The occasional open thread – Can’t we all just get along? edition

97 Responses to The occasional open thread – Can’t we all just get along? edition

1. richCares says:

   April 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm

   No matter how often birthers OMG moments get torn down they find another, drives the paypal button, they often say “wait and see”,”Tomorrow the jig is up”, on and on. That to me suggests mental illness, I am serious, they are ill. The few birthers I know are estranged from their families, they not only lose reason but family as well. We need to put up a list of qualified mental health specialists that we can refer them to.
2. Dr. Conspiracy says:

   April 15, 2011 at 7:35 pm

   richCares:
   No matter how often birthers OMG moments get torn down they find another, drives the paypal button, they often say “wait and see”,”Tomorrow the jig is up”, on and on. That to me suggests mental illness, I am serious, they are ill. The few birthers I know are estranged from their families, they not only lose reason but family as well. We need to put up a list of qualified mental health specialists that we can refer them to.

   I wonder if there are any specialists in deprogramming conspiracy theorists?
3. Slartibartfast says:

   April 15, 2011 at 7:45 pm

   richCares:
   No matter how often birthers OMG moments get torn down they find another, drives the paypal button, they often say “wait and see”,”Tomorrow the jig is up”, on and on. That to me suggests mental illness, I am serious, they are ill. The few birthers I know are estranged from their families, they not only lose reason but family as well. We need to put up a list of qualified mental health specialists that we can refer them to.

   That’s not going to help until they can admit that they have a problem (at least short of ‘deprogramming’ tactics…) and I have no idea how you would go about forcing the birthers to honestly examine the flaws in their reasoning – maybe a miracle will happen and one of the birthers will experience a spontaneous enlightenment and dedicate themselves to healing their former brethren, but I’m not holding my breath…
4. Romo Cop says:

   April 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm

   Doc,

   What do you say about the CT social security #?

   There’s no explanation for it. I’m curious with all these irregularities why you consider it weird or (insert libel) for people to just ask questions about clearly odd circumstances?
5. Vince Treacy says:

   April 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm

   I just posted over at the Turley site my theory that the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution. Article I, sec.10 bars the states from passing such bills.

   I think the Arizona bill amounts to an unconstitutional bill of attainder, which is defined as (1) a law or legislative act that (2) inflicts punishment on (3) a named individual or on easily ascertainable members of a group (4) without a judicial procedure.

   The bill is incredibly tailored to single out President Obama for punitive treatment. In an arbitrary and capricious manner, it allows the use of decades-old baptismal or circumcision records, or census records, to verify birth if a candidate cannot produce the so-called “long form.”

   But it does not allow use of a current, valid passport, one of the most reliable forms of proof of birth. Why not? Because Obama has at least two, official and personal. And the State Department honors Hawaiian COLBs. It has to under the 2004 Public Law. So the exclusion of passports is perfectly tailored to exclude Obama.

   Moreover, the law prevents the Secretary from even considering the COLB, an officially issued certification of the birth of the individual, verified by the officials of the issuing state with custody of the original records. The law requires the Secretary to ignore a document which the State of Hawaii has certified is prima facie evidence of an individual’s birth, and makes the Secretary look at inherently weak evidence, like census records.

   There is no effort to explain how the evidence that is the first thing a court would consider should be disregarded entirely. Without a rational legislative purpose, it must be concluded that the legislators had a punitive intent to frame a law that singled out Obama for detrimental treatment.

   Remember that in looking at a bill of attainder, the courts look for a punitive intent by the legislators and can examine the legislative record. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services,433 U,S, 425 (1977). The record shows the Arizona legislators were out to get Obama.

   And there is no rational basis for the legislative purpose of the law. Here at Doc Conspiracy’s site, it was noted that the bill applied to the President but not the Vice President. That is inherently irrational, since both must meet the qualifications for the Presidency. If they were concerned about the Presidency, and not merely Obama, they would have covered both offices. But they did not. Therefore they were out to get Obama.

   The bill requires information not needed to determine natural born citizen status, like name of hospital, attending physician, and signatures of any witnesses. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires only birth in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction. It purports to disqualify a candidate for the absence of hospital, physician and witness information.

   But the bill does not require information that is essential to constitutional eligibility. The bill does not even inquire as to issues of jurisdiction, that is, whether the infant was born to diplomatic parents. These requirements are not rationally related to the determination of natural born status, and are tailored to exclude Obama, leading to the conclusion that they are meant to inflict punishment on him.

   I noted on the Larry O’Donnell show that one of the legislators consulted with Donald Trump on the issue. I think this is more evidence of a punitive intent behind the legislation, rather than a valid legislative purpose. They also showed a clip of the ignoramus Trump proclaming that a COLB was not a birth certificate, and could not be used to get a drivers licence. Pathetic/
6. Keith says:

   April 15, 2011 at 9:36 pm

   Romo Cop: What do you say about the CT social security #?

   Its been done to death.

   Clerical error, i.e. striking the ‘zero’ key instead of the ‘nine’ key during data entry of the zip code on the return address is the most obvious answer. A trivial, meaningless slip of the finger.

   Get over it.
7. Dr. Conspiracy says:

   April 15, 2011 at 9:52 pm

   Vince Treacy: I think the Arizona bill amounts to an unconstitutional bill of attainder, which is defined as (1) a law or legislative act that (2) inflicts punishment on (3) a named individual or on easily ascertainable members of a group (4) without a judicial procedure.

   I agree that the Arizona bill was crafted to single out Obama, and it does seem to fit the bill of attainder definition.

   Consider an alternative conspiracy theory, that Obama is a lizard person and that 51% of Republicans believe Obama might be a lizard person. Arizona legislators, believing Obama to be the only lizard candidate passed bill requiring the Secretary of State to take a cheek swab from every candidate, run a DNA analysis and exclude any reptoids from the ballot. This would indeed be a law designed to exclude Obama; however it would not, in fact, exclude anyone.

   If the law really has no effect on Obama, despite what Arizona legislators believe, is it a bill of attainder?
8. Obsolete says:

   April 15, 2011 at 9:59 pm

   Romo Cop, throw the shoe on the other foot a minute, and explain to me what exactly is nefarious about a teenage Obama getting a CT SS number? What was he trying to do? What was the point? What was the advantage over getting a “legal” HI number!
   The ball’s in your court…

   P.S.- search here and you’ll find out that the SS Admin tells you state prefixes weren’t absolute, and don’t mean as much as you think they mean. Are you going to respond with dialog here, or keep spamming the same debunked crap?
9. richCares says:

   April 15, 2011 at 10:01 pm

   Romo Cop: What do you say about the CT social security #?
   .
   As he files annual taxes with it, what do you think the IRS has done about it. or for that matter what did selective service do about it. he has used it for a long time, maybe you should leave your mom’s cellar. this is way too much for you. (and crazy Orly)
10. Obsolete says:

    April 15, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    The Arizona bill also ignores Vice-Presidents, which is more proof they only wanted to get that scary black man.
11. Suranis says:

    April 15, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    Obsolete:
    The Arizona bill also ignores Vice-Presidents, which is more proof they only wanted to get that scary black man.

    No, it mentions VPs too.

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.pdf

    Oh hang on. Reading it again, you’re right. Bloody hell. That violates the 12th amendment.
12. JoZeppy says:

    April 15, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    richCares: Romo Cop: What do you say about the CT social security #?.As he files annual taxes with it, what do you think the IRS has done about it. or for that matter what did selective service do about it. he has used it for a long time, maybe you should leave your mom’s cellar. this is way too much for you. (and crazy Orly)

    I experienced a similar situation just a couple of weeks ago. I entered my wife’s ssn incorrectly on our taxes. Both my state and federal taxes were immediately kicked back.
13. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 15, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Romo Cop: What do you say about the CT social security #?

    Probably a clerical error. What’s your explanation?
14. Rickey says:

    April 15, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    Romo Cop:

    What do you say about the CT social security #?

    My ex-wife’s SSN begins with 210 (Pennsylvania). She has never lived or worked in Pennsylvania.

    It happens. Get over it.
15. gorefan says:

    April 15, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Romo Cop: There’s no explanation for it.

    How about this, the President’s zip code in Honolulu, Hawaii was 96814 and Danbury Connecticut’s is 06814.

    Of course, to buy this explaination, you have to assume that government workers sometimes make mistakes.
16. Obsolete says:

    April 15, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Birther gnomes logic:

    1- Get a CT SS Number
    2- ???
    3- Profit!
17. katahdin says:

    April 15, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Last year in the California Governor’s race, it came out that Meg Whitman had an illegal immigrant housekeeper. She used a SSN that didn’t match her name. The SSA flagged it right quick and notified Madame Meg.

    Yet the birthers think that President Obama is a successful identity thief who’s gotten away with using other peoples’ SSNs with his own name for over 30 years.

    The stupid just burns.
18. Scientist says:

    April 16, 2011 at 12:01 am

    Dr. Conspiracy: If the law really has no effect on Obama, despite what Arizona legislators believe, is it a bill of attainder?

    In that case, it would be an unattained bill of attainder.
19. obsolete says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:31 am

    katahdin: Yet the birthers think that President Obama is a successful identity thief who’s gotten away with using other peoples’ SSNs with his own name for over 30 years.

    Furthermore- they can’t even explain WHY he would have to do this, or what is the advantage of him “swindling” a CT SS number when he only deserved a HI number, etc. etc. etc.
    It makes no sense, and birthers, as always, ignore the questions.
20. Vince Treacy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Doc, the law allows the Secretary to accept a “Hospital birth record.”

    Does this mean that an unofficial souvenir record, with a baby footprint, that is unacceptable for a passport or drivers license, would be acceptable, while an official state birth record, with a raised seal and signature of the custodial official, that is acceptable for passports and licenses and is admissible as evidence in court, would not be accepted?
21. Vince Treacy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Doc asked “If the law really has no effect on Obama, despite what Arizona legislators believe, is it a bill of attainder?”

    The rule is no harm, no foul.

    If Obama gets on the ballot, then it was not a bill of attainder.

    If he is kept off the ballot, then it was unconstutional.

    I wonder if any of the AZ legislators have ever even heard of a bill of attainder?
22. katahdin says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Vince Treacy:
    Doc asked “If the law really has no effect on Obama, despite what Arizona legislators believe, is it a bill of attainder?”

