Exposing The Original Birther

Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage.

The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama, who apparently told his literary agents in 1991 that he was born in Kenya.

ScreenHunter_2242 Aug. 23 13.44

1991 : Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’

The agency went online in 1998, and still listed him as born in Kenya.

ScreenHunter_2235 Aug. 23 13.24ScreenHunter_2234 Aug. 23 13.23 1998 Client List

By 2005 the profile was updated, and still said he was born in Kenya.

ScreenHunter_2266 Aug. 24 06.19

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, is a New York Times bestseller.

2005 Dystel & Goderich Literary Management

As of February 2, 2007, the profile still said he was born in Kenya

ScreenHunter_2241 Aug. 23 13.40ScreenHunter_2237 Aug. 23 13.34

February 2, 2007 Dystel & Goderich Literary Management :: Client List

One week later, on February 10, 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President

Saturday, February 10, 2007; 3:28 PM

Text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s speech, as prepared for delivery Saturday in Springfield, Ill., and released by his campaign, in which he announced he is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s Announcement Speech

His profile was changed within a few weeks to say that he was born in Hawaii.

ScreenHunter_2241 Aug. 23 13.40ScreenHunter_2239 Aug. 23 13.38

April 21, 2007 Dystel & Goderich Literary Management :: Client List

For 17 years it was advantageous to say that he was born in Kenya, but after he announced his candidacy for president – he needed to be born in the US. Why did Obama choose to lie about his birthplace?

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

941 Responses to Exposing The Original Birther

    • daveburton says:

      The folks who, out of generosity, politeness, or, most commonly, wishful thinking, believe or pretend to believe that Obama didn’t write or approve his own bio, are being silly. That’s not even plausible.

      Miriam Goderich now claims that the Kenyan Birthplace claim was her fault. But even her acceptance of responsibility was weaselly: she claimed it was her own “fact checking error,” but never said where the “facts” came from that she should have “checked.”

      In fact, she obviously lied. Publicists for new authors don’t invent bios for those authors.

      Dystel requires, as is standard practice in the industry, that a prospective author submit his own bio. The claim that they invented a fictitious foreign birthplace for a new American author, and inserted it into his bio, is utterly absurd.

      Who would presume to write a new author’s bio for him? In fact, who would presume to write anything about her client, and publish it, without at least running it by him?

      And how could such a falsehood in an author’s bio be disseminated by the author’s publicist from 1991 until April 2007, if the author didn’t want it to be?

      Here’s what an industry insider has to say about the absurdity of that lie:
      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/a-word-from-tom-lipscomb.php

      If someone suggests that Obama and his confederates would never tell a lie, ask him if he is the last person on the planet who still believes that “if you like your health care plan you can keep it” under Obamacare. (BTW, here is my insurance cancellation notice; “Termination Reason: Policy terminated due to product being non-ACA compliant.”)

      Goderich’s lie for Obama doesn’t even pass the laugh test:
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/why_kenyan_birth_claim_was_no_fact_checking_error.html
      {Why Kenyan Birth Claim Was No ‘Fact Checking Error’}

      Goderich’s motive to cover for Obama’s lie is obvious. Her firm has a contract with Obama for future book deals. She hopes to make a bunch of money from him. So she scratches his back, and he scratches hers.

      Under U.S. law in 1961, if Obama’s parents were legally married, and if he were born overseas, then he’d not have been entitled to U.S. citizenship.

      The requirements have changed over the years, but in 1961 the requirement was that the citizen parent have resided within the USA for five years after her 14th birthday.

      Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942, and Obama was born August 4, 1961, so Dunham was only 18 years, 8 months & 5 days old when her baby (the future President Obama) was born. That means only 4 years, 8 months & 5 days had elapsed since her 14th birthday, which is less than the 5 year minimum needed to qualify her baby for citizenship on that basis.

      If Obama’s parents were legally married, then he would not have qualified for citizenship if born overseas, because his mother hadn’t resided in the USA for a full five years since her 14th birthday, per this chart:
      http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-a-2014-05_01_final.pdf
      (Chart A)

      However, that didn’t apply to Obama, because his parents were not legally married, because his father was a bigamist. When Obama’s father married 18yo Stanley Ann Dunham in Hawaii, who was already pregnant, he already had another wife back in Kenya. That means his marriage to Dunham was illegal and invalid, so Obama is a bastard. Because of that, he would have been entitled to U.S. citizenship solely by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, even if born overseas. That means he would have been a “natural-born” citizen, qualified to run for President, even if he had been born overseas.

      This is the chart that actually applies to Obama:
      http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-b-2014-05_1_final.pdf
      (Chart B: Acquisition of Citizenship – Determining If Children Born Outside The U.S. and Born Out of Wedlock Acquired U.S. Citizenship at Birth)

      You might suppose that would eliminate any incentive that Obama’s parents might have had to ensure that his birth was recorded as having occurred in the United States, and perhaps to lie for that purpose. However, Obama’s mother presumably didn’t know about Obama Sr’s other wife. She thought she was legally married. Thinking that, she’d have also believed that her baby would only have U.S. citizenship if born in the USA. That would have given her a strong motive to make sure that she was in Hawaii when her baby was due — or, failing that, to lie about his birthplace — so that he could have U.S. citizenship.

      Since we now, finally, as of 2011, have a birth certificate for Obama showing a hospital birth (albeit not in the hospital that he used to claim as his birthplace), it seems very unlikely that he was actually born overseas and then brought to Hawaii as an infant. If that had happened, his mother would almost certainly have claimed that he was born at home, and his birth certificate would show that as his birthplace. Since the birth certificate records a hospital birth, that scenario doesn’t seem plausible.

      So I don’t think he was actually born overseas. That means he lied to his book publicists (and probably to others, perhaps including one or more of his three colleges), when he claimed that he “was born in Kenya.”

      I don’t fault Obama for his father’s crimes of adultery and bigamy, but it is relevant to this conversation because it is only due to his father’s bigamy that Obama’s parents’ marriage was invalid, and it was only that lack of a legal marriage that makes the issue of Obama’s actual birthplace moot w/r/t the question of whether Obama is really entitled to be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen, constitutionally qualified to serve as President.

      If his parents had been legally married, then his citizenship would have been dependent on his birthplace. Since his parents were not legally married, his birthplace does not matter: he would have been a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “The folks who, out of generosity, politeness, or, most commonly, wishful thinking, believe or pretend to believe that Obama didn’t write or approve his own bio, are being silly. That’s not even plausible.”

        Bio blurbs are often but not ALWAYS written by the author of the book, and in this case the publicist says that SHE wrote it and that SHE made the mistake. This is confirmed by the fact that Obama had told newspapers BEFORE the bio blurb that he was born IN HAWAII (want to see the link?) and he had written in his book Dreams from My Father AFTER that blurb was written that he was born IN HAWAII. So it is farfetched to think that in between those two “I was born in Hawaii” statements that he wrote “I was born in Kenya.”

        THEREFORE, it is wishful thinking that Obama wrote his bio blurb. The publicist is not lying. It was an easy mistake to make because Barack Hussein Obama I (Obama’s father) really was born in Kenya.

        Re: Godeirch “never said where the “facts” came from that she should have “checked.”

        Answer: She had the unpublished text of Obama’s first boon (which was never published) “Journeys in Black and White” in front of her and it was an autobiography like Dreams from My Father. And when Obama talked about his father, Barack Hussein Obama I, he said that he was born in KENYA (and he was)

        Re: “Publicists for new authors don’t invent bios for those authors.”

        Answer: NO but sometimes they do write the bio blurbs themselves from the autobiographies that were submitted—which is what happened in this case. Once again, it is farfetched to believe that Obama had told newspapers in 1990 that he was born in HAWAII and wrote in Dreams in 1995 that he was born in HAWAII and in the middle in 1991 wrote a bio blurb that said that he was born in Kenya.

        Re: “And how could such a falsehood in an author’s bio be disseminated by the author’s publicist from 1991 until April 2007, if the author didn’t want it to be?”

        Answer: A mistake on a small web site that is not noticed by the author (and he was not told that it was put online) stays a mistake until it is found—which could take years or decades. He would not have looked for the bio blurb because he did not know that one had even been WRITTEN. Goderich did not tell him that she wrote it or send it to him for checking.

        Re link. Bios are OFTEN sent in by authors and if not written by them OFTEN sent to them for checking, but not ALWAYS—and the fact that she did not send it to him for checking was of course part of the MISTAKE.

        Re: “Goderich’s motive to cover for Obama’s lie is obvious. Her firm has a contract with Obama for future book deals. She hopes to make a bunch of money from him. So she scratches his back, and he scratches hers.”

        Answer: Simply to show that Obama lied once you claim that a woman whom you do not know is lying. As noted, Obama had told the press in 1990 and wrote in 1995 that he was BORN IN HAWAII. Yet you claim that he lied in 1991 and said that he was born in Kenya AND that Goderich is lying about that today. What is YOUR motive for throwing the charge of lying at Goderich???

        Re: “Under U.S. law in 1961, if Obama’s parents were legally married, and if he were born overseas, then he’d not have been entitled to U.S. citizenship.”

        Answer. True. But he was NOT born overseas, and it is DUMB to think that there is even a rational CHANCE that he was.

        Re: “If Obama’s parents were legally married, then he would not have qualified for citizenship if born overseas, because his mother hadn’t resided in the USA for a full five years since her 14th birthday, per this chart:”

        Answer: Once again, he wasn’t born overseas.

        Re: “. That means his marriage to Dunham was illegal and invalid, so Obama is a bastard. ”

        Answer: For the purposes of legal legitimacy a legal marriage is sufficient EVEN IF THERE WAS BIGAMY by one of the parties. And a legal marriage did take place, as the divorce papers and the listing of marriages shows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29 —- see the part about “putative marriages”)

        Re: “You might suppose that would eliminate any incentive that Obama’s parents might have had to ensure that his birth was recorded as having occurred in the United States.”

        Answer: It being the TRUTH was a huge incentive.

        Re: “So I don’t think he was actually born overseas. That means he lied to his book publicists…”

        Answer: You are right, the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is overwhelming, and there is not even evidence that his mother had a passport in 1961 (and in those days very very few 18-year-olds did) and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy (and she could not have gone earlier due to the college schedule) due to the high risk of stillbirths. So to believe that Obama was born abroad requires BOTH of those highly unlikely things to have happened and Obama having been brought to Hawaii from that foreign country WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS ENTERED ON HIS MOTHER’S PASSPORT OR RECEIVED A VISA and that the officials in Hawaii (Republican at the time) committed an illegal act and issued a Hawaii birth certificate for him. (Not very likely is it.)

