Friday, October 5, 2012

State asks judge to dismiss Obama 'natural born citizen' case
By Sam Hemingway @ Burlington Free Press

The lawsuit brought by a former Republican U.S. Senate candidate seeking to have President Barack Obama tossed from Vermont’s November election ballot because he is allegedly not a natural-born citizen is “legally unsound” and should be dismissed, the state of Vermont contends in court papers.

“Plaintiff lacks standing to sue, has sought relief in the wrong forum, requests relief that cannot be granted and bases his argument on flawed legal reasoning,” Assistant Attorney General Todd W. Daloz wrote in a dismissal motion filed at Washington Superior Court in Montpelier.

Daloz rejected the claim by plaintiff H. Brooke Paige of the town of Washington that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because only one of his parents was an American citizen when Obama was born.

“The Constitution does not require that a candidate for president must be born in this country to parents who are both U.S. citizens,” Daloz wrote.

Paige claims the country’s founders adopted the term “natural born citizen” as a precondition for a president from a French philosopher who said having both parents be citizens was insurance that a president would be loyal to the United States and no other country.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20121004/NEWS03/310040033/Vermont-asks-judge-dismiss-Obama-natural-born-citizen-case

Irrefutable Proof Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President Of The United States - DETAILS HERE.
 


2006: Obama In Kenya: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home - VIDEO HERE. 

2007: Michelle Obama Declares Obama Is Kenyan And America Is Mean - VIDEO HERE. 

2008: Michelle Obama Declares Barack Obama's Home Country Is Kenya - VIDEO HERE. 

FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE. 


SHOCK CLAIM: Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson Has Documented Proof Obama is Indonesian Citizen - AUDIO HERE. 

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 2ND OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 1ST PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...

140 comments:

  1. It is the citizens of this mostly retarded country that in fact have the actual standing. It is entirely in their interest that qualified candidates are vetted and declared "qualified".

    Stating anything other than the fact that the citizens have the most to lose with unqualified candidates demonstrates how legally bankrupt the judicial system has become.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I want all of congress behind bars before the illegal. To me, they are, by far, worst than the illegal alien in our WH. Patriots/birthers unite. Let's go get 'em. Appropriate lengthy sentences, along with capitol punishment, is in order. The hell with this useless election. It's all a fraud. We are to perform as the Founding Fathers would have wanted us to. In fact, we owe it to them, and all those who have so bravely fought and died for this country. No doubt, it's time to push the envelope. Problem is, I want to show these motherfuckers, and the world we live in, just who the hell we Americans are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do all of these idiots realize they're conspiring to commit fraud along with covering up the fraud being committed? Conspiracy, along with perjury, (not honoring their oath of office)for fraud is a crime. Being an idiot is just embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Natural Born" citizen is irrelevant WHEN HE IS NOT EVEN A "CITIZEN" !!!

    There is not ONE shred of "certified" proof he is a CITIZEN !!!

    Hawaii only stated their files "indicates" he was born there and information "matches". NEITHER of those terms is a LEGAL replacement for "CERTIFY" and "TRUE & ACCURATE".

    Then there is the questions of his true "legal" name, SS number from Conneticutt guy born in 1890, '80 Selective Service application, NO PASSPORT and NEITHER of the TWO hospitals will confirm he was born there.

    Not to mention OBAMA himself wad the FIRST "BIRTHER" when he stated for at least 16 YEARS he was "Born In Kenya --- Raised In Indonesia and Hawaii".

    Should I go on ...... ???

    ReplyDelete
  5. @12:21 - "Hawaii only stated their files "indicates" he was born there and information "matches". NEITHER of those terms is a LEGAL replacement for "CERTIFY" and "TRUE & ACCURATE"."


    Hee-hee-hee-hee!!

    You don't pay attention to the polls, either, do you?

    What do you know about the War of 1968?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Dealio: "Problem is, I want to show these motherfuckers, and the world we live in, just who the hell we Americans are."

    Yes, you're doing that. You're whining up a storm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Anonymous
    Back in 2009 Hawaii stated that Obama was a natural born citizen. It has been difficult to prove otherwise because judges and politicians tend to trust such verifications by a state.
    The exact statement read:
    "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.."

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous""Natural Born" citizen is irrelevant WHEN HE IS NOT EVEN A "CITIZEN" !!!

    There is not ONE shred of "certified" proof he is a CITIZEN !!!"


    If that's true, then the conspiracy to protect and promote Obama is long-standing, powerful, and immense. What use is there trying to fight it?

    The effort to remove him through legal means hasn't worked. It seems to me that the only thing that will work is if he loses the election. But I read a lot of people who say NObama is gonna rig the voting, or declare martial law, or that there are two billion rounds of ammunition that are going to be used against us. So if NObama is this powerful, and if he's protected by all three branches of government, and if the states won't do anything against him, then what do we do? More and more, this just seems hopeless. Isn't there anything positive that has come out of the eligibility movement or is it all gloom and doom, with everyone claiming that everyone else is an obot in on the conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It must suck to be a birther. State after state, court after court, judge after judger, day after telling them that they are wrong. I guess every judge, ever SOS, every State is in on the conspriracy. Hell, even the editors of Black's Law Dictionary, which defines "natural born citizen" as person born on the soil of a country. Also Sandra Day O'Connor, that paragon of liberalism has said you are wrong, so she must be in on it too.

    If only you could find that ONE honest judge who will agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @rikker

    What do you know about the War of 1968?

    As the evil genius behind Evil Conservative Industries, I must admit this War of 1968 you babble about is my favorite.

    Some many juicy point to savor, such as; blacks burning down their own section eight housing. That was just brilliant. Also, the Democrats fanning the flames of racial divide. And who can't forget some lucky Muslim bastard shooting Bobby Kennedy.

    Ah, those were the days.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Anonymous

    Your post defines stupidity. No one can ever attest to that a BC is true and accurate, especially for someone who was born more than 50 years. To the contrary, they verify that there is a document and that the information provided is consistent with the information on record.

    Do you think the DOH can confirm that the information on your BC is true and accurate? No, and do you know why? Because that information was provided by other people. For example, if you assume that a woman got pregnant as a result of an affair while she was married, the BC might well have the wrong name for the father, because that is how it is reported. How would anyone in the DOH know the difference?

    Birthers are ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Ralph Swain

    Where do you think the five trillion dollars that Ober Fuhrer Geithner disappeared went? It's a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

    It is a vast and far ranging conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You are a very sick man Death Angel, get help.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Anonymous

    It must suck to be a birther.

    It going to suck much more to be you when you realize this is not a land of laws and a land of men.

    Bankster it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anonymous

    You are a very sick man Death Angel, get help.

    Being called "sick" by a fool that posts as "Anonymous" is an honor, and I'll wear that badge, you colostomy bag.

    Hang in there coward, or hang yourself, makes no difference to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @12:48 "Back in 2009 Hawaii stated that Obama was a natural born citizen. It has been difficult to prove otherwise because judges and politicians tend to trust such verifications by a state."

    Judges are REQUIRED to trust state verifications.


    @Ralph Swain: "But I read a lot of people who say NObama is gonna rig the voting"

    He certainly rigged today's Jobs Report, hey?

    @Death Angel: "blacks burning down their own section eight housing."

    Somebody needs to do it. Why not the blacks?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Ralph Swain

    "with everyone claiming that everyone else is an obot in on the conspiracy?"

    You're an obot in on the conspiracy for that kind of talk.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Rikker

    @Death Angel: "blacks burning down their own section eight housing."

    Somebody needs to do it. Why not the blacks?


    Thanks for confirming that the seven trillion dollar transfer of wealth under LBJ's Great Society programs were a total and complete waste.

    Thanks for also confirming that it was the liberals who separated the children from their fathers in order to get the welfare benefits.

    Blacks were doing very well in America until the 1960's. And then the Marxists / Communists took over.

    Another minor point I neglected to mention to you the other night when you were on your "I'm blacker than black" rant - it was the Republicans that founded the NAACP. You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Democrats See "Blacks" as "Useful Idiots"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UObEdF_uhaw

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Judges are REQUIRED to trust state verifications."

    If a cop tickets you for making an illegal left turn and you claim that you were in Canada at the time of the infraction, the judge is going to believe the cop 100% of the time.

