direclty said that Obama was born in Hawaii, then. Again, why do you trust a newspaper half the world away over the government of a U.S. State.
Actually you are. First you ask for him to release his birth certificate. Then, when he does, you call the birth certificate a fraud, says it doesn’t actually prove anything, and then say that it was fraudently registered. This all is without any proof. Then you ask for his long-form birth certificate, a birth certificate that the State of Hawaii no longer produces. When Obama decides to ignore you for the kooks you are, you say, “See, he’s hiding something because he is ignoring us.”
And when he does that, you’ll just call that one a fraud, that it doesn’t actually prove anything, and that it was fraudently registered. You will then ask for his kindergarten records just to prove he is who he says he is, and then claim that he must be hiding something because he refuses to indulge you in your things.
This of course doesn’t even begin to factor in the Plan-B of the Birther argument of ignoring 110 years of Juris Prudence in the United States and claiming that Obama isn’t eligible for the Presidency because he was born to a foreign father. Or how about Plan-C of the Birther Argument. Ignoring the impossibility of their argument, and say that Obama actually gave up his citizenship when he was 6-years-old and living in Indonesia.
You know, Einstein defined the definition of insanity as doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. Should we be insane, just because you say that it’ll be different this time.
If any of these things were to ever get to a court room, and you get your way, all Obama has to do is walk in with the Short-Form Birth Certificate, and present that to a Judge. The Judge will say that this proves that he was born in Hawaii, unless you have some direct evidence disproving it (not innuendo, not unauthenticated documents from “a foreign government”, not unspeculated hearsay, not altered tapes). He’ll then ask you for that evidence, and when you come up with absolutely no evidence, he’ll say, “Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii” and say, “Obama is a Natural Born Citizen”.
And birthers will continually say this, no matter what Obama releases. Next it’ll be his college records. Then it’ll be his highschool records. There are birthers out there who have asked him to release 20 different sets of records (not all of which actually exist) to them because they believe that they exist.
Like I said, the definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Should Obama release more documentation, and expect these lunatics will behave differently than what they’ve done in the past?
This will never end, because con artists and liars are, what they are.
The person here now is not engaging folks in a rational conversation. “It” is here to defend the legitimacy of the Lucas Smith BC because “It” is part of Smith’s group – It is either MoCorrupt, BSteadman, or Smith, himself. It gave itself away when It called Jerome Corsi a liar…since even Corsi called the Smith BC a fake.
Here is the fundamental flaw with the Smith BC:
When the forgery was created (summer 2009), Dr. Heltan Maganga was the Chief Administrator of Coast Provincial General Hospital. But Lucas Smith claimed that he went to Kenya in Feb 2009, and Dr. Othigo was in charge at the time, not Maganga.
No amount of BS or magic or fantasy dust can make this mistake go away.
For some reason, my comment is awaiting moderation. I will re-post the applicable section of the law:
http://immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_3.html
(a) A parent who is a citizen of the United States may apply to the Attorney General for a certificate of citizenship on behalf of a child born outside the United States. The Attorney General shall issue such a certificate of citizenship upon proof to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission.
(3) The child is under the age of 18 years and in the legal custody of the citizen parent.
All the mother has to do is bring the child to the US on a British passport and get the certificate of citizenship.
There is no evidence of fraud. There was no motive for fraud. Therefore, there WAS NO FRAUD.
Now, can we MOVE ON?
The birthers just love their slogan “Where’s the Birth Certificate”. I think it’s time for the reality community (RC henceforth) to ask the same thing, except meaning real validated evidence from the state of Kenya attesting to a Kenya birth. The birthers keep trying to distract from the real question by bringing up another shiny object which the RC addresses. The explanations don’t penetrate & this leads to another shiny object. I have yet to see a birther-related item on Intrade, so the rest of the world knows what the odds are.
The passage in question is Title III, section 322 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
If you want to read the passage for yourself, you need to go look up the text of the Act in your local law library, which is what I did.
I am not aware of a website that has the text of the law available. It’s amazing, but some things still aren’t available online. Pysical libararies aren’t obsolete yet 🙂
Scientist: what you are quoting wasn’t the law in effect at the time. If you want to get the text of the relavent statute, you’ll need to go pull a copy of the immigration and nationality act of 1952 off the shelf at your local law library. I’m not aware any websites that have the entire text available.
As I said to WhoDat: physical libraries aren’t obsolete just yet 🙂
Adam,
Thanks for telling scientist exactly what I was getting ready to say.
Do you have a copy of the INA of 1952 in front of you?
WhoDat?: Adam,Thanks for telling scientist exactly what I was getting ready to say.Do you have a copy of the INA of 1952 in front of you?
Nope. My university’s law library doesn’t allow users to check out reference volumes.
One day while I was in the library to research something else, I thought I’d test my hypothesis that Obama would have been eligible for naturalization had he been born abroad in 1961. So I asked the librarian help me find the 1952 law, I pulled the volume off the shelf, and and verified my hypothesis.
If you want to do it for yourself, I suggest you go to your local law library, pull a copy of the law off the shelf, and read Title III Section 322. It’s pretty short, about a page, and written in plain English, so you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand it.
I found it!!!!!!
Turns out the 1952 INA IS available online. I found it at the GAO office.
Here’s a link to the full text. Unfortunately, it the quality of the scan isn’t too good, but what do you want, it’s from the Federal Government::)
ftp://ftp.resource.org/gao.gov/82-414/00002F05a.pdf
Scroll down to page 84 of the PDF. The first full paragraph tells you everything you need to know. I’m not going to retype it for you.
Full text of INA.
Google is your friend.
Yeah, I saw that earlier. Unfortunately, the text is incomplete. You’ll notice that all of Title III is missing, which just happens to be the part that I needed!
Great minds, Adam… 🙂
Mine is not scanned, so may be more legible.
Gah! Oh, well. Shows me up, doesn’t it? 😀
Thanks Adam. Good find.
Here’s a link to a better scan.
http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/immigration/PDFs/McCarran_Walter_Act.pdf
Here is the text of the portion of the Act to which Adam is referring:
SEC. :322. (a) A child born outside of the United Stutes, one or both of whose parents is at the time of petitioning for the naturalization of the child, a citizen of the United States, either by birth or naturalization, may be naturalized if under the age of eighteen years and not otherwise disqualified from becoming a citizen by reason of section; 313, 314, 315, or 316 of this Act, and if residing permanently in the United States, with the citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, on the petition of such citizen parent, upon compliance with all the provisions of this title, except that no particular period of residence or physical presence in the United States shall be required. If the child is of tender years he may be presumed to be of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to an adopted child.
I’ve got to look at a few more things to ensure that it would be applicable.
In other words, the US citizen mother brings the child born abroad into the US and she can petition for him to become a citizen. The alternative is that the child can petition on their own when they reach majority. Either way, the child can live in the US legally, go to school and work and become a citizen. Hardly worth committing fraud over.
Don’t you understand, Scientist! What every mother would want is to commit fraud so that her son could become President of the United States 50 years down the road. It’s the perfect story!
Yes dunst, I’m sure that 18 years olds mothers will go to any length to ensure their kid can be President. It’s the #1 priority for teen mothers.
Look this has been a very diverting detective novel, but WhoDat?’s entire argument is that fraud COULD have been committed 48 years ago and no one can definitively disproves it. But no one can prove absolutely that something didn’t happen 48 years ago. What we can say is:
1. No evidence it DID happen.
2. No motive for it to happen.
3. All eyewitnesses are dead.
4. There is a simple alternate theory that fits much better with the facts.
So, if someone wants to believe nonsense, that is their perogative. I’m a simple guy and will apply Occam’s razor and be happy.
The Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) doesn’t pass laws; the legislature does. The law does not restrict access to records, but to people asking for the same thing over and over.
Can you come up with a good reason from your conspiracy theory viewpoint for him to redact the number? I mean if you think it is somehow suspicious, then suspicious of WHAT?
WhoDat? How long has the lie about Mombasa being part of Zanzibar existed? What was the motivation?
You’ve never heard any lie in any article on this web site on this subject.
I have no idea what a mixed race birth would have meant in Honolulu in the 60’s. I know what it would have meant in Alabama where I grew up, but Alabama isn’t Hawaii. Hawaii was and is a more cosmopolitan place than Alabama. But if you have some citations from the literature that would inform us about attitudes in Hawaii at the time, please chime in. Uninformed speculation, however, is not wanted.
I looked up the article. Is this what we don’t want to see?
This suggests you have never traveled with an infant.
I think you’ve really skidded off the road on this one. You’re telling us the Stanley Ann Obama flew to Africa to give birth in order to avoid “social problems”. Exactly what is the difference in “social problems” between a woman giving birth in a Hawaiian hospital and continuing to live in the US vs the same woman giving birth in Kenya and immediately returning to and living in the US. I fail to see that her choice of hospital has any relevance.
I would just ask how getting into Canada would be easier than getting into the US.
The spinning of more and more convoluted scenarios reminds me of epicycles. Epicycles were an attempt to maintain the Earth as the center of the universe against the evidence of more precise astronomical evidence coming from telescopes. As the measurements improved, the paths of the stars and planets necessary to maintain a geo-centric universe grew more and more convoluted, eventually collapsing under the weight of their impossible complexity.
Obviously we have a difference of understanding about “compelling evidence.”
For me compelling evidence is physical evidence, documentary evidence, eye witness evidence and expert testimony. Perhaps you consider some of the evidence you rely on of this type, but I cannot guess what it might be.
There is no one who has testified that they witnessed Barack Obama being born in Kenya, or his parents being in or traveling to Africa in 1961. There is no physical evidence or documentation to support the trip to Africa. (An factually-inconsistent “birth certificate” image from a convicted forger obtained illegally if at all from an unnamed source doesn’t count as evidence in my book.) And there is no expert testimony.
Compelling evidence? I don’t see any evidence at all.
Amen to that.
Or – for that matter — traveled on a long flight seated anywhere near an infant. Talk about what people would have remembered years later — why haven’t any airline passengers on international flights in the summer of 1961 come forward with accounts of sitting next to a screaming infant for 10 hours on their flight out of Nairobi?
You really haven’t been following along. Have you? If you had followed along you would realize that Obama can disprove this by authorizing the release of his original vital records. (Or at least the portion that demonstrates who filed the birth report. If it was filed by a hospital, end of story, he would be born in the U.S.)
For some reason I got Ozzie Osbourne singing in the background while I read this post Doc.
Yeah sure. You’ve already dreamed up a wild conspiracy no amount of additional evidence will sway your off the wall beliefs.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Another day where your question would have been answered if only you took the time to read what was presented.
I said; “How was Obama to know that the registration number would not give away the fact that it was filed as a non-instutional birth?”
dunstvangeet tried to explain it away by “Basically, nobody at the campaign knew whether or not this Number led to any other information other than the registration of it. Furthermore, once the decision was to be made to release this, they released it in such a rush that they couldn’t get anybody at the Hawaii Department of Health on the phone to tell them if that birth certificate number would lead to anything. So, in order to be safe, they redacted it.”
Led to any what other information? What other information could possibly be connected to the registration number? “Something” and “you know” aren’t going to cut it. Other than the possibility that the registration number might demonstrate that it was a report generated by a non-institutional birth, I cannot fathom any other associated information.
More than that; what presented the big rush to publish the COLB that the decision of whether or not to cover part of it up could not have been delayed a few days? Why the urgency? IF the Obama camp is going to claim some urgency, they should be able to provide the cause of such urgency, rather than just use it as an excuse.
Thanks for that bit of hard evidence. I might mention that February 19, 2009 is also the date stamp on the fake certificate. I’ve added that refutation to my article on the Smith certificate.
Of course Lucas Smith, always at the ready with a convenient lie, says the hospital had TWO chief administrators at the time. <sarcasm>It’s a shame that there’s not a scintilla of evidence that such a thing was true.</sarcasm>
“realize that Obama can disprove this by authorizing the release of his original vital records”
Of course Obama could prove certain parts of it, but could is different from should.
