The occasional open thread: fleeing the birthers

Posted on September 7, 2011 by Dr. Conspiracy

Post your comments here that do not apply to the current open articles. Comments will close in two weeks.

image

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

174 Responses to The occasional open thread: fleeing the birthers

  1. Lupin says:
    September 7, 2011 at 5:16 am  (Quote)

    Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article on Salon demonstrating how notwithstanding your First Amendment and various legal precedents, free speech is being increasingly criminalized in the U.S.:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/04/speech/index.html

    My question becomes then, why are uberracist extreme right-wing figures like Dr. Kate, Orly, Apuzzo et al not also being prosecuted?

  2. Dave says:
    September 7, 2011 at 6:05 am  (Quote)

    News to me that advocating violence is protected free speech, but Greenwald seems to think he has the legal authorities to back him up.

    In any case, Greenwald does not claim Ahmad is being prosecuted for advocating violence.

  3. misha says:
    September 7, 2011 at 7:31 am  (Quote)

    Perry Outlines Bold Proposal to Repeal Twentieth Century
    Cost-cutting Plan Involves Time-travel, God

    Read on:
    http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/09/06/perry-outlines-bold-proposal-to-repeal-twentieth-century/

  4. Reality Check says:
    September 7, 2011 at 8:03 am  (Quote)

    When I first read the title I thought it read “Fleecing the Birthers” 😆

  5. charo says:
    September 7, 2011 at 8:34 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: My question becomes then, why are uberracist extreme right-wing figures like Dr. Kate, Orly, Apuzzo et al not also being prosecuted?

    Given this

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20063954-71.html

    my guess it is a choice not to go after them. If the Secret Service questions a juvenile who had 7 friends at the time on facebook, they want no publicity for the birther movement.

  6. Sef says:
    September 7, 2011 at 10:31 am  (Quote)

    misha:
    Perry Outlines Bold Proposal to Repeal Twentieth Century
    Cost-cutting Plan Involves Time-travel, God

    Read on:
    http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/09/06/perry-outlines-bold-proposal-to-repeal-twentieth-century/

    I thought you said the borowitz report was a parody site.

  7. Majority Will says:
    September 7, 2011 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    When I first read the title I thought it read “Fleecing the Birthers”

    I’ve been on Facebook too long. I keep looking for the Like button.

  8. Majority Will says:
    September 7, 2011 at 11:01 am  (Quote)

    charo: Given this

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20063954-71.html

    my guess it is a choice not to go after them. If the Secret Service questions a juvenile who had 7 friends at the time on facebook, they want no publicity for the birther movement.

    I would rather the Secret Service or the FBI ask a teenager a few questions and be wrong about him than to miss another Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, John Hinckley, Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, Jared Lee Loughner and too many others.

    Or this guy:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/LoneStar1776#p/u/230/A7Ixoob7jwg

  9. charo says:
    September 7, 2011 at 11:08 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: I would rather the Secret Service or the FBI ask a teenager a few questions and be wrong about him than to miss another Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, John Hinckley, Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, Jared Lee Loughner and too many others.

    Or this guy:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/LoneStar1776#p/u/230/A7Ixoob7jwg

    It wasn’t a condemnation of questioning the 7th grader (with a total of 7 friends on facebook) but an observation that they likely have seen Dr. Kate’s blog and have decided against action.

  10. Majority Will says:
    September 7, 2011 at 11:22 am  (Quote)

    charo: It wasn’t a condemnation of questioning the 7th grader (with a total of 7 friends on facebook) but an observation that they likely have seen Dr. Kate’s blog and have decided against action.

    O.K, but is there some significance to your repetition of “7 friends on facebook”? Is it a numerology thing I’m not getting?

  11. obsolete says:
    September 7, 2011 at 12:12 pm  (Quote)

    charo: they likely have seen Dr. Kate’s blog and have decided against action.

    Or they are watching and waiting…..

  12. Majority Will says:
    September 7, 2011 at 12:20 pm  (Quote)

    obsolete: Or they are watching and waiting…..

    If you ever look down and notice a dozen red laser dots on your shirt, go ahead and cancel dinner plans.

  13. Paper says:
    September 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    You have to read to the end of that article for the parody/irony. Everything else is very prosaic, time travel, etc. I mean, it’s already been done. Right?

    The last line goes:

    “But in a positive piece of news for the Texas Governor, a new poll shows him leading the pack among voters who describe themselves as delusional.”

    Nobody describes themselves as delusional.

    Sef: I thought you said the borowitz report was a parody site.

    misha:
    Perry Outlines Bold Proposal to Repeal Twentieth Century
    Cost-cutting Plan Involves Time-travel, God

    Read on:
    http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/09/06/perry-outlines-bold-proposal-to-repeal-twentieth-century/

  14. Paper says:
    September 7, 2011 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    There’s an app for that.

    Majority Will: If you ever look down and notice a dozen red laser dots on your shirt, go ahead and cancel dinner plans.

  15. jayHG says:
    September 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: When I first read the title I thought it read “Fleecing the Birthers”

    Me too!!!!!!! When I read your comment, I scrolled back up and read the title again…..too funny.

  16. Horus says:
    September 7, 2011 at 3:20 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: Fleecing the Birthers

    That’s what Orly does.

  17. Majority Will says:
    September 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    Horus: That’s what Orly does.

    And Dean Haskins, and Philip Berg, and Mario Apuzzo, and Sharon Rondeau, and Joseph Farah and on and on.

    Birthers are gullible idiots.

    “No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”
    -P. J. O’Rourke

  18. Thrifty says:
    September 7, 2011 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis found ineligible to run for New Jersey state Senate.

    http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-rejects-carl-lewis-nj-senate-bid-161058432.html

    Because Lewis didn’t meet the state’s requirement of being at least 4 years a resident of the state, the state’s top elections official, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno would not certify his name on the ballot.

    Well, NJ caught an ineligible guy and kept him off the ballot when it was found that he was not eligible because of publicly known facts. Curious that none of the elections officials in any of the 50 states did the same to Barack Obama, if indeed one does need 2 citizen parents to be qualified to run for president.

  19. jayHG says:
    September 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    Horus: That’s what Orly does.

    Where’s a like button when you need it!!??

  20. Tes says:
    September 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm  (Quote)

    Hassan Update: Re: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/will-fec-decide-presidential-eligibility/ …

    FEC has issued its advisory opinion. See http://saos.nictusa.com/saos/searchao?SUBMIT=ao&AO=3307

    (And, FTR, I was wrong in my prediction re: #2 – I was “right” on the law — but did not know that FEC could exercise its discretion to deny funds, as explained in the advisory opinion.

  22. Seeker; born every minute says:
    September 7, 2011 at 10:48 pm  (Quote)

    I just got a couple of Nigerian-style 419-scam emails from an sender called … Jerome Corsi Odinga Jnr, of Kenya.
    I laughed.

  23. misha says:
    September 8, 2011 at 12:45 am  (Quote)

    Seeker; born every minute: I just got a couple of Nigerian-style 419-scam emails from an sender called … Jerome Corsi Odinga Jnr, of Kenya.

    I got them too. It’s not a scam; that’s Corsi’s actual full name. He uses the shorter version for his books.

  24. Black Lion says:
    September 8, 2011 at 7:45 am  (Quote)

    WND Treats Supermarket Tabloid’s Birther Claims As Credible
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    This is the state of birtherism at WorldNetDaily these days — it’s thrilled that a second-rate supermarket tabloid touts its birther crap.

    A Sept. 4 WND article by Drew Zahn praises how “The grocery-line tabloid Globe has made a front-page headline out of Obama’s eligibility,” hyping how “the published reports of 20 experts with established credentials who conducted forensic examination of the computer PDF file published on the White House website and the Xerox copies of the Obama birth certificate handed out by the White House to the press during an April 27, 2011, press conference.” But as even WND’s own Jerome Corsi has admitted, none of WND’s so-called “experts” are certified forensic document examiners, since they aren’t so dumb, as WND apparently is, to treat a PDF file as an original document.

    Zahn also referenced “Doug Vogt, a scanner expert who has analyzed the Obama birth certificate documents released by the White House and who has already filed a criminal complaint with the FBI, charging the document is ‘created forgery,’ to no avail,” without mention that Vogt’s assertions have been discredited.

    Of course, when WND is treating second-rate supermarket tabloid reports as credible, there’s little reason to trust anythingelse WND has to say, either.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  25. misha says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:27 am  (Quote)

    Black Lion: it’s thrilled that a second-rate supermarket tabloid

  26. misha says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:30 am  (Quote)

    Black Lion: it’s thrilled that a second-rate supermarket tabloid

    Sorry, I hit the wrong key.

    BL, I’m disappointed in you. The Globe is not a second rate newspaper. It’s a fifth rate rag. Stop complimenting them.

  27. Tes says:
    September 8, 2011 at 11:40 am  (Quote)

    charo:
    http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/1185406.pdf

    Try this link.

    Actually that’s the draft ruling — but figured out how to get pdf link to final opinion — see http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/AO%202011-15.pdf

  28. charo says:
    September 8, 2011 at 12:22 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks

  29. Horus says:
    September 9, 2011 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: “No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”
    -P. J. O’Rourke

    I say administer a test to see who thinks the Bible is Literal, then discount everything they have to say.

  30. Majority Will says:
    September 9, 2011 at 10:14 am  (Quote)

    Horus: I say administer a test to see who thinks the Bible is Literal, then discount everything they have to say.

    Why don’t we start with those who understand the difference between figurative and literal?

    😉

  31. misha says:
    September 9, 2011 at 12:52 pm  (Quote)

    Horus: I say administer a test to see who thinks the Bible is Literal, then discount everything they have to say.

    The bible, or scriptures, is allegory like Greek mythology. Call it Jewish mythology.

  32. misha says:
    September 9, 2011 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Why don’t we start with those who understand the difference between figurative and literal?

    That eliminates Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Coulter, Shrub…basically all conservatives.

  33. bob jones says:
    September 9, 2011 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Missed my bus for the holiday, decided to have some whiskey. I eventually went to the Dr. Taitz site. Actually got posted a few times. My favorite was this gem of legal bullstuff; tucked in a very long brief.

    ” 12. I also received a sworn affidavit from expert Chito Papa, showing, that Barack Obama is using the same Connecticut social security number 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns, which were posted on the official web site WhiteHouse.gov. This tax return was later reposted with the file flattened and the social security number electronically whitened, however the original file with the visible social security number was downloaded by Mr. Papa and multiple other individuals. A true and correct copy of such affidavit is attached herein”

    Call me crazy, but the idea of the President’s SSN being released, and then redacted at a later time, is the height of WTF. I am alone?

    And who is Chito Papa?

  35. Black Lion says:
    September 10, 2011 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    misha: Sorry, I hit the wrong key.BL, I’m disappointed in you. The Globe is not a second rate newspaper. It’s a fifth rate rag. Stop complimenting them.

    Misha, I know….And even calling them that is an insult to other fifth rate rags out there…

  36. Black Lion says:
    September 10, 2011 at 2:10 pm  (Quote)

    More from ConWebWatch regarding WND…

    Ringer Joins WND’s Birther Parade
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    Add Robert Ringer to the list of birthers at WorldNetDaily (while, of course, denying that he’s not). From his Sept. 7 column:

    For a long time, I rated it about 75-25 percent that Obama was born in Kenya, for one reason and one reason only: If his citizenship was such an issue, there was no plausible reason for him not to do everything possible to make certain that representatives of all media outlets had access to his original long-form birth certificate. Instead, he stonewalled – hard – for nearly three years.

    If you or I were president of the United States and millions of people were questioning our birth status, is there any doubt in your mind that we would demand that our birth certificate be made available for everyone to see in order to put the issue to rest once and for all?

    But it got worse. When Obama suddenly decided, just a few weeks before Jerome Corsi’s book “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” was due out, to publish his long-form birth certificate on the Internet, my 75-25 odds shot up to 95-5.

