6 ways challenges to Obama’s citizenship fail


Enough already.  Somebody’s putting LSD into the water conservatives and other wackoes are drinking — that’s the only rational explanation for continued complaints about Barack Obama’s birth eligibility for the presidency.

First, here’s the rational view of the issue, from FactCheck.org, “Born in the USA.”

Here are a few of the sites that seem to have lost all touch with reality, and continue to whine that Obama might somehow be ineligible for the presidency:

Conservatives expert advisor Leo C. Denofrio, from his seat at a Caesars Palace poker table

Do you trust your nation's future to this man? - Conservatives' expert advisor Leo C. Denofrio, from his seat at a Caesar's Palace poker table

Weird enough, irrational enough yet?  As odd as these sites are, sometimes the comments get even odder.  It doesn’t help the rationality quotient that so many of these bloggers block out or strike down comments that present an alternative case or rational answers.

And in fact, it’s partly because of Texas Darlin’s anti-rational-comment pose that I put this post up.  Somebody, somewhere, needs to suggest the rational foundations, and inject them into the discussion.

A commenter named Carlyle states the basic case of the birth-certificate-obsessed people (BCOs).  It’s a nutty case, ungrounded in fact or logic, but Texas Darlin’ won’t allow responses.  So, here are some of the things these people are not thinking about as they fold ever-thicker tinfoil hats.

Carlyle said:

But let me back up for a moment and lay out the two great truths. These are the things that are known without doubt and far above speculation.

1. FACT – Obama has never provided admissable auditible citizenship documentation to anybody. No complete birth certificate, no passport, no selective service registration, nothing, zero, nada, zippo. Nobody can produce any of this stuff – not DNC, FEC, DOJ, State SecStates, electors – nobody.

No, actually Carlyle is doing a lot of speculation there (as are other BCOs).  Almost all of these rants are based on speculation, wild speculation far outside of what is known.  The key questions would revolve around what sorts of evidence would be admissible as evidence in a court of law in the U.S.  Very few of these anti-Obama rants ever bother to touch ground on those issues.  The birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii, posted by the Obama campaign for months, is the legally-admissible document.  The ranters have to ignore that to get on to the rest of their complaints.

Beyond the legally-admissible, there are logical cascades of events to which we can point, which strongly suggest the ranters are truly full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

First, in order to obtain a passport, for one example, one must provide “admissible, auditable citizenship documentation” to the U.S. Department of State. We know Obama has held a passport for many years, so we can be reasonably certain he provided that information originally (Do you have a passport?  How did you get it without a birth certificate?  I got a diplomatic speedy process, and I still had to provide a birth certificate . . .).

Propagandist-and-self-promoter-for-hire Jerome Corsi claims Obama didn’t travel on a U.S. passport, claiming results from an impossible Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. State Department.

Obama’s passport is a matter of record (though privacy laws do not allow release of the passport itself, generally).  Without evidence to the contrary, this presents a rebuttable presumption that Obama is a citizen. Does anyone else have information that the birth certificate Obama gave State was wrong?  Obviously not — the BCOs don’t appear to have been aware such a thing was even required.

Second, one of the things State checked for when I applied for a passport (when I worked in the Senate) was my Selective Service Status.  Hypothetically, they don’t want to grant a passport to someone who is not registered.  Again, under the rules of civil procedure, we have a rebuttable presumption that Obama’s draft registration was fine when he traveled as a student.  If it was fine then, absent a showing from anyone that there was a later event that made the draft registration invalid, we should assume that State did their job.  As a pragmatic matter, the draft ended in the early 1970s, so there could be almost no issue that could have caused Obama’s draft status to change.  It’s pretty clear that his draft registration is valid.

Third, Obama is a lawyer.  In order to get a license to practice law, applicants must provide a certified copy of a birth certificate to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, in order to be eligible to take the bar exam. The National Conference then does a background investigation on all candidates, generally an investigation more thorough than the FBI’s checking for most federal appointees.  In the past, the Conference has reported issues like minor drug use, preventing people from becoming lawyers in several states.  Absent a showing by someone that the National Conference granted special waivers, or a showing of other irregularities, the fact that Obama held a license to practice law presents a rebuttable presumption that his birth certificate is valid exactly as he alleges, and that his draft status is legal. Obviously, the BCOs have no information to indicate any irregularity, since they were unaware of this check.  We should assume, therefore, that Obama has a valid birth certificate and draft registration, since the Illinois Bar got a recommendation from the National Conference of Bar Examiners that Obama was morally fit to be a lawyer.

Fourth, Obama is a U.S. Senator.  As a matter of standard operating procedure, the FBI does a thorough background check on every elected Member of Congress, to certify that they are eligible for top secret clearance, since every member will be seeing national secrets.  Occasionally these checks produce questions, which are usually resolved by the Rules Committee of each house.  There is no record of any proceeding dealing with any irregularity in the background check for Sen. Obama.  This means that there is a rebuttable presumption that the FBI was satisfied with Obama’s citizenship status, as well as his patriotism and ability to keep state secrets.

Furthermore, for members of the Armed Services, Intelligence oversight, and Foreign Relations Committees, there is a more thorough background check by the FBI, since many of these members will be seeing a lot of secrets, and many of them will be talking with foreign dignitaries and visiting foreign nations, and in other ways would have opportunities to pass state secrets to non-allies and even enemies of the U.S.  The simple fact that Obama sat on the Foreign Relations Committee and was, in fact, chairman of the NATO subcommittee (which deals with secrets of many of the allies of the U.S.), creates a fourth rebuttable presumption that Obama’s citizenship status, draft status, patriotism and ability to wave the flag and sing the “Star-Spangled Banner” are above reproach.

Obviously, BCOs don’t have any information to suggest there is any problem with this tougher security clearance, and in fact appear to be wholly unaware that such an investigation had been done, or could be done.

Fifth, since the November 4 election, Sen. Obama has been getting the daily National Security briefiing that President Bush gets.  This briefing includes our nation’s most precious secrets, and cannot be done, even for the president, without the CIA and Homeland Security verifying that the man is who he says he is.

BCOs have no information to overcome the several rebuttable presumptions that Obama’s credentials are in order, evidenced by their total lack of awareness that such procedures even exist.

So, in five ways, we have assurances that Obama is wholly legal and qualified to hold the office of the presidency.  Neither TD’s commenter Carlyle nor any other BCO has any basis to question these federal and state agencies, nor have they suggested any irregularity in any one of these processes which would lead to the irrational conclusion that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, or not eligible to be president.

Sixth, Obama posted his birth certificate in June, on-line [archived version here]. Are these people Google impaired?

2. FACT – Against numerous attempts by journalists and courts to ask for such information, Obama has uniformaly resisted. One might even say beligerently so.

One might say that, but one would be prevaricating, belligerently.  As noted above, Obama’s birth certificate is available on-line.  So much for resistance.   So far as we know, every reporter who asked was able to view the actual certificate with it’s stamp of authority from the State of Hawaii.  Such analyses have been done, written about, and posted on-line.  Are they Google AND Yahoo impaired?

Do the BCOs have any serious evidence of any problems that the U.S. State Department, the FBI, the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the State Bar of Illinois, the FBI again, the Rules Committee of the U.S. Senate, the CIA and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security missed?  What is their evidence?

We challenge them to be specific.  If they are claiming something like an aged grandmother’s testimony that Obama was born in Kenya, they should have the good sense not to waste the court’s time about such folderol unless unless have a sworn affidavit from the woman, taken down by a court reporter, and corroborating evidence (Corsi did not even bother to get statements, let alone sworn statements under oath, I understand — he’s asking a Supreme Court hearing for inadmissible hearsay).

And Joseph Farah, here’s my challenge to you:  Provide corroboration for your charges, provide affidavits where they would be required, provide evidence of error on the parts of these federal and state agencies, or shut up about it. Even scandal-sheet journalists have some responsibility to at least try to look like they care about accuracy.  Farah owes it to his readers to get things right.  He’s not living up to the duty he owes.

What do they have?

Why must we entertain cargo cultists in their dances?  We have two wars and a crashing economy to fix.  Can we get on with the transition, please?

Barack Obamas birth certificate, showing the states stamp of authenticity, from FactCheck.org

Barack Obama's birth certificate, showing the state's stamp of authenticity, from FactCheck.org

See Updates:

Please share the information.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

114 Responses to 6 ways challenges to Obama’s citizenship fail

  1. Nick Kelsier says:

    JTX, you and the birthers claim that the birth certificate that the governor of Hawaii said is genuine is actually fake.

    Ok…prove it. Surely you have actual evidence, right?

    Like

  2. […] Six ways the challenges to Obama’s eligibility fail […]

    Like

  3. Nick Kelsier says:

    JTX, you are living proof of the adage “If 50 million people say a foolish thing…it’s still a foolish thing.”

    Sorry, child, something doesn’t gain credibility merely by the number of people who believe that said something.

    Like

  4. […] can view the document’s images here, and here.  It is a certified document from the State of Hawaii.  It bears the Seal of the State of Hawaii […]

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    By the way, Ted, there has never been a ban on travel to Pakistan from the U.S., especially not in 1980 and 1981, when the Reagan administration was romancing Pakistan to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, next door.

    Nor did Pakistan ever go to war against the Soviet Union.

    So if this Manning screws up so badly on checking such a simple fact, or lies so boldly, why should we trust him to get anything else right? He’s not an attorney, he doesn’t cite any law that would prevent a natural born native son like Barack Obama from being eligible to be president, he merely hints at miscegination. How does his mother being “a white American” disqualify Obama from the presidency? That would disqualify everyone back to Andrew Jackson at least.

    This Manning fellow speaks the fool. Listen to him at your own peril.

    Like

  6. Nick Kelsier says:

    THe problem with your argument, JTX, is that we have the birth certificate saying he was born in Hawaii. Do you have any actual evidence saying otherwise?

    Like

  7. James says:

    “The guy’s a fake and a phony as well as an inveterate liar. He’s certainly fooled a lot of you looney leftists – guess you hate America also, e???”

    Quite the opposite, jtx.

    Obama is performing stupendously as president. His very election has gone a long way toward improving America’s image amongst a myriad of nations for whom Bush managed to soil that image. We would be erring egregiously in attempting to jeopardize his validity in any way, shape, or form, so it’s a good thing his presidency is perfectly legitimate. I guess we love America, huh.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    I had to present a birth certificate, and I’m confident the queries on citizenship and past residences are adequate to say that getting a bar license presents a rebuttable presumption that the claims of citizenship are correct (Illinois doesn’t use the National Conference for this part of their process, by the way).

    In my experience, the investigation of the National Conference of Bar Examiners was more exhaustive and thorough that an FBI clearance for most government jobs, but not as tough on security issues as a security clearance would be.

    But of course, as I note in the post, it’s a rebuttable presumption. The issue would turn on what evidence one could muster to overcome that presumption.

    So far the Obama birth-certificate-obsessed have offered no evidence at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Hawaii’s officials note that the certified document they have provided failthfully reports all the details it reports, which includes place of birth.

    Why should we take your word over a sealed document from the State of Hawaii? Don’t be so sloppy in your due diligence.

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s pretty bad when someone looks at a certified document from the State of Hawaii and says, “we certainly don’t know from any verifiable data.”

    When people refuse to acknowledge the bases of our legal system, much is at risk. This is wholly apart from the unreasonable and irrational claim that the information presented may not be accurate.

    Like

  10. jtx says:

    To Ed Darrell:

    The issue is not really where he was born (which we certainly don’t know from any verifiable data) but whether he is legally eligible to hold the office … and millions of folks are becoming aware that he isn’t eligible.

    He could have been born on the steps of the WH assuming his poppa was who he claims him to be (and, you see, no one really knows that from any verifiable data, either) and he still wouldn’t be a natural born citizen.

    The guy’s a fake and a phony as well as an inveterate liar. He’s certainly fooled a lot of you looney leftists – guess you hate America also, e???

    Like

  11. jtx says:

    Nowhere in the requirements from the National Conference of Bar Examiners is there a requirement to present a birth certificate. Nowhere!!!

    Your posturing is simply more of the looney left lying we so often see – anything to try to get you way whether its true or not. Sort of like your boy who is temporarily in the WH.

    Like

  12. […] 6 ways challenges to Obama’s eligibility fail Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Supreme Court won’t review challenge to Obama“Maybe the best reason yet for being happy that Obama was elected”Crazies drop into the Bathtub, but not like thisFor Full-Page ad proposed to run in “USA TODAY” […]

    Like

  13. Jenn says:

    Me and my fiance’s birth certificate look exactly like Obama’s. I don’t get why people are such nutty conspiracy theorist.

    Like

  14. Der Kaiser says:

    Well, this thread probably defines facts as Zapem would have it. Notable awesomeness: “Dr. Kate” quotes a hoax story, is called on it, and (eventually) refutes it by quoting a source that might have a vested interest in promoting said hoax. The Nostradamus references are also, by themselves, a whole new level of “logical thinking.” A brief example: Obama wore a turban, Obama’s party colour is blue… is Obama thus the Antichrist wearing the blue turban that Nostradamus warned us about? Enquiring minds want to know!

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    Zapem, you appear to have an odd definition of “factual.” The six hurdles are based solely on the facts as we know them. If you have factual information that contradicts these facts and raises serious issues — not hearsay, not conjecture, not a series of logical leaps that ruin Nureyev — bring that information forward.

    Otherwise, excuse me if I do not purchase your odd, anti-Madisonian, anti-Jeffersonian, anti-Lincolnian, anti-Jay, anti-Marshal, anti-Taney, anti-Burger, anti-Rehnquist view of the Constitution.