I don’t think Obama owes birthers a thing.
I go further and say that If I was Obama I would ignore this new higher standard of proving eligibility. If I was Obama I would be thinking- nobody asked Bush to prove he wasn’t born in China or Clinton to prove he wasn’t born in Mexico or Reagan to prove he wasn’t born in Canada. None of them even bothered to produce a birth certificate. I would think “rumors were circulating that I was a Muslim and that I was born outside the U.S.., so I published on the Internet the BC I had ordered from Hawaii, but these same people immediately called that a fraud. Factcheck reviewed it and they still call it a fraud. None of these jokers would have voted for me anyway, they can all buzz around their suspicions right through the next election.
And if anybody with a legitimate reason to see my BC, I will just give it to them.
I could make some clever remark that my BS filter kept me from seeing the explanation you gave, but the comment you made that I referred to, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/lucas-smith-certificate-makes-african-genesis-less-plausible/#comment-48894 does not say anything about a non-institutional birth. I read comments from newest to oldest.
Anyhow, that’s a fanciful idea. Sometimes certificate numbers do encode information, like FB00000001 would be a foreign birth in some states. But the fact of the matter is that the Obama certificate does not indicate a non-institutional birth, and nothing in the structure of the number suggests that it has special meaning, and I see no reason (besides your needing a reason and not having one) to think what you suggest is true. And besides, Obama was born in a hospital.
Of all the fanciful nonsense you have said on this web site, that has to be the greatest nonsense of all.
“If it was filed by a hospital, end of story, he would be born in the U.S.)”
Or does it end the story? Perhaps the someone forged the hospital registration. Perhaps Ann Dunham knew a doctor who forged the documents for her.
Or perhaps the forgery happened at the Hawaii registration office. Dr. Fukino herself perhaps made the forgery. She and Lingle are very suspicious characters- they appear to be covering up something, complying with the [law] like they are.
If the birthers who comment here clicked on all the links in my article, they would find this from Pajamas Media:
“Barack Obama fulfilled his Selective Service obligation and has every legal right to run for the presidency of the United States.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-did-obama-actually-register-for-selective-service/2/
Sorry birthers.
Dr. C,
“It” is not here because of Its beliefs, It is not here for reasonable discussion…It is here for only one purpose – to spread false truths on the net…to perpetuate a false reality.
It doesn’t believe what It types, not really. It doesn’t need convincing. It is not here because of what It believes.
An honest person would have no problem recognizing that Smith’s BC cannot be real, because Dr. Othigo’s name would have been stamped, not Heltan Maganga’s – which the forger didn’t even spell correctly.
But It will never concede this, because It doesn’t care about the truth, only false truths.
If Dr. Conspiracy would take the time to do a little research, he would find a number of articles that indicate that Coast Province General Hospital had more than one Chief Administrator, or those whose duties as Chief Administrator overlapped.
One would think it would be relatively easy to get the Chief Administrator to stamp a piece of paper, and say that he was not the Chief Administrator on Feb 19, 2009. But not even Dr. Conspiracy has been able to achieve that.
What’s the matter Doc? Having a little trouble getting Dr. Maganga to go along with that story?
Where is the stamp of Dr. Maganga bearing the spelling you claim to be correct? Where is the acknowledgement from Dr. Maganga saying that he was not the CA on Feb. 19, 2009? How long does it take you to back up your claim with something more than your own stories?
I can give you plenty of reasons why Dr. Maganga would be pressured to not verify the KBC of Obama, but I cannot think of any reason for him to not provide assistance by denying that he was the CA, and stamping and signing another document for proof.
You story, is just that,-your story.
And what I said is absolutely the truth. They didn’t know what it might reveal that would be private information, or if the number was used in any other context. For instance, the Social Security Number is used for 20 different things in the Federal Government. Who knows whether this number is used for the something else, or whether or not it revealed something else, or was used for something other than the Birth Certificate.
They called the Hawaii Department of Health in order to try to confirm whether or not this was true. They couldn’t get anybody on the phone, and wanted to release it as soon as possible. So, they redacted the information (a meaningless number, it turns out) in order to be safe, rather than sorry.
they later got contact from the Hawaii Department of Health, saying that the number went to nothing other than this birth certificate.
Let me ask you one question, WhoDat. If they wanted to keep that number redacted, then why did they allow FactCheck to photograph it and specifically give them permission to publish it?
And I can understand it. I see a random number that I cannot explain on a document, and my first reaction is to redact that number when releasing something. They later confirmed that they didn’t need to do this.
I will assume a failure by WhoDat? to be forthcoming with a citation to one of that “number of articles” that he says exists would be an admission on his part that he just made up that claim out of thin air.
I really would feel embarrassed asking Dr. Maganga to comment on something as silly as a birther claim.
And one question…
If the Lucas Smith birth certificate was correct…
Why did they put the full date of birth for the Mother (11/29/1942), but only have the year for the Father (1936). Didn’t the Father know his own birth date, or even a month of birth for him? Or was Lucas not able to find this information, and therefore just put down what he was able to find?
I just can’t buy that excuse. Everybody knows that redacting information is going to raise red flags.
They “wanted to release it as soon as possible”, is not a legitimate cause for redacting information that they knew would raise red flags. Why did they need to publish so fast?
Per Factcheck.org “The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number.”
But no reason for rushing to release the document was given.
I don’t feed trolls…especially the ones who intentionally mislead.
I’m right. And that is that.
It’s hard to know why people do the things they do. My guess is that “It” is a member of the genus troll, playing the game of “let me make you try to prove a negative.” But you could be right and the genus is smearbot.
That is correct. The father did not know his exact date of birth. This is not an uncommon occurence for tribal births.
It’s too late for me to do some research tonight, but a search at Google Books for “unknown exact date of birth” will show you that it is a common occurence.
If you look at the Wikipedia entry, you will see that an exact date of birth for Obama Sr. has been entered, but no citation is presented to support that date. If you keep searching for info about Obama Sr. you will see that they only list him as born in 1936.
Re: Obama selective service registration, see also:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obama-forged-selective-service-registration/
There you have it folks. SluggoJD declares victory instead of accomplishing the task.
He was taken to task to support his false claims, and quickly declared himself the victor when he was unable to do so.
I have looked into birth information for several Kenyan leaders who have official biographies available, and some of them indeed only have a year of birth–only Barack Obama Sr. is not one of them. His full date of birth is April 4, 1936. See:
http://www.makingofanation.com/biographies/obama
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=23955067
Who Dat:
Take your football to some other site. Nobody feels like kicking it anymore.
And the box of Alcoa, too.
Dr. C, I suggest you take a better look at that last link – the guy’s a birther apparently, since this is part of his collection.
Looks like the guy is trash, based on this complaint.
I know. I was just playin’ with ’em. But you’re right. I took it out.
“The father did not know his exact date of birth. This is not an uncommon occurence for tribal births.”
You say that as if this is a fact. Certainly is possible. Of course I would say as a college educated man with a large ego, even if he didn’t know his actual birth date he would have supplied one so as to not look so ‘tribal’
Of course I also say that if Lucas had an actual BC he would have presented the original to examination by Fox News or some other semi-reputable news organization.
I didn’t miss that did I? Lucas making the original BC availible for inspection and analysis? Fox news sending a team of crack reporters, or at least an ambitious weather reporter intern to examine this document that would conclusively prove that President Obama was born in Kenya?
And show them the substantiating documentation- his plane tickets to Kenya, hotel receipts there, passport stamps, visa’s. Did I miss all of that?
You appear to have missed my point.
My first contention, which you didn’t address, is that it made as much sense for the grandparents to mount a conspiracy to get a US passport for baby Barack as it would for a Mexican family to try to get a Swedish passport.
Number two, to which you responded above, was that it would be much easier to engage in fraud locally rather than across the world. If you are going to assume fraud, then it was easier to do it in Kenya targeting the US Embassy (for instance forging local papers to show that Baby Barack was born 6 months later, past the 5 years line) than the complex and unrealistic scheme you postulate. Occam’s razor really.
No there is no mounting and certainly not compelling evidence, and there’s no such thing as an “original” BC as far as the date contained therein.
Trolling won’t get you any sympathy.
Lakin is a traitor and I hope he does time in Leavenworth.
That IS an excellent analogy!!!
I return to a point I made earlier. I spent some tine at Lincoln’s Inn (one of the Inns of Court in London where barristers work) on and off 1972 to 1974. There was quite a few aspiring barristers from Kenya, something rather novel at the time, I gather. In any event, one thing that was quite clear was that the ideal goal for the elites from former British colonies were to go and have a career in England, possibly returning home to a top government position. I may be simplifying somewhat, but that’s what I remember. The US wasn’t even part of the map. I never once heard Harvard or Yale being mentioned.
That’s why the notion of a Kenyan conspiracy to somehow get young Back a US citizenship if he didn’t have one already seems utterly unbelievable to me.
If one could harness the sheer racist drive that compels Whodat? to jump through hoops to reject Barack Obama’s obvious legitimacy, your energy problems would be over.
I find it sad, in fact, that what might well be the most admirable thing the US may have done in well over a decade — the election of the first black President in US history — drive folks like him into such fits of manic delusion.
In France Prez Sarkozy has only 33% approval (up from 27% recently) but to the best of my knowledge there is not a single site anywhere, from either far right or far left, that makes up such meretricious garbage. (The worst we get is unsubstantiated tales about alleged extramarital liaisons.)
Does sitting in the row behind 5 screaming infants for 20 hours from LA to Melbourne in august 2009 count?
I think the reason for the Mombasa story was originally a posting on one of the first birther sites by a British person claiming to be an ex-colonial from Kenya saying that a birth in Nairobi was out of the question, because all hospitals in Nairobi were still fully segregated until December 1961. Note that at the time, African births in the “Colony of Kenya” were not registered, so if Obama were indeed born in a “black” hospital, there would by definition be NO Kenyan birth certificate (OK, birthers – feel free to use that argument).
Mombasa was a different story – it was not in the “Colony of Kenya” and its name conveniently sounds Muslim. Our new birther here may think he has debunked the Mombasa part of Zanzibar “lie”, but he’s economical with the truth. The Colony of Kenya and the Protectorate of Kenya were two legal entities, administered as one unit by the British, who at one time, even deleted the word “Kenya”.from the name of the Crown colony. Of course, on independence, the two parts became one country. The government of Kenya at the time of the Bomford birth certificate row went so far as to claim they would prosecute to the fullest of their possibilities any forgerer of Kenyan birth certificates they could identify, and to state what would be on a birth certificate from Mombasa in 1961; I am not going to help on that one, because I do not want to help Mr Smith in his search for “Hot Millions” (that’s the film freak in me) via the forgeing of yet another birth certificate without any blatant errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_Colony
Let me know when you get to the part where Obama travels back in time, and mediates the problems between Captain Bligh and his crew.
For a minor, there really aren’t any. There is absolutely no doubt that a US citizen can bring their minor child into the US where they can live as a legal permanent resident. The only question is can the child be naturalized immediately, after 5 years, or at the age of majority? It’s actually irrelevant, since a permanent resident child can do everything a US citizen child can do: go to school, play Little League, work an after-school job, be considered for college admission and financial aid on the same basis as a citizen. The only rights they wouldn’t have would be to vote and run for office. But, guess what? Minor US citizens can’t do that either.
And a young white American girl giving birth to a black baby was an everyday occurrence in Kenya, right?
So when Stanley Ann walked around Honolulu or Seattle or anywhere else with a black baby with an African name, no one would pay any attention because the child had been born in Africa rather than the US, right?
Bill: Look at that white woman with the black baby. What’s with her?
Joe: Oh, don’t worry, the baby was born in Mombasa.
Bill: Thanks for telling me. I was going to hassle her, because I thought the baby had been born in Honolulu. But as long as it was born in Africa, no problem.