    That’s right, while many Americans embraced a “See, I told you so” attitude, I became more suspicious rather than less, because I asked myself, “Why the sudden urgency? Why did Obama choose this moment in time to make available what millions of people had been asking to see for three years?”

    As to the dispute about whether the PDF image of Obama’s purported birth certificate is layered or was in any other way tampered with, I’m not high-tech enough to opine on that issue. I’d prefer to just stick with the most obvious question: Why would Barack Obama not be anxious to make a hard copy of his birth certificate available for all to see?

    For whatever it’s worth, in April of this year, Barack Obama actually requested, and received, two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth from the Hawaii Health Department. I won’t speculate on the reason for this … just calling it to your attention.

    Look, I’m neither a birther nor a believer, but I am a skeptic whenever I smell smoke – and smoke is something that perpetually comes out of Obama’s mouth. Based on his track record of telling the biggest whoppers this side of Indonesia with a completely straight face, why should I believe anything he says?

    The specter of Marco Rubio as a viable candidate for president or vice president — who, in the eyes of the birther fanatics aty WND, is just as ineligible to hold the office as Obama is — prompted Ringer to add:

    All this reminds me again why I believe the Constitution needs to be redrafted, for clarification purposes only, by constitutional scholars, preferably strict-constructionist constitutional scholars.

    Among the items that need clarification are the general-welfare clause (Article I, Section 8, not to mention the use of the term “general welfare” in the Preamble to the Constitution), the Second Amendment (needs an “and” before “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”), and the 14th Amendment (clarifying that it was intended to cover the children of former slaves, not illegal immigrants).

    Ringer concludes: “Hmm … why do I have this feeling that if Jimmy Hoffa were to read this article, he might want to have me “taken out”? Probably just a bit of paranoia on my part.”

    Yes, Ringer is paranoid. Why bother “taking out” a thuggish writer for a website that no thinking person takes seriously?

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=2230450

  37. G says:
    September 10, 2011 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks for sharing that very important and must-read article. A disturbingly accurate portrayal of the sad state of politics today and a warning of where our future is headed if this madness is not stopped.

    Agent50: Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
    Saturday 3 September 2011
    by: Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

  38. Daniel says:
    September 10, 2011 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    misha: That eliminates Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Coulter, Shrub…basically all conservatives.

    Some of we Conservatives don’t believe in the Bible at all. Don’t judge us by the nutcases please.

  39. aarrgghh says:
    September 10, 2011 at 5:43 pm  (Quote)

    there’s an app for that. called amendments.

    of course, it’s not as zippy as most prefer, and now lets even minorities and women access it …

    Black Lion:
    [robert ringer] “All this reminds me again why I believe the Constitution needs to be redrafted, for clarification purposes only, by constitutional scholars, preferably strict-constructionist constitutional scholars.”

  40. misha says:
    September 10, 2011 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: Some of we Conservatives don’t believe in the Bible at all. Don’t judge us by the nutcases please.

    I challenge you to find one Conservative today, of Buckley’s caliber. I challenge you to find one Conservative who does not trash Wiccans. Buckley famously said he spent a lifetime getting rid of the kooks. Well, the kooks are back, and they are here to stay.

    Rick Perry, the current darling: In 2006 he said that he believed the Bible to be inerrant. He also said that those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell. http://www.slate.com/id/2302661/

    True story: Anton LaVey was Jewish. He was born Howard Levey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_La_Vey

  41. misha says:
    September 10, 2011 at 6:26 pm  (Quote)

    G: A disturbingly accurate portrayal of the sad state of politics today and a warning of where our future is headed if this madness is not stopped.

    Here’s worse: Apocalyptic GOP Is Dragging Us Into a Civil War
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/how-the-apocalyptic-gop-is-dragging-us-into-a-civil-war-20110907

  42. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 10, 2011 at 8:00 pm  (Quote)

    Well it bears repeating that it’s wrong to stereotype folks. There are flaming liberals and right-wing nut jobs, and then there are lots of normal people in between who have honest agreements about what virtues are the most important.

    Misha has a point too: reasonable conservatives don’t get any air time (with the possible exception of David Brooks). As a result all we have to comment on are the crazies.

    Daniel: Don’t judge us by the nutcases please.

  43. misha says:
    September 10, 2011 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: reasonable conservatives don’t get any air time (with the possible exception of David Brooks).

    Brooks is Jewish.

  44. G says:
    September 11, 2011 at 1:29 am  (Quote)

    Agreed. And therein lies the problem. I am not a Democrat, but they are the only sane party option I have anymore to vote for. The GOP has been, for all real intents and purposes, completely overtaken and overrun by the insane.

    The Democrats at least have the good sense to keep their fringe ON the fringe and they are the quickest to denounce and diminish those that behave badly within their ranks.

    Unfortunately, the GOP went the opposite direction and the extremists and the immoral are given constant free passes. What is worse, they run the show and it is the sane and rational voices that are ostracized and kept quiet. Today’s GOP is no longer “your father’s GOP” as the old saying goes. I don’t know how anyone with any integrity can still vote for the current crop of crazies. I can understand loyalty and I can understand the good intentions of rational conservatives that just want to support a sane conservative option. However, that is NOT today’s GOP.

    To stand by and still support what the GOP is today is to be a willing accomplice to their lunacy and abhorrent behavior. Sorry, but the only hope for sincere and reasonable conservatives is to see the current crop of crazies crash and burn and then try to rebuild a new sane party from the ashes.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well it bears repeating that it’s wrong to stereotype folks. There are flaming liberals and right-wing nut jobs, and then there are lots of normal people in between who have honest agreements about what virtues are the most important.Misha has a point too: reasonable conservatives don’t get any air time (with the possible exception of David Brooks). As a result all we have to comment on are the crazies.

  45. G says:
    September 11, 2011 at 1:37 am  (Quote)

    Sadly, that article is spot on. One of the most important statements from it was this:

    This party’s entire reason for being is conflict and aggression. There is no underlying patriotic instinct to find middle ground with the rest of us, because the party doesn’t have a vision for society that includes anyone outside the tent.

    The biggest problem is that the GOP has become so comic-book villain insane that too many good intentioned and rational people are naively unable to accept the level of invictive intolerance it conveys and realize just how serious and dangerous the consequences of this type of behavior is to the future of our great nation and all of its citizenry.

    misha: Here’s worse: Apocalyptic GOP Is Dragging Us Into a Civil Warhttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/how-the-apocalyptic-gop-is-dragging-us-into-a-civil-war-20110907

  46. Thrifty says:
    September 12, 2011 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    Or it means that the supporter is unaware of this behavior. Most people are not all that politically engaged. They are more interested in holding down a job or getting one, paying their bills, watching entertaining TV and movies, keeping up with sports or celebrity gossip or pursuing other casual hobbies. I am always surprised by how much the politically engaged lose sight of this. Do stamp collectors forget that most people don’t care about stamps beyond their use as postage? Do coin collectors forget that most people only see coins as money?

    I think that if you feel that the Republican party is going too extreme, it’s the responsibility of the Democratic party to hold them accountable by informing the casually indifferent American populace. You can’t just sit there and assume this is all as apparent as the color of the sky or the heat of fire or the effects of gravity on objects you drop, then wonder why people aren’t agreeing with you. I think that if you want to reel in out of control politicians, doing it here, on an Internet message board where only the most ardent and politically motivated people will find your message, is the absolute worst way to do it.

    G: To stand by and still support what the GOP is today is to be a willing accomplice to their lunacy and abhorrent behavior. Sorry, but the only hope for sincere and reasonable conservatives is to see the current crop of crazies crash and burn and then try to rebuild a new sane party from the ashes.

  47. gorefan says:
    September 12, 2011 at 12:14 pm  (Quote)

    Over at WND, Paul Irey is at it again. They have a BC from August 23rd, 1961. And he is comparing the type face to the President’s. His comparison isn’t very convincing since many of the differences appear to be due to the ink on the typewritter ribbon.

  48. gorefan says:
    September 12, 2011 at 12:15 pm  (Quote)

    Here is the link to the WND article.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937

  49. BatGuano says:
    September 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    His comparison isn’t very convincing since many of the differences appear to be due to the ink on the typewritter ribbon.

    wasn’t one of irey’s arguments also about the kerning? seems the letter spacing on this one is consistent with obama’s.

  50. Judge Mental says:
    September 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    Why the heck would anyone who is in the pocess of forging a birth certificate like this go to half a dozen different source documents to lift the same letter, then go to another half a dozen different source documents to lift another letter and so on?

    Maybe Lucas Smith can provide some insight. Despite his incompetence at birth certificate forgery he seems to be the only birth certificate forger who uses this forum.

  51. gorefan says:
    September 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm  (Quote)

    BatGuano: wasn’t one of irey’s arguments

    And one of Mara Zebest’s claims is that the typewritten text is not aligned along the left margin of the President’s BC. Which on the face of it, is an absolutely ridiculus claim since typewriters have tab keys and space bars. But this new BC and the Nordyke BC’s are not aligned along the left margin. But Edith Coats’ BC is 100% aligned along the left margin.

    And butterdezillion has always claimed that Kapiolani Hospital only delivered BC to the DOH on Fridays. But this new BC was accepted by the DOH on August 24th, a Thursday.

    As more and more information comes out, it destroys previous birther talking points.

  52. obsolete says:
    September 12, 2011 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    Irey’s claims in the WND article are complete nonsense. The “genuine” BC they found looks very similar to the type on Obama’s LFBC. They are really reaching….

  53. Black Lion says:
    September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm  (Quote)

    How does Obama’s document stack up against genuine BC?

    Volunteer produces Kapiolani form from same time period as president’s

    A professional typographer with 50 years experience in the business has confirmed that the typeface in an authentic Hawaii Department of Health long-form birth certificate issued in 1961 is consistent, and concludes the document released by the White House as Barack Obama’s 1961 birth certificate – with its typeface anomalies – is anything but genuine.

    “From the beginning, when I saw that some of the typed letters on the Obama long-form birth certificate did not match for size or style, I found evidence the document was a forgery,” retired New York City typographer Paul Irey told WND. “Still, I wanted to see other birth certificates from the same era and from the same office in the state of Hawaii.”

    The difficulty with that, however, has been that the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu has refused to answer requests from various researchers, including WND staff, who have requested permission to see authentic birth certificates immediately preceding and immediately succeeding Obama’s for comparative analysis.

    And as WND has reported, the Hawaii Department of Health has gone so far as to issue regulations making it difficult for people born in Hawaii and their immediate family members to obtain anything but the short-form Certifications of Live Birth, which are computer-generated and contain no original images.

    Read more: How does Obama’s document stack up against genuine BC? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=342937#ixzz1Xn5pOADu

  54. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    September 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    Here is the link to the WND article.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937

    Hey look same registrar as on Obama’s there goes their claim about a “Ukelele”

  55. BatGuano says:
    September 13, 2011 at 1:33 am  (Quote)

    obsolete:
    Irey’s claims in the WND article are complete nonsense.

    he gets even nuttier in the comments….:

    ” … but Obama was trained by the KGB during the years he was supposed to be at Columbia. It is now proven that he never attended Columbia at all. He flew to Pakistan and then Moscow.”

  56. The Magic M says:
    September 13, 2011 at 4:35 am  (Quote)

    > same registrar as on Obama’s

    And the serial number is conveniently blocked out (can’t be privacy because the exact date/time of birth plus age of the parents make the BC unique anyway), maybe to hide it’s “out of sequence with the Nordykes” as well?

    And the parents’ races are also conveniently blocked out (in the WND comment section, Irey claims it’s some mixed race, possibly another thing that birthers would claim “wasn’t used back then” if it were readable).

    I challenged Irey on the “obviously different fonts and sizes” of the letters in the comparison BC (check the “g”‘s, the “a”‘s, the “s”‘s etc.), but he brushed that aside, effectively claiming “they are different, but differently different than on Obama’s”. *duh*

  57. Judge Mental says:
    September 13, 2011 at 9:17 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Hey look same registrar as on Obama’s there goes their claim about a “Ukelele”

    That was actually already debunked several weeks ago, ironically by a birther researcher. It isn’t U.K.L.Lee in the first place. The contemporary local registrar has been esablished to have been Mrs Verna K L Lee thus it is actually V K L Lee.

