The occasional open thread: lame duck edition

Posted on February 19, 2016 by Dr. Conspiracy

Put your Obama conspiracy comments that don’t relate to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

212 Responses to The occasional open thread: lame duck edition

  1. Curious George says:
    February 19, 2016 at 10:05 pm  (Quote)

    On the subject of eligibility, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s lead, super duper, volunteer investigator, Mike Zoo-Low spent more than a few minutes on Karl Gal-Oops’ Fact Free Friday radio show this afternoon. Investigator Zoo-Low was discussing Ted Cruz’ lack of eligibility to be president of the United States. But most importantly, Karl Gal-Oops revealed that Zoo-Low had revealed to him that a world famous news organization wants to discuss Corporal Mike Zoo-Low’s universe shattering evidence developed during the Obama birth certificate investigation. Gal-Oops seemed very excited that this major news organization was going to finally give the Arpaio / Zoo-Low investigation the attention that it deserves.

    It was like someone pushed the rewind button and we we’re listening to a program from three years ago. It’s so serious that Karl Gal-Oops said that he’ll be making a trip to Arizona to have another important one on one meeting with Arpaio and Zoo-Low.

    Are there any true believers left who are going to buy into Karl Gal-Oops and Mike Zoo-Low Version 2.0?

  2. John Reilly says:
    February 19, 2016 at 10:40 pm  (Quote)

    Curious George: Are there any true believers left who are going to buy into Karl Gal-Oops and Mike Zoo-Low Version 2.0?

    Yes.

  3. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm  (Quote)

    Pravda.ru?

    Curious George: Gal-Oops seemed very excited that this major news organization was going to finally give the Arpaio / Zoo-Low investigation the attention that it deserves.

  4. Rickey says:
    February 19, 2016 at 11:48 pm  (Quote)

    In the prior open thread, Hermitian claimed that a person does not have to be deceased in order to obtain a copy of that person’s SS-5. He is wrong, of course.

    First of all, you can only get a copy of an SS-5 form for a person who is deceased.

    http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2013/05/31/ordering-the-ss-5/

  5. Pete says:
    February 20, 2016 at 12:46 am  (Quote)

    Curious George: Are there any true believers left who are going to buy into Karl Gal-Oops and Mike Zoo-Low Version 2.0?

    I’m very surprised at you. Commander Zullo was ALWAYS going to bring forth the True Evidence that will Shatter the Universe (TM).

    It just got delayed, because, well, first Mike came down with a bad case of hemorrhoids. Now don’t laugh at that. You have no idea what a serious matter this is until YOU come down with a bad case.

    Then the dog ate all of Mike’s printouts, and they all had to be reprinted and there was the vet bill besides. And after that, of course, came the Very Important Investigation with the Confidential Informant (CI) up in Seattle and many really, really important meetings and Secret Consultations. (I could tell you about them, but then they wouldn’t be Secret any more, would they?) And then there was the whole matter with the drunken babysitter and her stepsister, and her scar-faced ex-boyfriend with the ’97 Camaro (well, we don’t need to get into THAT) and of course in the meantime people are STILL coming to Mike trying to get him to sell them a car! So that’s taken up a LOT of Mike’s time.

    And of course, Mike (being the crack detective and general all-around great guy that he is) has often been called upon to render an Expert Opinion (TM) in some Very Important Cases (TM). So you see, while you might think several years is a long time to release his Universe-Shattering Evidence (TM) that’s going to drive Obama out of office, and while it might seem to the uneducated observer that time was of the essence, there really was no way for Mike to move faster. You don’t want to rush these things, you know? This is, after all, an Official Investimigation.

    But now Mike is Back on the Job (TM), with bigger and better Universe-Shattering Evidence (TM) to shatter even bigger universes! And Any Day Now he’s going to drive Obama clean out of office. He just needs your donations to help him move up that date.

    But it’s, like, totally guaranteed Mike will have the Usurper Obama driven CLEAN OUT OF OFFICE by, say, this time next year.

  6. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 20, 2016 at 8:00 am  (Quote)

    I suppose the exception is that one could obtain their own SS-5.

    Rickey: In the prior open thread, Hermitian claimed that a person does not have to be deceased in order to obtain a copy of that person’s SS-5. He is wrong, of course.

  7. Curious George says:
    February 20, 2016 at 8:23 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Pravda.ru?

    My first thought was “Russian Times.”

  8. Curious George says:
    February 20, 2016 at 8:28 am  (Quote)

    John Reilly: Yes.

    They really are ignorant and delusional.

  9. Northland10 says:
    February 20, 2016 at 12:49 pm  (Quote)

    In the previous thread, I stated:

    “Where is the proof that such form was released? Where have you seen it? Where did the SSA claim to redact the parents name because Bari was, by their records, still alive?”

    Hermie’s response

    Hermitian:
    Do your own research. The documents speak for themselves.

    In other words, Hermie has absolutely no proof of his claim. He has not seen anything.

  10. Notorial Dissent says:
    February 20, 2016 at 3:02 pm  (Quote)

    Actually, in other words, Hermie IS LYING AGAIN. The SSA does not release information on an individual or an SSN, or even admit there is such a person or SSN, UNLESS that person is dead. No dead, no form, no redaction, NO NOTHING. Hermie is lying again.

  11. Rickey says:
    February 20, 2016 at 3:32 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent:
    Actually, in other words, Hermie IS LYING AGAIN. The SSA does not release information on an individual or an SSN, or even admit there is such a person or SSN, UNLESS that person is dead. No dead, no form, no redaction, NO NOTHING. Hermie is lying again.

    He claims that the SS-5 for Bari Shabazz was released to someone (which is certainly possible) and that the names of Bari’s parents were redacted. When I receive my copy of the SS-5 I will forward it to Doc so he can post it here.

    Here is what is known about Bari M. Shabazz.

    He was born on October 28, 1959. Martha Trowbridge claimed that he was born in New York, but Orly Taitz has claimed that someone ordered his SS-5 and that it says that Bari was born in Jamaica (West Indies). However, if there is a copy of Bari’s SS-5 online, I have not been able to find it.

    Bari’s Social Security Number was 084-54-5926, and it was issued in 1974 or 1975 (the SS-5 will clarify this). The 084 prefix suggests that his SSN was issued while he was living in New York, but as we know that is not necessarily definitive.

    He held a New York State driver’s license, ID# 992383576. It had an expiration date of October 28, 1991. New York DMV records do not show when an individual was licensed for the first time, unless the licensee is still driving with his or her first license.

    Both Bari’s driving record and LexisNexis show that he lived at this address:

    32-26 98th Street
    East Elmhurst, NY 11369

    His driving record lists his height as 5-9″ and he had brown eyes. The last activity on his New York driving record is a suspension notice dated January 3, 1989. His driving privileges were suspended because he failed to respond to a summons in Queens County.

    The Social Security Death Index shows that he died in August, 1994.

    We will know more when the SS-5 arrives.

  12. Northland10 says:
    February 20, 2016 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: The Social Security Death Index shows that he died in August, 1994.

    For the record (I redacted the SSN, even though he is deceased and it is publicly available. It matched the one Ricky mentioned).

    Name: B . M. Shabazz
    SSN: Redacted
    BORN: 28 Oct 1959
    Died: Aug 1994
    State (Year) SSN issued: New York (1974)

    Source Citation
    Number: Redacted; Issue State: New York; Issue Date: 1974
    Source Information
    Ancestry.com. U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2011.

    ETA: Despite Herm’s claim, it would appear that the SSN does know when Bari died.

  13. Northland10 says:
    February 20, 2016 at 3:54 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Martha Trowbridge claimed that he was born in New York, but Orly Taitz has claimed that someone ordered his SS-5 and that it says that Bari was born in Jamaica (West Indies). However, if there is a copy of Bari’s SS-5 online, I have not been able to find it.

    According to Ancestry.com, the have the index information for the same SSN number in the U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007 with the following note:

    18 Apr 1974: Name listed as BARRINGTON HUGHH ANTHONY SMITH; 01 May 1980: Name listed as BARI MALIK SHABAZZ; 25 Oct 1997: Name listed as B M SHABAZZ,

    This is the entry with the Jamaica birth but the same dates as Shabazz.

  14. Arthur B. says:
    February 20, 2016 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Orly Taitz has claimed that someone ordered his SS-5 and that it says that Bari was born in Jamaica (West Indies) … Both Bari’s driving record and LexisNexis show that he lived at this address:

    32-26 98th Street
    East Elmhurst, NY 11369

    FWIW, East Elmhurst is only about 5 miles from Jamaica (Queens), NY.

    Just sayin’…

  15. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 20, 2016 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    I found this file in the Google cache, apparently from The Complete Obama Timeline. It has the Trowbridge speculation and some references to the P&E”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shabazz.pdf

    Orly Taitz published a copy of the SS-5 form:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Bari-Shabazz-Kingston-Jamaica.pdf

    It says “West Indies”

  16. Northland10 says:
    February 20, 2016 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I found this file in the Google cache, apparently from The Complete Obama Timeline. It has the Trowbridge speculation and some references to the P&E”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shabazz.pdf

    Orly Taitz published a copy of the SS-5 form:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Bari-Shabazz-Kingston-Jamaica.pdf

    So, if I understand correctly, Malcolm X and Stanley Ann Dunham conceived a child who was born in Kingston, Jamaica (though Martha says New York) and named him Barrington Hugh Anthony Smith. In 1980, he decided to change his name to Bari Shabazz and he died in New York in 1994 (though he really did not die).

    The SSN redacted the parents names because they are not aware that Malcom X and Stanley Ann Dunham are deceased. They can release the SS-5 because they are aware that Bari Shabazz died in 1994 even though he really did not.

    It makes perfect sense now.

  17. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 20, 2016 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    March 1 hear in Melendres v. Arpaio. Order with questions and references to findings of fact:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/299825277/Melendres-v-Arpaio-1624-ORDER-Re-Mar-1-Hearing-Etc

  18. Curious George says:
    February 20, 2016 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    March 1 hear in Melendres v. Arpaio. Order with questions and references to findings of fact:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/299825277/Melendres-v-Arpaio-1624-ORDER-Re-Mar-1-Hearing-Etc

    Montgomery is called an “agent” of Arpaio. Oops, Zullo was also referred to as an agent for Arpaio as I recall in earlier court documents. It looks like this could get very interesting for the posse of one.

  19. Rickey says:
    February 20, 2016 at 8:03 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I found this file in the Google cache, apparently from The Complete Obama Timeline. It has the Trowbridge speculation and some references to the P&E”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Shabazz.pdf

    Orly Taitz published a copy of the SS-5 form:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Bari-Shabazz-Kingston-Jamaica.pdf

    It says “West Indies”

    Good catch, Doc.

    The name “Barrington Smith” appears once in the LexisNexis report, but it also includes the name “Betty Kangal” so I didn’t attach any significance to it. The appearance of difference names associated with the same SSN is not unusual, as it is usually caused by a SSN typo when someone applies for credit. Now we know that Bari Shabazz was born Barrington Smith and changed his name in 1980.

    We also now know that Bari Shabazz was a U.S. Marine in 1990. His address on the April 9, 1990 name change form is shown as “1st Radio Bn., Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii 96744.” In 1990 the U.S. Marine Corps 1st Radio Battalion was located at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii at Kāneʻohe Bay.

    Two months before Barrington Smith applied to have his name changed on his Social Security card, while he was a U.S. Marine in Hawaii, Barack Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. This should put to rest any claims that Bari Shabazz and Barack Obama were the same person.

  20. Rickey says:
    February 20, 2016 at 8:30 pm  (Quote)

    I should add that the Marine Corps base at Kāneʻohe Bay was also called Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe. I’m not sure which was the official designation in 1990.

  21. Northland10 says:
    February 21, 2016 at 7:03 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Now we know that Bari Shabazz was born Barrington Smith and changed his name in 1990.

    Don’t you mean 1980?

    Being a marine explains the 1984 Quantico address that showed up in a US Public Record entry on Ancestry.

  22. Rickey says:
    February 21, 2016 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Don’t you mean 1980?

    Yes, that was a typo by me. April 9, 1980 is the date he asked to have his name changed on his Social Security Card.

    Maybe Doc could change that from 1990 to 1980 to avoid any confusion.

    And of course the fact that he was a Marine in Hawaii takes the mystery out of how he happened to be in an auto accident in Hawaii in 1982.

  23. justlw says:
    February 21, 2016 at 9:48 pm  (Quote)

    According to Ancestry.com’s Social Security index, BARRINGTON HUGHH [sic] ANTHONY SMITH was born in Kingston, Jamaica 28 Oct 1959.

    18 Apr 1974: Name listed as BARRINGTON HUGHH ANTHONY SMITH;

    01 May 1980: Name listed as BARI MALIK SHABAZZ;

    25 Oct 1997: Name listed as B M SHABAZZ

    Death date is listed as August 1994.

  24. jacko says:
    February 22, 2016 at 2:12 pm  (Quote)

    According to Ancestry.com my father was born in San Francisco on 1/18/1880, however the 1880 census shows his name and age to be 32 years old.
    that would make him the oldest baby I have ever heard of.
    and I note that postters here are relying to some extent on Orly Taitz’s information, which surprises me somewhat, as most of the time she is accused of being a nutty lawyer/dentist.

    LOL

  25. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 22, 2016 at 3:46 pm  (Quote)

    More accurately, we are relying to the documents from the Social Security Administration that Orly Taitz put on her web site. These are images of the original application and not just a database entry which could represent a data entry error.

    jacko: I note that postters here are relying to some extent on Orly Taitz’s information, which surprises me somewhat, as most of the time she is accused of being a nutty lawyer/dentist.

  27. Rickey says:
    February 22, 2016 at 9:48 pm  (Quote)

    jacko:
    I note that posters here are relying to some extent on Orly Taitz’s information, which surprises me somewhat, as most of the time she is accused of being a nutty lawyer/dentist.

    It isn’t Orly’s information. It was sent to her by a woman named Paula Hoehn, and it includes a certification statement by the Social Security Administration.

    In addition, the information matches information about Bari M. Shabazz which we have been able to confirm independently, such as his date of birth and Social Security Number, so there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Social Security documents.

  28. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 23, 2016 at 9:32 am  (Quote)

    justlw: 01 May 1980: Name listed as BARI MALIK SHABAZZ;

    25 Oct 1997: Name listed as B M SHABAZZ

    Death date is listed as August 1994.