        However, that does not mean that Obama lied. He only lied IF he told Goderich that he was born in Kenya, and she says that he didn’t and the interviews before and the book after show that he was unlikely to have done so because in both cases he said that he was born in HAWAII—which, of course, he was.

        Obama’s FATHER, Barack Hussein Obama I, was born in Kenya—and that is the source of Goderich’s mistake. Obama, Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital—–as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the teacher who wrote home and the INS inspector who wrote “one child, born in Honolulu”—all show. And the fact that many times bios are written by the authors of books or sent to them for checking does not mean that it happens all of the time.

        SHE made the mistake by seeing that Barack Hussein Obama (the father) was born in Kenya and assuming that that referred to Barack Hussein Obama (the son).

        Still, it is highly likely that Obama HAS lied about OTHER things, so you can relax. There just isn’t any evidence (and the newspaper interviews and his “I was born in Hawaii” in Dreams makes it highly unlikely) that he lied in this case.

        i

        • daveburton says:

          smrstrauss wrote, “there is not even evidence that his mother had a passport in 1961.”

          Seriously? She married a Kenyan, but you doubt she even had a passport?

          smrstrauss wrote, “Answer: For the purposes of legal legitimacy a legal marriage is sufficient EVEN IF THERE WAS BIGAMY by one of the parties. And a legal marriage did take place…”

          Wrong. In Hawaii, where the ceremony took place, the marriage of an already-married man to a second wife is illegal. An illegal marriage is not a legal marriage, no matter what your definition of the word “is” is.

          Also, there’s nothing in that Wikipedia article that you cited to suggest that a “putative spouse” has legal status in Hawaii, nor that “putative” (illegal) marriage could affect the citizenship status of an illegitimate baby.

          smrstrauss wrote, “Obama lied… only lied IF he told Goderich that he was born in Kenya.”

          Wrong. He lied if said or wrote that to anyone.

          Remember, by his own admission Obama “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” when applying to the colleges he attended. It wouldn’t be surprising if he had tweaked his biographical details to better play his “diversity” card. My guess is that the inaccurate biographical information he provided to Acton & Dystel was largely recycled from an earlier CV, perhaps from a college application, or from material he used when seeking to join law review.

          smrstrauss wrote, “Bio blurbs are often but not ALWAYS written by the author of the book, and in this case the publicist says that SHE wrote it…”

          Wrong. That’s not what she said (and even if she had said that it would not be credible).

          You seem to believe that when a new, unknown author approaches a book publicist, to engage them to promote a memoir or autobiography, which hasn’t been written yet, the publicist would get the prospective client’s bio from someone other than the client, himself.

          Think about how ridiculous that is. We’re not talking about an already famous person, like a semi-illiterate sports hero. We’re talking about an unknown author who proposes to write a whole book about himself… but somehow can’t write or proofread even a single paragraph about himself?!?

          If you really believe that, you’re rivaling the White Queen. How many impossible things do you believe before breakfast?

          It is impossible to imagine that publicists asked to promote a yet-unwritten autobiography by an unknown author did’t ask the author to provide even four sentences of information about himself, in advance of agreeing to promote his book. It is impossible to imagine that, instead, they invented a bio for him, with fanciful details plucked from thin air, or from botched library research which confused him with his father, and in sixteen years never even showed it to him? Could you possibly be more ridiculous?

          Edward Acton, of Acton & Dystel, casts doubt on the story, saying that clients like Obama were “probably” approached to approve the edited texts of their bios.

          Jane Dystel refuses to comment at all.

          Only Miriam Goderich claims to improbably remember that the misinformation about Obama’s birthplace, which supposedly went unnoticed for sixteen years, was her own “fact checking error.” But she did not say that “SHE wrote it.” She even she won’t say where the “facts” came from that she should have “checked.”

          That’s a very slim reed upon which to hang the President’s entire defense, but that’s all you have, so you pretend it’s the rock of Gibraltar.

          The thing is, this lie is perfectly in character for Obama, because he has a long history of lying about his past, often with imaginative flair.

          For instance, Obama claimed, in a debate with McCain, “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” {quoted from the Washington Post}

          But that was a flat-out lie. Obama’s mother’s supposed argument with a health insurance company about paying for her treatment never happened at all. She apparently did have a dispute with an insurance company about a disability insurance policy, but there was never any argument over insurance paying for her treatment.

          Obama is a compulsive, habitual liar, not only about matters of state and public policy, like Obamacare and Benghazi, but also about his own past. His first book, Dreams From My Father, purports to be an autobiography, but turns out to be substantially fiction:

          Have you read Dan Armstrong’s (DENKO’s) account of working with Obama on his job in NYC in 1984? In the account of that job in Obama’s autobiography, he turned a low-paying, jeans-wearing, newsletter editing reality into a high-powered, suit-wearing, “consulting” job, complete with secretaries he never had, and mythical “interview[s] with Japanese financiers [and] German bond traders”
          http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/

          Such dishonesty even raised a few eyebrows at the generally fawning New York Times.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all (“Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say”)

          In that same memoir, Obama fictionalized friendships and romances. He morphed a half-Japanese acquaintance into an imagined best friend who was “a symbol of young blackness.” He invented a crisis of race-consciousnesses that provably never happened at all. He rewrote his step-grandfather’s death in a household fall as being shot by Dutch soldiers in the struggle for Indonesian independence. He invented mythical detainment and torture by the British for his Kenyan grandfather.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303776/obama-s-great-american-novel-mark-steyn
          or http://www.nationalreview.com/node/303776/print

          http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/memoir-360243-obama-fake.html

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/david-maraniss-obama-biography-barack-obama-the-story_n_1613758.html

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-fictionalized-president/2012/06/24/gJQAhBvB0V_blog.html (or http://www.webcitation.org/6SIPvxkKi)

          You simply cannot trust anything that President Obama says. He lies like a rug. He is, in other words, a true liberal.

          How do you think a new author, who has never written a book, nor anything else of note, enters into a relationship with a book publicist? Do you think the conversation went like this?

          Obama: “Hi, my name is Barack Obama. I’ve never written anything of note before, but I write well, and I’m working on a book about myself, and I’m interested in having you represent me and publicize it.”

          Acton & Dystel: “Nice to meet you, Mr. Obama. We might be interested, if you have a compelling story. We’ll need for you to provide us with a synopsis of your prospective book, and a CV or resume. Oh, never mind that last part. Don’t bother to tell us anything about you, we’ll just make up a fictional bio for you if we agree to represent you.”

          Yeah, like that could ever happen.

          Why is it so hard for you to accept that Obama lied? You know the man’s a flagrant liar. Or are you the last person on the planet who still believes that “if you like your health care plan you can keep it” under Obamacare?

          BTW, does this phrase sound familiar to you? “…making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.” If not, Google it.

        • smrstrauss says:

          dave burton wrote: “Seriously? She married a Kenyan, but you doubt she even had a passport?”

          Sure, what makes you think that because she married a Kenyan she had a passport? (BTW, in 1989. more than a quarter century after 1961, only 3% of Americans TOTAL had passports. In 1961 it probably would have been half of that percentage or less, and that is TOTAL—the percentage for 18-year-olds would have been still lower). And, not only would she have had to have had a passport. but she would have had to have used it to travel abroad in the last three months of pregnancy (earlier would not have been possible due to the college schedule)—which was extremely rare at the time due too the high risk of stillbirths.

          Re “illegal marriage.”

          When a man deceives a woman and marries her despite having a previous wife, the law does not penalize the children involved. So long as a state marriage took place (so long as BOTH parties did not know that it was bigamous, and she didn’t), the child is legitimate. The same holds for legal divorces, of course. Just because a man deceives a a woman (or vice versa) and there is a legal marriage took place, there still can be a legal divorce. THAT should be obvious. If not, read up on the subject.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29

        • daveburton says:

          smrstrauss, w/r/t the law, you don’t know what you’re talking about. An illegal marriage is not a legal marriage

          You’re just making things up. I don’t know why you keep citing a Wikipedia article which has nothing to say about it, either. Have you even read it? It doesn’t support you.

          U.S. law does not “penalize the children” for being illegitimate, regardless of whether or not there was bigamy or adultery involved, and regardless of whether or not the children’s mother believed she was legally married. The crime of bigamy does not involve punishment for the child (though it obviously can impact the child, e.g., by depriving him of the care of an incarcerated parent).

          Indeed, in the case of an 18yo U.S. citizen mother of a child born overseas in 1961 with a foreign mother, it would be to the child’s benefit if his parents were unmarried. If such a baby’s parents were legally married then he’s not entitled to U.S. citizenship However, if he’s a bastard then he is entitled to U.S. citizenship, by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, alone.

          However, your claim about Obama’s mother’s college class schedule is more interesting. Do you really have evidence for it, or are you just guessing?

          I don’t know what Stanley Ann Dunham’s class schedule was. You say you do. Will you share it, please?

          Obama’s recorded birth date is August 4, 1961. Three months earlier would be Star Wars Day (May The Fourth [be with you]). Do you have evidence that Dunham took & passed any classes at U. Hawaii in Spring, 1961?

          That would have been the Spring semester of her freshman year. But she got married (or so she thought) just a few weeks into the semester, on February 2nd, 1961, by which time she was already 3 months pregnant with the future POTUS.

          It took Dunham seven years to graduate from U. Hawaii, so my guess is that when she discovered she was pregnant she dropped out of college for a couple of years, with only one semester completed. That would be typical for a pregnant college girl in 1961. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.

        • daveburton says:

          typo correction:
          s/with a foreign mother/with a foreign father/

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re “, you don’t know what you’re talking about. An illegal marriage is not a legal marriage.”

          So long as a state marriage license was issued for the marriage, the child of that marriage is not illegitimate. BTW, you are truly DUMB if you think that if a man deceived a woman with a previous marriage, she could not go to court and win alimony in a divorce. You should read before spouting your loony dreams.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29

        • philjourdan says:

          No child is illegitimate turnip! The marriage license was obtained under fraudulent circumstances, making the marriage null and void turnip! Making obama a bastard child turnip! As the original English definition of the word bastard means turnip.

          That he is a homo sapien is not the question, which means he is a legitimate human being turnip!

          And so the turnip starts another stupid rumor. Now he is saying that Obama is a tranny martian. Or are you calling Obama a monkey turnip?

        • smrstrauss says:

          daveburton wrote: “I don’t know what Stanley Ann Dunham’s class schedule was. You say you do. Will you share it, please?”

          In 1961, the University of Hawaii, like most universities, began its fall semester in early September and ended its spring semester in late May.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non sequitur turnip. The question was not when the semester started or ended turnip. And you have no clue turnip when it started or ended turnip.