    The Constitution is not mush. It is not merely what we think it is until we change our minds. Your odd definition of “citizen” — whatever it might be — is at odds with the law and tradition.

    Your failure, or pig-headed refusal to understand is not evidence that I am ignorant.

    Like

  16. James says:

    IRONY ALERT!

    “All it does is demonstrate that this country seriously DOES need an education in their own history.”

    This country needs an education in their own history? Clearly.

    Like

  17. Zapem says:

    This blog isn’t worth pointing out how stupid it is.

    Nothing on it is factual at all.

    All it does is demonstrate that this country seriously DOES need an education in their own history. When you take the time to diss your own Constitution in this manner, you really should just move to China.

    Like

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    Stray thought: Carlyle thinks Obama is dishonest enough to run a 47-year scam he dreamed up prior to his birth to be president of the U.S. despite being technically ineligible; but he also finds Obama so honest that he wouldn’t lie about his place of birth, were the scam true.

    I think the honest Obama is the correct one, which nullifies the former hypothesis.

    Like

  19. Der Kaiser says:

    Carlyle, I didn’t miss your point. I understand it completely. Unlike you, I do not find it suspicious at all. I don’t go around bragging where I’m born to complete strangers; Did John McCain go around endlessly pointing out which hospital he was born in in Panama? Did George Romney (Mitt’s Father who also ran for President) talk about how he was born in Mexico?

    Here’s the thing: Obama made his COLB available for examination and allowed copies of it to be made available online. That’s a far more emphatic statement in legal and in my perhaps not so humble opinion, political terms than any stump speech. By releasing said COLB, he not only insisted that he was born in Hawaii but also provided proof of such a declaration. Not that I would presume to guess what Obama would think in this regard, but were it me, I would think that the release of the document in June settled the matter. To discuss it further (or to be seen as discussing it further) might give credit to conspiracy theorists, when no credit is due.

    On another side note, I personally am glad that Obama spends his time talking to the public about (among other things) the economy, health care and national security and not where he is born. That was, after all, what he was elected to do.

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    I can think of very few candidates who brag about where they were born, their having no say in the matter whatsoever.

    In fact, most politicians I can think of talk about where they grew up, where they faced difficulties, and where they overcame them. They don’t talk about the difficulties they faced in the delivery room. Think of Orrin Hatch, who avoided mentioning his birthplace for his first campaign and at least a dozen years after. Think of George Bush, who never failed to mention he lived in Texas, but I’ll wager you can’t find any place he ever said he was born in Connecticut.

    Whether Obama says where he was born or not, it’s hearsay. He doesn’t remember. Your question is quite pointless.

    But please tell us this: Have you bothered to read either of his memoirs?

    Like

  21. Carlyle says:

    Der Kaiser:
    You miss my point. I don’t mean a rebuttal. I simply mean – surely if he were born in Hawaii there must be at least several (if not numerous) statements to this fact. Just in writing books and making speeches, certainly it must have been stated. All other candidates I can remember brag about where they were born. They campaign in their home state and refer to themselves as “native son”, etc. I am just trying to find a reference or a quote where this happened. Surely he must have said this somewhere along the way?

    Like

  22. Der Kaiser says:

    Kentucky boy, Ed Hale’s current campaign is truly a wonder. If it was me, I’d be a tad suspicious of a man who rather than gathering evidence quietly and then releasing a completely damning case once it is complete, releases it in dribs and drabs with vague comments how the next piece of the puzzle will be the one that will doom Obama. To be fair some BCOs are finding this a bit more than they can bear, as there were some who doubted the API Michelle Obama tape. Of course to also be fair, there are those who are donating to Plainsradio, with a hope that this new birth certificate (which suddenly btw we don’t need a vault copy anymore to prove anything) can be obtained. I sincerely wonder if there are people in Kenya and Indonesia producing Barry Soetoro birth certificates ready to take advantage of this situation.

    Like

  23. Der Kaiser says:

    Carlyle, maybe this will come to a complete shock to you, but I sincerely doubt there’s much record of this (though I could be wrong). Unlike the denizens of a few obscure blogs, I doubt that Obama (or for that matter the numerous other players in this vast conspiracy to put him in the White House) has given nor continues to give very much (if any) attention to this “issue.” You might take the hint that if the best you can do is get vague letters of concern from a politician in regards to raising an objection on the 8th, a) he or she might just be humouring you because he needs your vote and b) you might just have not made a convincing case. Of course, my explanation is far less entertaining than yours, and fails to attribute dark sinister motives to anything so please keep at it. The current hope by drkate and others for a military coup (which totally wouldn’t cause any long term damage to the Republic or the Constitution) has been very encouraging.

    Like

  24. Carlyle says:

    Hey Guys – since you know so much, maybe you can help with my little research project. Where is it recorded that Obama says in his own words: I was born in Hawaii? Book? Speech? Public records with his signature?

    Like

  25. kentucky boy says:

    Der Kaiser,

    Isn’t it obvious why the conspiracy has worked since his birth in Kenya to put Obama in the White House? He’s the Anti-Christ! BTW, the denizens of another great insane asylum, plainsradio, are claiming that Ed Hale will shortly receive in the mail the divorce decree between Barack Obama Sr and Stanley Dunham which shows Obama was born in Kenya! Can’t wait to read their posts after that one falls through.

    Like

  26. Der Kaiser says:

    Well, to be fair Ed they aren’t that good at making wool to begin with as they don’t really make any real effort to make a coherent case. I encountered BCOs months ago and tried to understand their argument, but kinda got hung up on the fact that if we accepted their premise, Obama functions without proper documentation despite being a public figure, presidential candidate and formerly US Senator and Illinois state legislator. Now, even today powerful people (I recall it was Huckabee though my memory of the event is poor) have been found to have hired illegal immigrant labour. My experience with powerful people is limited, but you’d think that at one point someone would have accidentally stumbled onto some damning evidence (e.g. a Kenyan Birth Certificate or a disaffected member of the conspiracy willing to have a signed affidavit, etc) and used it. Even conceding the point that the all-powerful conspiracy has gotten to everyone (and as the Obama Death List shows, silenced all the comptrollers of Chicago) which is, well, generous, you are left with a simple question that BCOs completely fail to address: Why would anyone invest 47 years of time, money and influence to put Obama in the White House.

    It didn’t pass the smell test when I first encountered it and none of the subsequent “revelations” by BCOs have managed to even give me pause. I really do appreciate your magnificent case here though as it is far more coherent and damning than I could ever dream of making.

    I agree that Texas Darlin’ provides a venting place for people like Sonof1776. It functions at present as an echo chamber of various random accusations against Obama, most of which are completely based on conjecture and hearsay, which at least according to Lionel Hutz the denizens are kinds of evidence signs of “where there’s smoke there’s fire.” You are probably right that it is better that they spend their time promoting bizarre legal theories and arguing that SCOTUS has to rule on them than actually causing real trouble.

    Still, I must say that it does make my head hurt when their remedy to a perceived constitutional crisis is to actually have a constitutional crisis. Whether it would be having SCOTUS directly intervene in an election, the electors become faithless en mass, or Congress itself overruling the Electoral College, we would have a solution that would he far worse (at least from this layperson’s view) than the actual infraction. (This is being more than fair in overlooking some desires for a military coup or armed insurrection that are also popular).

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    The wool was ripped from your eyes early.

    It’s almost painful to read the stuff at Texas Darlin’, or any of the several other blogs on the issue (Donofrio’s posts at his blog suggest he’s lost grasp of more than just this case).

    Almost painful. Were they not engaged in this wingnuttery, I fear some of them, like SonOf, would be out wreaking real havoc. Posting at TD at least keeps them off the streets.

    Like

  28. Der Kaiser says:

    I know of the three eligibility concerns of BCOs: Obama was secretly born in Kenya and the vault copy of his birth certificate shows this. (Although Canada is also used rarely). The other two big ones that I have encountered are that he isn’t really natural born because he held British citizenship through his father or (like kentucky boy mentioned) lost his natural born status when he moved to Indonesia. Some take it further and allege that Obama could even be an illegal alien. None of these claims stand to any kind of rigour and BCOs when pressed a lot seem to spew a lot of irrelevant but equally hilarious accusations, STDs and Malcolm X’s love child being my current favourites.

    But perhaps equally strange is their apparent trump card to Ed’s six points: Namely that Obama has functioned without documentation since he was born because of a vast and powerful conspiracy whose sole goal seems to be to place Obama in the Oval Office (and planned this for at least 47 years). To call this a Rube Goldberg scheme of world domination would be charitable to say the least. Needless to say, why one would go to all such trouble to place a man they knew would be ineligible in office, seems to escape the denizens of Texas Darlin’. That there are quieter, easier, quicker and far more efficient and effective paths of exercising vast amounts of power and influence in this world seems to escape their notice.

    Like

  29. kentucky boy says:

    Another of the wingnuts favorite claims is that Obama was adopted by his stepfather (another claim for which there is no evidence), which made him an Indonesian citizen and terminated his American citizenship. This claim is refuted by another case-Perkins v. Elg, in which the SCOTUS held that a child born in the US is a natural born citizen and does not lose his citizenship simply because his parents chose to return to their home country, assuming he returns to the US when he reaches his age of majority and affirms his US citizenship. Obama, of course, returned to the US at the age of 10 and spent the rest of his childhood with his grandmother, so even if he was adopted by his stepfather he never lost his US citizenship.

    The denizens of TD vociferously deny racism, but historians will easily recognize the hysterical overreaction by southern whites to the “threat” a black man supposedly presents to their way of life.

    Like

  30. Der Kaiser says:

    Carlyle said:

    People ask how somebody like a Hitler could get to be the leader of an otherwise respectable country. You are now seeing exactly how. Lots of koolaid and a failure to ask obvious questions.

    I’m tempted to call Godwin in one move, but instead I’ll state that all I can think of after reading these comments is Stephen Colbert interviewing Obama and asking “So Mr. President, how are you not Hitler?

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    Carlyle, we may indeed be seeing how Hitler was able to snooker so many. But might we not be seeing it at Texas Darlin’, not in the millions of good Americans who voted for Obama and worry about the economy?

    Sonof, I find it troubling that your goals appear to be all driven by hatred, without a thought given to the facts, and without any concern for what should engage citizens, making this government work well.

    The most popular post on this blog right now is this one, on the brave people of the USS Pueblo. You might do well to read that one.

    You might want to drop in on this post, too, and see if you can muster a serious argument to justify your headwear.

    Like

  32. Der Kaiser says:

    Sonof1776 says

    Anyone with a name like yours is obviously a communist.

    Yes, obviously. I double-checked my schoolwork and found that instead of mathematics I thought I was working on it was actually a Ph.D. in Marxist Literature. Who knew? It’s a slippery slope I guess. One day I was reading your insane comments on TD talking about how the RNC must have colluded with Obama to get him elected (again for unspecified reason) the next I was organizing soviets (workers councils) at work to seize power from our Capitalist Oppressors. Thanks Sonof1776, your baseless accusations and complete lack of understanding of what Marxism is saved yet another soul.

    And since you cannot refute that 0bama is infected and obviously gay then what does that make you?

    Ummm… I have to prove that he’s not gay and that he doesn’t have STDs to you now? And somehow if I don’t that makes me gay and have STDs? Oh where to start with this…. You see Sonof1776, when a man loves a woman very, very much…

    BTW, all of these things have everything to do with the eligibility issue.

    No, no they do not.

    Let’s see, gay, has STDs, smokes, cocaine addict, best friends and associates are convicted terrorists and criminals, house is owned by a convicted criminals lawyer, lost law license to keep from being dis-barred, caught in 100s of blatant lies, involved in voter fraud through ACORN, won’y say pledge of allegiance, raised by communist wiccan pagan grandparents, wife is a blatant racist whitey hater, church practices black liberation theology, won’t release ANY records of anything, zero presidential level experience, under investigation by the FBI for land fraud, under investigation by the FBI for selling a senate seat, doesn’t pay parking tickets, falsely reports own grannys death, involved in politics in other countries, etc…, etc…, etc…

    Oh so much insanity here, so little time. I’ll channel Ed and go, evidence please? I especially like the fact that he probably faked his own Grandmother’s death btw. Truly to make such an accusation without ANY concrete proof says nothing about the individual making it. But let’s say for sake argument say that EVERYTHING you say here is true… he’s still eligible for the office of the Presidency. Heck, even if he was Hitler (or some kind of Super Hitler (formed by uniting Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, etc into one supremely evil individual) he’d still be eligible under the constitution.

    For the thousandth time: You not liking him does not constitute a legal case to undo the election either in front of SCOTUS or as a case for impeachment. You need EVIDENCE and frankly you going around flinging muck at the Obama (and yes, by your own admission that some of it is likely untrue, you are flinging muck) hoping something will stick actually undermines your ability to make any such case.

    Like

  33. SonOf1776 says:

    kentucky boy Says

    You better go read the constitution again boy. It clearly defines two classes of citizens. Natural born and not natural born. The founding fathers even put in a clause to allow them to be presidents since at the time, there were no natural born citizens. Just plain citizens are made up of not only naturalized but also those who are citizens by birth, but not natural born.

    In US Supreme Court v. Wong Kim Ark they found he was a citizen by birth since his parents did not have divided allegiances and stopped there saying that there was no reason to define if he was natural born since he was not running for any office.

    If I had a wife who had a green card and we had children born in the US, then all of them would be automatically citizens but none would be natural born. If later she became naturalized, then we had another child, that child would be natural born.

    I agree that it is not black and white. There are grey areas. That is why SCOTUS should decide. Did being a citizen of Indonesia invalidate 0bamas US citienship? Grey, SCOTUS should decide.