    Birther: “How did he change his name after his death? Foul play!!!” 😉

  29. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 23, 2016 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    1985.

    Marty we have to send you back to the future!

  30. Thrifty says:
    February 23, 2016 at 10:51 am  (Quote)

    Typos don’t exist when birtherism is involved. What are you REALLY hiding, you Obama/Soros puppet?

    Rickey: Yes, that was a typo by me. April 9, 1980 is the date he asked to have his name changed on his Social Security Card.

  31. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2016 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    Marius has got his drawers in a bunch:
    http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/?hubRefSrc=email&utm_source=lfemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lfnotification#lf_comment=465496456

    “I gave you an opportunity to retract your defamatory statements toward me. You have chosen to double down on them. I have not heard back from Bob. Both of you have left me no choice but to proceed with my filing a suit for defamation against both of you.”

  32. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 23, 2016 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    Our buddy Hermy here is now on the scalia was murdered bandwagon. He’s even linked to white supremacist sites for his information.

  33. Crustacean says:
    February 23, 2016 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    From today’s San Francisco Chronicle:

    “A 73-year-old man who mysteriously vanished Tuesday is facing a $113 million judgment from the Federal Trade Commission over a get-rich-quick infomercial scam.

    “John Nelson Beck of Alameda was the man behind John Beck Amazing Profits LLC, which put out infomercials marketing “John Beck’s Free & Clear Real Estate System.” According to court filings, the infomercials falsely told consumers that they could easily make massive amounts of money by buying homes at government tax sale auctions and immediately flipping or renting them.

    “The “system,” which cost $39.95 plus shipping and handling, consisted of written manuals, DVDs and CDs. Beck also offered personal coaching services that ranged from $195 to $14,995.”

    From today’s Yahoo News:

    “Trump launched [Trump University] in 2005 with a promotional You Tube video, as well as ads that proclaimed, “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you,” “Are YOU My Next Apprentice?” and “Learn from my handpicked experts how you can profit from the largest real estate liquidation in history.” The plaintiffs, former students at Trump University, allege they were misled into maxing out their credit cards and paying up to $60,000 in fees for seminars in hotel ballrooms and “mentoring” by Trump’s “hand-picked” real estate experts.”

    So what’s the difference between Mr. Beck and Mr. Trump? One of them has a sense of shame, and has gone into hiding. The other is running a campaign to be the next president of the USA.

  34. Scientist says:
    February 23, 2016 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Our buddy Hermy here is now on the scalia was murdered bandwagon. He’s even linked to white supremacist sites for his information.

    The real surprise was that he lived as long as he did with the number of serious medical conditions and very poor health habits http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a625688daed3426781d4385f4b7af5e4/ap-newsbreak-scalia-suffered-many-health-problems

  35. Rickey says:
    February 23, 2016 at 7:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Our buddy Hermy here is now on the scalia was murdered bandwagon.He’s even linked to white supremacist sites for his information.

    And he has been noticeably silent about Bari Shabazz since it was established that Shabazz was a U.S. Marine stationed in Hawaii at the same time (the spring of 1980) that Obama was a freshman at Occidental College in Los Angeles. We also know from the SSA records that Shabazz was living in Corona, N.Y. in March, 1992, at the same time that Obama was employed as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

  36. jacko says:
    February 24, 2016 at 3:06 pm  (Quote)

    anyone note that B Shabazz has two passport number shown on the applications

    F1261888 and F 1281888 or is that a F1201888

    LOL

  37. Rickey says:
    February 24, 2016 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    jacko:
    anyone note that B Shabazz has two passport number shown on the applications

    F1261888 and F 1281888 or is that aF1201888

    LOL

    In your fevered imagination, what is the significance of that, other than an obvious clerical error?

  38. Dave B. says:
    February 24, 2016 at 9:25 pm  (Quote)

    Arkansas ballot challenge:

    http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/02/24/birther-effort-to-remove-ted-cruz-from-arkansas-primary-ballot-derailed

    http://www.4029tv.com/blob/view/-/37888306/data/2/-/j69ae5z/-/cruz-rubio-lawsuit.pdf

    That “common law Supreme Court mandatory-prohibitory self-executing federal provision” kind of rings a bell. There’s a whole lot of birther dumbassery in this one.

  40. Dave B. says:
    February 24, 2016 at 9:51 pm  (Quote)

    Something a little different, in the way of birther craziness:

    “Now what is a natural BORN Citizen of the United States? A natural BORN CITIZEN is a SON of a MILITARY MAN. Once the MAN becomes a Citizen of the United States his WIFE automatically becomes a Citizen of the United States also. She has a right to come on the MILITARY BASE. When they have a CHILD –That child is an NATURAL BORN Citizen of the United States because his FATHER and MOTHER are Citizens of the United States.”

    http://www.morningledger.com/kentucky-vs-matt-bevin-heres-state-doesnt-want-governor-anymore/1358942/#comment-2530903139

  41. gorefan says:
    February 25, 2016 at 1:12 am  (Quote)

    Over at Gateway Pundit there is this article about Cruz.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/cruz-tries-to-delay-texas-eligibility-lawsuit-until-hes-elected-then-congress-w-choose-prez/

    This statement seemed wrong.

    “If the electoral college finds the elected candidate is disqualified, the Constitution says Congress — specifically the House of Representatives — will choose the president.”

    IMO, this only come into play if none of the presidential candidates gets the required number of electoral votes (270). That might happen if Trump runs as an independent candidate against Clinton and Cruz. In that case the House of Representatives decides the election. It is conceivable the electors could chose not to vote for their candidate but unlikely. Assuming that Cruz got the 270 votes, it seems highly unlikely that electors who were chosen by Cruz would vote him ineligible.

    The only other scenario (besides death) that would prevent him from taking office is if during the counting of the elector vote by congress, one member of the House and one member of the Senate objected to his election. Then the two Houses would adjourn to their separate chambers and debate the issue. Both House would have to vote to throw out the electoral votes for Cruz. Should that happen then the 20th Amendment would apply:

    Section 3.

    “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    In that case the Vice-President would be President until the next election – four years later.

  42. jacko says:
    February 25, 2016 at 3:31 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: In your fevered imagination, what is the significance of that, other than an obvious clerical error?

    Selective beliefs is the problem. You are willing to consider that a clerical error, but you don’t want to consider the problems with the Luca Smith Kenyan BC for the same type of clerical r

    So you are willing to believe things that correspond with what you think is correct, but want to ignore other problems that might indicate one of your beliefs may be in error

    Just like you claim what birthers do!.

  43. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 25, 2016 at 5:20 am  (Quote)

    I made the same mistake here recently (forgetting the VP would become Prez) and thankfully was corrected. 🙂

  44. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 25, 2016 at 5:38 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: That “common law Supreme Court mandatory-prohibitory self-executing federal provision” kind of rings a bell. There’s a whole lot of birther dumbassery in this one.

    Reading the introduction suffices to diagnose severe mental health problems. The inability to string together coherent thought, coupled with an attempt to use “colourful” language, is telling.

    He also shoots his case in the foot on page 3 by acknowledging the SOS performed his “ministerial duty” while not showing any legal precedent as to how that entitles him, the plaintiff, to declaratory judgment in any way.
    He also confuses the legal term “eligible” (“can become President”) with the colloquial (“can be voted for”).
    He also admits that there is no actual case or controversy by stressing neither Cruz nor Rubio have yet been chosen as the Republican candidate.

    It also makes no sense where he’s asking for documents proving parents’ citizenship if he isn’t even advancing the two citizen parent theory (Rubio was born in the US, after all). That’s guaranteed to fly in his face if the judge decides he sees no argument as to why these documents would be required to determine NBC status.

  45. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 25, 2016 at 7:14 am  (Quote)

    The problems with the Smith certificate go beyond what can be explained by clerical error. Smith himself has never tried to explain them that way.

    jacko: You are willing to consider that a clerical error, but you don’t want to consider the problems with the Luca Smith Kenyan BC for the same type of clerical r

  46. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 25, 2016 at 8:14 am  (Quote)

    The Orly Taitz Super PAC site has gone dark.

  47. Rickey says:
    February 25, 2016 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Selective beliefs is the problem.You are willing to consider that a clerical error, but you don’t want to consider the problems with the LucaSmith Kenyan BC for the same type of clerical r

    Lucas Smith is a convicted forger and grifter. His Kenyan BC is a forgery. Smith was asked time and again to provide proof that he has ever set foot in Kenya, and he never did so. Clerical error has nothing to do with it.

    So you are willing to believe things that correspond with what you think is correct, but want to ignore other problems that might indicate one of your beliefs may be in error.

    My irony meter just exploded.

    I deal with documents all the time, from legal documents to medical records to police reports. There is nothing particularly unusual about an 8-character number being correct in one place and off by one digit in another. In fact, on the 1990 request for a Social Security Card it is impossible to decipher exactly what the third digit of the passport number is supposed to be. Sloppiness leads to errors.

    If you really believe that this supposed discrepancy is important, why don’t you file a Freedom of Information request for his passport records? He is dead, so you shouldn’t have any problem getting them.

  48. Crustacean says:
    February 25, 2016 at 1:20 pm  (Quote)

    Found the link below in my inbox this morning, thanks to an old friend…

    “Studies find that political prediction (betting) markets tend to be better at predicting elections than polls”

    https://electionbettingodds.com/week.html

    Not sure I’m buying it, though. They have Joe Biden with a better chance of being elected prez than Ted Cruz.

  49. bob says:
    February 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Michael Ramsey on Rubio:

    http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/02/is-marco-rubio-a-natural-born-citizen-againmichael-ramsey.html

    Ramsey says the evidence is stronger that the Framers relied on Blackstone than they relied on Vattel. As an example of a Vattel proponent, Ramsey links to an article by … Mario Apuzzo.

  50. Dave B. says:
    February 25, 2016 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    Well if that ain’t a nail in the coffin.

    bob: Ramsey says the evidence is stronger that the Framers relied on Blackstone than they relied on Vattel.As an example of a Vattel proponent, Ramsey links to an article by … Mario Apuzzo.

  51. jacko says:
    February 26, 2016 at 3:23 am  (Quote)

    It is always interesting to me to see the discussion on the various facts , or non-facts, in these discussion.

    Most jumped at the forger and convicted criminal, Ok , that is fine with me.

    But you don’t give him credit for the ability he has in creating what you claim is forgery.

    He would have to be a CIA trained operative, in my opinion, to be able to create the form, created the registration, create the signatures, create the seal, and create, the signature of the registrar, all in a very short time.

    His forgery is much better than the , supposed, BHO Hawaiian birth certificate, which has a bad signature, and registration stamp, and the copy, yes I know it ia a copy, is full of things supposedly caused by a computer distortion, and it is accepted by many as being absolutely correct, even though no-one has publicly admitted seeing the original .

    One or the other is fake, and as we have never seen the original of either, we can believe what we want to believe, or just try to find out which one is the fake.

  52. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 26, 2016 at 7:22 am  (Quote)

    The Smith certificate was made to sell for money on eBay. You don’t know how long it took him but I wouldn’t think very long because he didn’t have to replicate anything. No known certificate looks anything like his. It’s just a fantasy laid out with Microsoft Word with added stamps and seals available at any office supply store. If he had taken longer perhaps he wouldn’t have made the research errors.

    Savannah Guthrie said on national television that she personally saw Obama’s original and felt the raised seal. When experiments were made with real scanned documents, the same artifacts birthers called marks of forgery were found.

    jacko:
    It is always interesting to me to see the discussion on the various facts , or non-facts, in these discussion.

    Most jumped atthe forger and convicted criminal, Ok , that is fine with me.

    But you don’t give him credit for the ability he has in creating what you claim is forgery.

    He would have to be a CIA trained operative, in my opinion, to be able to create the form, created the registration, create the signatures, create the seal, and create,the signature of the registrar, all in a very short time.

    His forgery is much better than the , supposed, BHO Hawaiian birth certificate, which has a badsignature, and registration stamp, and the copy,yes I know it ia a copy, isfullof things supposedly caused by a computer distortion, and it is accepted by many as being absolutely correct, even though no-one has publicly admitted seeing the original .

    One or the other is fake, and as we have never seen the original of either, we can believe what we want to believe, or just try to find out which one is the fake.

  53. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 26, 2016 at 7:30 am  (Quote)

    jacko: even though no-one has publicly admitted seeing the original

    Dr Fukino comes to mind. So does Loretta Fuddy who witnessed the copying process of the two certified copies.
    But, yeah, “no-one”, right.

  54. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 26, 2016 at 7:31 am  (Quote)

    jacko: One or the other is fake, and as we have never seen the original of either, we can believe what we want to believe

    You can be either an ISIS operative or not. As we have not seen your NSA files, we can believe what we want to believe.

  55. Reality Check says:
    February 26, 2016 at 9:29 am  (Quote)

    Speaking of Lucas “The Forger” Smith, has anyone seen his latest piece of pure filth attack fiction on Ann Dunham?

    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/obama-news/19601961-part-1-venereal-disease-records-from-hospital-list-stanley-ann-dunham-in-kenya/

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Smith certificate was made to sell for money on eBay. You don’t know how long it took him but I wouldn’t think very long because he didn’t have to replicate anything.

  56. Thrifty says:
    February 26, 2016 at 10:07 am  (Quote)

    I hate that the rise of Donald Trump has forced me to root for Ted Cruz.

  57. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 26, 2016 at 11:04 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty: I hate that the rise of Donald Trump has forced me to root for Ted Cruz.

    The other way round for me. Trump may be a blowhard, but he’s not someone who believes he’s God’s chosen one. Trump is much too clever to actually *do* really stupid things (like building that wall, or allowing faith to trump the law). Cruz would send the nukes towards California if Jesus commanded him to in his dreams. That’s a whole different league of dangerous.
    Trump is just the epitome of the used car salesman politician who tells you whatever you want to hear to get elected.
    (Yeah, he’s probably a racist and all other kinds of bad, but not in a league of his own.)
    Cruz is the holy warrior type, someone who should not be in power anywhere, someone who truly scares me.

  58. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 26, 2016 at 11:57 am  (Quote)

    jacko: He would have to be a CIA trained operative, in my opinion, to be able to create the form, created the registration, create the signatures, create the seal, and create, the signature of the registrar, all in a very short time.

    Then you don’t know much about anything. Why would he have to be a CIA trained operative to forge a document? There are plenty of forgers out there who have no CIA training.