There are more holes in your story than in the Swiss cheese I had for breakfast.
I think I may know what this is about. Birthers have been unable to establish that there were REGULAR civilian flights between Nairobi and Mombasa in August 1961. Mombasa was a military airport, originally built by the South Africans as an additional airstrip (they had been using sea planes there before). Our new birther himself quoted a book on African airlines which states that at the time when East African Airways (not to be confused with the modern East African Airlines company) introduced DC3s in 1958, it could not use Mombasa – because the airfield could not accommodate even that type of aircraft. In any case, the British army was still heavily using Mombasa airport in … December 1961. Proof is at the end of this page:
http://radfanhunters.co.uk/208-1961.htm
The reference to Canada Air is rather funny. Of course Air Canada did not fly to Mombasa; He’s confusing (deliberately or not?) with Canadair – a mark of aircraft. Surprise, surprise: East African Airways did own some Canadair Argonauts. Did they use these planes (with 44 capacity) in the early 1960s to fly to Mombasa? Possibly, if the British army allowed them. But where are the time tables? In any case, the Canadair Argonaut should NOT be confused (as I have noticed already on birther sites) with the Canadair CL-44, a much bigger plane, owned by Tradewinds Airways that used Mombasa later on. Tradewinds could not have transported the Obamas because it only came into existence in 1968 and, yet another small detail of course, flew cargo, not passengers. It was this type of plane that had the first Mombasa-related civilian air traffic accident in …1978 (and that you may also find quoted to prove services between Nairobi and Mombasa)
http://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=MBA
Of course, by that time, work on the modernization of Mombasa Airport (with Japanese money) had been going on for four years already since 1974. In 1979 the work was finished and Port Reitz became Moi International Airport.
Two points about Nairobi: 1) Nairobi Airport today is not where it used to be in 1961. As I’ve said before, even in the late seventies, Nairobi Airport was rather primitive and was claimed to be unsafe for the “new” Boeings at the time. So, a new airport was built closeby (Japanese money again), work finished again in March 1978, and the old one was turned into a military airport. http://www.kenyaairports.co.ke/kaa/airports/jkia/history.html
2) the photo of an Air India plane taken by a plane spotter does not prove that there were regular services between London and Nairobi at the time by that company. There were no regular services between the moon and earth between 1969 and 1972, and yet I have seen several pictures. There are actually reasons for errand planes landing in Nairobi in 1960. That was the year when the whole white population of the formerly Belgian Congo (100,000 people) had to be evacuated by airplane, first from the Congolese interior and then “back” to Belgium.
Actually, we know what plane normally would have been used by British Airways and East African Airways in 1961 from London to Nairobi and back: the Comet 4, capacity 81. No wonder they got extra aircraft in to evacuate everybody.
The number of Argonauts and Comets 4 owned by East African Airways was limited. http://www.mccrow.org.uk/EastAfrica/East_Arican_Airways/East_African_Airways.htm
So they had a third Comet 4 shortly after “by 1961”. Meaning departures were surely not daily with the Comet 4 to and from London, and probably not daily with the Argonaut from or to Mombasa.
Note that if the Obamas had used Boeings, their tickets would have cost far more than Misha calculated. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Either it was utterly impossible or it was inhumanly expensive.
But I agree with the sane people here: it did not happen because there was no rational reason for it.
Did Dr. Conspiracy bother to find out if the websites he posted are relying on anything but Wikipedia? I doubt it.
What is the date of birth on Obama Sr’s University of Hawaii or Harvard records? Why do they only have a year of birth?
misha, I can’t blame you for being upset. Your article about air travel and telegram cost was demolished by historical record. Better luck next time.
There was no such airline. Now or in 1961. In 1961 the 2 Canadian airlines that flew overseas were Trans Canada-renamed Air Canada in 1965 and still flying under that name-and Canadian Pacific-renamed Canadian Airlines in 1987 and merged into Air Canada in 2000. Neither ever had scheduled service to Kenya. Even today, you will not find any scheduled flights between Canada and Kenya. To get there you have to connect, usually through Europe.
There is and was an aircraft manufacturer called Canadair. They are well-known for their regional jets. Some of their planes doubtless ended up in Africa, but to say they “flew to Mombasa” is like saying Boeing flew to Mombasa.
And Canada does and did require passports for all persons, including infants arriving on overseas flights.
WhoDat? or which ever birther might care to respond, let me ask you a question. Suppose you are in Las Vegas & you are presented with 2 slot machines. One of those slot machines comes up all cherries every time money is put in. The other has never produced anything in anyone’s memory, however the house says it might. Which one are you going to put your money into? This is the same situation as Hawaiian birth vs Kenyan birth. The birthers have been saying that since there is a “possibility” that something “might” happen then all other more realistic alternatives must be discarded.
Wait a minute – I just saw your entire fantastical story. Mombasa to Nairobi, we have no idea how. Then Nairobi to Bombay by India Air (by the way, it was still India Air International at the time), then from Bombay to New York via London again by Air India. And so on; Any idea how much that would have cost at the time? I am sure Misha’s calculation would be literally dwarfed by this one. Talking about prohibitive costs! And the reason for all this would have been … what? The belief that somehow this brown child would one day be President of the United States?
By the way, where are the time tables of Air India? Since you have not shown them, I think you haven’t got any. And no, you did not debunk the telegram story, you did not debunk the Zanzibar story, and Canada Air did not fly to Mombasa. That was East African Airways using Canadairs – a type of airplane.
WhoDat? or which ever birther might care to respond, let me ask you a question. Suppose you are in Las Vegas & you are presented with 2 slot machines. One of those slot machines comes up all cherries every time money is put in. The other has never produced anything in anyone’s memory, however the house says it might. Which one are you going to put your money into? This is the same situation as Hawaiian birth vs Kenyan birth. The birthers have been saying that since there is a “possibility” that something “might” happen then all other more realistic alternatives must be discarded.
Let’s add some other data to this. Let’s say that the person playing the game is LTC Lakin & that instead of putting a coin into the slot machine he has to gamble his entire career & future. Which do you think he should do?
One thing is clear about the birthers: they do some rather limited research, think they are world authorities on the subject & then announce their “findings”. They forget that there just might be other people out there who have actually done more research or who even have lived through the period under discussion & know what they are talking about. The insular birthers know all about “in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”, but forget that there are people who have two eyes & a brain.
Some people are just full of “it” or full of themselves.
These claims of Mombasa not being open to commercial traffic are nothing but false claims.
Here’s a link to the history, demonstrating that even as far back as 1946 the Port Reitz Airport was open to commercial traffic:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KBmGpaD36cMC&lpg=PA1&dq=african%20aviation&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=african%20aviation&f=false
Can you show us Obama Sr’s Harvard or U. of Hawaii records? No you can’t because you have not seen them. You have attempted to try and defend a convicted felon forger for awhile now. This leads me to suspect that you are really Lucas Smith, infamous forger. Until Smith can present proof that he traveled to Kenya, his(your) BC will remain known as a forgery. As a matter of fact a forgery that was so bad that even WND, who hates Obama, wrote a article detailing its inconsistencies.
The fact remains that there is no evidence that supports Smith’s forged BC. And your pathetic explanation of how Obama Sr would not know what day and month he was born was the most entertaining piece of fiction I have read since Smith detailed in his “affadavit” how he came to possess his forged BC. Truly hilarious stuff.
I believe everyone would agree that the wording of that final question is an assertion that they only have a year of birth. So I would assume that WhoDat? would be able to produce those documents showing the year of birth, or by failing to do so concede that he just made it up.
OK, read your own book. Where could you fly from Mombasa in those days? Mostly Nairobi. Even today-check Kenya Airways Mombasa-London, all go through Nairobi. Even today there are no direct flights from Kenya to anywhere in North America-you have to connect through Europe.
So in 1961 (even today) you would be looking at Honolulu-New York, New York-London, London-Nairobi and Nairobi-Mombasa. Substitute Toronto for New York, if you’d like to have Stanley Ann sneak over the border. Quite a schlep.
And for what? To escape social opprobium for having a mixed race baby? Are you saying mixed race children were common and well-accepted in Kenya in 1961? Hmm?? Now, you said Madelyn Dunham was smart. A smart person would have known of a very liberal city, where even in 1961 just abnout anything went (race, homosexuality, weird politics). It has prestiIgious universities that attract students from all over the world (including Africa). It has frequent air service from Honolulu and you don’t need a passport. Oh, and really good hosputals, even better than Coast General. If you can’t guess what city I’m thinking of, ask SF Jeff.
Before people continue on tangents with WhoDat about the possibility of travel from Honolulu to Mombasa in 1961, how about WhoDat answer the question about grandma Dunhum’s motive for fraud?
To WhoDat:
Under the 1952 INA, in effect at the time of Barack Jr.’s birth, there was no need for grandma Dunham to commit fraud in order to get her grandson US citizenship. You yourself quoted the passage (Tittle III, Section 322) under which mama Obama could have petitioned naturalized citizenship for her son, even if he had been born in Kenya.
So tell us, WhoDat, what possible motive could anyone have to fraudulantly register little Obama’s birth in Hawaii? Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe I’ll post a vanity on FreeRepublic asking this question to see what stories the Birthers there will concoct.
I’m still waiting for an explanation of how grandmom could register a birth without the baby, parents, or literally any proof of a birth.
Strains credulity, doesn’t it?
And I am still waiting for an answer to my slot machine question. I guess it’s Wait, Wait, Wait.
This idea occurred to me early on, but if Lucas Smith is still living in Iowa, WhoDat?’s IP address would tend to rule out that association.
OK Doc. I am glad we were thinking the same thing. It seems “Who Dat” seems to really want to see Lucas Smith’s fake BC to be considered to be real….
Adam,
Can you tell me if Grandma or Grandpa Dunham, Stanley Ann Obama, or Barack Obama Sr. contacted a lawyer specializing in immigration law? Did they perhaps contact a lawyer specializing in family law? Did they even contact a lawyer?
Is it possible that none of them ever contacted a lawyer? Is it possible that one of them decided to look up the citizenship laws themself?
If one of them looked up the law for themself, do you think they would have gotten all the way to Section 322 after looking at Section 301?
Section 301 does not direct them to Section 322 as an alternative means of acquiring citizenship. Does it?
If one of those mentioned only looked at Section 301, and decided that the benefits of citizenship were of significance, I have no problem seeing the motivation for reporting a home birth.
–None of us can prove or disprove the motivation of the parties in 1961. I can tell you this. It’s a significant piece of the puzzle. It’s so significant that Obama doesn’t want anyone to know about it.
You said Madelyn Dunham was a very smart woman. Trying to handle a tricky issue of citizenship law without competent legal advice would not be smart. So, either you were wrong when you said that or you are wrong now. Which is it?
By the way that is exactly the situation of the birthers-without competent legal advice.
Dr. C, I’d love to match it with my collection.
They did NOT contact a lawyer. There was no reason to involve lawyers since their daughter/wife gave birth right in the good old USA.
I have answered your questions, clearly and unequivocally. If you wish to dispute further, prove they did contact a lawyer. Show me an invoice from an immigration law firm in Hawaii or anywhere else. Go on, I dare you.
This is beginning to sound like the “return to Kenya” discussion.
In Whodats scenario, Ann Dunham knew enough about U.S. Citizenship law to fear that her son might not qualify for U.S. citizenship, but didn’t let that deter her from going to Kenya to give birth.
And then, because she didn’t know enough about U.S. Citizenship to know that it would be easy for her son to obtain U.S. Citizenship, she wired her mother and asked her to commit fraud.
And then her mother committed fraud rather than consulting with an Immigration lawyer.
Really what you are essentially advocating is that we believe that that the BC supplied by a convicted forgerer is correct, but the official BC is the product of fraud perpetrated by a respected bank manager with no prior criminal record.
The mind boggles.
p93 of Whodat’s book: “Although there was great demand, Mombasa was still unusable by the CANADAIRS until needed airport improvements were completed.”