        • tom0mason says:

          No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMA’s responsibility.
          Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED. And lied again!
          Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
          Obama’s wrong and a failure.

  1. Gunny G says:

    “The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama, who apparently told his literary agents in 1991 that he was born in Kenya. “

    • smrstrauss says:

      The writer of the “born in Kenya” bio has admitted to making the mistake all by herself, and she said that she DID NOT get the information from Obama, nor did she send it to Obama to check, and she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.

      Re: “For 17 years it was advantageous…”

      Answer. No, for 17 years Obama did not know that the mistaken bio had ever been written, so he could not fix it. That’s all.

      • Shazaam says:

        Maybe it’s just me. However, I can’t imagine any politician not reading his/her own campaign literature. The great majority of politicians are walking egos. And Mr “I have a pen and a phone” certainly seems to qualify in that regard.

        Thus that story about the writer making the bio mistake appears to have no resemblance to the truth. It is however completely consistent with the laughingstock-in-chief’s usual and customary veracity.

        It seems that the laughingstock-in-chief believes that truth is precious and thus is extremely miserly in the use of the tiniest bit of it.

        • It wasn’t campaign literature. It wasn’t even marketing literature for Obama’s book. It was a marketing brochure for the literary agent’s business.

          There is no good reason to suspect that Obama was ever even aware of its existence

        • philjourdan says:

          Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “However, I can’t imagine any politician not reading his/her own campaign literature.”

          Since she did not send it to him and did not tell him that it was put online—-how could he read it?

          Re: “That story about the writer making the bio mistake appears to have no resemblance to the truth.”

          Answer: (1) that is what she said; (2) Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father, says in it that he was born in KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL IN HAWAII. (and that was written in 1999).

          (3) I suspect you will ask: “How could she make a mistake like that?” And the answer is, simple, Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama too, you know. The only difference is that he was the original Barack Hussein Obama, and the president is Barack Hussein Obama II. Well, Barack Hussein Obama, the father, WAS born in Kenya.

          A quick scan of a page saying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya—and the writer of bio blurbs, who probably had a lot of blurbs to write, gets the false notion that the author of the book was born in Kenya, when he was referring to his father.

          So he did not say it. More important it is not true. In fact, the “he was born in Kenya story” is completely nutty.

          Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for the year that included August 1961:

          http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/n4/mode/1up

          Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals.

          On page 77, the same report shows the number of people who WENT to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and that shows that only 63 did (of whom 60 were Americans), and that of the 63 not a single person, not one, went by air. They ALL went by ship.

          So, according to birther theory, Obama’s mother, in the last two months of pregnancy at the age of 18, was among the 60 Americans who went to Kenya by ship that year and one of the seven Americans who came to the USA from Kenya that year, and again she traveled by ship (since no Americans came to the USA from Kenya by air).

          There were, by the way, no normally scheduled direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961—making the alleged trip by Obama’s mother and Obama most unlikely—to say the least.

          AND: (1) the government of Kenya has said that Obama was not born in Kenya; and (2) the government of Hawaii, the birth certificate plus the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties, plus the Index Data file plus the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii) all show that Obama was born in HAWAII.

          BTW, the “He registered in college as a foreign student” story and the “he got foreign aid as a foreign story” fantasies both come from AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE. (Don’t believe me? Think that the stories are real? Well both Occidental and Columbia have telephone numbers and PR departments, and they will tell you that Obama was not registered as a foreign student.) There is, however, a “Columbia University Student ID” that claims that Obama was registered as a foreign student. IT was forged. Again, the way to determine the truth is to ask. If you don’t believe me, ask the Columbia University PR department whether it ever issued a student ID card that identifies foreign students any differently than US students. The answer you will hear is, no, it never did.

          Here is the Columbia University main number: ((212) 854-1754 — ask for the PR department.)

          Here is the Occidental main number: (323) 259-2500 — again, ask for the PR department.)

        • philjourdan says:

          Here’s the bottom line. You do not know. Neither do I. The difference is I do not care. You seem to be a birther of sorts in that it does matter to you where he was born.

          But again, in order for “plausible deniability” to be plausible, it has to be believable. Claiming you knew nothing about the promotion of your own career is not plausible. That does not make it impossible, just not plausible.

          Since you do not know if he knew, (and I do not care if he knew), the whole boring soliloquy of yours is sophistry. Garbage for you folks in PBC.

          And it is also irrelevant. The “true story” or “myth” (depending upon your inclination of belief) was started by Obama. Whether he BLESSED it or not may be in question, but the fact that it was in his promotional literature (not an unsolicited biography) means that it was his job to know. If he chose to remain ignorant (not a new or uncommon activity for him) that is still his fault.

        • Utter BS. In 1991, Obama was a nobody looking to make money off his book. The brochure promoting him would have been a huge deal in his life.

          Until Miriam tells us who told her that Obama was born in Kenya, everything else is just BS.

        • Too bad the brochure was not promoting him. It was promoting Dystel. He almost certainly had no idea the brochure even existed.

        • philjourdan says:

          Yea, and no one told him about Benghazi.

          Your problem is that you are too stupid to realize how stupid you sound. No one is buying your contortion of the facts. But I guess you are paid by the word, not for your intelligence.

        • Comments like that make me completely incredulous of everything else you have to say.

        • Shazaam says:

          @HystericalDude & smrstrauss

          Correction (agent’s bio) noted.

          I still do not find it credible that his literary agent would publish such a flawed bio for 17 years without once running the bio past the client in question.

          And given the laughingstock-in-chief’s track record with the truth, the story “he was blissfully ignorant of his agent’s flawed bio” becomes all that much more difficult to believe.

          The current occupant of the whitehouse has such a credibility problem, that even if he should tell the truth (quite by accident) some day, no one would believe it. And he has indeed earned that reputation by his own diligent efforts.

        • @stevegoddard

          You wrote, “Comments like that make me completely incredulous of everything else you have to say.”

          Then our symmetry is perfect.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, he has facts. You have NONE. And you have demonstrated a propensity to lie.

        • @ Shazaam

          The uncritical cutting and pasting of old content to new use on the Internet is among the most pervasive reasons the WWW is filled with such vast volumes of unmitigated crap.

          But since the bio blurb was never intended to promote either Obama or his book, why you imagine it would ever have been run by him is a mystery.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, the biggest reason it is filled with crap is when they pay morons like you to spread lies.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “…in 17 years he didn’t read his own bio? not even at a book signing, a cocktail party, in conversation over breakfast?…..he has no friends that told him?”

          Answer: Yes because (1) she did not tell him it was put online; (2) it was hardly in the most visible spot on the Internet; (3) the book for which the blurb was written was never published, so since she did not tell him that there was a blurb—why should he look for it? And (4) he said in “Dreams from My Father” published in 1995, about five years after the book that wasn’t published that he was BORN IN KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL IN HAWAII, and he could hardly have dreamed that there was a bio blurb on the Web that said that he was born in Kenya when he wrote in his own book that he was born in HAWAII.

          So what the #@^%$#*@*@*%$#*@*@*&*^* makes you think that the publicist was lying when she said that it was HER mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not send it to him to check and that she did not tell him that it was put online so that he could not fix it?

        • philjourdan says:

          The problem is no one read his book, as the publicist, and OBAMA was pushing the Kenya story!

          So yes, he knew and ignored it.

          And here is another fact for you. Obama does not know where he was born. Period. He was told. But he has no birth memory. No human does. (and some like you have no memory since either).

        • Miriam,

          Why don’t you just tell us who told you that he was born in Kenya?

        • She has answered that question, Tony. No one told her. The error was original to her.

        • philjourdan says:

          There is a term – plausible deniability. The defense worm in Independence Day told the president that was why he did not know about Area 51. It basically means that there are some things that you can deny you know about because it does not really matter (if the aliens had never attacked, no one but a few nuts would care about the crashed space ship).

          That is what Obama is trying to do with his bio. But it is not plausible! A blind man can see that, but the smartest man in the world cannot? That is why the idiots are saying it was not Obama. They expect everyone else to be bigger morons than they are and believe the Plausible Deniability.

          He knew, he blessed it, he lied. They are free to believe what they want. But only morons will be fooled by their lies.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjordan said: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? ”

          You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published. And, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.

        • philjourdan says:

          Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity. But my comment was NOT about Obama seeing it. It was about ANYONE seeing it. On the one hand, your puppet master proclaims (without evidence) that no one read anything about Obama since he was a nobody! Then on the other he proclaims (again without evidence) that EVERYONE wanted to write the bio because he was somebody.

          That contradiction alone shows the stupidity of your puppet master. But compounded with that is the belief (yours alone apparently) that NO ONE read the bio after EVERYONE wanted to write it, so NO ONE would mention it to him.

          As I indicated earlier, any sentient being would cringe at such stupidity and forced assumptions that are provably false. For you to come here with your puppet master and demand we believe something, with no supporting evidence shows how stupid you both are.

          You may well believe that (or are just parroting that line). But no one else here is that stupid.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “He knew, he blessed it, he lied. ”

          And your evidence for this is—what?

          The publicist has said that she made mistake and that she did NOT get the information from Obama.

          You claim that she is lying. And your evidence for that is—-what?

          Sure, publicists normally send bios to people to check—but people make mistakes, they don’t always do what they are supposed to do.

          And Obama had told the newspapers previously to that bio being written that HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. He is unlikely to have reversed himself and lied to the publicist.

          And it was an easy mistake to make. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya. She saw that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, and thought that that referred to the author of the unpublished manuscript. It was an easy mistake to make.

        • philjourdan says:

          Moron, I have never stated, and this blog never states WHERE HE WAS BORN. Neither Steven Goddard nor I CARE.

          The article (for the 10th time) is about WHO started the birther movement. And the evidence? Given in the article and in some of the comments.

          And your evidence to the contrary? nada. Idiot.

          Evidence is not your opinion. So produce your evidence to refute the evidence here, or continue to gnaw on your stupid strawman. Moron.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said:

          “The problem is no one read his book, as the publicist, and OBAMA was pushing the Kenya story!

          So yes, he knew and ignored it.”

          Rational people will notice that the conclusion “Yes he knew” does not follow from “no ne read the book.” A lot of people write books that nobody reads, and that does not mean that their publicist sent them a copy of their biography to check—and, in fact, she said that she didn’t, and that she had made the mistake about Obama’s place of birth, and that he never told her or wrote that he was born in Kenya

          He then said: “And here is another fact for you. Obama does not know where he was born. Period. He was told. But he has no birth memory. No human does. (and some like you have no memory since either).”