  59. gorefan says:
    February 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: One or the other is fake, and as we have never seen the original of either, we can believe what we want to believe, or just try to find out which one is the fake.

    We can compare President Obama’s birth certificate both long form and short form to other Hawaiian birth certificates. For the long form certificate the format of the information, arraignment of the entry boxes, the individual box labels are all the same and match with the Standard Certificate of Live Birth listed in the 1961 Vital Statistics manual.

    The Smith document does not compare to other Kenya BCs. Smith himself published a 1958 Kenya BC and WND published a 1961 Kenya BC and the formatting is completely different. Both the 1958 and 1961 Kenya BCs have the same formatting as English birth certificates with the birth information arraigned in columns.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/53744924/Is-this-a-real-1958-Kenyan-birth-record-Is-this-a-real-person-Mombasa-District-Coast-Province-Colony-and-Protectorate-of-Kenya-Certificate-of-Reg

    http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/106135/

    Smith explains this by saying his is a hospital birth certificate and the others are government birth certificates. Smith is admitting that his BC is not an official government document unlike President Obama’s . Only one other Kenya hospital birth certificate has been produced and that was by Smith.

    Hawaiian officials have said that President Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and he was born in Hawaii. No Kenya official has authenticated Smith’s document.

  60. justlw says:
    February 26, 2016 at 12:09 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: the , supposed, BHO Hawaiian birth certificate, which has a bad signature, and registration stamp, and the copy, yes I know it ia a copy, is full of things supposedly caused by a computer distortion

    The lower-resolution PDF image has artifacts that are not present in higher-resolution images. A reasonable person might consider that those artifacts exist precisely because it’s a lower-resolution image, and stick with the higher-resolution images.

    (A completely unreasonable person would go for an even-lower resolution image and claim that the White House displayed a birth certificate with “Huwaii” on it. You don’t want to be that guy, do you?)

    There’s also the certificate released in 2008, which was seen and photographed, raised seal and all.

    And of course the big difference between the Smith “certificate” and the actual Hawaii certificates is that the data on the Obama certificates has been certified, multiple times. And it’s the data that’s important, not the internal compression methods of a PDF file.

  61. Notorial Dissent says:
    February 26, 2016 at 3:27 pm  (Quote)

    A reasonable person would not attempt to prove form a multi-generational copy that the original was a forgery, but then we are talking about a reasonable sane individual.

  62. jacko says:
    February 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    When we believe, facts do not matter.

    Disputing is easy, proving is hard.

    You can not PROVE that the Kenya is fake You can not prove the HDOH is true.

    You can take the words of the producer of the document that what they produced is true and accurate for the HDOH, and you can believe , as long as you realize they have the ability of producing a fake document under their states laws, that they would say it was true even if it was not true.

    There is one difference in the two separate documents, The supposed Kenyan bc is a photo of a document and the Hawaiian document is computer produced, and there can not be considered a copy of the original, which I think is why the certification says it could be an abstract and not a true copy.

    The one true thing is that Obama could have been born in either place until the originals of both are examined to verify the truth of one or the other,

    The real way to do it is to compare photos of the documents which can not be done by you or I.

    Or do you think that a photo is not a more reliable way of verification of original documents than making a copy on a computer.s

    It really is just a simple solution that will satisfy most, but not all, of the questioners of both document

  63. Scientist says:
    February 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm  (Quote)

    Guys, it’s actually pointless to even bother debunking the Lucas Smith document based on the way it looks. One need know no more than that the source is a convicted forger. If you got an investment prospectus from Bernie Madoff, would you need to examine the font and go over the numbers in the spreadsheets in detail? Of course not. Merely knowing it’s from Madoff would automatically mean that no sensible person would invest a penny. Similarly, no sensible person would believe a document from a convicted forger even if it were absolutely flawless.

  64. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 26, 2016 at 4:51 pm  (Quote)

    Both the Smith and Obama documents are computer optimized data files–one in pfd format and the other jpg. The difference is that the Smith document has no provenance, it has historical contradictions, no one has seen the original, it came from a convicted forger, and it is similar to no known exemplar. The Obama certificate has meticulous provenance, the more it is studied the more historical confirmation is found, the White House press corps was shown the original, it came from a well-respected state official, and it is like contemporary examples.

    There is no comparison.

    Your notion of proof is bogus.

    jacko:
    When we believe, facts do not matter.

    Disputing is easy, proving is hard.

    You can not PROVE that the Kenya is fake You can not prove the HDOH is true.

    You can take the words of the producer of the document that what they produced is true and accurate for the HDOH, and you can believe , as long as you realize they have the ability of producing a fake document under their states laws, that they would say it was true even if it was not true.

    There is one difference in the two separate documents, The supposed Kenyan bc is a photo of a document and the Hawaiian document is computer produced, and there can not be considered a copy of the original, which I think is why the certification says it could be an abstract and not a true copy.

    The one true thing is that Obama could have been born in either place until the originals of both are examined to verify the truth of one or the other,

    The real way to do it is to compare photos of the documents which can not be done by you or I.

    Or do you think that a photo is not a more reliable way of verification of original documents than making a copy on a computer.s

    It really is just a simple solution that will satisfy most, but not all, of the questioners of both document

  65. Reality Check says:
    February 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm  (Quote)

    If you want a photo then just search for Savannah Guthrie’s cell phone photo or Scott Applewhite’s AP photo taken of a copy of the LFBC. Birthers like to pretend that the PDF is the only copy of the LFBC that was published when that is not the case.

    jacko: Or do you think that a photo is not a more reliable way of verification of original documents than making a copy on a computer.s

  66. Rickey says:
    February 26, 2016 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    jacko:

    But you don’t give him credit for the ability he has in creating what you claim is forgery.

    He would have to be a CIA trained operative, in my opinion, to be able to create the form, created the registration, create the signatures, create the seal, and create,the signature of the registrar, all in a very short time.

    You can’t be serious.

    Smith put a footprint on his supposed birth certificate which is too large to be the footprint of a newborn infant.

    Both the stamp and the signature of Heltan Maganga have his first name misspelled. His first name is spelled Heltan, but Smith spelled it Helton.

    Regardless of the spelling, Dr. Maganga was not the Chief Administrator of Coast Province General Hospital in February, 2009.

    Jerome Corsi called Smith’s birth certificate a forgery: “Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at Obama’s birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however, he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.”

    So what we have is a very bad forgery made by a very bad forger. His incompetence as a forger helps to explain his long history of criminal convictions.

  67. Pete says:
    February 27, 2016 at 1:05 am  (Quote)

    jacko: You can not PROVE that the Kenya is fake You can not prove the HDOH is true.

    You’re a couple of years behind the times. Lucas Smith is a known forger, and Obama’s certificate has stood up to literally years of the most extensive scrutiny for authenticity ever lavished upon a single document in the history of mankind, at least in the case where those examining the document were working from a copy, as well as having been repeatedly authenticated by those in charge of the originals, from both political parties.

    If that’s not “proven,” then I don’t know what is.

    Really, you need to get a life. Your bus left years ago.

  68. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 3:43 am  (Quote)

    “as well as having been repeatedly authenticated by those in charge of the originals, from both political parties. ”

    The HDOH has never authenticated the information on the recorded birth certificate, they have never authenticated the certified copy, but that have verified that the copy contains some of the same information that was on the original, but not all of it.
    And as the information being verified was from the copies of the certified copy, then they are simply verifying that the information they the were provided was the information they provided from the original.

    No information that was not produced by the state can ever be verified as it is all Information provided by individuals and not state employees.

    The most the State will ever do for recorded birth certificates is to authentic the signature of the registrar or other state employee that signed the certification or other information

  69. Scientist says:
    February 27, 2016 at 7:46 am  (Quote)

    jacko: I get it that you don’t believe President Obama’s birthplace to have been proven to your satisfaction. Would you be able to tell me which past Presidents you believe adequately PROVED their place of birth and what evidence you relied on?

    Thanks….

  70. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2016 at 8:05 am  (Quote)

    In typical birther style jacko is willing to throw all birth certificates under the bus to attack Obama. The hypocrites would never apply such standards to the flecks of garbage they build their own theories with.

    jacko:
    “as well as having been repeatedly authenticated by those in charge of the originals, from both political parties. ”

    The HDOH has never authenticated the information on the recorded birth certificate, they have never authenticated the certified copy, but that have verified that the copy contains some of the same information that was on the original, but not all of it.
    And as the information being verified was from the copies of the certified copy, then they are simply verifying that the information they thewere provided was the information they provided from the original.

    No information that was not produced by the state can ever be verified as it is all Information provided by individuals and not state employees.

    The most the State will ever do for recorded birth certificates is to authentic the signature of the registrar or other state employee that signed the certification or other information

  71. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:10 am  (Quote)

    jacko: The most the State will ever do for recorded birth certificates is to authentic the signature of the registrar or other state employee that signed the certification or other information

    So then Jack what should we have in place of birth certificates?

  72. Scientist says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:33 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So then Jack what should we have in place of birth certificates?

    I suppose that today everyone films their spouse/partner giving birth with their cell phone and one can imagine that those videos, with the film showing the journey to the hospital/birthing center and a validated date stamp, could, in the future be used as documentation. That wouldn’t help us oldsters though…

  73. gorefan says:
    February 27, 2016 at 11:47 am  (Quote)

    jacko: they are simply verifying that the information they the were provided was the information they provided from the original.

    The state registrar Dr. Onaka specifically verified that the original birth certificated indicated that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    He specifically verified that the hospital name that appears on the original is “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.

    He specifically verified that the mother signed the original birth certificate on “8-7-61”

    He specifically verified that the attendant signed the original birth certificate on “8-8-61”

    He specifically verified that the registrar accepted the original birth certificate on “Aug-8 1961”

    Under what scenario could all of those entries be placed on the original birth certificate?

  74. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So then Jack what should we have in place of birth certificates?!

    ‘why, like everyone else, I think that they should use the system that they have in place now which simply means that the fact of the birth is recorded, but that is not the word of the lord that is written.

    It is really quite simple, and just like recording a deed, the information is recorded by the recorder and certified copies are used, but , please notice, that no one accepts the recorded deed as virtual truth, but buyers of real property use attorneys or title companys to ensure that the title has been properly transferred to the seller, and that the title has been properly transferred to the buyer.

    No one trust the recorded property rights based upon the fact that the title has been recorded in the county records.

  75. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    jacko:I get it that you don’t believe President Obama’s birthplace to have been proven to your satisfaction.Would you be able to tell me which past Presidents you believe adequately PROVED their place of birth and what evidence you relied on?

    Thanks….

    It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, it has to due with the belief that a birth certificate is an absolutely positive true statement!

    I don’t care about Obama, but I do care about the people that believe that because something has been recorded that it must be true!

    All you have to do is look up the law for filing and keeping of birth certificates.

    If they are , by you, consider true and accurate, then you may not know that those true and accurate documents can be corrected. amended, altered, and modified to show different that the true parents of the child, and, if that is allowed, then the original filing of the document was not a true and accurate filing.

  76. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 2:23 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I suppose that today everyone films their spouse/partner giving birth with their cell phone and one can imagine that those videos, with the film showing the journey to the hospital/birthing center and a validated date stamp, could, in the future be used as documentation.That wouldn’t help us oldsters though…

    In the world today, in the USA, they have children born in cars, farms, at sea, and almost all possible ways of giving birth.
    Abandoned child, infants, and un-reported births ,are given birth certificates where no information is available about the child or the parents

    Given that , is it not possible for an adult’s birth certificate to be erroneous in true facts?

    Now those birth certificate are true and accurate when a birth certificate is certified, and yet the information is patently false.

  77. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: The state registrar Dr. Onakaspecifically verified that the originalbirth certificated indicated that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    He specifically verified that the hospital name that appears on the original is “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.

    He specifically verified that the mother signed the original birth certificate on “8-7-61”

    He specifically verified that the attendant signed the original birth certificate on “8-8-61”

    He specifically verified that the registrar accepted the original birth certificate on “Aug-8 1961”

    Under what scenario could all of those entries be placed on the original birth certificate?

    a letter of verification is provided on the basis that the requester for the verification submit the information that the want verified.

    The requester has a copy of the issued birth certificate that has been certified as being a true copy or abstract of the document.

    That document has been issued by the HDOH and is certified as being true.

    Now when I ask if anything on that document I have in hand is the same as on the Original document, that the State has certified as being true and accurate, they must state that the information on the document is identical to the document that they have issued,

    If the requester does not have a different birth certificate from which they can obtain information, the process is self fulfilling.

    Is that too difficult to understand

  78. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 3:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: In typical birther style jacko is willing to throw all birth certificates under the bus to attack Obama. The hypocrites would never apply standards to the flecks of garbage they build their own theories with

    It is a fact that Puerto Rico had massive bc fraud so that the USA would not accept a Puerto Rico bc and invalidated them, that the IG of HHS declared that birth certificate fraud was a problem in the USA, in 2000, and yet people believe them to be true and valid indicators, and that all challenges should be considered to be a crazy belief.

    I, personally, am happy to defend any statement that I make in error, and , as a plus, I will not insult anyone who thinks I am nuts

  79. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2016 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    Another example of your faulty information base. The problem with Puerto Rican certificates is not that they were fraudulent but that they were in the hands of people other than the person named. Yes it was fraud, but there was nothing wrong with the certificates themselves.

    Mistakes like this are why you are consistently wrong.

    jacko: It is a fact that Puerto Rico had massive bc fraud so that the USA would not accept a Puerto Rico bc and invalidated them, that the IG of HHSdeclared that birth certificate fraud was a problem in the USA, in 2000, and yet people believe them to be true and valid indicators,and that all challenges should be considered to be a crazy belief.

    I, personally, am happy to defend any statementthat I make in error, and , as a plus, I will not insult anyone who thinks I am nuts

  80. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2016 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)

    Obama was born in a hospital. What’s your point? It appears you are very fond of false analogies.

    jacko: In the world today, in the USA, they have children born in cars, farms, at sea, and almost all possible ways of giving birth.
    Abandoned child, infants, and un-reported births ,are given birth certificates where no information is available about the child or the parents

    Given that , is it not possible for an adult’s birth certificate to be erroneous in true facts?

    Now thosebirth certificate are trueand accurate when a birth certificate is certified, and yet the information is patently false.

  81. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2016 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    It is the way of the crackpot to argue that because nothing can be proven to a theoretical absolute certainty, then any alternative is equally true. Such arguments are worthy of small children, but not others.

    jacko: It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, it has to due with the belief that a birth certificate is an absolutely positive true statement!

