Yepp, Trump is still a birther!!

[washamericom]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

Try again. This time addressing the issues involved.

who made you the hall monitor ??

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

Wong Kim Ark was about jus soli citizenship, where place of birth defined citizenship. As Wong was the child of 2 aliens born in San Francisco. A discussion about natural born status being based on location of birth is understandable and predictable. And among the first things the USSC did when discussing the ruling.

Why would you ignore the USSC on the meaning of natural born?

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born if he wasn't running for president or vice. was he "natural born" before obama ran for president ??

'Needing to be' natural born is irrelevant. As it has no bearing on the Wong Kim Ark case. The USSC discusses how natural born status is defined. And they use English Common Law....with place of birth defining natural born status.

For the second time, why would you ignore the Supreme Court on the meaning of natural born?

This is the part of the birthher argument I don't understand. You demand evidence....and when you get it, you arbitrarily ignore it.

 

[washamericom]

And notice that the Obama apologists here make no effort to explain the technical forensic evidence of fraud in the birth documents.

They do everything but seek to substantively engage that evidence. They just ignore it, or mock it, and act like it's an outrage to even bring up the evidence. That is the typical response when people simply don't know how to explain evidence they don't like.

Not true. You posted earlier how BCs back then contained a certain ratio of print vs hand written portions filled out and claimed Obama's didn't match that ratio. A poster challenged you on that by pointing out the ratio on Obama's BC matched the that of the Nordyke twins' BCs and the one doing the ignoring -- was you. You didn't even attempt to answer.

michael isikoff.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

Try again. This time addressing the issues involved.

who made you the hall monitor ??

You've abandoned any discussion of natural born status, Vattel, or who is eligible to be president.

 

[Skylar]

1) Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced

What difference?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai
‛
i State Department of Health, have seen the original vitalrecords maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

Birth announcements in 1961 were placed with foreknowledge that the infant would be president? That's gotta be the stupidest conspiracies I've ever heard.

Its utterly fact free, wildly complicated, and ludicrously elaborate.

 

[Faun]

he didn't you brain dead, toon.

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming *****? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Did obama proof read it? approve it? or ignore it? its gotta be one of the 3.

No one but Obama knows the answer to that and he hasn't said. The fact that you left out a 4th possibility, though, reveals your agenda. It's entirely possible the publishing firm didn't send it to Obama to proof read.

Nor does it matter since there's no evidence he wrote it.

 

[Faun]

It's easy to find the answers, make an appointment with a psycho-therapist.

Oh, I see. Obviously, your mind is closed on the issue, and you clearly have done no serious reading on the subject and have no intention of doing so.

When you want to at least read the other side and attempt to explain the evidence, let me know.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

remember, natural born and the grandfather clause are unique and specific to exactly two jobs.

why are they so anxious to sweep all of this under the rug (along with the benghazi affair).

the obots make up shit. abercrombie makes up shit... even bill oreilly makes up shit to get past this... i have always been curious why.

both sides fear that the truth would damage the country. But just the opposite is true, the truth would make the country stronger.

You have the truth. You're simply ignoring it. And your willful ignorance is irrelevant to Obama's eligibility or the country's strength.

for the final time, if the truth is so evident why did obama pay lawyers to prevent the release of his college records?

I can only speculate; foe the same reasons virtually all presidential candidates in the past have done so.

 

[washamericom]

1) Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced

What difference?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai
‛
i State Department of Health, have seen the original vitalrecords maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

Wong Kim Ark was about jus soli citizenship, where place of birth defined citizenship. As Wong was the child of 2 aliens born in San Francisco. A discussion about natural born status being based on location of birth is understandable and predictable. And among the first things the USSC did when discussing the ruling.

Why would you ignore the USSC on the meaning of natural born?

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born if he wasn't running for president or vice. was he "natural born" before obama ran for president ??

'Needing to be' natural born is irrelevant. As it has no bearing on the Wong Kim Ark case. The USSC discusses how natural born status is defined. And they use English Common Law....with place of birth defining natural born status.

For the second time, why would you ignore the Supreme Court on the meaning of natural born?

This is the part of the birthher argument I don't understand. You demand evidence....and when you get it, you arbitrarily ignore it.

why is it irrelevant. it seems to me that citing a precedent about eligibility, to support the argument about a president being natural born as ascribed in our constituion, by a case about someone whom never even ran for president... is very relevant.

wong kim ark the obot was pushing this precedent.... arguing with apuzzo about it... years ago.