          Answer: That is of course true, but he has seen his Hawaii birth certificate–and that is legal proof that he was born IN HAWAII. He said in his book that he had seen it as a child, and for nuts who think he really was born in Kenya, he showed the short form Hawaii BC in June 2008 (and the short form is now the official birth certificate) and the long form in April 2011, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them both to him and that every single fact on the copy the White House put online is exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

          Moreover, Obama’s birth in Hawaii is further confirmed by (1) the public Index Data file; (2) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (3) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of child to a woman named Stanley; (4) the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “One child, born in Honolulu.”

          So, not only did Obama know that he was born in Hawaii, there is overwhelming proof that indeed he was born in Hawaii.

          And there is NO proof whatever that Obama, who had told newspaper interviewers that he was born in Hawaii, switched and told or wrote to the publicist that he was born in Kenya. His father, Barack Hussein Obama I, WAS born in Kenya, and that is how the publicist made the mistake, but Barack Hussein Obama II, the president, was born IN HAWAII.

        • philjourdan says:

          You logic does not follow. Your puppet master has already declared the blurb was NOT in his book. So you are arguing it is?

          You really need to stop taking whiffs from the glue stick. Your mind is already a mess.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “Rational people will notice that the conclusion “Yes he knew” does not follow from “no ne read the book.””

          That should read: “Rational people will notice that the conclusion “Yes he knew” does not follow from “no one read the book.””

        • philjourdan says:

          No need to correct. We already knew you were illiterate.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”

          Rational people will notice that whether people read the book or did not has nothing whatever to do with whether Obama wrote the bio blurb or told the publicist that he was born in Kenya—and she says that she wrote it entirely by herself, and made the mistake all by herself (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya—which is where the mistake came from)—and she says that she did not check it with Obama and did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.

          Moreover, since Obama had told newspapers before the bio that he was born in Hawaii, it is farfetched to think that he changed from that and told the publicist or wrote that he was born in Kenya. (And the first of his published books says that he was born in Hawaii—as he was.)

          The publicist did not lie when she said that she made a mistake. She really made it And Obama did not tell her that he was born in Kenya—and he wasn’t born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          Here’s a clue for the sloooow witted. I have not argued WHO wrote the stupid thing. I do not care. I have shown that only a MORON would think Obama was not aware of it.

          You have shown nothing to deny that fact. Indeed, your puppet master has “proven” that he did know about it. When he tried to prove that Obama did not write it. If he was famous enough to have people bidding to write it, then I am sure people read it. Which means Obama was told. And did nothing.

          And yes, I do believe you think that Obama was unaware of it. You have already proven the first part of that statement.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”

          Answer: “You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published. And, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.”

          The publicist has said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct it and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it. And Obama had told newspapers before the bio was written that he was born in Hawaii, so the notion that he switched his story and claimed that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was an easy mistake for her to make, since Obama’s father—-Barack Hussein Obama I—really was born in Kenya. The author and president—Barack Hussein Obama II—was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of it by the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the INS inspector’s note: “One child, born in Honolulu”, and the teacher who wrote home all show.

        • philjourdan says:

          Hellooo to the brick skull! As soon as you figure out the point, we can get back to showing the difference between you and an idiot. Right now, you have not gotten up to that level.

          Hint: It is not about your OPINION. PERIOD.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said once again: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”

          The answer, again is: “You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published—so it was never read. Also, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.”

          The publicist has said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct it and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it. And Obama had told newspapers before the bio was written that he was born in Hawaii, so the notion that he switched his story and claimed that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was an easy mistake for her to make, since Obama’s father—-Barack Hussein Obama I—really was born in Kenya. The author and president—Barack Hussein Obama II—was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of it by the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the INS inspector’s note: “One child, born in Honolulu”, and the teacher who wrote home all show.

        • philjourdan says:

          Hey morondude, can you pay attention? Your puppet is repeating himself.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan repeated this comment: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”

          The answer that, once again: “You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published—so it was never read. Also, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.”

          The publicist has said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct it and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it. And Obama had told newspapers before the bio was written that he was born in Hawaii, so the notion that he switched his story and claimed that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was an easy mistake for her to make, since Obama’s father—-Barack Hussein Obama I—really was born in Kenya. The author and president—Barack Hussein Obama II—was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of it by the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the INS inspector’s note: “One child, born in Honolulu”, and the teacher who wrote home all show.

        • philjourdan says:

          Calling the puppet master – your puppet is broken. Keeps repeating herself.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “No one is buying your contortion of the facts.”

          The facts are that the publicist for the literary agent admitted to making a mistake (and it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.”

          Here is what she said: ” Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

          “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

          YOU claim that the above is a lie, but YOU have not shown a single fact that confirms your allegation.

        • philjourdan says:

          Quoting yourself now. Well, who should we believe, a proven liar that has presented no evidence of a preposterous claim?

          or the facts.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said once again: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”

          You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published. And, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online. The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him for corrections and that she did not tell him when it was put online—so he could not see it in order to fix it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non sequitur – Puppet master, your puppet is still broken.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said once more: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”

          You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published, so no one could read it.

          Moreover, as said before, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm.

          So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online. The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him for corrections and that she did not tell him when it was put online—so he could not see it in order to fix it.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan says: “Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity. But my comment was NOT about Obama seeing it. It was about ANYONE seeing it.”

          I never claimed that YOU are sentient, did I?

          You’re trying to convince rational people that the publicist lied about making an easy to make mistake after Obama had told newspapers that he was born in Hawaii.

          So, his bio was online for 17 years and he did not fix it. If he wasn’t told that it was online, he couldn’t fix it.

          As for your rant about “anyone seeing it.” You’ll have to take that up with Historian Dude. I never said that nobody saw it—and frankly I don’t care. We do know that it was online at a small literary agent firm—hardly a massively popular site. If some people saw it and did not call up Obama and tell him to fix it, that is natural. In any case, unless HE saw it, he could not fix it. What evidence do you have that he saw it?

          YOU are claiming that a woman whom you do not even know lied about making a easy to make mistake, and then you add to it your statement “Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity. ” Well, it is perfectly likely, and your claiming that it is “beyond credulity” doesn’t change that one bit.

        • philjourdan says:

          Everything you claim is a lie, so thank you.

          Again, evidence turnip. Evidence. You have none. Nor brains, but that is beside the point.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The article (for the 10th time) is about WHO started the birther movement.”

          Okay, if that is all that you are concerned with, the publicist who made the mistake was apparently the first to say that Obama was born in Kenya. Her written bio blurb was apparently the first mention of Obama being born in Kenya. If that is all that you care about, the first mention, that that is it.

          But you CLAIM that she is lying when she said that she made a mistake. THAT is not a fact, and YOU have no facts at all to show that she was lying when she said she made a mistake. So the facts are that the first mention of Obama having been born in Kenya was a mistake—big deal.

          Of course, birthers did continue and expand the myth with their own lies, but you are not interested in hearing about that (I wonder why not?)

          However, you continue to insist without any facts whatever to back you up, that the publicist was lying when she said that she made a MISTAKE. You insist that Obama must have told her, despite her saying that he didn’t and despite Obama having told newspapers before in interviews before that that he was born IN HAWAII. That makes the notion that he suddenly switched from that statement to the lie that he was born in Kenya farfetched—-to say the least.

        • philjourdan says:

          Still refusing to drink the water, right turnip?

          Again, no one cares about your stupid revelations – a week after everyone else got it!

          You probably sucked the collective IQ out of your entire school with your stupidity.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Your puppet master has already declared the blurb was NOT in his book. So you are arguing it is?”

          (1) the blurb was not in Obama’s book, that is true; (2) the statement that Obama was born in Hawaii (in Kapiolani Hospital) IS in Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father.

          So Obama told newspapers before and wrote after that he was born in HAWAII, and the notion that suddenly in between those sets of Hawaii statements he had suddenly switched to “I was born in Kenya” has no evidence for it whatever—and is, to put it mildly, farfetched.

        • philjourdan says:

          So your puppet master returned and told you to stop contradicting him, eh, turnip?

          Again, non sequitur. And that was after you “claimed” you understood the issue! Another lie from the turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity.”

          Answer. I never said that you were sentient.

          The fact is that the publicist who wrote the bio blurb never told him that it was put online, so he had no way of knowing that it was. SHE admitted to making the mistake and said that he did not tell her that he was born in Kenya. And, since he had told the newspapers in two separate interviews before the bio blurb that he was born IN HAWAII, and since he wrote in his first published book, Dreams from My Father, that he was born in Kaipolani Hospital in HAWAII, it is farfetched (to say the least) that between the those statements he suddenly changed his story and claimed falsely to be born in Kenya.

          So, she really made the mistake that she admitted to. And since Obama was never told that it was put online, he could not fix it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Turnip – ever seen the word ANY? Guess not.

          So until you can read, your responses are (as your puppet master says) gibberish.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Quoting yourself now.”

          Actually, the quotation comes from Miriam Goderich, not from me. If you’d like confirmation that she said it and I didn’t, here is the site:

          http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/17/breitbart-com-1991-booklet-by-obamas-literary-agent-listed-his-birthplace-as-kenya/

        • philjourdan says:

          You are miriam turnip. That is the only way you can know you do not know me (actually not even then, as you forgot when we did meet).

          Another turnip lie.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Turnip – ever seen the word ANY?”

          Apparently philjourdan thinks that because he used the word “ANY” we should regard his lunacy as sanity.

          Obama said in newspaper interviews in 1990 that he was born in HAWAII. And he wrote in his book in 1995 that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.

          Yet philjourdan wants us to believe that Obama switched from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii in 1995.”

          And he wants us to believe that it is sane to believe that when a publicist admitted to making a mistake about the 1991 “born in Kenya story”. she was not lying.

          Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was born IN KENYA. Yet philjourdan insists that the publicist was lying about making a mistake and that Obama switched from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya.”

          Oh, and the vegetable that poor mixed up philjourdan comes closest to is Brussels Sprouts.

        • philjourdan says:

          The insanity is yours. You keep repeating your stupid lies, which you do not believe to be lies because you hate stupid lies, or you hate yourself (or all of the above), and expect us to believe any of it WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Period.

          The NY TIMES SAID in 1990 that Obama was born in HI. Obama did not say it ACCORDING to your source turnip.

          Nor have you presented any evidence he said it in 1995. Nor have you presented any evidence he was NOT AWARE of the Bio – that everyone wanted to write, but no one read – for 17 years.

          Again, turnip, you are doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. And yes, that is insanity.

          Still no evidence from you. But more lies.

          Learn what a quote is turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The NY TIMES SAID in 1990 that Obama was born in HI. Obama did not say it ACCORDING to your source turnip.”

