New Investigation In Obama Background Spells Trouble

I don't know if he was born on US soil, and I really don't care either way. However, it is true that a birth announcement is just that and intended for relatives of the child born. Anyone can send a birth announcement to whatever city they want. And, is often done for family members to announce the birth to whomever knows the family. It proves nothing either way. I do know that on numerous occassions, government officials in Africa have claimed his status as native son, calling Africa his homeland. So, for whatever that means....I don't trust the organizations that provided the so called "Proof" of birth....and it seems now every time we turn around he is being connected to more and more questionable organizations.

I agree with everything you said but what benefit, beforehand, would the Obama family gain by announcing his birth in Hawaii?

I don't trust the organizations that provided the so called "Proof" of birth

So, you don't trust the State of @!$%#ing Hawaii? Wow, that calls into question not only your intelligence, but also your sanity.

BAjunkie--

Kinda funny from someone using "junkie" as their NV handle.

However, something you might want to read

Is Hawaii a Really State of the Union?
18 August 1997

Or this link

Is Hawaii Really a State of the Union?

Or this very important link

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (07-1372)

Does the Decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court Contradict Federal Law?

The state of Hawaii argues that the decision of the Supreme Court of Hawaii contradicts federal law by violating both the U.S. Constitution and existing congressional enactments. See Brief for Petitioner at 19. Hawaii contends that the Newlands Resolution, the Organic Act of 1900, and the Admission Act of 1959 all bar any claims by Native Hawaiians to the ceded lands. See id. The Newlands Resolution was signed into law in 1898, and it "vest[ed] absolute and unreviewable title [of Hawaii] to the United States." Id. The Organic Act supplemented the Newlands Resolution by adopting a government for the territory. See Organic Act of 1900. Hawaii argues that the Organic Act "confirm[ed] the extinguishment of any Native Hawaiian or other claims to the ceded lands." Brief for Petitioner at 19. Finally, the Admission Act transferred the United States' title to the land to the state of Hawaii. See id. at 19, 37. Hawaii's position is that "Congress has absolute and judicially unreviewable authority to extinguish, with or without just compensation, communal claims to public lands brought on behalf of an entire native group." Id. at 19. For these reasons, Hawaii claims that if OHA's interpretation of the Apology Resolution was correct, the Resolution would be unconstitutional. See id. at 20, 47. Hawaii reasons that Congress cannot constitutionally rescind title to land which a state obtained upon entry to the Union. See id. at 48. Moreover, Hawaii argues that OHA's interpretation of the Apology Resolution violates federalism principles by requiring the state of Hawaii to engage in a reconciliation process with Native Hawaiians. See id. at 49.

In response, OHA argues that its interpretation of the Apology Resolution (and the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Hawaii) is legal. See Brief for Respondent at 24-25. Drawing on its contention that the Supreme Court of Hawaii relied on the Apology Resolution only in its factual finding, OHA claims that a state court is not barred from making such a determination. See id. at 25. Indeed, OHA says that the Supreme Court of Hawaii did not interpret the Apology Resolution in such a way as to create any new legal responsibilities. See id. at 27. Finally, OHA argues that the state of Hawaii did not properly raise its argument concerning the Newlands Resolution and the Admission Act because the argument was not within the scope of the question presented. See id. at 35, 43. Moreover, the state did not mention the Newlands Resolution in state court. See id. at 36.

top
Conclusion

This case will determine whether the Apology Resolution changes the legal duties and obligations of the parties involved or whether it is simply a statement of regret by the federal government. More importantly, the outcome of the case will have far-reaching implications for land in other states which may be subject to competing claims of ownership by natives: the Court's decision will dictate whether natives to a territory have any claim to land in that territory. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision will settle the extent to which a state court may rely on federal law in its fact-finding.

This is highly important information.

So you were saying something about "state" of @!$%#ing Hawaii, which might not even be a US state.

Well therein lays the problem now as I just pointed out in my 2.4 posting.

Hawaii might not be a US state, legally. If that turns about to be the case, then Obama was not born in the US.

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1405.html

Yeah, you might want to keep up with things. SCOTUS has already ruled on that case.

Justice Alito then addressed the Apology Resolution, concluding that it does not strip the State of its sovereign authority to sell the lands granted to the State when it was admitted into the Union.

Second, the Hawaii Supreme Court’s reading of the Apology Resolution would effectively repeal the Admission Act, which ceded the lands at issue to the State. But the “whereas” clauses contain no plain statement of such an intent, and repeals by implication are disfavored.

Therefor, Hawaii is a state, as determined by the Supreme Court. Next?

P.S.

Before you go making broad assertions based on someone's name, you should probably find out what that name means. BA = Business Analyst. I'm a business junkie.

ShawnD19

My only problem with this is the issue of the birth announcements in the Hawaiian newspapers. They would have to have been in on a conspiracy with forehand knowledge that Barrack Obama would be President of the US one day and that seems very far fetched.

It is either far fetched or...

proof that Obama posses a time machine! When he went to visit his ailing grandmother he didn't visit her in 2008, but in 1961! And he planted his own birth announcements in those newspapers.

He got the time machine from the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Karl Marx, who also happens to be a decedent of Adolph Hitler's secret love child with Eva Braun. The decedent's name interestingly enough is Barack Marx Braun.

Unhappy with the unfettered free market utopia that had been established across all of the Earth after the wildly successful presidency of Sarah Palin, Braun hatched a diabolical plan to repair the names of his ancestors and rid the Earth of free market principles once and for all.

With the help of the anti-Christ, who has not been able to invade Earth because of the prayer shield that Palin placed on the Earth after she joined the Supreme Court to abolish the ridiculous separation between church and state, Braun perfected his time machine on Mars.

Braun, with the help of some radical Muslims, who had been banished to Mars, traveled back in time to visit Obama at the home William Ayers. They explained to Obama that he could be president and change the course of history. When Obama, having received his affirmative action law degree and having a minor understanding of the Constitution, explained that he couldn't be president because he was Kenyan, the time-travelers convinced him to be part of their plan.

Now there are many other details, but these will have to suffice for now.

So you were saying something about "state" of @!$%#ing Hawaii, which might not even be a US state.

Just when I thought the birthers reached their lowest point. Unfrickenbelievable.

Thanks tracytruth, finally something that makes sense!

ShawnD19

My only problem with this is the issue of the birth announcements in the Hawaiian newspapers. They would have to have been in on a conspiracy with forehand knowledge that Barrack Obama would be President of the US one day and that seems very far fetched.

While I get your point, it isn't inconceivable for the parents to have simply "wanted" their child to be born in the US, it has plenty of advantages other than Presidential eligibility.

Mike,

Possible. I mean anything is possible. But it still sounds far fetched to me. I think if you are dissatisfied with President Obama the best course of action would be to get out and campaign against him and vote for who ever opposes him in 2012. If things continue that will be my plan.

BAjunkie--

No I had not seen that, however I also did just read the full Supreme Court PDF decision. One thing to point out from your link though:

Recognizing that respondents defend the decision below on state-law grounds, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings in light of its interpretation of the Apology Resolution.

The case is in remand. So things are not over.

I did not assume you were a junkie junkie, and yes I KNOW what the BA was referring to, and also given the Avi you use for your name anyway the glittering Dollar Sign. But funny for someone that is a Business Analyst that is supposed to analyze funny you scream about someone's intelligence and sanity for analyzing Obama's legal or non-legal status. Rather hypocritical in my opinion.

The case is in remand. So things are not over.

From the perspective of your argument that Hawaii is not a state, things are indeed over. The Court remanded the case with instructions.

Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it were read to cloud Hawaii’s title to its sovereign land after Hawaii was granted statehood. Therefore, the canon of constitutional avoidance dictates that the Court should look to competing plausible interpretations that do not raise such concerns.

What the court is saying basically is Hawaii needs to interpret the Apology Resolution in a way that doesn't conflict with the Constitution, then rule on the case. That is to say, the Apology Resolution cannot be interpreted to overturn the statehood of Hawaii.

funny you scream about someone's intelligence and sanity for analyzing Obama's legal or non-legal status.

You're not analyzing, you're misinterpreting to suit an agenda. This issue has already been settled by several sources including, but not limited to, Federal District Courts.

Rita-- (2.1)

I once visited Jamaica, where they asked who I felt would make a good president (they asked us if we liked Bush. Um, no.) The overwhelming majority of our group agreed Colin Powell would be a decent candidate. They were very excited, because they said he was Jamaican.

Actually, he was American. But his blood and parents are Jamaican. Hence, the consideration he is "one of them".

Those in Africa calling BO theirs do so out of pride of heritage.

Rita at #2.1, in response to the birth announcement stated

Anyone can send a birth announcement to whatever city they want.

Rita, that still doesn't answer the question: Did Obama's parents (or what ever other powers) know that he would grow up to be president? Because that is the only way this conspiracy would make sense. Also, aren't you forgetting something?

Come closer, I don't want to shout...Obama's mother was born in Kansas, ergo she was/is a citizen of the Untied States. Any baby born to a citizen of the US, no matter where they are born, is automatically also a citizen of the United States. And since no one is saying his mother isn't really his mother, I guess that makes Barack Obama a US citizen. Case closed.

Unless, the birthers are willing to go out on a limb and say his mother wasn't born in the US? Then, I would respond that her parents were born in the US? Then of course, I guess, the birthers could argue that Obama's grandparents weren't born in the US.

So, Rita, are you beginning to see why most folks think the birthers are just plumb loco?

They would have to have been in on a conspiracy with forehand knowledge that Barrack Obama would be President of the US one day

You haven't heard about the Area 51 time machine? It's.........

Be right back, there is a knock at my door.

*******CONNECTION TERMINATED

DTansy

There is every BIT as much "evidence" your Savior was
whelped in KENYA, (ONE unsubstantiated document) as there is that he
was born in HAWAII. (ONE unsubstantiated document)

Possibly the most ridiculous thing EVER posted on the Vine.

Let's recap:

The short form birth certificate is a certified summary representation of the original long form birth certificate. Hawaii has verified that they have Obama's original long form birth certificate on file. Thus, when the short form brith certificate says Obama was born in Honulu, Hawaii, it's because the original long form certificate says the EXACT SAME THING, just in more detail.

What part of that don't you understand? What part of that is 'unsubstantiated'?

It's absolutely hilarious that you rant about "tired bull@!$%#" from "left necks" yet you parrot your own tired bull@!$%# claim throughout your post.

Hawaii Health Department officials have verified that they have Obama's original long form birth certificate on file. They have also verified that the short form BC that Obama has presented is indeed valid. Do you honestly believe that the short form BC says something that the long form doesn't? Even though the information on the short form COMES FROM the information on the long form?

WTF are talking about?

Sorry partner, but such an asinine claim can only be described as "scooby doo mystery conspiracy".

If you're tired of hearing that label, then quit parroting claims which warrant such a label ;)

"Hawaii Health Department officials have "verified" that they
have Obama's original long form birth certificate on file."

And all the cheesy little bitch would have to DO, to clear up
all this ignorant bull@!$%# is SHOW THAT DOCUMENT.

IF such a document actually EXISTED, as government mouthpieces
have continuously SPEWED, his little "Lordship" would have
already PRODUCED it, to lay all the bull@!$%# to REST.

Our "Savior" has NOT, because it simply does not EXIST.