  58. Judge Mental says:
    September 13, 2011 at 9:22 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: > same registrar as on Obama’sAnd the serial number is conveniently blocked out (can’t be privacy because the exact date/time of birth plus age of the parents make the BC unique anyway), maybe to hide it’s “out of sequence with the Nordykes” as well?And the parents’ races are also conveniently blocked out (in the WND comment section, Irey claims it’s some mixed race, possibly another thing that birthers would claim “wasn’t used back then” if it were readable).I challenged Irey on the “obviously different fonts and sizes” of the letters in the comparison BC (check the “g”s, the “a”s, the “s”s etc.), but he brushed that aside, effectively claiming “they are different, but differently different than on Obama’s”. *duh*

    ……..and don’t forget the small penciled in number notations in various places which were highly suspicious on previous occasions have been seen, but apparently merit no suspicion here. They are of course notations made during the statistical recording process, as Doc has explained more than once.

  59. The Magic M says:
    September 13, 2011 at 9:52 am  (Quote)

    And of course the resolution published is so low you can’t properly turn the “there was no kerning in 1961” argument on the birthers this time.
    I would love to see that comparison BC in a resolution where you could see how “ap” in “Kapiolani” overlap the way they seem to do on Obama’s BC.

    Or many of the other things where we have to “believe” Irey again instead of being able to check for ourselves.

    And with Irey’s history of deliberate falsification of evidence (like his “different angles” which he later claimed to be only “a mistake”), there’s every reason to be suspicious he’s deliberately hiding everything that would hurt his case.
    I don’t buy his “redacted for privacy” crap either. As if any birther ever cared about that.

  60. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:00 am  (Quote)

    Judge Mental: That was actually already debunked several weeks ago, ironically by a birther researcher. It isn’t U.K.L.Lee in the first place. The contemporary local registrar has been esablished to have been Mrs Verna K L Lee thus it is actually V K L Lee.

    I know I’m just pointing it out. It was on the Edith Coats BC as well. Just thought I’d throw it out there as it seems each time birthers try to bring out a BC it destroys a lot of their own talking points. I too am curious about the serial number.

  61. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: And of course the resolution published is so low you can’t properly turn the “there was no kerning in 1961‘ argument on the birthers this time.I would love to see that comparison BC in a resolution where you could see how “ap” in “Kapiolani” overlap the way they seem to do on Obama’s BC.Or many of the other things where we have to “believe” Irey again instead of being able to check for ourselves.And with Irey’s history of deliberate falsification of evidence (like his “different angles” which he later claimed to be only “a mistake”), there’s every reason to be suspicious he’s deliberately hiding everything that would hurt his case.I don’t buy his “redacted for privacy” crap either. As if any birther ever cared about that.

    I swear I see a smiling elephant with an umbrella hidden somewhere on this BC

  62. BatGuano says:
    September 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    irey is now claiming in the comments section that since 1947 the government routinely sends military personnel around to all the newspaper/media editors ( and i assume producers for electronic media ) to intimidate them into publishing what the government wants.

    i’m not sure if he just hasn’t thought about it but……. wouldn’t that also include the editors of WND?

  63. Thrifty says:
    September 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm  (Quote)

    The name “Soebarkah” keeps echoing in my brain for some reason. Since it’s structurally similar to the President’s stepfather Soetoro, I imagine it’s something birther related. I can’t put my finger on where I heard it though. Can someone refresh my memory?

  64. misha says:
    September 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: Can someone refresh my memory?

    It’s Sven making his insane rantings.

  65. BatGuano says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    The name “Soebarkah” …..Can someone refresh my memory?

    it was a name written below obama’s ( then both are crossed out ) on his mother’s passport application renewal.

  66. Joey says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    The name “Soebarkah” keeps echoing in my brain for some reason.Since it’s structurally similar to the President’s stepfather Soetoro, I imagine it’s something birther related.I can’t put my finger on where I heard it though.Can someone refresh my memory?

    “Soebarkah” was entered as a handwritten notation on a Stanley Ann Dunham passport renewal application and then it was crossed out. You can see the entry here:
    It was released via Christopher Strunk’s Freedom of Information Act request.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/strunk-foia-results-for-obamas-mother/

  67. Thrifty says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: “Soebarkah” was entered as a handwritten notation on a Stanley Ann Dunham passport renewal application and then it was crossed out. You can see the entry here:It was released via Christopher Strunk’s Freedom of Information Act request.http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/strunk-foia-results-for-obamas-mother/

    So it’s basically a processing error where the clerk meant to write Soetoro but wrote Soebarkah instead, realized his mistake before finalizing the renewal but not before making the mistake in ink?

  68. BatGuano says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: So it’s basically…..

    either a mundane error……. or absolute proof that or government has been overturned in a 50+year conspiracy involving all branches of government, the military, the media and everyone who ever studied the constitution.

    i could see it going either way.

  69. Joey says:
    September 13, 2011 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: So it’s basically a processing error where the clerk meant to write Soetoro but wrote Soebarkah instead, realized his mistake before finalizing the renewal but not before making the mistake in ink?

    That’s a possibility but more likely, Stanley Ann Dunham told the Passport Office Official that her son was called “Soebarkah” as a given name when he lived in Indonesia. Probably to help the boy fit in with Indonesian kids at school.

    At Ellis Island in New York harbor, for tens of thousands of immigrants arriving from Europe and at Angel Island in San Francisco Bay, for tens of thousands of immigrants arriving from Asia, immigrants had their names changed on the spot because government bureaucrats couldn’t understand or spell their original names.
    The fact that the name is crossed out most likely means that the Passport Office official found that information to be irrelevant.

  70. Majority Will says:
    September 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    A message I received from the President earlier today:

    “We’ve launched a new way to track and respond to attacks against President Obama: Attack Watch. Check it out, then share with your friends.”

    http://www.attackwatch.com/

  71. misha says:
    September 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm  (Quote)

    This is the logical conclusion of conservative:

    Ron Paul: It’s Not Government’s Job To Take Care Of Uninsured

    PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

    BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

    PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —

    BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

    PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —

    (APPLAUSE)

    BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

    A few in the crowd hollered and at least a couple screamed, “Yeah.”

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured

  72. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    “Soebarkah” is a common Indonesian surname. I have not seen any explanation of its presence on the form that I find compelling.

    Joey: That’s a possibility but more likely, Stanley Ann Dunham told the Passport Office Official that her son was called “Soebarkah” as a given name when he lived in Indonesia. Probably to help the boy fit in with Indonesian kids at school.

  73. Bovril says:
    September 13, 2011 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    In yet another example of the re-writing of facts and history by WND….

    WND has posted an article and image of a reasonably contemperaneous BC to the Presidents and screams how the Irey “font discrepancies” are not ther which PROVES the Presidents BC is a fake.

    The problem is they have posted and image with basically almost every single piece of typing redacted “for prvacy purposes” which means you can’t actually see the non existent discrepancies

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937

    However…….

    As noted on Mr Woodmans site in a post called

    “I Catch WorldNetDaily Scrubbing Information that Directly Contradicts One of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s Most Important Fraud Theories!”

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2011/09/i-catch-worldnetdaily-scrubbing-information-that-directly-contradicts-one-of-dr-jerome-corsis-most-important-fraud-theories/

    It turns out that WND originally posted a far less redacted version of their “true and accurate” birth certificate.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IxmRNasOjDsJ:www.wnd.com/index.php%3Ffa%3DPAGE.view%26pageId%3D342937+how+does+obama's+document+stack+up+against+genuine+bc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Guess what…..the first version shows EXACTLY the same types of “discrepancies” as the Presidents’…..now I wonder why WND has suddenly changed the original image…..

  74. Joey says:
    September 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    “Soebarkah” is a common Indonesian surname. I have not seen any explanation of its presence on the form that I find compelling.

    Did you read the explanation from the :”Indonesian native” that Sharon Rondeau interviewed on the (GULP) Post and Email? if you sort through the birther bias, there was some interesting Indonesian information there.

  75. Sef says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: Did you read the explanationfrom the :”Indonesian native” that Sharon Rondeau interviewed on the (GULP) Post and Email? if you sort through the birther bias, there was some interesting Indonesian information there.

    Could you please provide a synopsis for those of us who wish to maintain our sanity.

  76. gorefan says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: “Soebarkah” is a common Indonesian surname.

    Here is an interest combination.

    http://id-id.facebook.com/people/Soebarkah-Barkah/100000161156918

  77. Joey says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:42 pm  (Quote)

    Could you please provide a synopsis for those of us who wish to maintain our sanity.

    I can’t say that I blame you. I read it all and I’m now on Prozac.
    Here are the Indonesia native’s responses. Sharon Rondeau’s leading questions are omitted for the sake of sanity.

    “The word “Soebarkah” as it was presented in the article that you wrote in brackets under the name “Barack Hussein Obama” signifies to me a different name for Barack, so it’s his other name. Now that is an Indonesian name, and the majority of Indonesians have only one name. When I first saw it, knowing or having read about some people’s contentions that he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, I thought it might be his given name when he was adopted: Soebarkah.”

    Rondeau asks about names and adoption:
    “I think that must be the name given to him at the time of adoption. Now that is just one name, because Indonesian Muslims don’t usually have a surname; they only go by one name. However, these days, there is a trend among the younger generation to give their children more than one name. So they might have two names, but both of them are “given” names; they’re not family names.”

    “The only reason he would be given a name which would go on an official form is if the name was given to him officially. And then the only reason, in my mind, for him to be given an official Indonesian name would have been during his adoption.”
    Rondeu asks if Soebarkah could be a nickname.
    “No. “Lolo” might be a nickname. So his name might be “Soetoro,” because most Indonesians do have nicknames. So “Lolo” might have come from what he called himself when he was very young. Often that name would stick into adulthood. Almost everybody in Indonesia has nicknames which are used at different times. Again, it depends; nicknames can be used until they’re adults, and some people would use it only amongst their friends and family. Others would use a nickname in the workplace. I have a nickname, but it’s only for my relatives and very, very close friends, and I have a given name, and I have a name that’s on my birth certificate. Now the given name is more known among my friends because it is the name I used when I went to school and I was growing up and as an adult when I worked in Indonesia.

    My family lives in a village where we have very deep roots; we’ve been there for hundreds of years, and most of my relatives are still there. When I go back to the village, they only know me by my nickname. So if someone went there and asked, “Did you know Sam?” they would say, “Sam Who?” But they would then say, “The son of such-and-such…” and then they would say, “Oh, yes, of course, he’s my cousin!” That’s how it is there.”

    Sharon asks if all Indonesians go by one name only.
    “Only Muslims have just one name. Christians always have given name, baptism name, and surname. The Chinese do as well; they always have three names, and the surname is the first word. For example, with “Sun-e-Wah,” the first word, “Sun,” is the surname. The Balinese people usually have more than one name.”

    “The majority of Indonesians don’t have family names, although recently they have been using more than one name if they have to go overseas. On the forms they would put a name such as a husband’s name or a father’s name in the blank for family name.”

    Sharon asks if going by one name poses problems for immigrants.
    “I can tell you what happened to some people. They were given a visa to come here, a work permit, based on the name given. But there’s another Indonesian whom I know pretty well, and there were subsequent forms because they were able to get a green card, and they put their name down on the form as ‘unknown.’

    Sharon asks if the State Department allows folks to only use one name.
    “Yes. So it would say “SNU,” which means that one of the names is unknown. Now if you change citizenship, if you become a citizen, you can use any name you want. You don’t have to use the name that you used before. You can have a completely new name; they don’t seem to care.”