          Answer: The New York Times got that fact from interviewing Obama, Brussels sprout.

        • philjourdan says:

          No paul turnip. That is your assumption. The article does not say that. So you have provided NO EVIDENCE turnip.

          And I guess since we know who you are now, turnip is a very appropriate name for you. That is what dementia turns you into.

      • Latitude says:

        Answer. No, for 17 years Obama did not know that the mistaken bio had ever been written, so he could not fix it. That’s all.
        ======
        ROTFL….so you are saying our president is a total loser

        • No. He is saying that out President is no omniscient.

        • philjourdan says:

          neither are you as that abortion of a statement proves.

        • Latitude says:

          …in 17 years he didn’t read his own bio? not even at a book signing, a cocktail party, in conversation over breakfast?…..he has no friends that told him?

          …the dog didn’t even notice

          He’s so out of it, and such a loser, he doesn’t even have friends………..

        • Latitude says:

          He paid a publisher to promote his book…and never contacted her again??
          She never sent him any proof of what she was doing to earn her money?
          …and none of his students, Moochelle, Ayers, his grandparents, his friends, other teachers at the university, and on and on……never saw it either?

          This is the total loser we elected to run this entire country?

        • For 17 years he did not know the bio even existed.

          He could not have noticed at a book signing, since the that bio was not included in his book. And I’m not sure what kind of cocktail parties you go to, but I’ve never been to one where a person surfs the web Googling themselves. As to “no friends” who told him, why would you imagine any of his friends would know about it either?

          No. He paid no publisher to promote his book. A publisher paid HIM to publish his book. Acton & Dystel was not a publisher. Already we are discovering why you believe such goofy things. You are completely ignorant as to the salient details.

          The bio in question was never used to promote Obama or his book. It was used to promote Acton & Dystel. Why would they send a “proof” of their own marketing collateral to their hundreds of authors? That would be… well… stupid.

          As to none of his students or friend noticing it, it’s worth pointing out that nobody else noticed either. Not any of his political opponents and their opposition research teams. Four years of birther frothing and none of them ever noticed it. It was on the web for years (not 17 years, but still, a long time) before a single person ever noticed.

          See how that works?

        • philjourdan says:

          All you have to do is prove that for 17 years he did not know it existed. That is all – just one simple thing. Prove it.

          But you cannot. You were TOLD that was the line. You have no evidence to back up your lies. So you repeat them as if they were facts, when the evidence contradicts you.

          And that is why you are a moron. You expect others to be as stupid as you are.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Or too spaced out on Choom…..

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said:

          “All you have to do is prove that for 17 years he did not know it existed. That is all – just one simple thing. Prove it.”

          Actually, the burden of proof is on you, and since the bio was online at a small and obscure site, what makes you think that he looked for it? Since he did not know that there was a bio blurb—why should he look for it, and the publicist said that SHE MADE THE MISTAKE.

          Now it is up to YOU to prove that sometime in the 17 years Obama looked at the bio blurb and failed to correct it.

          Until then the statement by the publicist that she made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not send it to him to check and that she did not tell him that it was online so that he could not fix it, stands. Oh, and it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya. Oh, and since Obama had told newspapers that he was born in Hawaii before the bio blurb was written, it is hardly likely that he suddenly switched and told the publicist or wrote that he was born in Kenya, and he wasn’t.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, no. You made the claim. Now you prove it. Next time, do not make a claim you cannot back up. I have evidence he knew it.

          You have no evidence he did not. I win.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: ” I have evidence he knew it.”

          Answer: There is NO evidence he knew it.

        • philjourdan says:

          YES – go look up the definition of evidence. You do not know how, nor how to read it. But I tire of your lack of any mental capacity.

          There is a LOT of evidence. You have presented NONE. Your whole defense is to say “no it is not”. Tell it to the jury. before they convict you.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “You have presented NONE. Your whole defense is to say “no it is not”. Tell it to the jury. before they convict you.”

          The evidence is that (1) the publicist admitted in writing that she made a mistake (2) YOU have no evidence that she lied in her statement that she made a mistake; (3) Obama said in interviews in 1991 and in his book in 1995 that he was born IN HAWAII (and there is no evidence, nor is it likely, that he changed from what he said in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” and then back again in 1995 to “I was born in Hawaii”); (4) Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was indeed born in Kenya—so it was an easy mistake to make.

          I have evidence that the publicist made a MISTAKE. YOU have no evidence whatever that Obama said or wrote that he was born in Kenya in 1991.

        • philjourdan says:

          You have no evidence she ever said that turnip!

          And the evidence she lied? If she did make the mistake, she lied. If she did not make the mistake and said she did, she lied.

          Either way you lied turnip.

          Again EVIDENCE turnip, EVIDENCE.

      • au1corsair says:

        Barack Obama didn’t read the jacket of his own books–just like when he attended Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright’s church services for 20 years and never heard a single anti-American, anti-“them Jews,” race-baiting comment? Never?

        If I had a biography, I’d be sending out autographed copies. And how many of the autographed editions had the wrong “birthplace” in the thumbnail bio?

        http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Autographed+Barack+Obama+Dreams+From+My+Father+Signed+Book+President+Signature

        Of course, it could simply be an “authorized signature” and not the real Barack Obama signature. Walt Disney quit signing his own autographs–had a battery of artists do that for him: http://www.phil-sears.com/art_of_animation_signed_by_walt_disney.htm

        So it is indeed possible that Barack Obama was too damned important and so damned busy that he never talked to a publisher or WROTE his own books or saw the finished product. Never. Never! NEVER! And let’s put that “Bill Ayers wrote Barack’s autobiography” to rest:
        http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/112613-680812-bill-ayers-claims-authorship-of-obama-dreams-memoir.htm

        Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? Cheap? Apply at the White House blog.

        Not conclusive proof of lies, damned lies and statistics, but suggestive!

        • 1) This bio was never on the jacket of any of his books.

          2) Therefore, zero copies “of the autographed editions had the wrong “birthplace” in the thumbnail bio.”

          Thanks for playing. Try again.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Moreover, the bio was written for a book that was never published.

          The publisher turned down Obama’s first book “Journeys in Black and White.”

          So not only was the bio blurb not on the cover of the book, but Obama had no reason whatever to know that there was even a bio blurb written about him. Some years later they put it online but they did not tell him that they did—–so, of course, how could he fix it if he did not even know that it was written?

        • Nobody makes up a stranger’s bio. The concept is ludicrous, at best

        • philjourdan says:

          Ehhhh, I am not too sure. Ayers claims he made up Obama’s. And Obama seems to be stupid enough to have allowed him.

        • smrstrauss says:

          stevengoddard said: “Nobody makes up a stranger’s bio. The concept is ludicrous, at best.”

          I agree, nobody just makes up a bio. But the publicist didn’t. She had the text of the unpublished book to work from. (At the time they were probably still thinking of publishing it.) So, she had the text of an autobiography before her when she wrote.

          And that autobiography mentioned Obama’s father, whose name was—-wait for it—Barack Hussein Obama. Well, Barack Hussein Obama was indeed born in Kenya. That was Obama’s father. So the publicist thought that was Barack Hussein Obama II, the author of that book. Well, she was wrong. She made a mistake. But she did not, as you dream, “make up” Obama’s biography.

          She got Barack Hussein Obama mixed up with Barack Hussein Obama II—a mistake.

          SHE has admitted to making that stupid mistake. YOU claim that she is lying and that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya despite his second book (the first published) saying in it that he was born in HAWAII and despite previous newspaper interviews in which he said that he was born in HAWAII.

          YOUR motive, apparently, is to throw dirt on the president. Well, you can find other and more obvious things to do that about. For Obama to have lied and told the publicist he was born in Kenya requires TWO lies, his at the time, and hers recently, and the only motive would be to sell more books but at the time Obama did not even know that the publisher would accept the book (and the publisher didn’t). Then when Obama’s first published book “Dreams from My Father” went on sale in 1995, it said in it that he was born in HAWAII—and it sold well despite stating that FACT.

          The publicist got the mistake from the unpublished manuscript which said that Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama (NOT Barack Hussein Obama II), was born in Kenya.

        • Amazing how the leading newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria made the same mistake, and that no one saw fit to correct it for 17 years, until immediately after he announced his candidacy.


          http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm


          http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/4112008/news/news1.html

          Just a lot of confused people out there, I guess.

        • philjourdan says:

          But the OFA(l) idiots do not use facts! They deny facts! So it does not matter to them how many facts you present, their worthless opinion trumps facts!

          At least in their own mind. But you have to wonder why the fact that Obama knew about and promoted the truth/myth for 17 years makes a difference now. 200 comments by the idiot twins, and not one fact between them.

        • philjourdan says:

          smrstrauss -blah, blah, blah (incessantly) And nowhere in that rambling opinion (since you have yet to post a fact) do you explain how Obama mamaged to run into the kenya knife for 17 years!

          Steven has presented evidence. So far, all you and your sock puppet have done is post your opinion.

        • Shazaam says:

          I wonder what press release was submitted to those newspapers? (complete with campaign photo)

          Oh wait! I know!

          They “made a mistake” and confused Kenya with Hawaii. Happens all the time.

          Nothing to see here. Move along……..

          The smoking gun is locating the US papers (maybe small Illinois papers) that published from the same press release…..

          Then there are those college records that are locked-up tighter than Ft. Knox’s gold vault. At this point, no one would be surprised by poor academic performance. What I want to know is if the liar-in-chief attended college as a foreign exchange student…..

        • The bio wasn’t made up. It simply had a garbled detail.

        • philjourdan says:

          😆 Newspeak. There are no lies, just garbled speak.

          Keep digging boy, you will hit china one of these days.

        • @stevengoddard

          What’s so amazing about it? Both papers printed retractions the nest day.

        • philjourdan says:

          “the nest day”??? Learn English moron. And if they did, you should be able to post the links to them, correct?

          Enough of your lying. Refutation is done through documentation, not some child’s ignorant opinion. We are tired of yours.

        • @Shazaam

          Ignoring that the whole “attended college as a foreign exchange student” story was started as an April’s Fool joke four years ago, what advantage do you hallucinate Obama would have gained as a “foreign exchange student (sic)”? The reason US universities love foreign students is because they almost always pay full price instead of resident tuition.

          As usual, there seems to be a hole in your theory.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re Kenyan and Nigerian newspapers.

          Are you now turning to the nutty idea that because those newspapers said that Obama was born in Kenya, he was born in Kenya?

          If so, admit it, and we’ll discuss how nutty THAT idea is.

          If not, then admit that they made mistakes. (They were not caused by the same error that the publicist made, but they were still MISTAKES.)