    The rule is no harm, no foul.

    If Obama gets on the ballot, then it was not a bill of attainder.

    If he is kept off the ballot, then it was unconstutional.

    I wonder if any of the AZ legislators have ever even heard of a bill of attainder?

    The Governor of Arizona has never heard of a Bill of Attainder. I believe she was a dental hygenist before becoming governor. Tea Party Rules: competence need not apply.
23. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Vince Treacy: Does this mean that an unofficial souvenir record, with a baby footprint, that is unacceptable for a passport or drivers license, would be acceptable, while an official state birth record, with a raised seal and signature of the custodial official, that is acceptable for passports and licenses and is admissible as evidence in court, would not be accepted?

    As I recall, the statute requires TWO forms of secondary proof. In an interview, bill sponsor Seel said that the statute was modeled after Department of Defense security clearance criteria, although he was not specific, and caught lying twice in the same interview.
24. Vince Treacy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 11:14 am

    So a hospital souvenir would be acceptable as one of the two forms of secondary proof.

    It is implausible that the security clearance process would not accept the Hawaiian COLB, or any similar computer-generated certified birth certificate from any other state.

    Otherwise, no securty clearance could be issue to anyone born in Hawaii who has applied since 2000. Seel is just displaying more invincible ignorance.
25. ASK Esq says:

    April 16, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Has anyone ever looked into what the process would have been in 1961 for Anne to have naturalized baby Barack if she had, for no apparent reason, gone to Kenya to deliver him? I can’t imagine it would have been that difficult for a US citizen mother to have her foreign-born child become a citizen as well, but perhaps I’m wrong. If it was relatively simple, then the reasons the birthers give for the alleged fraud in obtaining a Hawaiin birth certificate and getting the newspaper announcements placed would pretty much vanish, along with all of their other explanations.
26. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    ASK Esq:
    Has anyone ever looked into what the process would have been in 1961 for Anne to have naturalized baby Barack if she had, for no apparent reason, gone to Kenya to deliver him? I can’t imagine it would have been that difficult for a US citizen mother to have her foreign-born child become a citizen as well, but perhaps I’m wrong. If it was relatively simple, then the reasons the birthers give for the alleged fraud in obtaining a Hawaiin birth certificate and getting the newspaper announcements placed would pretty much vanish, along with all of their other explanations.

    There would be a Certificate of Naturalization on file for Barack Hussein Obama II. That Certficate of Naturalization would be a public document.
27. Scientist says:

    April 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    ASK Esq: Has anyone ever looked into what the process would have been in 1961 for Anne to have naturalized baby Barack if she had, for no apparent reason, gone to Kenya to deliver him? I can’t imagine it would have been that difficult for a US citizen mother to have her foreign-born child become a citizen as well, but perhaps I’m wrong. If it was relatively simple, then the reasons the birthers give for the alleged fraud in obtaining a Hawaiin birth certificate and getting the newspaper announcements placed would pretty much vanish, along with all of their other explanations

    The child would have been eligible for immediate, automatic naturalization upon arrival in the US.

    The entire idea of a fraudulent birth registration is completely iilogical, as is everything else the birthers say.
28. Romo Cop says:

    April 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    I don’t know why it is CT. You guys likewise admit that it is irregular, however.

    It does matter if he has had name changes and used different addresses associated with whatever names he did (or did not) have.

    Seriously, taking a step back, you guys brush off all of these extremely irregular things:

    1) Maya was reported that he was born at Queens. Then she says he was born at Kapio’lani. Then in her interview she talks about proof, but gives no details. Huh? Also, Kapi’olani won’t confirm? AND he won’t release?

    I’ve just never understood what you guys don’t get about his lying about Kapi’olani which clearly doesn’t have a record and isn’t the birthplace.

    2) In light of his “interesting” history and background, being adopted and what-not, he has a CT SSN which doesn’t make sense.

    There are many other odd things in his whole story. He won’t release any personal information to anyone.

    He has clearly lied about Kapi’olani birth. Why would he do that?

    If he were born at someone’s house and registered, he would just have plainly stated it, shown the affidavit, and this would have been over a LONG time ago.

    But there is something else. I’m still perplexed why you think people shouldn’t care that he lied about Kapi’olani and then conveniently won’t show anything else about his history to anyone. Even the COLB wasn’t shown to anyone of any credibility, which is a fact

    Check!
29. Suranis says:

    April 16, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Romo Cop:
    I don’t know why it is CT. You guys likewise admit that it is irregular, however.

    It does matter if he has had name changes and used different addresses associated with whatever names he did (or did not) have.

    Seriously, taking a step back, you guys brush off all of these extremely irregular things:

    1) Maya was reported that he was born at Queens. Then she says he was born at Kapio’lani. Then in her interview she talks about proof, but gives no details. Huh? Also, Kapi’olani won’t confirm? AND he won’t release?</blockquote.

    I'm sure you have beentold this before, but Maya never said he was born in Queens. Id was copy added onto an interview, of which a correction was made. The original mistake was from an editor in Wikipedia who simply looked at a map and picked what he thought was the closest hospital to where the Obamas lived. Sum total of research. He admitted his mistake after it was pointed out to him and blamed himself.

    In any case, Maya was born in Indonesia, when President Obama was 9. How would she know where he was born? She didn't, which is why she never spoke about that, and has constitently denied she ever said it.

    I’ve just never understood what you guys don’t get about his lying about Kapi’olani which clearly doesn’t have a record and isn’t the birthplace.

    Of course it does’nt have a record, records are routinely destroyed after a maximum of 20 years. What you think it has the records of every birth over the past 20 years?

    2) In light of his “interesting” history and background, being adopted and what-not, he has a CT SSN which doesn’t make sense.

    He wasn’t adopted. Adoptions are illegal under Indonesian and muslim law. The closest is a form of fostering where a man takes on another mans child but the child is never made a part of the mans blood family.

    And there are a dozen reasons why he would have a “CT SSN” and no evidence that anyone else used that SSN, so there’s nothing illegal about that.

    There are many other odd things in his whole story. He won’t release any personal information to anyone.

    For the same reason you and I are posting on the internet under an assumed name. You think my real name is Suranis? Is your name Komo? No. So whats your real name, tough guy? Come on, release your personal information if hiding it is such a crime.

    He has clearly lied about Kapi’olani birth. Why would he do that?

    If he were born at someone’s house and registered, he would just have plainly stated it, shown the affidavit,and this would have been over a LONG time ago.

    Guess what, he wasn’t born at someones house. He was born in hospital, and being one of only 4 presidents to be born in a hospital does not affect his eligibility, so why is it anyone’s business?

    And yes the COLB would have shown it if it was a delayed birth.

    But there is something else. I’m still perplexed why you think people shouldn’t care that he lied about Kapi’olani and then conveniently won’t show anything else about his history to anyone. Even the COLB wasn’t shown to anyone of any credibility, which is a fact

    Check!

    There’s no evidence that he lied about Kapiolani, he wrote about it in passing in his book which he wrote before entering politics. Fact check have plenty of credibility, and the COLB was sitting in his Chicago office for months and no birther ever went there and asked to see it.

    Oh yeah, and every one that has the expertise, credibility and legal right to judge whether the thing is genuine has said its genuine. Only people with no credibility and skill in judging these things has said its not.

    Oh and check does not mean what you think it means, even in chess.
30. Sef says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Romo Cop:
    I don’t know why it is CT. You guys likewise admit that it is irregular, however.

    It does matter if he has had name changes and used different addresses associated with whatever names he did (or did not) have.

    Seriously, taking a step back, you guys brush off all of these extremely irregular things:

    1) Maya was reported that he was born at Queens. Then she says he was born at Kapio’lani. Then in her interview she talks about proof, but gives no details. Huh? Also, Kapi’olani won’t confirm? AND he won’t release?

    I’ve just never understood what you guys don’t get about his lying about Kapi’olani which clearly doesn’t have a record and isn’t the birthplace.

    2) In light of his “interesting” history and background, being adopted and what-not, he has a CT SSN which doesn’t make sense.

    There are many other odd things in his whole story. He won’t release any personal information to anyone.

    He has clearly lied about Kapi’olani birth. Why would he do that?

    If he were born at someone’s house and registered, he would just have plainly stated it, shown the affidavit,and this would have been over a LONG time ago.

    But there is something else. I’m still perplexed why you think people shouldn’t care that he lied about Kapi’olani and then conveniently won’t show anything else about his history to anyone. Even the COLB wasn’t shown to anyone of any credibility, which is a fact

    Check!

    Here we have someone who wants to believe what (s)he wants to believe. No amount of evidence will sway him/her. Everything in his/her post is bullpucky.
31. ASK Esq says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Romo Cop: I don’t know why it is CT. You guys likewise admit that it is irregular, however.It does matter if he has had name changes and used different addresses associated with whatever names he did (or did not) have.Seriously, taking a step back, you guys brush off all of these extremely irregular things:1) Maya was reported that he was born at Queens. Then she says he was born at Kapio’lani. Then in her interview she talks about proof, but gives no details. Huh? Also, Kapi’olani won’t confirm? AND he won’t release?I’ve just never understood what you guys don’t get about his lying about Kapi’olani which clearly doesn’t have a record and isn’t the birthplace. 2) In light of his “interesting” history and background, being adopted and what-not, he has a CT SSN which doesn’t make sense.There are many other odd things in his whole story. He won’t release any personal information to anyone.He has clearly lied about Kapi’olani birth. Why would he do that?If he were born at someone’s house and registered, he would just have plainly stated it, shown the affidavit, and this would have been over a LONG time ago.But there is something else. I’m still perplexed why you think people shouldn’t care that he lied about Kapi’olani and then conveniently won’t show anything else about his history to anyone. Even the COLB wasn’t shown to anyone of any credibility, which is a factCheck!

    No, Maya never said he was born in Queens. That was added to the high school newspaper article by the writer, who apparently just assumed it was Queens, there being only 2 hospitals in Honolulu that delivered babies in 1961. Kapi’olani can’t confirm, due to privacy laws. You say he is clearly lying about it, but, since there is nothing to indicate that he is lying about it, that just shows that you won’t believe the truth no matter what. For example, you say he was adopted, despite there being nothing to indicate this ever actually happened. Basically, you are ready to believe any lie about Obama is the truth, and any of the truth is a lie. That is why birthers will never go away. They are convinced, almost religiously, that they are right, despite the fact that all the actual evidence shows them to be wrong.
32. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Romo Cop:
    I don’t know why it is CT. You guys likewise admit that it is irregular, however.