    I also agree that the BC 0bama relased is official. It is an official short form Hawaiin BC. All the claims it is forged or fake have no merit. I analyzed it myself and can detect no such things. So, why is it an issue? Because it was issued by a state that was barely a state at the time and was known to be lax. It is not even accepted by Hawaii for govenment related issues and they specifically state that the “certification of live birth” released by 0bama is not good enough and only the long form “certificate of live birth” is accepted. So it leads me to believe that a foreign birth could be reported on short form and who knows what some idiot clerk might put for location of birth. But the long form, at a cost of $10, would clear this up immediately. But instead 0bama has spent large sums of money on three different law firms to fight all the lawsuits and prevent any from going to trial which would force the release of the long form. Why? We can only assume there is something there to hide.

    In the end, I freely admit that my goal is only to stop 0bama at any cost. It is blatantly obvious that he is a complete fraud with zero experience and associations with know convicted terrorists and criminals. Letting someone with so many questionable issues into the presidency would be a huge mistake. I believe he will do exactly as he says and radically alter the constitution and change the bill of rights. I believe if allowed to be president for any length of time, he will devastate this country, possibly irreversibly. Stopping him before Jan 20 is easier than after. But stop him we must.

    If the BC can stop him, it meets my goal. If the natural born issue can stop him, it meets my goal. If Blagogate implicates him, it meets my goal. If someone takes him out, it meets my goal. If Rezkogate implicates him, it meets my goal. If Grannygate implicates him, it meets my goal. If he is the utterly corrupt and fraudulent crook I believe he is then he will implicate himself and get impeached, and that meets my goal. If we must have a revolution to take him out, it meets my goal.

    I freely admit that none of the issues this blog is about are black and white. Some are just silly. Of course the BC is legitimate. That is silly. But we will pursue any and all issues until they are either resolved or 0bama is out, whatever comes first. How it happens is irrelevant.

    Like

  34. SonOf1776 says:

    Der Kaiser Says:

    Anyone with a name like yours is obviously a communist. And since you cannot refute that 0bama is infected and obviously gay then what does that make you? Well, soon your queer fellow will be prez and then all you queers will be happy I guess. But since The Queer One is a narcisist, and just one of a long line including Napolean, Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, then all you Kaisers will have a new Fuehrer to worship. And you remember how that ended last time? Not too good for the Fuehrer or any of the Kaisers I think.

    BTW, all of these things have everything to do with the eligibility issue. 0bama is now so dirty even the pigs wouldn’t want to sleep with him. I don’t make up this stuff, and I don’t say all of it is true. But, when somebody has a list of dirt like this guy associated with him, it paints a pretty complete picture. Let’s see, gay, has STDs, smokes, cocaine addict, best friends and associates are convicted terrorists and criminals, house is owned by a convicted criminals lawyer, lost law license to keep from being dis-barred, caught in 100s of blatant lies, involved in voter fraud through ACORN, won’y say pledge of allegiance, raised by communist wiccan pagan grandparents, wife is a blatant racist whitey hater, church practices black liberation theology, won’t release ANY records of anything, zero presidential level experience, under investigation by the FBI for land fraud, under investigation by the FBI for selling a senate seat, doesn’t pay parking tickets, falsely reports own grannys death, involved in politics in other countries, etc…, etc…, etc…

    If It Quacks Like A Duck, Waddles Like A Duck And Looks Like A Duck, It’s A DUCK ! But somehow you think it is not a duck? Give me back my kool-aid you fools. You drank it all!

    Even Stephen King couldn’t make up a story so wild. WAKE UP FOOLS!

    Like

  35. Carlyle says:

    Would you also like for to Perry Mason for you what happened to Donald Young?

    People ask how somebody like a Hitler could get to be the leader of an otherwise respectable country. You are now seeing exactly how. Lots of koolaid and a failure to ask obvious questions. And then there is the infamous phrase from 9/11 — who forgot to connect the dots? Walks –> quacks –> probably is.

    Like

  36. Ed Darrell says:

    Carlyle, this is contemptible conjecture on your part:
    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/merry-christmas-open-thread/#comment-30386

    And this, from your fellow travelers, suggests why y’all could use an afternoon in a library sometime:

    [From “Dr. Kate”] Yes, I agree, Caroline will some ambassador…she needs some sun so I am guessing Guam. :razz:

    Do you think “Dr. Kate” knows that Guam is a U.S. Territory, and that we don’t send U.S. ambassadors to U.S. areas? Maybe Dr. Kate is bucking to be U.S. Ambassador to Deming, New Mexico?

    Like

  37. kentucky boy says:

    Texas Darlin’s ineligibility claim against Obama is based on the assertion by Judah Benjamin on that blog that because Obama’s father was a British citizen, Obama was not a “natural born” citizen. I took the claim seriously enough to read the SCOTUS case US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Court held that the concept of a “natural born” citizen was derived from English common law. Any person born in the King’s realm was a “natural born” subject with two exceptions: the children of ambassadors or enemy aliens on hostile occupied territory. Neither exception applies to Obama. After I pointed this out, I was banned from posting on TD’s blog. The “defenders” of the Constitution there in reality want to change the Constitution to deny Obama the presidency. There are only two types of citizens mentioned in the Constitution: “natural born” citizens and citizens naturalized in accordance with Congress’ power to establish rules of naturalization. The Constitution doesn’t mention “native born” citizens anywhere-TD denizens add it to the Constitution via wishful thinking.

    Neverthless, I recommend TD’s Blog for entertainment-the paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories are becoming weirder by the day. One of TD’s favs, drkate, has got to the point where she is openly rooting for a military coup to remove Obama as president-and they call themselves patriots!

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:

    More tinfoil! Stat!

    About your precious FactCheck.org. This is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

    Ambassador Walter Annenberg, a Nixon supporter, was the man who made millions — billions? — off of a publication he founded, TV Guide. He also owned The Daily Racing Form, The Philadelphia Inquirer (fromwhich he campaigned against McCarthyism in the 1950s, and against Democrats the rest of the time), and he founded Seventeen magazine. Hardly a radical anything.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg

    As a staunch conservative, he was appointed ambassador to England in 1969, by Richard Nixon. Are you sure you want to argue these philanthropies are radical, or even left-leaning?

    The Annenberg Foundation supports a lot of enterprises, generally unrelated to each other, but often in support of education and media studies.

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania is governed by the University of Pennsylvania. The center bears the name of Walter Annenberg and he gifted it with a significant endowment, but it is error to suggest this center has any great connection to any Annenberg Foundation activities. I can’t find any evidence of overlapping governance, though there may be some.

    Here’s the newsletter of the center, On the Record.

    If you’re trying to make a case that FactCheck is biased, you’ve missed by a mile. It has a reputation of being unbiased, to the chagrin of every one of my friends in politics.

    0bama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.

    The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a locally-governed project of the Annenberg Foundation, far removed from the separately governed Annenberg Public Policy Center at U of Pennsylvania; there is no noteworthy connection at all, except for the Annenberg name.

    William (Bill) Ayers, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist and a close friend of the 0bamas, was instrumental in founding the Challenge, thanks to his ties to Mayor Richard Daley.

    Ayers is not listed as a founding member, nor did he ever receive any kind of salary from Annenberg. See the details, here:
    http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=702786

    In fact, as that release indicates, all the records of the Challenge are now public; you can download a lot of them. Have you found the connections you claim in those records? Please spend some time trying to document your claims, and show us where they are. The evidence is publicly available, and it doesn’t seem to support any claim of any sort of conspiracy, nor conflict of interest, nor even knowledge of other Annenberg Foundation works, and especially no connection to the separately governed Annenberg Center at U of Pennsylvania.

    Here’s some key information about Chicago Challenge:

    Date: August 27, 2008
    Source: The Annenberg Foundation
    Contact Name: Joanne Cemini
    Contact Phone: (610) 341-9066
    Download Related Files:
    The Annenberg Foundation and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University [in Providence, Rhode Island] are making available all materials related to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

    Recent news reports have raised questions about the CAC, and about the availability of materials related to it. Many of these materials are archived at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the Annenberg Foundation on August 22, 2008 sent a letter to President B. Joseph White stating that the Foundation has no objection to opening the records to the public and that the Foundation is not blocking their release.

    A subset of the documents are also located at the Foundation’s offices in Radnor, PA, and at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform in Providence, RI. Consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability that guide the work of the Foundation, these materials are now available to the public by appointment.

    On December 17, 1993, the Annenberg Foundation launched the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform with a five-year $500 million grant to revive and inspire school reform efforts in this nation. The Challenge brought together civic, business and university leaders, as well as foundations and other groups, in support of 18 school improvement projects, and it built broad public-private coalitions consisting of mayors, superintendents, principals, union leaders, civic leaders and community groups. The CAC was supported with a $49.2 million grant.

    ■ All participating sites in the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform were locally controlled and locally governed.

    ■ The Annenberg Foundation was not directly involved in the daily operations of any of the 18 challenge sites. This includes, but is not limited to: programming, staffing, or board composition.

    ■ Work related to programs, fundraising and development, research, and evaluation at individual Challenge sites during the grant period was undertaken through the local Challenge entities.

    ■ Founding members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board were: Susan Crown, vice president, Henry Crown Company; Patricia Graham, president, The Spencer Foundation, and former dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Stanley Ikenberry, president-emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, executive director, Field Foundation; Barack Obama; Arnold Weber, former president, Northwestern University, and president, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White, executive director, Community Workshop on Economic Development.

    ■ The Chicago Annenberg Challenge has no record of providing any salary for William Ayers.

    ■ Three summative studies of the Annenberg Challenge were undertaken by the Annenberg Foundation and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. All three documents — The Annenberg Challenge: Lessons and Reflections on Public School Reform, Research Perspectives on School Reform: Lessons from the Annenberg Challenge, and The Arts and School Reform: Lessons and Possibilities from the Annenberg Challenge Arts Projects — may be downloaded at http://www.annenberginstitute.org/Challenge/pubs/index.html

    Have you, or has any other Texas Darlin’ denizen bothered to check the real record to see what really went on? Here’s a case where the records you claim are “sealed” are, instead, wide open, fully available at three different locations in the U.S., and much available at the sites listed here, for the price of a free .pdf download. While you claim to be seeking the facts, it’s rather obvious you haven’t bothered to check the facts that are freely available. Moreover, our cursory check here directly rebuts your sordid claim that there is some unsavory connection bewteen FactCheck.org and the Chicago project (separate governance, separate financing, no overlapping personnel), and it directly refutes your claims that all of Obama’s records are sealed.

    Is that why you haven’t bothered to look?

    The first Daley was also a pal of Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, former CEO of ComEd (Commonwealth Edison Power Company)

    Imagine that! The Mayor of Chicago knew the CEO of the city’s biggest electrical power supplier!

    I don’t know about where you live, but in every other U.S. city that’s called “good, smart government.”

    Did you have a point, or were you just sort of wandering through poorly-researched smears posted on the internet, and wanted to share?

    Like

  39. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s the double standard at work:

    Eleanor Nordyke says she was in the same hospital on the same days as Obama’s mother who gave birth to Barack on Aug. 4, 1961. According to Nordyke, she gave birth to twins on Aug. 5, 1961.

    Eleanor Nordyke exists? How do you know? She had twins? Where are the long-form birth certificates? Why do you take her word over the State of Hawaii?

    But exhustive searches through the newspapers records do not list those twins or any twins born on that day. Hmmmm!

    Who did that search? Where is it verified? How does a failure to list one birth make the official listings of other births inaccurate? You’ve never been cross-examined under oath, have you.

    And an intensive canvasing of EVERY hospital in Honalulu that checked the records for either 0Bumba ho his momma has turned up zero times that either one was there. Not a single hospital in Hawaii has any record of either of them. Hmmm!

    Under the Health Information Portability Act, divulgence of any information to you would be a violation of federal law. Prison time. Did you have a subpoena when you did this search, or are you just flapping gums in total ignorance of federal privacy laws? If they are following the law, no hospital would admit to having such records. I have seen no serious survey done by any credible source to indicate that anyone has asked each hospital formally, and especially, there is not a single piece of evidence from the gum-flapping bloggers which would be admissible in a court of law.

    If you have evidence, please present it — but stop with the uncorroborated claims which would, on closer examination, require someone to violate federal law to get the information to you.

    Not to mention that it would indeed be rare for hospitals to have at their immediate disposal, records from a half-century ago.

    It is inaccurate to claim that no hospital in Honolulu has records of Obama’s birth. No one with the legal capacity to get that information has asked.

    And not a single person at Columbia College out of hundreds questioned remembers him. Hmmm!

    My wife and I spent three years at the University of Utah at the same time, and did not meet. I kept a pretty high profile, too, which she doesn’t remember at all. I don’t consider it odd that there are not a lot of people who remember Obama from Columbia. You claim “not a single person,” but that’s not what I see in other reports.

    Besides, he was only at Columbia for about a year, transferring in as a junior.

    Tell me where you graduated. I’ll wager I can find a thousand students who didn’t know you there.
    See also:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8209.html
    Columbia Today:
    http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/jan05/cover.php
    http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/node/302

    “Barack Obama (CC’83) becomes the first Columbia graduate elected president of the United States.

    He joins other illustrious Columbians who went on to run the country at pivotal times during its history: Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1908, and his cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt, president from 1932 to 1945. Both attended Columbia Law School but did not graduate. And Dwight D. Eisenhower left his post as University president in 1952 to become the nation’s 34th president. As an undergraduate, he attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

    I’ll take the word of Columbia University over your completely unsupported assertion that “no one” remembers him.