          You have a choice, either you claim that the newspapers were correct, in which case we’ll discuss how loony the “born in Kenya story” is—or they were mistakes.

        • philjourdan says:

          Are you now turning to the nutty idea that because those newspapers said that Obama was born in Kenya, he was born in Kenya?

          RTFM – Moron! The article says NOTHING about where he was actually born. It clearly states WHO STARTED the meme! The papers are evidence (and proof) that it was not a VRWC, never was. After Obama started it, his hometowm papers picked it up, then Hillary started shouting it! Before the first VRWC conspirator even thought of it!

          These fanatics are really stupid.

        • Lots of people believed that Obama was born in Kenya, including you in 1991. Most plausible explanation is that he was telling people that,

        • Once again, who does Tiny hallucinate he is responding to in this thread? Does he actually think one of us is Miriam Goderich?

        • You claim to know all of the details of Miriam’s thought process. Where did that information come from?

        • philjourdan says:

          Moron. She already admitted who she was. if you cannot keep up with your sock puppets, at least try to get an education in spelling!

        • smrstrauss says:

          Shazzam said: “What I want to know is if the liar-in-chief attended college as a foreign exchange student…..”

          THAT is very easy to find out. You can do it yourself. It’s SIMPLE to do. All you have to do is to pick up the telephone, call Occidental and Columbia, ask for the PD Department, and ASK.

          They can tell you whether or not Obama was a foreign student (he wasn’t, and the story that he was came FROM AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE), but you should call for yourself and check what I say.

          BTW, they will NOT tell you Obama’s grades. Those are protected by federal and state privacy laws. And the reason that Obama did not show his grades is, wait for it, simply because Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents and presidential candidates did not show their grades either.

        • philjourdan says:

          you can ask, but they will not give you an answer. Not if they do not want to be sued!

          The records are sealed moron.

        • @stevengoddard

          I actually read her statement.

        • philjourdan says:

          Morondude, since when is “thought process” the same as writings?

          Go back to grade school and learn to read.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Stevengoddard said:

          “Lots of people believed that Obama was born in Kenya, including you in 1991.”

          Answer. No I never did.

          However, the question still stands, what do YOU believe now. Do you believe that Obama was born in Kenya, in which case the two African newspapers were not making a mistake. Or do you believe that Obama, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties show, was born in Kenya—in which case the two newspapers were making MISTAKES.

          And, duh, if they are mistakes, what the #@#!)*^%$@+ does it matter that two African newspapers made mistakes?

        • philjourdan says:

          This is rich! So the biographer lies and says it was her mistake (for 17 years) proclaiming Obama to be born in Kenya, yet now claims she never believed it!

          You just can’t make this stuff up! 😆

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: PD department.”

          That should read PR department. My mistake.

          BTW, for convenience, here are the telephone numbers of Occidental and Columbia again:

          Here is the Columbia University main number: ((212) 854-1754 — ask for the PR department.)

          Here is the Occidental main number: (323) 259-2500 — again, ask for the PR department.)

        • Shazaam says:

          @Phil – And if they did, you should be able to post the links to them, correct?

          It is most curious that newspapers in 2 different countries published the same factoid (however correct or incorrect it may be) and yet no one can find a link to their mythical retractions?

          However, the basic point of this posting is that the kenyan birth story had to originate somewhere. And the most likely origination point is Obama himself.

          Given the pressures the liar-in-chief can bring to bear on “Miriam”, and Obama’s complete lack of familiarity of any concept of speaking the truth, I do not find it credible that “the agent did it”.

          I will grant that this could be one of the very few times Obama tells the truth about anything and possibly about who wrote the bio. Yet, with Obama’s “truthiness” track record, I would have to bet that it was indeed Obama who wrote the bio.

          I know the Obama Storyline Team will dispute my opinion. (smrstrauss & historiandude)

          Obama aka the-liar-in-chief has earned his reputation through his own efforts and while I’m sure he would love to throw someone under the bus for that reputation, in the end, he is responsible for his own actions.

        • philjourdan says:

          What Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy fail to realize is that the benefit is not money, but being a ‘first’. Sammy Davis Jr. (a much greater man than the idiot in the Whitehouse) was not only a singer/actor, but the FIRST black American Jew. And even with all his talent, he admitted that part of the reason was for the notoriety!

          So Obama had great reason to lie about where he was born, both 25 years ago, and today. If for no other reason than to feed his ego. Frankly, since at best all he knows is hearsay (he has no birth memory), he knows as much as the rest of us. And Mutt and Jeff are too stupid to understand that.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Obama knew about and promoted the truth/myth for 17 years…”

          That is a lie.

          There is no evidence that Obama knew about the bio blurb, and more importantly he certainly DID NOT promote it because his book “Dreams from My Father” says that he was born IN HAWAII, not in Kenya—so he was not promoting the story that he was born in Kenya.” And, he certainly was not born in Kenya. THAT notion is truly nutty.

          But since you imply that you believe it might be the truth with your “truth/myth”, here goes:

          The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on alleged birth certificates, like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

          Lucas D. Smith claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof.

          Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane. However, only one person came to the USA from Kenya in that year by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen.

          And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

          And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.

          “Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

          “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

          http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged

          Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.

          Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.

        • philjourdan says:

          Prove it is not a lie. You made a statement, now prove it. But you will just whine about having me prove it. As this article attests, the evidence is in. He knew.

          You have no evidence. You do not even have hearsay!

          And for the last time, the issue is NOT about where he was born! So just drop the garbage. No one cares what your opinion is. It is probably stupid and wrong in any event.

          Prove it is a lie.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Obama mamaged to run into the kenya knife for 17 years!”

          Pray tell what “knife” was that?

          An error was online at the web site of a publisher. Nobody knows how many people look at that Web site much less the author bios–but it isn’t likely to be many.

          You’d be shocked to know that there have been errors in books and newspaper articles and government records that have not been corrected for many times 17 years.

        • philjourdan says:

          Guess you never heard the joke. Could be because you are the joke.

          It was in the public realm for 17 years. Only a moron would think that an authorized (it was authorized) bio of a public person would go unnoticed for 17 years. It defies credulity.

          Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to prove he did not know. So far, you have not even produced a statement by Obama saying he did not know. Much less any evidence whatsoever. So again, the question becomes, why would anyone believe a sock puppet opinion when you have been proven to be a liar?

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Steven has presented evidence. So far, all you and your sock puppet have done is post your opinion.”

          What evidence? The mistakes of two African newspapers? The unsupported claim that the publicist must have lied?

          She said: Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

          “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

          And it was an easy mistake to make. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya. Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii.

        • philjourdan says:

          The papers are but 2 pieces of the evidence presented. You can contest the evidence (better go back to grade school and learn to read as there is more), but so far, all you have done is a childish “not so” rant. You have not presented a rebuttal.

          You really suck at debates. Your opinion is worthless.

          Facts. Present them or shut up.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan responded to this QUESTION:

          “Are you now turning to the nutty idea that because those newspapers said that Obama was born in Kenya, he was born in Kenya?”

          by saying:

          “RTFM – Moron! The article says NOTHING about where he was actually born.”

          Answer: Notice that he does not answer the question — I wonder why not?

          Then he says: “The papers are evidence (and proof) that it was not a VRWC, never was..”

          Answer: VRWC stands for “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”

          So to the extent that the newspapers made mistakes the birther myth was not ENTIRELY created by the right wing. The same for the publicist’s MISTAKE. She made the mistaken and she had no right wing motive to make it, so she was not part of the VRWC.

          Of course, to claim that she DID NOT make a mistake and that the president either ws born in Kenya or lied to her and claimed to be born in Kenya when he wasn’t comes entirely from the right wing—and THAT is part of the VRWC.

          The LIE that the publicist did not make a mistake and is lying currently—comes from the right wing, and it has nothing whatever to back it up. In fact, the willingness to claim that a woman that they do not even know is a LIAR simply because she states that she made a human mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya) is typical of the VRWC.

          BUT the lie about the publicist’s MISTAKE is only part of the VRWC. Here are some other lies:

          More examples of classic birther lies:

          (1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)

          (2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.

          (3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?

          (4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?

          (5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?

          (6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?

          (7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)

          (8) Birther sites said that Obama spent “millions” on hiding his birth certificate. But Obama showed his birth certificate and did not spend a cent on hiding anything. And in fact, as birther sites did not tell their readers, there wasn’t even one lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate or for records, not one. There were lawsuits to keep Obama off of ballots, but NO lawsuits for his birth certificate or records of any kind. Why do you suppose that birther sites implied that there were lawsuits for Obama’s BC—when there weren’t ANY???

          (9) Birther sites said that Obama’s records are “sealed,” but they are not sealed. They are covered under the ordinary state and federal privacy laws, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not release similar records either.

          (10) The claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport is also a LIE. As the facts show above, Obama never had an Indonesian passport. Moreover, he did not need an Indonesian passport or any other passport than an ordinary US passport because, it is a LIE that Pakistan was on some kind of a no-travel list when Obama went there or that Pakistan kept US tourists from visiting. NEITHER are true. When Obam went to Pakistan, the country was relatively peaceful, and it encouraged tourists to vist, and so did the US government because at the time Pakistan was a US ALLY (Remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War?”) So, it is LIE that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He never had an Indonesian passport, and he didn’t need one.

          And (11) the constant repetition ‘the birth certificates are forged,” and “anyone can see that the birth certificates are forged”—are all birther lies too. And they have the same motives as the lies shown above.

          Birthers have not shown all the real experts who have said that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, nor have they told the readers on birther sites that the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the birth certificates to Obama and confirmed ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent to him. And they have not explained the research on the Xerox Workstation either:

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

          In short, it is just another birther LIE.

          So, yes, there is a VRWC in addition to the mistakes made by the newspapers and the publicist. The mistake made by the publicist and the mistakes in the newspapers all had something to do with the “born in Kenya” story, but the LIES shown above had a great deal to do with it TOO.

          Oh, once again, philjourdan did not respond to the question about whether HE believes the “born in Kenya” story. (I wonder why not???)

        • philjourdan says:

          RTFM Moron. I have never stated where he was born. I have never stated where I think he was born. This article does not state where he was born. The article does not state where the author thinks he was born.

          In short, your question is both nonsensical and non sequitur. And TOTALLY irrelevant! I can just as easily ask you “when did you stop beating your wife”, and then crow about your refusal to answer it.

          Your master really needs to pay attention to the strings he is pulling as some of yours are broken. Moron.

          RTFM – do you know what that means?

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The records are sealed moron.”

          NO, they are not “sealed.” They are protected against disclosure by the normal state and federal privacy law. That is all. The same state and federal privacy laws prevent the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s records and John McCain’s records, and my records and your records—none of them are “sealed.”