 

[washamericom]

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

Birth announcements in 1961 were placed with foreknowledge that the infant would be president? That's gotta be the stupidest conspiracies I've ever heard.

Its utterly fact free, wildly complicated, and ludicrously elaborate.

it was one of the early herrings.

 

[washamericom]

hey mg1... he went outside i guess (the ringo guy).

but maybe you can comment on this. the obots point right to the one citizen parent is enough. where does that come from... de vattel ? they say the "two parent" theory is contrived. well where is one parent's "settled law" or natural born defined. and what about having one parent ? doesn't that leave one foreign parent, with a foot in another kingdom ??

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

Try again. This time addressing the issues involved.

who made you the hall monitor ??

You've abandoned any discussion of natural born status, Vattel, or who is eligible to be president.

i don't think so, & you'll know when/if that ever happens. you still think the supreme court has defined natural born ? that's fine.

 

[Faun]

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming *****? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Did obama proof read it? approve it? or ignore it? its gotta be one of the 3.

Yes, it does

No, it doesn't. You're just as ignorant as redfish.

 

[Skylar]

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

Wong Kim Ark was about jus soli citizenship, where place of birth defined citizenship. As Wong was the child of 2 aliens born in San Francisco. A discussion about natural born status being based on location of birth is understandable and predictable. And among the first things the USSC did when discussing the ruling.

Why would you ignore the USSC on the meaning of natural born?

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born if he wasn't running for president or vice. was he "natural born" before obama ran for president ??

'Needing to be' natural born is irrelevant. As it has no bearing on the Wong Kim Ark case. The USSC discusses how natural born status is defined. And they use English Common Law....with place of birth defining natural born status.

For the second time, why would you ignore the Supreme Court on the meaning of natural born?

This is the part of the birthher argument I don't understand. You demand evidence....and when you get it, you arbitrarily ignore it.

why is it irrelevant. it seems to me that citing a precedent about eligibility, to support the argument about a president being natural born as ascribed in our constituion, by a case about someone whom never even ran for president... is very relevant.

wong kim ark the obot was pushing this precedent.... arguing with apuzzo about it... years ago.

One need not be running for president to be a natural born citizen. You can be natural born and never run for president. Which almost all natural born citizens do.

And you were asking about the meaning of natural born. The USSC specifically addresses that. And it cites English Common Law and place of birth as defining natural born status.

You are literally ignoring what you asked for. Why?

 

[Skylar]

No citizen parents is enough if you're born inside the US. As natural born status follows place of birth. Even if the child had two alien parents.

See Wong Kim Ark and the USSC's discussion of natural born status. Specifically, their citation of English Common law as the lens through which this issue should be viewed. And cited place of birth as defining natural born status per English Common law.

Vattel is irrelevant. As The Law of Nations didn't even include the word 'natural born' until the 1790s, after the constitution was written. Making the Law of Nations an impossible source for the meaning of a term that it didn't use nor define.

You'll need a blue police box to make that argument work. Or a flux capacitor.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

Try again. This time addressing the issues involved.

who made you the hall monitor ??

You've abandoned any discussion of natural born status, Vattel, or who is eligible to be president.

i don't think so, & you'll know when/if that ever happens. you still think the supreme court has defined natural born ? that's fine.

Its happening right now.

 

[Faun]

he didn't you brain dead, toon.

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming *****? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Miriam didn't say that, she said she was too incompetent to fact check it. So why did someone sit down and write the words Obama was "born in kenya?" Based on what? Don't answer with a guess

She said she was the editor and a partner of the firm confirmed that almost no one wrote their own bio's.

 

[Skylar]

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

Birth announcements in 1961 were placed with foreknowledge that the infant would be president? That's gotta be the stupidest conspiracies I've ever heard.

Its utterly fact free, wildly complicated, and ludicrously elaborate.

it was one of the early herrings.

Based on what? Again, the conspiracy you are alleging would involve a 50 year old international conspiracy. IF there was that much forethought and planning that went into it.....why not just have the kid born in Hawaii and save yourself all the trouble?

Your conspiracy is wildly irrational, has no evidence to support it, and is pointlessly complicated.

 

[washamericom]

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born ?

Wong Kim Ark was about jus soli citizenship, where place of birth defined citizenship. As Wong was the child of 2 aliens born in San Francisco. A discussion about natural born status being based on location of birth is understandable and predictable. And among the first things the USSC did when discussing the ruling.