    Sharon is incredulous that a person can choose any name.
    “Yes, that’s what I’ve heard. Remember when many people came through Ellis Island? When they came through, their names were too hard to pronounce, so they changed them, right then and there. And it’s the same now. In my own experience, I have three given names, but they were too long. There was one that I always used when I was in Indonesia. We didn’t have enough space on the forms, so my husband said, “Well, pick two out of the three.” So I picked the two which I don’t like, but it was the best-sounding combination and it fit in the space.”

    Sharon asks about Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport renewal application in general.
    “The laws have changed recently, but what we had always understood at that time is that, especially with a woman (because in the Muslim world, men have more rights than women; they’re above women), if you married, if a spouse is of a different nationality or citizenship, and if the Indonesian spouse returns to Indonesia to live, then the alien spouse had to change citizenship in order to be able to live there. I haven’t been able to find the laws from those days because the Indonesian government isn’t as digitized as the U.S. government is; so one would have to be a lawyer to be able to look back and to have law books from 30 or 40 years ago. But that was the general understanding in those days. And a person could not have dual nationality. In fact, when I became an American citizen, I had to let go of my Indonesian citizenship. I could only have one. I understand now that they will accept both, and also now, as a spouse, there are two or three different kinds of visas that would allow an alien spouse to live in Indonesia, or the Indonesian spouse could sponsor the alien spouse to live with him or her. So there are several ways for getting the spouse to live in Indonesia without having to go out of the country every two months or so.”

  78. Joey says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    More from the Compost and Efail interview with “Native Indonesian.”
    SHARON: So is it conceivable that Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro did not have to change her citizenship to Indonesian?

    SAM: I would have to say something in the affirmative because, as I said, I’m not an attorney and I haven’t seen the laws from those days. It was just everybody’s understanding in those days, in the 1960s.

    Sharon asks if it was unusual for people to travel back and forth between Indonesia and the US in those days.
    “There were a few people who did that, not just Americans and Europeans. They were the ones who were involved with or worked for foreign entities, of course, or one of those world organizations. So while it was unusual in the sense that not many Americans did that, it’s not unusual for people who worked for those NGOs (non-governmental organizations), for instance.”

    SHARON: To your knowledge of that time, if a child was adopted by an Indonesian man, would the child have had to become a citizen of Indonesia?

    SAM: Yes, definitely. And again, the school registration does say that he was a Muslim.

    Sharon asks for a word for word translation of Obama’s primary school registration form.
    SHARON: Is there anything on the form about an adoption?

    SAM: No, it’s a straightforward thing about name, father’s name, religion, things like that. In Indonesia, any form that you fill in, it asks for your religion, unlike here, where it’s against the law.

    SHARON: Why do you think at the top of the school registration form it says “Barry Soetoro” but on the passport application it says “Soebarkah”?

    SAM: I have no idea. There are so many inconsistencies in so many things, as you pointed out in your article, and two different application forms for her passport and two different dates for her wedding date. I don’t know if the mother was just sloppy; it seems to me that she was.

    SHARON: Could it be that in the beginning they called him “Barry Soetoro” and then they came up with the new name “Soebarkah” after the adoption was complete?

    SAM: Well, this is just my opinion, but knowing how things are over there, his nickname might have been “Barry,” so that’s the name that everybody is comfortable with. So that’s why he was still called “Barry” instead of “Soebarkah,” which is a different name and kind-of heavy for a child. It would be good to have his adoption papers because if that was true and correct, then the name “Soebarkah” would show up on the adoption papers. To me, the only way he would be given an Indonesian name is when he was officially adopted.
    What follows are irrelevant questions about Muslims in Indonesia and the extent of any anti-American sentiment in Indonesia in the 1960s.

    SHARON: I have one last question: does the name “Soebarkah” mean anything in Indonesian?

    SAM: No, it’s just a name. It might have come from a very old Javanese word, but there are other people who have been given that name.

    SHARON: I ran a quick search and found that “Soebarkah” seemed to be a fairly common last name, but that was before you told me that Muslim Indonesians have only one name. Many of the examples I saw seemed to indicate that it was a last name.

    SAM: “Soebarkah” could be someone’s name, but the son of Soebarkah could have used his dad’s name as his last name, and then his children and their children afterward. But in this particular case where his name is written in brackets underneath the name “Barack Hussein Obama,” from what I know, my experience of being an Indonesian, having grown up there, speaking the language, to me that only signifies that that’s his other name.

    The end of the interview follows, verbatim:
    SHARON: And you think he was given that name upon adoption?

    SAM: That would be the only occasion where he would be given a different name, especially something that appears in a formal document. If somebody just gave it to him casually, I don’t think they would write it down in a formal document.

    SHARON: It was included in a passport application which said that her original passport “was not valid.”

    SAM: It makes you wonder why it’s not valid, doesn’t it? There’s a big question mark knowing that in those days, somebody in her position who married an Indonesian would have had to have take up Indonesian citizenship in order to be able to live there indefinitely.

    SHARON: She always seemed to apply for a U.S. passport every five years, however. Could she have done that even if she had become an Indonesian citizen?

    SAM: Yes, definitely, because I have friends here who say that they kept their old passport, so when they travel outside of the United States, they use their American passport, but when they enter Indonesia, they use an Indonesian passport. It is illegal, but yes, it’s done. There are people who have done it. Ann Soetoro could have done that, too. I’m not saying she did, but even now, some people are still doing it. Some of them who are here legally with their American husbands (usually it’s someone who has an American husband) want the convenience of having American citizenship so they don’t have to maintain or renew permits every so many years, but they don’t want to lose their Indonesian passport for whatever reason. One of the reasons is that they can’t inherit property if they lose that citizenship.

    SHARON: If Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro had become an Indonesian citizen because she married Lolo Soetoro and Obama was adopted and she was flying back and forth between Indonesia and Honolulu, when going to the U.S. embassy to apply for a U.S. passport to make her trips, would they have asked her any questions?

    SAM: Well, they would have seen that she had a valid passport, which is all you have to have to renew your passport: a valid passport, photograph, and it used to be $25; now maybe it’s $35 or less in some places. But that’s all she would have needed.

    SHARON: I think it was $10.00 back in the 1960s. But would they have said to her, “You’ve been living in Indonesia so you must have become an Indonesian citizen?”

    SAM: No. You can’t really do that, especially if you are an official; you can’t really accuse someone of anything.

    SHARON: She always checked off “U.S. Citizen” on the passport applications.

    SAM: Not only that, but it’s not done just with an American passport. I know somebody who did it with a British passport, although Great Britain allows dual citizenship. But when they came here, Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. So the Indonesian passport was kept illegally.

    SHARON: Do you know if in 1971, Obama would have to have had his own passport to travel to Hawaii?

    SAM: If he had kept his American passport, then he would have had his own American passport. But on an Indonesian passport, he would have been on his mother’s passport. There might be exceptions, but that’s generally been the rule. As I said, in those days they were much stricter than they are now. Now, they are opening up more, so now they have passed measures which allow a foreign spouse to live in Indonesia, whereas before, I don’t think they had such an opportunity. There are several exceptions now: with one, you have to renew every six months, and another one, if the wife or husband sponsors you, it takes a little longer to get it, but you don’t have to renew it every year or after so many months.

    SHARON: If Obama had had his own Indonesian passport when he was a child, do you think he used that to enter the United States?

    SAM: Well, before his mother married Soetoro, I would imagine that when they left the U.S., they had separate passports for him and for her, and then probably when they were in Indonesia and she had to change her citizenship, then he would have been on her passport. She was only required to use it when they were leaving Indonesia. Once outside of Indonesia, she could have used their own individual American passports.

    SHARON: But it was illegal to have both?

    SAM: What is illegal is for an Indonesian to have two passports, and Americans, too. I changed citizenship almost thirty years ago, and it was illegal then.

  79. roadburner says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:18 pm  (Quote)

    Joey: . I know somebody who did it with a British passport, although Great Britain allows dual citizenship. .

    post and efail strikes again.

    great britain does NOT allow dual citizenship.

    neither do they allow duel citizenship, as i´ve seen written by numerous birfoons 😀

  80. Bovril says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    Great Britain DOES allow and has no issues whatsoever with dual nationality.

  81. RetiredLawyer says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:04 pm  (Quote)

    I have no idea who “Sam” might be, however, he is absolutely wrong on US law, and probably Indonesian law also.

    1. It is impossible for anyone to remove US citizenship from a US born minor during the child’s minority.

    2. It may be possible to adopt a child, (no evidence of such for Obama), however, under Indonesian law it would have been impossible to have done such for Obama while he was in Indonesia or afterwards, as he would have been too old. Therefore, no adoption.

    3. While an adoption (even if one was possible) MIGHT allow the child to obtain Indonesian citizenship, that would not eliminate the child’s pre-existing US citizenship. All that would happen would be that an additional citizenship was granted the child.

    4. US law recognizes that dual citizenship exists.

    5. Many if not most nations do not allow a citizen to remove his/her citizenship. The right to take away citizenship is reserved to the country. So, a person from the UK who decides to become a naturalized US citizen is still recognized by the UK as a UK citizen. I suspect that this is the case for Indonesia also.

    5. US law allows a dual national to have two passports. In fact if one is a dual or triple national one has the choice of which passport one uses, except when going in or out of the US (US required) or in or out of the other county (that one required).

    6. US law has allowed this since well before Obama was born.

  82. gorefan says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:35 pm  (Quote)

    Bovril: Guess what…..the first version shows EXACTLY the same types of “discrepancies” as the Presidents’…..now I wonder why WND has suddenly changed the original image…..

    John Woodman and a poster at his site named woofie have shown that the image on WND of the back of the birth certificate shows the information from the front of the certificate. And the certification number appears to be 61 09943 or 945. This is even lower then the Nordyke’s or the President’s.

    http://tinyurl.com/5tn2n5k

  83. ImaObot says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:26 am  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer:
    I have no idea who “Sam” might be, however, he is absolutely wrong on US law, and probably Indonesian law also.

    1.It is impossible for anyone to remove US citizenship from a US born minor during the child’s minority.

    2. It may be possible to adopt a child, (no evidence of such for Obama), however, under Indonesian law it would have been impossible to have done such for Obama while he was in Indonesia or afterwards, as he would have been too old. Therefore, no adoption.

    3. While an adoption (even if one was possible) MIGHT allow the child to obtain Indonesian citizenship, that would not eliminate the child’s pre-existing US citizenship.All that would happen would be that an additional citizenship was granted the child.

    4.US law recognizes that dual citizenship exists.

    5.Many if not most nations do not allow a citizen to remove his/her citizenship.The right to take away citizenship is reserved to the country.So, a person from the UK who decides to become a naturalized US citizen is still recognized by the UK as a UK citizen.I suspect that this is the case for Indonesia also.

    5.US law allows a dual national to have two passports.In fact if one is a dual or triple national one has the choice of which passport one uses, except when going in or out of the US (US required) or in or out of the other county (that one required).

    6.US law has allowed this since well before Obama was born.

    Anyone can move out of the US and renounce their US citizenship; even a minor. Only the SoS can sign a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, i.e. remove someone’s citizenship.

    Any SoS who issues a policy statement that, in effect, states the milkman, parent or third cousin cannot renounce the US Citizenship of a minor is issuing policy statement that the SoS intends to exercise his/her discretion to refuse to issue a CLN to a minor. It does not mean it is impossible for any SoS to ever issue a CLN to a minor. It means the current SoS does not intend to issue a CLN to minors.

    Issuing a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is discretionary, i.e. Person A and Person B can move out of the country and renounce their US Citizenship. The SoS can issue a CLN to Person A, while refusing to issue a CLN to Person B. Person B would have to seek a Writ of Mandamus in US Federal Court to force the SoS to issue a CLN. The SoS can file an answer with a host of reasons why a CLN should not be issued, i.e. taxes, financial fraud, national security, child custody dispute, etc.

    Once a CLN a issued by the SoS, the loss of US citizenship is in effect. Minors issued a CLN have the option of requesting their CLN be revoked until 6 months after their 18th birthday by filing a request with a Consular Affairs Officer at the US Embassy. Any person who is not a minor and wishes to have their CLN revoked must file for an injunction in US Federal Court or legally emigrate to America and naturalize.