Would it NOT be as simple to "digitize" (SCAN) said document, as
it was to "digitize" (SCAN) the bull@!$%# one? Not even a good
TRY at defending. Sorry.

Why show it?

By keeping the birthers around he marginalizes the right wing and makes them all look like wacked out conspiracy theorists.

And all the cheesy little bitch would have to DO, to clear up
all this ignorant bull@!$%# is SHOW THAT DOCUMENT.

IF such a document actually EXISTED, as government mouthpieces
have continuously SPEWED, his little "Lordship" would have
already PRODUCED it, to lay all the bull@!$%# to REST.

Our "Savior" has NOT, because it simply does not EXIST.

Again, utter and total bull@!$%#. Are you truly this clueless as to the details of that which you speak?

Newsflash: Hawaii quit giving out the original long form BCs almost a decade ago. They only give out the short forms, which Obama has produced.

Thus, ask yourself this: How many 50 year olds have their original birth certificates which were given to their mothers at birth....?

Obama's damn near 50 year old original BC would have had to of survived several moves, with several caretakers, through different countries, and would have had to been with him - not his mother - for him to have it now.

Could it possibly be that Obama, like myself and MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS, doesn't have his original BC given to their mothers at birth.

Of course, the great thing is, we have a pretty good system in place to make sure that an original is kept. See, as has been mentioned, your State Health Department keeps an original as well. And thus, the certified short form copies they give out are VERIFIABLE PROOF that the long form exists on file.

IF such a document actually EXISTED, as government mouthpieces
have continuously SPEWED, his little "Lordship" would have
already PRODUCED it, to lay all the bull@!$%# to REST.

Why the f*ck would you think that the 'original long form' doesn't actually exist??? That's flat out ignorant. There's no logical explanation for anyone to harbor such a belief other than out and out stupidity.

Why should Obama have to go through trying to get a document that the Hawaii Health Department doesn't give out simply because YOU won't accept the facts of the matter?

"Why should Obama have to go through trying to get a document..."

Because I can still get MINE. His fed-gov mouthpieces say it
EXISTS, so what good could NOT producing it POSSIBLY do? If
you were trying to selectively DIVIDE the country, this would
be as good a starting point as ANY.

He is the EPITOME of "elitist" bull@!$%#tery, a democrap-spewing
Progressive, defining for the rank-and-file cheesy liberals to
learn to effectively deflect FROM him questions ANY American has
the RIGHT and DUTY to ask, by demeaning or belittling anyone with
the AUDACITY to question BY WHAT RIGHT a Kenyan may be
seated in the oval office. (That is to say, a non-AMERICAN)

Now, having SAID that, the FACT is, his mother was born of TWO
legit, natural-born AMERICANS. His mother was a NATURAL. That
gives the "Organizer" 50% of the whole. Yet, decidedly NOT a
"natural", whether born here or abroad, specifically BECAUSE
he only gets 50%.

His father was NOT an American. If he was NOT born in the U.S.,
he's still AMERICAN, but not a NATURAL, ergo NOT Constitutionally
ELIGIBLE to even RUN for the White House.

IF the "Weasel-in-Chief" were to ORDER that document to be
produced, he would prove beyond DOUBT that he is;

A: A natural-born CITIZEN of the United States (or NOT...)

B: NOT above the U.S. Constitution, the LAW of our LAND.

Until he does, he'll be seen as a LIAR, and treated accordingly.

So Dtansy,

Lets say you get rid of Obama, Biden would probably go as well.

You know who is next right Pelosi. Do you want to see president Pelosi?

Or in some weird twisted birther mentality do you think they are going to give it to a minority party senator named McCain?

Dtansy,

This issue has had more than one day in court, including the Supreme Court, which rules on issues involving The Constitution, the LAW of our LAND.

I suggest that if MULTIPLE FEDERAL COURT decisions are NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, then you should consider WHERE YOUR ALLEGIANCES LIE. Obama's election was LEGAL. GET OVER IT.

Because I can still get MINE. His fed-gov mouthpieces say it
EXISTS, so what good could NOT producing it POSSIBLY do? If
you were trying to selectively DIVIDE the country, this would
be as good a starting point as ANY.

Do you live in Hawaii? If you don't, then your own personal experience means jack@!$%#. Each state is different. Hawaii hasn't given out long forms since 2001; regardless of rather your Dtansy or Barack Obama.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
link

Notice the bolded piece. You keep demanding that Obama get a document which Hawaii doesn't give out.... regardless of who you are. What part of that is so damn difficult for you to understand? Again, why on earth would you ASSUME that the long form somehow holds different information than the short form? One more time for the cheap seats; that's an absurd, utterly baseless premise to hold. Obama has no logical reason whatsoever to ORDER A STATE to release a document that they don't release for anybody solely for the purpose of verifying that which has already been verified.

THE FACT IS that Hawaii, and several other states, verify the information on the short form as proof of existence of the same information on the original long form. Again, that's a FACT - It's a fact that numerous courts have validated.

Same goes for your definition of 'natural born'. The definition you've created fits your whole absurd premise well, but please know that it's a definition which has been thoroughly rebuked by our courts. Thus, keep parroting it if you like, but it's still factually false, no matter how many times you say it.

Then again, if parroting false b*llsh*t stopped birthers, this 'issue' would have never been an issue at all.

The ignorance with which ANYONE would say this has "had more
than one day in court" as though it actually HAD been argued and laid
to rest, astounds me. This point has never YET been given it's "day
in court", it has been repeatedly DENIED that. Try to keep up.

There are more than TWENTY cases concerning this "little problem",
that have yet to be decided, since the Just-Us department simply
continues to find ways AROUND actually having to define and specify.

High-ranking military personnel have attempted to bring our Hussein
into court half-a-dozen TIMES, to find their ORDERS changed, rather
than have to bring the DISCOVERY process to bear against his cheesy
ASS. Hasn't happened YET, but they keep SWINGING. He damn well
better keep DUCKING.

I have links out the waZOO on "Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate
Lawsuit", "Obama birth certificate lawsuit tossed out of court", "Birth
Certificate Challenge Turned Down By Supreme Court", "Obama's Birth
Certificate Forgery", and on and on and on. My favorite is the LIST of
those cases already DENIED for any reason whatsoever.

In fact, I'm currently composing an article from a dozen or so of
the latest greatest "Obama has NO American Birth certificate" HITS.

Angry Left532262-
John McCain is THE epitome of R.I.N.O. He flip-flops like
the Obama WAFFLES. Just another weasel.

think LIBERTARIAN.

The ignorance with which ANYONE would say this has "had more
than one day in court" as though it actually HAD been argued and laid
to rest, astounds me. This point has never YET been given it's "day
in court", it has been repeatedly DENIED that.

Courts do not waste their time with cases that do not have evidence sufficient for judgement. There is a process for that evaluation.

I suppose that you think that calling people ignorant somehow strengthens your case. Here we also disagree.

The sad part is that you are being manipulated by Obama. It is in his best interest to keep this controversy going as long as possible, as it demonstrates to others the "fringiness" of his critics. He will not authorize release of the documents you seek until absolutely compelled by law to do so. Until then (and after then) your rhetoric is simply to fall into his little trap of pointing out the extremists. Its a rope-a-dope and you are falling for it.

The ignorance with which ANYONE would say this has "had more
than one day in court" as though it actually HAD been argued and laid
to rest, astounds me. This point has never YET been given it's "day
in court", it has been repeatedly DENIED that. Try to keep up.

DTansy

You're the funniest Viner I've ever come across :)

I just explained precisely why this garbage never gets heard in court. I'll try one more time - maybe it'll sink in.

In Hawaii, a short form Birth Certificate is ABSOLUTE PROOF that a long form exists which holds the same information as the short form plus a few more details. Hawaii Health Department officials have verified Obama's citizenship - specificallly that he was born in the United States. The court doesn't need to hear anything else because there's nothing left to argue. That's why it keeps getting tossed out of court; there's no merit for it. There's no reason to have a trial when the information the trial seeks to verify has already been verified to the fullest satisfaction of the law.

Again, in terms of the 'natural born' argument, you continue to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".

Notice how there is a DISTINCT deliniation between 'all persons born in' and 'naturalized in'. This is the language which literally kills your premise.

See, there are two broad groups of citizens; natural born and naturalized. As you can see, the Constitution CLEARLY seperates those who are 'born in' the states from those who are 'naturalized' citizens. Thus, anyone born in the states MUST fall in the category of 'natural born citizen' since they are specifically seperate from 'NATURALIZED citizens' per the language of the Consitution. There is no mythical third group that only Barack Obama falls in.

And thus your flimsy, nonsensical premise falls by the way side.

To recap:

Obama having been born in the states = VERIFIED

Being born in the states qualifies as 'natural born' = VERIFIED

Thus, birther angle stupid and ridiculous = VERIFIED

Apparently the concept of a "self-authenticating" document escapes him/her....ALL state documents, if in the possession and control of an official custodian are deemed admissible in ANY court in this country without further proof of their accuracy and authenticity. As the Certificate of Live Birth is in the possession of the State of Hawaii, is a state created document and bears the state seal, it is deemed definitive proof of the President's place and date of birth and thus his citizenship. To prove otherwise, someone would have to bring a specific suit against a specific party for forgery and ultimately perjury.....Nobody has done so and the amount of evidence needed to overcome the presumption (and reality) that the document is authentic is astronomical, especially since independent experts have already verified the document's authenticity and published their findings all over the Net....AND, the State of Hawaii ITSELF, including the Republican governor have said the document is legit....So, as much as you want to go around and around on this issue, the truth has already been established to a near absolute certainty that the President was born in Hawaii. AND, even if he wasn't, his MOTHER was born in Kansas, so if not by soil, he is at least a natural citizen by birth. End. Of. Discussion.

Roy Batty-
"you think that calling people ignorant somehow strengthens your case."

Not at all. Ignorance is not BAD. It is not KNOWING something.
It's only "bad" when one SPEAKS about that which he does not
KNOW. For instance, YOU. Are you black or white? Male or female?
Straight or gay? I can pretty safely "ASSUME" you're male, as
your name (here) is ROY, but I cannot VERIFY that. You could
very WELL be female, w/ a male nom de plume, no? I cannot
possibly KNOW. I'm ignorant of YOU.

STUPIDITY, however, is a horse of a different color. That would
be knowing BETTER, but saying or doing something contrary, to
BE contrary. Comprenez vous?

You "suggested that if "if MULTIPLE FEDERAL COURT decisions are
NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU" I should consider where MY allegiances
lie. MY allegiance is to AMERICA. ALWAYS been proud to be an
AMERICAN, through thick and thin, war or broken levees, the Slick
Willies and Bushs and Shrubs, and now the CRACKERJACK "Nobel"
winning "Savior" of ALL Mankind. NOT to whatever packaged "God"
either of the "2-Party" talking heads and mouthpieces have thrust
upon the cattle and sheep that bray THEIR "party-line".

The POINT here is, you made an inference that SCOTUS decisions
have been "handed down", and the PEOPLE who still question
act against the highest court in the LAND. NOTHING has actually
been decided on ANY case concerning Barack Obama's legitimacy
as even a CANDIDATE for president. McCain was vetted for WEEKS
by Congress, Obama not for a MOMENT. They "took his word"?
All PRIOR to the election. NOTHING "decided" by any court,
except to THROW OUT any such question regarding Obama.