    And the Kenyan government has sealed all o 0Bams records. Wait, why do they even have records to seal? Hmmm!

    Got a citation on that? What records do you claim are sealed? By whom? When? I’ve been unable to verify that claim.

    And all of 0Bumbas medical records are sealed.

    As required by federal law, for everyone, including presidential candidates.

    But there was a record on the STD list of him, before it was scrubbed. It said he has HIV and Herpes. Hmmm!

    Sure there was. And you know this, how? And this affects his eligibility, and not your prurient interests, how?

    And it’s not that we drink kool-aide and believe that all of these are true. But when someone won’t release ANY records and you start finding all this stuff, well if it looks like a duck, quacks like one, etc…

    I love it when total neophytes come into politics claiming to know everything there is to know. If failing to release private records were a disqualifier from office, you couldn’t elect a dogcatcher in Dogpatch, Arkansas.

    You’ve demanded a birth certificate from no one but Obama. He released it worldwide. You refuse to accept it. Your refusal to face facts is not his fault, you know?

    Like

  40. Der Kaiser says:

    Oops… sorry Ed… forgive me. I hope that’s the lack of sleep talking and not just the random idiocy that pops throughout my head.

    [No problem — just getting the record a little more straight. I appreciate your work here to get more of the record, right. – Ed]

    Like

  41. Der Kaiser says:

    Sonof1776 says:

    And all of 0Bumbas medical records are sealed. But there was a record on the STD list of him, before it ws scrubbed. It said he has HIV and Herpes. Hmmm!

    Hurray! Solid analytical thinking like that is why I love Texas Darlin’. Keep ’em coming. Again, why should it be relevant whether or not Obama has STDs? Does that make him constitutionally ineligible?

    Keep them coming. Perhaps you can find an old photo of him dressed up for Halloween as a Vampire and discuss how his Romanian connections “raise questions.” Or maybe we need to focus on how his choice of swiss cheese on a ham sandwich is insufficiently American. None of these things have any influence or impact on the contention that his birth certificate is a fake or b) even if it is real he’s constitutionally ineligible, but I guess must also be relevant somehow.

    Like

  42. Ed Darrell says:

    . . . qualifications of the Presidency. I thought it was male over 35 years, resident for 14 years and natural born citizen . . .

    No requirement for “male.”

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

    No disqualification for women.

    Like

  43. Der Kaiser says:

    Sonof1776, thank you for admitting that you wouldn’t stop no matter what. It gives me my answer to Sherrib: Obama won’t release documents to crackpots for $15 because you would just ask for another or claim (without overwhelming evidence) that said document is a forgery, even if it is certified by the issuer. In short, he will not because nothing would ever satisfy you. It would be pointless and just generate another 10 000 “more questions than answers” posts at TD. In other words it is pointless.

    Which brings me back to Sonof1776. I’m sorry. I am not here to validate your beliefs. I am completely uninterested in proving to you that Obama is of “presidential calibur.” Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall satisfying your ego as part of the qualifications of the Presidency. I thought it was male over 35 years, resident for 14 years and natural born citizen, but what do I know, I’m not an obvious scholar like yourself. Well, if you can forgive my ignorance, I’ll just state that plenty of people get elected that we disagree with, we don’t like or are corrupt, or are incompetent. That doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court will go “oh hey, you are right, he is ineligible despite other people under similar circumstances holding office.”

    In any case, the Supreme Court has rejected Donofrio’s argument for a stay. Unlike some of the commenters at TD, I don’t believe that this is part of some plan to wait until Jan 9th because he’s not really the Presidential Elect until then (sometime you might what to look up the idea of unwritten constitutional conventions). Anyways, I agree with Ed that likely all World Net Daily (with its profit making scheme attempt to save the constitution for $9.95) TD and Donofrio have accomplished is to have rule 11 invoked, but again, I’m no lawyer.

    Of course all this means is that there is this vast massive conspiracy (which I guess I am unknowingly part of even though I didn’t even vote or campaign for Obama) to put an ineligible man into the White House for no reason other than they can apparently. This conspiracy is so vast that it encompasses the entire Hawaiian civil service, the Federal Civil Service, the FBI, the CIA, the Senate, George Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, the RNC, the DNC, the Supreme Court, all reporters including at Fox News, and the 63 million Americans who voted for Obama. We’re sorry, we’re all either too stupid to understand something as simple that a child could or we’re in on it for unspecified goals which are achieved through Obama being on the Presidency. Of course, were this all to be true, you really would have no chance with your case anyways or opposing our all powerful cabal. But don’t let that stop you from posting… I’m sure tomorrow Obama will admit “you know, I really am a Marxist who palls around with terrorists. I just had a troubled childhood and before you knew it I was seizing the means of production and liquidating the bourgeoisie.” Then he’ll resign completely validating your world view and all of us sane normal people will hang our heads in shame and admit, gosh darn it, you guys were actually right.

    Like

  44. reps says:

    There is much talk about Obama’s selective service registration. Here is an article that might answer many of the questions;

    Titled: “Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions” by Debbie Schlussel

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

    Like

  45. Ed Darrell says:

    Sherrib said:

    I would like you to answer some questions for me Mr. Darrell.
    Why is it that Obama has all of his records sealed after telling everyone that he wants “transparency”? Records that other candidates, including Hillary and McCain, laid open for the world to see?

    What records are you talking about? No other candidate offered a birth certificate, nor did anyone “demand” such a thing. George W. Bush’s records have all been closed for years. Some of these records were more accessible prior to the Buckley Amendment of 1974 (to FERPA), and prior to the 1960s revolution in privacy protection — but not only are most of these records not available for other candidates, no one ever asks for them.

    We know John McCain’s graduate placement in his class — what was it, six from the bottom? — partly because he went to college on Uncle Sam and the law requires that sort of transparency — but by exactly the same rules, we know Obama graduated well up in his class at Harvard, and first in his law class. What other records do you think you need? Why do you insist on records for Obama that have never been required of any other candidate? And where do you get off claiming others make them available, when they don’t?

    Remember this… if you are a Presidential candidate, you lose a certain amount of privacy. College records and certain other records, though they are not required to be shown, should be open for view, especially if you are claiming that you are running a campaign “transparently”.

    Okay, I call bovine excrement on that claim. College transcripts have nothing to do with transparency in a campaign, nor is that definition what other campaigns followed. Ever. Have you ever tried to figure out where Ron Paul came from? Dick Cheney? Get real.

    And this, after going to court during his state senate election run in order to force sealed records of other candidates to be UNSEALED which, sadly, forced those candidates to drop out, leaving Obama to run for the Illinois state senate unopposed. This is also FACT.

    I think you’re misinformed. Obama challenged the signatures on Alice Palmer’s nomination petitions, and they were ruled ineligible. Those are public records. (Read about it here, and much more of Obama’s early history that Obama critics appear to be wholly unaware of.) Among other lessons you should note is that Obama has fought against political corruption from the start, and he’s personally won some victories by fighting corruption in politics. Don’t ever forget that lesson.

    Why is it that Obama spent upwards of $800,000 in lawyers fees and so on to make sure that nobody, including the courts, see his real, full length birth certificate if all he had to do if he, in fact, was born where he claims, would cost him a grand total of $15, possibly less, to get?

    He spent the $15.00, got the certificate from Hawaii, and made it available worldwide last June. You didn’t accept that. What should make us think there is any kind of proof you would accept? You won’t accept the sworn, certified-by-the-State-of-Hawaii official document that is there; that sets a bad precedent for your claim that you’d accept something else, especially something less.

    Also, I can find no verification that Obama has spent more than $100 defending this thing, the money for the official state document you reject, and the small amount required to post it on the web. Obama is not the defendant in most of the cases filed — what makes you think he’s spent a lot on lawyers? Where do you get that figure? How can it be verified? Frankly, as an attorney, I find that claim uncredible.

    The COLB that is shown online, real or not, is not proof that he was born in HI, especially given the fact that in those days, anyone could go to HI and file for a COLB, even if they were born outside the country.

    You’re making a lot of uncorroborated assertions there. Why would the state’s certified statement that Obama was born in Honolulu be inaccurate? I can find nothing that states Hawaii ever allows a false birth place to be filed. The newspapers of the day, from the records filed at the vital records office of the state, say that Obama was born in Honolulu. That is a powerful piece of contemporary corroboration, fully acceptable in any court of law, that completely contradicts the claim that the certificate is false.

    And as I keep asking, what evidence have you that the document is incorrect in any way? The state of Hawaii certifies it’s accurate. The head of the records office goes out on a limb to say she’s verified it is correct. The contemporary business records of the day verify it.

    Is there even an affidavit from a drunk in a park to contradict that record? If so, why is it not in evidence in any of these cases?

    You’re arguing that we should reject solid evidence in lieu of pure, malicious conjecture. No judge who is honest would accept such an argument.

    Don’t claim that I’m in error here without stating what documents you think we should look at that are more authoritative. Tinfoil hat diatribes you heard from Texas Darlin’ are not authentic, and not accurate.

    THAT is why the full length birth certificate is so important. Line 7A of that form would give the location of birth, even if it was in another country or state. Obama came out at one point and claimed that the reason he didn’t want to show the full length birth certificate was because “it would prove embarassing” to him. Why?

    Who cares? Maybe he was born hermaphroditic – and if so, what worldly interest is it of yours? Perhaps he was born with a disease, now treated, that would cast aspersions on his mother, or his father, or the doctor who delivered him. Who cares? The State of Hawaii has offered a certified document, acceptable in every state of the union under the full faith and credit clause, suitable to the U.S. Department of State, the FBI, the CIA and Homeland Security. Can you offer any contradictory evidence that would make us say, ‘Hmmm. Maybe all of these agencies did conduct a serial screw up, contrary to the odds of such a thing ever happening?’ More to the point, can you offer any piece of evidence, admissible in court, that would lead anyone to think we should look more closely at the issue? If you can, why have YOU refused to offer it here, or on any other blog, or especially in one of the 16 federal cases filed across the nation, not one of which makes any allegation of error that is backed by even an affidavit from a drunk in the park?

    If you did your research on the candidates before the Election on Nov. 4, you would have seen many things about Obama pop up that would beg questions.

    You mean “raise questions,” but I’ll let that go. I’m a fierce grammarian.

    Fact is, as my research on Obama expanded, those questions became more and more frequent and most of them still remain unanswered. To this day my instincts about Obama are very negative. To this day, I trust my instincts about people. There is something seriously wrong where Obama is concerned and I fear for this country. If you don’t, then so be it. Good luck with it.

    In my brief solo legal practice, in a decade of investigative work for the U.S. Senate, in years of doing due diligence on land deals, I’ve learned that evidence that holds up in court is what counts, and is almost always the most accurate. Obama’s presented that kind of evidence, a document certified as accurate by the State of Hawaii. Other events in his life, his possession of a valid U.S. passport (which you cannot contradict), his investigation by the bar groups, and by the FBI and CIA and Senate, all present solid presumptions that Obama is exactly what he says he is — and maybe a little bit better than what he says.

    In contrast, what have the many opponents presented, of court-admissible quality, to contradict? Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

    Summary judgment. Obama wins.

    Go look at my latest post. Study up on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There may be a reason the Supreme Court will take up Berg’s case again, and it may not be at all what you want to hear.

    Like

  46. SonOf1776 says:

    Oh Eddie,

    Newspapers do sometimes automatically list all state reported births. But typically not. In this case we are sure it is not. Here’s why.

    Eleanor Nordyke says she was in the same hospital on the same days as Obama’s mother who gave birth to Barack on Aug. 4, 1961. According to Nordyke, she gave birth to twins on Aug. 5, 1961.

    But exhustive searches through the newspapers records do not list those twins or any twins born on that day. Hmmmm!

    And an intensive canvasing of EVERY hospital in Honalulu that checked the records for either 0Bumba ho his momma has turned up zero times that either one was there. Not a single hospital in Hawaii has any record of either of them. Hmmm!

    And not a single person at Columbia College out of hundreds questioned remembers him. Hmmm!

    And the Kenyan government has sealed all o 0Bams records. Wait, why do they even have records to seal? Hmmm!

    And all of 0Bumbas medical records are sealed. But there was a record on the STD list of him, before it ws scrubbed. It said he has HIV and Herpes. Hmmm!

    And it’s not that we drink kool-aide and believe that all of these are true. But when someone won’t release ANY records and you start finding all this stuff, well if it looks like a duck, quacks like one, etc…

    So while we know why ALL of 0Bumbas records are sealed, because he’s hiding things, you are apparently getting into our kool-aid stockpiles. Shame!

    Like

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    Sherrib said:

    Fact is, Carlyle is correct. This IS your site, so I have a tendency to post on other peoples sites using using facts. Fact… I am one who reads many blogs with many points of view. Fact,.. The TexasDarlin’ blog is one of those sites, and one of the very few that I have found where the posters, with rare exception, have an obvious intelligence. To date I have not seen any censorship on that site and have seen plenty of descenting views.

    I’ve had about a dozen posts blocked, and as you know by now, she’s even blocking trackbacks. I haven’t seen such tactics since Ceauşescu died.

    And, if you’re paying attention to what happens to your posts here, you know there is no such censorship. You haven’t seen censorship at her site because — no offense — you’ve not called attention to her tinfoil hat. Nor have you offered any real facts that deny the Party line over there.