    I don’t care about Obama, but I do care about the people that believe that because something has been recorded that it must be true!

    All you have to do is look up the law for filing and keeping of birth certificates.

    If they are , by you, consider true and accurate, then you may not know that those true and accurate documents can be corrected.amended, altered, and modified to show different that the true parents of the child, and, if that is allowed, then the originalfiling of the document was not a true and accurate filing.

  82. Scientist says:
    February 27, 2016 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: I repeat my question: Would you be able to tell me which past Presidents you believe adequately PROVED their place of birth and what evidence you relied on?

    Please`answer this specific question. Nothing more, nothing less.

  83. justlw says:
    February 27, 2016 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: the process is self fulfilling.

    Is that too difficult to understand

    I just want to be absolutely certain here. You are saying that to give one example, the only thing that Onaka confirmed to the Arizona SoS, is that the document the SoS sent to Hawaii indeed said the things that it said? It was basically a reading comprehension test only?

    And that your conclusion from this is: if the SoS had sent him a reasonably-passable forgery (as opposed to, say, something the caliber of the Smith forgery), Onaka would have given it a big thumbs-up, with no verification against data on file taking place?

  84. gorefan says:
    February 27, 2016 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Now when I ask if anything on that document I have in hand is the same as on the Original document, that the State has certified as being true and accurate, they must state that the information on the document is identical to the document that they have issued,

    No, that is not what Dr. Onaka certified.

    He certified that the information he used to verify the requester’s information came from “the vital record on file with the Department of Health”. The vital record is the original 1961 birth certificate.

    When Arizona Secretary of State Bennett asked Hawaii to verify the hospital name, the date of mother’s signature, the date of attendant signature, the date of acceptance by the local registrar, Dr, Onaka verified them by using the information on the original 1961 “vital record on file with the Department of Health”

    My question still stands to you – by what scenario does the hospital name “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” get entered on the original vital record on file with the Department of Health?

  86. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 27, 2016 at 8:55 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: ‘why, like everyone else, I think that they should use the system that they have in place now which simply means that the fact of the birth is recorded, but that is not the word of the lord that is written.

    So in other words you’re okay with birth certificates except when it comes to Obama.

  87. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:00 pm  (Quote)

    No, if the Obama bc was photo-copied instead of computer generated it would be more acceptable to me. Maybe not to you, but to me.

  88. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:17 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: No, that is not what Dr. Onaka certified.

    He certified that the information he used to verify the requester’s information came from “the vital record on file with the Department of Health”.The vital record is the original 1961 birth certificate.

    When Arizona Secretary of State Bennett asked Hawaii to verify the hospital name, the date of mother’s signature, the date of attendant signature, the date of acceptance by the local registrar, Dr, Onaka verified them by using the information on the original 1961 “vital record on file with the Department of Health”

    My question still stands to you – by what scenario does the hospital name “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” get entered on the original vital record on file with the Department of Health?

    ——–

    I have not the slightest idea of how the computer prints out the information on the certified copies of the birth certificates. Anything run through a computer is subject to manipulation

    Now the original un-filled out form is available at the birth center, for completion by the birthing center, and I would suppose that the birthing center is required to put their name into the form according to state law.

    But there is no way for anyone to tell if the information is completely accurate, and/or has been modified after recording.

    There is no one that can attest to the entering of information into the computer data bank after reception by the State Agency, in fact, the recording office is suppose to reject any document that does not meet the agencies standard, which, again, allows a personal interaction with the document by someone

  89. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:22 pm  (Quote)

    “He certified that the information he used to verify the requester’s information came from “the vital record on file with the Department of Health.The vital record is the original 1961 birth certificate”

    the vital record submitted by a party is allowed to be amended, corrected, changed, and have the vital information, except for the fact that a child was born, completely changed or altered at the request of the parents, or a governmental agency.

    Changeable records are subject to abuse and should never be considered to be simply an indication that something happened, and might not be true or accurate.

  90. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:37 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Another example of your faulty information base. The problem with Puerto Rican certificates is not that they were fraudulent but that they were in the hands of people other than the person named. Yes it was fraud, but there was nothing wrong with the certificates themselves.

    “http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/01/illegal-aliens-use-fake-puerto-rican-birth-certificates-to-get-u-s-passports-licenses/”

    ” Here’s an excerpt of the story published in the summer of 2014 by a Florida-based nonprofit investigative journalism outlet: “Counterfeit, altered or stolen birth certificates coming from Puerto Rico are the Holy Grail to Florida’s undocumented. With a phony birth certificate you can live the American dream. You can also enroll in school, land a job and get a driver’s license”

    So, I note that word in there that says “counterfeit” so there must have been some bad thing going on.

  91. jacko says:
    February 27, 2016 at 10:41 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So in other words you’re okay with birth certificates except when it comes to Obama.

    Now that is like sayjng there are fake id’s around but I would only be concerned if the carrier of the ID is Obama.

    Looks like the DHS also has troubles with fake or counterfeit id’s

  92. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 27, 2016 at 11:14 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: don’t care about Obama, but I do care about the people that believe that because something has been recorded that it must be true!

    Since none of us actually believe that, fuck off, you post-modernist pisswit.

  93. Rickey says:
    February 27, 2016 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan:

    My question still stands to you – by what scenario does the hospital name “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” get entered on the original vital record on file with the Department of Health?

    And as I recall, when the question of amended birth certificates came up a Hawaiian official (Loretta Fuddy?) confirmed that if a birth certificate is amended, it is stamped “Amended.” So all of Jacko’s speculation about a birth certificate being changed is so much hot air.

    Jacko doesn’t comprehend that questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate at this point is whistling in the wind.

  94. gorefan says:
    February 28, 2016 at 12:09 am  (Quote)

    Senator Graham has been making some funny comments lately but I thought this one took the cake.

    ” I am like on the team that bought a ticket on the Titanic after we saw the movie. This is what happens if you nominate Trump.”

  95. jacko says:
    February 28, 2016 at 3:30 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: And as I recall, when the question of amended birth certificates came up a Hawaiian official (Loretta Fuddy?) confirmed that if a birth certificate is amended, it is stamped “Amended.” So all of Jacko’s speculation about a birth certificate being changed is so much hot air.

    Jacko doesn’t comprehend that questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate at this point is whistling in the wind.

    So, if you think that someone has done something in the past that shouldn’t have been done, you just want them to get away with it?

  96. jacko says:
    February 28, 2016 at 3:47 am  (Quote)

    jacko: So, if you think that someone has done something in the past that shouldn’t have been done, you just want them to get away with it?

    and, if it was stamped amended, the first one was not true or accurate, or the second one is not true or accurate, right?

    after all, you claim that the certified copy is a true and accurate copy of a true and accurate document, right?

  97. Notorial Dissent says:
    February 28, 2016 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    Jacko, I’m curious, do you evern really know what a birth certificate is? It would seem from your comments that you do not.

  98. Nancy R Owens says:
    February 28, 2016 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    And, that is there. I saw it with my own two eyes back in 1985 when I went to Hawaii to find a child whose birth date was the same as Obama/Allen’s.

    Thanks for this info. It makes sense from this perspective.

    gorefan: No, that is not what Dr. Onaka certified.

    He certified that the information he used to verify the requester’s information came from “the vital record on file with the Department of Health”.The vital record is the original 1961 birth certificate.

    When Arizona Secretary of State Bennett asked Hawaii to verify the hospital name, the date of mother’s signature, the date of attendant signature, the date of acceptance by the local registrar, Dr, Onaka verified them by using the information on the original 1961 “vital record on file with the Department of Health”

    My question still stands to you – by what scenario does the hospital name “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” get entered on the original vital record on file with the Department of Health?

  99. Nancy R Owens says:
    February 28, 2016 at 9:10 pm  (Quote)

    The Kenyan birth certificate is fake. Anything that has “Obama” on it is fake.

    gorefan: No, that is not what Dr. Onaka certified.

    He certified that the information he used to verify the requester’s information came from “the vital record on file with the Department of Health”.The vital record is the original 1961 birth certificate.

    When Arizona Secretary of State Bennett asked Hawaii to verify the hospital name, the date of mother’s signature, the date of attendant signature, the date of acceptance by the local registrar, Dr, Onaka verified them by using the information on the original 1961 “vital record on file with the Department of Health”

    My question still stands to you – by what scenario does the hospital name “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” get entered on the original vital record on file with the Department of Health?

    Pete: You’re a couple of years behind the times. Lucas Smith is a known forger, and Obama’s certificate has stood up to literally years of the most extensive scrutiny for authenticity ever lavished upon a single document in the history of mankind, at least in the case where those examining the document were working from a copy, as well as having been repeatedly authenticated by those in charge of the originals, from both political parties.

    If that’s not “proven,” then I don’t know what is.

    Really, you need to get a life. Your bus left years ago.

  100. Thrifty says:
    February 28, 2016 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t understand the comment. Maybe I’m getting hung up on the fact that his scenario requires time travel, since Titanic (the movie) came out 86 years after Titanic (the boat). So the metaphor doesn’t make sense.

    gorefan:
    Senator Graham has been making some funny comments lately but I thought this one took the cake.

    ” I am like on the team that bought a ticket on the Titanic after we saw the movie. This is what happens if you nominate Trump.”

  101. Arthur B. says:
    February 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: So the metaphor doesn’t make sense.

    Was that at the same appearance where he said “My party has gone batshit crazy”? Cause he looked and sounded pretty soused on that occasion.

  102. Pete says:
    February 28, 2016 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    I think you’re getting hung up on the fact that the scenario requires time travel.

    Graham is saying (if I understand him correctly) that the Republican Party (including all those who are supporting Trump) is like a team buying a ticket on the Titanic even though it should be completely, totally obvious this ship is going to hit an iceberg and go down.

  103. y_p_w says:
    February 28, 2016 at 11:31 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: And as I recall, when the question of amended birth certificates came up a Hawaiian official (Loretta Fuddy?) confirmed that if a birth certificate is amended, it is stamped “Amended.” So all of Jacko’s speculation about a birth certificate being changed is so much hot air.

    Jacko doesn’t comprehend that questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate at this point is whistling in the wind.

    I looked up the law and amended certificates aren’t supposed to be marked as such. However, the dates indicate the law and its revisions started around 1973.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm

    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. The new certificate shall not be marked as amended and shall in no way reveal the original language changed by any amendment. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. The sealed documents shall be opened only by an order of a court of record or, for those documents amended pursuant to subsection (a)(4), by request of the birth registrant.

    I’m not sure of the particulars though. It would be pretty easy to hide the status using an abstract form. I’m not sure about the dates though.

    I know when California does amended birth certificates, they seal the original certificate and order a new one be produced. I believe they can only be ordered from the state with the counties (or cities) required to make them unavailable. I’ve seen one image, and they can look a little bit odd since birth might have been at a time where typewriters were the norm, but they look like they were electronically produced. They copy I saw also lacked any signatures. The requirements are that they don’t indicate they’re amended, but a quick look at one and it does look different.

  104. RanTalbott says:
    February 29, 2016 at 2:26 am  (Quote)

    Pete: even though it should be completely, totally obvious this ship is going to hit an iceberg and go down.

    Perhaps it should be, but it’s not: a majority (and I think it’s close to 60%) of Republicans polled recently believe Trump could win. Which, depending on how small a probability you’re willing to accept as “could”, is technically true.

    The trump supporters are mostly quite convinced that he will win. But, like birthers, their faith is based on a set of unrealistic assumptions. Like the belief that the WWE warmup shows that the GOP has been passing off as “debates”, and the kid-glove interviews, will continue in the general election campaign. They don’t understand that, once the threats (to the GOP) of an independent Trump run or (to the media) of a boycott by the goof that lays the golden ratings eggs are over, interviewers and moderators are not going to let him duck the hard questions the way he does now. Or how differently the general electorate sees him.

    Also like birthers, many/most will be shocked, confused, and angered by their eventual disappointment.

  105. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 29, 2016 at 3:58 am  (Quote)

    jacko: but I do care about the people that believe that because something has been recorded that it must be true

    Then state exhaustively the elements of proof that you consider sufficient to actually prove where someone was born.

    Since you’ve already stated that birth certificates aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, what else do you require? Hospital records? Same argument as you made before, can’t be trusted. Witnesses? Can be lying, or have been intimidated. Video of the birth? Can be manipulated, especially w.r.t. time and place.

    So since you’ve effectively invalidated every possible proof of US birth, nobody is eligible. I can think of some enemies of the US who would consider that “aid and comfort” which makes you…

  106. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:10 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): Witnesses? Can be lying, or have been intimidated. Video of the birth? Can be manipulated, especially w.r.t. time and place.

    (Also, witnesses may be dead, see John McCain or Donald Trump. Video wasn’t available in 1940, either.)

  107. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 9:08 am  (Quote)

    I’m sure we won’t get an answer from jacko, but if he or any other other birther is interested, here is my $100 challenge:

    Using the standards of proof birthers have applied to Barack Obama, prove that Donald Trump was born in New York and not in Scotland, where his mother’s family lived. I note that not only did she have actual family there, which Ann Dunham did not have in Kenya, but that travel to the UK was pretty easy even back then and medical standards were similar to the US.

    This is an honest, legit challenge and if you meet it, I will pay. We can use GoFundMe of any other means by which I can remain anonymous. So have at it.

    As a side challenge, you can explain why you accept Scottish-born Mrs.Trump as a worthy mother for a President of Birthistan. Yes, I know the laws back then conferred automatic US citizenship on a woman who married an American, but you guys have made a UUGGE deal of divided loyalties and the need to swear allegiance to the US and forswear all other allegiances. The thing is, she never did that. All she did was make marital vows to Fred Trump. And we have certainly see with Donald how little those mean.

  108. Thrifty says:
    February 29, 2016 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Pete:
    I think you’re getting hung up on the fact that the scenario requires time travel.

    I have a lot of trouble with abstraction. My brain can only process the metaphor by saying “But to everyone who bought a ticket for the Titanic, it was a good idea. It was a pleasant cruise across the Atlantic.”

    Anyway thanks for the explanation.

    Speaking of time, today is the day I always jokingly refer to as “The Day Which Should Not Be”. It really should be March right now.