Unless, of course, there's ONE such "decision" I don't know
about? That's possible, but improbable. CERTAINLY not your
(embellished?) "MULTIPLE FEDERAL COURT decisions", I think.

GOOD try, though.

In fact, I'm currently composing an article from a dozen or so of
the latest greatest "Obama has NO American Birth certificate" HITS.

Didn't you already try an article like this, where everything you brought forward to question the birth certificate was refuted?

McCain was vetted for WEEKS
by Congress, Obama not for a MOMENT. They "took his word"?
All PRIOR to the election. NOTHING "decided" by any court,
except to THROW OUT any such question regarding Obama.

I'm curious what was decided by any court regarding any other Presidential candidate or President throughout history? Or do you question the legitimacy of them all?

STUPIDITY, however, is a horse of a different color. That would
be knowing BETTER, but saying or doing something contrary, to
BE contrary. Comprenez vous?

Good point.

This would of course mean that your argument here is stupid, since you refuse to accept or acknowledge the facts of the matter as outlined in several posts, the most recent of which were 2.28 and 2.29.

A perfect example of this is your statement:

McCain was vetted for WEEKS by Congress, Obama not for a MOMENT. They "took his word"?

That's a stupid statement. Obama has proven citizenship to the satisfaction of the US Department of State, the Elections Commission, the DNC, The United States Senate, the Illinois Senate, and so on. His citizenship has been verified by the state of Hawaii, and his CERTIFIED birth certificate now rests online for all to see.

Thus, it's utterly stupid to assert that Obama's eligibility for Presidency was based solely upon 'his word'. If someone can't recognize how dumb that is, they are either mentally unable to comprehend basic information OR they are fervently involved in active willful ignorance.

In summary: the casm between your rhetoric and reality is VAST. ;)

Here's a few things to think about...

McCain "vetted" by Congress, but Not Obama per latest Law suit ...

Why does Congress not qualify Obama as a natural born citizen

McCain Vetted for Quals, Obama Wasn't

"his CERTIFIED birth certificate now rests online"

Uh, yeah, no problem THERE...

Why did Obama provide a fake Birth Certificate?

Expert Declares Obama Birth Certificate Forgery

BTW- the word is CHASM

DTansy

Some things for you to think about:

(1)Anyone can sue anybody for anything. Pointing to a lawsuit which 'alleges' something doesn't rule out the FACTS that I posted.

(2)Citing a 'Yahoo answers' forum is f'in hilarious. In fact, you cited four blog forums. At any point, please feel free to cite something with verifiable information; not something which shows other internet trolls spouting the same nonsensical arguments that you have. And by the way, the first response in your first "Yahoo Forums link" literally destroys your weak premise. *FAIL*

Also, thanks for pointing out the typo.

In summary: you still haven't provided anything which factually refutes the posts I pointed to. And, to make matters worse for you, you never will - because you can't. The facts I pointed to are irrefutable.

If it weren't so sad, I'd say reading his/her stuff is mildly entertaining......I had to look at the Yahoo Answers one just for the laughs....how pathetic!

Webslinger

I had to look at the Yahoo Answers one just for the laughs....how pathetic!

That was classic wasn't it? :)

And, to make matters worse, he actually provided 2 'Yahoo answers' forums as 'support' for his ridiculous assertions. Then again, maybe the 'yahoo answers' forums are better than his 'kitcomm' forum or the 'Atlas Shrugs' link....

How could I possibly question someone who oozes that kind of 'credibility'? :P

On a side note, if you liked his 'yahoo answers' link, you'll love this link

LOL!!!

"Is it possible to feel like a sandwich?"

After reading DTansy's stuff, I really have to wonder....maybe if we find that big jar of peanut butter that one person wanted, we can find out, all we'd need would be a reeeeeeeallly big knife!

After reading DTansy's stuff, I really have to wonder....maybe if we find that big jar of peanut butter that one person wanted, we can find out, all we'd need would be a reeeeeeeallly big knife!

Ask, and you shall receive link

And, if you can't use your newly purchased big knife for what you thought you could, consider this link

And, just in case you hurt yourself with that knife link

This is too much fun :-)

As someone who has been an "online legal expert" for a forum similar to yahoo answers, I can personally attest to "teh stoopid" I have come across. It makes you really proud to be an Amurikan some days.....where at least I know I'm free (to live in a cloud of perpetual ignorance and stupidity).....sigh. To be a wingnut!

Web

It is indeed astonishing.

On the plus side though, I'll always have an outlet in the event that i need quick advice on how to treat a knife injury to the head of a badger ;)

Who hasn't seen that scenario play out a thousand times in their lifetime, right?

It's INTERESTING that not ONE of you "thinkers" came with
a SINGLE debatable POINT, or even tried to REFUTE what was
said, the "simple" simply continue to pat each other on the
back for empty headed ad hominem bull@!$%#. GOOD work!

EXACTLY as I expected. Just "mooing" with the rest of the
cheesy, ignorant herd.

But, as I said earlier,

"OH Well, if that's the best you can do. Just remember, you're
NOT much help to your SAVIOR with empty crap like THIS."

Are you BEING "all you can be?" Is this IT?

It's INTERESTING that not ONE of you "thinkers" came with
a SINGLE debatable POINT, or even tried to REFUTE what was
said

I already did that in #2.28, among other places. Again, I referenced Constitutional language and the Hawaii Department of Health.... not 'Yahoo Answers'.

It is you who has been unable to refute that. I pointed that out in #2.34, among other places ;)

Still waiting for a substantiated refute to #2.28..... *crickets*

2.29 was pretty substantial too.....but as you can't refute that either and instead chose to totally ignore it, there's no point in arguing with you.

"OH Well, if that's the best you can do. Just remember, you're
NOT much help to your SAVIOR with empty crap like THIS."

The President is not my SAVIOR.....he's my PRESIDENT and the only person throwing empty crap up around here is YOU.

Obviously the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be arrested immediately and charged with treason.

He knowingly administered the oath of office to a usurper.

George II should also be arrested and charged with treason.

He knowingly abdicated his office and turned the security of the U.S. over to a usurper.

After that we will arrest our way through the rest of the republican party hierarchy.

Then we will arrest all of the big business magnates who funded an unconstitutional candidate.

That should solve most of the problems in the U.S.

Jarrod-
"did that in #2.28, In Hawaii, a short form Birth Certificate is
ABSOLUTE PROOF that a long form exists #2.28"

web-
"2.29 was pretty substantial"

"since you refuse to accept or acknowledge the facts of the matter
as outlined in several posts"

Without EVEN a link from a source as SIMPLE as "Yahoo", regardless
of their credibility, (It's neither FreeRepublic NOR MediaMatters)
which was only ONE of the FIVE (5) sources you "poo-poohed", is
there even a reason to ACKNOWLEDGE your infinite regurgitation of
Liberal talking-head talking POINTS?

Your "constitutional language" was, similarly, as good as any other
unreferenced, unsourced blither.

The "Obama" IS a citizen, because his mother was a NATURAL. That,
however, is not ENOUGH to make HIM a "natural". If da-da was as
WELL, the question would be MOOT. But he WASN'T. He was a KENYAN
BRIT. There are MORE than enough unanswered QUESTIONS in the interim
to expect an ETHICAL person to OPENLY DISPLAY THE DOCUMENTS ANY
AMERICAN CITIZEN MAY HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT. I just want the pompous
little jackass to show what he's HIDING. Either way, the "LEFT" would
support him if it were found he had been an ax-murderer.

"the concept of a "self-authenticating" document" and "including
the Republican governor have said the document is legit"

Your "self-authenticating document" is bull@!$%#tery. Reminds me
of the never-yet-seen "Perpetual Motion Machine". This crap is
your CASE? Sorry, but I'm DOUBTING THOMAS. I'll "touch the holes
in his hands and feet" in order to believe your "liar-in-chief".

What I KNOW to be true is:

"Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?"

"A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or
divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a
direct and tangible interest in the record."

THE person who is most PREDOMINANTLY prevalent in this question
is THE first in line...

"the registrant" (the person whom the record is concerned with)

He CAN order the document, (IF it actually EXISTED) because it's
HIS info. He WON'T, because it will be EXACTLY what's on the
COLB, NO Kapiolani Hospital, NO doctor, because Hawaii was the
RETURN trip after the baby was born.

Dtansy

This link goes directly to Hawaii's application request for a birth certificate. As you can see, there is no option to request a 'long form' link

It was outlined in the link I gave earlier that Hawaii doesn't give 'long forms' out to anyone.

This link goes directly to the Department of State's application for a passport. As you can see, it very plainly requires verification of citizenship link. Apparently, Obama's birth certificate was good enough for them, huh?

This is a cornell law link which provides the exact language from the 14th amendment, as it is directly stated in the Constitution link This is the exact language I quoted in 2.28 to dismiss your baseless drivel about 'natural born'.

And here is the USA Today quoting the Hawaii Department of Health Director:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." link

Anything else?

As for this gem:

What I KNOW to be true is:

"Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?"

"A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or
divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a
direct and tangible interest in the record."

THE person who is most PREDOMINANTLY prevalent in this question
is THE first in line...

"the registrant" (the person whom the record is concerned with)

He CAN order the document, (IF it actually EXISTED) because it's
HIS info. He WON'T, because it will be EXACTLY what's on the
COLB, NO Kapiolani Hospital, NO doctor, because Hawaii was the
RETURN trip after the baby was born.

What part of this don't you get? I'll go slow:

What Obama has produced IS - A - CERTIFIED - COPY. For God sake's man, that's what YOUR OWN LINK SAYS..... *facepalm*

Sorry Dtansy

But the blinding stupidity of your arguments has ignored you the 'ignore' tag. Kudos to you. I'm sure it's not the first time someone's ignored you, and I'm sure it won't be the last ;)

Now, feel free to unleash your litany of 'libs are the devil' rubbish, as that seems to be the only response tool in your bag.

It's INTERESTING that not ONE of you "thinkers" came with
a SINGLE debatable POINT, or even tried to REFUTE what was
said, the "simple" simply continue to pat each other on the
back for empty headed ad hominem bull@!$%#. GOOD work

Honestly DT - for you to accuse people of not addressing the points someone has made is seriously hilarious. You've constantly shown deflection throughout this thread.

Why does Congress not qualify Obama as a natural born citizen

Funny but related question - why didn't Congress qualify W. Bush, Cheney, Gore, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter?

I think the answer goes back to where you brought up FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. Congress is a governmental organization. It will listen to the Hawaiian Department of Health. Case closed.

There are MORE than enough unanswered QUESTIONS in the interim
to expect an ETHICAL person to OPENLY DISPLAY THE DOCUMENTS ANY
AMERICAN CITIZEN MAY HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT. I just want the pompous
little jackass to show what he's HIDING.

DT - here, you openly hurt your own argument. You cite 'tons of unanswered questions' without referencing them, and then cut your own legs out from under yourself by showing your personal bias against Obama. Please don't play the 'it is a reasonable request' when you show yourself to be beyond reason.

because it will be EXACTLY what's on the
COLB, NO Kapiolani Hospital, NO doctor, because Hawaii was the
RETURN trip after the baby was born.