If Mombasa could not take Canadairs, it could not take the Comet 4, which was in fact a small jet plane. (“This was the first jet service across the Arabian Sea”, top of page 94)
There is no mention of these improvements later in the text, or of a regular service with these Canadairs. Now that is funny, as the text reads like a eulogy to East African Airways. All we know for sure is that the airport improvements needed to make Mombasa an international airport were completed by 1979. Oh, and East African got rid of its last Canadairs in 1963 (mentioned on page 94 of Whodat’s book).
When a child is born abroad to a US citizen parent, generally the first thing the parent does is call or visit the nearest consolate (or embassy), whose job it is to handle situations like this.
If Stanley Ann delivered Obama in Kenya, therefore, the only plausible thing for her to do would be to call the nearest consolate and ask for their advice. The consular staff would know about Section 322, as it is their job to know, and they would advise her accordingly.
Is it possible that one of them decided to look up the citizenship laws themself?
If one of them looked up the law for themself, do you think they would have gotten all the way to Section 322 after looking at Section 301?
LOL. No one reads a law like a book, from cover to cover. That’s a sure way of dying of boredom.
Literate people generally first look in the table of contents to determine which section of the law applies to their situation. Now, what does the Table of Contents of the law say? Well, right on page 3, it says:
“Section 322: Child born outside the united states: naturalization upon petition of citizen parent; requirements and exceptions.”
Do you honestly think any literate person reading the law, whose child was just born abroad, would skip section 322, when the above description is sitting right there on page 3 of the table of contents?
None of us can prove or disprove the motivation of the parties in 1961.
I just did. Section 322 of the INA proves that there was no plausible motive for grandma Dunhum to commit fraud had baby Barack been board abroad.
It’s a significant piece of the puzzle.
What puzzle?
“What puzzle?”
Exactly
Actually, if I get his version correctly (that joke about Canada Air in Mombasa is a real stinker, as Mr Chips would have said) he is now saying that the Obamas flew with Air India from New York over London to Bombay and thence to Nairobi!
The problem for the birthers with the Comet 4 from Nairobi to London is that it flew only twice weekly, stopped twice on the way (because they wouldn’t have enough passengers otherwise) – both of these facts are in Whodat’s book on p 93 – and were almost as uncomfortable as earlier planes. Not so with the Boeing – and there was indeed a service by Air India from New York to Bombay at the time. Whether Bombay to Nairobi (a line that had existed since 1950) used Boeing jets on this trajectory, remains to be seen. One photograph saying introduction in 1961 proves nothing. I want to see the birth cerificate, I mean the time tables. And of course, like the Comet 4, it could have had a stop on the way (at Aden).
Has Whodat established a way for the Obamas to reach Nairobi from Honolulu and back by comfortable plains? Yes, but the cost of the fare would have been much higher than Misha calculated. And the main point: even in this fantastic scenario (how did two students assemble such a big sum of money and why did they spend it this way?) the problem of this article still remains: how did they get back in four days? The reason why I want to see the time tables of Air India is on the top of page 94. East African Airways had a line to Bombay. Normally, this kind of thing in the days before the freedom of the air depended on reciprocity. How often did East African Airways fly to Bombay? Answer: ONCE a WEEK.
WhoDat? has already conceded this point:
As has already been discussed here, a registration of the birth by Mrs Obama’s parents in such circumstances would have required that they find a registrar willing to illegally register the birth of a child who could not be shown at that time and place to even exist. At best, it’s a pretty outlandish hypothesis.
All of this is a fun intellectual exercise(would the implausible be possible?) but is somewhat distracting- basically focusing on the frame of the picture instead of the picture.
There is solid evidence Obama was born in Hawaii
There is no evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii
Even arguing whether it would be possible for Obama to be born in Kenya misses the point I think. It is possible that Obama was born in Canada or Cuba or Russia or Yemen. So incredibly implausible as to be laughable but possible.
But by this standard of proof, we really cannot be certain of the birthplace of any of our previous Presidents either, yet somehow our nation survived. Maybe Bush was born in China or Clinton was born in Mexico- even if we found out now that they had been, would it change our perception of their success’s or failure’s as President?
The time to demand proof of eligiblity is prior to the election. The voters can determine whether that bar has been met. If thats not good enough for people, then go to your legislatures and advocate for some universal standards- i wouldn’t object.
But enough of this trying to revise the rules after the election. Enough of trying to overturn an election by throwing theories at the courts. Enough of giving the smear machines any credence.
I think the part that WhoDat is missing is that there are regulations that govern administrative procedures as well as statutes. A non-hospital registration would have required some documentation of the birth, such as the record of an examination of the newborn by a doctor. So you can’t get the registration of baby Obama — by grandma or anyone else — without baby Obama being in Hawaii at least for the purpose of a well-baby, newborn registration.
Even Princess Margaret flies from London to Mombasa.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vkEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA60&dq=mombasa+airport&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1955&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1958&as_brr=3&cd=41#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20airport&f=false
Can you believe it? That “birther magazine” LIFE show Mombasa in Kenya, and the article doesn’t say anything about the Princess visiting Zanzibar.
I would like to short circuit this entire game.
We are not to believe the Hawaii DOH, and the Republican governor – they are all in a conspiracy tighter than Watergate. Bush and his cronies had their stories of WMDs fall apart.
But the fantastic scenarios painted by the Denialists are all entirely plausible, in fact believable.
I understand how Holocaust deniers think.
Princess Margaret didn’t fly commercial.
Also, can you read? The article says, “She sailed back to Zanzibar, where she captivated its multinational population as well as its aged sultan.”
There’s a reason you guys are 0-70.
Why let facts get in the way of a good story. Denialists remind me of SNL’s pathological liar skit.
‘We were on a steamship…yeah…and were shipwrecked…yeah…and everyone perished, including me…yeah.’
Zanzibar refers to the two islands.
That Life did not distinguish between the Colony of Kenya and the Protectorate of Kenya (which were united administratively) is not surprising, nor proof of anything.
And certainly doesn’t indicate how grandmom registered a birth without any proof of a baby, parents, or a birth.
“…Britain’s well-traveled Princess Margaret threw herself into another grueling mission in empire diplomacy. For five weeks she drove and sailed and flew on a tour of British colonies and protectorates in east Africa and on islands offshore in the Indian Ocean. She had scarcely a moment to herself.
… She flew to Mombasa, then sailed in a royal yacht to Mauritius. Upon her arrival an excited crowd broke through police cordons, but the princess opposed suggestions that her schedule on the island be curtailed. She sailed back to Zanzibar where she captivated its multinational populations as well as its aged sultan. She spent rigorous days under a burning tropical sun in Tanganyika. She got to Kenya four days before tribal police captured the leader of the Mau Mau, and toured the country that had been beset by Mau Mau terrorism.
Under the strain of travel every member of the entourage was taken ill at one time or another.”
A. It does talk about the princess traveling to Zanzibar.
B. She flies to Mombasa, then Mauritius, then back to Zanzibar. Seems a probable reading puts Mombasa in Zanzibar.
C. Sounds like a trip that an 18 year-old pregnant girl would love to take!
I mean, she was only next in line for the throne at the time…traveling with a royal entourage.
To WhoDat and the rest: I believe in logic. I made a career as a licensed optician. When I made eyeglasses, put them on a patient, and the person said ‘I can’t see,’ I have to figure out why. I can’t go running off on some wild tangent, trying to pass the buck.
“Sounds like a trip that an 18 year-old pregnant girl would love to take!”
And in her third trimester, too!
WhoDat? missed his career as a pet shop clerk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
ROTFL. Oh yes it does. It says “She sailed BACK to Zanzibar where she captivated …” According to yguy, BACK means that she had been there before.
As I said, it was the Protectorate of Kenya. A legal existence that would have had a minor influence on the title used on the birth certificate. Unfortunately, from his Youtube page it appears Mr Smith knows. And he has read my comment about no birth certficates for blacks in “Kenya”. Hm,
[Personal insult deleted, Doc.] Until you can place Stanley Ann in Hawaii sometime between Dec. 1960 and May of 1961, you should be perpetually barred from any claim of travel duuring the third trimester. [Personal insult deleted, Doc.]
Do you even know that Barack II was carried to full term? ([Personal insult deleted, Doc.] Obama will tell you what he wants you to know, and that is all he will tell you)
Right now that seems as likely as anything that BP’s trying…
Dr. C.:
Would it be possible to create on this site a “silly circle” devoted to preposterous posters?
Shrub tried to conceal his DUI misdemeanor conviction:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
So you’re basically saying a Princess who has lots of money can travel anywhere compared to two poor college students who would have had to fork over thousands of dollars just to fly to a place one of them had never been before to give birth in a place far away from relatives…. right
You might just want to look at the captions of some of the pictures on the following pages which describe the Princess visiting Zanzibar. Is this what you love to call a “lie”?
Again, you have it backwards. The burden of prove is on the accuser, remember?
Therefore, until you can place Stanely Ann In Kenya sometime between Dec. 1960 and May of 1961, you’ve got nothing.
Me, I’ll go with officials from the state of HI, two newspapers, and a COLB that says born in Honolulu, HI.
Until you have something solid that can top that, you’ve still got nothing.
Well stated. The facts again are not on the side of WhoDat, nor does he seem able to present any evidence to support his position.
For the record…
Dr. Othigo was the Chief Hospital Administrator (CHA) at Coast Provincial General Hospital (CPGH) in July 2008.
And she was the CHA in September 2008.
And in February 2009, shortly before Lucas Smith supposedly went to Kenya.
And in March 2009, right after Lucas Smith supposedly went to Kenya.
And in April 2009.
In order to truly believe that Lucas Smith obtained a BC in Kenya that shows Obama was born there, one would have to believe the following:
His past criminal record as a forgerer is meaningless.
His attempt to sell the BC on Ebay is meaningless.
His attempt to then sell tickets for a “dissertation” on Ebay is meaningless.
His inability to show a passport indicating travel to Kenya is meaningless.
His story change, from going to Kenya in the spring, to going in February, is meaningless.
The fact that the BC, which if real would have been stamped by Dr. Othigo in February 2009, but wasn’t, is meaningless.
The trolls here know that Lucas is a con. Lucas’ little fan club groupies know that Lucas is a con. They post for only one reason – to spread a false reality. They could very well be part of a funded operation…why else would they continue to post absurd comments? They have no honor, they feel no shame, and they are evil.
I don’t know about those dates, but I have solid documentary evidence that she was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. 👿
She married Barack Obama on February 2, 1961 on Maui, which, last I checked, was part of Hawaii. If you want to dispute the marriage, go right ahead. If she wasn’t married, then her citizenship passed automatically to her child regardless of the place of birth.
The parrot is dead.
As I showed, Obama Sr. was married to Kezia Obama, unbeknownst to Ann Dunham. So legally Obama Jr. was a citizen by birth, irregardless of Ann’s age, anywhere in the universe.
Cue the music…
“This is where you continue to lose, eyeman.”
Since WhoDat flippantly refers to me as “eyeman,” I am curious what WhoDat does for a living.
And I’m losing?! So far Denialists are batting zero. And my dear landsman Orly has wrecked several careers.
Losing? Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
misha: Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
We’ll see about that. You don’t have to be a birther to want to see Obama defeated in 2012. When the big spending on the new health insurance subsidies, and cuts to Medicare to pay for them, become imminent, our fiscal situation will begin to look like that of Greece. At that point, the arguments of us small government advocates just might start to take off.
I don’t think there are quite as many Americans who are willing to let Obama bankrupt the country as you think.:)
Yes, indeed. We will see. I have serious doubts that the Republican party can nominate a candidate that is somewhat sane and has a connection with us common folk. Obama is most likely to win another term if he decides to run and that’s based on just what I see in the area I’m living right now which is North Carolina. The information I base my guess on, because that is all this is – a guess, voters realize that Obama came into a series of mass problems left over by Republican leadership. There are times that I kind of hope that a Republican does win in 2012 just to show all the tea baggers that things can be much worse.