    I have a wristwatch I bought 10 years ago which works great. It tells you the time and date, but not the year. Which makes sense…. the year changes much less frequently than the month, day, hour, minute, or second, and people are generally able to keep track of what year it is (except for that first 2 weeks of January when everyone keeps miswriting the year). The watch, not measuring years, has no concept of a Leap Year, so every 4 years it skips from Feb 28 to Mar 1, falling completely out of sync with reality until I manually adjust the date.

  109. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    February 29, 2016 at 11:19 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty: falling completely out of sync with reality

    Or is it… reality falling completely out of sync with your watch? After all, what are you going to believe, your own eyes or a YOOOOGE conspiracy started by Obama to spend two more days in office than he is actually entitled to?

  110. Reality Check says:
    February 29, 2016 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    That’s the way I understood Graham’s metaphor. He could have probably come up with a better one but he is certainly vocal in his disdain for Trump.

    I see Trump as an intelligence test for voters and it’s pass/fail.

    Pete:
    I think you’re getting hung up on the fact that the scenario requires time travel.

    Graham is saying (if I understand him correctly) that the Republican Party (including all those who are supporting Trump) is like a team buying a ticket on the Titanic even though it should be completely, totally obvious this ship is going to hit an iceberg and go down.

  111. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:06 pm  (Quote)

    Judicial Watch? Seriously?

    You insinuated that Puerto Rican birth certificates were invalidated em masse because of fraud. You have yet to show any basis for the claim that they were invalidated because of forgery, or false reporting of births. There are counterfeit birth certificates and counterfeit currency, but that doesn’t make money and birth certificates worthless.

    Certificates timely filed by a hospital are not a fraud scenario.

    jacko: “http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/01/illegal-aliens-use-fake-puerto-rican-birth-certificates-to-get-u-s-passports-licenses/”

    ” Here’s an excerpt of the story published in the summer of 2014 by a Florida-based nonprofit investigative journalism outlet…

  112. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    I’m sure we won’t get an answer from jacko, but if he or any other other birther is interested, here is my $100 challenge:

    Using the standards of proof birthers have applied to Barack Obama, prove that Donald Trump was born in New York and not in Scotland, where his mother’s family lived.I note that not only did she have actual family there, which Ann Dunham did not have in Kenya, butthat travel to the UK was pretty easy even back then and medical standards were similar to the US.

    This is an honest, legit challenge and if you meet it, I will pay.We can use GoFundMe of any other means bywhich I can remain anonymous.So have at it.

    As a side challenge, you can explain why you accept Scottish-born Mrs.Trump as a worthy mother for a President of Birthistan.Yes, I know the laws back then conferred automatic US citizenship on a woman who married an American, but you guyshave made aUUGGE deal of divided loyalties and the need to swear allegiance to the US and forswear all other allegiances.The thing is, she never did that.All she did was make marital vows to Fred Trump. And we have certainlysee with Donald how little those mean.

    sure, love these types of discussion!
    assuming facts that I do note know, the first challenge would be that the laws, of the time of birth, allowed births of out country to children of American citizens , not part of the government of the birth state, to claim citizenship, and disputes between the UK and the USA about dual citizenship by covered by treaty.

    And as that is a fact, then the child is stated to be a citizen of the USA and of the UK with the father claiming the citizenship he desires.

    Ergo, the child is an American citizen, born of two American citizens and considered to be Natural Born by the USA laws.

    Expanding further claims as follows:

    The child was born on the premises of the American Consul in Scotland, LOL

    The Child was born outside of Scotland on the ship and arrived after birth on an American registered steam liner, and secured citizenship by being on the ship outside of waters,

    The mother , by law, was a naturalized American citizen, and meets the criteria for citizenship

    The mother was born in the USA and returned to be with her mother when the child was born.

    The mother and father of Donald’s mother were American citizens residing in Scotland, and his mother was American citizen and she had citizenship by birth.

    further fantasy is useless, unless you can present evidence that none of these were possible, even though not plausible. LOL

  113. Thrifty says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Well I bought the watch 3 years before Barack Obama even took office so….. yes. He’s exactly that sinister.

    The Magic M (not logged in): Or is it… reality falling completely out of sync with your watch? After all, what are you going to believe, your own eyes or a YOOOOGE conspiracy started by Obama to spend two more days in office than he is actually entitled to?

  114. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:20 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: sure, love these types of discussion!
    assuming facts that I do note know,

    Exactly, you have no facts whatsoever to establish where Donald Trump was born, other than a computer image of a birth certificate, which has never been verified, unlike Obama’s. Conclusion: There is FAR MORE uncertainty as to anything regarding Trump’s background and birth than there is regarding Barack Obama’s.

    Not only will I NOT be paying you $100, your answer was such obvious garbage that I am billing you $200 for the time I wasted reading it.

  115. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Judicial Watch? Seriously?

    Yes, seriously, as they seem to be very successful in the judicial actions in the very seat of our government.

    You will note that they did quote an investigative journalist, and I, also, tend to doubt journalists, even when quoted here.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article53897170.html

    AFQjCNEYe1qidRgshZwqmMTR9I81E81EoQ

  116. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Exactly, you have no facts whatsoever to establish where Donald Trump was born, other than a computer image of a birth certificate, which has never been verified, unlike Obama’s.Conclusion:There is FAR MORE uncertainty as to anything regarding Trump’s background and birth than there is regarding Barack Obama’s.

    Not only will I NOT be paying you $100, your answer was such obvious garbage that I am billing you $200 for the time I wasted reading it.

    Do you really think that I believed your posting, but, it was a challenge so I replied according to proper postings routines

    I have never seen Donald’s bc in any shape or form, and he is not President of the USA, and I had not seem Obama’s bc before he became president, and I still have not seen the original.

    I don’t hate Obama, I don’t hate anyone, believe it or not. In
    ww2 I did not hate the Japanese, or the Germans, or the Italians, but I do hate the Muslim’s belief in killing people who are not Muslims.

    I also enjoyed the atom bomb attack on Japan, and the fire raids on Germany , but those had nothing to do with hate on my part.

    But, conversely , I do not love a lot of people.

  117. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Exactly, you have no facts whatsoever to establish where Donald Trump was born, other than a computer image of a birth certificate, which has never been verified, unlike Obama’s.Conclusion:There is FAR MORE uncertainty as to anything regarding Trump’s background and birth than there is regarding Barack Obama’s.

    Not only will I NOT be paying you $100, your answer was such obvious garbage that I am billing you $200 for the time I wasted reading it.

    There are few things that are certain about Obama’s birth place and early history

    What you do have on birth is a document filed in the HDOH and you have never seen the original.

    And the rest is simply paper that can not be documented. Or statement made orally that can not be confirmed by documents.

    But if you want to believe what you want to believe that is your right.

  118. Nancy R Owens says:
    February 29, 2016 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    In the case of Obama, a Hawaiian family was murdered. So, you have a murdered family and an individual who comes up through the ranks who just happens to have this family’s identity. Plus, you have one of the two killers willing to testify. Griselda is dead so that leaves only me and whoever can testify that there WAS a Barack Obama family. How’s that for proof?

    The Magic M (not logged in): Then state exhaustively the elements of proof that you consider sufficient to actually prove where someone was born.

    Since you’ve already stated that birth certificates aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, what else do you require? Hospital records? Same argument as you made before, can’t be trusted. Witnesses? Can be lying, or have been intimidated. Video of the birth? Can be manipulated, especially w.r.t. time and place.

    So since you’ve effectively invalidated every possible proof of US birth, nobody is eligible. I can think of some enemies of the US who would consider that “aid and comfort” which makes you…

  119. Thrifty says:
    February 29, 2016 at 5:40 pm  (Quote)

    How do you know that any of what you just said was true?

    jacko: sure, love these types of discussion!
    assuming facts that I do note know, the first challenge would be that the laws, of the time of birth, allowed births of out country to children of American citizens, not part of the government of the birth state, to claim citizenship, and disputes between the UK and the USA about dual citizenship by covered by treaty.

    And as that is a fact, then the child is stated to be a citizen of the USA and of the UKwith the father claiming the citizenship he desires.

    Ergo, the child is an American citizen, born of two American citizens and considered tobe Natural Born by the USA laws.

    Expanding further claims as follows:

    The child was born on the premises of the American Consul in Scotland, LOL

    The Child was born outside of Scotland on the ship and arrived after birth on an American registered steam liner, and secured citizenship by being on the ship outside of waters,

    The mother , by law, was a naturalized American citizen, and meets the criteria for citizenship

    The mother was born in the USA andreturned tobe with her mother when the childwas born.

    The mother and father of Donald’s mother were American citizens residing in Scotland, and his mother was American citizen and she had citizenship by birth.

    further fantasy is useless, unless you can presentevidence that none of these were possible, even though not plausible.LOL

  120. Reality Check says:
    February 29, 2016 at 5:41 pm  (Quote)

    Please get help Nancy. You’re an embarrassment.

    Nancy R Owens: In the case of Obama, a Hawaiian family was murdered.

  121. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 29, 2016 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    You use that word “certain ” but I do not think it means what you think it does.

    jacko: There are few things that are certain about Obama’s birth place and early history

  122. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: There are few things that are certain about Obama’s birth place and early history

    My challenge is about DONALD TRUMP. Have you heard of him? You know the Fascist, KKK supporter. Where was he born? We are not discussing Obama. You want $100 or not?

  123. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: There are few things that are certain about Trump’s birth place and early history (and marital history and business dealings and general mental health)</blockquote

    FIFY.

  124. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 29, 2016 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    Your offered article only confirms what I said previously:

    “Puerto Rico issued new birth certificates under a new law which resulted from widespread evidence of fraud and identity theft involving the sale of legitimate birth certificates by some Puerto Ricans to non-Puerto Ricans, particularly undocumented immigrants from Latin America, who could then claim to be U.S. citizens.”

    jacko: You will note that they did quote an investigative journalist, and I, also, tend to doubt journalists, even when quoted here.
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article53897170.html

  125. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Do you really think that I believed your posting,

    It was sincere.

    jacko: I replied according to proper postings routines

    no, you didn’t reply at all.

    jacko: I have never seen Donald’s bc in any shape or form, and he is not President of the USA,

    Don’t you think that it is at least as important to see something on someone who is likely to be a major party nominee and could be President as to rehash someone who will be leaving office in < 1 year?

    jacko: But, conversely , I do not love a lot of people.

    That’s the first statement you’ve made that I believe.

  126. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 29, 2016 at 7:19 pm  (Quote)

    jacko:
    No, if the Obama bc was photo-copied instead of computer generated it would be more acceptable to me. Maybe not to you, but to me.

    The Obama long form birth certificate is photo-copied, so what’s your excuse now?

  127. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: assuming facts that I do note know, the first challenge would be that the laws, of the time of birth, allowed births of out country to children of American citizens , not part of the government of the birth state, to claim citizenship, and disputes between the UK and the USA about dual citizenship by covered by treaty.

    Except that’s a lie and you know it. Certificates of foreign births happen in many of the states. It doesn’t say they were born on the state on them but instead the country of their birth.

    jacko: And as that is a fact, then the child is stated to be a citizen of the USA and of the UK with the father claiming the citizenship he desires.

    Nope that’s a lie it wouldn’t say they were a citizen of the US if they weren’t born in the US and had no parents who were US citizens.

  128. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:07 pm  (Quote)

    jacko:
    No, if the Obama bc was photo-copied instead of computer generated it would be more acceptable to me. Maybe not to you, but to me.

    It was photo copied and not computer generated. But you’ve already said on Amazon that you wouldn’t accept anything Obama showed.

  129. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:08 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Now that is like sayjng there are fake id’s around but I would only be concerned if the carrier of the ID is Obama.

    Looks like the DHS also has troubles with fake or counterfeit id’s

    No that’s not the same. That’s like saying that there are legit IDs but only Obama’s is counterfeit because “reasons”

  130. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:09 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Yes, seriously, as they seem to be very successful in the judicial actions in the very seat of our government.

    Very successful? Judicial watch is an entity of a single failed birther attorney.

  131. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:11 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: That’s the first statement you’ve made that I believe.

    Jack has admitted to being a racist on Amazon and lying all the time.

  132. donna says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:13 pm  (Quote)

    Atty. Mario Apuzzo Accepts Mark Levin’s “natural born Citizen” Challenge

    At issue is whether Cruz, who was born in Canada to a Cuban father, is a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution for the presidency.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/02/29/atty-mario-apuzzo-accepts-mark-levins-natural-born-citizen-challenge/

  133. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:19 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Jack has admitted to being a racist on Amazon and lying all the time.

    You don’t say. And here I was thinking he’s a stand-up guy….

  134. Northland10 says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:28 pm  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund: The Obama long form birth certificate is photo-copied, so what’s your excuse now?

    He wants a photo-copy posted online not some PDF that was computer generated. I will admit, putting a non-computer generated document online would be a neat trick.

  135. y_p_w says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:35 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It was photo copied and not computer generated.But you’ve already said on Amazon that you wouldn’t accept anything Obama showed.

    Well – technically it was computer-generated. The process was to scan the page, apply a crop, and resize before printing to the security paper. However, by that standard almost any modern photocopying techniques involve digitizing the image and manipulating it digitally before using an ink or laser printer engine.

    I remember ordering my own marriage license from the vital records office that recorded it. Unfortunately my marriage was recorded at a time when the state won’t issue certified copies, so I have to get it from the county. One time I got a copy that took up less than half the page. I got another copy later and specifically asked for it to be sized bigger. I think the clerks have the ability to apply all sorts of tricks to the image before printing them out.

  136. Scientist says:
    February 29, 2016 at 8:38 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: I will admit, putting a non-computer generated document online would be a neat trick.

    Like sending flowers by wire. How do they get them to come out so nice and fresh at the other end?

    PS-Looks like I can’t give my $100 away. Cody Judy, you are always crying poverty. Here is your chance to make some money. Have at it!

  137. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 11:29 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Jack has admitted to being a racist on Amazon and lying all the time.

    You are correct, I am a racist as I stated when I was young that I would only marry a Swedish girl , and that is what I did. I also believe BLM no more than All Lives Matter.

    And that is a fact than no one gives a damn about the thousands, millions, or any lives matter to the extent that they will give a damn to save anyone of them.

    If a person has money in the bank that he does give to save lives in the world, they are human beings and not saints.

    You do not lie in your life are saints and you know how few saints there are,

    But. of course you lie to defend your beliefs , or because you are paid to lie, one way or the other.