    It does matter if he has had name changes and used different addresses associated with whatever names he did (or did not) have.

    Seriously, taking a step back, you guys brush off all of these extremely irregular things:

    1) Maya was reported that he was born at Queens. Then she says he was born at Kapio’lani. Then in her interview she talks about proof, but gives no details. Huh? Also, Kapi’olani won’t confirm? AND he won’t release?

    I’ve just never understood what you guys don’t get about his lying about Kapi’olani which clearly doesn’t have a record and isn’t the birthplace.

    2) In light of his “interesting” history and background, being adopted and what-not, he has a CT SSN which doesn’t make sense.

    There are many other odd things in his whole story. He won’t release any personal information to anyone.

    He has clearly lied about Kapi’olani birth. Why would he do that?

    If he were born at someone’s house and registered, he would just have plainly stated it, shown the affidavit,and this would have been over a LONG time ago.

    But there is something else. I’m still perplexed why you think people shouldn’t care that he lied about Kapi’olani and then conveniently won’t show anything else about his history to anyone. Even the COLB wasn’t shown to anyone of any credibility, which is a fact

    Check!

    For the record, Maya Soetoro NEVER said that Barack Obama was born at Queens Hospital. A high school reporter said that Obama was born at Queens hospital. It was HIS (the reporter’s) statement, not hers.
    You can read the truth about the Queens hospital statement on this web site.
    The Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle stated that Barack Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital and Barack Obama himself stated that he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.
    Also, Barack Hussein Obama II was never adopted. Please stop lying on this forum.
33. ASK Esq says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Scientist: The child would have been eligible for immediate, automatic naturalization upon arrival in the US.The entire idea of a fraudulent birth registration is completely iilogical, as is everything else the birthers say.

    I figured it would have been something simple. The birthers, when asked why Granny Dunham would have commited fraud, say she did it to get Barack the advantages of citizenship, not so that he could run for President some day. But, as you say, he would have been eligible for those advantages very easily, in a manner that wouldn’t have risked anyone going to jail.
34. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    For RomoCop, here’s the original story with Benjamin Guira, the reporter for the Rainbow Edition Newletter (not Maya Soetoro-Ng) stating that Barack Obama was born at Queens Hospital. The article is on page 2:
    http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/supreme.court/Exhibit_Charter_Schools_Rainbow_Edition_Newsletter.pdf
35. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    President Obama must be having a lot of fun watching his political opposition form a circular firing squad in reaction to his natural born citizen status. No wonder he won’t release his original birth certificate (if he still has it in his possession), he’s dividing and conquering the loyal opposition without it. If Obama can cajole The Donald into running as a third party candidate, Obama’s reelection is virtually assured.

    Right Wing Talk Show Host Mark Levin goes off on Donald Trump on his facebook page:

    “Look how Chump operates. Caught red-handed now with his vicious attacks on George Bush, who most conservatives had issues with, he now says but for Bush there would have likely been no Obama. That may well be true. I have been a harsh critic of Bush’s spending, including in my book. But Chump was calling Bush EVIL and demanded his IMPEACHMENT because of the Iraq war and in the middle of that war. He said Bush lied to get us into Iraq. His comments were vile and outrageous, not unlike the America-hating leftists who sought to undermine are armed forces there. Now he wants us to believe that his criticism of Bush was because Bush’s poor record set the stage for Obama? Chump attacked Bush over Iraq because if you were a big-mouth, attention-seeking liberal, it was the thing to do. He had no altruistic or principled conservative motive for doing so at the time and expressed none.

    As recently as last year, while conservatives and Tea Party activists were organizing and rallying against Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their radical agenda, Chump was helping to fund some our opponents. He contributed to left-wing, Tea Party-hating menaces like Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and Harry Reid. What about his contributions to Charlie Crist, while Crist was running against Marco Rubio? Did he donate to any of the Tea Party candidates? Did he contribute to the Tea Party movement in any way, with time or money, before today? Why not?

    Chump also praised Nancy Pelosi. He thought she was great. I played the audio. I guess he was just mistaken, again. He supported universal health care, but not any more, of course. He supported abortion and gay marriage, but that was then, this is now. He supported John Kerry for president in 2004, but that’s because Bush was so evil. He leaned on government officials to use eminent domain against a little old lady whose home happened to be in the way of a parking lot he wanted to build for one of his casinos in Atlantic City, but he has always been for private property rights.

    So now Chump rails against China and demands Obama’s birth certificate and we are supposed to swoon over the man. But when asked about the Ryan budget, he turns stupid again — he says Ryan should not take the lead on this, we need a bipartisan consensus to move forward? And with whom do we build this bipartisan consensus? Reid? Obama? Is Chump really this dumb, or is he, once again, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing?

    Chump is a phony and dissembling. He called a hastily organized press event this morning because I, and others, are on to him.

    TRENDING: Trump lashes out at George W. Bush and Obama

    Today he is speaking at a local Tea Party rally. And why? Because now he wants our support, not because he supports us or our principles, or ever did. Chump is about Chump. And he thinks we’re too stupid to notice. Are we?”
36. Stanislaw says:

    April 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Joey:
    And he thinks we’re too stupid to notice. Are we?”

    Since Donny’s new target audience is the birther movement, I’d say that the answer is a resounding “yes.”
37. Scientist says:

    April 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Here’s Trump on health care. I actually agree with him on this, but I wonder how the birthers, who think Obama is a “socialist” will feel when they find out:

    “We must have universal healthcare,” wrote Trump. “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”

    The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork,” he writes.

    The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. There are fewer medical lawsuits, less loss of labor to sickness, and lower costs to companies paying for the medical care of their employees. If the program were in place in Massachusetts in 1999 it would have reduced administrative costs by $2.5 million. We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.
38. Slartibartfast says:

    April 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Doc,

    A troll on a birther thread over at Jonathan Turley’s website decided to attack you – I thought you should know:

    Bdaman
    1, April 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    Kevin (Dr. Con) had INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION which acquired Qs Technologies (I don’t recall the year, but I can find it if needed). Then the whole thing was sold to NetSmart in 2006 for ~1.5 Million. NetSmart engaged in contract with the Hawaii DOH; about 5 months before the sale of IS/Qs to NetSmart. (It is possible that Qs/Intelligent Systems had a contract with the Hawaii DOH prior to the contract with NetSmart, and that this was all part of a bigger deal. –I haven’t looked.)

    Find it strange that we have a person who is under contract with the Hawaiian Dept of Health blogging about Obama’s birth certificate.

    This is the company he owned until 2006.

    www(dot)qsinc(dot)com/about/index.html

    After the sale of IS/Qs, Dr. Con became General Manager and VP of Operations for NetSmart.

    www(dot)lead411(dot)com/Kevin_Davidson_1300374.html

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/15/arizona-bill-would-require-proof-of-u-s-birth-for-presidential-candidates/#comment-222670
39. Romo Cop says:

    April 16, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    “Kapi’olani can’t confirm, due to privacy laws.”

    This just isn’t true. They confirmed it to Tim Adams.

    But beyond that, if you say HE is lying (not sure why he would but anything is possible) then what do we have? We have a point that none of you has ever rebutted, that being:

    What is private about allowing Kapiolani to confirm if he was in fact born there?

    You lose ABSOLUTELY nothing in terms of privacy if it is true. As I’ve said before, you don’t even have to release a birth certificate, true or false. It wouldn’t matter, you would have proven the place of his birth.

    For this reason it is quite obvious that he wasn’t born there. You release a scanned image of something on the internet vs. just allowing a hospital to confirm your birth record there? Your lack of common sense astounds me.

    AND the image online doesn’t say anything about the birth being at Kapi’olani?

    It’s an obvious lie on every level.
40. Romo Cop says:

    April 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    The question, then, is this:

    Why is he lying about Kapi’olani being the birth hospital?

    And if he’s lying about that, what else is he lying about?

    Honest people using logic and common sense ask these questions. Yet for some reason you guys here hate logic and common sense, or at least those that employ it.
41. Slartibartfast says:

    April 16, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Doc,

    I made a comment that is in moderation – please look at it (I want to make sure you see it, but I don’t care if it is posted here).
42. The Magic M says:

    April 16, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    > For this reason it is quite obvious that he wasn’t born there.

    Just because the hospital won’t confirm his birth there doesn’t mean he wasn’t born there. Which hospital were you born in? If I ask them and they won’t confirm it, does that mean you were never born (because objectively you weren’t born anywhere else unless you’re lying)?

    > You release a scanned image of something on the internet vs. just allowing a hospital to confirm your birth record there?

    If you don’t accept the word of the Republican governor of Hawaii nor the head of the Hawaiian DoH, why would you have accepted the word of a Hawaiian hospital? You’re utterly intellectually dishonest.

    > They confirmed it to Tim Adams.

    Confirmed what? Adams claims someone unnamed told him something. If he is not lying, why doesn’t he say who told him?

    > It wouldn’t matter, you would have proven the place of his birth.

    No, a statement by the hospital is not accepted as proof of birth (and thus citizenship) by any federal authority. The COLB is. Are you too stupid to see that?

    > AND the image online doesn’t say anything about the birth being at Kapi’olani?

    Why does it have to? Obama needs only establish he was born in Hawaii, not in which hospital, by which doctor, in attendance of which nurse etc., to prove he is a natural born citizen. Everything else you make up (name of cab driver driving Stanley Ann Dunham to the hospital, name of the nurse writing up the paperwork, number of the beds in the room she was taken to, …) is your own personal interest and has no meaning.
43. Scientist says:

    April 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Romo Cop: Why is he lying about Kapi’olani being the birth hospital?

    i don’t know who you mean by “he”, but if you are referring to the President i can absolutely, positively confirm that he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.

    Glad i could help. Do you have any important questions that actually matter? Like who will win the Stanley Cup?
44. Sef says:

    April 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    Romo Cop: Maya was reported that he was born at Queens.