    That's how the courts work, birfers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Off subject, but what about a gold tooth will make gutter-talk come out of the mouth of an individual who appears to be very well educated?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Did anyone check the pleadings that Daloz submitted? He is under an obligation to cite any case law that may contradict the position he is taking. If he hasn't cited Hassan and Happersett he is misleading the court regarding the status of the law and should be sanctioned. At the very least, maybe someone should email him and make sure that he can't claim that he didn't know about Hassan. Happersett and Hassan should be controlling precedent because I believe they outrank the few courts that concluded O was qualified to run

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Rikker

    If a cop tickets you for making an illegal left turn and you claim that you were in Canada at the time of the infraction, the judge is going to believe the cop 100% of the time.

    Your little theorem only works if the judge ignores the evidence that you WERE in Canada or says your don't have standing in your own defense.

    You're a disingenuous O-Hole, no one is arguing that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Anonymous"You're an obot in on the conspiracy for that kind of talk."

    And thus, the fool doth prove my point.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Death Angel"Where do you think the five trillion dollars that Ober Fuhrer Geithner disappeared went? It's a rhetorical question, no need to answer."

    I don't know what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Thanks for also confirming that it was the liberals who separated the children from their fathers in order to get the welfare benefits."

    I actually can't argue with this assertion. I've been whining about it for years.

    However, since I've never been on welfare and since I've been there for my own kids since Day One, and since my kids achievements far out distance the national average (and even the national above average), I'll assume you aren't talking about ME, here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Your little theorem only works if the judge ignores the evidence that you WERE in Canada"

    Exactly. And the birfers haven't presented a SHRED of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham ever set foot in Kenya. NOT ONE SHRED.

    Your task is to prove the cops wrong, and you haven't done it. Screeching about the authenticity of an internet image is a clusterfuck. And you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Death Angel, "Another minor point I neglected to mention to you the other night when you were on your "I'm blacker than black" rant - it was the Republicans that founded the NAACP. You're welcome."


    I'm not a member of the NAACP. I disagree with their politics.

    I do note that you seem to spend a lot of time reminiscing about the glory days of the Republican party, when they weren't pandering to racists as policy. Those days are long gone now, hey?

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Anonymous @ 12:21

    "Hawaii only stated their files "indicates" he was born there and information "matches". NEITHER of those terms is a LEGAL replacement for "CERTIFY" and "TRUE & ACCURATE"."


    Um, that's because Onaka's authentication corresponds with the language of the Hawaii statute that permits authentication of birth data.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rikker @ 1:53 pm, Your messiah was the first birther (aka birfer), oh yes he was!
    In 1971, Barry told people he was not born here, but wanted to run for the presidency someday. He repeated that admission several times as absolute fact.
    Was he lying then, or is he lying now? The FBI needs to know. The voters need to know. Defrauding people of their campaign contributions is a serious crime. Defrauding people of their votes is a serious crime.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anon @ 1:10 pm: It must suck to be such an unrepetant con artist that you have to lie about your background, your parentage, your beliefs, your associates, your New Party/DSA/CPUSA affiliation, your criminal cronies, your mooselimb sympathies, your belief that free speech/reason/science should be sacrificed on the altar of a Stone Age religion to just go along to get along with savages.
    Yeah, it must really suck every day when you have lied to every citizen in America, and must continue to lie to keep from being impeached from office.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Its assholes like u who come here spewing ur garbage hoping that someone will listen to you...I have great news..No one here gives a shit about pathetic braid dead obama ass kissers like you...Leave u idiot!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Um, that's because Onaka's authentication corresponds with the language of the Hawaii statute that permits authentication of birth data.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Sorry, but that's not what is being asked for. Authentication IS NOT the exact replica in person now is it? But it is convenient for Obots.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Exactly. And the birfers haven't presented a SHRED of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham ever set foot in Kenya. NOT ONE SHRED.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Except for granny....or are you in favor of elder abuse as well....a lot of Obots are via death panels and withholding procedures in favor of slow death via "pain pills"!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ralph Swain said...[Reply]
    @Anonymous"You're an obot in on the conspiracy for that kind of talk."

    And thus, the fool doth prove my point.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    How???

    ReplyDelete
  36. rikker, By sticking around, you obviously know we've got a fraud, and, an illegal alien all in one, in the WH. O.K., I'll bite. Why are you defending/supporting the illegal and co.?

    ReplyDelete
  37. One calling them self's "Death Angel" Making fun of others using "Anonymous".....PRICELESS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Back in 2009 Hawaii stated that Obama was a natural born citizen. It has been difficult to prove otherwise because judges and politicians tend to trust such verifications by a state.
    The exact statement read:
    "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.."

    ******************************

    It appears you are not INTELLIGENT enough to realize how many things were wrong with that statement:

    1. It was only ONE of a number of CONTRADICTORY statements by her and other Hawaii officials.

    2. She has NO AUTHORITY to make a statement that he is a "Natural Born Citizen". She ONLY has the authority to state "He Was Born In HAWAII, (and in WHAT HOSPITAL)".

    She CAN'T have any-way to KNOW if he is STILL a "citizen" or that he was "Natural Born" in the first place if he did not have TWO-citizen-parents, (that were OLD ENOUGH to legally pass citizenship -- which his mother was NOT).

    3. It was a LEGALLY ADMISSABLE statement since it was not issued under an official seal/STAMP, nor under oath or "penalty of PERJURY".

    ReplyDelete
  39. Your post defines stupidity. No one can ever attest to that a BC is true and accurate, especially for someone who was born more than 50 years. To the contrary, they verify that there is a document and that the information provided is consistent with the information on record.

    Do you think the DOH can confirm that the information on your BC is true and accurate? No, and do you know why? Because that information was provided by other people. For example, if you assume that a woman got pregnant as a result of an affair while she was married, the BC might well have the wrong name for the father, because that is how it is reported. How would anyone in the DOH know the difference?

    Birthers are ridiculous.

    ************************

    You obviously don't realize his "rediculous" your entire assertion is.

    Birth files have been maintained for hundreds of years now, (ask any geneiolist (sp).

    So for 99.999% of the public in a civilized society, ACCURATE records are still kept unless there has been a fire/flood that damaged them. (but there are usually back-ups in that case also)

    ANYONE can get a "certified" copy of whatever is on file. I am 70 years old, and I JUST GOT A CERTIFIED COPY OF MY LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE for a PassPort, (because a "short"-form was NOT ACCEPTABLE).

    They KNOW it is accurate because they are usually based on a HOSPITAL generated Birth-Certificate. (however in the case of Hawaii's DOH 338 - 17.8), Hawaii would NOT be able to state with certainly the hospital or DATE OF BIRTH because they were created by the "honor" system.

    BUT ... that is a major part of the problem, since IF (big "IF"), he was indeed born in Kapiolani as claimed, there WOULD be a "hospital" record also.

    There appears to NOT BE, so it must be assumed that it was created via DOH 338 - 17.8 since was FOREIGN born.

    It is all quite simple and basic -- just elementary Mr. Watson.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Judges are REQUIRED to trust state verifications."

    *************************

    I agree that have been accepting/trusting them, but ONLY because they WANT TO.

    It is NOT a "legal" state-verification.

    1. It was only a Verification of "BIRTH", not "Verification of birth in HAWAII".

    2. It did not state a DATE OF BIRTH, (because as per Hawaii DOH338 - 17.8, no PROOF of Date of Birth is required, thus they can't "verfify" one).

    3. The only LEGALLY acceptable terms are "CERTIFIED" and "TRUE & ACCURATE"

    4. It was NOT a legal SIGNATURE, it was a rubber-stamp, with only INITIALS of someone UNKNOWN.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Terri What kind of bullshit logic is it that makes you think screen names are one and the same as "Anonymous"? And by the way, the correct word is themselves, not them self's dumbass. PRICELESS!

    ReplyDelete
  42. "ANYONE can get a "certified" copy of whatever is on file. I am 70 years old, and I JUST GOT A CERTIFIED COPY OF MY LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE for a PassPort, (because a "short"-form was NOT ACCEPTABLE)."

    What a complete and total bogus lie. I recently got a new passport with a "short" form. Why are you lying?

    ReplyDelete
  43. "They KNOW it is accurate because they are usually based on a HOSPITAL generated Birth-Certificate. (however in the case of Hawaii's DOH 338 - 17.8), Hawaii would NOT be able to state with certainly the hospital or DATE OF BIRTH because they were created by the "honor" system."

    Show even one birth certificate by the State of Hawaii that was issued based on the "honor" system. Just one.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Not all short-form birth certificates are accepted for passport purposes. It states that on the State Department website.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @5:18 - "In 1971, Barry told people he was not born here, but wanted to run for the presidency someday. He repeated that admission several times as absolute fact."

    The Treaty of 1969 concluded the War of 1968. That Treaty allowed the scion of Kenyan war criminals, especially the 10 year olds, to claim anything they wanted to about their parentage.

    Or did you forget that convenient fact?

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Dealio: "rikker, By sticking around, you obviously know we've got a fraud, and, an illegal alien all in one, in the WH."

    Yes, one of those things irretrievably leads to the other. I see your logic now.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @5:35 - "the birfers haven't presented a SHRED of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham ever set foot in Kenya. NOT ONE SHRED.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Except for granny....or are you in favor of elder abuse as well....a lot of Obots are via death panels and withholding procedures in favor of slow death via "pain pills"! "


    You haven't submitted any evidence from Granny Sarah. Phil Berg submitted a redacted tape to a court, but he wasn't granted standing.

    Since then, I have repeatedly begged the birfers to put up the money to fly Sarah Obama to the United States to testify in person. Not one birfer has ponied up a dime.

    One wonders why the birfers would be unwilling to contribute so much as a dime to garner the testimony of a woman who could put an end to the greatest hoax in the history of the Republic? Or is her real testimony something OTHER than advertised?

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Not all short-form birth certificates are accepted for passport purposes. It states that on the State Department website."

    The only required information by the State Department on a birth certificate is:

    Full name of the applicant
    Date of birth
    Place of birth
    Raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal of issuing authority
    Registrar’s signature
    The date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office (must be within one year)

    ... and most recently the names of both parents.

    The Hawaii state short form birth certificate has all of this information. There would be absolutely no need for a long form.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @7:16 - "I agree that have been accepting/trusting them, but ONLY because they WANT TO."


    Actually, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution REQUIRES them to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Exactly. And the birfers haven't presented a SHRED of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham ever set foot in Kenya. NOT ONE SHRED.

    *************************

    Except "we" are NOT claiming he was born in Kenya --- (but it is indesputable that Obama himself claimed that - for at least 16 years).

    We are merely claiming that his 2008 Hawaiian BC appears to have been via Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8 which was intended for FOREIGN born applicants.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Hawaii only stated their files "indicates" he was born there and information "matches". NEITHER of those terms is a LEGAL replacement for "CERTIFY" and "TRUE & ACCURATE"."


    Um, that's because Onaka's authentication corresponds with the language of the Hawaii statute that permits authentication of birth data.

    *********************

    There is NOTHING "authenticate" about "Onaka's" verification.

    It was NOT even "requested" on the OFFICIAL Hawaii request form. The AZ requested it TWICE on the "official" form and it was IGNORED.

    They agreed to respond only IF Bennett allowed Hawaii LAWYERS to help him "word" a separate request, (but NOT on an "offical" request form).

    That of course should have been the first obvious Red-Flag since they specifically prevented him from requesting if the LFBC copy was "True & Accurate"

    But her response had NO DATE OF BIRTH, only stated the files "indicated" instead of "CERTIFY" the information was "True & Accurate".

    BUT ... the final kicker was that it was NOT "Onaka's" signature, it was a RUBBER STAMP from someone we only know the INITIALS of.

    It is NOT LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE unless a judge selects to accept it via Sua Ponte power. (which they have chosen to do and NONE have allowed it to be "challenged")

    ReplyDelete
  52. @7:16 - "I agree that have been accepting/trusting them, but ONLY because they WANT TO."


    Actually, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution REQUIRES them to.

    **********************

    NOT if they suspect they are NOT LEGAL. They DO have the authority to request/demand they are "legally" certified or notarized.

    BUT ... they also have Sua Ponte power to be more lenient if they desire.

    ReplyDelete
  53. First of all: The Birth certificATE requirements you listed are NEW. You can't state what may have been required in '61 or even in 2008 when the certificaTION (of live birth) was released.

    But Second, NOTE that the 2008 release was a certificaTION instead of a certifiCATE.

    I personally have an OLDER COPY of an official State Department PassPort Application and it is very DEFINITIVE that "FOREIGN" born submit certificaTION's whereas "native" born submit certifiCATE's.

    It appears to have been CHANGED since Obama and is now much less definitive and specific.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Since then, I have repeatedly begged the birfers to put up the money to fly Sarah Obama to the United States to testify in person. Not one birfer has ponied up a dime.

    One wonders why the birfers would be unwilling to contribute so much as a dime to garner the testimony of a woman who could put an end to the greatest hoax in the history of the Republic? Or is her real testimony something OTHER than advertised?

    ********************

    I would gladly contribute to that ...

    ReplyDelete
  55. "They KNOW it is accurate because they are usually based on a HOSPITAL generated Birth-Certificate. (however in the case of Hawaii's DOH 338 - 17.8), Hawaii would NOT be able to state with certainly the hospital or DATE OF BIRTH because they were created by the "honor" system."

    Show even one birth certificate by the State of Hawaii that was issued based on the "honor" system. Just one.

    ********************

    All you have to do is go READ it for your self, (google Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8)

    I challenge me to show me where it requires proof of DATE OF BIRTH ... or even that the BABY EVEN "EXISTS".

    It is 100% "honor" system, as it would also need to be in case of "HOME BIRTHs".

    ALSO YOU OBVIOUS DON'T PAY ATTENTION .... Sheriff Arpaio and Zullo showed MANY examples of wrong birth-dates, including at least one where the child was already 3 YEARS old when "born" and issued a birth-certificaTION via Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Anonymous @ 10:39


    "There is NOTHING "authenticate" about "Onaka's" verification."

    Says you. Courts and SOSs say different.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Anonymous @ 7:16

    "It is NOT a "legal" state-verification.

    1. It was only a Verification of "BIRTH", not "Verification of birth in HAWAII".

    2. It did not state a DATE OF BIRTH, (because as per Hawaii DOH338 - 17.8, no PROOF of Date of Birth is required, thus they can't "verfify" one).

    3. The only LEGALLY acceptable terms are "CERTIFIED" and "TRUE & ACCURATE"

    4. It was NOT a legal SIGNATURE, it was a rubber-stamp, with only INITIALS of someone UNKNOWN."

    ******

    The rules of evidence that the courts apply say differently. The verification is legal and admissible. It is deemed to be proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Anonymous @ 10:39

    WTF is "Sua Ponte power"?????????? Please provide a link to a legal dictionary or treatise that discusses it.

    Oh, you can't? You pulled that term out of your a**.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 became law in 1982.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @10:28 - "We are merely claiming that his 2008 Hawaiian BC appears to have been via Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8 which was intended for FOREIGN born applicants."

    Well, I guess you've finally settled on that claim among the thousands of idiot claims put forth. Where's your evidence? Or do you think a mere accusation meets the standard required by American courts?

    ReplyDelete
  61. @10:39 - "BUT ... the final kicker was that it was NOT "Onaka's" signature, it was a RUBBER STAMP from someone we only know the INITIALS of."

    Except that Onaka and Fukino have repeatedly verified Obama's BC both verbally and in writing. It's to the point where they consider birthers to be vexatious children, unworthy of attention or notice.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @11:10 - "Actually, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution REQUIRES them to.

    **********************

    NOT if they suspect they are NOT LEGAL."


    Except they DON'T suspect they are not LEGAL. It's YOU who suspects they are not LEGAL.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @11:43 - "Sheriff Arpaio and Zullo showed MANY examples of wrong birth-dates, including at least one where the child was already 3 YEARS old when "born" and issued a birth-certificaTION via Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8."

    Except NONE of those examples applied to Barack Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @11:38 - "I would gladly contribute to that ... "

    That's because you're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @rikker

    I'll gladly bring to the table all the cash necessary to cover all expenses for Granny Sarah to testify under oath at the Supreme Court of The United States PROVIDED you bring to the same table sworn under oath, signed and notarized affidavits from every Justice thereof that if Granny Sarah testifies in any way, shape or form that Barack Hussein Obama II/Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah was born in Kenya they will rule him eligible to serve as POTUS and order his immediate removal from office and declare every action of his as POTUS/CIC null and void.

    Deal or No Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  66. How come we don't have a class action lawsuit going on here?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I noticed that you completely ignored the fact that you lied when you claimed that you needed a long form birth certificate to obtain a passport when a short form is completely adequate to do so. I listed the information that the state department requires, and a Hawaii short form contains all of that information. A hospital and doctor's name are not required.

    Also, there is no provision whatsoever that states that "foreign" born submit "certification" BC's while native born submit "certificate" BC's. Not one. Please prove otherwise. Hawaii calls their short forms "certifcation" and long forms "certificate". That is all. You are making far to much of a name for the documents. They simply don't mean what you are implying.

    Lastly, show one single birth certificate issued to a "foreign" born child that lists Hawaii as their place of birth. Zullo and Arpaio never provided a single example of this. Nor did they provide any examples of "wrong birth-dates." They made claims, but they never provided examples as evidence of this.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "First of all: The Birth certificATE requirements you listed are NEW. You can't state what may have been required in '61 or even in 2008 when the certificaTION (of live birth) was released."

    The only new requirement is that the short form state the name of the two parents. That is all. The Hawaii short form contains both names of the parents. You stated that you "just got" your long form... as in recently... which means you would be subject to the most recent requirements, correct. In otherwords, a short form from the state of Hawaii would be perfectly adequate to obtain said information. In other words, you lied that you were required to obtain a long form.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Anonymous @10:28

    "We are merely claiming that his 2008 Hawaiian BC appears to have been via Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8 which was intended for FOREIGN born applicants."

    Your "claim" lacks credibility. H.R.S 33-17.8 (first you need to correctly cite the statute) was added in 1981. Also, the Hawaii DOH has stated that any birth certificate issued for a foreign-born child would show the actual foreign place of birth, not Hawaii as the place of birth. Until you prove that Hawaii inserts "Honolulu" in every BC issued under H.R.S. 338-17.8, your assertion is groundless and typical of claims by conspiracy theorists.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Anonymous @ 10:39

    "It is NOT LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE unless a judge selects to accept it via Sua Ponte power. (which they have chosen to do and NONE have allowed it to be "challenged")"

    Sorry buddy. That is not how the state and federal rules of evidence work. The verification by Onaka IS legal proof. Parsing his words won't win the argument for a court, which is obligated to accept the verification unless you can come up with an authenticated, certified BC issued by a different state or nation.

    It's not enough to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. You also have to prove that he wasn't born in another state or U.S. territory. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Anonymous @ 11:43

    "ALSO YOU OBVIOUS DON'T PAY ATTENTION .... Sheriff Arpaio and Zullo showed MANY examples of wrong birth-dates, including at least one where the child was already 3 YEARS old when "born" and issued a birth-certificaTION via Hawaii DOH 338 - 17.8."

    But the birth certificate that Arpaio and Zullo showed (they showed a single example, not "many" as you exaggerate) was for a child adopted by his stepfather. Adoptions result in a new BC that shows the adopting parent in the "father" box. Also, that child was originally born in Hawaii, not in a foreign country.

    So the "example" is meaningless. It is an example of what all 50 do: reissue a new birth certificate for an adopted child. You need an example of a foreign-born child whose birth certificate reflects that he was born in Hawaii. To date, no one has produced such a birth certificate. If Hawaii does this so often, why is it that you cannot find hundreds or thousands of such examples?

    ReplyDelete
  72. AR925 said...[Reply]
    @Terri What kind of bullshit logic is it that makes you think screen names are one and the same as "Anonymous"? And by the way, the correct word is themselves, not them self's dumbass. PRICELESS!

    Lol, yes dear! we know who you are going by AR925..That's not anywhere close to being the same as anonymous...Dumbass!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 became law in 1982."

    ===

    When Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii had in effect the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program which it established in 1911 and which it terminated in 1972. Someone could under Act 96 get a certificate claiming a Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born in a foreign country by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born abroad

    ReplyDelete
  74. I, Sun Yat-sen, had a Hawaii Birth CertificateOctober 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    Sun Yat-sen had a Hawaii birth certificate that stated he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in China.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The Republican Vice Presidential candidate mails out copies of The Usurper's fake birth certificate when constituents inquire about Paul Ryan's position on Zero's constitutional eligibility under Article II, Section 1.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/paul_ryan_obama_birthers.php?ref=fpb

    This is a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @I, Sun Yat-sen, had a Hawaii Birth Certificate
    Hawai'i did not become a state of the Union until 34 years after Sun Yat Sen's death and 93 years after his birth.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Anonymous
    An out of state birth would not have the signature of an attending physician at Honolulu's Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on the birth certificate.
    Dr. David A Sinclair of Kapioloani signed Barack Obama's birth certificate on August 8, 1961.
    Trying to prove an out of state birth has not been successful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 2008 short-form (which Obama's attorney emphatically stated was/is/and-will-remain THE ONLY LEGAL BC) did NOT include the hospital & doctor.

      As for the fake (and NOT legally submitted) Long-Form, Queens hospital (and Dr. WEST) is probably PISSED because he originally claimed them as his birth hospital/doctor prior ti Kapiolani & Dr. Sinclair.

      Delete
  78. @Anonymous

    Team Obama working overtime to keep Constitutionalists home on election day.

    TPM Knows Obama Is F#%ked: Drags Out Year(s)-Old Ryan Response To Obama's Eligibility

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/10/tpm-smear-piece-against-birthers.html

    ReplyDelete
  79. WTF is "Sua Ponte power"?????????? Please provide a link to a legal dictionary or treatise that discusses it.

    Oh, you can't? You pulled that term out of your a**.

    ***********************

    And why don't you STICK IT UP YOUR A** ??? Cause here is the legal-definition ...

    sua sponte (sooh-uh-spahn-tay) adj. Latin for "of one's own will," meaning on one's own volition, usually referring to a judge's order made without a request by any party to the case. These include an order transferring a case to another judge due to a conflict of interest or the judge's determination that his/her court does not have jurisdiction over the case.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sua+sponte


    ReplyDelete
  80. I, Sun Yat-sen, had a Hawaii Birth CertificateOctober 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM

    The Act was in effect from 1911 to 1972.

    Hawaii was annexed as a territory in June of 1898 by an Act of Congress and then became a state in 1959.

    Obama was purportedly born in 1961. The Act was terminated in 1972. It was in effect when Obama was purportedly born!

    ReplyDelete
  81. The rules of evidence that the courts apply say differently. The verification is legal and admissible. It is deemed to be proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

    *********************

    I CHALLENGE you to show me a statute that requires a judge to accept any statement that uses very "vague" terms, (like "indicates" and does NOT ever state they "certify" something as true or is "True & Accurate").

    Also that is NOT "signed" except by rubber-stamp and UNKNOWN PERSONS INITIALS.

    (and don't forget there is NO DATE-OF-BIRTH on it)

    Please quite being so STUPID ...

    ReplyDelete
  82. @RacerJim: "PROVIDED you bring to the same table sworn under oath, signed and notarized affidavits from every Justice thereof that if Granny Sarah testifies in any way, shape or form that Barack Hussein Obama II/Barry Soetoro/Soebarkah was born in Kenya they will rule him eligible. Deal or no deal?"


    LOL!!! I certainly would agree to that deal, were it possible. Here's something you should know, James:

    Even if you bring Granny Sarah, the Queen of England, the Pope, Jerry Lewis, Billy Graham, JESUS CHRIST and Michael Jordan AND ALL OF THEM TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA, The Supreme Court of the United States would accept the testimony of Alvin Onaka over ALL of them combined.

    Because that's how the law works in America, James.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Hawaii was annexed as a territory in June of 1898 by an Act of Congress and then became a state in 1959."

    Hawaii was overrun and conquered by the Kenyan Navy in 1952. For 16 years Hawaii languished under the yoke of Kenyan oppression. Her citizenry miscegenated at will. It wasn't until 1968 that candidate Richard Nixon cobbled together a militia of Oregonians and succeeded at casting the marauding Kenyans back into the sea.

    Therefore, your legal citations are baseless.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Hee-hee-hee-hee!!

    You don't pay attention to the polls, either, do you?

    ============================
    Obot showing stupid glee as usual....polls looking good for R not O....and MUCH better on unskewed polls. ROFL at this fool Obot once again opening mouth way too often and sticking foot in it as many times.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Even if you bring Granny Sarah, the Queen of England, the Pope, Jerry Lewis, Billy Graham, JESUS CHRIST and Michael Jordan AND ALL OF THEM TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA, The Supreme Court of the United States would accept the testimony of Alvin Onaka over ALL of them combined.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Get with it....no one you mention would count EXCEPT granny for their actual witness...and that would force rebuttal evidence which of course doesn't exist but in the imaginations of Obots...nothing, nada...and THAT has been proven via all of the lack of exact testimony/actions via HI officials. They all contradict one another in their various statements. Will they (have they?) produce exact original? Never! It doesn't exist...thus liar forgers for the lying Zero!

    ReplyDelete
  86. @12:37
    An out of state birth would not have the signature of an attending physician at Honolulu's Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on the birth certificate.
    Dr. David A Sinclair of Kapioloani signed Barack Obama's birth certificate on August 8, 1961.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Prove it! And you're using what????

    ReplyDelete
  87. Sorry buddy. That is not how the state and federal rules of evidence work. The verification by Onaka IS legal proof.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Not to the level required.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Your "claim" lacks credibility. H.R.S 33-17.8 (first you need to correctly cite the statute) was added in 1981. Also, the Hawaii DOH has stated that any birth certificate issued for a foreign-born child would show the actual foreign place of birth, not Hawaii as the place of birth. Until you prove that Hawaii inserts "Honolulu" in every BC issued under H.R.S. 338-17.8, your assertion is groundless and typical of claims by conspiracy theorists.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Except that the system placed the "reported" place of birth via the caller, writer, relative, or whatever source gave them the accepted information without any required verification. Where have you been...obviously out of HI and thus without experience of "the system". HI needy $$=needy phonied up population. Say, there's a bridge for sale too...want it?

    ReplyDelete
  89. The only new requirement is that the short form state the name of the two parents. That is all. The Hawaii short form contains both names of the parents. You stated that you "just got" your long form... as in recently... which means you would be subject to the most recent requirements, correct. In otherwords, a short form from the state of Hawaii would be perfectly adequate to obtain said information. In other words, you lied that you were required to obtain a long form.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Whatever...blah, blah, blah. We have a situation of a document, electronically created that is stated to be the exact copy, scanned from an original that simply does not exist via all statements and actions thus far taken. There has been NOTHING of what is required to demonstrate any exact copy to what has been presented for view...forget short,long, etc. we're dealing with the one presented for its exact original. No original thus far = "copy" being used is fraudulent until further notice of pure exactness. Courts appear to be frightened to death in this case of hearing forensic experts. Very selective these courts!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Except that Onaka and Fukino have repeatedly verified Obama's BC both verbally and in writing.
    ==============================
    For the electronically created BC...NO THEY HAVE NOT. Rather, they have, by inexact statements have provided evidence of NOT having an/the exact original (purportedly scanned for copy). Zero says it exists by his presentation...HI thus far has NOT proven anything remotely equal in form. It's the fraudulent document that's the felony...duh!

    ReplyDelete
  91. It's not enough to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. You also have to prove that he wasn't born in another state or U.S. territory. Good luck with that.
    ===========================
    No, what you have to prove is that Zero's forged presented "document" does have an exact original from which it was exactly scanned and copied as state. So far THAT has not been done by ANYONE. You can dream it or imagine it (Obots have great imaginations) but so far it doesn't exist in reality in paper form (or even microfilm form) as it is said to be in order to be exactly copied. So, so far it DOES NOT EXIST but in your faith and imagination. Now, about that bridge that's for sale!

    ReplyDelete
  92. The verification is legal and admissible.
    ---------------------------------
    Not for the forgery question. Lack of original document from which said forgery is stated to have been exactly scanned proves the forensic based proof of forgery.

    ReplyDelete
  93. You haven't submitted any evidence from Granny Sarah
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I don't have to since it's already out there in sensible form. You're unaware of it? Figures. Obots are lazy like their flunky debater without TOTUS hero.

    ReplyDelete
  94. One wonders why the birfers would be unwilling to contribute so much as a dime to garner the testimony of a woman who could put an end to the greatest hoax in the history of the Republic?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    How do you know they haven't??? She's been under house arrest by terrorized Obot family members. Again, you must be for the Obot plan to kill off the elderly via slow deaths by pain pills rather than necessary procedures, and remote death panels. Obots don't care for grannies here or in Kenya. Terrorize grannies in favor of protecting Obot lies and chief liar.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "Whatever...blah, blah, blah. We have a situation of a document, electronically created that is stated to be the exact copy, scanned from an original that simply does not exist via all statements and actions thus far taken. There has been NOTHING of what is required to demonstrate any exact copy to what has been presented for view...forget short,long, etc. we're dealing with the one presented for its exact original. No original thus far = "copy" being used is fraudulent until further notice of pure exactness. Courts appear to be frightened to death in this case of hearing forensic experts. Very selective these courts!"

    So, I caught you in your lie and showed that the claim you made that you were required to get a long form to obtain a passport is a false one based on current state department requirements for birth certificates, and your response is, "oh yeah, well forget all that because Obama's BC is a fraud."

    Well, if it was so easy to prove you wrong about short form/long form certificates and obtaining a passport, then I am going to just take a stab in the dark and say that what you claim is more than likely just as easily debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Get with it....no one you mention would count EXCEPT granny for their actual witness"

    Not even Stanley Ann Dunham's testimony trumps Alvin Onaka's testimony in the eyes of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "
    The verification is legal and admissible.
    ---------------------------------
    Not for the forgery question. "


    And what about the testimony of the Warriors of 1968?

    ReplyDelete
  98. So, I caught you in your lie and showed that the claim you made that you were required to get a long form to obtain a passport is a false one based on current state department requirements for birth certificates,

    *************************

    NO you didn't catch anyone in a "lie". You have only acknowledged that the RULES ARE BEING *CHANGED* to make it harder for future historians to confirm in-eligibility.

    I wrote 4 years ago that the Official State Department PassPort Application was very "definitive" that FOREIGN BORN applicants needed to supply a certificaTION (of live birth) vis others needed a certifiCATE. Bingo, the next time I checked, it had been CHANGED and is now "less" definitive, (but STILL only uses the term certificaTION under "Applicants Born Outside The United States". But now I do notice that it NO LONGER stated it has to be a certififed "long-form" as it used to. (for awhile it stated that "Short Forms MAY NOT Be Acceptable")

    When it was disclosed he had a "Connecticut" issued SS number, the RULES WERE CHANGED and now the numbers will not be trackable to a state.

    So you guys gotta remember that they are trying to FOOL the STUPID people, and are succeeding.

    ReplyDelete
  99. And what about the testimony of the Warriors of 1968?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    And that has what to do with the current felony of the forgery??? If you can't engage your limited brain cells then at least try some new soundbites.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Not even Stanley Ann Dunham's testimony trumps Alvin Onaka's testimony in the eyes of the law.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Rebuttal facts trump testimony...esp. when that "testimony" itself is contradicted by other or past HI officials.

    ReplyDelete
  101. So, I caught you in your lie and showed that the claim you made that you were required to get a long form to obtain a passport is a false one based on current state department requirements for birth certificates, and your response is, "oh yeah, well forget all that because Obama's BC is a fraud."

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I don't know who you're referring to but it isn't myself whose quote you used and then answered someone else. Gad, Obots are soooo confused...can't keep anything as simple as comboxes straight. I'd say try again but please spare us your constant erroneous conclusions. You need a scorecard or something...duh! While I ROFL!

    ReplyDelete
  102. "I wrote 4 years ago that the Official State Department PassPort Application was very "definitive" that FOREIGN BORN applicants needed to supply a certificaTION (of live birth) vis others needed a certifiCATE. Bingo, the next time I checked, it had been CHANGED and is now "less" definitive, (but STILL only uses the term certificaTION under "Applicants Born Outside The United States". But now I do notice that it NO LONGER stated it has to be a certififed "long-form" as it used to. (for awhile it stated that "Short Forms MAY NOT Be Acceptable")"

    Once again, you are totally wrong about the whole "certification"/"certificate" claim. The state decides what it chooses to call its documents. For example, the state that Romney was born in calls its short form a "certificate of live birth." Hawaii however calls its short form a "certification of live birth." A short form in Texas is called something completely different. You are making way way WAY too much of the name given to these documents. The state department has never made any such distinction and did not require "certification" birth certificates for foreign born. That is one hundred percent made up by you.

    Also, the only recent change that they made was that submitted BC's contain the names of both parents. This is the only change.

    Yes, I did catch you in a lie. You claimed that you were required to obtain a long form because they would not accept a short form due to the lack of information. You also claimed that this was recent. If before 2011, then a short form would not have required both parents names. If it was after 2011, your short form would have required both names of the parents. Since both prior to and after 2011 the short form in Hawaii contained both parents names, there would have been absolutely no reason to obtain a long form as the short form would have been prefectly adequate. Thus, you lied.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "When it was disclosed he had a "Connecticut" issued SS number, the RULES WERE CHANGED and now the numbers will not be trackable to a state."

    Yet another lie. The randomization of SSS#'s was changed in 2007. Long before Obama was elected to office of the President and long before his number was known. As I said before, you are so amazingly bad at this and simply cannot get your story straigt that you are easily debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @Anonymous @ 5:29

    "It's not enough to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. You also have to prove that he wasn't born in another state or U.S. territory. Good luck with that.
    ===========================
    No, what you have to prove is that Zero's forged presented "document" does have an exact original from which it was exactly scanned and copied as state. So far THAT has not been done by ANYONE. You can dream it or imagine it (Obots have great imaginations) but so far it doesn't exist in reality in paper form (or even microfilm form) as it is said to be in order to be exactly copied. So, so far it DOES NOT EXIST but in your faith and imagination. Now, about that bridge that's for sale!"

    ************

    Poor dear Anon. You have lost sight of what has to be proven: That Obama was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States, jus soli. Not born in Hawaii, not born in Alabama, not born in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, etc. You get the picture.

    So denying the Hawaii COLB and verification by DOH and newspaper announcements doesn't get you birthers where you need to be. You have to prove he wasn't born on American soil. That is done by proving -- with an authentic, certified birth certificate issued by a foreign nation -- that he was foreign-born.

    So hop to it and get Kenya to issue an official BC with seal of the appropriate vital records agency there.

    Good luck with that!

    ReplyDelete
  105. @6:41 - "Not even Stanley Ann Dunham's testimony trumps Alvin Onaka's testimony in the eyes of the law.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Rebuttal facts trump testimony...esp. when that "testimony" itself is contradicted by other or past HI officials."


    There's an easy way to settle this dispute.

    Who is the President of the United State of America? TWICE, soon?

    I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Once again, you are totally wrong about the whole "certification"/"certificate" claim. The state decides what it chooses to call its documents. For example, the state that Romney was born in calls its short form a "certificate of live birth." Hawaii however calls its short form a "certification of live birth." A short form in Texas is called something completely different. You are making way way WAY too much of the name given to these documents. The state department has never made any such distinction and did not require "certification" birth certificates for foreign born.

    That is one hundred percent made up by you.

    *********************

    Hey BITCH ... don't even dare accuse me of "making something up".

    I stated that the CURRENT official state-department passport application STILL uses the term "certificaTION" for "APPLICANTS BORN OUT OF STATE".

    BUT ... it used to be even MORE definitive and stated "FOREIGN" born.

    (and way-back used to state that short-forms ARE NOT acceptable whereas it was then changed to "MAY NOT" be acceptable, but NOW it seems to not include that at all ---- THUS IT HAS BEEN "CHANGED")

    For your information a certificaTION is a "statement of facts" while a certifiCATE is VERIFICATION THAT THE "FACTS" ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE.

    I got a LONG form from Texas because THAT IS WHAT THEY SENT ME. (I have never even had a "short" form, WHY SHOULD I even want anything with "less" information than is available ???)

    ReplyDelete
  107. I rest my case.
    =====================
    PROMISE??? Now,there may be "hope and change" for the combox!

    ReplyDelete
  108. get Kenya to issue an official BC with seal of the appropriate vital records agency there.

    ==========

    We don't have to get anything....you get off topic soooo easily and conveniently as do all Obots. Have to admit that there is no exact original copy that your lemming leader claims to have copied and displayed for proof don't you...why, you're doing it right here in front of all. ROFL at you, again! NO ORIGINAL EXISTS FOR THE LOUSY FORGER TO HAVE COPIED....so many chances yet no original has shown up yet....and so easy, even for Obots! Obots work sooo hard for a non-existent document that you too play like real. Silly boy and girl Obots copying herdspeak for their silly little lying leader. Don't you feel silly, yet?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Yet another lie. The randomization of SSS#'s was changed in 2007. Long before Obama was elected to office of the President and long before his number was known. As I said before, you are so amazingly bad at this and simply cannot get your story straigt that you are easily debunked.

    ************************

    Wrong Again DOO-DOO BREATH !!!

    The 1972 change was only from "state where the person applied -TO- the ZIP Code of the mailing address on the Social Security number application."

    NOT REALLY ANY DIFFERENCE ...

    The CHANGE TO RANDOMIZATION only occured June 25, 2011.

    So I prove myself RIGHT again ... (as always) .... and again prove YOUR HEAD IS STUCK UP YOUR A**.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Poor dear Anon. You have lost sight of what has to be proven: That Obama was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States, jus soli. Not born in Hawaii, not born in Alabama, not born in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, etc. You get the picture.

    ***************

    Thats TORRO-CRAPPO ....

    If we can ever get a judge or congressman with BALLS (which there does not appear to be any); "HE" will have to PROVE his CITIZENSHIP. (actually Natural Born citizenship)

    That means he indeed can supply proof from ANY state, but also that he did NOT LOSE CITIZENSHIP when he was "adopted" and ATTENDED AN INDONESIAN SCHOOL.

    Don't you even wonder what his "LEGAL" NAME is ??? Why was he listed as "Soebarka" on his mothers passport ???

    WHY did she drop him off her passport WHEN IN INDONESIA (and possibly/probably got an INDONESIAN passport ???

    Have you ever seen a prior AMERICAN passport for him, (he has now been issued one AFTER he became president).

    ReplyDelete
  111. "If we can ever get a judge or congressman with BALLS (which there does not appear to be any);"

    How has Orly's judge shopping worked out so far? You DO realize that if you EVER get a judge to rule in your favor, he'll be overruled easily at the next level, right?

    ReplyDelete
  112. "Hey BITCH ... don't even dare accuse me of "making something up"."

    Or else what? Care to back that up?

    "I stated that the CURRENT official state-department passport application STILL uses the term "certificaTION" for "APPLICANTS BORN OUT OF STATE"."

    I am looking at the current passport application now. No where no where no where does it claim what you say it claims. No where. Not one little bit. It does in fact use the word "certification" but it is not refering to a "certification of live birth," as you claim. You made that up.

    "BUT ... it used to be even MORE definitive and stated "FOREIGN" born."

    Never stated that. Never. You made that up.

    "For your information a certificaTION is a "statement of facts" while a certifiCATE is VERIFICATION THAT THE "FACTS" ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE."

    Once again, you are putting too much into what a state chooses to call its documents. Different states choose to call their documents different things. You are still making things up.

    "I got a LONG form from Texas because THAT IS WHAT THEY SENT ME. (I have never even had a "short" form, WHY SHOULD I even want anything with "less" information than is available ???)"

    So now you are changing your story yet again? You claimed you had to get a long form in order to obtain a passport. Now you are claiming that you got a long form because that is what they sent you?

    From the Texas Vital Statistics website:

    Standard size (short form or abstract): The most commonly issued format because it satisfies most purposes, including registering a child for school or sports, obtaining a passport for a person born after 1963 if born in a hospital and obtaining a driver license in most states. If the birth record is not available in this format or if the state you live in requires the full size for a driver license, a full-size birth certificate will be issued instead.

    So as you can see...there is in fact a short form in Texas, but since you are as old as dirt, they sent you a long form. So you made it up when you claimed that you had to obtain a long form. YOu didn't "have" to obtain a long from... that is what they sent you.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "That means he indeed can supply proof from ANY state, but also that he did NOT LOSE CITIZENSHIP when he was "adopted" and ATTENDED AN INDONESIAN SCHOOL."

    Wouldn't you have to prove first that he was ever adopted? To date, no one has proven any such thing and just claim that there is a possibility that he might have been adopted, but to date no evidence has proven that he was.

    "Don't you even wonder what his "LEGAL" NAME is ??? Why was he listed as "Soebarka" on his mothers passport ??? "

    He wasn't. His full legal name was crossed out and Soebarka was placed in parentheses underneath. Since it was his mothers passport and he was a child, why is it his responsibility to explain it?

    WHY did she drop him off her passport WHEN IN INDONESIA (and possibly/probably got an INDONESIAN passport ???

    Who says it was when she was in Indonesia? How do you know it wasn't when she returned to Hawaii with her son to live with his grandparents and then returned to Indonesia without him? Also, "possibly/probably?" Well gee... that's definitive. Yeah... build a case on possibly/probably. Would love to see you present that to a court. It's not what you believe. It's what you can prove.

    "Have you ever seen a prior AMERICAN passport for him, (he has now been issued one AFTER he became president)."

    Have you ever seen an Indonesian passport? No?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Re Indonesian passport and Indonesian citizenship. The Indonesian government says that he never had an Indonesian passport because he never was an Indonesian citizen, which can be confirmed by calling the Indonesian embassy in Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  115. > The CHANGE TO RANDOMIZATION only occured June 25, 2011.
    > So I prove myself RIGHT again

    No, you don't:

    "On July 3, 2007, the SSA published its intent to randomize the nine-digit SSN in the Federal Register Notice, Protecting the Integrity of Social Security Numbers [Docket No. SSA 2007-0046]."

    The change was first announced in 2007 (and likely planned for years before that) and IMPLEMENTED in 2011.

    So now it's Obama's fault that something planned and announced years before he even took office was IMPLEMENTED when he was in office? Or proof of something "fishy"?

    Will you apologize for your strong-worded defense of your own falsehoods or just start the name-calling again?

    (And for the record, I am NOT an Obot. I'm just fed up with people drowing our facts among lies after lies after lies.)

    ReplyDelete
  116. @anonymous: "(And for the record, I am NOT an Obot. I'm just fed up with people drowing our facts among lies after lies after lies.)"

    Then why aren't you stressing the importance of the War of 1968, in which the rampaging Kenyan hordes were driven from Hawaiian shores by candidate Richard Nixon? The secret of Obama's paternity lies therein.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "On July 3, 2007, the SSA published its intent to randomize the nine-digit SSN in the Federal Register Notice, Protecting the Integrity of Social Security Numbers [Docket No. SSA 2007-0046]."

    The change was first announced in 2007 (and likely planned for years before that) and IMPLEMENTED in 2011.

    **********************

    YES I have also seen that statement on a "Obama-government" website.

    Call me a skeptic, but I would have to see proof that statement was already there long ago. (in 2007)

    You have to accept that it would be a MINOR thing to simply "add" that statement, again to create just this argument to those that suggest it was done ONLY to cover for Obama's frauds.

    I have seen with my own eyes the changes to the PassPort application, (AND I STILL HAVE AN OLDER COPY because I used to own a business where I helped people fill out their passport applications.)

    You are NAIVE if you don't see where they are trying to CHANGE the meaning of EVERYTHING, (like Native Born Citizens don't need "two" citizen parents when it was reinforced as recently as 2008 with Senate Resolution 511).

    ReplyDelete
  118. GALLUP: 5-POINT ROMNEY BOUNCE...

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/157907/romney-narrows-vote-gap-historic-debate-win.aspx

    POLL: Romney leads among independents 51-35...

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/08/Battleground-Romney-Crushing-Obama-Indies

    'Enthusiasm' gap 13-point spread for Republican...

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82122.html

    ReplyDelete
  119. "That means he indeed can supply proof from ANY state, but also that he did NOT LOSE CITIZENSHIP when he was "adopted" and ATTENDED AN INDONESIAN SCHOOL."

    Wouldn't you have to prove first that he was ever adopted? To date, no one has proven any such thing and just claim that there is a possibility that he might have been adopted, but to date no evidence has proven that he was.

    ***** Well, he stated in his book that he was "adopted", but you are right, like EVERYTHING ELSE, we don't know ANYTHING for sure about him. AND THAT IS THE POINT




    "Don't you even wonder what his "LEGAL" NAME is ??? Why was he listed as "Soebarka" on his mothers passport ??? "

    He wasn't. His full legal name was crossed out and Soebarka was placed in parentheses underneath. Since it was his mothers passport and he was a child, why is it his responsibility to explain it?

    ***** It is (OR SHOULD BE) his responsibility to PROVE EVERTHING involving his name and CITIZENSHIP. Don't you want to know your President and Commander-In-Chief is PATRIOTIC and truly doing what he (at least) thinks is the BEST for the country.

    The BIG QUESTION is: Is he the STUPIDEST president in history and is truly doing the "best" he can ???

    OR ...

    Is he the SMARTEST president in history, and HE IS RUINING THE ECONOMY AND NATIONIONAL SECURITY ON PURPOSE ???




    WHY did she drop him off her passport WHEN IN INDONESIA (and possibly/probably got an INDONESIAN passport ???

    Who says it was when she was in Indonesia? How do you know it wasn't when she returned to Hawaii with her son to live with his grandparents and then returned to Indonesia without him? Also, "possibly/probably?" Well gee... that's definitive. Yeah... build a case on possibly/probably. Would love to see you present that to a court. It's not what you believe. It's what you can prove.

    ***** BUT we have seen a document from INDONESIAN school enrollment that states he is an Indonesian citizen. (albeit I can't swear it is a legitiment document - but don't think it has ever been challenged)




    "Have you ever seen a prior AMERICAN passport for him, (he has now been issued one AFTER he became president)."

    Have you ever seen an Indonesian passport? No?

    ***** Well obviously NO, but of course I would not expect a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE President to admit and show me one ...

    But the FACT remains that IF he had a U.S. Passport, it seems only natural he WOULD have showed it.

    But it appears it was EASIER for them to create a FAKE BC and Selective Service Application, (with an off-center '80 date, signed the day AFTER it was stamped, and with a SIGNATURE that LOOKS MORE LIKE HIS MORE RECENT SIGNATURES THAN WHAT WE KNOW WAS FROM THE 1980's).

    ReplyDelete
  120. "YES I have also seen that statement on a "Obama-government" website.

    Call me a skeptic, but I would have to see proof that statement was already there long ago. (in 2007)

    You have to accept that it would be a MINOR thing to simply "add" that statement, again to create just this argument to those that suggest it was done ONLY to cover for Obama's frauds."

    Few things:

    - Since when is the SSA website an "Obama Government website?"

    - You could remain a ridiculous skeptic, or you could actually read the SSA docket for yourself.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-07-03/html/E7-12831.htm

    In that docket is all the contact information you would need to confirm the proof of this. It is just plain silly to remain in denial when it would take you all of five seconds to find your "proof."

    It is far more than just some "statement inserted," into a website. This was a printed docket by the SSA in 2007. You conspiracy theory is a completely bogus one.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "***** Well, he stated in his book that he was "adopted", but you are right, like EVERYTHING ELSE, we don't know ANYTHING for sure about him. AND THAT IS THE POINT"

    Absolute complete and total lie. I have the e-book of Dreams of My Father and a search using the terms "adopted" or "adoption" does not come up with him EVER making the claim that he was adopted. You, once again, made that up. Provide the quote from his book or admit that you lied.

    "***** It is (OR SHOULD BE) his responsibility to PROVE EVERTHING involving his name and CITIZENSHIP. Don't you want to know your President and Commander-In-Chief is PATRIOTIC and truly doing what he (at least) thinks is the BEST for the country."

    How on earth can anyone explain items on their parent's passport application that was submitted when they were just children? I can't think of a single person who would be able to do so nor do I believe anyone should be held responsible or under any obligation to do so.

    "***** Well obviously NO, but of course I would not expect a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE President to admit and show me one ...

    But the FACT remains that IF he had a U.S. Passport, it seems only natural he WOULD have showed it."

    Really? Romney has done alot of traveling around the world. Have you seen his passport? If your answer is no, then by your logic that if he had one he would have shown it, Romney does not have a U.S. passport. Correct?

    "But it appears it was EASIER for them to create a FAKE BC and Selective Service Application, (with an off-center '80 date, signed the day AFTER it was stamped, and with a SIGNATURE that LOOKS MORE LIKE HIS MORE RECENT SIGNATURES THAN WHAT WE KNOW WAS FROM THE 1980's)."

    So you have other examples of Obama's signatures from the 1980's then? Yes or no?

    If you do not, then why did you infer that you had some way of making such a comparison. By the way, my signature has not changed since I was in highschool back in the eighties. I used to write it over and over on school books. And with Obama's distinctive signature I am sure he more than likely did the same thing and practiced his signature.

    That being said, comparison to his 1980's signature and the one he uses today is distinctly different with the dropping of the "H" and a much more loopy style. This can be easily seen and determined by the most novice of observers.

    ReplyDelete

  122. You didn't answer the BIG question:

    Is he the STUPIDEST president in history and is truly doing the "best" he can ???

    OR ...

    Is he the SMARTEST president in history, and "DELIBERATELY" RUINING THE ECONOMY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ???



    Few things:

    "- Since when is the SSA website an Obama Government website?"

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-07-03/html/E7-12831.htm

    **************************

    Ah Duh I suppose you are right and it is "not" a government website, I am so WRONG .... Oh Ah except for the .gov domain.

    And can you prove it was PRINTED in 2007 ???

    ReplyDelete

  123. Oh and do you "doubt" that Romney has a U.S. PassPort ???

    Do you "doubt" that Romney is a U.S. CITIZEN.

    (albeit there have been questions as to "Natural Born" because of his father - but I think the answers are adequate)

    OK so now about Obama, WHAT specifically CONVINCES you that he is a CITIZEN ???

    Remember that the 2008 short-form could have been via 338 - 17.8 since it does NOT show a Hawaii hospital.

    But a filing/recording via 338 - 17.8 WOULD have generated the NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS often quoted.

    As for the LFBC, and INTELLIGENT person would realize it is FAKE by his attorneys OWN statements where he repeats (8 times) that the 2008 IS, WAS, and REMAINS, "THE" presidents birth-document.

    Note that the word "the" is singular, and it is implied that the word "ONLY" applies.

    ReplyDelete
  124. "***** Well, he stated in his book that he was "adopted", but you are right, like EVERYTHING ELSE, we don't know ANYTHING for sure about him. AND THAT IS THE POINT"

    Absolute complete and total lie. I have the e-book of Dreams of My Father and a search using the terms "adopted" or "adoption" does not come up with him EVER making the claim that he was adopted. You, once again, made that up. Provide the quote from his book or admit that you lied.

    ***************

    You may be correct. I do NOT know for a FACT that "adoption" was in his book.

    BUT ... it is an integral part of his "life story". I do not KNOW exactly where it initiated.

    Do you DENY that it is an intregral part of his life-story ??? Do you DENY that his mother (supposedly) married an Indonesian and TOOK HIM TO INDONESIA and ENROLLED HIM IN A (MUSLIM) INDONESIAN SCHOOL ???

    I also cannot verify that you cannot enroll in an Indonesia school without being an "Indonesian" citizen nor that they do not allow "dual" citizenship ... BUT I have no reason to doubt they are true.

    ReplyDelete
  125. @Anonymous

    "YES I have also seen that statement on a "Obama-government" website."

    Here is the Federal Register from July 3, 2007

    http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2007-07-03-E7-12831

    ReplyDelete
  126. > And can you prove it was PRINTED in 2007 ???

    Well, I happen to REMEMBER that the SSA announced this change way back then. But of course I must be lying, right? And so are all other people who happen to REMEMBER such things. All liars, the Wayback Machine was "gotten to" etc. yadda yadda.

    So you keep living your delusions just for the sake of not even once admitting you have been wrong.

    People like you are dragging our movement down because they overflow us with provably false claims they still cling to as if their life depended on it.

    Wouldn't it be wiser to concentrate on things that are actually provably true? And among these, on those who would actually have a chance of bringing "Obama" down?

    Childishly stomping your foot and insisting that "this change was implemented to cover up for 'Obama's CT SSN" is stupid - because even if the "Obama" administration were reponsible, it would not "cover up" anything because people will know when the change was made and that it doesn't magically retroactively apply to "Obama"'s SSN.

    Don't you think that if "they" wanted to fool anyone, they would have "changed" their websites to say that the SSN's were randomly given out since at least 1980 when "Obama" got his??? *duh*

    So believe that you are never wrong all you like, but spare us your attempts to lead us in the wrong direction, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  127. > I also cannot verify that you cannot enroll in an Indonesia school without being an "Indonesian" citizen nor that they do not allow "dual" citizenship ... BUT I have no reason to doubt they are true.

    Will you cut out the lies, Obot?

    You have been told time and again that Indonesia does not control who is a US citizen and that a minor cannot lose his US citizenship based on his own actions or those of his parents?

    You're just another Marxist Obot traitor who wants us to believe foreign laws (like Sharia) supersede US law, and so I ask you: is that the argument of a patriot?

    ReplyDelete
  128. OK ... I accept that I am in ERROR. I accept that I was WRONG.

    *******************

    But it does not change the basic premise that Obama's SS was "Conneticut" issued because that was the way it was in 61.

    I am also who posted the "10+" ways he is not eligible, and I may even be completely WRONG about 1 or more of them, but the POINT is that ANY "ONE" of the 10+ items would indicate he is not eligible or NOT EVEN A "CITIZEN".

    I repeat, any ONE of the 10+.

    So do you propose that ALL of them are wrong ???

    And still the BIG question,

    Is Obama the STUPIDEST president ever and is truly doing the "best" he can .... ???

    OR ....

    Is he the SMARTEST and DELIBERATELY trying to RUIN the "economy" and "National Security" ???

    ReplyDelete
  129. @Anonymous

    I know for a fact that no reference to adoption was in Obama's book. And, there is no evidence that he was adopted, which would take the action of a district court (either in Indonesia or in Hawaii), and there is no evidence that Suetoro's other blood children that were born after the divorce from Obama's mother have ever referred to Obama as "brother." He was only for a time their step-brother.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Re: " also cannot verify that you cannot enroll in an Indonesia school without being an "Indonesian" citizen nor that they do not allow "dual" citizenship ... BUT I have no reason to doubt they are true."

    The way to check on whether or not the birther claim that you had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend school in Indonesia is to call the Indonesian Embassy and ASK. It is not true.

    While you are on that call, you might as well ask whether Obama was ever an Indonesian Citizen. He never was.

    ReplyDelete
  131. But it does not change the basic premise that Obama's SS was "Conneticut" issued because that was the way it was in 61.

    Obama was born in '61... he did apply for his SS# in 1961.

    If you don't like Obama, don't vote for him. It is as simple as that... but, you shouldn't make up things about him that are easily disproven just because you oppose him politically.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Obama was born in '61... he did apply for his SS# in 1961.

    *******************

    This is getting rediculous.

    The actual change to the random issue SS was still 2011. And even if true they published the intention in 2007.

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE since his application, (or STEALING), was before then.


    I am also who posted the "10+" ways he is not eligible, and I may even be completely WRONG about 1 or more of them, but the POINT is that ANY "ONE" of the 10+ items would indicate he is not eligible or NOT EVEN A "CITIZEN".

    I repeat, any ONE of the 10+.

    So do you propose that ALL of them are wrong ???



    And still the BIG question,

    Is Obama the STUPIDEST president ever and is truly doing the "best" he can .... ???

    OR ....

    Is he the SMARTEST and DELIBERATELY trying to RUIN the "economy" and "National Security" ???

    ReplyDelete
  133. And still the BIG question,

    Is Obama the STUPIDEST president ever and is truly doing the "best" he can .... ???

    OR ....

    Is he the SMARTEST and DELIBERATELY trying to RUIN the "economy" and "National Security" ???

    I already answered you. If you don't agree with Obama's policies and way he is running the country, then don't vote for him. It is not the "big" question. It is a stupid question.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Re: "his mother (supposedly) married an Indonesian and TOOK HIM TO INDONESIA and ENROLLED HIM IN A (MUSLIM) INDONESIAN SCHOOL ???"

    Re "supposedly"---Their divorce papers are evidence that they were married, not "supposedly married."

    Re schools. He was enrolled in a Catholic school and a public school.

    ReplyDelete
  135. > So do you propose that ALL of them are wrong ???

    I haven't seen your "10+" points, so I can't tell, and I'm definitely not saying that without having checked them.

    But I think the point is that we should focus on provably true issues (and those where we are not sure but which are interesting for further investigation), not compile lists of 50 false claims (not saying that yours are false, remember, just speaking generally) because we "believe" that would be good for us.

    I believe anything lawful should be done to remove "Obama", but that does not include spreading deliberate falsehoods. Because that never pays in the end.

    I mean, do you really think the public will go "oh, so three of his 10 points were wrong, but there are still 7 that are probably correct"? No, they will go "oh, so three of his 10 points were wrong, that means the rest likely is wrong as well".

    You don't win people over with sloppy "facts" that don't withstand scrutiny.

    And you're making those lists to convince non-"birthers", right? If you're just making them for us, you're wasting your time. We already *know* the guy is illegitimate, we need to *prove* it to both the public and the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Re: "Not all short-form birth certificates are accepted for passport purposes. It states that on the State Department website."

    The short-form birth certificates of Hawaii are accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA. Obama has showed both the short-form birth certificate and the long-form birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on them have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and by the public Index Data file and by the birth notices that were sent to the Health Bureau Statistics sections of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.

    ReplyDelete
  137. But there is no marriage/divorce from Barrack senior.

    And a MUSLIM school in Indonesia.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "But there is no marriage/divorce from Barrack senior."

    Actually, you can go to "American Thinker" and see the divorce papers for Obama and Dunham. I figure that american thinker would be your kind of website, so you might be a little more accepting of their evidence.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married.html

    "And a MUSLIM school in Indonesia."

    Do you even know the name of the school in Indoesia? I am willing to bet that you don't. Go ahead and do your web search. It is easily found.

    You really should at least do a search before you start spouting off at the mouth about things you do not know. It makes you look stupid when these things can be easily researched with a simple Google search.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.