“When the big spending on the new health insurance subsidies, and cuts to Medicare to pay for them, become imminent, our fiscal situation will begin to look like that of Greece.”
The two wars Shrub started are the biggest items, along with his tax cuts. Remember, when Clinton left office, there was a surplus of about $212M; when Shrub left office the deficit was $1T.
And Romney is hostile to social justice.
You’re right that you don’t have to be a birther to be opposed to President Obama, but barring a severe double-dip recession I believe he will be re-elected (I don’t know about Corey Booker in 2016, but I certainly like what I’ve seen of him and would most likely vote for him if he ran). I do feel the need to correct some of the misinformation in your post: The healthcare bill will REDUCE the deficit, not add to it (according to the CBO score) and while there will be cuts in Medicare, those are achieved by eliminating waste, not cutting services. Also, if you want a balanced budget, re-elect President Obama. We ended the Clinton Administration with a surplus and while President Obama probably wont be able to get back there by the end of 8 years, I believe that he will have us on course for eliminating the surplus and reducing the debt by the end of his administration. Blaming the deficit on President Obama is disingenuous at best – he came in having to pay for TARP (a Bush administration policy) and one of the first things he did was to put the wars on the books (which the Bush administration had been keeping off the deficit numbers by shady accounting practices). As for the stimulus package – the absolute worst thing to do in a recession is to cut spending (unless you’d like another great depression). Pretty much ALL economists (left and right) believed that the stimulus was necessary and many of them thought that it was too small. Not to mention the fact that it WORKED (2.8 million jobs created so far…). So while opposing President Obama is perfectly within your rights, just like the birthers you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. (And I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the next time the budget is balanced will again be during a Democratic administration…)
“We’ll see about that. You don’t have to be a birther to want to see Obama defeated in 2012. When the big spending on the new health insurance subsidies, and cuts to Medicare to pay for them, become imminent, our fiscal situation will begin to look like that of Greece. At that point, the arguments of us small government advocates just might start to take off.”
If he loses, he loses. I think its really way to early to tell. I think that it really will rest upon the economy- if unemployment hasn’t come down dramatically, or isn’t coming down dramatically by the time of the election, Obama will probably lose. I think the issue of small government vs Obama’s government will be far less crucial than employment. The wildcard in this the Gulf Oil spill. That could drag down Obama’s Presidency, and I say that without any comment on whether he is handling it right or wrong.
Anyway, if he loses an election, then he loses it. Thats the American way. I only hope that Birthers demand the same standards of proof of eligibility for any Republican candidates as they have of Obama.
And I hope the Republicans give them a state issued certified copy of their BC and nothing more.
Oops! Should be:
misha: he two wars Shrub started are the biggest items, along with his tax cuts. Remember, when Clinton left office, there was a surplus of about $212M; when Shrub left office the deficit was $1T.
Ancient history, my friend. Obama can’t run against Bush next time, and he’s no Clinton.
Yes, he inherited problems because of Bush’s stupidity, but he’s only making a bad fiscal situation order of magnitudes worse with his policies. Not all Republicans are like Bush.
You underestimate the voters’ anxiety about the looming fiscal crisis at your peril.
Hey Adam,
I am curious. What exactly is the plan of Small Government folk?
What gets cut, what gets reduced. I am curious what the proposals are.
Unfortunately, I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of the effects of the spill. One thing I am afraid of is the increase in the effects of hurricanes with the surface oil. The darker oil can absorb more solar heat & therefore intensify hurricanes. The oil can be picked up & deposited far inland. The entire southeast & even parts of Mexico could be disastrously effected by an oil rain. This would be a long term effect, not easily fixed. Standby. We’ll soon see what will happen.
Well, I can only speak for myself. If I could, I’d do the following:
1) Repeal Obamacare. Replace it with something like what Professor Cochrane of the University of Chicago has proposed.
2) Raise the retirement age to 70
3) Means tests social security and medicare for anyone under the age of 50 (i.e. turn them into a welfare program for the poor)
4) Cut public sector pensions whenever possible
5) Bust public sector unions whenever possible
6) Implement a VAT alongside some (but not totally offsetting) cuts to corporate and individual income taxes
Something like the above will be necessary to prevent our country from going bankrupt.
Will all be achieveable immediately? No. But some of the above provisions could garner support in 2012 if the fiscal situation looks dire, which it will.
Right now, provisions 4 & 5 are quite popular. Provision 2, I think, could garner support, so long as it is phased in gradually.
I think Larry Summers is correct in his prediction that provision 6 will eventually garner bipartisan support. Probably not by 2012, but soon thereafter as politicians on both sides will be desperate for additional revenue.
Provision 3 probably won’t get much support in 2012. However, it will gain popularity with time as social security and medicare start to run massive deficits. By 2018, I suspect the idea that everyone should get them will become politically indefensible.
To those of you who think Obamacare will actually cut the deficit, or that Obama will balance the budget, you delude yourself. Cite the gamed CBO score all you want, but by 2012, it will be an obvious fiscal bomb.
Don’t believe me? Fine. Let’s wait two years and see who’s right! 🙂
What a depressing thought – I’m not sure how much the oil will evaporate (and thus be carried in the rain), but I think you’re probably right about the increased solar absorption leading to intensifying any hurricane and certainly oil would be pushed onto shore by any hurricane making landfall. If the gulf manages to mostly recover from this (some species will likely go extinct and thus never recover) in 50 years it will be a miracle – I’m guessing a century will be more likely.
Obama not being re-elected because the American people vote for someone else is fine; that’s how our government works.
Attempting to remove a sitting president, who was legitimately elected and whose election was certified by the constitutionally appointed authorities, is an altogether different matter. Especially when such a crusade is neither factually nor legally supported.
Adam,
I think you have put forward a fairly rational list. Thanks. I will have to look at the Professor’s plan but in general I disagree regarding Obama’s plan.
I agree with means testing for any age group actually for SS# and Medicare. Raising retirement age- absolutely. I think pensions should be changed for new hires to be essentially 401K type plans like private business’s.
I think busting public unions is pretty much illegal unless they have an illegal strike. So negotiate tough.
VAT? Right wingers are already slamming Obama on a the possibility of a VAT.
Anyway, I agree we need comprehensive reform. I just am very doubtful in today’s climate it will happen. Reforming our SS# and Medicare is just a third rail. No one really wants to touch it- but it needs to happen, no doubt.
“In May 1958, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation made a generous donation of £30,000 for the restoration of Fort Jesus as an historical monument and the building of a museum. On the 24th October 1958 Fort Jesus was declared a National Park in the custody of the Trustees of the Kenya National Parks, and on the 29th November 1960, it was officially opened to the public. On 1st January. 1969, it was transferred from the custody of the National Parks Trustees to the Museum Trustees of Kenya.
http://www.africanmeccasafaris.com/kenya/mombasa/excursions/fortjesus.asp
I know. The people running the safaris must want to attract the birther crowd. 🙂
The only problem with that is the National Museums of Kenya says the same thing.
“On the 24th October 1958, Fort Jesus was declared a National Park in the custody of the Trustees of the Kenya National Parks.”
Everybody’s doin’ it, doin’ it, doin’ it. Can you believe these crazy Kenyans? They must have put something that was part of Zanzibar in the custody of the Kenya National Parks.
Either that, or Fort Jesus (located in Mombasa) was part of the Kenya Colony.
Here’s the National Museums of Kenya website:
http://www.museums.or.ke/content/blogcategory/48/76/
You know, I could look all that up, and get caught up in the debate of Zanzibar vs Kenya but instead i will just point out…..
The evidence shows Obama was born in Hawaii
There is no evidence that shows Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii
The voters voted and President Obama is indeed the President.
Show us evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, not that it was technically possible. Show us evidence that would make it probable Obama was born in Kenya instead of improbable.
Does anybody find the idea of naming a military installation after the “Prince of Peace” a bit strange?
So was the Protectorate of Kenya just a conspiracy of cartographers?
I have visited FDR’s summer home on Campobello Island in New Brunswick, Canada. It’s a lovely spot and although it’s in Canada, it’s run jointly by the US National Parks Service and Parks Canada.
Go ahead. Close your eyes and stomp your feet. Until you will admit that only one piece of paper (submitted by an undisclosed person), is the basis for your belief, you have no choice but to close your eyes and stomp your feet.
I didn’t say Obama was Kenyan-born; the African news did.
I didn’t say Obama is not a native of this country; The Kenya Minister of Lands did.
I didn’t say Obama’s home country is Kenya; Obama’s wife did.
You see, I haven’t even included the Lucas Smith CPGH birth certificate.
As a result of the above short list, I am asking who submitted Obama’s birth report to the Hawaii DOH. If it was an independent party, and it demonstrates that Obama was really born at Kapiolani, I’d be satisfied.
Do you see anything about Fort Jesus being under joint control?
I know about the TREATY that enables joint management of Campobello. Did you notice that it is an International Park? Has Fort Jesus ever been an International Park?
Hearsay!
Hearsay!
Hearsay!
The COLB is also hearsay, but well recognized exceptions make it admissible evidence.
You’re demanding more proof than any court in the United States would require.
That’s your problem, not Obama’s.
talk about closing your eyes and stomping your feet.
The basis of my belief:
1. The COLB
2. The newspaper announcements
3. The statements by the government of Hawaii.
4. Common sense telling me it is not probable that Obama forged the COLB, not probable that a woman traveled to Africa to have her child, not probable that the State of Hawaii under a Republican governor would misrepresent the evidence, etc.
Your “evidence” is more about confirmation bias. How many times have there been references to Obama being born in Kenya? Let’s be generous and say 50. How many thousands of times have there been references to Obama being born in Hawaii?
How many times has Michelle referred to Hawaii as Obama’s birth place? How many times has she told listeners “You can’t really understand Barack until you understand Hawaii.”
You don’t remember those because they don’t fit with your narrative.
Excellent point, and your references to cognitive dissonance are on point as well.
So Whodat- you agree then there is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya but there is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
See that wasn’t so hard.
That ‘one piece of paper’ has some magic words on it – ‘prima facie’. That means that it is effectively true until proven otherwise – i.e. evidence (that you could take to court) that President Obama was born outside the US or that fraud was committed when registering his birth. Until you have that any court in the US is going to presume that he is a natural born citizen upon receipt of a certified copy of the COLB. Furthermore, there seems to be a legal argument that he was a (natural born) citizen even if he was born outside of the US since his parents marriage was not valid. So continue to tilt at windmills if you like, but a court will never rule in your favor on this issue.
Wise words & well said, Bob!
@whodat:
I’ve followed the link to the books mentioning international telephone service in Mombasa. Problem – I can’t find any evidence that any of the books mention international telephone service in Mombasa. I’ll agree that there are a great many books published that have the words ‘international’, ‘telephone’, ‘service’, and ‘mombasa’ appearing in different parts of the book.
For example, the link to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Kenya has the words “South Africa airways and other international air services”… elsewhere on that page the word ‘telephone’ also appears… Hmm, not convinced this proves Kenya had international telephone service…
Got any evidence that actually holds water? Besides – the argument misha made was that there weren’t calls across the atlantic. Even if there are international calls from Mombasa, you’ve got to be able to convince us there were calls that got all the way to the US, not just to neighboring countries. Then you have to show that it was affordable to a student. A convincing argument has been made that phone calls from Mombasa to US were impossible when Obama was born, and your best argument is that there are books that have 4 particular words in them?