    Here’s how you find out if Obama was born at Kapi`olani. You ask every other hospital except Kapi`olani and make sure they are aware that if they do not have birth info on him they are not violating the law by saying that he wasn’t born there. Then, when you have negative answers from all the other hospitals, you have your proof that Kapi`olani is the answer by the process of elimination.
45. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Slartibartfast: A troll on a birther thread over at Jonathan Turley’s website decided to attack you – I thought you should know

    He’s about half right, but the stuff about who owned what is all jumbled.

    I didn’t know about the contract with Hawaii until I looked it up just now. It was a behavioral health contract, and I wasn’t involved with that side of the business.
46. Romo Cop says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    If you don’t accept the word of the Republican governor of Hawaii nor the head of the Hawaiian DoH, why would you have accepted the word of a Hawaiian hospital? You’re utterly intellectually dishonest.

    Neither of them ever had evidence that he was born at Kapi’olani.

    Kapi’olani keeps the records. The statement has been made that he was born at Kapi’ … yet no one can confirm this publicly.

    Seems like a pretty big problem to me, with absolutely NO privacy interest, in case you didn’t understand that the first time. What you don’t get about that is beyond me
47. Slartibartfast says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Dr. Conspiracy: He’s about half right, but the stuff about who owned what is all jumbled.

    I didn’t know about the contract with Hawaii until I looked it up just now. It was a behavioral health contract, and I wasn’t involved with that side of the business.

    Given the source of the attack, I just assumed that there was nothing untoward on your part, but I thought you should be given the opportunity to respond – I’ll post your reply on JT’s site. I have more to say on this matter – send me an email if you would like to hear it.
48. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    RomoCop says: “Neither of them ever had evidence that he was born at Kapi’olani.

    Kapi’olani keeps the records. The statement has been made that he was born at Kapi’ … yet no one can confirm this publicly.

    Seems like a pretty big problem to me, with absolutely NO privacy interest, in case you didn’t understand that the first time. What you don’t get about that is beyond me.”

    Former Governor Lingle said that she sent her Director Of Health to view Obama’s original birth certificate and that Dr. Fukino reported back to her that it stated that President Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.

    Kapi’olani Medical Center let the world know that they are proud to be the birth hospital of the 44th President of the United States. And they did it in the correct way that doesn’t violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Kapiolani published a letter from President Obama in which HE states that he was born at Kapi’olani rather than having the hospital present that information.
    http://www.kapiolanigift.org/doc/centennial-magazine.pdf
    I don’t see a problem at all since President Obama has been in office for more than two years now and no court and no act of Congress has ever stated that he is ineligible. In fact, his electoral college votes were certified by Vice President Dick Cheney, a conservative Republican. There were no objections to the certification from any of the 535 members of Congress, not even one of them. President Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Republican and a vote in the House of Representatives on a Resolution declaring in part that “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 was 378-0. (House of Representitives Resolution 593, 111th Congress).
49. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Romo Cop:
    “Kapi’olani can’t confirm, due to privacy laws.”

    This just isn’t true. They confirmed it to Tim Adams.

    But beyond that, if you say HE is lying (not sure why he would but anything is possible) then what do we have? We have a point that none of you has ever rebutted, that being:

    What is private about allowing Kapiolani to confirm if he was in fact born there?

    You lose ABSOLUTELY nothing in terms of privacy if it is true. As I’ve said before, you don’t even have to release a birth certificate, true or false. It wouldn’t matter, you would have proven the place of his birth.

    For this reason it is quite obvious that he wasn’t born there. You release a scanned image of something on the internet vs. just allowing a hospital to confirm your birth record there? Your lack of common sense astounds me.

    AND the image online doesn’t say anything about the birth being at Kapi’olani?

    It’s an obvious lie on every level.

    Why are you lying about Kapi’olani confirming ANYTHING whatsoever to Tim Adams? And why are you lying about Maya Soetoro-Ng ever saying that Barack Obama was born at Queen’s Hospital?
50. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Slartibartfast: Given the source of the attack, I just assumed that there was nothing untoward on your part, but I thought you should be given the opportunity to respond – I’ll post your reply on JT’s site. I have more to say on this matter – send me an email if you would like to hear it.

    I have replied to the comment on Turley’s site. I wrote:

    Let me see if I can sort out this jumble. I was a minority stockholder in Q. S. Incorporated ending in 1996 and didn’t have a financial interest in any of the other companies mentioned.

    I did not know about Netsmart’s 2006 contract with the Hawaii Department of Health until someone mentioned bdaman’s comment on my own blog today and I looked it up on the Internet. That’s no surprise because it was a behavioral health software contract signed before I joined the company and handled by a different office. I was the General Manager of Netsmart Public Health, a subsidiary company of Netsmart, not the main Netsmart company, and I was never a “VP of Operations” anywhere.

    I am now fully retired and have no connection with any of the companies mentioned nor the Hawaii Department of Health.

    And I would just as soon the subject die down. You can always send me an email through the “admin” account at this domain.
51. Slartibartfast says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Dr. Conspiracy: And I would just as soon the subject die down.

    I wont mention it again (here or there).
52. Expelliarmus says:

    April 16, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    How is the publication of this letter NOT a confirmation by both the hospital and Obama? It looks to me like a written statement, signed by Obama, which was read & displayed publicly in some manner by the hospital.

    The problem isn’t that there hasn’t been “confirmation”. The problem is that the birthers want to have confirmations of the confirmation…. and if and when they get that, they will be demanding confirmations of the confirmations of the confirmation.
53. Suranis says:

    April 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Romo Cop: Neither of them ever had evidence that he was born at Kapi’olani.

    Kapi’olani keeps the records. The statement has been made that he was born at Kapi’ … yet no one can confirm this publicly

    Kaapiolanni does not keep the records. Any records that the hospital had on the birth have long since been destroyed. The people that DO keep birth records is the DOH. This is not unique, this is what happens in every state in your country and is common around the world. Its standard procedure.

    So the people who actually do have the records confirmed that he was born in Kaapiolani.

    And kaapiolani never confirmed that to TIm Adams. There was a 2 hour interview with Tim Adams a few weeks ago on reality check radio, and the transcript is on this website. Check it out.

    Why you are making such a big deal about this is beyond me. The only people that have ever claimed he was born in Queens hospital are birthers, and frankly it would not matter if he was born there. He would still be eligible to be President of the United States. Its a non issue with no evidence to the contrary. Get over it.

    This is as ridiculous and boring as stains on a blue dress. Let be tell you something, Son. When the Republicans were boring the entire planet with the fact that the President had a blow job in the oval office, the Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern was installing his mistress in an office in government buildings. That’s how much that mattered to the rest of the world. And this is even more ridiculous, considering its not even true.
54. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    The Magic M: Just because the hospital won’t confirm his birth there doesn’t mean he wasn’t born there.

    This fallacy is called an argument from ignorance.
55. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Romo Cop: Honest people using logic and common sense ask these questions.

    No they don’t.
56. Joey says:

    April 16, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children
    Centennial Magazine

    “Nearly half of Oahu’s babies are born at Kapiolani. Many
    public figures, civic and business leaders can claim their
    birthplace here. In fact, our 44th President Barack Obama
    commended “the excellence of Kapiolani Medical Center—
    the place of my birth.” He added, “Hawaii has always been a
    home to me.” (see p.6).”
57. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    April 16, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    Romo Cop:
    If you don’t accept the word of the Republican governor of Hawaii nor the head of the Hawaiian DoH, why would you have accepted the word of a Hawaiian hospital? You’re utterly intellectually dishonest.

    Neither of them ever had evidence that he was born at Kapi’olani.

    Kapi’olani keeps the records. The statement has been made that he was born at Kapi’ … yet no one can confirm this publicly.

    Seems like a pretty big problem to me, with absolutely NO privacy interest, in case you didn’t understand that the first time. What you don’t get about that is beyond me

    Most states only require hospitals on average to keep records for 7 years. 20 years is stretching it. 40 years would be unheard of. The records are kept with the state’s vital records and department of health.
58. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Suranis: Kaapiolanni does not keep the records. Any records that the hospital had on the birth have long since been destroyed.

    How do you know this?
59. misha says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    Suranis: Any records that the hospital had on the birth have long since been destroyed.

    Dr. Conspiracy: How do you know this?

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Most states only require hospitals on average to keep records for 7 years. 20 years is stretching it. 40 years would be unheard of. The records are kept with the state’s vital records and department of health.

    That’s how he knows this.
60. Northland10 says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Romo Cop: This just isn’t true. They confirmed it to Tim Adams.

    Either you are lying or you have not even bothered to read the the actual affidavit (kindly written for Tim Adams by WND).

    Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division further told me on multiple occasions that Hawaii State government officials had made inquires about Sen. Obama’s birth records to officials at Queens Medical Center and Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu and that neither hospital had any record of Senator Obama having been bom there

    Some unnamed person told Adams that other unnamed person inquired to unnamed officials at 2 hospitals. It is like the old school yard, John said that Jill said the Bill said that Suzy said that Janice thinks your gross.

    Besides the hearsay upon hearsay, you will note that in his claim, Kapi’olnai stating nothing to Tim Adams nor were even asked by him.
61. ASK Esq says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Romo Cop: “Kapi’olani can’t confirm, due to privacy laws.”This just isn’t true. They confirmed it to Tim Adams.But beyond that, if you say HE is lying (not sure why he would but anything is possible) then what do we have? We have a point that none of you has ever rebutted, that being:What is private about allowing Kapiolani to confirm if he was in fact born there?You lose ABSOLUTELY nothing in terms of privacy if it is true. As I’ve said before, you don’t even have to release a birth certificate, true or false. It wouldn’t matter, you would have proven the place of his birth.For this reason it is quite obvious that he wasn’t born there. You release a scanned image of something on the internet vs. just allowing a hospital to confirm your birth record there? Your lack of common sense astounds me.AND the image online doesn’t say anything about the birth being at Kapi’olani?It’s an obvious lie on every level.

    First of all, they never confirmed anything to Tim Adams. And, I never heard Tim Adams even make the claim that they told him anything. All he ever said is that his co-workers and/or superiors said there was nothing there, or some such nonsense. As to the privacy laws, HIPAA prevents a medical provider from even confirming if someone was their patient without that person’s express written consent. Even if that person goes on national TV and says that they were the provider’s patient, that does not allow the provider to confirm it without a signed, HIPAA-compliant authorization.

    In any case, he could have been born on a beach in Honolulu and he still would have been both natural born and issued a Hawaiin birth certificate, so the hospital is irrelevant to anything.
62. Suranis says:

    April 16, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    Dr. Conspiracy: How do you know this?

    You are correct in that i am assuming it, but I am doing that simply as its standard practice in hospitals world wide (if only for the costs of storing 50 years of records), and I cannot see any reason they would keep that particular record in a drawer and destroy all the rest.

    Demanding proof of the ordinary and demanding unthinking acceptance of the possibility of the inexplicable is the birther fallacy. Until someone gives me proof that Kaapiolani kept the records, I will consider them as destroyed.
63. Expelliarmus says:

    April 16, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    I also agree that it would be highly unusual if the records of Obama’s birth had not been long since destroyed.

    See: http://ihcrp.georgetown.edu/privacy/stateguides/hi/hi.pdf
    “Your Medical Record Rights in Hawaii” (published 2007)

    HOW LONG DOES MY PROVIDER HAVE TO KEEP MY MEDICAL
    RECORD?

    Hawaiian health care providers (such as medical doctors, surgeons,
    podiatrists and hospitals) generally must keep your whole medical record
    for at least seven years after the last time they entered information in your record.
    Health care providers must keep minors’ medical records at least until the minor turns
    25.

    In addition, health care providers in Hawaii are required to keep basic information
    from the medical record for 25 years after the last entry. They must keep basic
    information from minors’ medical records for at least 25 years after the minor turns 18.

    That means that, in theory, for a baby born in 1961, a hospital would have to keep the whole record until the baby was 25 (1986), and basic information from the record (which probably would include fact of birth) – until the baby was age 43 (2004)

    I say “in theory” because this is the current law, not what was in effect in the past The governing statute — HRS §622-58 – was enacted in 1984, 23 years after Obama’s birth. If the previous law specified a shorter retention period, or if there was no previous law on the subject, then the records could very well have been destroyed already by the time the law went into effect. See: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0622/HRS_0622-0058.htm

    Whether or not such records in fact exist, it is legally irrefutable that the hospital is NOT required to have or maintain them at the current time. So there certainly is no reason to believe or assume that they do exist.
64. Rickey says:

    April 17, 2011 at 12:28 am

    Romo Cop:

    AND the image online doesn’t say anything about the birth being at Kapi’olani?
    It’s an obvious lie on every level.

    That’s because Hawaii’s COLB doesn’t have a space on it for the name of a hospital.

    I was born in a hospital (at least, that’s what I was told), but you wouldn’t know it from my New York birth certificate. No hospital name, no doctor’s name.
65. nc1 says:

    April 17, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Dr. C,

    You need to comment on latest Orly’s interview on CNN:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10-4a5T10HM

    She publicly accused Obama of fraud on national TV – if these allegations were not sufficient for Obama’s team to start the legal action against her, I don’t know what kind of public insult would suffice.

    As a side note John King erroneously reported about Kapiolani sending birth notification to newspapers and he incorrectly claimed that an apartment building (Beretania address) was reported in the newspaper birth announcement.
66. G says:

    April 17, 2011 at 1:30 am

    nc1: She publicly accused Obama of fraud on national TV – if these allegations were not sufficient for Obama’s team to start the legal action against her, I don’t know what kind of public insult would suffice.

    Don’t expect Obama’s team to care. Angry people have said an enormous amount of awful stuff on TV about various Presidents for years. Administrations don’t bother with such nonsense and don’t get involved.

    It seems to upset you birthers more than anything that he won’t take the bait to all your insipid goading. Face it, he simply is not that into you. Deal with it.
67. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 17, 2011 at 1:35 am

    Suranis: Demanding proof of the ordinary and demanding unthinking acceptance of the possibility of the inexplicable is the birther fallacy. Until someone gives me proof that Kaapiolani kept the records, I will consider them as destroyed.

    The American Hospital Information Management guidelines for record retention currently state:

    AHIMA Standards and State Law Data: As a matter of professional practice, AHIMA has established the following recommended retention standards: 10 years after the most recent encounter (adult health records); age of majority plus statute of limitations (minor health records); 10 years after infant reaches age of majority (fetal heart monitor records); 10 years (disease, operative, and physician indexes); five years (diagnostic images such as x-ray films); and permanently (master patient index; registers of births, deaths, and surgical procedures).10

    These are, of course, modern guidelines, and I don’t know of any statute in any state that requires permanent retention of birth registry information.

    I know that births were entered into a “log book” at Kapi’olani. Almost certainly the medical records are gone, but the log books might remain.
68. Robert Clark says:

    April 17, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Expelliarmus: How is the publication of this letter NOT a confirmation by both the hospital and Obama? It looks to me like a written statement, signed by Obama, which was read & displayed publicly in some manner by the hospital. The problem isn’t that there hasn’t been “confirmation”. The problem is that the birthers want to have confirmations of the confirmation…. and if and when they get that, they will be demanding confirmations of the confirmations of the confirmation.

    No, the problem is it happens all the time that one reporter will report on some information told to them by the White House that then other reporters will inquire about that information and want to write their own stories on it. This happens ALL the time. The White House attitude is NOT, “Well, we already talked to one reporter about that so we’re not going to talk to anyone else about it.”
    When even worse the White House response is to neither confirm nor deny that they gave that information to the other reporter that’s when good reporters ears perk up and they know there’s something worth investigating here.

    Bob
69. misha says:

    April 17, 2011 at 1:37 am

    nc1: She publicly accused Obama of fraud on national TV – if these allegations were not sufficient for Obama’s team to start the legal action against her, I don’t know what kind of public insult would suffice.

    Orly is a shande – nothing more. She is a third rate dentist, and fifth rate mail order lawyer. I have reason to believe she was a street walker in Moldova.

    She can crawl back under her rock. Better yet, she should go back to Israel or Moldova.
70. James M says:

    April 17, 2011 at 2:07 am

    Romo Cop: “Kapi’olani can’t confirm, due to privacy laws.”

    This just isn’t true. They confirmed it to Tim Adams.

    So you are saying that they confirmed it, but somehow that does not settle the matter for you?

    Even if someone there really did say something to Adams, it would *still* be illegal to confirm it *for you.* I might break a privacy law once, but breaking the law doesn’t excuse me from breaking the same law again later.

    So I don’t understand your line of reasoning. In fact, I can’t tell that you have one.
71. Expelliarmus says:

    April 17, 2011 at 2:13 am

    Robert Clark: Expelliarmus: How is the publication of this letter NOT a confirmation by both the hospital and Obama? It looks to me like a written statement, signed by Obama, which was read & displayed publicly in some manner by the hospital. The problem isn’t that there hasn’t been “confirmation”. The problem is that the birthers want to have confirmations of the confirmation…. and if and when they get that, they will be demanding confirmations of the confirmations of the confirmation.

    No, the problem is it happens all the time that one reporter will report on some information told to them by the White House that then other reporters will inquire about that information and want to write their own stories on it. This happens ALL the time. The White House attitude is NOT, “Well, we already talked to one reporter about that so we’re not going to talk to anyone else about it.”

    This is an excellent example of non sequitur
72. charo says:

    April 17, 2011 at 2:22 am

    (d) Medical records may be destroyed after the seven-year retention period or after minification, in a manner that will preserve the confidentiality of the information in the record; provided that the health care provider retains basic information from each record destroyed. Basic information from the records of a physician or surgeon shall include the patient’s name and birthdate, a list of dated diagnoses and intrusive treatments, and a record of all drugs prescribed or given. Basic information from the records of a health care facility, as defined in section 323D-2, shall include the patient’s name and birthdate, dates of admission and discharge, names of attending physicians, final diagnosis, major procedures performed, operative reports, pathology reports, and discharge summaries.

    (e) The health care provider, or the health care provider’s successor, shall be liable for the preservation of basic information from the medical record for twenty-five years after the last entry, except in the case of minors, whose records shall be retained during the period of minority plus twenty-five years after the minor reaches the age of majority. If the health care provider is succeeded by another entity, the burden of compliance with this section shall rest with the successor. Before a provider ceases operations, the provider shall make immediate arrangements, subject to the approval of the department of health, for the retention and preservation of the medical records in keeping with the intent of this section.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0622/HRS_0622-0058.htm
    ***
    If Stanley Ann had any treatment at the hospital after the birth of Obama and before 1984 when the law went into effect, then the records may not have been destroyed. I am speculating but it would seem to me that back in 1961, records wouldn’t be destroyed as quickly because the number of records would not have been as great as in 1984. The reason for the law was likely to get rid of old records so they were probably around. She was in Hawaii in the early 70’s I think and could have received examinations or even had a medical issue. Then in 1995 after she was diagnosed with cancer, she may have received treatment at Kapiolani because of the nature of her illness. If the basic information was not destroyed by 1995 (the 1984 law allowed for records to be destroyed after 7 years but not the basic information) and she had any cancer treatments at Kapiolani, then information should still be retained for 25 years beyond the last entry of treatment. Her basic information could have been retained all the way back to the birth. Just another viewpoint.
73. Expelliarmus says:

    April 17, 2011 at 3:28 am

    charo: If Stanley Ann had any treatment at the hospital after the birth of Obama and before 1984 when the law went into effect, then the records may not have been destroyed. I am speculating but it would seem to me that back in 1961, records wouldn’t be destroyed as quickly because the number of records would not have been as great as in 1984.

    Your speculation is misguided. In the first place, the most likely reason that the law was enacted in the first place was to remedy a perceived problem in which records were lost or destroyed. There would be no need to mandate a minimum time frame for record-keeping unless someone was concerned that records were being destroyed too soon.

    Also, in the 60’s, records were on paper, and all sorts of records were prepared on carbon sets, with multiple copies. (You’d have the white page, the yellow page, the green page, the pink page, etc.). The multiple copies were supposed to be distributed to different locations, but it would be more common to have the original (white) and a couple of carbon sets sitting in the file along with the original.

    It was customary in the 60’s for women to stay in maternity wards 1-2 weeks for normal, healthy deliveries (even longer in the case of complications or a c-section). And newborn infants were generally cared for in a nursery, rather than rooming in with their moms. So you would have had pages & pages of nurses notes for perhaps a 7-10 day hospital stay, with the nurses marking down baby’s vitals & bottle feeding round the clock.

    The reason for the law was likely to get rid of old records so they were probably around.

    That makes no sense whatsoever. They wouldn’t have to pass a law mandating preservation of records if they wanted to get rid of records — in that case they would pass a mandatory destruction law (which would be silly).

    She was in Hawaii in the early 70′s I think and could have received examinations or even had a medical issue. Then in 1995 after she was diagnosed with cancer, she may have received treatment at Kapiolani because of the nature of her illness.

    Her subsequent medical records have nothing to do with Obama’s. They are two separate people. Ann Dunham lived & worked in Indonesia from 1977-1995. She received a Ph.D. from Univ. of Hawaii in 1992, but her thesis was based on field work in Indonesia so it’s likely that it was written there. When she became ill in late 1994 (in Indonesia) she returned first to NY, where she was diagnosed with cancer at Sloan-Kettering. She did return to Hawaii that year — but unless she was hospitalized for some reason during the 70s, there would be no reason for Kapiolani to have any record. She wouldn’t go to a maternity hospital for routine preventive care. And when she did return to Hawaii, it’s a lot more likely that she would have gone to Queens than Kapiolani — see: http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals and compare http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/queen's-medical-center-6950380
    to http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/kapiolani-medical-center-for-women-6950335

    I mean, really, if you have terminal cancer and have started your treatment with one of the top cancer hospitals in the US — do you choose to follow up with treatment at the best cancer hospital in Honolulu, or do you go back to the small maternity hospital where you gave birth 34 years before out of nostalgia?

    The problem with you birthers is that you don’t even bother to do basic research before you engage in your wild flights of fancy, and then you confuse your imagination with facts.

    Yes, there “could” be a record still extant if it had not been destroyed. That doesn’t mean there is one. The absence of one is to be expected. The presence of one is not necessary because Hawaii has a system in place to keep a permanent record of all births. It is run by the Department of Health and they have confirmed repeatedly that their records show that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.
74. charo says:

    April 17, 2011 at 6:33 am

    Expelliarmus: Your speculation is misguided.In the first place, the most likely reason that the law was enacted in the first place was to remedy a perceived problem in which records were lost or destroyed.There would be no need to mandate a minimum time frame for record-keeping unless someone was concerned that records were being destroyed too soon.

    Also, in the 60′s, records were on paper, and all sorts of records were preparedon carbon sets, with multiple copies. (You’d have the white page, the yellow page, the green page, the pink page, etc.).The multiple copies were supposed to be distributed to different locations, but it would be more common to have the original (white) and a couple of carbon sets sitting in the file along with the original.

    It was customary in the60′s for women to stay in maternity wards 1-2 weeks for normal, healthy deliveries (even longer in the case of complications or a c-section).And newborn infants were generally cared for in a nursery, rather than rooming in with their moms.So you would have had pages & pages of nurses notes for perhaps a 7-10 day hospital stay, with the nurses marking down baby’s vitals & bottle feeding round the clock.

    The reason for the law was likely to get rid of old records so they were probably around.

    That makes no sense whatsoever. They wouldn’t have to pass a law mandating preservation of records if they wanted to get rid of records — in that case they would pass a mandatory destruction law (which would be silly).

    Her subsequent medical records have nothing to do with Obama’s. They are two separate people. Ann Dunham lived & worked in Indonesia from 1977-1995.She received a Ph.D. from Univ. of Hawaii in 1992, but her thesis was based on field work in Indonesia so it’s likely that it was written there. When she became ill in late 1994 (in Indonesia) she returned first to NY, where she was diagnosed with cancer at Sloan-Kettering.She did return to Hawaii that year — but unless she was hospitalized for some reason during the 70s, there would be no reason for Kapiolani to have any record.She wouldn’t go to a maternity hospital for routine preventive care. And when she did return to Hawaii,it’s a lot more likely that she would have gone to Queens than Kapiolani — see:http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitalsand comparehttp://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/queen's-medical-center-6950380
    to http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/kapiolani-medical-center-for-women-6950335

    I mean, really, if you have terminal cancer and have started your treatment with one of the top cancer hospitals in the US — do you choose to follow up with treatment at the best cancer hospital in Honolulu, or do you go back to the small maternity hospital where you gave birth 34 years before out of nostalgia?

    The problem with you birthers is that you don’t even bother to do basic research before you engage in your wild flights of fancy, and then you confuse your imagination with facts.

    Yes, there “could” be a record still extant if it had not been destroyed.That doesn’t mean there is one. The absence of one is to be expected.The presence of one is not necessary because Hawaii has a system in place to keep a permanent record of all births. It is run by the Department of Health and they have confirmed repeatedly that their records show that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.

    I have read cases where people were able to get their old hospital records, just not in Hawaii. I saw that Kapiolani treats cancer that affect women, but I didn’t compare it to the other hospital. Obama himself said his mother was concerned over the cost of treatment so I don’t know where she went. It was responsive to the comment.

    Unlike the lie that was quoted that I am a full-fledged birther, I have not changed my position that he was born in Hawaii. No where have I claimed otherwise since I first made my own determination months ago, even the last comment I wrote the other day never claimed otherwise. I won’t go into anything other issue, nor will I let the door hit me on the way out.

    No one but who you have now is ever going to come here, Doc.
75. charo says:

    April 17, 2011 at 6:36 am

    My comment is in moderation for some reason. Doc can get it or not, but I’ll try agaon:

    I have read cases where people were able to get their old hospital records, just not in Hawaii. I saw that Kapiolani treats cancer that affect women, but I didn’t compare it to the other hospital. Obama himself said his mother was concerned over the cost of treatment so I don’t know where she went. It was responsive to the comment.

    I have not changed my position that he was born in Hawaii. No where have I claimed otherwise since I first made my own determination months ago, even the last comment I wrote the other day never claimed otherwise.

    No one but who you have now is ever going to come here, Doc.
76. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    April 17, 2011 at 9:32 am

    charo: No one but who you have now is ever going to come here, Doc.

    I’m not sure exactly what you’re implying here, but over 50% of the visitors to this site every day are new, about 1,500 over the last 3 days.
77. Expelliarmus says:

    April 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    charo: No one but who you have now is ever going to come here, Doc

    The point of this site is to publish true information, not to entertain foolish fantasies in the comment section.

    There is no legal requirement that hospitals in Hawaii keep birth records of any kind 48 years after the fact, and even if they did, certainly no evidence that they dig them up and produce them. (When I wanted to find one of my kid’s vaccination records 8 years down the line,all his medical records had been destroyed. Apparently in my state, the statutory retention period is 3 years after the last date the patient was seen)

    Even if the hospital birth records were retained, by law, they are not the best evidence of time or place of birth. By law, the best evidence is the Dept. of Health records.

    So you have two possibilities: (1) Dept. of Health records show Obama born in Hawaii. Hospital birth records lawfully destroyed many years ago; or (2) Dept. of Health records show Obama born in Hawaii. Do to administrative oversight, hospital records somehow have not been destroyed and can somehow be recovered in order to demonstrate that Obama was born at a particular Hawaii hospital.

    Either way Obama is born in Hawaii. There is no possibility that you are going to find hospital record in Hawaii to disprove that he was born there, since the absence of records means nothing, since one would logically expect them to have been long since destroyed. And of course, to the extent that any record does exist, it would be protected from disclosure by HIPAA.
78. Slartibartfast says:

    April 17, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    This is an extended exchange from Dr. K(h)ate’s that I thought was amusing – skip to the end to learn a part of the Harridan of Hate’s plans to remove the evil usurper… 😉

    anonymouse
    April 17, 2011 at 2:05 am
    I think Obama’s not being constitutional, as in not being a natural born citizen and thus failing Article II and the 20th amendment, NOT just his “citizenship”, NOT just a “birth certificate” …

    should be the
    LITMUS TEST for any candidate we back.

    It’s a “LITMUST” test! If any politician either pays lip service to the constitution without getting to the heart of things, or if they dance around it based on feigned ignorance, being on the learning curve, attributing it to fringe or unimportance and certainly mockery… they are FAKES.
    And fakes do not deserve any support.

    It’s time to call these people up to the plate and see what they’re made out of.
    Palin FAIL
    Rove FAIL
    West FAIL
    Trump, a maybe FAIL

    Reply
    anonymouse
    April 17, 2011 at 2:12 am
    Orly Taitz refuses to mention NBC FAIL –So does Lucas Smith
    Herman Caine professed some “ignorance” on the subject of eligibility but otherwise said all the right thing, FAIL
    Arizona eligibility law FAIL
    Cantor FAIL
    Boehner FAIL
    Issa FAIL
    Bachman FAIL

    The only non-fails are Mario Apuzzo and Kerchner and Leo Donofrio and Edwin Vieira and Lame Cherry and drkate…

    Oddly, even Lakin who sits in jail never mentioned NBC, though he had many opportunities. I’m not giving him a fail, but I am giving him a “missing assignments” grade.

    Even David Manning NEVER MENTIONS ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. I know he’s not dumb, it’s deliberate. So inasmuch as I love the guy, I am giving him a temporary FAIL due to missing assignments.

    Beck, BOR, of course get FAILS and expulsion.

    I’m not playing footsie, they either pipe up about A2/20th/NBC or STFU.

    Reply
    bdwilcox
    April 17, 2011 at 3:58 am
    Orly Taitz constantly mentions the definition of NBC; she’s quite aware of the two citizen parent requirement. But it’s a little tough to mention all aspects of Obimbo’s usurpation when you’re getting shouted down and ridiculed, so the fact that she got the fraudulent SS# issue on the table was miraculous in and of itself.

    Reply
    anonymouse
    April 17, 2011 at 5:55 am
    Well I’m not saying I’m judge and jury, but if she’s said that then I profusely apologize and give her high marks. I guess she didn’t get to squeeze it in on CNN.

    Reply
    anonymouse
    April 17, 2011 at 6:28 am
    Alan Keyes gets a freaking A+++++++ on the “Litmust Test” about mentioning CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS!
    LUV HIM

    Reply
    RacerJim
    April 17, 2011 at 8:18 am
    Ooh Rah!

    Reply
    workingclass artist
    April 17, 2011 at 5:50 am
    Orly Taitz is using many legal strategies to get some traction in a court…This is key…

    A judge must grant discovery at initial stages of a case…
    If she can’t do it through the NBC issue she can do it through the SS# issue…The result is the same…Discovery….

    Discovery is a bitch…just sayin’

    ** So far Soetero has had the judges on his side in preventing discovery motions…but maybe his “luck” has run out? **

    Reply
    workingclass artist
    April 17, 2011 at 6:24 am
    It’s all about a judge granting discovery motions…the SS# is her latest tactic to gain discovery.
    This is one stumbling block to these law suits failing to gain traction. This was denied to the defense of Laiken (sp?) during his court martial.

    If Teitz can convince a judge of a probable cause to review records as they relate to her case the judge will grant discovery. Different states have different rules as to discovery motions But her pursuit of the SS# may be the best break ever…
    Any discovery motion about fraudulent use of SS# would naturally back track to investigation of public records as to anything related to the SS#…and how that SS# was utilized by the defendant…a paper trail that would probably go way back because each record would potentially pose more questions about the “history”…
    Discovery would potentially open up any document where that SS# appeared…College records, loan applications, legal license, passport,federal paperwork and campaign records,tax information, contracts, etc…

    Even if the judge quashed her from making any discovery public you can bet the lawyers will be all over it…it would be the proverbial leak in the dam.
    This is what Soetero has been fighting…discovery…
    Once a judge grants discovery it must be complied with or contempt of court.
    This would be both a legal disaster and a political disaster…This is what Nixon fought over the tapes/records during Watergate…discovery…
    And Nixon was forced by his own party to resign ( most members of congress are lawyers afterall…)

    Reply
    workingclass artist
    April 17, 2011 at 6:36 am
    I would like to add that if Taitz is granted discovery it could also open up her resources as to where she gets her records…which ties back to the DNC & Chicago…
    And election paper work throughout his career would be valid for inquiry in discovery…
    Any legal document signed by Soetero as a sate senator could be valid…
    Any private contract ( Rezko, publishing, employment as community activist lawyer, application to the bar, etc…)

    If Taitz is granted discovery the rats will jump ship faster than you can count them…

    Blagovitch’s lawyers will be some of the first lawyers who will seek to gain access of the product of discovery to use in his defense….and vise versa…
    ( I think he’s been blocked on discovery motions as well…currently he’s seeking discovery as to the FBI tapes which would lead to discovery of the FBI investigation )

    Reply
    workingclass artist
    April 17, 2011 at 6:44 am
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/donald-trump-warns-eric-cantor-dont.html

    Cantor better listen….And need to have his staff look into the the “makeup” of the demographics of this group…Trump has & he’s appealing to it…just sayin’

    Reply
    workingclass artist
    April 17, 2011 at 6:50 am
    any legal tactic by congress to legally investigate Soetero’s administration could also be helpful….
    The DOJ under Holder is a can of worms just waiting for congressional inquiry…Holder and Barry go way back….
    Why dos this matter….discovery…Taitz could be able to petition to seek access to any congressional discovery that pertains to her case…. just sayin’

    Reply
    anonymouse
    April 17, 2011 at 8:16 am
    There are four states (at least) with eligibility laws on the books in 2008, none were enforced.
    GEORGIA OCGA 21-2-5
    MARYLAND 5-201
    ARIZONA NOW HAS 2 ARS 16-311 ON BOOKS
    HAWAII ALSO has HRS 11-113

    so in essence Arizona’s new law is watered down from its existing law, which was never enforced

    the question is how do you get them to enforce their own laws?

    The Secretary of State Elections office in Arizona said they didn’t care if an Iranian was on the ballot.

    Reply
    RacerJim
    April 17, 2011 at 8:31 am
    One answer as to how “We the people…” get the State’s to enforce their own laws is by forming and maintaining armed militias per the U.S. Constitution and then, as SEIU Chairman Andy Stern proclaimed: “[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power.”

    Reply
    Stock
    April 17, 2011 at 10:15 am
    Someone (now a citizen of Ariz per the Statute right) would have to file suit-possibly for a Writ of Mandamus (to compel an office holder to fulfill their duty) or for Injunctive Relief-I believe-that would be a good question for Apuzzo

    Reply
    drkate
    April 17, 2011 at 10:51 am
    And that is what I am going to do…
79. Sef says:

    April 17, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    How about we convince all the birthers to move to AZ so they can file lawsuits.
80. Slartibartfast says:

    April 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Sef:
    How about we convince all the birthers to move to AZ so they can file lawsuits.

    Works for me – although I would worry about the crazy reaching some critical density, it might be a good cautionary example for our body politic…
81. G says:

    April 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Slartibartfast: Works for me – although I would worry about the crazy reaching some critical density, it might be a good cautionary example for our body politic…

    I would argue that our body politic has been a cautionary example for quite some time now…
82. Joey says:

    April 17, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    G: Don’t expect Obama’s team to care.Angry people have said an enormous amount of awful stuff on TV about various Presidents for years.Administrations don’t bother with such nonsense and don’t get involved.

    It seems to upset you birthers more than anything that he won’t take the bait to all your insipid goading.Face it, he simply is not that into you.Deal with it.

    In 1800, the Thomas Jefferson campaign accused John Adams of being a hermaphrodite (not strong enough to be a man and not kind enough to be a woman). The Adams campaign accused Jefferson of fathering children with his slave, Sally Hemmings (which he did). A Vice President of the United States (Aaron Burr) intentionally shot and killed the first Secretary of the Treasury (Alexander Hamilton). Imagine if Dick Cheney had shot Tim Geithner and killed him instead of only wounding a hunting buddy.
    No president was called worse names than Abraham Lincoln. It goes with the territory.
    Orly being fined $20,000 by a conservative Republican judge and the Supreme Court upholding that sanction against her was probably punishment enough for the Obama administration’s lawyers. Let sleeping dogs lie.
83. Paul Pieniezny says:

    April 18, 2011 at 4:55 am

    Joey: No president was called worse names than Abraham Lincoln. It goes with the territory.
    Orly being fined $20,000 by a conservative Republican judge and the Supreme Court upholding that sanction against her was probably punishment enough for the Obama administration’s lawyers. Let sleeping dogs lie.

    The problem is that innocent bystanders have been hit in the crossfire. One example that comes to mind especially is Judge Carter’s law clerk, who has been accused by Orly of getting a law degree by buying a communist fake one in Slovakia, because some unknown typist with failing eyesight working on an Internet Lawyer Database instead of Columbia chose Comenius in Bratislava, the one immediately following in an alphabetical rolldown menu.

    The Comenius Erasmus exchange degree that the guy was supposed to have bought did not exist until well after the fall of the Berlin wall, lectures were only given in Slovak (Erasmus students are supposed to learn the local language), the course was regarded as high standard (not for sale) and the USA is not a partner in Erasmus so the clerk would have had to register and take at least some courses at a British university first (probably London School of Economics).

    In other words, this was pure defamation. If the clerk had earned his degree at Bratislava, it would have made him a genius in my eye.

    A defamation suit may perhaps also help to elucidate what Orly did when she lived in Romania, as she would have to explain why she thought a Bratislava degree is worthless. Note that Orly is still repeating this nonsense and “broadcasting” this guy’s erroneous personal data to the media, trying to prove Judge Carter misjudged her case.

    Other people have been targeted by Orly as well, based on some dubious IP address locators. One of them lived in Australia. She asked her followers to write to whom she thought were the employers of these people and notify them that their employees were engaged in treasonous activities during their time of work.

    I know of one PJer who was very amused because he was self-employed. And of one school where the Head never got to see Orly’s email message. Because it contained a virus.
84. The Magic M says:

    April 18, 2011 at 7:16 am

    > if these allegations were not sufficient for Obama’s team to start the legal action against her, I don’t know what kind of public insult would suffice.

    So this is again an argument of “this applies here, the opposite there”?

    Are you trying to tell me that not starting legal action against Orly is a “tacit admission”? Then why don’t you use “tacit admission” when it comes to the Obama letter to Kapiolani? Obama did not deny he wrote it, Kapiolani did not publically state its contents are false, so he wrote it and what he wrote is true. See, birther logic applied, case closed.

    But of course “real” birther logic is “I am totally inconsequential, so I only use tacit admission when it suits my current argument, but demand explicit confirmation where tacit admission would hurt my argument”.
85. misha says:

    April 18, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    nc1: She publicly accused Obama of fraud on national TV – if these allegations were not sufficient for Obama’s team to start the legal action against her, I don’t know what kind of public insult would suffice.

    When Orly does her parody of The Madwoman of Chaillot – La Folle de Chaillot, the best thing is to ignore her. That drives her nuts more than anything else.
86. Joey says:

    April 18, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    misha: When Orly does her parody of The Madwoman of Chaillot – La Folle de Chaillot, the best thing is to ignore her. That drives her nuts more than anything else.

    The $20,000 sanction against Orly that was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need for the Obama administration to say a word in response to anything a disgraced and sanctioned lawyer has said.
    Let judges and justices do the speaking; Here’s what a conservative Republican judge appointed by Ronald Reagan had to say about Orly Taitz: “This is one of several suits brought by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”–Chief US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Royce C. Lamberth. “Taitz v Obama” [Quo Warranto], April 14, 2010.
87. Thrifty says:

    April 18, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    nc1: She publicly accused Obama of fraud on national TV – if these allegations were not sufficient for Obama’s team to start the legal action against her, I don’t know what kind of public insult would suffice.

    Because I am a rational man, I am going to assume that Barack Obama is not pursuing legal action because he realizes it would be a waste of time and money.

    Because you are a birther nutcase, I guess you assume that because the president didn’t sue that the accusations are true. Because I guess in Birtherstan, any accusation is automatically true unless you sue the person who made it.
88. Thrifty says:

    April 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    misha: Orly is a shande – nothing more. She is a third rate dentist, and fifth rate mail order lawyer. I have reason to believe she was a street walker in Moldova.

    If Orly Taitz does not track you down and sue you within a month, that statement automatically becomes factual.
89. Keith says:

    April 18, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    misha: Orly is a shande – nothing more. She is a third rate dentist, and fifth rate mail order lawyer. I have reason to believe she was a street walker in Moldova.