You cannot support this at all. It is pure conjecture and wishful thinking. I hope you realize this.

Oh, PLEASE, PLEASE, don't go 'way MAD...
(PLEASE don't let me GET me...) Uh-oh. There's MORE.

SO. MUCH. MORE.

A couple of (yeah, I know, probably white, racist, Republican
maniac) radio-jocks asked a question of the Kenyan Ambassador,
"His Excellency Peter N.R.O Ogego", to-wit:

"Well, we want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, you must be
very proud". (Ambassador) "We are. We really are. We're also
proud of the U.S. for having made history as well."

(Jock) Uh, one more quick question, on President-Elect Obama's
birthplace over in Kenya. Is that going to be a national spot
to go visit, where he was born?"

(Ambassador) "It's, uh, it already is an attraction, his paternal
grandmother is still alive, and..."

(Jock) "His birthplace, they'll put up a marker there?"

(Ambassador) "Probably,(?) already, it's already well-known."

I'm wondering what the good Ambassador MEANT by that? They asked
a QUITE SPECIFIC question, do you think the Ambassador thought he
was talking about Obama's long-dead FATHER?

Nope, nothing wrong HERE...

thelopes-
"showing your personal bias"

I am NOT defense on this, and my personal bias IS reasonable.
I think the man is a CRIMINAL, who hangs out with CRIMINALS,
I wasn't kidding in the LEAST about that. NO, I do NOT like
him, Sam-I-Am. I believe he could literally get away with MURDER,
the same as Daddy Bush (Ruby Ridge) and Slick Willie. (Waco)
The audacity of "Blind Faith" for this weasel APPALLS me.

How about, the Official Report of the Kenya National Assembly
March 25, 2010 (pdf)

sourced from:
Obama NOT American Born?

"Mr. Orengo, National Assembly, Republic of Kenya:

"If America was living in a situation where they feared
ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or
nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is
not even a native American, become the President of America?"

Do you really BELIEVE that the man that said this does NOT
believe Obama was born THERE? If HE does, shouldn't I at
LEAST question, until I get what I think is a reasonable
ANSWER? NOT what some mouthpiece for the State tells me
SHE saw, but rather, that which she actually PROFESSES to
having seen. THAT'S all.

These questions just seem RIGHT to me. Can ya SPLAIN this?

I'm wondering what the good Ambassador MEANT by that? They asked
a QUITE SPECIFIC question, do you think the Ambassador thought he
was talking about Obama's long-dead FATHER?

Seriously, why do you think that man is, at all, an expert on the matter?

I'll honestly go back and forth and repeat OVER AND OVER AGAIN where people are misunderstanding the conversation with Obama's step-grandmother. I'll take that one seriously. But this is as good as a random person in Kenya.

Do you really BELIEVE that the man that said this does NOT
believe Obama was born THERE? If HE does, shouldn't I at
LEAST question, until I get what I think is a reasonable
ANSWER?

Two things

A) You've yet to explain why a state certified birth record isn't reasonable.

NOT what some mouthpiece for the State tells me
SHE saw, but rather, that which she actually PROFESSES to having seen.

B) Why do you take the words of random people in Kenya over the ... state officials tasked with knowing about their birth records.

I mean, you put more faith in the words of a self-proclaimed techdude on a blog. You cite and put him up as someone to be trusted. On the other side, there's a STATE CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

These questions just seem RIGHT to me. Can ya SPLAIN this?

I've spent plenty of time answering every single question you, and plenty of other people have posed.

However - I cannot explain feelings. Personally, I don't see the 'reasonable question' in anything you've presented. In the random Kenyans? I don't see people tasked on the knowledge of every random person born in their country. In the random blogs? I see people, like yourself, that WANT it to be TRUE so VERY VERY MUCH. None of it is reasonable enough to make me question a state certified birth record.

Unless, of course, there's ONE such "decision" I don't know
about? That's possible, but improbable. CERTAINLY not your
(embellished?) "MULTIPLE FEDERAL COURT decisions", I think.

Phialdelphia Federal Court -- August 23, 2008 -- Dismissed October 25, 2008
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9920

Santa Anna Division Federal Court -- Sept 3, 2009 --- dismissed October 29, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d7-American-puts-life-on-the-linefiles-affidavit--Obama-Kenyas-COL-birth-in-federal-court

US Supreme Court -- December 8, 2008 -- appeal rejected
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-birth-certificate-c_n_149229.html

US Supreme Court -- December 10, 2008 -- appeal denied request to stop Electoral Collage from voting
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/11/10/berg-vs-obama-response-to-supreme-court-due-december-1/

US Supreme Court -- December, 2009, application filed and in turn denied by Souter, Kennedy, Scalia
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

US Supreme Court -- Jan 12, 2010 -- petition denied (Berg)

US Supreme Court -- Jan 21, 2010 -- application denied (Berg) Case Closed.

Oh, yeah, then there is Orly Taitz complaint in US District Court ... complete with fake evidence
http://washingtonindependent.com/65703/orly-taitz-smacked-down-birther-lawsuit-dismissed

On another note, did you heat the President's monologue at the Press dinner the other night? An excerpt:

It's been quite a year since I've spoken here last -- lots of ups, lots of downs -- except for my approval ratings, which have just gone down. (Laughter.) But that's politics. It doesn't bother me. Beside I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth. (Laughter and applause.)

Don't you see he is baiting you? You are playing the role of the willing duped pawn.

Barack Hussein Obama is laughing at you.

Barack Hussein Obama is laughing at you.

So are the rest of us on this thread......S/he doesn't quite seem to get that though, but has gone well beyond the point of embarrassing him/herself.

Well therein lays the problem now as I just pointed out in my 2.4 posting.

Hawaii might not be a US state, legally. If that turns about to be the case, then Obama was not born in the US.

It doesn't matter if Hawaii was a state - people born there were citizens all the same.

And, as I just linked the SCOTUS decision, it is a state.

Well therein lays the problem now as I just pointed out in my 2.4 posting.

Hawaii might not be a US state, legally. If that turns about to be the case, then Obama was not born in the US.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Good luck with that one.

Good lord teh stoopid burns. Hawaii IS a state - it is the 50th state admitted to the Union in 1959. As all other states, it has two senators and is represented on our flag via the 50th star. The fact that it was NOT a state back in 1898 or 1900 or 1941 is irrelevant, it was accepted into the union as a state prior to 1961 (Obama's birth year), and as Obama was born IN Hawaii, he was born in the US. Furthermore, his mother was born in Kansas and she was a US citizen, so Obama is, was and always will be a natural born citizen of the US.

I realize there is a large number of teabaggers (I am finally going to use that term from now on) are retarded enough to not know that Hawaii is a state, but the fact that kshark is actually attempting to make the argument SOUND legal and all is beyond ridiculous.

By the way, did you know that Puerto Rico isn't a state, nor is Guam, or the US Virgin Islands, but people born in both places are US citizens by birth....as are persons born on US military bases abroad as was John McCain.

Enough with the birther bull@!$%# already - Obama is president, he won in 2008, he will remain in office at least until January, 2013....preferably for 4 more years after that.

BAjunkie--

And as I pointed it, it is in remand, by the very link YOU posted.

---------------------------------

thelopes--

Countered that one. Thanks though

-------------------------------

MichelleUT--

I merely point out information. I have made no stance either way.

-----------------------------

webslinger--

Good thing you are not a lawyer. *smiling*

Uhh.. I think webslinger is a lawyer, actually.

thelopes--

Countered that one. Thanks though

With what? If you want to suggest natural born citizenship isn't defined well enough anywhere ... thus throwing the legitimacy of EVERY PRESIDENT who wasn't alive at the signing of the Constitution - where do you want to go with that?

God, teh stoopid is scalding!!!!!!! Where were all these idiots claiming Hawaii was NOT a state between 1959 and 2008? Kshark, you need to stop, because you are really, really making yourself look like an absolute idiot.

And for the record, yes, I AM an attorney.

I was born in Utah, and my cert says "certificate of live birth" as does my son's...and he was born 6 months ago.

all my mom got was some photocopy of that "Baby Foot" thing

so neither of my parents, or I have seen my birth certificate

and Chula Vista is rather close to the border

if I ever run for office, they can claim a land surveying error ment that it was accually part of Mexico!!

this crap again ?

you have to be a moron to believe it.

Ripley

Again? This crap hasn't stopped. It won't stop. They're like rabid chihuahuas when it comes to this topic.

I live in the Tampa Area (not from here thank God -- just live here)

And yes, this is a hotbed for morons who like slamming themselves up constantly against their wall of stupid.

I recently tested for a driver's license and we had to fish out my birth certificate and guess what? It was about the same as President Obama's.

I'd be more than happy to scan it if my mother wasn't so paranoid about the internet.

Smart mother.

When I was born, my parents got a fancy certificate signed by the doctor, etc., which was misplaced in a move

Probably doesn't matter. Those "fancy" certificates are frequently issued by the hospital (many used to come with an embossed hospital seal). The certificate issued by the hospital is NOT proof of either birth or citizenship. There is a good chance you would have had to request a state certificate even if you still had the "fancy" certificate.

did it have your little footprints on it?

My guardian was born in the farm house by an old midwife. They didn't take him to the doctor for about 2 weeks. He didn't get a birth certificate or need one until he started high school. He got the doctor who saw him when he was 2 weeks old to sign an affidavit that he had seen him at that date and the family bible where deaths and births have been recorded for over a century got him his birth certificate. No doctor listed, no feet, no place listed except for the state and the date.

Ed

He got the doctor who saw him when he was 2 weeks old to sign an affidavit that he had seen him at that date and the family bible where deaths and births have been recorded for over a century got him his birth certificate.

That was a long time ago in a galaxie far, far away.

That world does not exist anymore and we are all far worse off because it doesn't.

did it have your little footprints on it?

Actually it may have had, on the back side...

I'm gonna have to find that one again some day...I sorta lost track of it when it didn't prove citizenship.

I've got mine, it's cute.

You guys/gals are bringing back memories. I have one of those certificates too. Footprints, gold seal (can now purchase from quill office supplies in bulk), and all the writing was done with a calligraphy pen. When you look at mine you can tell the doctors'signature' is done with the same pen in the same writing as all the other filled in information. Its beautiful. And worthless. When I asked my parents about the 'birth certificate' they said the hospital offered it to all new parents as a keepsake - no extra charge.

FREE !!??

Today that would for SURE be an added cost extra.

Naw... Today they'd just whip one up on the computer system and print it out on the color copier. Have some kind of scribble saved under 'physician name' to copy and paste onto the signature line. Woo-La. Instant long form birth certificate - issued at the time of birth. Come one, Come all, get your worthless paper here.........

How well do you know him?

receivng a passport- which is all the SD can decide- is far different from establishing NATURAL born citizenship

Not good at taking things to their logical conclusion, are we?

If the State Dept. issues a passport based on a birth certificate, as was the case with Obama, then that must mean that the birth certificate was found to be genuine. Since we know that the birth certificate states that he was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii was a state, then he was a natural born citizen via jus soli, not to mention that his mother was indeed a US citizen, despite whatever bull@!$%# the article says, which also provides further reinforcement of natural born citizenship via jus sanguinis.

Furthermore, the Director for Hawaii's Dept. of Health issued this statement:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Therefor, via the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, the birth certificate must be accepted as proof of natural born citizenship. There is no argument to be made here.