        • philjourdan says:

          They are SEALED as Obama has SEALED them. Do not try to quiver about semantics when you have no clue what you are talking about. It does not matter HOW they were (I did not say), the only relevant fact is they ARE. turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Moron. She already admitted who she was.”

          Answer: This is what she actually said:

          “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

          You claim that the above statement is a lie, but you have not proof. Moreover, the mistake she admits to is an easy mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually I do – it is called human nature as defined in the AJP. For the turnip he might want to check it out.

          For the rest of us, we understand, – once a liar, always a liar.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said:

          “you can ask, but they will not give you an answer. Not if they do not want to be sued!

          The records are sealed moron.”

          Answer: Yes, anyone can ask about anyone’s grades, obviously. But, the state and federal privacy laws prevent schools and colleges from disclosing that information. Those are the normal privacy laws—not something being “sealed.”

        • philjourdan says:

          NOT IF THE PERSON WHOSE RECORDS THEY ARE AUTHORIZES IT – turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: ” Frankly, since at best all he knows is hearsay (he has no birth memory), ”

          Answer: Like many of us, Obama had the chance to see his birth certificate, and it says on it that he was born in Hawaii. Moreover, Obama has repeatedly said that he was born in Hawaii. He told the newspapers he was born in Hawaii before the bio blurb was written, and he wrote that he was born in Hawaii in his book Dreams from My Father which was after the bio blurb was written, and the notion that he suddenly switched between the two sets of “I was born in Hawaii” statements that are documented to telling a publicity writer “I was born in Kenya”—is farfetched, to say the least. ESPECIALLY when she has admitted to making a MISTAKE.

        • philjourdan says:

          Since the original has NEVER been released, there is NO EVIDENCE he ever saw the original. Your assumptions just demonstrate again that you have no clue on what EVIDENCE is.

          And since you are not the a$$hole in Chief, you CANNOT speak for what he has done or not done, seen or not seen. I have more evidence that he has never seen it. He has no memory of his birth. So again, all he has is hearsay.

          And you have nothing, turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdain said:

          “This is rich! So the biographer lies and says it was her mistake (for 17 years) proclaiming Obama to be born in Kenya, yet now claims she never believed it!”

          Pray tell who told you that she now claims that she never believed it? I suspect some people believed once that the sun revolves around the earth. When they realize that it was the other way around, they stop believing it.

          The writers saw in the unpublished book that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and naturally she believed that that was the president. THAT was wrong; it was his father, Barack Hussein Obama I, not the writer of the book and the current president. She made a mistake, she admitted it. She said that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not send him a copy of what she wrote to check, and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it.

          In any case, she never said that she did not believe what she mistakenly wrote—so who told you that she now claims that she never believed it????

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry turnip, did you want someone to read you a bed time story? That is the only way you could be asking such a stupid question.

          facts turnip, facts. Get some.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “It was in the public realm for 17 years. Only a moron would think that an authorized (it was authorized) bio of a public person would go unnoticed for 17 years. It defies credulity.”

          It was on the site of a minor literary agency, hardly a giant Web site, and since Obama did not know that it was put online and since the book involved was not even published, he had no reason to go to that Web site to check.

          The publicist admitted to making a mistake about Obama’s place of birth and not getting the information from Obama and not telling him when she put it online so that he could not fix it.

          Moreover, Obama had said in interviews in 1990 that HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII, and he said in his book, Dreams from My Father in 1995 that HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. It defies credulity that he switched from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and back to “I was born in Hawaii” in 1995.

          Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he really was born in Kenya. Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices in the 1961 newspapers all show), and there is no evidence that he switched from saying “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991.

          The literary agent admitted to making the error, and she is not lying.

        • Your argument is based on Obama being consistent, which he isn’t.

          Duplicity, dishonesty and doublespeak is Obama’s MO. In his book, he said that he has difficulty remembering what actually happened in his past.

        • philjourdan says:

          Unless he reads it in the paper! But the problem is the times reported he was born in HI before he wrote he was born in Kenya, so he could not have known it! He would not have known to read the paper a year later!

        • philjourdan says:

          Still with the stupid opinion.

          I said it was on the PUBLIC record for 17 years. You try to opine that it was hidden, yet you cannot even bring yourself to state that big of a lie!

          Again, it was a sought after bio that you (miriam) won, and wrote then no one read for 17 years. That is your lie. And what evidence have you presented?

          None. The evidence presented shows that the AUTHORIZED Bio of OBAMA said for 17 years that he was born in Kenya, and neither Obama nor you (miriam) ever DENIED IT until it became a political liability instead of a political asset.

          Those are the facts. Try learning the different turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Since the original has NEVER been released, there is NO EVIDENCE he ever saw the original.”

          No, he never saw the original. He saw the official copy sent to his parents. What is wrong with that/

          You said that Obama (like all of us) has no birth memory that shows where he was born, and that most of us rely on our parents to tell us where we are born. There is nothing wrong with that at all, but you claimed that because Obama (like all of us) did not have a birth memory, he should not have said in interviews or wrote in his book that he was born IN HAWAII.

          Well, the fact is that in addition to what he was told, Obama saw the birth certificate sent to his parents.

          Not the original—which is never taken out of the files—but the official COPY. And that is sufficient.

          philjourdan then says that: “In any case, she never said that she did not believe what she mistakenly wrote—so who told you that she now claims that she never believed it?” is, he feels, a stupid question.

          Answer: You notice that he has not answered it. The publicist NEVER said that she did not believe what she mistakenly wrote (she believed it when she wrote it, not now), so it was philjourdan who made up the story that “She now claims that she never believed it.”

          She never said any such thing. (What philjourdan has done is a lot like birthers making up the story that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when her actual words were that Obama was born in HAWAII “where his father was studying at the time.”)

        • philjourdan says:

          I love this. Turnip wants us to believe he does not work for Obama, but that he KNOWS what Obama’s parents did or did not do! And he wants us to believe his lies based upon what? His word. Which has been shown to be worthless.

          First he claims Obama had produced the official BC. Now he is backtracking and saying just the “official copy” of the official BC. And how does he know? magic! He was there! But he has never met Obama (according to herself) does not work for him and is not getting talking points from OFA(l).

          Which makes her braindead since no one is stupid enough to buy that malarkey and contradictions he keeps spewing without a SINGLE piece of evidence to support his fanciful stories.

          There is a reason turnips are vegetables. They have no capacity for rational thought. And each posts merely demonstrates that.

          You really are getting desperate. At least now people can see your lies more plainly as you expose them every time you try to embellish them. You turnip are the only one here that stupid.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “First he claims Obama had produced the official BC. Now he is backtracking and saying just the “official copy” of the official BC.”

          Answer: The official copy (the one on security paper with the official seal attached) IS the official birth certificate. IT is the one that the US State Department uses to determine whether a person was born in the USA or not, and it is the one accepted by courts. Neither of them require states to take the original birth certificates out of files.

        • philjourdan says:

          No it is not. As I WORKED for a Vital Statistics agency, I know what the “official” anything is, and none of what Obama has produced is official. Forgeries cannot be official turnip!

          But congratulations! You have convinced me. With so much to hide, I now know that Obama is NOT a legitimate citizen. He is a fraud. just as you are turnip. And only you turnip could have convinced me that he was illegitimate.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: ” Claiming you knew nothing about the promotion of your own career is not plausible. That does not make it impossible, just not plausible.”

        It is not the slightest bit plausible that the publicist was lying when she admitted to making an easy mistake—mixing up Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, who was born in Kenya, with the son, Barack Hussein Obama II, who was born in Hawaii.

        What is not plausible at all is that Obama, who had given previous interviews that said that he was born in Hawaii, would switch and tell a publicist that he was born in Kenya. That is not plausible at all, not in the slightest.

        She admitted to making the mistake and not to sending a copy of what she wrote to Obama to check and not telling him when he put it online, so that he could not fix it. And since he never saw it, no matter how much he wanted to promote his own career, he could not fix it.

        • philjourdan says:

          here you go moron – http://www.dictionary.com

          Look up the definition. It is not plausible. Even if you did not lie when you said it was “your mistake”, the simple fact that for it to be around for 17 years and Obama to NOT know about it is not plausible. Except if he was living under a rock (which is why it is not impossible). Since his whereabouts during those 17 years have been fairly well documented, we can safely assume a rock was not his address.

          Idiot.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan has posted a link to an online dictionary.

          Answer: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake?s=t

          He goes on to say that since the mistake was online for 17 years Obama must have known about it. But he provides no proof of that, and since Obama did not know that it was ever put online it is hardly likely.

          Yet he wants us to believe that a woman whom he doesn’t even know was lying when she says that she made a MISTAKE (and it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).

        • philjourdan says:

          I never said “proof” turnip. I said EVIDENCE.

          Something you have YET to provide. RIF – You apparently cannot.

      • tom0mason says:

        “The writer of the “born in Kenya” bio has admitted to making the mistake all by herself, ”
        is immatterial to the FACT that Obama allowed his paid for agent to lie. It was Obama’s responsibility to ensure that what is said about him by a paid agent is true, IT IS OBAMA’S RESPONSIBILITY nobody else. No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMA’s responsibility.
        Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED. And lied again!
        Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
        Obama’s wrong and a failure.

    • slcraignbc says:

      No, the ORIGINAL BIRTHER’s was John Jay and then the delegates of the Constitutional Convention and then each of the Ratifying States and then the 1st, 3rd and 5th Congresses ……….. then “ambiguity” started to get a foot-hold and distortions in the ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of (U.S.) Citizenship) of naturalization began distorting the effects of the LAW of the COTUS.

      I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government……….. and although I sometimes feel alone in that belief, I can not help but to rely on the Hand of divine Providence to open the eyes of my fellow countrymen………..

      • smrstrauss says:

        slcraignbc said “I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government..”

        Me too. He was advising the writers of the Constitution not to allow NATURALIZED citizens to become president. But that is all.

        John Jay was an EXPERT in the common law, so he was using the COMMON LAW meaning of Natural Born, which refers to the place of birth. He was saying that only children born on US soil should become president, and not naturalized citizens (none of whom are born on US soil, you know).

        And there isn’t a particle of evidence that John Jay, an expert in the common law, was using Natural Born any differently than in the common law. And—guess what—there isn’t a single quotation from one single member of the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just Natural Born) to refer to the citizenship of the parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.

        Hence the Heritage Foundation book is correct.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        And so are Senators Hatch and Graham:

        “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

        “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

        And so is the Wall Street Journal:

        “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

        And so is the Wong Kim Ark ruling of the US Supreme Court (six justices to two justices, one did not vote), and so are the 13 legal decisions I cited above. Obama, having been born on US soil, in Hawaii (and the proof of that is overwhelming) is a Natural Born Citizen, and so are Rubio and Jindal.