    I think you are giving her much too much credit.
90. Slartibartfast says:

    April 19, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Here’s the latest tour de FAIL from Dr. K(h)ate – a letter she sent to The Donald trying to get him to turn to the Vattel side of the birthers…

    (link to ‘drkatesview’ under THE UGLY below)

    Mr. Donald J. Trump
    The Trump Organization 725 5th Ave.
    New York, NY 10022

    Subject: Natural Born Citizen

    We write with urgency regarding the “natural born citizen” requirement for the office of the President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America. The need to see a forensically authenticated birth certificate’ is just one part of the natural born citizen clause, namely geography. The other necessary part of natural born citizenship’ is the citizenship of both parents—who must be citizens of the United States at the time of a child’s birth. Being born in the United States is a necessary but not sufficient condition for natural born citizenship.
    While a large part of the discussion of the constitutional eligibility of Mr. Obama is focused on birth place , or geographic location, the other necessary element of natural born citizenship– the U.S. citizenship of both parents –is also required to be constitutionally eligible. In reality, there are two tests for a natural born citizen: a geographic location test, and a parental citizenship test.

    This is important to understand because national security is the ultimate goal of the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen. Not merely a citizen, but a natural born citizen. As articulated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    The two highlighted phrases appear only once in the U.S. Constitution, and are intended only for the President, and by extension Vice President. Historical research reveals that these words were chosen with intent and specificity.

    National Security , Natural Born Citizen, Allegiance

    The terms “natural born Citizen”, and “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” were used by the Framers as a national security safeguard to ensure that the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces would have sole, singular allegiance to the United States.

    That the Article II requirements for the President were aimed specifically at national security is revealed in a statement by John Jay to George Washington as the contents of Article II were drafted:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    A natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents owing no allegiance to foreign countries and born in the United States or its territories. A natural born citizen owes his allegiance solely to the United States. No act of law can convey natural born citizenship.

    A natural born citizen is not the same as an English common law citizen. A natural born citizen owes allegiance only to the people of the United States through the Constitution; an English common-law citizen is a subject who owes allegiance to an individual.

    The principle of natural born citizenship is derived from the Founder’s use of and reference to nature’s law and the Law of Nations in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Absent a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen, the Constitution’s definition must stand.

    Thus, the question of birth place may not be separated from citizenship of the parents.

    Verifying Natural Born Citizenship

    While the question of where’s the birth certificate?’ is valid and has now broken into the mainstream’, the proper, complete question—a demand really—should be ‘verify Natural Born Citizenship!’. This means not only the production of a forensically authenticated long-form Hawaiian Birth Certificate, but also the necessary forensically examined evidence to verify his life story’ as discussed in his book ‘Dreams From My Father’.

    Because Mr. Obama has hidden all his records there is no way to verify Obama’s natural born citizenship—either the geographic location of his birth place or the true identity and citizenship of his parents.

    If his autobiography is true, then Mr. Obama’s life story immediately disqualifies him under Article II of the Constitution, and he fails the parental citizenship test because his father, Barack Obama, was never an American citizen. If his hidden birth certificate proves he was born outside the United States, he also fails the geography test. If he can prove he was born in Hawaii, and his life story is true, then he is simply an American citizen, not a natural born American citizen.

    Congress, the Parties, the Courts, and Mr. Obama Fail the Constitution

    The failure to verify the natural born citizenship status of Mr. Obama lies first with Obama himself. Without any evidence to the contrary, Mr. Obama knowingly evaded the constitutional eligibility requirements of the Constitution. He did so with the apparent knowledge of the leadership and members of the Democrat and Republican parties, the media, the State of Hawaii, political advisors, and other members of his cabinet and inner circle.

    To avoid the meaning of natural born citizen, the discussion of the Obama campaign, the media, the pundits, and nearly all of the Congress, was diverted away from natural born citizen to simply birth place (geographic criterion), that is, the birth certificate. This allowed Mr. Obama, and everyone else, to claim that an electronic version of a certification of live birth (COLB) was a valid, authentic “birth certificate and to not grasp the import of Mr. Obama’s autobiography where he admits his Kenyan father was never an American citizen. Mr. Obama knowingly deceived the American public by placing his name on the ballot in every state.

    Congress is required by the Twentieth Amendment to certify the President’s constitutional eligibility through a joint session of Congress in early January of the year the President-elect is sworn into office. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate are required to ensure that any and all objections are raised and addressed before certifying that the President elect is constitutionally eligible for the office. If for any reason the President elect is not verified, the Twentieth Amendment provides a procedure for filling the vacancy until the President elect qualifies or a new President is elected.

    The Congress, led by the House Speaker and President of the Senate, failed America’s national security and the American people by failing to certify Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility. In doing so, they have failed to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

    Constitutional Remedies

    The Constitutional remedies available to resolve this problem begin with the full disclosure of information by Barack Obama. Such information would enable the verification of the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama and thus his constitutional eligibility. The release and examination of information, and findings based thereon, would finally put to rest any speculation.

    The two basic components of information needed from Barack Obama in order to ascertain whether he is a natural born citizen are:

    Verification of Barack Obama’s birth place in Hawaii, USA, to meet the geographic criterion of natural born citizenship. A forensically verified authentic long form birth certificate showing the name Barack Obama, and indicating birth place, parents, doctor’s signatures, and hospital/midwife/witnesses is the basic prima facie evidence of birth in the United States.
    Verification that Barack Obama’s life story as told in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” is true and correct, particularly the identity and citizenship of his parents.
    If Mr. Obama makes this information available for forensic analysis, and if it verifies both of these elements, Mr. Obama is an American citizen but not a natural born citizen because of his father’s citizenship, and is not eligible to hold the office of the President. But simply verifying his birth in Hawaii does not make him a natural born citizen, hence the birth certificate (proof of birth in the U.S.) is only one aspect of natural born citizenship.

    A President that cannot, and did not initially qualify as an Article II natural born citizen, must step down or may be removed from office immediately under the Twentieth Amendment. Mr. Obama is disabled’ under the Twenty Fifth Amendment and could be removed from office by the Cabinet and/or Congress. A process for transitioning the government to a constitutionally qualified President is provided in the Twentieth Amendment.

    We urge you to study this letter and referenced material so as to address the full meaning of the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency embodied in Article II.

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    Thank you for your honesty and courage in raising this issue on behalf of our Nation.
91. G says:

    April 19, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Slartibartfast: Here’s the latest tour de FAIL from Dr. K(h)ate – a letter she sent to The Donald trying to get him to turn to the Vattel side of the birthers…

    Shorter Dr. K(h)ate, translates to:

    
    Dear Donald,

    In order to obtain our support and become a true birther, you must accept ALL of our crazy claims and extreme made-up definitions for NBC. We’ve put all of our bigoted biases into coming up with the most exclusionary definition possible in order to pretend Obama isn’t real and therefore, you must swear fealty to this definition or else we will denounce you as a traitor to our cause.

    Therefore, in order to obtain full Birther support for your presidential candidacy, you must immediately accept our screeds as true and accept that neither you nor your children are NBC by our exteme definition and therefore are never eligible to be president according to our new rules. Therefore, we expect you to zealously proclaim our views as holy and shout them far and wide, denouncing even yourself and your children in the process.

    In return for your loyalty, we will give you the “white exception” clause pass.

    Thank you,

    Dr K(h)ate and the Birther Bunch
    
92. Slartibartfast says:

    April 19, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    G: Shorter Dr. K(h)ate, translates to:

    
    Dear Donald,

    
    In order to obtain our support and become a true birther, you must accept ALL of our crazy claims and extreme made-up definitions for NBC.We’ve put all of our bigoted biases into coming up with the most exclusionary definition possible in order to pretend Obama isn’t real and therefore, you must swear fealty to this definition or else we will denounce you as a traitor to our cause.

    Therefore, in order to obtain full Birther support for your presidential candidacy, you must immediately accept our screeds as true and accept that neither you nor your children are NBC by our exteme definition and therefore are never eligible to be president according to our new rules.Therefore, we expect you to zealously proclaim our views as holy and shout them far and wide, denouncing even yourself and your children in the process.

    In return for your loyalty, we will give you the “white exception” clause pass.

    Thank you,

    Dr K(h)ate and the Birther Bunch
    

    Thanks for the translation – the Harridan of Hate can be overly verbose at times.

    Someone should make a ‘birther’ documentary – something that details all of the birther memes in detail and then in the last act debunks them. Then we could get all of the birthers to go to the premiere (any moderately sized movie theater should be sufficient – these are the folks that organized the several ones of people that turned up at the Usurpathon, after all…). We can decide later if we want to emulate ‘A Clockwork Orange’ or ‘Inglorious Basterds’…
93. G says:

    April 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Slartibartfast: Someone should make a birther’ documentary – something that details all of the birther memes in detail and then in the last act debunks them. Then we could get all of the birthers to go to the premiere (any moderately sized movie theater should be sufficient – these are the folks that organized the several ones of people that turned up at the Usurpathon, after all…). We can decide later if we want to emulate A Clockwork Orange’ or Inglorious Basterds’…

    LOL!
94. Nemocapn says:

    April 19, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Aol News has a story about a birther like movement in the Ivory Coast. The Pennsylvania marriage certificate of the man who won the election was forged by the opposition to make it look like his nationality was Burkino Faso. The marriage certificate actually said, “African.” While the birther movement here provides comedic relief, it’s sobering to realize that such a movement could become deadly serious. Hopefully it won’t turn that ugly here.

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/07/is-birther-movement-dangerous-look-at-ivory-coast-crisis/
95. misha says:

    April 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    I don’t know where to post this, but readers will be interested in this NYT magazine story:

    Obama’s Young Mother Abroad

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24Obama-t.html

    [Look for the “Open Mike” link on the right side for the current open topic. FIFY. Doc.]
96. G Wiz says:

    April 24, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Saw this today:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0411/Rev_Franklin_Graham_a_birther.html?showall
97. G says:

    April 24, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    G Wiz: Saw this today:http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0411/Rev_Franklin_Graham_a_birther.html?showall

    This isn’t the first episode of bigotry and stupidity we’ve seen from Franklin Graham.

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