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=whodat+is+crazy&btnG=Search+Books
You do realize that everyone’s birth certificate is based on an undisclosed individual submitting information to another undisclosed person. And every BC or COLB is “a piece of paper”. You want people to admit that most improbable circumstance could have happened to somehow support your contention. Even though the COLB is attested to be an abstract of the actual recorded birth information that the state has on file, you want people to believe that there could have been some misinformation or incorrect information on file. You believe this without supplying an sort of proof or admissible evidence. You concot implausable scenarios that would involve major conspiracies throughout all levels of the Hawaiian government. Especially when it has been shown that Grandma could not have just “registered” the baby nor could Mrs. Obama easily have traveled to Kenya and back in time to register the child.
You are basically playing the “what if” game. You focus on this so called original that the state is purported to have in its possession rather than the law which states that the COLB issued is suffcient and is the legallly acceptable document. Of course you will now state that you will not be satisfied until you see that original, but you never explain how it could differ from the COLB. Nor will you say that Dr. Fukino is lying, even though she has stated that Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii.
It has come down to the facts. The fact is that the COLB states birth in Hawaii. The state of HI has confirmed this and have released their own statement that Obama was born in HI. There were newspaper announcements that also stated there was a birth in HI. Obama himself has stated he was born in HI and Obama’s grandmother stated that he was born in HI. But you would tend to give credence to a document submitted by a convicted forger, statements by a couple of Kenyan politicans that were not there who called him a son of the soil of Kenya, and newspaper articles. Amazing when you want to believe something what evidence someone will try and believe as true.
Wow, birthers are so good at being ironic. It is so easy to turn your own words around and apply them to you, so:
Go ahead. Close your eyes and stomp your feet. Until you will admit that only one piece of paper here, the HI COLB, is a credible birth certificate which would be admissible as evidence, you are left with nothing but mere speculative hypotheses as the basis for your belief, and therefore you have no choice but to close your eyes and stomp your feet.
There, fixed. 🙂
*snork* Yeah, somehow I don’t buy that at all. Mere concern trolling to pass the time until you have to move the goal posts again, that is all you are doing. Folks like you have an agenda and you won’t let the truth get in the way of your quixotic pursuit of it.
jcm52,
You’ve stumbled onto an important truth of how birthers work – they are just “google abusers” at best.
They think that typing in a pre-determined set of words that fits their pre-conceived conclusions into google and then pasting links of the search results is “evidence” or “proof”.
They don’t bother to actually check or read many of their sources, because reading comprehension is not their strong suit nor is a true desire to search for the truth part of their mission.
As the old saying goes, GIGO.
It’s jointly run by Mohammed and Buddha. They’re trying to be ecumenical.
I’m kind of hoping it wasn’t. I honestly don’t think I could stand it if you were satisfied.
Then the basis of your belief all relies on a birth report filed by someone Obama refuses to let be identified.
I think it’s kind of strange to think that the wife of a Kenyan would not have her baby in Kenya. It was a regular occurence, even in 1961.
It may not go along with the story Obama wants to tell, but that doesn’t make it impossible.
With about 30% of the country questioning his birthplace (a question that could be resolved by verifying that an independent party reported his birth in Hawaii), why do you think Obama wants to leave those questions unresolved for so many people?
Take a look at all the graves in the National Cemeteries. Think about the sacrifices those good people made for the security of this country, and then tell me the task is just too great.
If the show was on the other foot (If Obama was a Republican) you would probably want the same questions answered.
The comment “Stanley had a baby” has been mentioned numerous times, yet you still deny, deny, deny. What was that 3-letter word beginning with “L” that you are so fond of using?
How many Kenyans living in the US and married to Americans went to Kenya to give birth? Can you even document one? How many births did the US Embassy in Nairobi register in 1961? If there were any, how many were not US missionaries ot other personnel who LIVED in Kenya?
I have known quite a few married foreign students living in the US. The number that went to their home country to give birth? Zero. Not a single one. Even when both spouses were from that country. They all gave birth here, every last one.
I suppose virtually ALL Kenyans’ children are born in Kenya. But I sincerely doubt that Kenyan students abroad married to Americans commonly had their children born in Kenya in 1961. Do you have some statistics to share?
Yes, they fought and died so that even nut case conspiracy theorists could be free to chase their dreams.
I sure do, and that’s why we perform additional checks if the security interest warrants it.
Too many people are acting like we (the birthers) are asking Obama to submit to an anal probe, or something outrageously invasive. We’re not. We’re just asking him to resolve the “born in Hawaii” questions that have arose. We’re asking for conclusive evidence rather than presumptive evidence.
Heck, I’d be satisfied with a bipartisan group of representatives from Hawaii being permitted to view and announce that his birth report was filed by a hospital. Select 3 from each party by lottery. Let them look at the vault records and make an announcement.
And I’m still waiting for George W. Bush to resolve those “mastermind of 9/11” questions that have arose. I’m asking for conclusive evidence rather than presumptive evidence.
[/sarc]
Here’s another thing to consider Mr Dat. US universities offer health insurance for foreign students and require them to buy it (it is billed directly on their tuition). I know this was true as far back as the 70s, and was likely true well before that. The insurance covers spouses if the student is married.
So if Stanley Ann gave birth in Hawaii it would have been fully covered by the University. On the other hand, a birth in Kenya would have not been covered and would have had to be paid for out of pocket. That alone is a pretty strong reason to have the baby in Hawaii.
You don’t get it. No one cares!! Even 1/3 of those who think Obama was born outside the US like him, think he is doing a good job and would vote for him in 2012. There isn’t going to be a bipartisan commission to look into this. Why? Because it isn’t important and no none really cares.
Not! CPGH is a government hospital.
First, you have to prove that Obama’s parents were legally married in Hawaii, and not some tribal wedding in Kenya.
Then they have as much respect for the Constitution as you do. If they want to permit a foreign-born person to be President of the U.S., let them propose a constitutional amendment.
At least the Smith certificate, if it weren’t a fake, would be real evidence. The rest of your list is not. Africa news printed a correction the next day (and how would they know anyway). The Kenya Minister of Lands doesn’t know. Even if Obama were born in Africa, his wife wouldn’t say so in public, so she obviously meant something else (which makes complete sense in context).
Even in the event that Obama’s mother or father filed the birth certificate, we still have their word (given under penalty of perjury) for where Obama was born, against zero evidence on the other side. My own father’s birth certificate, by the way, was accepted solely on the signature of his mother, and it was good enough to get him in the Army to serve in combat in the Pacific during World War II. (This was a delayed certificate filed when he was an adult.)
You can inspire uncertainty and doubt by your clever rhetoric, but only among those with impaired critical reasoning skills.
Prove that the Smith bc is fake.
Do you think it would be strange for a foreign student to take his new wife to his country?
Maybe she intended to live in Kenya? Maybe by the time she chanced her mind, it was too late.
Try this on for size Dr. Conspiracy: Why would a 19 year-old woman decide to move to Seattle with her infant child, rather than stay in Hawaii where her parents and husband lived?
“Heck, I’d be satisfied with a bipartisan group of representatives from Hawaii being permitted to view and announce that his birth report was filed by a hospital. Select 3 from each party by lottery. Let them look at the vault records and make an announcement”
Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn’t. Luckily the world doesn’t revolve around whether your are satisfied. You want your questions asked, I think the question is clearly already been answered- multiple times. Neither of our opinions are particularly important.
“If the show was on the other foot (If Obama was a Republican) you would probably want the same questions answered”
Nope- Let say for instance that these same questions came up after President Bush was elected. Frankly I would have though they were just as ridiculous.
Likewise, if Obama does not get re-elected, well then the voters will have spoken. I will not be filing lawsuits or coming up with conspiracy theories about why the election must have been invalid.
“Do you think it would be strange for a foreign student to take his new wife to his country?
Maybe she intended to live in Kenya? Maybe by the time she chanced her mind, it was too late.”
When I was in college, I was friends with many foreign students, including students from Africa. Not a single African that I knew went home until after they graduated. It was too expensive.
Anyway- here you are with more ‘maybe this’ or ‘maybe that’- really your scenario is improbable, is implausible, but sure, its possible. Trying to come up with more ‘maybe’s’ doesn’t change the implausibility or possibility.
Have you made any sacrifices for our Country, Dr. Conspiracy? The way you blew off the portion about sacrifice tells me you have not.
SF Jeff,
It’s great to be having a civilized conversation with someone on the other “side” of the political divide. I’m glad we agree on a lot of things, especially the idea of means testing SS & Medicare. People on your “side” have traditionally viewed such a step as anathema, since it undermines the political support of the programs. The center-left has traditionally argued that SS & medicare need to be universal in order to ensure that the population at large is invested in their success.
I hope I can convicne more people like you of the error of this position, and of the virtue of having more of the population be responsible for its own retirement, rather than dependent on some government program.
As to Obamacare, if you doubt my assertion that it’s going to be a fiscal bomb, take a look at this presentation by the CBO director:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11544/Presentation5-26-10.pdf
Pay particular attention to pages 5 & 10. Obamacare promises massive new spending on insurance subsidies to go into effect in 2013. The only reason the CBO scored it as deficit-reducing is that the law also promises to cut medicare spending growth in half in the future.
Now even if you think the medicare growth cuts will materialize (highly doubtful, given Congress’s history of failing to cut it in the past), we still can’t afford the insurance subsidies. The US Congress enacting Obamacare and justifying the cost by cutting medicare is like a credit card junkie justifying his recent decision to take a vacation to Aruba by foregoing a purchase of a flat-panel TV. The fact is, he can’t afford either. Just beacuse the Aruba vacation costs a tiny bit less than the TV doesn’t mean this is a sound fiscal move.
The fact is, we will go banrupt as a nation unless we repeal those insurance subsidies AND reduce spending on medicare. By using savings on Medicare to pay for a new entitlement, Obama just made our fiscal situation that much more difficult to handle politically.
“you have to prove that Obama’s parents were legally married in Hawaii,”
No we don’t.
We don’t have to prove anything.
We can offer our rebutals to your speculations, but we don’t have to do anything.
President Obama is our President- legally, and demonstrably.
You won’t have to. There will never be another President elected by releasing his documents to his choice of media.
After Arizona passes their law, many other states will follow.
By your inability to believe the evidence presented by the State of Hawai`i you have demonstrated that you would not be satisfied if that were to happen. Even if the state SoSs accept the presented documents you will still say that there is the possibility of forgery.
Arizona birther bill dies in state senate.
Adam,
I enjoy a civil discussion also. Very off topic of course, so I won’t pursue it further right now, but I think that if more people were really willing to open themselves to considering all possible obtions, and seriously resolved to solve the problem it is very possible to fix it. Unfortunately i think both sides tend to point to many things as “off the table”- and those are largely the items that are necessary to solve the problems- Taxes, SS, Medicare, yes- pensions, the military budget- In my opinion you have to consider the main source of revenue and the largest cost centers in the equation.
The devil is in the details.
Old news bob. We have another year. It will pass.
When he is living on a student’s budget, and she is in her thrid trimester, yes, it would be very strange indeed.
Less strange when you consider she was going there for school had lived there from 1995 to 1960, and had friends there. And the big difference is that there is evidence of her going there. There is no evidence that she ever stepped foot in Kenya.
And even if it did, President Obama would submit his COLB from Hawaii, Arizona would accept it, and you probably wouldn’t be allowed to see the documents that were submitted.
Ok JoZeppy. Why don’t you give us something that demonstrates she was in Hawaii during her third trimester? She wasn’t attending college in the Spring of 1961.
I know, the “third trimester” “extremely pregnant” claims are need to sell your story. The fact that you can’t provide anything to support them screams loudly.
It’s not impossible that the KGB brainwashed George W. during his tenure as part owner of the Houston Astros.
6% of Americans believe that Elvis is still alive.
80% think the government is hiding proof of aliens.
4-8% of Americans think George W. Bush was our greatest president
70% of Americans think Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone.
The current Arizona state senate is controlled by Republicans (18-12). Exactly how will a recycled bill from the previous session be able to pass if it wasn’t able to pass this session? Which senatorial candidates will support a birther bill that current seatholders won’t?
Names, please.