Why would you ignore the USSC on the meaning of natural born?

why would wong kim ark need to be natural born if he wasn't running for president or vice. was he "natural born" before obama ran for president ??

'Needing to be' natural born is irrelevant. As it has no bearing on the Wong Kim Ark case. The USSC discusses how natural born status is defined. And they use English Common Law....with place of birth defining natural born status.

For the second time, why would you ignore the Supreme Court on the meaning of natural born?

This is the part of the birthher argument I don't understand. You demand evidence....and when you get it, you arbitrarily ignore it.

why is it irrelevant. it seems to me that citing a precedent about eligibility, to support the argument about a president being natural born as ascribed in our constituion, by a case about someone whom never even ran for president... is very relevant.

wong kim ark the obot was pushing this precedent.... arguing with apuzzo about it... years ago.

One need not be running for president to be a natural born citizen. You can be natural born and never run for president. Which almost all natural born citizens do.

And you were asking about the meaning of natural born. The USSC specifically addresses that. And it cites English Common Law and place of birth as defining natural born status.

You are literally ignoring what you asked for. Why?

conflating the issue (s), nice try.
let's try this. where else would someone "need" to be natural born..(example: would a senator or Cabinet member... or a cabinet maker, for that matter...)

then we get into anchor babies can be president... and so forth...

why is the expression natural born in article 2 ?? why the grandfather clause ??

and you say i don't make sense... really skylar...

 

[washamericom]

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

Birth announcements in 1961 were placed with foreknowledge that the infant would be president? That's gotta be the stupidest conspiracies I've ever heard.

Its utterly fact free, wildly complicated, and ludicrously elaborate.

it was one of the early herrings.

Based on what? Again, the conspiracy you are alleging would involve a 50 year old international conspiracy. IF there was that much forethought and planning that went into it.....why not just have the kid born in Hawaii and save yourself all the trouble?

Your conspiracy is wildly irrational, has no evidence to support it, and is pointlessly complicated.

you know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.

 

[Syriusly]

1) Why is there a huge difference between the Hawaiian officials' description of the long form in their "verification" and the long form that Obama belatedly produced

What difference?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai
‛
i State Department of Health, have seen the original vitalrecords maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i 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.

How gullible and uncritical can you get? So in your mind this one statement settles the matter?!

Just go read the Hawaii "verification" and then look with your own eyes at the belatedly released long form. The Hawaii officials said that the long form that they examined was at least one-fourth in pen/pencil, which was common for birth certificates in those days. Now go look at the released long form. Do you see a document that a sane person could even describe as being one-fifth in pen/pencil? No, it's virtually all printed. Why is that? What long form were the Hawaii officials looking at?

The image of the document provided by the State of Hawaii of Obama's LFBC matched other LFBC of the era. Matching almost exactly the quantity of printed vs hand written information as say, the Nordyke Twins. Whose mother received copies of their LFBC in the 1960s.

Obama's LFBC is clearly consistent with LFBC of the age. And affirmed by the Registrar of Hawaii Alvin Onaka as matching the original records in an affidavit. Twice.

There's no question Obama's LFBC is legit. Nor is there a single forensic investigation anywhere that indicates that the original vital records are anything but legitimate. Even the Secretary of State of Arizona acknowledged as much. As has every court to ever address the topic.

This is a double-edged problem because genuine birth certificates from that era typically had a lot more handwritten entries than modern ones do. That's because this was before the advent of computers.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us birth certificates from the same era with significantly more handwriting than Obama's LFBC. Obama's LFBC matches that of the Nordyke Twins who were born within a few days of the President. That's three 1960s LFBC that all show the same amount of handwriting. The Director of Health of Hawaii affirming the original vital records. The Registrar of Hawaii affirming the original vital records.

And you saying that they were atypical. Show us.

Look, it's very simple: It was common knowledge back then that in Hawaii it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate, especially if you flew you and your baby there soon after the baby was born. Over the years back then, thousands of parents flew to Hawaii to get their newborns a fake birth certificate.

If its common knowledge, then it will be remarkably easy for you to establish factually. If you're talking out of your ass, then you'll give us reasons why you can't back the claim.

And we both know you can't back the claim. So bring on the excuses.

While parents could fly to Hawaii to get birth certificates issued for their children, these birth certificates did NOT say that the children were born in Hawaii. But instead that they were born in whatever country where the child was actually born. And they certainly don't cite a Hawaiian hospital with an attending physician's signature.

You insist that foreign born children would have Hawaii listed as their place of birth.