    If you lives are so inane that you resort to personal attacks to defend your beliefs, rest in piece with those action, as I can not judge your guilt.

  138. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 11:41 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: How do you know that any of what you just said was true?

    They are assumptions of what could have happened , not what did happen. Right there in the first paragraph

  139. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 11:43 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Like sending flowers by wire.How do they get them to come out so nice and fresh at the other end?

    PS-Looks like I can’t give my $100 away.Cody Judy, you are always crying poverty.Here is your chance to make some money.Have at it!

    You had no intentions of giving it away, as you will not believe anything that would make you liable to pay

  140. jacko says:
    February 29, 2016 at 11:46 pm  (Quote)

    y_p_w: Well – technically it was computer-generated.The process was to scan the page, apply a crop, and resize before printing to the security paper.However, by that standard almost any modern photocopying techniques involve digitizing the image and manipulating it digitally before using an ink or laser printer engine.

    I remember ordering my own marriage license from the vital records office that recorded it.Unfortunately my marriage was recorded at a time when the state won’t issue certified copies, so I have to get it from the county.One time I got a copy that took up less than half the page.I got another copy later and specifically asked for it to be sized bigger.I think the clerks have the ability to apply all sorts of tricks to the image before printing them out.

    Actually I believe, perhaps wrongly, that the whole document is printed from the computer including the details on the border and the text of the printed information and the personal information.

    And that is evident by looking at the various dpi’s showing in the copy that was certified

  141. JackO says:
    March 1, 2016 at 1:16 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Judicial Watch? Seriously?

    You insinuated that Puerto Rican birth certificates were invalidated em masse because of fraud. You have yet to show any basis for the claim that they were invalidated because of forgery, or false reporting of births. There are counterfeit birth certificates and counterfeit currency, but that doesn’t make money and birth certificates worthless.

    Certificates timely filed by a hospital are not a fraud scenario.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article18918543.html

    http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-02-86-00001.pdf

    The study focused primarily on certified copies of birth records. In this report these certified
    copies are referred to as “birth certificates” as distinct from the original birth records or birth registrations on which certifed copies are based.

    http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1129-yacob.shtm

    Securing and presenting a fraudulent US birth certificate is less arduous than presenting a fraudulent naturalization certificate, citizenship certificate, US Passport, Report of Birth Abroad, a statement issued by a consular officer, or evidence of status as a permanent legal resident because such claims and or evidence is subject to simple verification through systems maintained by the USCIS or the Department of State. [9]

    Delayed [10] , amended [11] , midwife registered [12] , and altered birth certificates usually trigger further inquiry in the form of a request for corroborating secondary evidence to establish the claimed birth in the United States. Unfortunately, the corroborating evidence often consists of equally unreliable delayed baptismal certificates, copies of affidavits from friends or relatives, copies of school and medical records, copies of family photographs, copies of military service records, and/or a copy of a social security card

    (did Obama meet those requirements)?

    For example, in July of 2010, the government of Puerto Rico invalidated every birth certificate issued on the island before July 1, 2010, in an attempt to curb rampant fraud and identity theft that officials concluded compromised national security. The U.S. State Department and Homeland Security Department estimate that an astonishing 40 percent of all U.S. Passport fraud cases in recent years involved Puerto Rican birth certificates.

    In reaching its conclusions, the Board relied on a long line of United States Federal Court decisions such as Mah Toi v. Brownell [19] , a case involving a proceeding for the declaration of United States nationality, wherein the court held that a California court order establishing birth in the United States was merely prima facie evidence and that presumptions arising from such evidence are rebuttable, not conclusive

    As noted in the above discussion, federal agencies are mandated to reject for any official purpose a certificate of birth, unless the certificate conforms to the standards promulgated under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 or verifiable by the issuing agency.

    Notwithstanding, present immigration regulations allow adjudication for benefits on the basis of “… legible true copies of original documents…” subject to the production of original documents for examination “if an interview is required.” [28] The present regulations should be reviewed in light of present law and best practices.

    Hey, but that is just the government take on the problem. You are enttitled to have a different view point.l

  142. JackO says:
    March 1, 2016 at 1:18 am  (Quote)

    Well, during that session with the computer I learned that the Certified Birth Certificate is the problem , and not the birth record!

    What about that scenario ?

    Just goes to show that the original must be looked at!

  143. Scientist says:
    March 1, 2016 at 8:50 am  (Quote)

    jacko: You had no intentions of giving it away, as you will not believe anything that would make you liable to pay

    You don’t know that because you didn’t even try. I must conclude that Trump cannot be proven to be a natural born citizen by the criteria used by birthers for Obama. yet the birthers accept him as such. Interesting to say the least.

  144. Thrifty says:
    March 1, 2016 at 9:14 am  (Quote)

    So you accept Trump’s eligibility on what could have happened but not Barack Obama’s?

    jacko: They are assumptions of what could have happened , not what did happen.Right there in the first paragraph

  146. Thrifty says:
    March 1, 2016 at 11:03 am  (Quote)

    What strikes me the most about that article is that the people quoted really hate Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders….. but they seem to hate Donald Trump even more. I mean, they put the scenario of a Clinton or Sanders presidency in extremely stark, almost histrionic terms. But they’d STILL rather have that than a Trump presidency.

    Conventional wisdom on presidential elections has always been “you’ve got your committed party members you can count on. You’ve got the committed members of the opposition you don’t even try for. You really want all those swing voters.” You know things are bad when your most dedicated party members can’t stand you. God knows what the swing voters think.

    Lupin:
    FYI:

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump

  147. Rickey says:
    March 1, 2016 at 1:54 pm  (Quote)

    JackO:

    Delayed [10] , amended [11] , midwife registered [12] , and altered birth certificates usually trigger further inquiry in the form of a request for corroborating secondary evidence to establish the claimed birth in the United States. Unfortunately, the corroborating evidence often consists of equally unreliable delayed baptismal certificates, copies of affidavits from friends or relatives, copies of school and medical records, copies of family photographs, copies of military service records, and/or a copy of a social security card.

    (did Obama meet those requirements)?

    Obama didn’t need to, because his birth certificate is not delayed, amended, midwife registered, or altered.

  148. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 1, 2016 at 1:59 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    So you accept Trump’s eligibility on what could have happened but not Barack Obama’s?

    That’s because trump is a white supremacist like jack.

  149. jacko says:
    March 1, 2016 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    Well, it appears that all of the problems are about certified birth certificates and not the birth records.

    Now that changes things quite a bit, doesn’t it.

    According, it appears you can trust the original record more than the certified copy.

    Do you suppose that is because the states know that the certified copies might not be true copies, but altered abstracts of the birth record

    And that is why a film camera should be used to copy the original and print the positive as a picture with limited chance of changes to the negative.

    Oh, heck, that would not make the believers happy , would it?

    And here all of this time I have been saying that I didn’t believe the certified copy was true and accurate!

  150. Curious George says:
    March 1, 2016 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    Four years ago to the day, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his volunteer posse man, Mike Zullo and imbedded WND reporter, Jerome Corsi held a press conference in Phoenx, Arizona and announced to the world that they had determined that President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate was a computer generated fraud.

    Fast forward to March 1, 2016. President Obama is still in office. The Maricopa County Attorney, William Montgomery discredited Arpaio’s evidence as “speculation” and he had no jurisdiction to take any action. Certified Verifications of Birth fwere issued by the state of Hawaii which verified all of the birth information contained on the Obama long form birth certificate contained within the PDF depiction of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Much to the displeasure of some, President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. Citizen.

    Currently Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his “agents” are facing possible criminal referrals for their alleged activities to discredit a U.S. District Court judge. And the Arpaio crazies still worship at Joe’s feet, while still believing that Arpaio conducted a legitimate investigation of the Obama birth certificate.

    Arpaio supporters were fools then and they are fools now.

    Happy Anniversary Birthers!

  151. Curious George says:
    March 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Four years ago to the day, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his volunteer posse man, Mike Zullo and imbedded WND reporter, Jerome Corsi held a press conference in Phoenx, Arizona and announced to the world that they had determined that President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate was a computer generated fraud.

    Fast forward to March 1, 2016. President Obama is still in office. The Maricopa County Attorney, William Montgomery discredited Arpaio’s evidence as “speculation” and he had no jurisdiction to take any action. Certified Verifications of Birth fwere issued by the state of Hawaii which verified all of the birth information contained on the Obama long form birth certificate contained within the PDF depiction of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Much to the displeasure of some, President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. Citizen.

    Currently Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his “agents” are facing possible criminal referrals for their alleged activities to discredit a U.S. District Court judge. And the Arpaio crazies still worship at Joe’s feet, while still believing that Arpaio conducted a legitimate investigation of the Obama birth certificate.

    Arpaio supporters were fools then and they are fools now.

    Happy Anniversary Birthers!

  152. gorefan says:
    March 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Actually I believe, perhaps wrongly, that the whole document is printed from the computer including the details on the border and the text of the printed information and the personal information.

    According to the DOH the original birth record (which is “black printing on white paper”) was placed on a special copier and copied onto green basket weave paper. The green basket weave paper is then “stamped, dated and signed by the State Registrar.”

    JackO: (did Obama meet those requirements)?

    President Obama’s cannot be delayed.

    President Obama’s could not be amended

    President Obama was not attended by a midwife.

    Dr. Onaka’s certified verification proves those facts.

  153. Joey says:
    March 1, 2016 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    JackO March 1, 2016 at 1:18 am (Quote) #
    “Just goes to show that the original must be looked at!”

    The original birth certificate has always been available for inspection in accordance with Hawaii state revised statutes 338-18(b) via “the order of a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

  154. Scientist says:
    March 1, 2016 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    Birthers-I am deeply, profoundly disappointed in you. Not one of you has taken on my $100 challenge to prove Donald Trump eligible using the same rules applied by birthers to Obama. Soon, Doc will close this thread, and the challenge will die with it. Act now. As an added inducement, let me tell you that if I can’t give the money to one of you, I may have to donate it to the Obama Presidential Library. Or to the DNC. Your choice, guys…

  155. bob says:
    March 1, 2016 at 6:09 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    Birthers-I am deeply, profoundly disappointed in you.Not one of you has taken on my $100 challenge to prove Donald Trump eligible using the same rules applied by birthers to Obama.Soon, Doc will close this thread, and the challenge will die with it.Act now.As an added inducement, let me tell you that if I can’t give the money to one of you, I may have to donate it to the Obama Presidential Library.Or to the DNC.Your choice, guys…

    Over in Birther Report, RamboIke responded to your challenge.

    I assume he responded there because he’s too much of coward to respond here.

  156. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 1, 2016 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    You don’t present anything new, nor do you offer any thesis much less an argument in support of one. Try to make a real argument:

    State a claim, and then argue in support of the claim with evidence.

    JackO: Hey, but that is just the government take on the problem. You are enttitled to have a different view point.l

  157. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 1, 2016 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    Let me explain the process to you, remembering that I’m a vital records expert having designed computer software in use today in several states to print birth certificates.

    The Obama Certification of Live Birth, printed in 2007 and released in 2008 by the Obama campaign is a document whose image is generated by computer software from data keyed into a computer database. It is printed by a laser printer onto blank security paper. A raised seal and a signature stamp are applied to the document to certify that the information represents original records on file with the Hawaii Department of Heath.

    The Obama Certificate of Birth was a photocopy paper form located today in a bound volume, filled in by Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in August of 1961, signed by Ann Dunham (mother), Dr. David Sinclair (attending physician) and Verna K. Lee (registrar). The photocopy was was made at reduced size onto security paper. The copy was then sealed with a raised seal and a signature stamp applied.

    The State of Hawall provides on its web site a detailed statement regarding the production of the Certificate of Birth, and contains this statement:

    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    Now, tell us any vital record in history with such a provenance that has proven to be fraudulent.

    Your semantic games are tiresome. You were originally banned because it appeared that you were a troll, someone who ingenuously argues for a position that they cannot support just to upset people. You provide nothing now that alters my original judgment.

    jacko: Actually I believe, perhaps wrongly, that the whole document is printed from the computer including the details on the border and the text of the printed information and the personal information.

  158. Scientist says:
    March 1, 2016 at 7:46 pm  (Quote)

    bob: Over in Birther Report, RamboIke responded to your challenge.

    I assume he responded there because he’s too much of coward to respond here.

    Interesting. Let’s see if he shows up. This is the site of record, so no payment for posts made somewhere else. In response to whether Trump has been sued, the answer is “Hell, yes!” The NY AG’s suit against him for his phoney-baloney “university” that ripped off thousands of students was just OKed by the Appellate Division. Trump wants the judge removed because he’s Hispanic.

    Trump is ineligible at a minimum on the grounds that the President must be a member of the human race.

  159. roadburner says:
    March 1, 2016 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    bob: Over in Birther Report, RamboIke responded to your challenge.

    I assume he responded there because he’s too much of coward to respond here.

    too right he won’t

    he’s spent too much time in the echo chamber and couldn’t hold his own here without looking the idiot he actually is.

  160. Northland10 says:
    March 1, 2016 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: too right he won’t

    he’s spent too much time in the echo chamber and couldn’t hold his own here without looking the idiot he actually is.

    I do believe that RamboIke is banned here along with a bunch of other places. He is nothing but a troll with a fondness of word games. He has a sad if you just ignore him and not respond.

    He often whines about those who banned him, Patrick, John Woodman, Doc, etc., because he can’t play his games if he’s banned.

  161. jacko says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:01 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Obama didn’t need to, because his birth certificate is not delayed, amended, midwife registered, or altered

    Oh, and you know that because the certified copy doesn’t contain that on the copy, and it could not possibly be omitted legally or or illegally, right?

    Because certified copies are always true?

  162. jacko says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:03 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    So you accept Trump’s eligibility on what could have happened but not Barack Obama’s?

    Nope . I have never seen Trump’s birth certificate and have no opinion on it

  163. jacko says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:06 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: That’s because trump is a white supremacist like jack.

    Nope, I think that the Japanese, and Chinese, are at least equal to the Caucasians , and may be superior in some aspects of their traits

  164. jacko says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:22 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You don’t present anything new, nor do you offer any thesis much less an argument in support of one. Try to make a real argument:

    State a claim, and then argue in support of the claim with evidence.

    I have tried to present all of my comments with evidence from the files and the internet.

    Do you know of any person who can provide evidence of the subject being discussed here, that would satisfy anyone else.

    But I will make a statement about the LFBC, based upon my experience.

    No professional Japanese man would allow the production of a document that was not at least correct and clear in the documentation presented.
    I believe that if a Japanese professional man would be presented with a bc that had a smeared rubber stamp which he would have to sign, that he would require a new production with out a smeared rubber stamp.

    Hell, I am not a professional Japanese man, but I was a FHA appraiser, Real Estate Broker, and
    Senior Appraiser in the California State Civil Service and would never allow an important document to go out that would indicate carelessness in the procedures of the office,

    But that was a long time ago, and things might have changed.

    There is one thing that I have not looked into yet, and that was if the LFBC met the standards or the referenced 1973 change it the requirements for birth certificates. I may do that , if I have the time

  165. jacko says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:35 am  (Quote)

    Now you want a claim and evidence of possible fraud in the LFBC, well, I will present a claim and the evidence to back it up/

    It is claimed that the LFBC was produced by HDOH was computer generated, printed out on a Xerox printer, certified by the Registrar, presented to Obama’s lawyer, who flew it back to DC, handed it out to the press staff , who scanned and printed it out and distributed to the press, and then posted on the internet.

    My problem with that scenario that the final printing of the document should not show signs of different dpi printing in the document, which it does

    The final scanning and printing would use a standard dpi printing basis on a typical printer and the printed document would have the same dpi printing throughout the document, and not have various dpi indications in the final document, especially in the middle of a word.

  166. Adrien Nash says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:37 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bancroft interviewed James Madison for his book on the American Constitution. What’s your source?

    My sources are the English language, logic, historical fact, and the law of nature regarding membership or inclusion. I have no reason to suppose that Bancroft questioned Madison as to his view of what a natural citizen by birth is since he thought that everyone else saw the issue through the same concept as himself. If you are unaware of a competing alternate view then you can’t see that there is any issue in need of clarification.
    Those deeply steeped in British common law overlooked the switch by the national government to natural law, -away from the view and practice of the State governments regarding United States citizenship, which to the central government involved an international arena (as apposed to the limited State government arena).

  167. Adrien Nash says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:40 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: American military power is a rather odd term for the 1780s. We had a very, very small standing army and absolutely no Navy, even though one allowed for in the Constitution.

    Everything about the Constitution was focused in one, and only one, direction: the future. In the future that it would foster, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, could call on all of the State militias in times of emergency, making him a powerful leader in a military sense, just as George Washington was during the war.

  168. Adrien Nash says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:54 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: Adrien Nash: In its bastardized place, they returned to the natural bond of unity that holds people together in natural groups, -the bond of natural membership, as in a family, a clan, a tribe, and a country. That membership becomes known as “citizenship” when a country installs a central government and becomes a nation.

    Tribalism went away in the western world over a thousand years ago to replaced by a legal construct, feudalism. Feudalism was eventually replaced by a new legal construct of the nation-state.

    Nation-states, especially those derived from Western European tradition are legal entities (based upon a contract, such as a Constitution) and, therefore, membership in those nation-states are based upon law, weather statutory or common law.

    There is no natural bond of unity in the USA, but a bonds of affection based upon shared values (liberty) and shared law (such as the US Constitution).

    Your focus was too broad to acknowledge the reality of America alone, which was unique in all of the world. The colonies never experienced tribalism nor feudalism. They only knew monarchy and the emerging consciousness of the Rights of Man.
    When they, as sovereign independent nations, rejected monarchy and had to device a new basis for their relationship, they did the same thing that the Greeks had done over two thousand years earlier.

    Like the Greeks, the Americans had only one main language, one legal background, one religious orientation (Protestantism), and one over-arching culture. So you’ve misstated history to imply or state that they had no bonds of commonality between them.
    They were very related except regarding the issue of human ownership and involuntary servitude. As such they formed a natural group of similar peoples who could peacefully live with each other as members of a national family.

    Even siblings can be rivals but they still have a bond that makes them of one group. That bond is a sociological bond and is shared by all members, with all members being insiders in their group, and all aliens being outsiders, -at least until they are fully natural-ized into new “natural citizens” via a fundamental national legal fiction. Then they are no longer outsiders but are 100% insiders (except when it comes to the presidency).

  169. Adrien Nash says:
    March 2, 2016 at 4:00 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: Adrien’s special talent is his completely inept analogies and examples. He can’t find a better one as it is against his nature. I’ll bet he could easily find a half a dozen that are worse, though.

    Here’s my latest and greatest analogy, which you will love to hate: ~Natural Born Citizens & the Magic Kingdom Analogy
    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/natural-born-citizens-the-magic-kingdom-analogy/

    “Once upon a time, there was a Kingdom, -a Magic Kingdom, and its king was a man named His Royal Majesty: Walt Disney, (-the man who built the Kingdom himself, being its sole Lord and Master). The kingdom had certain rules, including one regarding lifetime membership.

    One could obtain a lifetime membership via different avenues. Some could even be born with it, but that would be determined by who their parents were. If their parents were visitors on a day pass or a week pass, and their mother gave birth to them while visiting the kingdom, they would not qualify for lifetime membership. Even those who purchased a year pass could not qualify for the right to give birth to a child blessed with a lifetime membership. That was because none of those visitors were intimately tied to the kingdom and its people. They all were simply guests.”….

  170. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    March 2, 2016 at 4:36 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Trump is ineligible at a minimum on the grounds that the President must be a member of the human race.

    That’s an originalist view. 😉

  171. John Reilly says:
    March 2, 2016 at 6:14 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Interesting.Let’s see if he shows up.This is the site of record, so no payment for posts made somewhere else.In response to whether Trump has been sued, the answer is “Hell, yes!”The NY AG’s suit against him for his phoney-baloney “university” that ripped off thousands of students was just OKed by the Appellate Division.Trump wants the judge removed because he’s Hispanic.

    Trump is ineligible at a minimum on the grounds that the President must be a member of the human race.

    Mr. Trump is a defendant in two law suits about Trump University. One in New York and one in San Diego. It is the San Diego law suit in which the judge is Hispanic and was attacked by Mr. Trump.

  172. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2016 at 8:54 am  (Quote)

    Your crackpot ideas show that you’re know little about the English language, logic, or historical fact. The “law of nature” is an idiosyncratic concept, having no relevance here.

    One of the many important facts that you fail to grasp is that the Framers of our country were the ones “deeply steeped in British common law” and if you doubt that historical fact, I would refer you to the resolution of the Continental Congress on the English Common Law, including the following:

    “§ 79. And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.”

    If you actually studied history, rather than imagining it to fit your bias, you might not appear so clueless in these discussions.

    Adrien Nash: My sources are the English language, logic, historical fact, and the law of nature regarding membership or inclusion. …

    Those deeply steeped in British common law overlooked the switch by the national government to natural law,

  173. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2016 at 8:59 am  (Quote)

    Onaka is not Japanese, he is American, but your imagination of what a hypothetical Japanese man would do is not in the least way a valid argument, and if this is the best you can do, well, you got nothing.

    jacko: No professional Japanese man would allow the production of a document that was not at least correct and clear in the docu

  174. Scientist says:
    March 2, 2016 at 9:58 am  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash: “Once upon a time, there was a Kingdom, -a Magic Kingdom, and its king was a man named His Royal Majesty: Walt Disney, (-the man who built the Kingdom himself, being its sole Lord and Master). The kingdom had certain rules, including one regarding lifetime membership.

    Yes, your Magic Kingdom could make any rules they wished for who they want as lifetime members. That’s what the US did. The rules are that anyone born here is one. You don’t like those rules-the door is that way.

    Actually, Doc, based on the time of his posts, I’m guessing that Nash is posting from outside the US. Is that correct? I seem to recall from long ago that that was the case, but I might be wrong.

  175. Rickey says:
    March 2, 2016 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    Actually, Doc, based on the time of his posts, I’m guessing that Nash is posting from outside the US.Is that correct? I seem to recall from long ago that that was the case, but I might be wrong.

    I believe that he lives in California.

  176. Scientist says:
    March 2, 2016 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: I believe that he lives in California.

    Wherever his physical body might be, his mind is in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

  177. Reality Check says:
    March 2, 2016 at 11:36 am  (Quote)

    LOL

    BTW Rambo Ick replied to your challenge at Birther Report. He failed miserably.

    Scientist: Wherever his physicalbody might be, his mind is in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

  178. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    Since you have not examined the “first printing” of the document, you have no basis for a claim about its resolution. Test scans of a real document on a Xerox showed the same dpi variation on the pdf. So you still have nothing.

    jacko:
    Now you want a claim and evidence of possible fraud in the LFBC, well, I will present a claim and the evidence to back it up/

    It is claimed that the LFBC was produced by HDOH was computer generated, printed out on a Xerox printer, certified by the Registrar, presented to Obama’s lawyer, who flew it back to DC, handed it out to the press staff , who scanned and printed it out and distributed to the press, and then posted on the internet.

    My problem with that scenario that the final printing of the document should not show signs of different dpi printing in the document,which it does

    The final scanning and printing would use a standard dpi printing basis on a typical printer and the printed document would have the same dpi printing throughout the document, and not have various dpi indications in the final document, especially in the middle of a word.

  179. justlw says:
    March 2, 2016 at 12:05 pm  (Quote)

    jacko: Hell, I am not a professional Japanese man

    Didn’t know that was a profession one might choose. Even Mickey Rooney was only a dilettante.

  180. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    March 2, 2016 at 12:15 pm  (Quote)

    Hermy is having the most droll argument over shortened urls compared to regular ones claiming oh it’s a way to hide links from him because he’s too lazy to actually open the link.

  181. Scientist says:
    March 2, 2016 at 12:20 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: BTW Rambo Ick replied to your challenge at Birther Report. He failed miserably.

    He presented no evidence whatsoever to show that Trump was born in the US. In fact, there is none, beyond that worthless computer file Drumpf posted a few years ago, which is completely unauthenticated and is obviously fraudulent by birther standards. It was all, “Did Trump say this? Did Trump say that?” No one could possibly know all the things Trump has said over the years, since they change on a daily basis.

    He should pay me $100 for that worthless post…

  182. Crustacean says:
    March 2, 2016 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    Trevor Noah is not saying that Donald Trump is a fascist.

    (But he *is* saying that Trump wants to bang his daughter)

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/im_not_saying_that_donald_trump_is_a_fascist_but_trevor_noah_comes_pretty_damn_close/

  183. Joey says:
    March 2, 2016 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien Nash is obviously unfamiliar with the “reception statutes” that were passed by the former British Colonies as they declared their independence from British rule.

    Open main menu

    A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts pre-independence English common law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted common law by judicial opinion ( there was only partial reception by Louisiana which also partially adopted the Napoleonic Code and Spanish (Roman ) law)

    Examples From Reception Statutes

    Reception Provision of Massachusetts Constitution, 1780, ch. vi, art. vi.:
    “All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.”

    Reception statute of New York, 1786 (based on provision of NY Constitution, 1777, art. 35):
    “Whereas by the Constitution of this state it is declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the Legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on [19 April 1775] (except such parts thereof as are by the said Constitution abrogated) shall be and continue the law of this state; subject to such alterations and provisions as the Legislature of this state shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. And whereas such of the said statutes as have been generally supposed to extend to the late colony and to this state, are contained in a great number of volumes.” [a commission is established to gather together and put before the legislature the appropriate statutes].

    Reception statute of Virginia, 1776:
    “And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

    Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:
    [[section]]1. “Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.

    [[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Reception Provision of the Delaware Constitution, 1776, art. 25::
    “The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state, shall remain in force unless they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Constitution and the declaration of rights, & agreed by this convention.

    The District of Columbia was not a state. The Constitution gave Congress complete legislative authority in all cases whatsoever, but when Congress provided the law for the District’s courts, it backed away from mandating its own style of reception, showing the degree to which Congress felt that it should rely on the law of the states, the degree to which the federal government was regarded as different in nature from state governments.

    Reception statute for the District of Columbia, 1801

    “. . . the laws of the state of Virginia, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the District of Columbia, which was ceded by the said state to the United States, and by them accepted for the permanent seat of government; and that the laws of the state of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the said district, which was ceded by that state to the United States, and by them accepted as aforesaid.”

  184. Reality Check says:
    March 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    That’s a great comment Joey. I nominate that as featured comment.

    That is why I believe that the authors of the Constitution would have believed “natural born citizen” would have included citizens born abroad to citizens as it was by statutes that they adopted through the reception laws.

    Joey: Adrien Nash is obviously unfamiliar with the “reception statutes” that were passed by the former British Colonies as they declared their independence from British rule.

  185. Joey says:
    March 2, 2016 at 5:10 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    That’s a great comment Joey. I nominate that as featured comment.

    That is why I believe that the authors of the Constitution would have believed “natural born citizen” would have included citizens born abroad to citizens as it was by statutes that they adopted through the reception laws.

    Thanks!
    Mr. Nash needs to realize that the new states wrote adherence to English Common Law into their constitutions unless there is a specific deviance from Common Law and there is no deviance from Common Law anywhere related to Natural Born Citizenship. This is why over eight plus years of trying no court has ever ruled that Barack Obama, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio do not qualify as natural born citizens; nor has Congress or a state legislature undertaken any such action or determination.

  186. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    His IP address is not outside the US.

    Scientist: Actually, Doc, based on the time of his posts, I’m guessing that Nash is posting from outside the US. Is that correct?

  187. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2016 at 5:27 pm  (Quote)

    You, ignorant of the actual views of the Framers, fail to recognize the fact that for them, natural law was essentially the Common Law of England. James R. Stoner of Louisiana State University wrote:

    “the Americans generally did not see a practical distinction between natural law and the common law, nor between natural rights and British liberties. Violations of the English constitution proved the king a tyrant; natural rights indicated what could be justly done by a people thus oppressed”

    Stoner bases this partly on the language in the Declaration of Independence where the catalog of natural rights denied to the American colonies were in fact rights guaranteed under the Common Law.

    Adrien Nash: Those deeply steeped in British common law overlooked the switch by the national government to natural law, -away from the view and practice of the State governments regarding United States citizenship, which to the central government involved an international arena (as apposed to the limited State government arena).

  188. Rickey says:
    March 2, 2016 at 9:59 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You, ignorant of the actual views of the Framers, fail to recognize the fact that for them, natural law was essentially the Common Law of England.

    Professor Lawrence M. Friedman, author of “A History of American Law,” agrees. “One rhetorical pillar of the men of 1776 was that the common law embodied fundamental norms of natural law.” (p. 95)

  189. gorefan says:
    March 3, 2016 at 1:27 am  (Quote)

    Anyone know if this is the same Mario Apuzzo?

    MONROE TP. COUNCIL v. GARIBALDI 216 N.J. Super. 19 (1987) 522 A.2d 1011

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq., argued the cause pro se.

    “In March 1985, Farino resigned and the mayor nominated defendant Mario Apuzzo as law department director for the “period April 1, 1985 to and including December 31, 1985.” The council confirmed Apuzzo’s nomination for the designated period.”

    “On December 17, 1985, the mayor again submitted Apuzzo’s name to the council as the law department head for a term of two years commencing January 1, 1986. The council voted down a resolution to confirm the nomination. The mayor has not submitted another name.”

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1987235216NJSuper19_1234/MONROE%20TP.%20COUNCIL%20v.%20GARIBALDI

    There is this interesting sentence,

    “To read into N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(b) an obligation on the part of the mayor to continue submitting names to the council until concurrence is reached, would constitute judicial plastic surgery on the legislation, something we are loathe to do.”

  190. bob says:
    March 3, 2016 at 1:46 am  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    Anyone know if this is the same Mario Apuzzo?

    I don’t know if it is, but I’m pretty sure. It is geographically and chronologically consistent.

  191. Dave B. says:
    March 3, 2016 at 2:43 am  (Quote)

    The best thing Mario ever did was a traffic case. I’ve got it here somewhere…

    gorefan: Anyone know if this is the same Mario Apuzzo?

  192. gorefan says:
    March 3, 2016 at 2:52 am  (Quote)

    bob: I don’t know if it is, but I’m pretty sure.It is geographically and chronologically consistent.

    The Council approved his nomination the first time but refused to reapprove him at the end of his term.

    Did they find out he wan’t eligible? Was Putative Law Department Director Apuzzo a usper? Did he arrogantly promote crank legal theories?

    He should release all his records from this time period. Only then will this controversy go away.

  193. Dave B. says:
    March 3, 2016 at 3:05 am  (Quote)

    Found it.

    http://www.dpdlaw.com/luptak.pdf

    If he’d never done anything else, my hat would be off to him for this one.

    Dave B.:
    The best thing Mario ever did was a traffic case.I’ve got it here somewhere…

  194. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 3, 2016 at 6:59 am  (Quote)

    I concur. It’s added.

    Reality Check:
    That’s a great comment Joey. I nominate that as featured comment.

    That is why I believe that the authors of the Constitution would have believed “natural born citizen” would have included citizens born abroad to citizens as it was by statutes that they adopted through the reception laws.

  195. Crustacean says:
    March 3, 2016 at 5:58 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve barely visited BR since Doc was banned, but had to check out the always-hilarious flailings of Ramboike (and pleasantly surprised to see you made it through the blockade, RC!).

    He added to that thread when it was suggested he come here to claim his $100:

    “I’ve been there and done it on that propaganda site. For me it was “Veni, vidi, vici” then I was banned.”

    I’ve read more Ramboike comments than is healthy for a normal adult, but I must’ve missed the one where the “vici” part happened. I can’t even imagine how deluded one would have to be to believe Doc would ban someone for being right.

    And I can imagine a lot of things.

    Reality Check: Rambo Ick replied to your challenge at Birther Report. He failed miserably.

  196. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 3, 2016 at 6:46 pm  (Quote)

    Rambo Ike commented here in the first half of 2012 before I banned him. The reason I don’t recall, except that I generally ban for trollish behavior.His last approved comment was in June. There are 158 comments by him currently on the blog.

    The only think I know about that Rambo Ike was correct about was when he found that Lupin had cited the wrong edition of Vattel. A site correction was made based on that information.

    Rambo Ike is free to comment at Gerbil Report.

    Crustacean: He added to that thread when it was suggested he come here to claim his $100:

    “I’ve been there and done it on that propaganda site. For me it was “Veni, vidi, vici” then I was banned.”

    I’ve read more Ramboike comments than is healthy for a normal adult, but I must’ve missed the one where the “vici” part happened. I can’t even imagine how deluded one would have to be to believe Doc would ban someone for being right.

  197. Scientist says:
    March 3, 2016 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    Crustacean: He added to that thread when it was suggested he come here to claim his $100:

    The offer expires when this thread closes, which I guess is tomorrow.

  198. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 3, 2016 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    I highly recommend this piece on NPR this morning about Donald Trump and the Evangelical vote.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469005685/evangelical-leaders-question-why-their-movement-supports-trump

    And if you’re curious about the reference to authoritarians towards the end, definitely check out the book “The Authoritarians” by Canadian professor Rob Altemeyer, which is a free download.

    http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

  199. justlw says:
    March 3, 2016 at 9:39 pm  (Quote)

    Trump just bragged on his endorsement by Shurf Joe. *drinks* *not actually playing any drinking game*

  201. Rickey says:
    March 4, 2016 at 1:41 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I highly recommend this piece on NPR this morning about Donald Trump and the Evangelical vote.

    It is a bit perplexing. I once knew a Southern Baptist in Colorado who worked at the Coors Brewery in Golden. His pastor told him that he should find another job, and I can just imagine what he would have said if the man had worked for a casino.

    When Trump’s first wife was 41 he started having an affair with Marla Maples, who was 28.Marla had an out-of-wedlock child by him in 1993 and they got married two months later. They were divorced when she was 36 and he started having a relationship with his third wife, Melania, who was 28 at the time.

  202. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    March 4, 2016 at 8:04 am  (Quote)

    jacko:
    Now you want a claim and evidence of possible fraud in the LFBC, well, I will present a claim and the evidence to back it up/

    The claim has to be a real scenario, not one that you invented. Let’s see how that goes…

    It is claimed that the LFBC was produced by HDOH was computer generated,

    WRONG! You immediately failed. The actual scenario is that it was photocopied from the original bound volume.

    printed out on a Xerox printer,

    Partial credit. It was a special Xerox copier, and it was copied, not printed. But this is more semantics, thus partial credit.

    certified by the Registrar, presented to Obama’s lawyer, who flew it back to DC,

    Well you finally got something correct.

    handed it out to the press staff , who scanned and printed it out and distributed to the press, and then posted on the internet.

    Partial credit again. The staff copied it in black and white and handed it out to the press, and they also scanned it and put it on the internet. The copying and scanning were parallel operations, not serial as you presented (and this makes a difference). You also missed that one certified copy was shown to the press, and a photo of that was taken. Also, photos of the B&W photocopies handed out to the press were also taken.

    My problem with that scenario that the final printing of the document should not show signs of different dpi printing in the document,which it does

    Note that in my corrected steps above, there is no actual printing. There is photocopying (two instances), and there is scanning (one instance). However, photocopying is very similar to printing. One would not expect to find different apparent dpi’s in a photocopy unless they were in the original. Fortunately we do have photos of each photocopy step: the Guthrie photos of the certified copy, and the Applewhite photos of the press handouts. Upon examination, these photos verify that there is indeed no signs of different dpi printing.

    That leaves us with the scan. This does have different dpi. However, this is a common functionality of advanced scanning software that acts to reduce filesize without losing too much legibility (though the algorithms are not perfect – see No Free Lunch theorem). I have 100s of examples from three different, major copier manufacturers: Xerox, Ricoh, and Canon – and there are almost certainly others. That’s just from my professional work; we generated and discovered many more when we demonstrated that the Xerox WorkCentre had the capability to generate all of the alleged non-contextual anomalies in the LFBC.

    The final scanning and printing would use a standard dpi printing basis on a typical printer and the printed document would have the same dpi printing throughout the document, and not have various dpi indications in the final document, especially in the middle of a word.

    And when you print out the scan, the actual printed dpi is the same throughout. The apparent dpi of course is consistent with the ppi in the scanned file. But as noted above, advanced scanning software can and does change the ppi in the middle of the word. I have seen hundreds of examples of this, many of which I have seen the original document and was able to verify that it was the scanning software that caused the shift in ppi.

    So your so-called proof fails.

  203. Reality Check says:
    March 4, 2016 at 9:25 am  (Quote)

    Good to see you back WKV. As I recall the LFBC scan background JPG is 75 ppi and the foreground masking 1 bit monochrome layers are at twice that ppi. So text or letters were placed in the background JPG would be at 75 ppi. Generally text that touched the form lines was included with the JPG background.

  204. Crustacean says:
    March 4, 2016 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    Tweet from “political punned-it” Eric Kleefeld:

    “Obviously, the term for people who question the size of Donald Trump’s penis should be “Girthers.”

  205. Joey says:
    March 4, 2016 at 1:55 pm  (Quote)

    Thank goodness that no dpi or ppi are needed when the ORIGINAL hard copy Certificate of Live Birth can be made available for inspection by court order or congressional subpoena.

  206. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    March 4, 2016 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    Good to see you back WKV. As I recall the LFBC scan background JPG is 75 ppi and the foreground masking 1 bit monochrome layers are at twice that ppi. So text or letters were placed in the background JPG would be at 75 ppi. Generally text that touched the form lines was included with the JPG background.

    150 and 300 dpi, actually. Otherwise, yep. And I get scans several times a week that exhibit similar behaviour, even though the machines used are from a variety of manufacturers. Xerox must be licensing its patents on MRC.

  207. y_p_w says:
    March 4, 2016 at 2:41 pm  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund:

    WRONG!You immediately failed.The actual scenario is that it was photocopied from the original bound volume.

    From a technical standpoint I believe it was actually scanned from the original bound volume into a B&W image file. The scan would have likely contained some of the confidential health information that they don’t typically release, so the process would have been to crop out only the relevant information for the certified copy, resize the image, and print the result to the security paper, which was then impressed with the seal and stamped with the certification statement. Most of this stuff is basic modern document processing. In my state, vital records are often stored in image databases and I’ve received copies from the same office where the images were sized differently. My kid’s birth certificates don’t have the health information at the bottom that were on the original form although I’m not sure they were maintained in the image database (i.e. got cropped for certified copies).

    In any case, most modern digital “photocopying” is really just digital scanning and then printing with a laser printing engine.

    The old fashioned way was purely photographic, such as with the Nordyke photostat certificates. Someone blocked off the edges of the health information with an overlay of the certification statement. They might have also trimmed part of the photostat if it contained extraneous information.

  208. Scientist says:
    March 4, 2016 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: Thank goodness that no dpi or ppi are needed when the ORIGINAL hard copy Certificate of Live Birth can be made available for inspection by court order or congressional subpoena.

    Joey: Are you here for a last-minute shot at my $100 challenge? I’ll tell you what-let’s lay the original hard copies of Obama’s and Trump’s side-by-side. I’ll bet you the $100 that Obama’s comes out as least as good, if not better.

  209. Rickey says:
    March 4, 2016 at 5:31 pm  (Quote)

    I almost overlooked that fact that we are now in March, meaning that the release of Zullo’s earth-shattering information is two years overdue.

  210. Joey says:
    March 4, 2016 at 6:22 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Joey:Are you here for a last-minute shot at my $100 challenge?I’ll tell you what-let’s lay the original hard copies of Obama’s and Trump’s side-by-side.I’ll bet you the $100 that Obama’s comes out as least as good, if not better.

    Nope, I have no interest in your challenge as I am in complete agreement with you.

  211. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    March 4, 2016 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    y_p_w: From a technical standpoint I believe it was actually scanned from the original bound volume into a B&W image file.The scan would have likely contained some of the confidential health information that they don’t typically release, so the process would have been to crop out only the relevant information for the certified copy, resize the image, and print the result to the security paper, which was then impressed with the seal and stamped with the certification statement.Most of this stuff is basic modern document processing.In my state, vital records are often stored in image databases and I’ve received copies from the same office where the images were sized differently.My kid’s birth certificates don’t have the health information at the bottom that were on the original form although I’m not sure they were maintained in the image database (i.e. got cropped for certified copies).

    While what you say is plausible, it isn’t entirely consistent with HDoH’s statements about how they made the LFBC. Not contradicted, mind you, but you are adding steps that they didn’t mention, and aren’t actually necessary. HDoH stated that they used a Xerox specially designed to copy books without damaging the bindings. I looked up the specs on the possible Xerox machines that match their description (the most likely being the WorkCentre BookMark 40 or 55), and they have the capability to have a pre-programmed crop and resize. It takes a few minutes to initially set-up, and then all you have to do is put the original on the scanner, press a button to tell it you want to use the preset cropping, press another to tell it whether you want one copy per page (centered) or two, and then press Start. Really easy.

    In any case, most modern digital “photocopying” is really just digital scanning and then printing with a laser printing engine.

    Indeed, which is why I gave him partial credit.

    The old fashioned way was purely photographic, such as with the Nordyke photostat certificates.Someone blocked off the edges of the health information with an overlay of the certification statement.They might have also trimmed part of the photostat if it contained extraneous information.

    Yep, that’s how mine were done.

  212. y_p_w says:
    March 4, 2016 at 9:08 pm  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund: While what you say is plausible, it isn’t entirely consistent with HDoH’s statements about how they made the LFBC. Not contradicted, mind you, but you are adding steps that they didn’t mention, and aren’t actually necessary. HDoH stated that they used a Xerox specially designed to copy books without damaging the bindings. I looked up the specs on the possible Xerox machines that match their description (the most likely being the WorkCentre BookMark 40 or 55), and they have the capability to have a pre-programmed crop and resize. It takes a few minutes to initially set-up, and then all you have to do is put the original on the scanner, press a button to tell it you want to use the preset cropping, press another to tell it whether you want one copy per page (centered) or two, and then press Start. Really easy.

    I’m not sure how useful something like that would be in an office like the Hawaii Dept of Health. I was under the impression that their entire collection of bound vital documents had already been transcribed to some database format. I’ve personally tried photocopying books, and avoiding damaging the binding was always tricky.

    I see that there are different versions, including copier only (with option FAX) as well as multifunction versions with full scan/email/FAX/printing built-in. I’d think they would opt for something that does it all. In any case, I believe it’s plausible for the workflow to have been a scan, crop, then print. Perhaps it didn’t happen that way, but absent a detailed statement from the HDoH I suppose we have no way of knowing.

    However, I guess the one thing that’s amazing is that there are so many different ways to produce documents there days where the particular process used can’t be determined by looking at the document. I specifically remember when photocopies were direct images from the platen to the drum, and it would scan the image once for every copy. These days a large job will likely be scanned first – possibly before the first output page comes out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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