    If you are offering serious arguments somewhere else, if you are providing references somewhere else, copy them here. I think TD gets so far off the rails because the stringent editing stops alternative and opposing views from being aired that would make a lot of sense to posters there,

    Like

  48. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh wait, SCOTUS rejected Donofrio’s stay, which totally means that they are just waiting until January 9th to intervene and save the Republic. Scalia will pull off Obama’s mask, Souter will go “Yoinks he really was a Muslim” and Chief Justice John Roberts will explain “He was secretly trying to fool us all into being President.” Obama will then sneer and go “I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those pesky Texas Darlin’ people”

    Pay close attention to what’s going on at the Supreme Court (which may not be the forum for these arguments, after all). I looked at the docket for the Supreme Court yesterday, and I noticed that they’ve tagged the case “Rule 11.” I don’t practice appellate law and never have, but were I Leo Donofrio I’d be worried. Rule 11 is the one that requires lawyers to swear their facts are accurate, that they have no ulterior motives, and that their cases are not frivolous or nuisances. If Donofrio’s been successful in getting thousands of letters and packages delivered to the Court, gumming up the works, I’d guess they might be getting ready to rule the case frivolous, ban any further filings of the ilk, and find Donofrio and others — if not jail them for contempt.

    Details at the end of this post:
    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/fail-repeated-challenges-to-obamas-eligibility/

    Like

  49. SonOf1776 says:

    Even the opening premise for this blog is fatally flawed.

    It syas:
    First, here’s the rational view of the issue, from FactCheck.org, “Born in the USA.”

    About your precious FactCheck.org. This is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

    0bama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.

    William (Bill) Ayers, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist and a close friend of the 0bamas, was instrumental in founding the Challenge, thanks to his ties to Mayor Richard Daley.

    The first Daley was also a pal of Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, former CEO of ComEd (Commonwealth Edison Power Company)

    Incidentally, the current CEO of ComEd, Frank M. Clark, is a major money bundler for the Obama campaign.

    So you see, I think there is a bit of a conflict of intrest with believing any crap factcheck.org puits out. Also, the enire BC article at factcheck is fraudulent because the pictures show a “Certification of Live Birth” which we all know isn’t even accepted by Hawaii government. But the text refers only to it as a “Birth Certificate” which it certainly is not. It is only a certification of a live birth somewhere. If they had actually explained all the facts, one might be more inclined to believe them.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!

    The 0Bamas and all whom they associate with are so filthy and corrupt they make me puke!

    As more of the uttrly corrupt character of this family unfolds over the coming days and weeks, you will see what a huge mistake you have made. And I will be here to say “told ya so”!

    Like

  50. SonOf1776 says:

    To Der Kaiser Says:

    You re absolutely true and correct. Even if the BC says “One of Gods Angels” we will fight this piece of crap tooth and nail every inch of the way until he is booted out one way or another.

    Why?

    Because we have the intelligence to recognize a complete fraud when we see it. Because we know is is a radical socialist whose best friends and associates are terrorists, criminals and radicals. Because we are already being proven right as the most corrupt administration ever is unfolding before our very eyes and he isn’t even confirmed yet.

    0Bama is nobody. He has zero zip zilch nadda experience doing anything. Name even one piece of experience he has that would make him suited to be POTUS. And community organizer (whatever the heck that even is) training Acorn to commit voter fraud does not count.

    Don’t say he was a great Il State Senator because he never released those records so nobody knows exactly what he voted for or agains. He only served one term anyway.

    Don’t say he was a great U.S. Senator because he started running for president shortly after getting there and it consumed all his time. When he should have been serving the people of Il in the US Senate, he was just using it to launch his pres campaign.

    One term in a state senate with no publically released record and one year as a U.S. Senator before launching a pres campaign do not make anything even remotely in the league with the type of experience a president must have.

    Don’t say is is a well educated very smart man. We have no clue where he even went to school. He will not release any of those records. We certainly have no clue what grades he got.

    Tell us please what experience this idiot has that would make him a good president.

    If you can come up with one substantive factual verifiable piece of experience that shows why 0Bumba is of presidential calibur, I will apologize here and go away.

    Hint: One term as a state senator and 1 year as a junior US senator don’t count.

    Like

  51. sherrib says:

    Fact is, Carlyle is correct. This IS your site, so I have a tendency to post on other peoples sites using using facts. Fact… I am one who reads many blogs with many points of view. Fact,.. The TexasDarlin’ blog is one of those sites, and one of the very few that I have found where the posters, with rare exception, have an obvious intelligence. To date I have not seen any censorship on that site and have seen plenty of descenting views. Whether you agree with what they have to say on that site and others isn’t what matters, what does matter is that everyone is entitled to their points of view. The people on that site bring up their points of view with a great deal of thought, and, unlike this site, they are not calling out people from other sites to “pick a fight” with. Personally, I take what I gleen from the many blogs out there, as well as other sources and, after doing my own research on those points, form my own opinion.

    I would like you to answer some questions for me Mr. Darrell.
    Why is it that Obama has all of his records sealed after telling everyone that he wants “transparency”? Records that other candidates, including Hillary and McCain, laid open for the world to see? Remember this… if you are a Presidential candidate, you lose a certain amount of privacy. College records and certain other records, though they are not required to be shown, should be open for view, especially if you are claiming that you are running a campaign “transparently”. And this, after going to court during his state senate election run in order to force sealed records of other candidates to be UNSEALED which, sadly, forced those candidates to drop out, leaving Obama to run for the Illinois state senate unopposed. This is also FACT.

    Why is it that Obama spent upwards of $800,000 in lawyers fees and so on to make sure that nobody, including the courts, see his real, full length birth certificate if all he had to do if he, in fact, was born where he claims, would cost him a grand total of $15, possibly less, to get? The COLB that is shown online, real or not, is not proof that he was born in HI, especially given the fact that in those days, anyone could go to HI and file for a COLB, even if they were born outside the country. THAT is why the full length birth certificate is so important. Line 7A of that form would give the location of birth, even if it was in another country or state. Obama came out at one point and claimed that the reason he didn’t want to show the full length birth certificate was because “it would prove embarassing” to him. Why?

    If you did your research on the candidates before the Election on Nov. 4, you would have seen many things about Obama pop up that would beg questions. Fact is, as my research on Obama expanded, those questions became more and more frequent and most of them still remain unanswered. To this day my instincts about Obama are very negative. To this day, I trust my instincts about people. There is something seriously wrong where Obama is concerned and I fear for this country. If you don’t, then so be it. Good luck with it.

    Like

  52. Der Kaiser says:

    tanarg Says:

    Der Kaiser,

    You’re missing the issue of greatest importance: whether “natural born” means that both parents must be U.S. citizens. As of 12/26/08, there is no definitive answer; if you think you’ve found one, you’re mistaken. Post it here and we’ll tell you what’s wrong with it.

    Simple. Even a child can understand that.

    I don’t know what I find more hilarious, that TD commenters get to define the constitution as they see fit (which conveniently btw makes Obama ineligible) and then are frustrated when the sane world disagrees with them, or the notion that if SCOTUS heard Donofrio and ruled that Obama is qualified under the constitution, that the TD commenters would not be screaming that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to redefine the constitution away from their own definition of it.

    Oh wait, SCOTUS rejected Donofrio’s stay, which totally means that they are just waiting until January 9th to intervene and save the Republic. Scalia will pull off Obama’s mask, Souter will go “Yoinks he really was a Muslim” and Chief Justice John Roberts will explain “He was secretly trying to fool us all into being President.” Obama will then sneer and go “I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those pesky Texas Darlin’ people”

    *Sigh* Look, I’m no constitutional law professor, unlike the President Elect. However, in order to remove an ELECTED President (which sets a precedent of sorts in its own right) you’d have to have an ironclad legal argument with plenty of precedent on your side. Chester A. Arthur being removed from the Presidency by the Supreme Court for your reasons would be an ironclad argument btw. Since he was not, nor were any of the acts he signed ruled illegitimate because he was, in Donofrio’s eyes, a usurper, that does present a barrier at least in a legal argument. However, don’t let that stop you from posting about how Chester A. Arthur was secret about it so, umm we totally don’t have to throw out Civil Service reform.

    But let’s entertain the notion that you really have a serious argument here. Don’t you think that McCain or Clinton would have lept at the chance to rule Obama ineligible? Don’t you think that if he was secretly born in Kenya, someone somewhere would have come across a document and sold it to Fox News? Oh wait, it just means that McCain, Clinton and everyone at Fox News is just in on this massive conspiracy to appoint an ineligible man to the presidency. Why one would go to so much trouble starting in 1961 remains unexplained by the lovely Texas Darlin’ people, but I’m sure you will get around to it eventually.

    Like

  53. Ed Darrell says:

    goo-goo’s said:

    Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth – we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you’re bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

    Many newspapers publish vital records from the county or state government — births, deaths, marriages, divorces, etc.

    The newspaper listing referred to here is one assembled by the Honolulu Advertiser from the birth records of the Honolulu hospitals as reported to the State of Hawaii. This is not a listing the family made. It is a public notice of a listing the State of Hawaii made. This was not a “birth announcement” that families make with a cute picture of the baby, but a listing in the “legal records” section of the paper, showing the legal business of the state.

    See the difference? It can’t be faked.

    Like

  54. […] FAIL repeated: Challenges to Obama’s eligibility Some weeks ago we visited six hurdles that the case against Barack Obama’s eligibility for the…. […]

    Like

  55. tanarg says:

    Der Kaiser,

    You’re missing the issue of greatest importance: whether “natural born” means that both parents must be U.S. citizens. As of 12/26/08, there is no definitive answer; if you think you’ve found one, you’re mistaken. Post it here and we’ll tell you what’s wrong with it.

    Simple. Even a child can understand that.

    Like

  56. Der Kaiser says:

    That is why we want to see the real deal and that is why 0Bama has spent upwards of $2.1M to fight it. What is he hiding. Nobody except Nobama knows.

    No doubt it says “Born in Honolulu” but in crayon but with Kenya and Indonesia crossed out.

    Jeeze. Let’s play a game. Let’s say for whatever reason Obama publishes his vault copy of his birth certificate because you crackpots defenders of the constitution demand it. And let’s say for the sake of argument that there were no boxes checked “Secret Muslim” or “CIA agent” Let’s say that everything was in order. How long would it take for TD to demand a new document or to argue that he gave up his US citizenship when he moved to Indonesia. Heck, I bet that the SCOTUS could rule that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and that TD would be full of posts about how Obama super conspiracy (of which everyone KNOWS he’s ineligible but for whatever reason—Magic?—can’t secretly leak it to the Washington Post) has subverted the constitution. Wait, that’s already happening.

    Like

  57. SonOf1776 says:

    Eddie,

    You are dead wrong about the BC. Even the Hawaiin government does not accept “Certification”, only “Certificate”.

    They say:
    In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

    But don’t take my word, go read it for yourself. I have seen this on several Hawaii gov sites, this one happens to be the one I found just now first:

    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl/?searchterm=certification

    What is more, I never saw an ammended “Certification”. I know I saw someone else saying that they put that somewhere but nothing official. So we don’t even know what it looks like or even if there is such a thing. Got a link to that information?

    Most states actually allow foriegn residents to obtain BCs. You couldn’t very well go to DMV for a DL with a green card and your chinese BC. All states do ity differently. Some are more lax than others. Hawaii was very lax at that time, only barely having become a state.

    Now here is the kicker, and the reason the BC is such an issue.

    We have friends (not in Hawaii) who adopted a foriegn born child many years ago, They were able to get the child naturilized citizen status, but I don’t remember when. I saw this childs BC from the state they live in (not Hawaii). It is a computer generated short form like 0Bams “certification”. It says the child was “born in the state they live in” and not in the actual country of birth. If they went to the courthouse, I’m sure they could order a certified copy of the long form, and that would show the real country of birth. They told me they had to have the original foriegn BC translated and that notarized to get it.

    That is why we want to see the real deal and that is why 0Bama has spent upwards of $2.1M to fight it. What is he hiding. Nobody except Nobama knows.

    Have some kool-aid Eddie. We will sooner or later find out what it says and then maybe we will have something to really argue about.

    And if you really are dumb enough to believe that without all the black voters, many of whom voted multiple times that 0bumba had any chance to win then I feel real sorry for you. THe kool-aids on me.

    One more thing, did you know that 53% of Americans think the BC issue has merit and only 41% think it diesn’t? The poll has a statistic of over 100,000 people. You can see this poll here:

    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-certificate/

    So, at 41%, you are in the minority here Ediie.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:

    I think I have succeded splendidly in showing your readers that once you pull your head out of the sand, that there is a big world of actual thought and careful analysis going on. On a biased site like this, that is the most I can probably do.

    It will be very interesting to see your reaction when the actual birth certificate is revealed (and the college records that show he was registered as a foreigner and received foreign-aid loans) and you discover that your cherished POS over at Obama’s self-congratulatory website is wrong. But I can wait. I am a patient person.

    What was it scared you off? Was it my request that you state a case for your side, with evidence? (For example, the spectacular claim that Obama registered as a foreign student — is there any support for such a claim, anywhere?)

    Or was it the gentle jibing by Der Kaiser, and a stab at real facts by Sherrib, the sort of free-wheeling discussion that denizens of Texas Darlin’ have been protected from?

    Like

  59. Carlyle says:

    This is YOUR website and you will ultimately get the last word on this argument. But this at least will be MY last word. I think I have succeded splendidly in showing your readers that once you pull your head out of the sand, that there is a big world of actual thought and careful analysis going on. On a biased site like this, that is the most I can probably do.

    It will be very interesting to see your reaction when the actual birth certificate is revealed (and the college records that show he was registered as a foreigner and received foreign-aid loans) and you discover that your cherished POS over at Obama’s self-congratulatory website is wrong. But I can wait. I am a patient person.

    Bu-bye.