She wasn’t….but her Barack Sr. was….or are you implying that he sent his 18 year old wife, all by herself on the multi day, multi-flight change flight, to go to a country she had never been before?
It’s not even impossible that W’s part ownership of the Texas Rangers was cover for his ownership of the Houston Astros.
All the state needs to do is write the law in a way that would permit the Secretary of State to obtain certified copies of original vital records if only an abstract is presented. This would give the SOS a tangible interest in the original vital records.
“You won’t have to. There will never be another President elected by releasing his documents to his choice of media.”
Let me re-word this for you:
“Obama was the first President ever to produce his birth certificate, demonstrating that he was indeed a natural born citizen”
“After Arizona passes their law, many other states will follow”
As long as its uniform and not a stupid law, relying upon the political judgements of Secretary of States, I wouldn’t care. If it was required by law, President Obama would just produce the required document to designated authority.
Far different from ignoring the buzzing of the flies.
And what do you think? Please address each of the items you presented.
And as this was beaten like a dead horse before, Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Arizona (or any other state) cannot dictate to another state what documents are used to document a birth.
Uhhh, no. Full Faith and Credit. If a state law won’t accept another state’s COLB, that state law is invalid.
Barack Sr. was still in school….or do you think he sent his wife all the way around the world by herself?
No state would write such a law, because it would imply that a state could doubt the veracity of documents issued by a co-equal sovereign. It would violate the principles of comity.
I think that decisions shouldn’t be made based on how many people believe a certain thing.
just wait until some Secretary of State refuses to accept a candidates eligiblity based upon some whacko construction of the law.
You just know its going to happen in Arizona.
But heck, if one of the board of supervisors from my city was elected Secretary of State, he would probably disqualify every Republican Presidential Candidate just because.
Demonstrate that she had more than one friend there. She went to High School on Mercer Island. She lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood during college.
For four years on Mercer Island, Stanley Ann Dunham impressed her high-school classmates with a wickedly sharp wit. She was an “intellectual rebel” with a fledgling beatnik sensibility that would eventually take her around the globe.
I say that “beatnik sensibility” would have made her jump at the chance to go to Kenya. All you you say that would not have been the logical choice. Then again, neither would going to college in Seattle with an infant in 1961. Who was going to pay for the babysitting while she attended school? Was she there on scholarship? Would a college scholarship pay to support her and her infant?
Excellent point. I would add that over half of Americans don’t believe in evolution (actually, no Americans ‘believe’ in evolution – over half erroneously believe it is false and the rest KNOW that it is as certain as science gets…). It is important to judge things in the correct context. As you and many others here have shown, in the context of the law, President Obama is a natural born citizen until there is admissible evidence that he was born outside of the country (and may be a natural born citizen even if such evidence comes to light).
I knew you wouldn’t have the courage to weigh in.
Just as soon as you can demonstrate that there is ONE person that ever saw her in Kenya.
And for the record…Mercer Island and Capital Hill are about a 10-15 minute drive from each other. I think her high school friends could make the trip without much effort.
And only in the mind of a birther does it make more sense for a pregnant woman to travel half way around the world to give birth in a third world nation she had never been to, but to return to the state where she attended high school and had friends makes no sense.
I did weigh in. I don’t think it matters whether those things are true or not, but the fact that a certain percentage of Americans believe or disbelieve a thing doesn’t make it more or less true.
What about you? Do you have the courage to weigh in on what I just said? Is there a percentage of Americans believing something above which the government must act?
Clearly, the government needs to come out with more information about aliens and Kennedy’s assassination, right?
It could as easily have lead her to buck convention and have a black child in Hawaii, and then to move to Seattle to attend college.
The difference is there is real evidence of one of these possibilities and the other is simply speculation.
“Demonstrate that she had more than one friend there. She went to High School on Mercer Island. She lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood during college.”
Why more than one? I am not going to look for it, but I read a quote of a Mercer friend saying she used to change Obama’s diapers in Washington. Why does she need more than one good friend to move there?
But then again- none of that matters. Why she went to Washington has no relevance. Why she might have gone to Kenya might have some relevance if there were any evidence that she had.
Since there is no evidence Ann Dunham went to Africa, pointing out how improbable and implausible such a trip would be is just frosting on the cake.
Possible- Obama born in Kenya
Possible- Aliens live amongst us
Possible- Birthers are in the pay of a foreign government
All three are possible, but all three are implausible.
I had the same experience in grad school. A few of the Indians went home to get married, but all the babies were born here. And airfares were relatively much cheaper by then than in 1961.
Show evidence that a foreign woman would have received free care in such hospitals prior to independence. All the sources i have found say that taxpayer-funded health care came in in 1963. So, they would have had to pay in Kenya, but not in Hawaii. No one travels halfway around the world to pay for something they can get free at home.
http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=1472
The State of Hawaii granted them a divorce. I believe that being married is a requirement to get divorced.
The point is, Obama has done everything legally necessary to demonstrate his qualifications for office. He followed the process and it is also clear that there exists legal documentation of his birth. See http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html (the index data alone is sufficient to demonstrate place of birth)
In your distorted version of the law that may be true, but I read the law. I know that Obama has not been conclusively determined to be a natural-born citizen. How do I know this? I read Wong Kim Ark. Here’s the last paragraph:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
What were the facts agreed upon by the parties? We know the court didn’t repeat all the facts agreed upon, but we do know that not only was the fact that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled and resident here, but the Court thought that fact was significant enough to warrant repeating.
Were Obama’s parents permanently domiciled here? His mother was, but his father was here on a student visa. To assert that his father was permanently domiciled here is ludicrous.
Taking them in order:
1. There are all kinds of academics with ideas. All of them are untested. Here is what has been tested-single payer. Every other industrialized country pays around 10% of GDP, while the US pays 17%. Just closing that gap halfway would be huge. Before you give me quality, I’ve lived in other countries and the care is fine and people live just as long or longer than here We can always allow (as many single-payer countries do) people to buy care outside the system. Even if you wanted to say the US quality is a bit better, we can’t afford it.
2. That is coming. No need to defeat Obama; I doubt he is opposed (he hasn’t said he is).
3. I don’t think Social Security is that badly off. Raise the retirement age to 70 and cut the COLA and it’s solvent. Medicare is a problem, but single-payer healthcare eliminates Medicare.
4 & 5. These are largely state issues.
6. I agree on VAT. However, let’s not kid ourselves. The majority of the revenue will be needed to close the hold in the budget. Don’t expect much in income tax cuts.
The problem is that the Republicans are not partners in this. They continue to think it’s 1980. Taxes have been cut and cut since then. The “magic elixir” is all worn out.
I think what will happen is that the deficit commission (which the Republicans all voted against) will come back recommending a VAT and Social Security reform. Obama and many Dems (not all) will jump on board and the Republicans will all say no.
You can’t prove that they would have received free health care in Hawaii. Where’s your supporting documentation.
Now do you really think the hospital in Kenya could cost them much? What was the average income in Kenya compared to those in Hawaii? Do you think they would charge more than the market would bear?
Get down off your high horse. You birthers just discovered the Constitution in Nov 2008. Show me what Constitutional issue you were ever involved in before then. Come on, let’s hear how you marched at Selma….
A bold assertion. Surely a waste of time to answer.
DNFTT.
Son, I was probably defending the Constitution and this country before you were even born. How many days did you go without seeing the light of day for this country? I count mine in years.
Just a clarification: did you just claim to have read the entire decision in US v Wong Kim Ark, or just the last paragraph? Your comment suggests the latter.
” I count mine in years.”
yes, years of delusions
are you aware how many of us have served in the armed forces defendding our constitution
I have, US Marine
your high horse is wood!
bob, The Court never said that Ark was a natural-born citizen. They could have, but they did not. In addition, that was not the question presented for the Court to decide. Was it?
What do we call those things stated by the Court that that do not form a necessary part of the Court’s opinion?
I find it interesting that birthers seem to think that it is totally unimportant that Dr. Dunham was a US citizen. As was pointed out above, there is no precedent that the lack of ‘permanently domiciled’ status would have changed the ruling and in addition, I suspect that the mother being a US citizen would have made the whole case a non-starter (and does pretty much the same thing to the case that President Obama is not a natural born citizen…).
The divorce decree states:
Dr. Conspiracy, You know I don’t meet the definition of troll that you cited. So stop acting like an obnoxious prick. Start applying your rules of civility like the big boys do, instead of only applying them to those you disagree with.
They didn’t clarify that Wong was a human, either. The court was pretty clear that there were two types of citizen, and two only. Everyone involved in the case understood that there were only two options available – natural born citizen or not a citizen! The government argued that Wong shouldn’t be allowed to be a citizen because then he’d be eligible for the Presidency. Wong’s counsel argued that that wasn’t so bad – if a Chinese person won the Presidency, then they must be pretty special. The dissent thought it was odd that Chinese children were eligible, but the foreign-born children of US citizens were not.
No one thought to argue that Wong would become a lesser citizen not eligible for the Presidency. No one thought to explicitly create this new category. Basically, you’re saying the court created a brand new type of citizen in a throw-away quote of Binney. A new type of citizen not recognized until birthers came along in 2008 and realized that everyone had it wrong.
And the EXACT SAME LOGIC that led the court to conclude that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen would also lead to the conclusion that he was a natural-born citizen. A point clearly understood by the dissent (and argued in the briefs).
Doing time in jail is your idea of defending the Constitution? Funny, that’s what all the guys on A Block at Sing-Sing claim.
Another bold assertion about something it is impossible for you to know — what comments I delete for incivility. You can tell just by looking that the manual edits [indicated by bracketed text] have been applied evenhandedly. Those that were deleted were almost all from folks I agree with (you will note that I delete a bunch repetitive posts from St. James).
What I observe is that you mix assertions for which you have backing with assertions (like the one above) for which you don’t. To assert something just because it is convenient is to stir up opposition, cause unnecessary discussion, and generally waste everybody’s time. And that is the essence of being a troll.
The typical troll pattern here is that the troll posts more and more frequently, gets more and more belligerent, heaves petty insults (like the one above) at everyone and generally drowns out the discussion of everyone else. At that point, I ban the troll.
While I try very hard to be fair, I will admit that calling me a “prick” doesn’t work to your advantage.
Do we have lesser citizens who are not eligible for the Presidency? Are they considered to be as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen? Or are they less of a citizen?
That’s easy: orbiter dicta.
Here’s an example of an obiter dictum:
Now for you a more difficult question:
What do you call things stated by the Court that are part of the essential chain of reasoning used to reach its conclusion?
Sorry, I really thought you were a teenager. You should act your age.
There is no type of citizen that gains their citizenship because of their birth within the United States who is not eligible for the Presidency.
They look pretty one-sided to me. In fact, you even comment out a “Do you?” from me.
Maybe you would like to support your claims by providing a link to demonstrate your even-handed use of brackets.
Should we take a look at the assertions made by Dr. Conspiracy that cannot be supported? If I can find a number of them, should I just refer to you as “Dr. Troll”?
Well Mr Dat. What you know ain’t so. Here’s what a panel of real, honest-to-goodness judges said only 7 months ago:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
I’ll take the real judges over the self-appointed internet kind.
Says you. I can find plenty of argument that supports a different conclusion.
You know as well as I do that in Wong Kim Ark the Court was not asked to decide if Wong Kim Ark would be eligible to the Presidency.
Dicta doodle from an Indiana Court of Appeals doesn’t hold much water for me.
Are you willing to accept the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals in all circumstances, or just the ones you agree with? (Those that have been overturned notwithstanding)
There is an interesting transition in paragraph 93 of the Wong decision. Early in the paragraph we see language such as:
The Court then cites Calvin’s Case and proceeds to extend complete jurisdiction to those not domiciled:
The Venus? Minor? Dred Scott dissent? Elk? Elg?
Or are you referring to some authority that hasn’t been discussed and rejected ad nauseam for nearly two years?
Not dicta. The case was dismissed for failing to state a claim, and the court proved it was impossible for a claim to be stated because it was based on a faulty premise, i.e., Obama’s not a super-citizen (that didn’t exist until 2008).
It’s the law until it’s been overturned and the Indiana Supremes turned down the appeal. Seems the birthers have been afraif to take it to SCOTUS. I can see why.
So your position is simply not the law. it’s just blather. Period. End of story. Have a nice rest of your life.
I call it the rationale. The keyword being essential. I know you didn’t italicise essential, but without it, you include dicta.
Rejected by whom? Those who voted for Obama? I think one of us who didn’t vote for McCain or Obama is in a much better position to be considered impartial. Don’t you?
I say the question remains unanswered. I can provide historical analysis that says the question remains unanswered.
Congress. The courts. 70 times.
No. Your choice of whom you voted for gives you no authority whatsoever.
You can’t find a single court that says anything of the sort.
You can’t find a single legal scholar of any credibility that says anything of the sort.
In fact, 99.999% of the argument that supports a different conclusion was made in 2008 and after.
Then why don’t you take this opportunity to give us the rationale of Wong Kim Ark. I’ve given my brief of the case, which you can see by clicking on the comments link in the link bar above. I think it’s pretty essential to the case that natural born citizen is found to be an equivalent phrase to natural born subject, it’s section III of the case, and without it, Wong doesn’t become a citizen of any stripe.
I just wanted to take a moment and parse this out in terms of argument strategy.
Scientist scored a major hit here. He showed that an Appeals court understood that the Wong decision leads to the conclusion that children of aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens.
Rather than acknowledge the point, or try to argue that the Appeals court was wrong, or that WhoDat? has legal qualifications equal to or greater than the Appeals court, he deflects the point by misstating what came before. Scientist’s argument was not that the Appeals Court decided that Obama was a natural born citizen, but that this court understood Wong to say that. It is not a matter of dicta v decision, but the fact that qualified judges have a particular understanding of what Wong says, which is at odds with what WhoDat? says. One might take what the court said as “expert testimony.”
The second strategy is to further demean what the court said by ridicule using the phrase “dicta doodle.”
Finally, to further divert attention from the loss, WhoDat? (as extremely characteristic of his style) issues a tangential challenge using a rhetorical and largely meaningless question.
I must award the point to Scientist. All things being equal, one does accept the opinion of an appeals court over an Internet stranger whose argument shows no expertise in the subject.
Here’s a good read for those who want answers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VthAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=citizenship+of+the+united+states&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
You can start on page 12 “Children born in United States of alien parentage”
Don’t get too anxious. It reads like a good mystery novel. Just when you think it arrived at a conclusion, it takes another turn.
I haven’t finished reading all of the relevant parts yet, but it is pretty interesting.
I’ll take Chester Arthur for $500.
We can all read Mario Apuzzo’s blog. Why don’t you find us a single credible source prior to 2008 (not to say that any of the sources written in 2008, by Taitz, PA Madison, Apuzzo and Donofrio are credible) that says that the children of aliens born after the 14th Amendment become citizens but are still not eligible for the Presidency?
You’re right. I bet you can find 100 birther blogs that argue just that!
Which brings us to an essential point. As things stand, this issue cannot come before a court in a non-hypothetical way, because only Congress can remove the President. Before we can do that, we need votes on articles of impeachment. Before that, we need a Congressional investigation. And before that, we are going to need at least one Congressman to say, hey, how about we have an investigation. I know I’m getting a bit tiresome pointing this out, but not one single GOP Congressman has called for an investigation of the President’s eligibility.
So if you really care about this issue, you’d be well advised to present your arguments to Congress. I could suggest Michele Bachmann, she is just about the craziest wingnut in the House. And if someone who hates the President as much as she does won’t listen, you’d be even better advised to wonder if maybe your arguments aren’t quite as persuasive as you think they are.
SPOILER ALERT: Wong Kim Ark is correct!!!
If I can demonstrate this, will you promise to go away and never come back, having been exposed as a troll? It would worth the trouble. It really would.
Thank you Doc. The fact is that if the birthers don’t like the Ankeny decision they are free to appeal to the US Supreme Court. One would have thought they would have jumped at the opportunity to argue their case before such an august body, liberated from the picayune constraints of standing and justiciability. Yet they haven’t. I can see only 2 reasons. First, they are afraid of the outcome. Second their “attorneys” are too ego-driven to take someone else’s case forward. I suspect both are at play.
So, they argue their case before an internet forum. However, they don’t sem to be doing any better here than they have in real courts.
It’s about whether the children of aliens become citizens or not. It is not about whether the children of aliens become some non-natural-born citizen ineligible for the Presidency.
It concludes:
p. 24
Exactly which side are you arguing?
Damn it, Greg. Why did you need to spoil the ending? 🙂
I was hoping that it would say “The foregoing establishes, beyond controversy, that, by our law, the children born to foreigners in the United States are natural-borncitizens of the United States.
I mean, with it be all so settled and all.
The next section should be interesting: “Dual citizenship of children of aliens born in United States; election of nationality.” OR as I like to calling it “becoming a natural-born citizen later in life”. 🙂
Yes, Van Dyne’s Citizenship of the United States is an interesting book, an old friend, and a book cited by the courts on citizenship questions. Let me know when you get to this part:
🙂
So the omission of the words “natural born” (in a book that has nothing to do with natural-born citizenship) demonstrates that Wong Kim Ark secretly created a form of super-citizenry that no one noticed until 2008? Seriously? (That book also fails to debunk the possibility that moon is made out of cheese.)
SPOILER ALERT: Dual citizenship doesn’t destroy the U.S. citizenship granted by the U.S. Constitution!!!
Dr. C,
Sorry, but this thread has devolved into a joke. A single troll is literally playing a shell game with folks.
The Lucas Smith BC is easily shown to be a fake, because Dr. Othigo was the Hospital Chief Administrator when Lying Lucas supposedly went to Kenya. I have posted links that clearly illustrate this.
End of game. Kick the troll out. Regain control please.
Yeah, I know. Our “single troll” has pretty much confirmed the troll label by knee-jerk objections and denial to anything and everything, objections that are sometimes pulled out of thin air. It’s a fine line between free-ranging discussion and anarchy.
On the other hand, if I kicked out everyone who lost their arguments, or argued without foundation, or argued unfairly, or asserted non-facts, I wouldn’t have any birthers here at all! Folks here know stuff now (mostly through their own efforts) that they didn’t know before, from having their ideas challenged, even if challenged without basis. My purpose here is to build a knowledge base, even if it has to be diluted with junk.
So I hate to ban folks, and in a year and a half, I’ve only had to do it 3 times. I just wish folks would heed my advice not to feed the trolls.
I never feed trolls – I destroy them.
Here’s more proof that Lucas Smith’s BC is a fake – straight from Lucas’ own mouth:
“this spring i traveled through kenya…”
End of game.
Dr. Conspiracy, I hope you’ll forgive me, since I don’t live in New York or Indiana, for not finding the opinion of those courts to be controlling.
You don’t find them “controlling”? Where’s Sven when we need someone to bring up “mommy issues”…
Well, since you’re not a judge, it’s ok with me if you don’t find them controlling. It’s a free country. Maybe you could encourage the Super American Grand Jury to really get their act together and form a Super American Grand Court with Super American Grand Judges. They could issue some opinions you like better, and then you can call them controlling.
Sorry, I can’t resist. Looking at the fake Lucas Smith certificate, I would say, quoting Sherlock Holmes: “The game is a foot!” 👿
Prove that it is a fake, Dr. Troll. Aren’t you here to make false claims that you cannot support in order to provoke? If that is not your intent, you will be able to prove that is is a fake.
“Prove that it is a fake, Dr. Troll. Aren’t you here to make false claims that you cannot support in order to provoke? If that is not your intent, you will be able to prove that is is a fake.”
.
not only a troll, but one with serious mental issues.
Keep the insults coming richCares. Don’t be shy.
Well, it says at World Net Daily:
Of course, if you don’t believe WND, I could hardly blame you — they seem to be a bunch of right-wing crackpots.
I find it amusing that Whodat doesn’t respect the Indiana Courts Decision.
He also doesn’t respect the understanding of the 69 million or so voters who voted for Obama knowing full well his father was a foreign citizen.
Or the Electoral College who voted him into office offiicially.
Or the Congress which confirmed his election
Or Chief Justice Roberts who swore him in.
Whodat argues that everyone else understanding of Obama’s eligibility is wrong. That everyone else is reading the Wong case wrong.
Lets recap:
The voters are wrong
Congress is wrong
The Courts are wrong
And of course we who disagree with him are wrong.
it must be lonely to be one of the few with such superior understanding of the Constitution and the law.
I believe your time here has come to an end. Even Dr. C can only take so much BS.
The proof has been posted. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away – it only provides more nails for your coffin.
It’s the lalala I can’t hear you defense Sluggo.
Doc I find it quite interesting that the moment wtf got banned this creature Whodat shows up and is now becoming equally belligerent.
WhoDat? has way too many delusions, he definitely needs time in rehab!
I’m not sure it even knows how old it is. WhoDat? said the following, “Son, I was probably defending the Constitution and this country before you were even born.” Now, I am (sadly) the wrong side of 50. So, this person (bot) is claiming it is somewhere around 75. Quite frankly, I don’t believe it. But it can prove me wrong by opening up its birth records, school records, tax returns, drivers licence records, passports, fishing licences held, etc.
See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/
WhoDat?I didn’t say Obama’s home country is Kenya; Obama’s wife did.
Jackie Kennedy referred to Ireland as her husband’s home country.
There is a difference between Kenyan-born and Kenya-born.
A photographer from Germany taught me the difference: He explained the difference between ‘coffee with cream,’ and ‘coffee and cream.’
That’s quite common. You should learn how English is spoken outside of north America. In fact, we do not speak English; we speak American.
Oops, I should have read on. Whodat has already gone Vatellite AND dualist (so, does he think Eisenhower and Agnew were usurpers?). Which proves the point of course: there is no reason for Obama to ask Hawaii to please open my file. In fact, there is every reason to NOT do so, because nothing will ever satsify the birthers.
how many birthers are required to change a light bulb?
.
None, they prefer being in the dark!
How many birthers are required to change a light bulb?
None, they prefer to change the reason Obama is that commie ursurper
How many birthers are required to change a light bulb?
Zero. They can’t change anything; all they can do is make up stories about why the bulb burned out.
No theyd ask for proof that the lightbulb actually exists even after seeing it.
How many birthers are required to change a light bulb?
None. They just tell each other how CFLs are a commieliberalfascist conspiracy – so they refuse to buy them.
How many birthers are required to change a light bulb? At least three. One to change it and the others to deny it ever happened.
How many birthers does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually they can’t change the light bulb, but one birther will ask for the other birthers to pay them to change the lightbulb anyway.
You concede that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth raises at least a presumption of the truth of its contents. There is no dispute, therefore, that the burden would fall on a birther if we assume that Obama’s birth were material in a case where the plaintiff had standing and the matter were justiceable.
Where an evidentiary presumption arises, the burden falls on the party seeking to overcome that presumption to introduce evidence to counter the presumption. Obama’s COLB is admissible in court proceedings (at least in the US) and at the very least gives rise to an evidentiary presumption of its accuracy. What evidence could be admitted in court to counter this presumption?
Jules, the birthers don’t have any evidence that could counter the presumption of the COLB’s accuracy. Why do you think they focus on ridiculous scenarios like “grandma registered the birth” or “the birth was maybe done at home with a midwife” to imply some sort of fraud. Or they play games with claiming that the COLB is not really the “original” and because of that it could have been altered. My favorite is how they imply that because we are dealing with government employees they are either incompetent or engaged in fraudulet activity.
All supposition and no real evidence. WD will probably not respond because that would force him to admit that all of his suppositions regarding Kenyan births have no basis in reality. Which means he has no admissible proof to support his fantasy.