  84. roadburner says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:52 am  (Quote)

    Bovril: Great Britain DOES allow and has no issues whatsoever with dual nationality.

    sorry mate, but you´re wrong there.

    i started the process to take spanish citizenship, and was informed by the british consulate in madrid that i had to renounce my british citizenship and send my passport back as they do not allow dual citizenshp. i was informed (allegedly – ian hislop getout)
    that there was a way of fudging the paperwork by sending in my passport for renewal at the same time as filling the paperwork for surrendering it which would let me retain my british passport, but as far as in an official capacity is concerned, dual is a no-no.

  85. Bovril says:
    September 14, 2011 at 6:01 am  (Quote)

    Well I’m afraid the Madrid consulate are full of cack UNLESS you are not a “full” British Citizen such as a British Overseas Citizen.

    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/dualnationality/

    If you become a national of another country

    You will not normally lose your British nationality if you become a citizen or national of another country. If you are a British subject otherwise than by connection with the Republic of Ireland you will lose that status on acquiring any other nationality or citizenship. If you are a British protected person you will lose that status on acquiring any other nationality or citizenship.

    If you are becoming a citizen or national of a country that does not allow dual nationality, you may be required by that country to give up your British nationality.

  86. Judge Mental says:
    September 14, 2011 at 8:16 am  (Quote)

    roadburner: sorry mate, but you´re wrong there.i started the process to take spanish citizenship, and was informed by the british consulate in madrid that i had to renounce my british citizenship and send my passport back as they do not allow dual citizenshp. i was informed (allegedly – ian hislop getout)that there was a way of fudging the paperwork by sending in my passport for renewal at the same time as filling the paperwork for surrendering it which would let me retain my british passport, but as far as in an official capacity is concerned, dual is a no-no.

    There may be some confusion here between the requirements of Spain and the requirements of Uk. The advice to roadburner may have come from the British Consulate in Madrid but it seems that what they were advising him about was the requirements of Spain not the requirements of Uk.

    A Uk citizen wanting to adopt Spanish nationality is strictly speaking required under Spanish regulations to renounce their previous citizenship as Spain does no permit their citizens to hold dual nationality. However ther is nothing in UK regulations to prevent a Uk citizen holding dual nationality.

  87. Scientist says:
    September 14, 2011 at 8:21 am  (Quote)

    ImaObot: Minors issued a CLN have the option of requesting their CLN be revoked until 6 months after their 18th birthday by filing a request with a Consular Affairs Officer at the US Embassy

    So, following your silly, totally fictional scenario, let’s imagine a minor who renounced citizenship and actually had it accepted, and then decides to return to the US to live with their grandparents. Why would they do so as a “refugee” which requires they demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution (which would be what, exactly, in Indonesia in 1971 for the step-child of someone working for the government and attending school and living quite happily without any problems?) ? Why wouldn’t they simply reclaim their US citiizenship?

  88. The Magic M says:
    September 14, 2011 at 8:55 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Why wouldn’t they simply reclaim their US citiizenship?

    Because they knew they could better flip off the birthers 40 years later if they didn’t. 😉

    (Come to think of it, forget the smiley, some birthers actually believe such things…)

  89. Paul Pieniezny says:
    September 14, 2011 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    Judge Mental: A Uk citizen wanting to adopt Spanish nationality is strictly speaking required under Spanish regulations to renounce their previous citizenship as Spain does no permit their citizens to hold dual nationality. However ther is nothing in UK regulations to prevent a Uk citizen holding dual nationality.

    I think you are wrong as far as Spain is concerned:

    http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Privado/cc.l1t1.html#

    (articles 20,21 and 22 are the relevant ones)

    Residence seems to be very important. The easiest way to get naturalized is to reside in Spain for 10 years. The easiest way to lose Spanish nationality is to reside abroad and use the nationality of the country where you live exclusively (exceptions made for Spanish-speaking countries, Portugal and the Philippines). I suppose going now and then to the Spanbish Embassy will stop that last procedure.

    Naturalization to Spanish without 10 years’ residence is possible. If you are from a Spanish-speaking background (Andorran, Sephardic, Spanish-speaking South and Central America, Philippines, Equatorial Africa or Portugal). Others will have to appeal to the King/Government. I suppose renouncing a former citizenship will be helpful in that case.

    So, one wonders what that consulate was thinking of.

  90. roadburner says:
    September 14, 2011 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    cheers guys, looks like i stand corrected. 🙂

    guess i was dealing with a desk jockey who didn´t know what he was talking about.

    i ended up not taking spanish citizenship because the process (and expense of having documents translated) took around 2 years. by the time it was ready for the last stage, i´d started a business in between times, and i´d lose my residents i.d. nº and be issued a new national i.d. nº. and then i´d need to change the nºs on all the paperwork for the business which took a year (spain is a beurocratic nightmare as most former fascist dictatorships tend to be) .

    i said `sod that for a game of soldiers´, stopped the process, and have carried on as resident with british nationality.

  91. Reality Check says:
    September 14, 2011 at 10:13 am  (Quote)

    Doc

    Have you seen the latest article on John Woodman’s book site? http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2011/09/i-catch-worldnetdaily-scrubbing-information-that-directly-contradicts-one-of-dr-jerome-corsis-most-important-fraud-theories/#comment-201

    Woodman thinks he has been able to decipher the number on the Jane Doe BC that Paul Irey used for his latest nonsense on letters at WND. If he is correct the number is 61-09945 for a birth at Kapiolani on August 23, 1961. This would not seem to fit with the current theory on how the numbers were assigned.

  92. Scientist says:
    September 14, 2011 at 10:35 am  (Quote)

    Since Sven runs all over the internet propounding his theories on young Obama “renouncing his citizenship and being a refugee” I would like to challenge him (or any of his sock puppets) to answer the following questions in a clear and unambiguous fashion:

    1. I will accept that the law does not expressly bar minors from renouncing citizenship. That said, there is a clear difference bewteen a minor of 16 or 17 and one of 9 or 10, which Obama would have been when he lived in Indonesia. What is the youngest age at which anyone has renounced citizenship and had it accepted? Please provide documentation, thanks.

    2. The law provides that if a minor renounces citizenship, they can reclaim it prior to turning 18 years and 6 months. Assuming that a minor renounced their citizenship and then wished to return to the US, why would they not simply reclaim citizenship, rather than attempting to claim refugee status or applying as an immigrant?

    3. What basis would a 10 year old whose step-father worked for the Indonesian government have to claim refugee status, which requires demonstrating “a well-founded fear of persecution”? What evidence could 10 year old Obama show of persecution while in Indonesia. He speaks quite fondly of his time there.

    4. Indonesia under Suharto was an important US ally. In the 1970s, the US tended to grant refugee status to those fleeing Communist states, like the USSR or Poland or Cuba, and refuse it to those fleeing anti-Communist states. Do you have any evidence that any Indonesians were granted refugee status in the US in that period?

  93. Bovril says:
    September 14, 2011 at 10:40 am  (Quote)

    To clarify the numerology for the folks

    President Obama……. 61-10641
    Nordyke Twin…………. 61-10637
    Nordyke Twin…………. 61-10638
    Stig Wadelich………….. 61-10920
    WND……………………….. 61-09945

    The funny funny folks of WND are now trying to say the number is actually 61-109945 which implies that there were 99,304 births in Hawai’i between the DoB of the President, August 4 1961 and the WND DoB of August 23 1961

  94. Reality Check says:
    September 14, 2011 at 11:07 am  (Quote)

    Now I am beginning to wonder if Eleanor Nordyke wasn’t correct all along when she speculated that the birth forms were pre-numbered at the hospitals.

  95. gorefan says:
    September 14, 2011 at 12:29 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: Now I am beginning to wonder if Eleanor Nordyke wasn’t correct all along when she speculated that the birth forms were pre-numbered at the hospitals.

    If the numbers were pre-printed wouldn’t they look like the 151 that is pre-printed on the all the BC forms. And the numbers on the President’s and Nordyke’s BC are not horizontally level which makes them look to be a stamp rather then pre-printed.

    Between the new WND BC and the BC of Stig Waidelich there are almost 1000 birth numbers for a two week period (Aug 8 to Aug 24). And Hawaii averaged about 1400 births per month. So maybe the certification numbers were assigned at the end of the month. It would be interesting to know what the first letter of the last name is for the WND BC. Just to see where it fits alphabetically.

  96. Thrifty says:
    September 14, 2011 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment here and say that the minor in question would not reclaim citizenship because he is now an adult greater than 18.5 years of age, and it is too late.

    Scientist: 2. The law provides that if a minor renounces citizenship, they can reclaim it prior to turning 18 years and 6 months. Assuming that a minor renounced their citizenship and then wished to return to the US, why would they not simply reclaim citizenship, rather than attempting to claim refugee status or applying as an immigrant?

  97. Judge Mental says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:04 pm  (Quote)

    What I should have explained better is that British citizens like roadburner wishing to obtain Spanish citizenship and simultaneously retain their British citizenship would have no problem doing so as far as the Uk is concerned. After granting of their Spanish citizenship the Uk would recognise them as dual nationality holders.

    However from their side the Spanish do not recognise those same UK citizens who acquire Spanish citizenship as being dual nationality holders and Spain does indeed require those Uk citizens to go through a form of token “renouncing of their Uk citizenship” ie renouncing it to Spain. That form of “renunciation” in Spain actually means nothing to the Uk authorities and the citizens in question remain Uk citizens and dual nationality citizens as far as the Uk is concerned.

    The above applies to Uk citizens. Spain has different regulations for such circumstances depending upon which country the person seeking Spanish citizenship already holds the nationailty of.

    US citizens wishing to acquire Spanish citizenship are basically in the same boat as Uk citizens but citizens for example of Latin American countries and Portugal are not required to go through the token formality of “renouncing” citizenship and, unlike the Uk and USA examples, these people are fact formally considered by Spain to be dual nationailty holders.

  98. Lord Basil says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm  (Quote)

    You most certainly do need two citizen parents at the time of birth to be eligible to be POTUS or VPOTUS.

    The Kenyan marxist homosexual in the White House does not and so he is not. Several USSC cases confirm this rule.

    The crucial fact is that according to the men who wrote the 14th amendment, the Kenyan fascist isn’t even a citizen either. Here’s why:

    By Obama’s own admission his father was a citizen of The United Kingdom (Kenya – once it became independant) and was a citizen of Great Britian/Kenya.

    Obama also admits that he (himself) was likewise a citizen of Great Britian – due to the fact that British law governed the status of Obama Sr’s offspring.

    As FactCheck.org noted:

    “When Barack Bbama jr was born on august 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by the British nationality act of 1948. The same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.”

    Thus far we know – without doubt – that Obama was a citizen of Great Britian/Kenya at birth.

    We also know that Obama was registered as a citizen of Indonesia (per school records in Indonesia). We also know that Obama was mentioned in the divorce records (Soetoro – Dunhan) – which strongly indicates his official adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

    Thus we know Obama is/was a citizen of Kenya and a citizen of Indnonesia.

    If we look to the expressed intent of those men who authored the 14th Amendment – we can see why there is doubt about Obama’s US citizenship (even if we assume he was born in Hawaii)

    John Bingham – aka, the father of the 14th – had this to say:

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    Senator Howard – Bingham’s Senate counterpart – had this to say:

    “The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

    “That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

    So according to the men who were directly responsible for the 14th Amendment – Obama isn’t even a US citizen. (by means of the fact that he owed, at birth, loyalty to another nation).

    Note the fact that both men declared the fact that a natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents, on US soil.

    Obama most definitely is not a natural born citizen – and according to the men who were directly responsible for the 14th Amendment, Obama isn’t a US citizen either.

  99. Sef says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    LOL! Is that you, Basil Faulty?

  100. Lord Basil says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:22 pm  (Quote)

    My name is Lord Basil, and I am a patriot fighting to stop the illegal presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (legal name Barry Soetoro).