    Like

  60. sherrib says:

    I beg to differ concerning the Selective Service requirement. That was begun in July of 1980, several years after the draft was dissolved.

    http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?vendorId=FWNE.fw..se077000.a (near bottom of page)

    “On Jan. 27, 1973, Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird (1922– ) announced that the use of the military draft had ended. An all-volunteer armed forces has taken the place of the draft. In July 1980 the system of registration—but not compulsory military service—was reinstituted for 18-year-old men.”

    Like

  61. Der Kaiser says:

    It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president …

    Yes, it is generally agreed by the commenters of Texas Darlin’ that this is the case. Of course, if we ask them, Obama could also secretly be Malcolm X’s love child, although, somehow that also makes him constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency.

    Thanks to the crackerjack reporting @ TD, I learned that Chester A. Arthur was also ineligible for the presidency. The fact that this happened previously in US history did not set any precedent because the commenters at TD say so. In fact, it probably means Wong Kim Ark shouldn’t have happened since the usurper appointed Horace Gray to the Supreme Court.

    One wonders if we should undo the Prime Meridian as well.

    Like

  62. Ed Darrell says:

    So1776 said:

    Have you looked at the actual county by county election map? WE control 90% of the land mass of the USA! WE control 90% of the weapons! We control the food supply and the oil. And all of you that control the other 10%, well you control the slums. So take a hike. We are now wise to your ways and will never allow something like this to happen again. Had it not been that 0Bama is half black, the election would have fallen just like it did in 2000 and 2004. But the DNC decided to play the race card and so all the black and ethnic minorities in the major population centers of the USA ran out and voted for him because of the color of his skin, having absolutely no clue who they were really voting for and not even caring.

    Had it not been that Obama is such a great inspiration, John McCain would have won handily. Both men made great candidates, and in a fair fight, Obama won. Is it a surprise that African Americans turned out in great numbers to vote for Obama? Shouldn’t have been. It was a surprise to the Republicans that Hispanics would abandon them for a superior candidate.

    But “you” have control of the resources? You remind me of the red state/blue state split — silly claims not borne out at the ballot box. We’re a purple nation, especially for anyone with enough Jeffersonian liberty left in them.

    Like

  63. Ed Darrell says:

    Obama’s already made the prima facie showing that he’s eligible for the presidency, Carlyle, that was my point. If you wish to contest that showing, you need some good evidence.

    Since you have none, there’s no contest.

    Like

  64. Carlyle says:

    I don’t have ANY hurdles to overcome because I’m not running for office. Obama has just ONE hurdle to overcome. Demonstrate to the public that you are eligible and quite fighting the requests for reasonable information.

    I cannot debate beyond that point. It is conclusive and final. You and me and anybody else can speculate and assume all they want. None of it matters. The only thing that matters is Obama’s records.

    I am perfectly willing to view these records and let the chips fall where they may. You, sir, on the otherhand seemed scared spitless about what they may say.

    Come over to the light. The truth shall set you free.

    Like

  65. SonOf1776 says:

    There is no exact definition of “natural born citizen” anywhere in the constitution or any of the ammendments to it. That being said, there must be a legal ruling by the SCOTUS to determine what the exact definition is.

    This is really the most significant issue. If he is not natural born, the BC and everything else are mute points. And the constitution does exactly define that there are two types of citizens, those who are natural born and those who are not.

    If you look up “naturalborn citizen” in wikipedia it presents the most commonly held definition which is as follows:

    It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president …

    From that definition, widely held to be the most likely meaning, 0Bama is in no possible way eligible to be POTUS. While 0Bamas whore mama was a citizen, his Kenyan papa was not.

    Until the SCOTUS interprets the constitution for us (there job not ours) his eligibility will be in question. And until that occurs, we the people who are still patriotic and believe in the constitution will never give up.

    The rest of you who voted for this aboninition can do whatever you want because you are irrelevant. My suggestion is that you all just leave this country since you obviously don’t support it. Find a nice socialist country where the govenment will wipe your but for you and go there. We do not want you here. We will fight him tooth and nail at every turn and step of the way until he is out. We will never let our great country be devastated by the likes of 0Bama. And devastate he will. If he actually becomes the president, it will be the absolute worst most corrupt administration ever, making Jimmy Carter seem pretty tame.

    Have you looked at the actual county by county election map? WE control 90% of the land mass of the USA! WE control 90% of the weapons! We control the food supply and the oil. And all of you that control the other 10%, well you control the slums. So take a hike. We are now wise to your ways and will never allow something like this to happen again. Had it not been that 0Bama is half black, the election would have fallen just like it did in 2000 and 2004. But the DNC decided to play the race card and so all the black and ethnic minorities in the major population centers of the USA ran out and voted for him because of the color of his skin, having absolutely no clue who they were really voting for and not even caring,

    But, I’ll tell you who he is. He is a narcisist. He is a socialist. He is an extremist radical member of a black theology church. His closest friends are terrorists, criminals and worse. His wife is a racist, white hating, America hating person.

    And to imagine that YOU people who voted for someone such as this even breathe the same air as me makes me want to puke!

    The next time you venture out of your secure little blue bubbles, just remember that WE control all the rest. And we drink the kool-aid and eat the raw powder while we clean our guns and WE LIKE IT!

    Like

  66. Ed Darrell says:

    Carlyle, answer the six points I make in the post. I give six hurdles you need to overcome to make the case. You keep saying you don’t have to do anything, but all that means is you’ve got no case.

    I’m willing to listen, but you have to talk. Tell me why it is you think Obama’s passport, subject of a Senate hearing in July 2008, is not valid, or doesn’t exist, contrary to all assertions at the hearing. Tell me how Obama got a passport without a valid birth certificate. Tell me how he got to take the bar exam without a valid birth certificate. Tell me how he got FBI clearance for top secret information without a birth certificate, without being exactly who he says he is.

    These are not difficult questions. Either you have information, or you don’t. These are simple questions.

    Where did John McCain produce the documents? No one pursuing this issue against Obama has seen them, to the best of my knowledge. Can you refer us to someone who did?

    Now, how about every other candidate since George Washington — do you have any evidence to suggest they were ever checked out this way?

    And why do we treat Obama differently than we treated Eisenhower, who lived in several other countries and hobnobbed with Joe Stalin? How about John Kennedy, who lived in several other countries? How about Franklin Roosevelt, who lived in other countries, travelled extensively, and kept a home in Canada?

    To the extent this has nothing to do with race or ideology, it’s a pure tinfoil hat chase. A lot of people are unhappy at the healing of the rifts Obama has been able to achieve already, before he’s sworn in, and they are doing everything they can to keep old wounds open. Look at the post from “Sonof1776,” for example.

    So what’s the point, and why should we pursue it absent any showing of any contrary evidence to what is already on the table? What we know is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, on U.S. soil, a natural born citizen of a natural born citizen mother. All previous presidents who met those criteria had no fuss made about their eligibility for the presidency.

    What information have you to contradict the plain record?

    And, if your questions are not answered by what I say, if you do indeed have a case against Obama’s eligibility, why is Texas Darlin’ so afraid to confront the facts? Why does this ring of websites stoking this nuttery fear an open and free discussion of the facts?

    Like

  67. Carlyle says:

    This is not a criminal court proceeding. This is an eligibility verification just like getting a driver’s license. I would love to see the look on the face of the government official when you say “Of course I am a citizen and live in this town. Prove I don’t”. The onus is on the applicant for office. He has provided not one bit of needed information.

    Contrary to Ed Darrell’s “assumptions”, these are not the kinds of answers we get when we write official letters to various relevant government agencies. The most usual response to “How to you know that Obama is eligible” is “We believe so and so agency did it”. Upon query of so and so agency we get the same answer. So far we have been around the circle many times.

    All I want is for some official agency (not some hypertensive blogger) to step forward and say – “Yeah, our agency is the one who did it”. It seems so little to ask.

    If you, Ed Darrel, can help in this quest, we would be forever grateful. I just want to know the truth and not some runaround. I don’t want a civil war, I don’t want riots, I don’t want revolution, and I most assuredly don’t want SonOf1776 and his thousands (millioins?) of like-minded patriots to have to go all mideival.

    We have simple questions with easy, quick, cheap, and painless answers. We simply call on Obama to unfreeze his records voluntarily so we know the constitution is being upheld. Or in lieu of that, we call upon the courts to require release of said records.

    PS – It is a lie that no other candidate has to do this – John McCain, for instance, quickly produced – without fuss, I may add – his relevant documents. Finally, given Obama’s complex background with living in and relatives in several foreign countries, it is especially imperative that Obama’s past be investigated. It has nothing to do with race or ideology.

    Like

  68. Ed Darrell says:

    Lotsa bluster, no evidence.

    Just as I feared, you don’t know about hallucinogens. Ergo, you’re a green field for those peddling them.

    [Dear Readers: Ain’t this a pip? I ask ’em for evidence to back their claims; they start talking about shooting presidents and stockpiling guns. Who was it first said you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t get to by reason in the first place?]

    Like

  69. SonOf1776 says:

    Hey Eddy,

    If you’re so stupid as to believe 0Bama, the most corrupt president ever to not yet take office, here is something you really can believe in.

    Most of the 50 million registered gun owners in this country are conservatives. And that’s just the registered ones. We do definitely cling to our guns and bibles and not only drink kool-aid but eat the raw powder right out of the bag. In my machine shop I modify the firing pins to turn over the counter weapons into fully automatic ones. I load all the rounds myself and use full heavy metal jackets and nylon tipped flak vest piercing rounds. I can make gunpowder myself if needed and have bulk bags of salt-peter and sulfur. When 0Bama bans weapons and revokes the first ammendment, it won’t phase me at all.

    I wouldn’t know about the LSD Eddy, never even knew anyone into that stuff. But I bet you know all about it huh Eddy? You and 0Bama the cig puffing, cocaine addict, pot smoker, homosexual that you voted for. The one who is best friends with terrorists like the Ayers and his pal Rashidi the PLO terror spokesman. The one who resigned his Senate seat early to make a deal with Rod.

    Yeah, I drink the kool-aid and eat the raw powder. And I like it. At least I didn’t vote for a scum vermin radical terrorist. I voted for the true America hero guy. The one who used to fly fighter jets off carriers back when pot smoking 0Bama was trying to fly kites in a park in Indonesia.

    Oh, and one more thing Eddy. When 0Bamas goon squads come knocking on your door to confiscate your books, bibles, guns, gold, 401Ks and IRAs, I hope you will understand what a looser you are because at that point you will have lost it all.

    Finally a joke for ya Eddy:
    Q: What do Lincoln, Kennedy and 0Bama have in common?

    A: Nothing, YET!

    Like

  70. Ed Darrell says:

    Sure there’s a difference, Papoose — for the purposes of eligibility for president, the certificate of live birth should suffice. That’s your problem. This document, certified as accurate by the State of Hawaii, presents a rebuttable presumption.

    You’ve got nothing to rebut that presumption. Get a grip indeed — do you have any evidence? No one else does, either.

    There are five other issues I’ve noted above, any one of which knocks the challenges out of the park. You’ve not dealt with any of them so far. Nor has anyone else.

    Like

  71. Papoose says:

    ROFLMAO! There is a difference between a “Certificate of Live birth” ( a snapshot) and a vaulted Birth Certificate (original).

    What you’ve displayed above is not a Birth Certificate – get a grip – and end this with the real deal…The real thing, fellow Americans! not a substiture.

    Show me Don’t Tell Me!

    Like

  72. Ed Darrell says:

    Who says he’s spending any money on it, lee?

    What he’s posted at his website is suitable for legal purposes, and you claim it’s fake. With such a fine showing of rationality on your part, why should Obama try to accommodate you any further? By law, what he’s got posted is valid. You refuse to acknowledge it.

    Since when do you supersede Article VI of the Constitution?

    Lee, Goo-goo’s, SonOf1776, Carlyle: I’ve listed six ways your claims fail in the main post. You’ve dealt with them not at all. Especially I’d like your analysis about how and why both the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the Illinois Bar missed all these points. Especially considering the March incident and the July hearings on the State Department breaches of Obama’s passport files, I’d like to hear your analysis for how everyone and their dog missed the fact that Obama’s passport file doesn’t exist, as you claim, if what you claim is correct.

    Deal with the facts we have rather than the conjectures you’re used to dealing with for a few minutes. Come down to the real world, make a real case, if you can.

    Like

  73. lee says:

    let’s see-all he has to do is show the stupid Certification of Live Birth yet he is spending a boat load of money and three teams of lawyers to fight the cases-if he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding the certification? Besides, what he posted on his website has been proven to be a fake. why post a fake if you have the real thing? It just smells bad.

    Like

  74. Ed Darrell says:

    Oy, another one.

    Fact One: 0Bama has spent between $1m and $2.1M on three separate law firms instead of around $10 to release his Hawaiin “Certificate Of Live Birth”. This is the long form BC we all have that says who the doc was, what hospital, etc… Only an insane person or someone hiding something would spend so much. Which is he? Maybe both!

    There is no way you could have found the amount of money Obama spent on this issue, legally, or practically. For most of the cases in the courts, Obama isn’t even the party charged. Only an insane person, or someone trying to create controversy where none exists, would claim such money was spent without an iota of evidence it was spent at all. Which are you?

    Fact Two: Factcheck has only posted photos of a Hawaiin “Certification of Live Birth”. The “Certification” is not admissable even by Hawaii government in applications for anything. They only accept the long form “Certificate”. It is because Hawaii allows BCs to be given to even foriegn born residents.

    The document is admissible in court for most purposes. It’s good to go with the State Department, I understand. Perhaps more to the point, it states the place of birth — Honolulu. Foreign born residents can get the certificate, but not with a false place of birth, nor any other false information.