Case closed, Again.

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3735

Complete and unfettered bull@!$%#. How can anyone claim that the Director of Vital Records has no authority to deem said vital records genuine? That's patently ab-@!$%#ing-surd, and anyone who believes it should probably be locked in a padded room.

The logical conclusion is that if there were nothing to hide this document would have been public long ago. I am quite certain it has nothing to do with citizenship, I suspect it shows that his mother claimed to be single and so Obama is a legal bastard- not just an ideologic one.

The document has been public for nearly 2 years.

http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3735

Spoof website. The real Homeland Security website is www.dhs.gov. Whoever owns the site you quoted is spoofing DHS to try and manufacture credibility.

The logical conclusion is that if there were nothing to hide this document would have been public long ago.

The logical conclusion is that he presented documents, which have since been authenticated by Hawaiian officials, and the birther leadership falsely labeled them as forgeries, adding to the long list of lies from the birther movement. The legalities have been saitisfied by the documents already presented. The birthers will never be satisfied, and will continue to sprad their lies, so don't even bother dealing with them at all.

doctorsteph, if you assumption is correct (unlikely as that is) it in no way shape or form invalidates Obama's citizen status.

The logical conclusion is that if there were nothing to hide this document would have been public long ago.

You call that logic?!

You call that logic?!

Scary that she claims to be a doctor, right?

drsteph also wants to sterilize people whom she doesn't feel fit her whateverthe@!$%#criteria is. Go back and read some of her scary bull@!$%#. We call her drmengeles. I am surprised she still even dares come on here calling herself a dr.

I thought the name sounded familiar! Hey, when we gonna see your creds?

I know, that is *one* of the stupidest things about the "birthers"

OK so he wasn't born in America, where was he born? Kenya, Russia, Indonesia, Panama (opps that was McCain)? Prove he was born somewhere else, *anywhere* else. Currently *all* the proof, all the legal documentation, all the anecdotal evidence shows he was born in Hawaii to an American mother. There is not a shred of evidence hinting he was born anywhere else.

Ya got nothing but your hatred of Obama being President of the United States.

#7.1, not Panama, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was U.S. territory at the time.

She said he was born in Kenya.

Wrong. She said his father was born in Kenya. Try and keep up, it'll make you look less like an uninformed nutcase.

You don't have to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. I know that doesn't sound right but think about all the military families that have had children outside the U.S. Does that make them a citizen of that country or a U.S. citizen? My son was born in Japan while I served in the Army, doesn't make him a Japanese citizen. He is most definitely a natural U.S. citizen. He has a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth.

BAjunkie, You're the one who needs to keep up. I'll post a little something for you to read. 10 minutes of research proves even more of what I said.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVITexhibit2.pdf

Here's the affidavit claiming what you say.

The reverend says, on page 2.

Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your
grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice,
and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”.

Now, scroll down to the transcript itself - page 8.

Ron McRae: Amen. I am so thankful. Could I ask her, uh, about his, uh, his actual
birthplace? I would like to see hi actual birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in
December. Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in
Kenya?
Translator to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].

Now - the first thing that should catch yoru attention is that Kweli claims McRae asked SPECIFICALLY the words 'grandson Barack Obama.'

The transcript submitted WITH THE AFFIDAVIT is COMPLETELY DEVOID OF THAT CLAIMED EVENT.

In other words - Kweli is blatantly lying about the event, in his own affidavit submission.

Now... and I hate having to RESAY THIS EVERY TIME.

Notice what McRae actually asks. 'HIS' birthplace.

Let's backtrack up through the conversation.

Ron McRae: Yes Sir. Uh…Ms. Obama, you can rest assured that I am praying for your
son, for your grandson.
Translator: Yes. It is helpful also towards it is beginning to help.
Ron McRae: Okay.
Sarah Obama: [unitelligible from Ms. Obama because of room noise].
Translator: She says she is covet your prayers for he [unintelligible] her son.

McRae confuses son and grandson. When the translator says 'her son' HE DOESN'T CORRECT HER.

The transcript shows it as clear she is talking about HER SON.

Aaaand.. You're WRONG. Big surprise, eh? WorldNetDaily, really? I know you're new here, but if you want to be taken seriously, never, ever link that website as proof for your argument.

Oh hush, BAJunkie. Some of us like thinking that Elvis is still alive, ya know. I might just be having his baby.

If you're trying to imply she was confused about whose birth she witnessed, you are incorrect.

I was never implying she was confused about whose birth she witnessed - I said the questioner - Ron McRae - confused what he was asking about.

Barack's father was already born when Onyango and Sarah met.

Referenced where?

Sarah did not witness her own husbands birth.

I have absolutely no idea what is even causing you to write this sentence.

She witnessed the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, her step grandson.

Still unsupported.

"World Nut Daily" says it all.

"Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning".^[1]

The birthers, along with the Roswell, Area 51, and other such advocates are more of the same.

But John - there aren't many people who claim that JFK faked his own death and is very much alive. The birther crap is above and beyond just a simple conspiracy theory - we're talking in need of institutionalizing for their own safety here.

This article says that everyone knew Obama was going to be president so they posted fake birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers in 1964. It claims that the mother was somehow not a citizen of the US, and that everyone on earth but the true believers are in on a giant conspiracy to hide the truth about Obama being born someplace else. Its insane.

Its insane.

No kidding.

true dat JR. Further, if there were anything to this don't you think Billary would have used it?

I honestly don't. Hillary Clinton always thought she would win, and when it began to appear she wouldn't , raising such an issue by her would have looked to Democrats like sour grapes.

I just think that the vast majority of Americans simply do not care about this rule anymore.

McCain's campaign thoroughly investigated it because McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. His own citizenship was in question. If they could have done so, his campaign people would certainly used Obama's birth place against him.

At this point, the laughter is probably just rolled eyes, a sad shake of the head, and the thought..."some folks never learn".

My understanding is that even if someone's parents moved overseas and surrendered their citizenship, that action would not void their childrens' citizenship. If someone doesn't want to be an American anymore, they have to decide that themselves when they reach legal age.

This whole birther thing has become a conspiracy theory nuthouse that dwarfs everything else out there---Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, Area 51, you name it. What if Obama's grandmother did say he was born in Kenya? Is there any possibility that an elderly lady misspoke, especially given that she was asked this question by a translator? Is there any chance whatsoever that the translator's accent may have thrown her off? And then there are the pesky facts that both the (Republican) governor of Hawaii and the state's director of Bureau of Vital Records have certified Obama's birth certificate as genuine and authentic. Could Obama have even been elected to the Senate if there were any doubts about his citizenship status?

So, who do we believe---a state's highest elected official and his number-one record-keeping official, the documents both have certified as authentic and legit, or the ravings of a bunch of no-hopers with entirely too much time on their hands (and, perhaps, beer in the 'fridge)?

Last time I checked, Hawaii was still a member of these United States, and was a member when Obama was born there. This stuff about a "certificate of live birth" not being the same as a "birth certificate" is nonsense. The Supreme Court isn't going to step in and void the election so that McCain, Hillary Clinton or---heaven forbid---Sarah Palin can move into the White House. There's just no reason to do that.

Get over it, birthers. Can you get it through your heads that you're wasting your time on this one?

i laughed. and snorted a bit, too. :(

But BAJ, everyone(even fools) should have a hobby. :P

@Rogoho,

You have a point there. Everyone is entitled to their foolish diversions---I guess one of the pre-requisites for mine is that they don't cause my blood pressure to rise, what's left of my brain to hurt or anything else like that.;)

Too each their own, I guess. What the heck!

BAJ-
"Could Obama have even been elected to the Senate if there were
any doubts about his citizenship status?"

In a word, YES. Ask AH-nold, the Governator of California, if the
Obama needs to be a natural citizen to be a Senator. (OR Governor)
The answer is NO. One only need be a NATURAL to run for PRESIDENT.
(Or V.P.)

"So, who do we believe, a state's highest elected official..."

The Governor of Hawaii, LINDA LINGLE, (a WOMAN, not a "he") NEVER
"verified" a damn THING. Her statements included:

"Obama spent only a few years in Hawaii during his high school years,
and his claim of Hawaii as one of his home states is disingenuous."

"Most people in Hawaii had never heard of him until he ran for
president, so I was amused on that level,” she said."

"Lingle told reporters Obama has never voted in Hawaii, nor has he
owned a business here. "Senator Obama likes to say he's from Hawaii,
But, the truth is, I've never met him in my life. Ninety-five percent
of the people in my state had never heard of him before he ran for
president" said Lingle."

In fact, there is ONE lying puke that COULD clear up this little
"problem" with the stroke of a PEN. Except that he already KNOWS
what it says. This would be akin to getting his good buddy, Bill
Ayers, to admit to the killing of a police officer on Monday, Feb
16, 1970 at San Francisco's Park Police Station. He'd INCRIMINATE
himself. Not much "hopium" for THAT happening, HU?

tansy

the governor would not be the one who would verify it. her words are moot.

Lingle told reporters Obama has never voted in Hawaii, nor has he
owned a business here. "Senator Obama likes to say he's from Hawaii,
But, the truth is, I've never met him in my life. Ninety-five percent
of the people in my state had never heard of him before he ran for
president" said Lingle."

She sounds like an idiot.

Is she a republican?

I've never done any of those things either.

Guess I also wasn't born in the U.S.

By the way, I was born in Memphis, Tennesse.

Haven't lived there in 35 years.

Guess where I'm from.

That's right - Memphis.

Know what?

I wil damn well always be from Memphis.

Linda needs to get her panties out of a wad and quit shooting her mouth off.

I was born in New York State, but left when I was 10. I never voted there, the current governor never met me, I never owned a business there, most people in New York have never heard of me, but New York is still my "home state", as that's where I was born. People talk frequently of the "home town" where they were born and/or raised. Why would a state be any different?

proletarian-
"She sounds like an idiot. Is she a republican?"

Why, YES. But what has THAT to do with the price of an Obama
birth certificate? States apparently elect "idiots" Governor
all the TIME. You know Sister Sarah, right? You betcha!

Unnecessary bashing of an otherwise perfectly good Governor.
A WOMAN Governor. Another damn REPUBLICAN woman Governor.
Is that what you're saying? I don't mind bashing Republicans,
they can be as stupid as anybody ELSE. But, they actually
have to have DONE something to GET bashed, doncha think?

Even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, since he supposedly left
the islands at 5 or 6 or so, who the hell WOULD know him?
But of course, the ONLY reason for my even mentioning the
Hawaii Governor was that it was implied that SHE "verified"
Obama, but, she simply did NOT.

Just to be CLEAR, here, I consider myself LIBERTARIAN. At
times, I find myself at odds with my party and it's often
odd choices for candidates for office, but I'd rather see
ANY Libertarian in any office, rather than the same-old BS
politics-as-usual bunch, considered at BEST the "lesser of
two EVILS". I have little use for either, but less for Dems.

Last GOOD Republican, Saint Ronnie. Last GOOD Democrat, of
course, JFK. Last good Libertarian? Well, we haven't HAD one
yet. Sad story. They won't USE celebrities or public funds.
They want YOU to want THEM. That's a pretty cheap trick.
But, what can ya do?

VerbalBarb-
"never voted there, current governor never met me,"

That's entirely reasonable, but I think the inference was
toward his being a Senator, supposedly BORN in HI, never
called to say "Hi, how's trix".

He was a BIT of a celebrity, in Illinois, at least. Being a
politician, I always thought they ALL hung out together
whenever they're out of their own pond. A short version
might be, hers was a "politician" thing, rather than his
(Obama's) normal "criminal" thing, like hanging out with
Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko. She just didn't know.

Of course, I could be mistaken. I once thought I was
WRONG, but I was mistaken.

That's entirely reasonable, but I think the inference was
toward his being a Senator, supposedly BORN in HI, never
called to say "Hi, how's trix".

Of course, I could be mistaken. I once thought I was
WRONG, but I was mistaken.

Now my interest is a little piqued. Are there stories of, say, an Idaho Senator hanging out with the governor of the state they were born, like Florida? Is this some kind of urban myth friendship thing?

I mean, they're of different parties, in states that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I can't think of a single reason they would EVER talk.

DTan

Soon as:

1. The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who administered the oath of office to Obama.

and

2. George II - who abdicated the office of president to a usurper.

are both:

1. Arrested

2. Charged with treason.

3. Standing trial in a court of law.

then:

I will be glad to support requiring that Obama's birth certificate be entered into evidence at their trial.

Until then - forget it.

Proletarian & thelopes-
"current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, George II"

"Are there stories of, say..."

Pro- they will NEVER get the Shrub. His money, backed by
daddy's money, yeah, RIGHT. Your #1, however, is a case
of a man doing his JOB. Complicity? He's not the one who's
supposed to VET the candidates. A cop doesn't care if you
are guilty or not, he just drags in the corpus.

I do believe things will take a turn for the worse for the
Prez by 12, though. New "points of order" concerning one's
"BONAFIDES", I think. May have to hide and watch on that.

Yes, of course, I realize you were being sarcastic.

thelopes,

I left you a little present at 2.50, you may be hard pressed
to overturn THAT. I thought you KNEW I didn't like Obama?
With regard to politicians having a "friend thing", yeah, I
guess I really DID expect politico's to "pal around", being
birds of a feather and what-not.

Lawyers, cops, and other criminals do. Doncha think?

@DTansy,

One thing for sure---I don't know who the governor of Hawaii is. Well, I do now, anyway.

The simple fact is, there is a birth certificate out there that says Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on 4 August 1961---whether or not anyone in Hawaii had heard of him before he ran for President does not void that fact. Governor Lingle is herself disingenuous in saying that.

I left Wichita Falls, Texas in 1971, didn't go back to visit until 1990 and haven't been back since---I wasn't even born in Texas and probably will neither die nor be buried there---but that's home to me, all the same. People claim locations as home all the time---I didn't realize you had to vote, get rich in business and then become famous there to boot. Oh, and the governor had better be your BFF!

That Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California as a naturalized American citizen means---nothing. The location of the Austrian Oak's birth is not in question. In fact, any future attempt to show a US birth certificate would be a screaming-loud, obvious hoax...kind of like the one purporting to show that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, btw.

It looks like the birthers are now asking the American people to believe that Hawaii's Department of Vital Records is (also) involved in a conspiracy to pass a non-citizen/resident off as a citizen---a guy that no one there ever heard of before he ran for president. These stories don't even make sense---like perhaps they might if they were emanating out of Illinois. What possible motive would anyone in Hawaii have to do this? George Soros' money? I can only speak for myself, but Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined wouldn't be able to pay me to get mixed up in a nutjob conspiracy like this--- to put a black man in the White House? Heck---I'm a black man myself, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere around something like this. I don't think Soros got so rich by being stupid.

As for Bill Ayres' complicity in the death of a cop in 'Frisco---exactly WHAT does that have to do with Obama's birth certificate or national origin? Less than nothing. In fact, the Ayres "thing" is the second biggest anti-Obama red herring out there. If Mr. Ayres killed that officer, or was involved with the crime in any way---it doesn't change the fact that Mr. Obama was NINE YEARS OLD and living in another state. The guy was a violent radical in the 1960s? So were a lot of people---okay, he was never implicated in anyone's death but where is Jerry Rubin today?

I do thank you for providing me some facts about Gov. Lingle, though. Now I'm more convinced than ever that the birther movement is founded on nonsense---where's the PROOF that it's not!?

Yes, of course, I realize you were being sarcastic.

No - I wasn't.

The fascist birthers want a definitive answer - that's the only way I will support them getting one.

As Charlton Heston once said, "When they pry my cold......."

You know the rest.

The governor of Hawaii is - shall, we say - less than truthful and apparently not very bright either.

But then, most less than truthful aren't very bright.

Obama's family connections to Hawaii go back to at least 1959 - his grand mother was a banker, you know.

Link

This would be akin to getting his good buddy, Bill
Ayers, to admit to the killing of a police officer on Monday, Feb
16, 1970 at San Francisco's Park Police Station.

Are you saying that the state of California is obstructing justice by preventing the prosecution of Mr Ayers - despite the overwhelming evidence saying he did it?

Interesting.

I apologize if it looks like I'm replying to myself here, folks, that is not my intent. Something else has occurred to me (uh, oh).

In reference to Arnold---there is no doubt that Arnold is a naturalized US citizen & has been since---1985, if memory serves. One of the cornerstones---if not the major contention, as I understand it--- is that Barack Obama is NOT an American citizen, native-born or naturalized.

All sorts of fanciful theories have been floated as to why this is the case, and that a non citizen who is also an enemy of the USA, its' people, and their way of life currently resides in the White House---all these theories have been put forth by people whose motives are, charitably, questionable in themselves. All these theories have been debunked as well.

Just had to share that...

...all these theories have been put forth by people whose motives are, charitably, questionable in themselves.

That was charitable - and well done.

All these theories have been debunked as well.

Just had to share that...

Thanks - and you are 100% correct.

Bravo

@ Proletarian-1299762,

Thank you!

NO... thank you BOTH. CIVILITY should be the ORDER of the DAY.

@DTansy,

Last time i checked, Americans are supposed to be free and able to disagree on issues without someone going koo-koo for cocoa puffs over it. That's one of the BIG differences between us and too many other places in this world.

In any case, you're welcome!

Wrong. It appears that you have no working knowledge of the US Constitution, and simply believe whatever bull@!$%# is fed to you via right wing morons with an agenda. But, of course, that's why I have you on ignore I guess. Never expected anything even approaching intelligent to come from your posts.

At the very least the investigator's report raises some interesting questions.

No, really - it doesn't. Its a @!$%#ing birther seed. All it raises is the desire for a national mental health care system.

I will agree with you on the fact that it does raise some questions. Will they ever be answered? Will it change anything?

At the very least the investigator's report raises some interesting questions.

No it doesn't. At least, none that either are relevant or that haven't already been debunked thoroughly.

At the very least the investigator's report raises some interesting questions.

No, the "investigator" rehashes the same old tired shop-worn nonsense the birthies have been babbling about for a year.

Dylan, the article is worthless, and the 'investigator' has a far right wing agenda.

But let me ask you a question. Do you think any federal court in America would overturn the results of the 2008 election 18 months later?

And if you do, will you be checking yourself into a mental hospital?

Wrong. It appears that you have no working knowledge of the US Constitution, and simply believe whatever bull@!$%# is fed to you via right wing morons with an agenda

And you're a constitutional scholar? Spare me the @!$%#ing bull@!$%#.................

Right wing morons huh?

Who owns Factcheck.org?

Who owns and set up the SMEARTHEFACTS website?

No, really - it doesn't. Its a @!$%#ing birther seed

http://homelandsecurityus.com/

Looks like a website with alot more on it than birther stuff to me, or are you still learing how to read?

NEIN, and it's creator Hagmann, has been exposed as a fraud and routinely plaigarizes others work. That's exactly what I meant by being a right wing moron who believes anything.

Who owns Factcheck.org?

So, the challenge is against the Annenberg Foundation.

Now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg

Presidential Medal of Freedom by Reagan. Ambassador to the UK under Nixon. His wife worked for the State Department under Reagan and 'Reagen frequently spent New Years with them.'

That's who setup the Annenberg Foundation. Really sounds like something of theirs would be in the tank for Obama, eh?

I do find it funny that there's no actual tangible connection being made - merely that an educational reform challenge from 93 and a website have the same name somewhere around them.

Who owns and set up the SMEARTHEFACTS website?

Although your manipulation of their name shows that you probably won't respect an answer to your actual question, I'll answer it anyway.

The document was put up on that website specifically for the goal of showing people who may question the situation a birth certificate of the state of Hawaii. It was never hidden that it was connected to the Obama campaign. People had unfortunately thought that those questioning it wouldn't decide to discredit an entire state of the union.

http://homelandsecurityus.com/

Again, spoof website. The real Homeland Security website is www.dhs.gov.

Hint - all official United States Federal gov't websites end in .gov, not .com. Try it on the White House (if you like porn, that is).

False website where is the ".gov".

Dylan, I read the ENTIRE article. It is repetitious , highly repetitious actually, and worthless. His major substantial argument is that the certificate of birth is not legally sufficient to prove eligibilty for the Presidency, and the long form birth certificate is needed. He could have said that in one sentence. He also whines that the Hawaiin State Health Director does not have the statuatory authority to declare Obama eligible, as he did. Whoopdedo. And that newspaper annoncements are not legal documents, something I think we already knew.

The article , couching itself as a thorough investigation of the matter, is a bunch of pointless blather from someone who is definitely on the right fringe poltitically. The most annoying thing about the damn thing though was that EVERY time he used Obama's name, which was often, he used his middle name Hussein. That is a dead giveaway as to what this writer is up to.

thelopes-

"FactCheck calls itself a non-partisan watchdog, yet it is the same
Annenberg organization Obama and Ayers worked with. SENATOR Obama
steered earmarks to Annenberg's foundation. These are the same people
that were granted access to Obama's birth records. California lawyer
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation suggests the
records from "Annenberg FactCheck" be subpoenaed "as to how they
claim to have examined Obama's birth certificate and found it valid.
Neither the state of Hawaii, nor Obama has ever released such birth
certificate and there is no evidence of Obama being born in any
hospital in Hawaii."

FactCheck calls itself a non-partisan watchdog, yet it is the same
Annenberg organization Obama and Ayers worked with.

That's not quite true. The Annenberg School of Communication that began FactCheck.org is actively run by the Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Challenge that Obama was on is a completely different thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge It was funded by the Annenbergs and the Annenberg foundation, not run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Foundation

*Annenberg Challenge In 1993, the largest gift to public education was made by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, a $500 million grant named the Annenberg Challenge. The grant was designed to unite the resources throughout the United States and ideas of those committed to increasing the effectiveness of public schooling. Recognizing that no single gift could improve all schools, the Challenge served as a catalyst to energize and support educational reform efforts across the country.

To suggest that the Annenberg Challenge is the same as working for FactCheck is rather misleading to the facts. Is there some kind of connection? Sure. But to read it as you do doesn't have nearly the support you suggest.

SENATOR Obama steered earmarks to Annenberg's foundation.

Where is this referenced exactly? I mean, really, where are earmarks going to the Annenberg Foundation, specifically?

The article seeded here at Newsvine references a report conducted by the Northeast Intelligence Network (NEIN) and characterizes the report's results as - "stunning."

The conclusions reached by that report are in fact the basis for new allegations regarding the citizenship of President Obama.

We must then ask - what exactly does NEIN's report allege?

The report states that it's conclusions are based upon the 1874 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874).

The NEIN report sates that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling applied to:

1. An individual born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth.

2. A person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child.

The report states that regarding point one the court ruling noted - that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen.

Regarding point two the report states that the court ruling noted - that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”

It is the reports decision regarding point two that we are concerned with. The question is - what did the court actually say in their ruling?

Regarding point two, the court said:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts...

Please note, the court said - parents, which is plural. Which is to say, the court meant - both parents.

What the court said is - if both parents are not citizens of the U.S. then the child's citizenship may be in doubt.

Why might this true? Obviously, because the parents might not want their child to be a U.S. citizen.

The basis for NEIN's allegations regarding President Obama's citizenship are - false.

We must therefore refer to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is:

All persons born...in the United states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

One more time, that is

All persons.....

That is, even persons whose parents are neither one citizens of the United States.

That is the basis of the "doubt" which the court referenced.

Simply stated, Barrack Obama would be a "natural born" citizen of the United States regardless of whether his parents were U.S. citizens or not.

Just as the children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrats are natural born citizens.

I know that what I have written will settle nothing but I appreciate the opportunity to collect my thoughts regarding this controversy.

Decision - it's a tempest in a tea pot.

Most likely a tea baggers pot.

thelopes

Great points about Factcheck.

And, since you brought up Walter Annenburg, let's take a look at who he is too.

Annenberg sold Triangle Publications and TV Guide to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in 1988. A year later, he created the Annenberg Foundation, which now has a $3 billion endowment, making it the nation's 12th largest.

Keenly in touch with conservative politics throughout his life, Annenberg counted among his friends many national leaders. He was named U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain in 1969 by President Richard M. Nixon. Annenberg was a close friend of Ronald Reagan and introduced the U.S. president to Margaret Thatcher, future prime minister of Great Britain link

Yeah.... a reeeeaaalll leftist :)

Of course, in the big scheme of things, who Annenburg was has little to do with the merits of what factcheck produces, or what anything founded or affiliated with Annenburg produces. But, for anyone to act as if Annenburg's various endeavors are somehow slanted left is quite comical at it's core.

thelopes-
"The Annenberg Challenge that Obama was on is a completely different thing."

Actually, I didn't REALIZE that, until I followed your work.
I'm a happy "assumer", as well as a fervent cynic. Things
usually arent as bad as you think, they're WORSE. I usually
presume the WORST case scenario, in the hope that the actual
scenario won't be as bad. Anything LESS than worst possible
is a winner.

I hate Bill Ayers name attached to ANYTHING, and the MOMENT
I heard his name expressed as a "friend" of Obama, that ship
SANK. Ayers was a 60's and 70's real-life BOMBER, who may
have gotten away with MURDERING a cop, & critically injuring
a DOZEN more. I'd see him HANGED, until DEAD-DEAD-DEAD.
See if his daddy's money could buy him out of THAT.

"to read it as you do doesn't have nearly the support you suggest.

That entire quoted block came from "Conservapedia", at the
"Obama birth certificate lawsuits" section.

BTW- Almost ALL "pre-2008 Election" pages by the "Honolulu Advertiser"
(a Hawaiian daily online newspaper) that carried pages concerning
Barack Obama have been changed or removed. Just sayin. Probably
no conspiracy there. But, then again... (2 dead links on the page)

Actually, I didn't KNOW there was a difference, the Chicago
Annenberg Challenge isn't the entire Annenberg Challenge,
it is merely one part, funded by the Foundation. Got it.

So, I learned stuff, and that's always GOOD.

You mean this one?

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

The one validated by the state of Hawaii?

That simple document which was supplied two years ago?

a stunning display of disrespect and outright hostility toward the american voter

No, not the American voter, the condescending hostility and disrespect are solely reserved for the ignorant racists who keep beating the dead horse of Obama's citizenship.

a coverup on the scale of jfk's drug use and dangerous womanizing

Based on your current line of reasoning, JFK isn't dead - there has never been seen a valid death certificate.

But I do like how you glossed over the criminal activity of Nixon and the blatant malfeasance of Bush in order to target another Democratic President. Way to show your ideology - not that we didn't already know that the birther nonsense isn't totally fueled by naked partisanship...

madvargr

Your link didn't work for me.  Try this one.

Oops, same link. Works for me too now. Sorry. Must have been my browser.

Birthers are conspiracy theorists and the problem with conspiracy theorists is that any evidence presented is proof of their theory.

obama's refusal to supply the simple document which would put this issue to rest is either a stunning display of disrespect and outright hostility toward the american voter

Strange - I thought demanding something no person has a right to was a stunning display of disrespect towards the privacy rights of individuals.

Either way, the media's complicity in obama's flaunting of the constitution is an ill-omen for america's future.

Where in the constitution does it specify a particular kind of birth record be submitted? And how does the constitution outline the submission?

DScott Anthony

obama's refusal to supply the simple document which would put this issue to rest is either a stunning display of disrespect and outright hostility toward the american voter -- or a coverup ...

Despite conventional wisdom, repeating a lie often does not make it true. The repitition does wear down those unable to think, apparently. But it's still a lie.

I love how they cherry pick parts of the Constitution that Obama is supposedly "flaunting" while ignoring the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yawn. I'll go back to following posts on the other "news" story. Let's see, the one where they found Noah's Ark.

DEAR EVERYONE: the "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE" is BETWEEN
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

It is NOT a "mandate" for "blind acceptance" of ANY supposed "bonafides"
of ANY supposed "citizen" or any other single human, American or OTHER.
If you HAVE a New Jersey driver's license, Indiana "has" to accept that
you are considered (IF the document isn't FAKED) a "licensed" vehicle
operator.

It is STILL the RIGHT and DUTY of EVERY American citizen to QUESTION
any and every act or action of EVERY elected "official" for each and
EVERY OFFICE in the United States.

There REMAIN unanswered QUESTIONS coming due of "The One", America's
FIRST Hussein, and they probably won't BE answered until the bum is ran
OUT of office.

However, ARIZONA has created NEW laws concerning actual presentation
of FACTUAL records pertaining to citizenship being REQUIRED prior to
be ALLOWED ON THE STATE'S BALLOT as a candidate for ANY OFFICE.

This will put a big damper on the "Kenyan-in-Chief's" possibility of
a SECOND TERM. I will GLADLY show MY papers, Mr. Nobama.

HowboutCHU?

This will put a big damper on the "Kenyan-in-Chief's" possibility of
a SECOND TERM.

It's not like he was going to get the AZ electoral votes anyway.

I also didn't realize that AZ holds the keys to the White House......McCain must be pissed!

DEAR EVERYONE: the "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE" is BETWEEN
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

So... the government office of the Hawaiian Department of Health says he was born in the U.S.

The Federal Election Commission takes it on full faith and credit.

Case closed.

However, ARIZONA has created NEW laws concerning actual presentation
of FACTUAL records pertaining to citizenship being REQUIRED prior to
be ALLOWED ON THE STATE'S BALLOT as a candidate for ANY OFFICE.

Obama's Certification of Live Birth would pass Arizona's new law, funnily enough.

Let's look back at Full Faith and Credit.

Hawaii's Department of Health issues a Certification of Live Birth as prima facie evidence of his birth in Hawaii. Arizona's election commission takes it on full faith and credit.

Again - case closed.

However, ARIZONA has created NEW laws concerning actual presentation
of FACTUAL records pertaining to citizenship being REQUIRED prior to
be ALLOWED ON THE STATE'S BALLOT as a candidate for ANY OFFICE.

Arizona hasn't created diddly. The Birther Bill failed in the Arizona Senate.

If you want to try to maintain any credibility with your comments (altough that doesn't seem the case), you may want to try keeping up on current events.

@!$%# folks - what the hell are doing feeding the troll? Hell feeding? You have been giving it a frickin' smorgasbord. I guess on one hand if you're working on your chops or are bored - fine. Otherwise, the troll is playing you like a violin.

"Obama's Certification of Live Birth would pass Arizona's new law, funnily enough."

Hi, thelopes!

I don't THINK so.

I'll have to say, I don't THINK that's going to happen. Since
there has BEEN a possible "breach" in what should have been a
routine acceptance of normal documentation concerning actual
citizenship requirements, the rules WILL be more stringent.
If EVER a supposed "citizenship" needed PROVING, a "citizen"
vying for the highest office in the LAND should be IT.

If for NO other reason than the ability to send ten thousand
MARINES anywhere in the world on 24hr NOTICE would seem
a MORE than justifiably reasonable excuse. I can't think of a
SINGLE "reasonable" reason NOT to expect clarity from the
"Transparent" one, if asked in 2012. The ACTUAL document
HW's mouthpiece SAYS is "on file", NOT the COLB.

The ACTUAL information that would MATCH, say, the NORDYKE
TWINS' photostatic copies of their LFBC's? For those who
don't KNOW, the Nordyke twins were born the SAME DAY as
our "precious", a few hours later, in what is now "Kapi-olani
Medical Center for Women & Children."

Should be pretty FUNNY to watch his little lordship SQUIRM.

RAC

Very true - troll indeed.

I played along for a while as well. Now, I'll just throw some 'Miak' on him link

@!$%# folks - what the hell are doing feeding the troll? Hell feeding?

Re my lone post to it - I don't care if it's a troll or not. If it's spreading erroneous information, I'll correct it.

Re my lone post to it - I don't care if it's a troll or not. If it's spreading erroneous information, I'll correct it.

Verbal - one post response to raccoon @!$%# crazy trolls = good thing.

Repeated and extended arguing with raccoon @!$%# crazy trolls = wasted time.

Since there has BEEN a possible "breach" in what should have been a
routine acceptance of normal documentation concerning actual
citizenship requirements, the rules WILL be more stringent.

A 'possible breach'? There is a state certified birth record, verified by the state department of health. That's all the Secretary of State would need, or could request.

As you just said, and I confirmed, Full Faith and Credit is between government organizations. The Hawaii Department of Health is a governmental organization, as are the Arizona Election Commissions. The Secretary of State would, by full faith and credit, take a COLB from the state of Hawaii.

I can't think of a SINGLE "reasonable" reason NOT to expect clarity from the
"Transparent" one, if asked in 2012. The ACTUAL document
HW's mouthpiece SAYS is "on file", NOT the COLB.

As I'm sure I've told you before - a COLB serves as PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT OF BIRTH by Hawaii State Law.

That's a reasonable reason to accept it for what it legally is.

Also, to let you know, Hawaii's postal abbreviation is "HI" not "HW."

DTansy

I don't THINK so.

The real problem is you don't think. You have a script which you've gotten from some place and that's your belief system.

You do nothing but write inflammatory comments that have no basis in actual facts which in many ways display a very bigoted point of view.

"troll indeed... don't care if it's a troll... @!$%# crazy trolls"

Dear Ignorant Obamabots on autopilot, Drones, Mouthpieces, and
other cheesy left-neck Democrap spewers...

"TROLL" is mostly used as an ad hominem attack to discredit an opposing
position by attacking its proponent. This usually occurs when one side
has no position on which to create a supportive statement defending their
side of an argument." See "ignorance".