  101. Scientist says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm  (Quote)

    Lord Basil: My name is Lord Basil, and I am a patriot fighting to stop the illegal presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (legal name Barry Soetoro).

    Who cares? You haven’t stopped anything ever in your whole sorry life i would bet. I don’t think you could stop ice from melting on a July afternoon in Phoenix.

  102. gorefan says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    Lord Basil: Note the fact that both men declared the fact that a natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents, on US soil.

    William Rawle in the “A View of the Constitution” 1826

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

    And later,

    “Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    Place of birth creates the quality of natural-born.

    And James Madison on allegiance,

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    To the Founders and Framers place of birth deteremined allegiance and natural-born status.

  103. Sef says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Lord Basil:
    My name is Lord Basil, and I am a patriot fighting to stop the illegal presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (legal name Barry Soetoro).

    Oh, Lordy!

  104. Thrifty says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:47 pm  (Quote)

    Lord Basil: The Kenyan marxist homosexual in the White House does not and so he is not. Several USSC cases confirm this rule.

    Well the rest of the post is the usual idiotic birther tripe, but I’ll have to admit that the homosexual part is at least new.

    Unfortunately for you, since officials in 50 states allowed Barack Obama on the ballot, and the electoral college did not object, and Congress certified the election, knowing full well that Barack Obama had only one citizen parent, you are demonstratably wrong.

  105. aarrgghh says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    ya fergot “muslim antichrist chicago thug” somewhere in there

    Lord Basil:
    The Kenyan marxist homosexual …

  106. Thrifty says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:57 pm  (Quote)

    Bad news Lord Basil. Kim Jong Il just declared that all American males born between the years 1990-2050 are citizens of North Korea for life, and this cannot be renounced. I guess that means that we’re really screwed a few decades from now when there are no natural born citizens qualified to be president.

    Since you’ll miss the sarcasm, I’ll point out that I just made that up, but there’s nothing in North Korea’s laws that say he couldn’t.

  107. Thrifty says:
    September 14, 2011 at 2:59 pm  (Quote)

    Does anyone know why it is so common for Birthers to call the president “Barry Soetoro”, like it’s some kind of code name? Did he ever go by that name? I know that his mother’s second husband was named Lolo Soetoro, and through Lolo, Barack has a half sister named Maya (which OT if I had a daughter I would probably name her Maya–it’s such a pretty name).

  108. aarrgghh says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    not really. assuming you’re not just being sarcastic, google “larry sinclair” obama. or “donald young” obama. that stuff goes back to the 2008 primaries.

    Thrifty: … I’ll have to admit that the homosexual part is at least new.

  109. JoZeppy says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm  (Quote)

    Lord Basil: Repeating the same birther B.S. universally laughed off by the real legal community

    do birther actually think we’ve never seen this before?

  110. Scientist says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm  (Quote)

    Listen, up here Lord Oregano or Thyme or whatever herb you pretend to be!! Your silly attempts to divine the intentions of dead people are pointless. Intent is very nice-try telling your wife you “intended” to get her an anniversary present. Good luck with that!!

    What counts are the actual words. The words “two citizen parents” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the statutes If the people who wrote the Constitution intended to say that, then they should have said so in so many words. Since they did not, too bad. The actual words in the document get the final say.

  111. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    It’s a way of expressing disrespect for Obama, not unlike folks here referring to the Post & Email blog as the Pest & Fail (or some variant).

    Thrifty: Does anyone know why it is so common for Birthers to call the president “Barry Soetoro”, like it’s some kind of code name?

  112. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm  (Quote)

    I sincerely doubt that your name is Lord Basil and that you are a patriot. Look for the mental health hotline phone number in your phone book for help with these two delusions.

    Lord Basil: My name is Lord Basil, and I am a patriot fighting to stop the illegal presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (legal name Barry Soetoro).

  113. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    Even if the President had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro (and there is no documentation or testimony that such is the case), he could not have been a citizen of Indonesia; Indonesian law would not have permitted it. There are some articles on the topic on this site.

    It appears that you are naively repeating various bits of birther nonsense. You would do well to study the facts documented on this web site so that you will realize, as others have before you, that the birther position is smoke and mirrors.

    Lord Basil: Thus far we know – without doubt – that Obama was a citizen of Great Britian/Kenya at birth.

  114. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:27 pm  (Quote)

    And where can one “note” this? It’s not in your citations. (Didn’t you even read them?)

    Lord Basil: Note the fact that both men declared the fact that a natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents, on US soil.

  115. Ballantine says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:28 pm  (Quote)

    Why do people cite members of the 39th Congress in 1866 for what the original Constitution meant? Also, do you really not know that Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenship clause. Anyway, since you like the 39th Congress, here are some more quotations from members of sush Congress:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

    “Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869).

    “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872).

    “The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

    “The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877).

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

    “I propose to insert before the word “citizen” the word “natural-born;” so that it will read: “The right of natural-born citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” If that amendment is adopted it will not be competent for Congress or for any State to discriminate against any person born in the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude ; but the States may discriminate as against foreign-born persons. Adopt this amendment of mine and the States of California and Oregon would be able to provide that any persons born in China or Japan should not exercise political power in those States, but California or Oregon could not provide that any person born in the United States, no matter what his color might be, sbonld be deprived of the elective franchise or the right to hold office; so that the effect of this amendment would be that it would leave it with the States to declare that persons born in Asia or in Africa should not exercise political power within the several States.” Senator Williams, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 938 (1869)

    “No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Consitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson, 2/2/65

  116. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:30 pm  (Quote)

    No, this is completely impossible for a number of reasons, just one of which is that DoH spokesperson Okubo stated that the forms were numbered by the state office.

    Reality Check: Now I am beginning to wonder if Eleanor Nordyke wasn’t correct all along when she speculated that the birth forms were pre-numbered at the hospitals.

  117. misha says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Listen, up here Lord Oregano or Thyme or whatever herb you pretend to be!!

    Hey Basil Faulty: We used to smoke oregano in high school, just to see how it compared to the good stuff. Glad to see you’re back. When I first read ‘Lord Basil,’ I fell off my chair.

    I’m voting for Obama again, because I don’t want the US turned into a theocracy. Got it?

    Here’s Perry: In 2006 he said that he believed the Bible to be inerrant. He also said that those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell. http://www.slate.com/id/2302661/

    Romney said if elected, his administration would be ‘a job creating machine.’ You know about Mormons, and their special underwear they believe protects them from evil?http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Magic%20Underwear

    If you put 100 machines in a room, with 100 chimpanzees, eventually they would produce one set of magic underwear.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  118. Bovril says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    “Pre-numbered at the hospital” as in in delivered to the hospital in pre-numbered batches of blanks..?

  119. misha says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Lord Basil: The Kenyan marxist…the Kenyan fascist

    Marxism and fascism are mutually exclusive. Which one is it? I’m confused.

    Do you realize if Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist production?

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  120. Thrifty says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm  (Quote)

    Well, it’s like the commercials NBC ran in the 90s during the summer rerun season with the tag line “If you haven’t seen it, it’s new to you.”

    aarrgghh: not really. assuming you’re not just being sarcastic, google “larry sinclair” obama. or “donald young” obama. that stuff goes back to the 2008 primaries.

  121. Expelliarmus says:
    September 14, 2011 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    The piece of information that we are missing is the last name of the August 23 baby. If the name began with a letter at the beginning of the alphabet, then it would support the alphabetical sort theory – and since it was later in the month, it would suggest that the sorting & stamping was done relatively infrequently, perhaps only once per month.

    Alternatively there is the reverse stack theory: records are placed in a stack in an “in box” as they come in, and then when it comes time to stamp and index them, the stamping clerk starts at the top of the stack, meaning that the newest stuff in the stack ends up with the lowest numbers.

    Another possibility is the random/no system theory — all unstamped records are placed in a bin for stamping & indexing, and that task is done whenever a staffer has time and gets around to it, in no particular order. The staffer simply grabs a handful of certificates, goes to his/her desk, stamps them, types little index cards for each record, and then puts the stamped certificates in another bin for microfilming & binding, and files the index cards. This is a variation on the reverse stack theory, but more unpredictable because there are more records coming in after some have been pulled and indexed. Plus, August is a month when many employees take their vacations, so you might end up with a bigger backlog during that period.

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, this is completely impossible for a number of reasons, just one of which is that DoH spokesperson Okubo stated that the forms were numbered by the state office.

    Reality Check: Now I am beginning to wonder if Eleanor Nordyke wasn’t correct all along when she speculated that the birth forms were pre-numbered at the hospitals.

  122. Expelliarmus says:
    September 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    I’d add that while I agree with you about the pre-numbered forms being unlikely, Okubo wasn’t around in 1961 so can’t say with certainty what the actual practice of the office was at the time. So I wouldn’t go so far as to say that something was “impossible” because of an official statement made 45+ years down the line.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No, this is completely impossible for a number of reasons, just one of which is that DoH spokesperson Okubo stated that the forms were numbered by the state office.

  123. Sef says:
    September 14, 2011 at 5:00 pm  (Quote)

    Bovril: 09945

    It looks like the name may be something like “JOHANNA SOLANGE OTERRA OK???? ???” Anyone else want to try their luck?

  124. Sef says:
    September 14, 2011 at 5:01 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: It looks like the name may be something like “JOHANNA SOLANGEOTERRAOK???? ???”Anyone else want to try their luck?

    This is from the WND BC back side. Sorry for the quote problems.

  125. Reality Check says:
    September 14, 2011 at 5:08 pm  (Quote)

    Well, I should have remembered that Doc explained why the pe-numbered forms theory won’t work. I suppose I just wanted Mrs. Nordyke to be right. She is a nice lady. A poster named Sequoia32 at Fogbow thinks that the babies name on the new BC begins with an A. I agree.

  126. Joey says:
    September 14, 2011 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    Does anyone know why it is so common for Birthers to call the president “Barry Soetoro”, like it’s some kind of code name?Did he ever go by that name?I know that his mother’s second husband was named Lolo Soetoro, and through Lolo, Barack has a half sister named Maya (which OT if I had a daughter I would probably name her Maya–it’s such a pretty name).

    It is also possible that the President used the name “Barry Soetoro” when he was a child in Indonesia.
    Nicknames are big in Indonesia (“Lolo” is one such example) and people are known by their nicknames (just like some people are here: “The Terminator” or “The Gipper”).

  127. ImaObot says:
    September 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: ar of persecu

    Obama returned to America as a unaccompanied minor with the nickname Soebarkah and his name changed to Barry Soetoro when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in the U.S. Whether he was cheerily greeted by his grandmother at the Honolulu Airport or escorted by a friend of his mother who happened to be a pilot; when he hit customs, the customs officer inquired as to the status of his parents or legal guardian. When the customs officer found out Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, was an unaccompanied minor, he took Barry into protective custody and transferred him to Federal foster care system before grandma could wrap her arms around him.

    Recall from the Strunk FOIA Ann Soetoro returned to Hawaii with an expired passport shortly after Barry.

    As far as the adoption goes …

    You might be adopted if;

    1) Your original long form birth certificate is sealed by court order.
    2) Your COLB has a date filed and not a date accepted.
    3) Your name is legally changed to the last name of your adoptive father.

    And finally, we know Barack didn’t revoke his CLN because he has a Connecticut based SSN. Under the Federal foster care system, it is entirely possible for a refugee to legally reside in the State where their case manager is located and live with a family member in another state. If Barack had revoked his CLN, then his legal jurisdiction would have been Hawai’i.

    Good news … that means Barack’s Connecticut based SSN is valid, legal and completely lacking any controversy. As a matter of fact, there is nothing illegal or controversial about Barack’s life until he swore, under oath, he was eligible to be POTUS. He is ineligible for POTUS because obtained his US through the naturalization process, like many other immigrants. If were going to let one immigrant who naturalizes be eligible for POTUS, then we should let all immigrants who naturalize be eligible for POTUS.