    If the document is not good for anything, why would Hawaii bother to certify it , or even to issue it? You’re not a lawyer, right? Have you checked out what is used for evidence in court of births and other such things?

    Fact Three: 0Bama was born with dual citizenship, as he openly admits. His papa was not and never was a U.S. citizen. To be president you must be a natural born citizen. That means born in the USA of parents who were citizens. Wiki it! The 14th amendment only re-defined what a citizen is but did not touch the subject of natural born citizen or presidential eligibility. Read it yourself. Google it.

    You’re assuming that “natural born citizen” somehow excludes U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil — no such showing has ever been made in court, or anywhere else — and you’re assuming that his father’s citizenship nullifies U.S. law in U.S. courts. That latter assumption is just false.

    The 14th amendment is silent on the issue of “natural born citizen.” The language in Article II is, frankly, a little odd. But there is absolutely no indication anywhere that a kid born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen is anything other than a “natural born citizen” for the purposes of Article II and eligibility for the presidency.

    We’ve had two other presidents whose fathers were British subjects at their birth. Precedent seems to be on Obama’s side.

    Please check the law carefully. The only way Obama’s father’s citizenship might affect Obama is if Obama’s father was, at the time of Obama’s birth, a diplomatic or consular official (he was neither), or if he was a citizen of a nation at war with the U.S. The U.S. was not at war with Britain in 1961.

    Obama is a natural born citizen for the purposes of Article II, born to a U.S. citizen mother, born on U.S. soil.

    Fact four: 0Bama was adopted by an Indonesian man at age five. His name was legally then changed, through the adoption to Barry Soetoro. Since neither Indonesia or USA allowed dual citizenships at that time, he lost his US citizenship, if he even ever had it. Unless he can present where he re-applied for citienship then he is an illegal alien. Also, that would make him naturalized and still ineligible.

    Got adoption papers? Show ’em. Got any case that says a child of a U.S. citizen mother loses citizenship when she remains his custodial parent, and they both remain U.S. citizens? Let’s see the case. Adoption would affect citizenship if both parents were citizens of another nation, perhaps. The law may be fuzzy on that. But in this case, his mother remained a U.S. citizen at a minimum. The case that Obama was adopted, legally, is extremely weak.

    Fact Five: On Jan 9, the first of many lawsuits contesting 0Bamas eligibility will be conferenced with all 9 Supreme Court justices.

    Or maybe the last of three. The Supreme Court looks at hundreds of cases it does not take.

    Plus, there is some question about whether the Supreme Court even has jurisdiction in this issue. And there is always the problem of standing. This case is a multiple-loser. Is there any evidence to suggest something has changed to make it a winner? What is that evidence?

    Fact Six: 0Bama is not yet president. On Jan 8 the congress must count the sealed secret electoral vote. It only takes one seantor and one representative to contest his eligibility for the whole issue to be put on the table and the proof forced to occur.

    So it should be easy to contest. With 538 people eligible to object, surely you can find one who is at least temporarily insane enough to make the objection.

    And then what? The chair overrules the objection, and the votes are counted, most likely.

    Speculation: The lawyer in the case on Jan 9 says he has 0Bamas certified Kenyan BC. Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see!

    Why isn’t it in his brief? This is an extraordinary claim, and it would take extraordinary evidence. He has evidence he’s holding back, evidence he wouldn’t reveal to a lower court? What sort of crackpot, crank lawyering is that?

    Opinion: 0Bama is linked to the Blagogate scandal fifty ways from Sunday. The FBI has interviewed him. Just because his own lawyewr says he is innocent, I think I’ll wait to hear what the FBI says and not take 0Bamas word. Remember, “Trust me, I have no previous knowledge”? Yeah right!

    Blagojevich himself said Obama wouldn’t play dirty politics, according to the snippets of transcripts of wiretaps released by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Blagojevich’s defense is subpeonaing Obama’s staffers because all the evidence shows Obama did nothing wrong, nor did anyone on his staff, and the defense wants to make that a key part of the case.

    So we have Blagojevich, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Obama, all of whom say Obama did nothing wrong and wouldn’t play.

    Who should we believe: The U.S. attorney, the governor of Illinois, and Obama, or you?

    So, until we see some real evidence, we’ll just keep up the pressure, in ever mounting increments, until it is presented. And sooner or later it will be presented, unless of course he is arrested, skips the country or is shot before Jan 20.

    You’ve been reading too much of the history of Zimbabwe and Thailand.

    Until we see some real evidence from the critics of Obama, we’ll keep on with the arrangements for the inauguration, and we’ll keep warning our students from the tinfoil hat concessions. Those things haven’t worked for Obama’s critics. They probably don’t work at all.

    Like

  75. Ed Darrell says:

    Carlyle, I posted links to Texas Darlin’. In fact, I posted a response at her blog. She won’t allow my posts through. Your beef is with Texas Darlin’, not me. Go complain to her that she’s shutting off discussion, even refusing to allow trackbacks from this blog to appear at her blog. I regret you didn’t know Texas Darlin’ was protecting you from valid criticism. Nothing I can do about it, though.

    After many months of trying – emails, phone calls, letters, etc. – there has been no evidence found that Obama has a US passport. You just make an assumption that he does. And then build much of your logic on that. I would be most pleased for you to inform me how you know he has such a passport.

    Nor have you an iota of evidence that Obama lacks a U.S. passport. Having been through the wringer with the National Conference of Bar Examiners, several employers, and Congressional staff, myself, I think it’s a fair assumption that Obama has a U.S. passport. There is no evidence to the contrary, nothing to suggest anything to the contrary, and since he’d have to be a U.S. citizen to be a U.S. senator, and since a U.S. senator who travels on official business must have a U.S. passport, we can assume that to be the case.

    Have you any serious evidence to the contrary? No, I didn’t think so.
    [And see the note below, on the March flap about employees getting into Obama’s passport records. Were there no passport, that would have been the news, then.]

    Similarly, we have found no evidence of the FBI, the Dept. of Homeland Security, etc. of actually performing any of the certifications you mention.

    So, then, it is your contention that Sen. Obama, unlike every other senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, and unlike every other U.S. senator since World War II, was not checked out by the FBI? Again, I wonder what evidence you have that Obama slipped by that process — the only one out of hundreds of members of Congress to do so (probably thousands, if we think about it).

    There is not a scintilla of evidence that Obama sneaked through without such a check, either. Don’t assume what is not in evidence.

    I at one time had a number of very high government clearances. If I gave you my full name, address, and SSN, you could discover this yourself. It is public knowledge. Yet no such information about Obama has ever been found. Again, I would be most pleased for you to inform me how you know he has passed such investigations.

    Why would the FBI divulge such data to you, or to anyone else, when such a divulgence would violate the law? That the FBI won’t treat you like the Star Chamber Court doesn’t mean the FBI isn’t doing its job — it sounds like the FBI is doing its job very carefully.

    I’m not sure how one could make such an inquiry, especially about a sitting U.S. official. Frankly, I doubt whether one could get that information about you, even with your Social Security number. This isn’t general public knowledge. It’s generally available only after declassification, only after several years.

    Oh, I see, you just ASSUME that he must have gone through all these wickets.

    It’s a rebuttable presumption, yes. Have you any evidence to the contrary? No. The presumption remains unrebutted.

    In regards the Birth Certificate. No court in any jurisdiction would take a photograph on a web site as evidence of anything.

    Those people who have examined the document say it is valid. The photograph on the web isn’t official, but it’s a lot more solid than what you have against it. In a court contest, the web photo wins.

    But why don’t you go to campaign headquarters and check it out?

    It is furthermore common knowledge that the state of HI issues such documents for non-US-born babies.

    But Hawaii doesn’t lie about the place of birth. Hawaii has listed the place of birth as Honolulu — since 1961. There is a special case for adopted babies. Obama was not an adopted baby in 1961. “Common knowledge” must give way to actual evidence at some point. The actual evidence we have, from the birth certificate, from the contemporary records of the state in 1961, from the published version of the official records, from all evidence, shows that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.

    Is there any contrary evidence beyond internet hearsay? Bring it forward. No one seems to be able to find it to put before a court.

    We have repeatedly asked for the types of records that every other Pres candidate has provided: Full long form certificate, college entrance and student loan applications. And yes the Obama team has beligerently refused to provide such information.

    No other presidential candidate has ever provided such records. Where do you get off making such a claim? There is no place for a candidate to make such a showing, and as a practical matter, no one ever asks except there is some solid evidence of a problem. In recent history, we have had three candidates whose eligibility might have been a clear problem from their certificates of live birth: Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain. Goldwater was born in a U.S. Territory, Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents, and McCain was born at a Navy hospital to U.S. citizen parents, in Panama, in the Panama Canal Zone. None of those three has ever shown the records you claim to want from Obama.

    George W. Bush hasn’t shown those records. Bill Clinton didn’t show those records. George H. W. Bush didn’t show those records. Ronald Reagan didn’t show those records.

    Why do you single out Obama?

    I would be happy to accept Obama as the next president if he were required to provide the same records as everybody else.

    As noted above, he’s already done that.

    I have no preconclusions or hidden agenda. I want to see the records and am willing to let the chips fall where they may. Are you equally open to the truth? Whatever it may be??

    You know, actually, we do have news reports that Obama has a U.S. passport. If you recall, there was a flap earlier in 2008 when it was revealed that State Department employees had accessed the passport records of the Democratic candidates, though they were not authorized to do so. Here, you can read about it at MSNBC:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23736254/

    How do you think Obama’s passport records at the U.S. State Department were accessed if, as you seem to claim, they don’t exist?

    I’m open to the truth, but I’m tired of wild, crazy accusations that have no foundation in reality. What in the world makes you think there is any problem with Obama’s birth records or passport records? You have presented here absolutely nothing to suggest a problem. And when we do simple checks of the news, we quickly find your claims don’t hold up.

    I’m reminded of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which a woman is accused of being a witch. The first two witnesses say the woman worked magic on them. The first man says she made his nose grow long. It is pointed out to him that he is wearing a carrot on his nose. The second man claims she turned him into a newt. “You’re not a newt now,” a skeptic observes. “I got better,” he says.

    None of the claims against Obama’s eligibility has evidence even that good.

    Got evidence? Let’s see it.

    Like

  76. goo-goo's says:

    “Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?”

    Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website.

    Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let’s explore that. Hawaii doesn’t issue “birth certificates”. The state offers “Certificates of Live Birth” and “Certifications of Live Birth.” What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a “Certification of Live Birth.” So let’s talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a “birth certificate” (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the “last word” to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let’s take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

    “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

    So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn’t accept “Certifications of Live Birth” as a last leg of verification, it’s safe to say there’s a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he “posted his birth certificate” on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a “birth certification” – which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

    if you’re going to insist there’s a question here, I have to tell you….the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the ‘Certificate’ you’re talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they’re in on this crazy conspiracy?”

    I’m not saying they’re involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I’m not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

    Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

    Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn’t until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it’s plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only “proves” 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can’t find the words, “originating from Hawaii ” or “was born in Honolulu ” or “as documented in the Certification he has already released”. Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it’s existence – except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.
    So you’re probably asking the question didn’t factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You’re just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don’t?!”

    I guess the first thing I’d tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of “facts”, and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii ‘s Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: “Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu ” ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn’t. If this site’s only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org’s part – which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one…fabricated facts and all.

    So now you’re probably saying if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack’s parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There’s a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud.”

    Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth – we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you’re bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

    “Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous.”

    Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you’re right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. “Standing”, as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If “We The People” don’t have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court’s docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes…and several of California ‘s electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

    I don’t think too many grounded people could say, “I know the answer.” For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I’m not saying he was born in Kenya . I’m not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens – in a country that didn’t recognize any dual citizenship.) I’m not saying that due to his father’s citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I’m not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily “evidence.” I’m also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I’m saying is, none of us have these answers. I’m saying, there is an outstanding question here – that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms….fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you – you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let’s be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website – but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

    “Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn’t the media covering it?”

    I have no idea.

    As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses – we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution – in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

    There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur – but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract “We The People” hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

    “Everyone will riot if they kick him out.” We can’t be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots – recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process – simply based on color.

    Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn’t. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our “birth certificates” (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation – allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

    The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely…leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter – when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

    It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

    “This is ridiculous” doesn’t count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama’s refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President…with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.

    Like

  77. SonOf1776 says:

    Fact One: 0Bama has spent between $1m and $2.1M on three separate law firms instead of around $10 to release his Hawaiin “Certificate Of Live Birth”. This is the long form BC we all have that says who the doc was, what hospital, etc… Only an insane person or someone hiding something would spend so much. Which is he? Maybe both!

    Fact Two: Factcheck has only posted photos of a Hawaiin “Certification of Live Birth”. The “Certification” is not admissable even by Hawaii government in applications for anything. They only accept the long form “Certificate”. It is because Hawaii allows BCs to be given to even foriegn born residents.

    Fact Three: 0Bama was born with dual citizenship, as he openly admits. His papa was not and never was a U.S. citizen. To be president you must be a natural born citizen. That means born in the USA of parents who were citizens. Wiki it! The 14th ammendment only re-defined what a citizen is but did not touch the subject of natural born citizen or presedential eligibility. Read it yourself. Google it.

    Fact four: 0Bama was adopted by an Indonesian man at age five. His name was legally then changed, through the adoption to Barry Soetoro. Since neither Indonesia or USA allowed dual citizenships at that time, he lost his US citizenship, if he even ever had it. Unless he can present where he re-applied for citienship then he is an illegal alien. Also, that would make him naturalized and still ineligible.