Show us. If there are thousands upon thousands....show us a few. As you citing 'common knowledge' means exactly nothing.

Obama's parents may well have been one of those thousands. Perhaps that's why there is conflicting information about which hospital he was born at, where his parents "lived" in Hawaii at the time, why the certificate number is markedly out of sequence with genuine certificate numbers before and after his, why there are so many technical indications of forgery on both birth documents (yeah, that "layers thing"), why one or two of his Kenyan relatives and other Kenyan sources have said he was born there, why he spent millions fighting a lawsuit that he could have won by simply releasing his long form, etc.

Again, there's no forensic source that says that the original vital documents were forged. None. So you have nothing to back that claim. Second, the Registar of Hawaii already affirmed that the information on the original vital documents matches the image of the LFBC presented by Obama. Including his place of birth as Hawaii.

Twice.

So you have no one saying that the original vital documents were forged. And the Registrar of Hawaii affirming that the LFBC and the original vital documents match. With the Registrar of Hawaii being the world's leading authority on Hawaii's vital documents. And acting as an authoritative legal source on the same.

The only person saying the original vital documents were forged....is you citing you. And you vs. the Registrar of Hawaii on the vital documents of Hawaii has the same winner every time.

Not you.

i think the nordyke examples are concocted for the cause.

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from baskin robbins.

And my daughter wished that flying unicorns were real.

You are both destined to be disappointed.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you back that with evidence? As the mother of the Nordyke twins has had her copies of the LFBC since the 1960s. Which means that the conspiracy would have to be nearly 50 years old.

That seems both unlikely and needlessly elaborate. And of course, utterly evidence free.

that's also the advertiser birth announcement theory. the ads were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president. nordyke came out too fast, with too much ready at the hand explanation. i wish we had a real copy of the newspaper, or his w2 from basin robbins.

Birth announcements in 1961 were placed with foreknowledge that the infant would be president? That's gotta be the stupidest conspiracies I've ever heard.

Its utterly fact free, wildly complicated, and ludicrously elaborate.

it was one of the early herrings.

Based on what? Again, the conspiracy you are alleging would involve a 50 year old international conspiracy. IF there was that much forethought and planning that went into it.....why not just have the kid born in Hawaii and save yourself all the trouble?

Your conspiracy is wildly irrational, has no evidence to support it, and is pointlessly complicated.

you know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.

Okay- explain your theory in such a way that it would not require a conspiracy- starting 50 years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

he didn't you brain dead, toon.

Then who did, ya flamin dipshit? The publisher wrote the biographical piece on obama, are you saying obama never bothered to read what had been written about him? Do you see how stupid that claim makes you, and obama, look?

quiet, freak. his publisher never said the president said he was born in kenya. that is a rightwingnut lie as has already been pointed out to you.

damn, you're stupid, little boy.

then who wrote the biographical summary, ya flaming *****? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!

The publisher wrote it.

Miriam didn't say that, she said she was too incompetent to fact check it. So why did someone sit down and write the words Obama was "born in kenya?" Based on what? Don't answer with a guess

You are just Kazzing again. Miriam said no such thing.

And then you want us to be like your Birthers- and speculate, use innuendo or lie.

We don't know how the mistake was made. We just know it was a mistake- an odd obscure mistake considering that virtually every other mention of his place of birth said Hawaii- before and afterwards



New York Times,February 6, 1990 - daily circution- 1,586,757- Obama born in Hawaii

Chicago Tribune, February 7, 1990- daily circulation 414,590- Obama born in Hawaii

Washington Post, February 8, 1990- daily circulation 507.615- Obama born in Hawaii

Chicago Daily Herald, May 3, 1990-- daily circulation 15,190- Obama born in Hawaii

Columbia Today, Fall 1990- Obama born in Hawaii

Obscure promotional pamphlet says Obama born in Kenya- 1991

Chicago Magazine, January 1993- circulation 165,000- Obama born in Hawaii

Chicago Tribune, Feb 10, 1993- 414,590- Obama born in Hawaii

Los Angeles Times,August 7, 1995- daily circulation 605,243 - Obama born in Hawaii

"Dreams from My Father" 1995- millions of copies sold - Obama born in Hawaii

Barack Obama State Senate Webpage, October 1, 1999 - Obama born in Hawaii

Chicago Daily Herald, January 22, 2003- 15,190 - Obama born in Hawaii

Time Magazine,June 24, 2004- circulation 3,276.882 - Obama born in Hawaii