You HAVE no argument, NO debate, and are "simple" folk. If there
is NO one to guide your otherwise LACKING spew, you devolve into
empty one-word "attacks", as mindless as your ignorant "Messiah".

OH Well, if that's the best you can do. Just remember, you're
NOT much help to your SAVIOR with empty crap like THIS.

DTansy

Like I said, very much bigoted comments without facts. Simple name calling in hopes of gaining a response to your brand of bigotry.

Why you are still here not already banned is beyond me.

DTansy

You HAVE no argument, NO debate, and are "simple" folk. If there
is NO one to guide your otherwise LACKING spew, you devolve into
empty one-word "attacks", as mindless as your ignorant "Messiah".

When you were countered with a factual argument, you ran away and hid (see 2.32 and hte posts it referenced). You've been exposed - deal with it ;)

Thelopes!

Good to see ya. You're one of the FEW Lefties (u R lefty?)
with both a mind AND an ACTUAL ARGUMENT. You should start
a lefty DAYCARE here, to teach the LEFT-headed how to CARRY
an argument. You and AMac and a few others might could make
your much more SIMPLE "brethren" learn to THINK before they
regurgitate empty headed ignorance.

Teach them to "Put brain in gear before engaging MOUTH", if
such a thing can be TAUGHT to the terminally ignorant.

See, EVERYONE has an "opinion", they're like BUTTHOLES, just
EVERYONE has one. The problem with most Americans today is,
an utter LACK of TOLERANCE for any opinion but their OWN.
You are head and shoulders above the CROWD, here.

We DON'T have to ACCEPT other American's opinions, we merely
have to accept that they HAVE one, whether we agree with it
or NOT.

"We are obliged to respect those rights in others which we
value in ourselves" (Thomas Jefferson)

With that in mind, I'd have YOU on a pedestal, the EPITOME of
TOLERANCE of other's opinions. ALWAYS civil, ALWAYS concise,
Well read, and well spoken. But you DO seem to take SOME people
on "faith". Your Obama, for instance. You seem to defend him
at ALL COSTS, as though he were "above" the "commoners", w/o
QUESTION. Neither a GOD nor a KING was elected, just a MAN.
Not even a GOOD one, just a greasy little Chicago-style criminal
and CON-MAN with a silver tongue.

I think he's a sneak-thief, a backdoor snake-oil salesman with
NO redeeming qualities whatsoever. I think the anagram for him,
"One Big Ass Mistake America" is the height of both TRUTH and
HUMOR. I think he's an educated IDIOT, raised all his LIFE on
someone else's nickel.

He IS a "citizen" of the United States, but the squirrelly
elitist wouldn't make a pimple on a REAL American's ASS. He
has NOTHING good for America, he is the most divisive, racist
puke to ever be CONSIDERED for an office above dog-catcher in
the U.S. of A., America deserves BETTER than the trashcan that
currently sits in his would-be "Ivory Tower", handing down
MANDATES that would ROB those who PRODUCE, in order to CARRY
those who will NOT, talking @!$%# to Americans while sucking UP
and bowing LOW to every Third-World dictator across the planet.

I guess I have to say, I don't much LIKE the somewhat "black"
anti-American muslim/terrorist sympathising "Organizer", or
his bloated gasbag wife. I guess I wasn't close enough to the
rest of the crowd when he was dispersing the "HOPIUM", I don't
much believe in the CHRISTIAN'S "Messiah", damned if I'll just
accept a really half-assed HUMAN as one.

In MY almost-humble OPINION, of course.

Keep in mind that URFullOfIt didn't write the article he/she seeded. But he/she could have investigated a little more thoroughly before posting it.

ron c. baker sr.#13 (8 1/2) First of all Ron, I have never had cute little feet, and I'm jealous. I have to special order every shoe I own. I also totally agree with your post, people need to get a life, and yes he is black (part), and you need to grow up people and get over it. You have been riding a dead horse, and that is why you are not getting anywhere, get off the dead horse and walk away, there are plenty of other things to attach him for, be it true or not. Now back to you Ron, my shoe size is 9 1/2 eeeeee, yes thats right 6e's.

Wish I could say I had cute little feet. After 5 years in the infantry (and 2 of those with Special Forces), mine almost look like cloven hoofs (or is it hooves). My son will dive under the table at the sight of 'em, yelling, "Pah-LEEEZE put your socks on!"

Although, StevG-144, sounds like yours might be worse. As the TNA Wrestling tag team Beer Money, Inc., says, "Sorry about your damn luck!" :>)

LMAO (although it is true I got some d*mnned fugly feet now).

Yeah, this is a silly post...but somehow not nearly as stupid as this birther nonsense...

ron c. baker sr.

I'm originally from California.  I got the Baker name via marriage.  I lived in Oregon for several years.  That's where I met and married my husband, John Baker.  His father was Lewis Baker, an ex-Mormon from Medford.  His maternal grandmother was Ferol Trimble, so he's related to both those clans. At one time, John's cousins where mayor, police chief, and city attorney of Jacksonville.

My grandmother was born Emma Leona Angel, in Indiana.  The Angel Mounds State Monument in Evansville was donated to the state by her grandfather.  My father was part of the William - George Rodgers Clark clan.  That's the Clarks of "Lewis and..." and the Green Mountain boys.

How about you?

And, this has what to do with the topic?

Blood being thicker than water in many peoples minds--even if you disagree with another person, blood can trump anything. I grew up in an area where that was the norm. Interesting.

Let them ask Sarah Palin, too!

Then they can detain him in Sheriff Joe's Tent City until he produces his "real" Birth Certificate.

A "real" Hawaiian birth certificate is the form that Hawaii says is real. Obama has already presented it. Under the Constitution the other states and the federal government are obligated to give it full faith and credit. Arizona may not legally say they don't like the form once Hawaii has designated it as accurate and sufficient proof of birth.

Agreed - we need a gatekeeper to prevent a black man from becoming President.

Of course every disagreement with Obama is solely on the basis on his being half black of course. There would never be any other reason.

Hey Texas - I'm agreeing with you. The only time we should be concerned with someone's papers is when the candidate is black...or at least not completely white. I think as you do that the "one drop" rule should still apply.

To the terminally ignorant, who KEEP trying to play "RACE" as a
factor in NOT accepting the "Savior" as "our" OWN...

"The One" is more ARAB than "black", and more CAUCASIAN than ARAB.

"Obama: Arab American?
"Documentation of his actual ethnic background demonstrates Mr. Obama
is not an "African-American" as defined in United States law. This
research was initiated by a request from a daily news publication of
international reputation in New York City."

from "Reading Between the Lines" by Kenneth E. Lamb

"Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be
at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article,
I've converted it to a decimal fraction for easier comprehension.
You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim
for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is
half the legal threshold."

Sorry, NOT a very "black" man at ALL.

tansy

we should not need to use those words at all. obama is an american and the president. his ethnicity and race played in a role in forming him, i am sure, but they do not negate him from being president or being american.

gorilla-
"we should not need to use those words at all..."

I agree. QUITE right. However, perhaps you didn't read anything
above MY "not very black" comment?

shrekk-
"gatekeeper to prevent a black man from becoming President"

TexasGuy-
"every disagreement with Obama is solely on the basis on his
being half black...?"

shrekk-
"The only time we should be concerned with someone's papers is
when the candidate is black...or at least not completely white."

That's not at ALL what the TexasGuy said, it's a mealymouthed
scrub left-neck attempt at trying to REWORD what Tex said. Do
you see how what I said fits there like a GLOVE, now?

With VERY few exceptions, lefties here on the Vine continuously
spew about RACE, or COLOR, or RACE, or COLOR. There just can't
BE that many people out there who can think for themselves, or
simply refuse to accept "The One", the ONLY Barry a.k.a. "Barack"
as their personal LORD and frigging SAVIOR.

There are LOTS of upright, STANDUP black men and women in
this country. MILLIONS. It's just too BAD ol' "Barry" isn't ANY of
them.

ANY other person running for ANY office IS JUDGED by the COMPANY
they keep. Their qualifications for the job are based on their PAST
HISTORY and previous EXPERIENCE. EVEN for McDONALDS. This
has NOTHING to do with the "hopey-changey" one's COLOR. It has
EVERYTHING TO DO with his serious LACK of being AMERICAN. That
his mommy was American gives him 50%. ALL THE REST remains in
QUESTION, and I, for ONE, will ALWAYS be around to run that up
his pooh-BUTT.

If anyone has a PROBLEM with that, let them DIRECTLY REFUTE it,
(like THELOPES) or get to that IGNORE BUTTON as quickly as your
LEFT hand can CLICKCLICKCLICK it! SAVE yourself! Save us ALL!

Don't let me GET me!

d

perhaps, race and color are used for advantage, but not everyone does it. the way you use words such as "savior", "barry", "lord" is the same to me. your post would seem somewhat hypocritical. i have heard few examples of people from the left actually saying those things about him, but those who would denigrate the president do. it is a tired and poor argument. words are words and have no meaning unless you can back them up with some substance. show me where the president has erred and we can debate that, for to argue that there are all these sheep that blindly follow obama without facts or sources, seems somewhat sheeplike to me. however, you would be a sheep of a different color.

Yes great swimmer, but ought to see me water ski, (no skis) and walk through heavy snow

Yes great swimmer, but ought to see me water ski, (no skis) and walk through heavy snow

...Bigfoot!?

(Now imagine StevG as Sasquatch while waterskiing)

At least until he jumps the shark.

Arad & WillBoyd you guy are not to far off, except my arms are shorter and less hair :-)

That's just @!$%#ing flat out ignorant, Hush.

The majority voted for McCain/Palin if you actually did any research. The only reason Obama won was because he secured California, New York and Florida which have the most electoral votes.

Nice try. Even believe it if it makes you feel better.

Doesn't make it true, of course.

Not even close to the truth!

Only two @!$%#ing years and they're already trying to rewrite history. Here's a map:

http://cohn.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/us-presidential-election-results.png

The majority voted for McCain/Palin if you actually did any research. The only reason Obama won was because he secured California, New York and Florida which have the most electoral votes.

The PEOPLE wanted McCain, not Obama.

Allow me the honor of nominating this as "The Single Most Proveably Ignorant Comment on Newsvine EVER". Hush, if you ever DO get your head out of the Fox News rectum and DO a SHRED of research, do come back and apologize for your complete lack of actual knowledge. I'll then retract my nomination. You could very possibly be the only person in the U.S. that actually believes that. Then again...millions listen to and believe Minister of Propaganda Beck.

Until then, Do I Hear a "Second" to my Motion?

Dale S

Obama was elected by the make em up votes Acorn, and had help from the blackpanthers who presided at voting booths.

It's amazing you can believe that. *_*

Obama was elected by the make em up votes Acorn, and had help from the blackpanthers who presided at voting booths.

OMG, is there a Stupid Moon out tonight? Or are you just Hush with a different Login?

Could you share with us a number of polling places the Black Panthers "presided" over? And did they carry machine guns, or ray guns?

God Almighty, this country is getting dumber by the minute.

Dale

I noticed you did not argue about the make em up votes for Obama by Acorn.

Go to youtube and key in (intimidation during Obama and Mccain) you'll see the black panthers with clubs at the entrance of the voting places, but low and behold this time come November, if they pull this they will be taken care of.