    Fact Five: On Jan 9, the first of many lawsuits contesting 0Bamas eligibility will be conferenced with all 9 Supreme Court justices.

    Fact Six: 0Bama is not yet president. On Jan 8 the congress must count the sealed secret electoral vote. It only takes one seantor and one representative to contest his eligibility for the whole issue to be put on the table and the proof forced to occur.

    Speculation: The lawyer in the case on Jan 9 says he has 0Bamas certified Kenyan BC. Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see!

    Opinion: 0Bama is linked to the Blagogate scandal fifty ways from Sunday. The FBI has interviewed him. Just because his own lawyewr says he is innocent, I think I’ll wait to hear what the FBI says and not take 0Bamas word. Remember, “Trust me, I have no previous knowledge”? Yeah right!

    So, until we see some real evidence, we’ll just keep up the pressure, in ever mounting increments, until it is presented. And sooner or later it will be presented, unless of course he is arrested, skips the country or is shot before Jan 20.

    Like

  78. Carlyle says:

    Sir:

    I just discovered that you are, on this blog, making dispariging remarks about statements I have made on another blog. The professional thing would have been to make them on the original blog or to at least have posted a comment there to look here.

    My primary rebuttal is that you are full of assumptions. I will give two examples.

    After many months of trying – emails, phone calls, letters, etc. – there has been no evidence found that Obama has a US passport. You just make an assumption that he does. And then build much of your logic on that. I would be most pleased for you to inform me how you know he has such a passport.

    Similarly, we have found no evidence of the FBI, the Dept. of Homeland Security, etc. of actually performing any of the certifications you mention. I at one time had a number of very high government clearances. If I gave you my full name, address, and SSN, you could discover this yourself. It is public knowledge. Yet no such information about Obama has ever been found. Again, I would be most pleased for you to inform me how you know he has passed such investigations.

    Oh, I see, you just ASSUME that he must have gone through all these wickets.

    In regards the Birth Certificate. No court in any jurisdiction would take a photograph on a web site as evidence of anything. It is furthermore common knowledge that the state of HI issues such documents for non-US-born babies. We have repeatedly asked for the types of records that every other Pres candidate has provided: Full long form certificate, college entrance and student loan applications. And yes the Obama team has beligerently refused to provide such information.

    I would be happy to accept Obama as the next president if he were required to provide the same records as everybody else. I have no preconclusions or hidden agenda. I want to see the records and am willing to let the chips fall where they may. Are you equally open to the truth? Whatever it may be??

    Like

  79. Awesome says:

    I hope the bitter dead-enders wishing that Obama isn’t a US citizen never give up. Their cries are like music, and their tears are like honey.

    Oh, I keed. C’mon, guys. Just let Barack into your heart. He loves you unconditionally, and he has a plan to take you to socialist heaven. Just ask him for forgiveness, and even you can be saved.

    Like

  80. Ed Darrell says:

    Not having a contrary answer is, in law, a sort of answer.

    Further, were there significant evidence to support the claims against Obama’s eligibility, generally the courts would struggle to find a way to get the case going before them. “Lack of standing” is, often, court-decreed shorthand for “this is probably a nuisance suit, and we don’t want to bother stinking up the courts with it and making good people pay massive amounts of good money for such foolishness.”

    Which is it in this case? Wonderful question. But as we’ve indicated on another thread, there are two precedents that tend to make the case Obama’s fully eligible, Chester Alan Arthur and Charles Curtis. (Here’s the thread:
    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/without-hysterics-the-obama-eligibility-issue/ )

    Is there any clear evidence against the Hawaii birth certificate? No. Is there a clear argument against eligibility because of dual citizenship? No.

    The courts’ refusal to take the matter doesn’t necessarily mean it’s never been decided. It means that, in this case, there’s not a strong enough case to change the way things are going.

    Like

  81. jbjd says:

    In any of the cases brought in state and federal court, which have already been dismissed, judges failed to reach the merits of the case but only ruled Plaintiff had not perfected a cause of action. In other words, no court of law has determined BO is a natural born citizen.

    Even assuming everyone trying to ascertain BO’s eligibility for POTUS is a white, racist, ignorant, Republican, former Hillary supporter who is a sore loser, this still does not answer these 2 (two) questions. 1) Is Barack Obama Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS? 2) What is the factual and legal basis for this determination?

    Like

  82. Ed Darrell says:

    John, Donofrio isn’t suing the candidates at all. He’s suing the New Jersey Secretary of State. He alleges it’s her duty to be sure the presidential candidates meet the requirements by doing more than any other agency in government to check out this issue in particular. That argument is interesting, especially since New Jersey law gives her that charge — but I suspect the New Jersey law overreaches. States elect electors, not presidents. It’s not her job, under the Constitution. She’s not the one to sue.

    If you can figure out who should be sued, according to the Constitution, let us know.

    Odinga is for Mugabe’s stepping down, for better health care for Africans, for economic development of Africa in capitalist fashion — why in the world would you think that Obama’s having shaken hands with the man should sway anyone’s views in any direction other than to the good? Is every Republican who supported Nixon, heart and soul, to be jailed?

    I’m still looking for confirmation on who said it, but it is attributed to Euripides: “Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad.” Anti-Obamaniacs appear to be on the path to destruction, at least from this vantage point.

    Like

  83. Jasmine says:

    @John

    Why don’t you LEARN THE FACTS!!! DUMBASS!

    The Leo Donofrio’s case has been speculated and confirmed by the Walll street jornal website to be Denied!

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/05/Obama-citizenship-case-gets-high-courts-attention/

    Or

    http://Blogs.wsj.com/

    The Supreme Court justices had a conference Friday on Dec. 5th and only 2 CASES have been granted.

    Leo’s case is not one of them.

    The full list of the cases that have been granted or denied will be out on Monday.

    But its safe to say, if Leo’s case was granted and heard by the justices, they would of made it public by now.

    See for yourself, ONLY two cases have been granted by the Court Justices to hear.

    Neither of them Leo’s.

    http://www.Scotusblog.com/wp/

    Like

  84. John says:

    You are REALLY a bunch of idiots. LEARN THE FACTS!

    The “birth certificate” is a CERTIFICATE OF LIFE BIRTH, no THE birth certificate.

    Furthermore, Leo is not “sueing” Obama, but three candidates.

    Maybe you should get your head out of your butt and KNOW THE F****** FACTS.

    Maybe you should post a picture of your MESSiah with Ayers or Odinga and write as caption: Do you trust your nation’s future to this man?

    Morron

    Like

  85. […] the building where “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved high over the front door, poker-player Leo Donofrio’s challenge will be examined to see whether at least four of the nine justices of the Court think he has enough […]

    Like

  86. Ed Darrell says:

    Daman conners, here’s the response I posted at that blog:

    1. Were Obama born outside the U.S., under U.S. law he is still a “natural-born U.S. citizen” for the purposes of Article II of the Constitution — as is John McCain (who WAS born outside the U.S.), and as were George Romney and Barry Goldwater, two other candidates who were born outside the country (Romney) or not in a state (Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territory, prior to statehood).

    2. If the birth occurred outside of Hawaii, then the State of Hawaii’s Certificate of Live Birth would state so. It doesn’t. [Adoption? No, Obama was not adopted in 1961 — so any law governing a special birth certificate for an adopted child does not apply.]

    3. Newspapers from Honolulu in 1961 confirm the birth in Honolulu. Now, either Barack Obama is Jesus resurrected and able to manipulate newspapers when he was just days old, or he was born in Honolulu.

    4. Nothing you allege against the birth certificate is backed up by affidavits, let alone hard evidence to suggest any problem with the document.

    You can’t prove your birth certificate isn’t a fake, the same way you challenge Obama. That’s not the issue. The issue is, what does the State of Hawaii say? They say born in Honolulu, and they’ve been consistent in that statement for more than 47 years.

    Finally, why in the world would any hospital confirm to you something held in records 47 years ago? It’s telling that you offer no link to support that claim, but instead links to the hospital websites. You’re counting on people looking at the links and thinking they back your case, when they do no such thing.

    You’ve got not an iota of evidence to support any of your claims. Shame on you.

    If you understand Hawaii law, you know that birth certificates for kids born in foreign nations must state accurate facts — like the place of birth. You understand that the State of Hawaii doesn’t hoax up certificates for the fun of it.

    There is indeed a contemporary record of Obama’s birth that cannot be faked — the newspaper listing.

    The Supreme Court will look at a variety of things that you’re not counting on. In order to have standing, someone will have to allege an injury — that’s not inevidence from any of the postings I’ve seen. There must be some serious issue that makes a case in controversy in order to get standing.

    One of the better cases claims the state’s secretary of state didn’t demand enough details. It took me a while, but I remembered that the states don’t elect presidents. The states elect electors — and the secretary of state is under no obligation to do anything other than take the party’s statement that the slate of electors has been duly elected. There is no obligation of the electors to have been natural born citizens, nor is there any injury if they are somehow ineligible to vote in the general election. So, ultimately, that suit, too, will probably be tossed on standing.

    A case against Obama would benefit greatly from some contradictory fact, not just claims by tinfoil hat wearers that they are “sure” Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, when the claimant has no knowledge of the event, nor any serious affidavits nor any other evidence to support the claim. Courts look at real cases and controversies, not the ravings of people disappointed that we don’t get four more years of Bushclone.

    Like

  87. Hey see Digg article
    http://digg.com/politics/Hospitals_in_Hawaii_to_Obama_You_Were_Not_Born_Here
    If you understood that Hawaii issues birth certificates to people born in foreign nations, then it starts to make sense that even the hospitals claimed to be where Obama was born have NO RECORD ogf he and his mother ever being there.

    Boo the conspiracy turns real on Obama and on Dec 5th ( Friday) the Supreme Court will have a review.

    Like

  88. It is really sad to how desperately people grope to keep a black man from a position he was duly elected for. These people will be remembered in tiny blurbs of history as the most pathetic racists of the 21st century.

    Like

  89. […] can’t Le… on Hoaxers promise to slam Obama …Obama can’t Le… on 6 ways challenges to Obama…jd2718 on 6 ways challenges to Obama…Ed Darrell on 6 ways challenges to Obama…jd2718 […]

    Like

  90. […] president because of his country of birth. Ed Darrell, writer of Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, skewers this idea pretty fatally (emphasis his): Fourth, Obama is a U.S. Senator. As a matter of standard operating procedure, the […]

    Like

  91. jd2718 says:

    I think I had to show proof of registration at my second college to receive financial aid, but not at my first (I was a spotty student, and that sets the date in the early 80s)

    My father, pre-Viet Nam era, had a series of deferments – school, law school, marriage – but they started drafting more again. Rather than be a marine, he pre-emptively signed up for Air Force JAG.

    The physicals to be a lawyer were less thorough than those to be a pilot. “Everyone come on over for the vision test” and they all shuffled over. “Very good, you’ve all passed the hearing test”

    In any event, he found out I was on the way, withdrew his application, and was just old enough that there never was much of a chance of him getting called.

    Jonathan

    Like

  92. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve found a couple of sites that say the draft ended in 1973. That period is in the Great Void of internet-available information. I’m sure we could pin it down farther.

    One site I found said that Gerald Ford even ended draft registration, which wasn’t reinstituted until 1980 under Jimmy Carter. That would explain why Obama didn’t register in 1979 when he turned 18, a minor point that some of the BCOs claim makes Obama a felon (and, therefore, ineligible to be president, despite a lack of prosecution and conviction — so much for “innocent until proven guilty” and the thousand-year tradition of that idea in western culture).

    What I remember is that in the spring of 1973, despite being flight qualified for Air Force ROTC and having signed the papers to join, I was ordered to a draft physical during which the medic managed to rip a minor hernia into a major one requiring surgery, which I had to miss finals for. Thank you, Selective Service. Then the bastards rated me 4-F, which scotched my chances to fly with the Air Force. I appealed the 4-F ruling, and after two years my local draft board called me in and complained about the tens of thousands of dollars they had spent on attorneys, and their final decision was that no one had ever appealed a 4-F before, so they had no guidance. The draft was long over by then, but I still wanted to fly. I suggested they simply rate me 1-A on the basis of current medical reports and the Air Force flight physical, and we’d call it a day. They determined it was too much of a risk to the nation’s security to let a kid with a repaired hernia enlist the Air Force, and they denied it again.

    The draft number I ultimately came up with was 31. If anyone in that pool was called at all, the draft ended long before they got to 20.

    Like

  93. jd2718 says:

    I am sitting with my uncle (Feb 56) who claims that registration ended within a few months of him turning 18.

    Like

  94. jd2718 says:

    Registration was ended with the Draft in 73 or so. I think they brought it back when I had just applied to college… but I don’t recall for certain. Any way to check?

    Like

  95. Ed Darrell says:

    Jonathan, Selective Service registration never ended. Just the draft. I’d have to look it up to be sure, but I think the draft ended in 1973. It was five years later that I got my passport, and the feds were still checking then to make sure I had registered. Obama was 18 in 1979. I don’t think there was a gap for him to have fallen into.

    Like

  96. […] Ed Darrell has a piece on which he does a takedown, a right “fisking” of the Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy.  Check out Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for more details. […]

    Like

  97. Ted says:

    Best explanation (following 2 you tube videos) I’ve seen for the total media blackout of what is the single greatest news event and domestic threat — let’s call it OBAMAGATE — since the outbreak of the American Civil War and for the sincere prayers of the American people that the United States Supreme Court — let’s call it OUR LAST HOPE — now to have the courage to save our great nation as we have come to know it:

    Like

  98. jd2718 says:

    Nicely done.
    Could Obama have fallen in the window between the end of the Draft and the restart of selective service registration?

    Jonathan

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: