Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.it was one of the early herrings.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.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.
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.
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.
Wong Kim Ark never affirmed him a Natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was only affirmed a Citizen. You fail.The
All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.Lying about where he was born does not make him an illegitimate President. But it does make him an idiot, and that is worth mocking him for
Lying about Obama doesn't necessarily make you a Birther. But it does make you an idiot and that is worth mocking you for- just as I mock all Birthers.
Publications mentioning Obama's birth- (his birth announcements in 2 newspapers left out)
New York Times,February 6, 1990 - daily circulation- 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
Well duh! And of course the 1 single mention in an obscure pamphlet doesn't off up any proof either.
Like all Birthers, you can't see the elephant because you are fixated on his ear.
The claim was made the President Obama deliberately told his editors he was born in Kenya- because of what was said in the brochure- described as a mistake by its editor.
In every major publication before and after that obscure brochure- his place of birth is shown as Hawaii.
Birthers have yet to come up with any rational(lol) theory as to why this one lone brochure is relevant but every major publication in the United States is irrelevant.The rules call for an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to be elected. Obama was/is not a natural born Citizen due to his birth being governed by the British Act of 1948.All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.Lying about where he was born does not make him an illegitimate President. But it does make him an idiot, and that is worth mocking him for
Lying about Obama doesn't necessarily make you a Birther. But it does make you an idiot and that is worth mocking you for- just as I mock all Birthers.
Publications mentioning Obama's birth- (his birth announcements in 2 newspapers left out)
New York Times,February 6, 1990 - daily circulation- 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
Give it up. He was elected with the rules that were in place when he was elected. Don't like it? Get the rules changed. It isn't going to happen retroactively
Says who? Again, you're beggging the question, merely assuming that any assertion you make must be legally valid despite no affirmation of any legal authority, any law, or any court ruling. Where in our law does it say that someone born in the US is 'governed by the British Act of 1948'? Where in our law does it say that someone 'governed by the British Act of 1948' isn't a natural born citizen.
No where. You made it up, citing yourself as a legal authority. And you're nobody.
Meanwhile, the Wong Kim Ark decision from the US supreme court indicated that English Common law is the lense through which natural born status should be understood. And then cited English Common Law recognizing that natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.
As usual, Stephen.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The birth announcements mean nothing. Here, let American patriot Mike Zullo explain why at the 118:00 mark. Pay attention people as people such as Skylar, who has zero experience in any law enforcement investigations is schooled in superb detail.you know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.it was one of the early herrings.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.
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.
The birth announcements were released in Hawaiian papers within days of Obama's birth in 1961. You've ludicriously alleged that the birth announcements were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president.
Which means that the conspiracy would have to go back to 1961. 54 years ago.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Wong Kim Ark never affirmed him a Natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was only affirmed a Citizen. You fail.The
All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.Lying about Obama doesn't necessarily make you a Birther. But it does make you an idiot and that is worth mocking you for- just as I mock all Birthers.
Publications mentioning Obama's birth- (his birth announcements in 2 newspapers left out)
New York Times,February 6, 1990 - daily circulation- 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
Well duh! And of course the 1 single mention in an obscure pamphlet doesn't off up any proof either.
Like all Birthers, you can't see the elephant because you are fixated on his ear.
The claim was made the President Obama deliberately told his editors he was born in Kenya- because of what was said in the brochure- described as a mistake by its editor.
In every major publication before and after that obscure brochure- his place of birth is shown as Hawaii.
Birthers have yet to come up with any rational(lol) theory as to why this one lone brochure is relevant but every major publication in the United States is irrelevant.The rules call for an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to be elected. Obama was/is not a natural born Citizen due to his birth being governed by the British Act of 1948.All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.Lying about Obama doesn't necessarily make you a Birther. But it does make you an idiot and that is worth mocking you for- just as I mock all Birthers.
Publications mentioning Obama's birth- (his birth announcements in 2 newspapers left out)
New York Times,February 6, 1990 - daily circulation- 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
Give it up. He was elected with the rules that were in place when he was elected. Don't like it? Get the rules changed. It isn't going to happen retroactively
Says who? Again, you're beggging the question, merely assuming that any assertion you make must be legally valid despite no affirmation of any legal authority, any law, or any court ruling. Where in our law does it say that someone born in the US is 'governed by the British Act of 1948'? Where in our law does it say that someone 'governed by the British Act of 1948' isn't a natural born citizen.
No where. You made it up, citing yourself as a legal authority. And you're nobody.
Meanwhile, the Wong Kim Ark decision from the US supreme court indicated that English Common law is the lense through which natural born status should be understood. And then cited English Common Law recognizing that natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.
As usual, Stephen.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The birth announcements mean nothing. Here, let American patriot Mike Zullo explain why at the 118:00 mark.you know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.it was one of the early herrings.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.
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.
The birth announcements were released in Hawaiian papers within days of Obama's birth in 1961. You've ludicriously alleged that the birth announcements were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president.
Which means that the conspiracy would have to go back to 1961. 54 years ago.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
After two years of denying he personally profited from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office investigation into the validity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, the head of the sheriff's Cold Case Posse admitted to CBS 5 Investigates that he accepted a large monetary gift from one of the sources in the investigation.
Read more: Birther posse chief I accepted 10 000 from source - CBS 5 - KPHO
"My answer to this question is emphatically No! These accusations that you claim you have heard are absolutely unfounded, slanderous and completely fabricated. They are designed to cast me and this organization in a disparaging light. I am appalled at this accusation!"
Read more: Birther posse chief I accepted 10 000 from source - CBS 5 - KPHO
One day later, after faced with evidence provided by CBS 5 Investigates, Zullo sent another email.
"In 2012 a FedEx envelope arrives unexpectedly at my door, just out of nowhere. When I opened it there is a check for $10,000 made out to me personally from Bill," wrote Zullo. He was referring to Bill Wolf, who was a major researcher in the birther movement.
Read more: Birther posse chief I accepted 10 000 from source - CBS 5 - KPHO
Pay attention people as people such as Skylar, who has zero experience in any law enforcement investigations is schooled in superb detail.
Wong Kim Ark never affirmed him a Natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was only affirmed a Citizen. You fail.The
All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.
Well duh! And of course the 1 single mention in an obscure pamphlet doesn't off up any proof either.
Like all Birthers, you can't see the elephant because you are fixated on his ear.
The claim was made the President Obama deliberately told his editors he was born in Kenya- because of what was said in the brochure- described as a mistake by its editor.
In every major publication before and after that obscure brochure- his place of birth is shown as Hawaii.
Birthers have yet to come up with any rational(lol) theory as to why this one lone brochure is relevant but every major publication in the United States is irrelevant.The rules call for an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to be elected. Obama was/is not a natural born Citizen due to his birth being governed by the British Act of 1948.All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.
Give it up. He was elected with the rules that were in place when he was elected. Don't like it? Get the rules changed. It isn't going to happen retroactively
Says who? Again, you're beggging the question, merely assuming that any assertion you make must be legally valid despite no affirmation of any legal authority, any law, or any court ruling. Where in our law does it say that someone born in the US is 'governed by the British Act of 1948'? Where in our law does it say that someone 'governed by the British Act of 1948' isn't a natural born citizen.
No where. You made it up, citing yourself as a legal authority. And you're nobody.
Meanwhile, the Wong Kim Ark decision from the US supreme court indicated that English Common law is the lense through which natural born status should be understood. And then cited English Common Law recognizing that natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.
As usual, Stephen.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The Wong Kim Ark decision means natural-born citizens about 11 times. You've never read the ruling nor do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. And it specifically cites English Common Law as lens through which the meaning of 'natural born' can be gleaned. With natural born status following place of birth per English common law....even if the child is born to two aliens.
Where as your 'British Act of 1948' gibberish has nothing to do with natural born status, is cited in no court ruling, no law, nothing.
Its just you....citing you. And you're nobody.
The birth announcements mean nothing. Here, let American patriot Mike Zulloyou know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.it was one of the early herrings.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.
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.
The birth announcements were released in Hawaiian papers within days of Obama's birth in 1961. You've ludicriously alleged that the birth announcements were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president.
Which means that the conspiracy would have to go back to 1961. 54 years ago.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
The publisher wrote it.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 bitch? Did Bush write it? Cheney? Limbaugh? Who wrote it, idiot!
Did obama proof read it? approve it? or ignore it? its gotta be one of the 3.
Miriam Goderich indicated that the mistake was hers and Obama never said he was born in Kenya.
Do you have a better source than Miriam Goderich on the content of that pamphlet?
If no, then you're done. If yes, present it.
and you assume that she is telling the truth? .
The birth announcements mean nothing. Here, let American patriot Mike Zulloyou know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.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.
The birth announcements were released in Hawaiian papers within days of Obama's birth in 1961. You've ludicriously alleged that the birth announcements were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president.
Which means that the conspiracy would have to go back to 1961. 54 years ago.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
What kind of 'American Patriot' takes $10,000 payoffs?
What kind of 'American Patriot signs a book deal with a Birther- BEFORE starting his 'investigation'?
The kind of Patriot Birthers love- a patriot who relies upon lies, speculation and innuendo.
Obviously I missed what you were saying. My apologies.Was his mother an American citizen? Yes she was. My third youngest brother was born overseas...... Guess what, he's an American citizen by birth......Oh great, the moronic clueless birthers are back.
Did psychotherapy not work? Is Jimmy Hoffa still whispering sweet nothings in you collective ears?
Oh and morons, I'm not a Democrat and I really don't like Obama all that much....... Pretty much tells ya how stupid you are.
Obama did say he was born in Kenya, but he was actually born in Hawaii. Here's the 411, he lied. Wow, a politician lying, didn't see that one coming, huh?
OK? What does that have to do with what I said? I said Obama was born in Hawaii.
BTW, I also think if he was born in Kenya he was born a natural citizen for the reason you said.
My point you keep whiffing on is that there are birthers, then there are those of us who are not birthers and say that he just lied about where he was born. You don't seem to be picking that up from the conversation despite that the point keeps getting repeatedly made, that's why I'm trying to tell you, and you still don't seem to be getting it.
Lying about where he was born does not make him an illegitimate President. But it does make him an idiot, and that is worth mocking him for
As for me I see almost all politicians as lying idiots, Obama's no different.
American citizenship is good and desirable thing to have. it's my understanding that you didn't have to be born in hawaii to get a hawaiian birth certificate. both true ?you know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.it was one of the early herrings.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.
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.
Okay- explain your theory in such a way that it would not require a conspiracy- starting 50 years ago.
Actually in a court of law, the document would be subject to subpoena to have experts evaluate its authenticity. An Internet image would not suffice. Had this gone to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what would have happened. So you're wrong on that.What part of me asking for verification confused you? Were you born stupid, or did it take practice?Where did I make a demand that your group (we?) prove Birthers wrong. Cite please. Or are you pulling that conspiracy out of your ass. Do you work for Obama?I am demanding that the conspiracies be backed by evidence, that is why I'm asking for a simple investigation to prove the conspiracies wrong by showing she never went to Kenya. Put it to bed. Show that there is no record of Obama's mom traveling to Kenya. Seems simple enough.
No- you only demand that we prove Birthers wrong.
You have never asked- or expected any Birther to prove any of their batshit conspiracies- you eat them up whole sale
Like your claim that Obama's mother went to Kenya.
Mom never went to Kenya? Ok, thanks. My bad. Have we looked at her passport records to verify that?
Yes, I understand that Obama's grandma corrected her statement. I suppose she misspoke or was confused in the translation.
Yes, I suppose Obama's wife merely meant Obama is Kenyan from the perspective of heritage. 'my bad'
You said 'we know she went to Kenya' - now you want us to prove that she didn't?
Did you:
a) pull the idea that his mother went to Kenya out of your ass? or
b) just believe some statement that some Birther told you- and believed it without any verification?
Funny thing is- you appear to believe anything a Birther tells you without any verification.
You have verification. Obama's COLB alone is prima facie evidence in any court of law. And resolves any legal issue.
It was verified by the Governor of the State of Hawaii, two directors of the Department of Heath, and the Registrar of Hawaii. Twice. There are press releases from the State of Hawaii, Obama's name in public Hawaiian registries, 2 birth in local Hawaiian papers in 1961.
For fuck's sake, there's a scan of his long form birth certificate with the attending doctor's signature right on it, verified by the State of Hawaii as valid.
You've ignored it all.....for no particular reason.
The real question is....who gives a fuck? I have yet to figure out why I should care that you arbitrarily ignore legal documents, repeated verification and overlapping evidence. Your willful ignorance is not a standard of evidence. Nor does it obligate anyone to do anything.
does it mention running for president or vice ? naturalised or nautural born ?Wong Kim Ark never affirmed him a Natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was only affirmed a Citizen. You fail.The
All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.
Well duh! And of course the 1 single mention in an obscure pamphlet doesn't off up any proof either.
Like all Birthers, you can't see the elephant because you are fixated on his ear.
The claim was made the President Obama deliberately told his editors he was born in Kenya- because of what was said in the brochure- described as a mistake by its editor.
In every major publication before and after that obscure brochure- his place of birth is shown as Hawaii.
Birthers have yet to come up with any rational(lol) theory as to why this one lone brochure is relevant but every major publication in the United States is irrelevant.The rules call for an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to be elected. Obama was/is not a natural born Citizen due to his birth being governed by the British Act of 1948.All of those publications saying he was born in Hawaii back then offer up no proof.
Give it up. He was elected with the rules that were in place when he was elected. Don't like it? Get the rules changed. It isn't going to happen retroactively
Says who? Again, you're beggging the question, merely assuming that any assertion you make must be legally valid despite no affirmation of any legal authority, any law, or any court ruling. Where in our law does it say that someone born in the US is 'governed by the British Act of 1948'? Where in our law does it say that someone 'governed by the British Act of 1948' isn't a natural born citizen.
No where. You made it up, citing yourself as a legal authority. And you're nobody.
Meanwhile, the Wong Kim Ark decision from the US supreme court indicated that English Common law is the lense through which natural born status should be understood. And then cited English Common Law recognizing that natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.
As usual, Stephen.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The Wong Kim Ark decision cites natural-born citizens about 11 times. You've never read the ruling nor do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. And it specifically cites English Common Law as lens through which the meaning of 'natural born' can be gleaned. With natural born status following place of birth per English common law....even if the child is born to two aliens.
Where as your 'British Act of 1948' gibberish has nothing to do with natural born status, is cited in no court ruling, no law, nothing.
Its just you....citing you. And you're nobody.
that still leaves the original and two "special waivered" copies.Actually in a court of law, the document would be subject to subpoena to have experts evaluate its authenticity. An Internet image would not suffice. Had this gone to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what would have happened. So you're wrong on that.What part of me asking for verification confused you? Were you born stupid, or did it take practice?Where did I make a demand that your group (we?) prove Birthers wrong. Cite please. Or are you pulling that conspiracy out of your ass. Do you work for Obama?No- you only demand that we prove Birthers wrong.
You have never asked- or expected any Birther to prove any of their batshit conspiracies- you eat them up whole sale
Like your claim that Obama's mother went to Kenya.
Mom never went to Kenya? Ok, thanks. My bad. Have we looked at her passport records to verify that?
Yes, I understand that Obama's grandma corrected her statement. I suppose she misspoke or was confused in the translation.
Yes, I suppose Obama's wife merely meant Obama is Kenyan from the perspective of heritage. 'my bad'
You said 'we know she went to Kenya' - now you want us to prove that she didn't?
Did you:
a) pull the idea that his mother went to Kenya out of your ass? or
b) just believe some statement that some Birther told you- and believed it without any verification?
Funny thing is- you appear to believe anything a Birther tells you without any verification.
You have verification. Obama's COLB alone is prima facie evidence in any court of law. And resolves any legal issue.
It was verified by the Governor of the State of Hawaii, two directors of the Department of Heath, and the Registrar of Hawaii. Twice. There are press releases from the State of Hawaii, Obama's name in public Hawaiian registries, 2 birth in local Hawaiian papers in 1961.
For fuck's sake, there's a scan of his long form birth certificate with the attending doctor's signature right on it, verified by the State of Hawaii as valid.
You've ignored it all.....for no particular reason.
The real question is....who gives a fuck? I have yet to figure out why I should care that you arbitrarily ignore legal documents, repeated verification and overlapping evidence. Your willful ignorance is not a standard of evidence. Nor does it obligate anyone to do anything.
So? They would have authenticated it and it would still serve as legal evidence in any court case that he was born in Hawaii.Actually in a court of law, the document would be subject to subpoena to have experts evaluate its authenticity. An Internet image would not suffice. Had this gone to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what would have happened. So you're wrong on that.What part of me asking for verification confused you? Were you born stupid, or did it take practice?Where did I make a demand that your group (we?) prove Birthers wrong. Cite please. Or are you pulling that conspiracy out of your ass. Do you work for Obama?No- you only demand that we prove Birthers wrong.
You have never asked- or expected any Birther to prove any of their batshit conspiracies- you eat them up whole sale
Like your claim that Obama's mother went to Kenya.
Mom never went to Kenya? Ok, thanks. My bad. Have we looked at her passport records to verify that?
Yes, I understand that Obama's grandma corrected her statement. I suppose she misspoke or was confused in the translation.
Yes, I suppose Obama's wife merely meant Obama is Kenyan from the perspective of heritage. 'my bad'
You said 'we know she went to Kenya' - now you want us to prove that she didn't?
Did you:
a) pull the idea that his mother went to Kenya out of your ass? or
b) just believe some statement that some Birther told you- and believed it without any verification?
Funny thing is- you appear to believe anything a Birther tells you without any verification.
You have verification. Obama's COLB alone is prima facie evidence in any court of law. And resolves any legal issue.
It was verified by the Governor of the State of Hawaii, two directors of the Department of Heath, and the Registrar of Hawaii. Twice. There are press releases from the State of Hawaii, Obama's name in public Hawaiian registries, 2 birth in local Hawaiian papers in 1961.
For fuck's sake, there's a scan of his long form birth certificate with the attending doctor's signature right on it, verified by the State of Hawaii as valid.
You've ignored it all.....for no particular reason.
The real question is....who gives a fuck? I have yet to figure out why I should care that you arbitrarily ignore legal documents, repeated verification and overlapping evidence. Your willful ignorance is not a standard of evidence. Nor does it obligate anyone to do anything.
being president or vice, after the grandfather clause was fulfilled. in essence.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.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.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.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.
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...
What relevance does someone 'needing' natural born citizenship have with them being a natural born citizen?
that's all we want. maybe a redo of 4/27/11.. someone besides savannah guthrie to represent the free world.So? They would have authenticated it and it would still serve as legal evidence in any court case that he was born in Hawaii.Actually in a court of law, the document would be subject to subpoena to have experts evaluate its authenticity. An Internet image would not suffice. Had this gone to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what would have happened. So you're wrong on that.What part of me asking for verification confused you? Were you born stupid, or did it take practice?Where did I make a demand that your group (we?) prove Birthers wrong. Cite please. Or are you pulling that conspiracy out of your ass. Do you work for Obama?
Mom never went to Kenya? Ok, thanks. My bad. Have we looked at her passport records to verify that?
Yes, I understand that Obama's grandma corrected her statement. I suppose she misspoke or was confused in the translation.
Yes, I suppose Obama's wife merely meant Obama is Kenyan from the perspective of heritage. 'my bad'
You said 'we know she went to Kenya' - now you want us to prove that she didn't?
Did you:
a) pull the idea that his mother went to Kenya out of your ass? or
b) just believe some statement that some Birther told you- and believed it without any verification?
Funny thing is- you appear to believe anything a Birther tells you without any verification.
You have verification. Obama's COLB alone is prima facie evidence in any court of law. And resolves any legal issue.
It was verified by the Governor of the State of Hawaii, two directors of the Department of Heath, and the Registrar of Hawaii. Twice. There are press releases from the State of Hawaii, Obama's name in public Hawaiian registries, 2 birth in local Hawaiian papers in 1961.
For fuck's sake, there's a scan of his long form birth certificate with the attending doctor's signature right on it, verified by the State of Hawaii as valid.
You've ignored it all.....for no particular reason.
The real question is....who gives a fuck? I have yet to figure out why I should care that you arbitrarily ignore legal documents, repeated verification and overlapping evidence. Your willful ignorance is not a standard of evidence. Nor does it obligate anyone to do anything.
Chester Arthur was a precedent.does it mention running for president or vice ? naturalised or nautural born ?Wong Kim Ark never affirmed him a Natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was only affirmed a Citizen. You fail.The
Well duh! And of course the 1 single mention in an obscure pamphlet doesn't off up any proof either.
Like all Birthers, you can't see the elephant because you are fixated on his ear.
The claim was made the President Obama deliberately told his editors he was born in Kenya- because of what was said in the brochure- described as a mistake by its editor.
In every major publication before and after that obscure brochure- his place of birth is shown as Hawaii.
Birthers have yet to come up with any rational(lol) theory as to why this one lone brochure is relevant but every major publication in the United States is irrelevant.The rules call for an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to be elected. Obama was/is not a natural born Citizen due to his birth being governed by the British Act of 1948.Give it up. He was elected with the rules that were in place when he was elected. Don't like it? Get the rules changed. It isn't going to happen retroactively
Says who? Again, you're beggging the question, merely assuming that any assertion you make must be legally valid despite no affirmation of any legal authority, any law, or any court ruling. Where in our law does it say that someone born in the US is 'governed by the British Act of 1948'? Where in our law does it say that someone 'governed by the British Act of 1948' isn't a natural born citizen.
No where. You made it up, citing yourself as a legal authority. And you're nobody.
Meanwhile, the Wong Kim Ark decision from the US supreme court indicated that English Common law is the lense through which natural born status should be understood. And then cited English Common Law recognizing that natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.
As usual, Stephen.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The Wong Kim Ark decision cites natural-born citizens about 11 times. You've never read the ruling nor do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. And it specifically cites English Common Law as lens through which the meaning of 'natural born' can be gleaned. With natural born status following place of birth per English common law....even if the child is born to two aliens.
Where as your 'British Act of 1948' gibberish has nothing to do with natural born status, is cited in no court ruling, no law, nothing.
Its just you....citing you. And you're nobody.
so you are saying that any baby born here including wong was/is eligible to be prez. anchor babies or anyone at all. so i ask again why the expression natural born if there is no distinction. why the grandfather clause.. ?
i still think there is no precedent, or conflicting precedents.
i still think the supreme court is evading the issue.
why would you "have to buy" anything in this country.. maybe health insurance...The birth announcements mean nothing. Here, let American patriot Mike Zulloyou know it's not really 50 (the conspiracys) right ?, that was just a thing they used to trivialise the question.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.
The birth announcements were released in Hawaiian papers within days of Obama's birth in 1961. You've ludicriously alleged that the birth announcements were placed as a conspiracy knowing he would be president.
Which means that the conspiracy would have to go back to 1961. 54 years ago.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
What kind of 'American Patriot' takes $10,000 payoffs?
What kind of 'American Patriot signs a book deal with a Birther- BEFORE starting his 'investigation'?
The kind of Patriot Birthers love- a patriot who relies upon lies, speculation and innuendo.
Yeah, and if the investigation is from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.....why has the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office never released any official report on the topic. And why do I have to buy the investigation off of Amazon.....sold to me by Mike Zullo and World Net Daily's Jerome Corsi?
I've never heard of an 'official law enforcement investigation' that you can only get from Amazon, and have to pay to see.
that would prove hillary wasn't the first birther.. i have always said, the obama case would have survived the supreme court.Chester Arthur was a precedent.does it mention running for president or vice ? naturalised or nautural born ?Wong Kim Ark never affirmed him a Natural born Citizen based on Article 2 Section 1. He was only affirmed a Citizen. You fail.The
The rules call for an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen to be elected. Obama was/is not a natural born Citizen due to his birth being governed by the British Act of 1948.
Says who? Again, you're beggging the question, merely assuming that any assertion you make must be legally valid despite no affirmation of any legal authority, any law, or any court ruling. Where in our law does it say that someone born in the US is 'governed by the British Act of 1948'? Where in our law does it say that someone 'governed by the British Act of 1948' isn't a natural born citizen.
No where. You made it up, citing yourself as a legal authority. And you're nobody.
Meanwhile, the Wong Kim Ark decision from the US supreme court indicated that English Common law is the lense through which natural born status should be understood. And then cited English Common Law recognizing that natural born status followed place of birth. Even to alien parents.
As usual, Stephen.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The Wong Kim Ark decision cites natural-born citizens about 11 times. You've never read the ruling nor do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. And it specifically cites English Common Law as lens through which the meaning of 'natural born' can be gleaned. With natural born status following place of birth per English common law....even if the child is born to two aliens.
Where as your 'British Act of 1948' gibberish has nothing to do with natural born status, is cited in no court ruling, no law, nothing.
Its just you....citing you. And you're nobody.
so you are saying that any baby born here including wong was/is eligible to be prez. anchor babies or anyone at all. so i ask again why the expression natural born if there is no distinction. why the grandfather clause.. ?
i still think there is no precedent, or conflicting precedents.
i still think the supreme court is evading the issue.