  128. Scientist says:
    September 14, 2011 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: Completely meaningless verbiage

    You didn’t answer my questions, so I will repeat them until you do:

    1. I will accept that the law does not expressly bar minors from renouncing citizenship. That said, there is a clear difference bewteen a minor of 16 or 17 and one of 9 or 10, which Obama would have been when he lived in Indonesia. What is the youngest age at which anyone has renounced citizenship and had it accepted? Please provide documentation, thanks.

    2. The law provides that if a minor renounces citizenship, they can reclaim it prior to turning 18 years and 6 months. Assuming that a minor renounced their citizenship and then wished to return to the US, why would they not simply reclaim citizenship, rather than attempting to claim refugee status or applying as an immigrant?

    3. What basis would a 10 year old whose step-father worked for the Indonesian government have to claim refugee status, which requires demonstrating “a well-founded fear of persecution”? What evidence could 10 year old Obama show of persecution while in Indonesia. He speaks quite fondly of his time there.

    4. Indonesia under Suharto was an important US ally. In the 1970s, the US tended to grant refugee status to those fleeing Communist states, like the USSR or Poland or Cuba, and refuse it to those fleeing anti-Communist states. Do you have any evidence that any Indonesians were granted refugee status in the US in that period?

    Care to try again?

  129. gorefan says:
    September 14, 2011 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: He is ineligible for POTUS because obtained his US through the naturalization process, like many other immigrants.

    No, he was born in Hawaii that made him a natural-born Citizen and only he can give that up. Which he never did. And since he returned to the US long before the age of maturity, he is still a natural-born Citizen.

  130. Scientist says:
    September 14, 2011 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: we should let all immigrants who naturalize be eligible for POTUS

    I agree.

  131. Keith says:
    September 14, 2011 at 8:04 pm  (Quote)

    Expelliarmus:
    The piece of information that we are missing is the last name of the August 23 baby.If the name began with a letter at the beginning of the alphabet, then it would support the alphabetical sort theory – and since it was later in the month, it would suggest that the sorting & stamping was done relatively infrequently, perhaps only once per month.

    Alternatively there is the reverse stack theory: records are placed in a stack in an “in box” as they come in, and then when it comes time to stamp and index them, the stamping clerk starts at the top of the stack, meaning that the newest stuff in the stack ends up with the lowest numbers.

    Another possibility is therandom/no system theory — all unstamped records are placed in a bin for stamping & indexing, and that task is done whenever a staffer has time and gets around to it, in no particular order. The staffer simply grabs a handful of certificates, goes to his/her desk, stamps them, types little index cards for each record, and then puts the stamped certificates in another bin for microfilming & binding, and files the index cards.This is a variation on the reverse stack theory, but more unpredictable because there are more records coming in after some have been pulled and indexed. Plus, August is a month when many employees take their vacations, so you might end up with a bigger backlog during that period.

    The problem with each of your alternate procedures is that the birth certificates are not addressable until they have been stamped and indexed. If someone has a question between the time the document is delivered to the office and the time the batch is dealt with, it is difficult to locate. This is a government office, don’t forget, methodology is king.

    The documents almost surely would have been alphabetized by at least the first letter in the surname. My guess is that they would have been simply placed in a ‘pidgeon-hole’ cabinet.

  132. Daniel says:
    September 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: Good news … that means Barack’s Connecticut based SSN is valid, legal and completely lacking any controversy.

    Still pissed off at Orly for rejecting you, eh Sven?

  133. Majority Will says:
    September 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: Good news …

    Sven:

    Good news? Your hero, Orly Taitz thinks your fantasy is complete B.S. Ouch!

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS
    Obama was never a foster child
    
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

  134. sfjeff says:
    September 15, 2011 at 3:16 am  (Quote)

    It is pretty sad if even Orly Taitz says something bad about Obama is BS.

  135. Northland10 says:
    September 15, 2011 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    It is pretty sad if even Orly Taitz says something bad about Obama is BS

    There are times she shows some of the thinking skills needed to pass the bar exam. It does demonstrate the depth of bias to her own opinion. Also, Indonesian citizenship is Berg’s thing.

  136. ImaObot says:
    September 15, 2011 at 11:10 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: … why would they not simply reclaim citizenship, rather than attempting to claim refugee status or applying as an immigrant?

    Good question! And the answer is bureaucracy.

    Catholic Charities’ Migration and Resettlement of Hartford, CT is directed by Federal law to put dysfunctional families back together. Revoking Obama’s CLN would end their involvement and shift the burden of placing Barry in a State of Hawai’i foster care program. Instead, Catholic Charities pressed their mandate to put families back together and sought out BHO Sr.

    It was Catholic Charities of Hartford, CT that flew BHO Sr. back to Hawai’i to object to the Soetoro adoption. Terminating the adoption would keep BHO II in Soetoro’s life, but as his step-father and not his father. And it would give BHO Sr a chance to be a part of BHO’s II life even though he had not been a part of his life before.

    Unfortunately, SAD Soetoro blew the lid off of everything when she told the Family Court BHO Sr. was not the birth father. We know this because the judge did not reinstate the original long form BC and ordered a COLB created with BHO Sr. listed as the father. This COLB, the one we saw a copy of on Fight the Smears was created to remove the attestation of the mother, doctor and hospital admin because the mother has changed her sworn testimony. The judge didn’t believe SAD Soetoro and ordered BHO Sr. to be named as the father with the politically correct race identifier as African.

    So, by 1972, we have Lolo Soetoro as BHO’s II step-father, BHO Sr. as BHO’s II father, Catholic Charities of Hartford, CT with legal custody of BHO II and Grandma Dunham appointed as BHO’s II guardian.

    Catholic Charities is further mandated by Federal Law to transition an unaccompanied minor refugee to citizenship through the naturalization process. As we know from extensive discussion on this site, there is no difference between a naturalized US and a Natural born US citizen unless the citizen wants to be sworn-in as President or VP.

    In order to maintain jurisdiction, Catholic Charities advised Obama not to revoke his CLN and transition through the naturalization process. Doing it this way ensured Catholic Charities involvement until BHO II turned 18 and it ensured assistance with private schools and scholarships. If BHO II hadn’t run for POTUS, then nothing would be out of the ordinary.

  137. Bovril says:
    September 15, 2011 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    Yay, the next chapter of Barry and the Pirates from Sven.

    So, where oh where oh where are all the pieces of paper trail to support this wild and insane flight of fancy..?

    Remember even Mad Old Orly thinks this is guano insane

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS
    Obama was never a foster child
    
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

  138. Daniel says:
    September 15, 2011 at 11:59 am  (Quote)

    The unicorns, Sven….; what about the unicorns? For the love of God, who will consider the unicorns?

  139. charo says:
    September 15, 2011 at 12:40 pm  (Quote)

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/09/14/fourth-circuits-factual-error-throws-obamacare-decision-doubt

    … That kind of mistake should cut Orly a little slack for failure to serve properly and redact.

  140. Thrifty says:
    September 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    WTF?????

    ImaObot: Good question! And the answer is bureaucracy. Catholic Charities’ Migration and Resettlement of Hartford, CT is directed by Federal law to put dysfunctional families back together. Revoking Obama’s CLN would end their involvement and shift the burden of placing Barry in a State of Hawai’i foster care program. Instead, Catholic Charities pressed their mandate to put families back together and sought out BHO Sr.It was Catholic Charities of Hartford, CT that flew BHO Sr. back to Hawai’i to object to the Soetoro adoption. Terminating the adoption would keep BHO II in Soetoro’s life, but as his step-father and not his father. And it would give BHO Sr a chance to be a part of BHO’s II life even though he had not been a part of his life before.Unfortunately, SAD Soetoro blew the lid off of everything when she told the Family Court BHO Sr. was not the birth father. We know this because the judge did not reinstate the original long form BC and ordered a COLB created with BHO Sr. listed as the father. This COLB, the one we saw a copy of on Fight the Smears was created to remove the attestation of the mother, doctor and hospital admin because the mother has changed her sworn testimony. The judge didn’t believe SAD Soetoro and ordered BHO Sr. to be named as the father with the politically correct race identifier as African.So, by 1972, we have Lolo Soetoro as BHO’s II step-father, BHO Sr. as BHO’s II father, Catholic Charities of Hartford, CT with legal custody of BHO II and Grandma Dunham appointed as BHO’s II guardian. Catholic Charities is further mandated by Federal Law to transition an unaccompanied minor refugee to citizenship through the naturalization process. As we know from extensive discussion on this site, there is no difference between a naturalized US and a Natural born US citizen unless the citizen wants to be sworn-in as President or VP. In order to maintain jurisdiction, Catholic Charities advised Obama not to revoke his CLN and transition through the naturalization process. Doing it this way ensured Catholic Charities involvement until BHO II turned 18 and it ensured assistance with private schools and scholarships. If BHO II hadn’t run for POTUS, then nothing would be out of the ordinary.

  141. JoZeppy says:
    September 15, 2011 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: blah, blah, blah.

    There was a time when Sven’s schtick was mildly amusing, but it really has become painfully tedious. I’m never the one to advocate for censorship, but I have to ask Doc, can’t we just put an end to this one?

  142. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 15, 2011 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    That’s why God created the scroll button.

    I mean I could put Sven in the moderation queue, but I usually reserve that drastic step for folks that post a large number of messages and are effective at hijacking the conversation. Sven’s stuff is so far out that there’s no reason (at least for me) to feel a need to respond. In the case instant, I didn’t even bother to read the comment beyond the first sentence or two.

    JoZeppy: There was a time when Sven’s schtick was mildly amusing, but it really has become painfully tedious. I’m never the one to advocate for censorship, but I have to ask Doc, can’t we just put an end to this one?

  143. Scientist says:
    September 15, 2011 at 2:05 pm  (Quote)

    Sven, you’ve gone far around the bend, even for you. Now, unlike many here, I’m not even going to ask you for proof, which you obviously don’t have. Nope. All I’m going to ask is for a story that makes even 10% sense.

    How would a child coming to stay with his maternal grandparents (whether flying with his mother or unaccompanied) suddenly be transformed into a refugee? Immigration guys at Honolulu airport don’t snatch children whose grandparents are waiting outside and suddenly declare them refugees and hand them over to Catholic Charities 5,000 miles away (nor even Catholic Charities in Hawaii). No, refugees have to make a claim for refugee status based on a WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION. And for the step-child of a government employee of a friendly, allied country, living happily with his mother, step-father and step-sister, what exactlly would that be? Who was persecuting young Barry in Jakarta? And no, getting a B on a math test doesn’t count.

    Nor does Catholic Charities in Connecticut, Hawaii or anywhere else foist its assistance on those who have family able and willing to take them in. I mean it isn’t like there weren’t then and aren’t today millions of actual refugess who don’t have grandparents in Honolulu waiting for them at the airport. They hardly need to turn an everyday family visit into a humanitarian crisis to justiify their existence.

    So, on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Fantasy Wriiters, I am hereby demanding you cease and desist from your lousy imitation of their craft. At least when they spin an impossible tale, they include sprites and goblins to suspend reallity.

  144. Bovril says:
    September 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    But Doc…..Think of all the poor electrons slaughtered by being consumed by Sven’s insane ramblings….THINK OF THE ELECTRONS FOR PITY’S SAKE…….. 😎

  145. Sef says:
    September 15, 2011 at 2:11 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    The unicorns, Sven….; what about the unicorns? For the love of God, who will consider the unicorns?

    No one did. That’s why they are so very very scarce. That and a scarcity of virgins.

  146. JoZeppy says:
    September 15, 2011 at 6:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: That’s why God created the scroll button.I mean I could put Sven in the moderation queue, but I usually reserve that drastic step for folks that post a large number of messages and are effective at hijacking the conversation. Sven’s stuff is so far out that there’s no reason (at least for me) to feel a need to respond. In the case instant, I didn’t even bother to read the comment beyond the first sentence or two.

    I just see it as being on par with spam, but your blog, your call. 🙂

  147. Arthur says:
    September 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    The unicorns, Sven….; what about the unicorns? For the love of God, who will consider the unicorns?

    You see, this is what keeps bringing me back to this site. It’s not the information, the intellectual dueling, or even the eye-popping graphics–it’s the heart warming concern so many posters express for the plight of the unicorns. My god, it’s like . . . sometimes it’s like I’m right in the middle a Sarah McLaughlin commercial for homeless dolphins with erectile dysfunction.

    Thank you, Daniel, for keeping it real and reminding us what’s really important in this debate!

  148. Keith says:
    September 15, 2011 at 9:45 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: My god, it’s like . . . sometimes it’s like I’m right in the middle a Sarah McLaughlin commercial for homeless dolphins with erectile dysfunction.

    “They” have just announced that a new species of dolphin has been identified in Port Phillip (that is the bay where Melbourne is located). They used to think they were a variety of Brown Bottle-nosed Dolphins, but have recently realized they are an entirely new species. There are only about 150-200 individuals in the world.

    Researcher Finds New Dolphin Species in Victoria

  149. Arthur says:
    September 16, 2011 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    Keith: “They” have just announced that a new species of dolphin has been identified in Port Phillip (that is the bay where Melbourne is located). They used to think they were a variety of Brown Bottle-nosed Dolphins, but have recently realized they are an entirely new species. There are only about 150-200 individuals in the world.

    Keith, thank you bro! Those Brown Bottle-nosed cuties are like my fav dolphins and to know that there are now a new species, I’m all like, “awesome dude!”

  150. G says:
    September 16, 2011 at 12:43 am  (Quote)

    Agreed. Awesome scientific find.

    Arthur: Keith, thank you bro! Those Brown Bottle-nosed cuties are like my fav dolphins and to know that there are now a new species, I’m all like, “awesome dude!”

  151. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 16, 2011 at 12:10 pm  (Quote)

    The coincidences are remarkable. I was just out yesterday with the pod having a chat. I made the mistake of mentioning birthers, and this was the reaction I got:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Dolphin.png

    Yes, I really did take that photo yesterday.

    Arthur: Those Brown Bottle-nosed cuties are like my fav dolphins and to know that there are now a new species, I’m all like, “awesome dude!”

  152. ImaObot says:
    September 16, 2011 at 2:00 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    No, refugees have to make a claim for refugee status based on a WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION.

    You need to search: “unaccompanied minor children” refugee

    An abandoned child is placed in the Federal foster care system as a humanitarian gesture when that child is placed on an international flight and asked to clear customs without adult supervision.

    Abandoning a minor child is persecution. Assuming Obama’s book is true and grandma was at the gate waiting for Barry, he would still have to clear customs without her assistance. Only a parent or legal guardian can assist a child with customs.

    Catholic Charities of Hartford, CT has been working under contract with the US State Department for many years. We know Catholic Charities of Hartford, CT filed Obama’s Form SS-5 because of the number prefix of his SSN. When we see Obama’s original SS-5 application, we’ll see the name of his case manager at Catholic Charities because they are the people who had legal custody of Obama at the time.

  153. Majority Will says:
    September 16, 2011 at 2:09 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: “We know”

    You and your many sockpuppets, Sven?

    All of you have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality.

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com

    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS

    Obama was never a foster child

    by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation?

    Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971?

    show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

    Show Orly a shred, Sven. Just a shred.

  154. Sef says:
    September 16, 2011 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: An abandoned child is placed in the Federal foster care system

    Is that how you know so much about them?

  155. Scientist says:
    September 16, 2011 at 3:37 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: An abandoned child is placed in the Federal foster care system as a humanitarian gesture when that child is placed on an international flight and asked to clear customs without adult supervision.

    Really? You think that any child flying unaccompanied on an internatiional flight is “abandoned”? The airlines beg to differ, since they are quite happy to accept unaccompanied children as young as 5 on international flights. http://www.united.com/page/article/0,1360,1052,00.html Today they charge $99, but I believe back in 1970 the service was included (just like meals and pillows and decks of cards and checked luggage and all the other stuff airlines used to provide for free). I have flown on international flights with unaccompanied children as young as 6 or 7, all of whom cleared customs and were delivered to their waiting relatives without being snatched away by Catholic Charities.

    Does the Pope know that Catholic Charities of Hartford seizes incoming children at Honolulu airport from under the noses of their waiting grandparents? I mean, I know he covered up some abuses, but this one hasn’t hit the radar yet.

  156. Bovril says:
    September 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    They are called “unaccompaned minors” not “:refugee’s and then as now as watched over by cabin staff and escorted from drop off to delivery to a named indivudal at the other end.

    As I was a 3rd generation expat brat, from age 10 I went from boarding school to the Middle East and back 3 times a year.

    Guess what I was never snatched up by immigration, handed over to random strange organizations or fostered.

    So, you’re full of cack you muppet

  157. ImaObot says:
    September 16, 2011 at 8:50 pm  (Quote)

    “President Obama was born in the United States and is an American citizen – period.”

    attackwatch.com

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    I agree! The problem is that Obama came back to America as an Indonesian National and then regained his US Citizenship through the Naturalization process. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that, unless he is sworn-in as POTUS or VP.

    Obama is ineligible for POTUS and VP because he is a Naturalized American citizen and not a Natural born American citizen.

  158. Majority Will says:
    September 16, 2011 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: The problem is that Obama came back to America as an Indonesian National and then regained his US Citizenship through the Naturalization process.

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com

    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS

    Obama was never a foster child

    by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation?

    Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971?

    show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

  159. Keith says:
    September 17, 2011 at 3:05 am  (Quote)

    ImaObot:
    “President Obama was born in the United States and is an American citizen – period.”

    attackwatch.com

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    I agree! The problem is that Obama came back to America as an Indonesian National and then regained his US Citizenship through the Naturalization process. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that, unless he is sworn-in as POTUS or VP.

    Obama is ineligible for POTUS and VP because he is a Naturalized American citizen and not a Natural born American citizen.

    Talking at you is worse than talking at a brick wall.

    There is no way under Indonesian law that Obama could have acquired Indonesian citizenship during his short period of living there. None. End of story.

    There is no way under United States law that Obama could have lost his U.S. Citizenship during his short period of living overseas. None. End of story.

    Even if he, as a 8 or 9 year old kid could, have convinced the consular officials there that he knew what he was doing by renouncing U.S. Citizenship, it would have left him a stateless person, and there is no way that that consular official is allowed to permit that under any circumstance. There is absolutely nothing that his parents can do or not do that can deprive him of his citizenship rights. Divorce, remarriage, and adoption (whether it took place or not, but of course it did not) have no affect what-so-ever on the children’s citizenship status. NONE. End of Story..

    Get over yourself dude.

    He did not lose his citizenship

  160. Scientist says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:18 am  (Quote)

    ImaObot: I agree! The problem is that Obama came back to America as an Indonesian National and then regained his US Citizenship through the Naturalization process. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that, unless he is sworn-in as POTUS or VP.
    Obama is ineligible for POTUS and VP because he is a Naturalized American citizen and not a Natural born American citizen

    Under your (completely fictional) scenario he would be BOTH a natural born AND a naturalized citizen and would be eligible. Anyway, the final and binding determination of eligibility for the Presidency is made by Congress when they certify the electoral votes. Any complaints after that are just farting into the wind.

  161. Daniel says:
    September 17, 2011 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: Obama is ineligible for POTUS and VP

    Gee you’d think all those Republican candidates, members of Congress, and officials would have checked that…..

  162. Sef says:
    September 17, 2011 at 5:27 pm  (Quote)

    ImaObot: Obama is ineligible for POTUS and VP

    This will be true someday, but not yet. Check back after noon on Jan 20, 2017.

  163. sfjeff says:
    September 17, 2011 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    I am currently reading an excellent book on Lincoln by David Herbert Donald, and am currently in the section on John Wilkes Booth and came across this quote:

    Speaking of Booth:
    “…but he then decided that something must be done to rid the country of this ‘false president’, who clearly was ‘yearning for a kingly succession’.

    Just reminded me of some people.

  164. charo says:
    September 17, 2011 at 5:58 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    I am currently reading an excellent book on Lincoln by David Herbert Donald, and am currently in the section on John Wilkes Booth and came across this quote:

    Speaking of Booth:
    “…but he then decided that something must be done to rid the country of this false president’, who clearly was ‘yearning for a kingly succession’.

    Just reminded me of some people.

    Funny you should bring up Herndon because I was reading some quotes the other day on the book. Didn’t Herndon say that Lincoln was an atheist who invoked God opportunistically in his speeches? It seems like Herndon came down hard on the image of Lincoln at times in his book.

  165. charo says:
    September 17, 2011 at 5:59 pm  (Quote)

    Oh, wrong author! Nevermind… I don’t know why I looked at the name wrong.

  166. charo says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:03 pm  (Quote)

    Wrong again. Herndon was Lincoln’s law partner as you already know. That may have been something from Donald’s book that I was reading. Alrighty then…

  168. Paul Pieniezny says:
    September 18, 2011 at 4:04 pm  (Quote)

    charo: Didn’t Herndon say that Lincoln was an atheist who invoked God opportunistically in his speeches? It seems like Herndon came down hard on the image of Lincoln at times in his book.

    Actually, Lincoln was a deist, as most of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson converted to Unitarianism practically on his death bed.

    By the way, you should try to find out where this comes from:

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    Deists have no problem saying “One nation under God”.

  169. Sef says:
    September 18, 2011 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s something that is supposedly satire, but I’m not too sure it really is

    http://www.alternet.org/story/152414/10_signs_god_is_furious_with_the_right?page=1

  170. charo says:
    September 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm  (Quote)

    Paul Pieniezny: Actually, Lincoln was a deist, as most of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson converted to Unitarianism practically on his death bed.

    By the way, you should try to find out where this comes from:

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    Deists have no problem saying “One nation under God”.

    Actually, my question was referring to what Herndon his law partner said.

  171. RetiredLawyer says:
    September 18, 2011 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    By the way, you should try to find out where this comes from:

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    Without looking it up, I believe it is from the treaty between the US and the Barbary States by which the US obtained the right to have its ships not attacked by the “pirates”. Treaty was signed very early in US history and, is the source of the Shores of Tripoli verse in the Marine Hymn.

  172. Paul Pieniezny says:
    September 19, 2011 at 7:46 am  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer:

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, …

    Without looking it up, I believe it is from the treaty between the US and the Barbary States by which the US obtained the right to have its ships not attacked by the “pirates”.Treaty was signed very early in US history and, is the source of the Shores of Tripoli verse in the Marine Hymn.

    Yes, it is from the Treaty of Tripoli. Voted unanimously in the US Senate in 1797 (but written in 1796, under George Washington). President Adams made sure that the treaty and a presidential declaration approving every part of it got into the newspapers of the time. Not all the Senators voting for it were ardent Founding Fathers, however. The Senator for Georgia, Josiah Tattnall (I believe that is the spelling) who also voted “Aye”, was the son of a Tory, AND, aptly and consequently, also had a son himself who fought for the Confederacy.

    Just a little remark: the line about Tripoli in the Marine Hymn is not connected with the treaty, but to the later war between the US and the Barbary States as the Deys tore up the treaty.

    The fundamental problem of North African piracy was only solved when France went in and colonized the coast of Northern Africa. An aspect of the European colonization of Africa that is often overlooked, probably because France, Britain, Germany and Belgium later used the pretense of ending the Arab slave trade when they went on the conquest of Central and Eastern Africa. Taking us back to Kenya (and Zanzibar).

  173. RetiredLawyer says:
    September 19, 2011 at 10:52 am  (Quote)

    Paul,

    Thanks for the correction. I remembered the Treaty and the Marine Hymn were connected, but forgot that the sending of the Marines to the Barbary coast was after the treaty had been abrogated by the Deys. It’s been about four or five decades since I studied the matter.

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.