        Cruz MAY be, but since he was born in Canada, maybe not. But EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders (yes, even including the children of illegal aliens) is a Natural Born Citizen.

  2. Joseph says:

    And yet, since you’re pointing out that his agents listed him as born in Kenya you are somehow the “birther” in this situation. Interesting how that works, isn’t it?

    • If I mention that Darwin saw climate change as a key driver of evolution, that makes me a Young Earth Creationist.

      • I’ve read that 8 times. It makes about as much sense as a nursery rhyme.

        • Sorry for the verbosity here, but this kind of question does interest me.

          Steven is drawing an analogy between two arguments that both question his competence, on different matters. The analogy is not 100% apt, but its meaning is simple and pretty clear. He is characterizing the logic of some of his critics as being like the following:

          “1. You admit knowing that Darwin saw climate change as a key driver of evolution.
          “2. You, being a troglodyte denier, do not believe that the Earth’s climate is changing.
          “3. Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you do not believe in evolution.
          “4. Based on 3, you believe Heaven and Earth were created from nothing in six days.”

          Steven’s point, apparently, is that premise 2 and conclusion 3 are both false and logically invalid, and conclusion 3 in particular does not follow from the given premises 1 and 2.

          In a similar (though not the same) way, it is invalid for commenter Smrstrauss, having allegedly authored the ‘born in Kenya’ line, to attack critics as opportunistic “birthers”. (E.g., the statement “[According to birther theory [. . . .] “)

          Witness the following, which is an approximation of the argument presented on this page by Smrstrauss:

          1. You admit knowing that Miriam wrote A.
          2. You believe A to be true, even though Miriam subsequently wrote Not-A and explained that she made A up for the naked purpose of personal advancement.
          3. Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you disagree with Miriam about A simply because you are a naked opportunist who doesn’t care about evidence or logical foundation, and because you believe that to agree with Miriam would hinder your objective of harming Obama.

          So, the two arguments are not 100% congruent, but there is some congruence between them … specifically, in many of the critics’ (implicit) stance that:

          1. Our beliefs are obviously true.
          2. You disagree with us about one or more of our beliefs.
          3. Therefore, based on 2 and 1, your beliefs are based entirely on mental defect, and not at all on the degree of validity of your arguments and evidence, since there is no validity to your arguments or evidence.

          RTF

        • Argumentum petitio principii — begging the question. RTF

        • smrstrauss says:

          Richard T. Fowler said that my argument about the “born in Kenya” story goes along these lines: “Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you disagree with Miriam about A simply because you are a naked opportunist who doesn’t care about evidence or logical foundation, and because you believe that to agree with Miriam would hinder your objective of harming Obama.”

          Mr. Fowler. I NEVER said anything like “objective of harming Obama.” To be sure, many birthers have that motive, as shown by their many lies (want some examples? They even said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when the transcript of the call shows that she said he was born in HAWAII—-and they simply cut off the tape recordings on their sites just before she said: “IN Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Now, what could have been the motive for doing that??”

          Nevertheless I never used motive in crushing the born in Kenya story. Only facts and logic.

          Here are the facts:

          Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for the year that included August 1961 when Obama was born:

          http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/n4/mode/1up

          Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals.

          On page 77, the same report shows the number of people who WENT to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and that shows that only 63 did (of whom 60 were Americans), and that of the 63 not a single person, not one, went by air. They ALL went by ship.

          So, according to birther theory, Obama’s mother, in the last two months of pregnancy at the age of 18 (she had to be in the last two months of pregnancy because of the college schedule), was among the 60 Americans who went to Kenya by SHIP in fiscal 1961 and one of the seven Americans who came to the USA from Kenya in fiscal 1961, and again she traveled by SHIP (since no Americans came to the USA from Kenya by air).

          There were, by the way, no normally scheduled direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961—making an alleged trip by Obama’s mother and Obama highly unlikely—-to say the very least.

          AND: (1) the government of Kenya has said that Obama was not born in Kenya; and (2) the government of Hawaii, the birth certificate plus the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties, plus the Index Data file plus the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii) all show that Obama was born in HAWAII.

          There it is, no attack on motives, no name calling. Just the facts.

        • philjourdan says:

          let’s see if I got this right.

          You come in misreading the post. You erect strawmen, throw around ad hominems, and completely miss the point. You then defend statements not made, create strawmen of other’s arguments, then issue more ad hominems.

          IN short, you still have no clue, do not know what you are talking about, could not figure your way out of a simple logic statement, and then petulantly insult everyone who has challenged your OPINION with documented FACTS.

          Really morondude, you could at least get a better distaff sock puppet. This one is just as dumb as you are.

        • Yes, I think the “motive” angle was strongly suggested rather than explicitly stated. Certainly both Steven and I took the same suggestion from your words, without having communicated with each other about it.

          Can I just say, I was very disappointed with how the grandmother’s recorded testimony was used and mischaracterized by plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. I found that disgraceful and baffling.

          However, I am, shall we say, not entirely impressed by some of your apparent tactics on this page, either. I think the bottom line is, if it’s as open-and-shut as you indicate, then your opponents’ efforts go nowhere, and there’s no need to get so worked up over it. You could just make your case once, instead of ad infinitum and ad nauseam as you are now doing with me), and leave it at that. Why such the intense interest in what we all believe?

          RTF

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “it’s as open-and-shut as you indicate, then your opponents’ efforts go nowhere, and there’s no need to get so worked up over it…”

          That is precisely why I’m worked up about it. Because it is STUPID.

          I got worked up about the Flat Earth Society too—and I am still worked up about the “truther” crazy notion that George Bush was involved in the 911 attacks. My motive, of course, neither proves that Obama was born in Hawaii nor disproves it, so my being “worked up” is NOT proof that the case is not open-open-and-shut.

          In fact, it IS open-and-shut. Want me to list the facts?

          BTW, it is obviously wrong to claim “if it’s as open and shut…then your opponent’s efforts go nowhere.” It’s open and shut that ghosts do not exist, and yet some 35-40% of Americans claim to believe in them.

          Re: “Can I just say, I was very disappointed with how the grandmother’s recorded testimony was used and mischaracterized by plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. I found that disgraceful and baffling.”

          Answer: That was just a tiny part of it. Hundreds if not thousands of people who read the birther sites claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya—when she really said that he was born in HAWAII. The word for doing that is LYING.

          Yes, I do believe that there is a motive behind Steven claiming that the publicist cannot be telling the truth when she admitted that she made a MISTAKE. Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was born in Kenya, and if you read a manuscript quickly you can get Barack Hussein I, the father, mixed up with Barack Hussein Obama II, the author and the president. As for her not showing it to him for him to check it, that is a very wrong thing to do, but it happens.

          Steven is apparently eager to show that Obama lied to her or that Obama told that truth and actually was born in Kenya (so far he’s not saying what he believes on that front), but there is not evidence for EITHER of those ideas.

        • I assume that you don’t treat all “stupid” people this way. If you are so enlightened and “evolved”, then why would you expect me to agree that your verbal abuse is appropriate?

          I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. There are a few discrepancies here and there in the reported facts, but these are easily ascribable to human frailties. The reports out of Kenya and Nigeria of him being from Kenya, I attribute to wishful thinking. The statement from Michelle is most likely because she considers him to be, in some (probably informal) sense be a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. due to the nationalities of his two biological parents, and she presumably has contempt for any law which might present a barrier to one of “her people” becoming President while being a dual citizen. Some of the seemingly unfavorable evidence (unfavorable for Obama, that is) I ascribe to lies, and the rest to general incompetence or a rush to get the story out.

          There is clearly some kind of cover-up with respect to information on his real birth certification (wherever that might be), with Social Security information, and with school admissions. I think this cover-up probably involves the adoption issue, and certainly has involved the intelligence community as various times. But none of this really proves anything about whether he lost U.S. citizenship, nor whether he ever had it. Your evidence does not prove your beliefs about it, and the other side’s evidence doesn’t prove theirs, either.

          While I agree with some of your conclusions about the evidence, I generally do not feel motivated to defend Obama from people who may invent falsities to smear him, because he has nothing but contempt for the truth and seems to see it as a vile thing in need of being stomped on and covered up most of the time to achieve the aims of his Leninist party. He also seems intent on doing harm to people he doesn’t like, based on paranoid delusions about their supposed intent toward him or his allies. In other words, a man after the heart of Lenin and Hitler. I don’t fear him, and I don’t hate him. But I despise much of what he does, and much of what he wants to do. I also hate the lies that have been told about him, on both sides. But all of that is not my fight, because I don’t choose it for myself. That dispute is between two sets of sinners. I don’t want to get involved in it.

          People like you, I just feel sorry for. I don’t know exactly what I can tell you to make you feel less angry. I hope you don’t hate the people you are criticizing, because there’s nothing good in hating human beings. Generally, when people write like you’re doing now and are of your political persuasion, they are extremely angry, and I really can’t understand why. If you were younger, I’d chalk it up to naivete about how much of your own program you have achieved in the last 40 years. But you’re not that young. I think you’re at least as old as me, probably a bit older, and I’m middle-aged. So there’s really no way for me to explain such anger on your part. I can only figure it’s probably the effect of long-term brainwashing, in the style of 1984. We saw this in Hitler’s Germany, and we saw it also in Stalin’s Russia, pre- and post-revolution. We also saw it in East Germany throughout its history, and we saw it in Khmer-dominated Cambodia.[1]

          But in the United States, even of today, it seems so awfully out of place. There are so many countries now that are looking at us with their mouths open, in disbelief over what we are being subjected to. Many of them feel just sick for us, and probably are trying to think what they might do to help in some small way, but what can you do in such a situation? It wasn’t so very long ago that we outperformed most of them, both in terms of skill and of productivity, and also per capita production. So they feel uncomfortable in telling us what we really need to hear, in the tone that we really need to hear it in.

          And sure, Bush had a lot to do with that change. But the point is, Obama doesn’t care, and in major ways he helps it along, to get even worse. And Bush ultimately was humbled by an avalanche of criticism for those retrogressive policies.

          But such an avalanche toward Obama seems unthinkable right now. From my experience, (and Steven has hit this theme many times), there is apparently nothing at all Obama can do that would cause his remaining core of support to turn against him. There is a deep and vast racism or, I dare say, racial hatred behind such an attitude, but there is also a huge amount of brainwashing backing up the racism. Many on my side would like some détente, to give the country a breather so it can try to claw itself out of the grave it has dug for itself and been shoved into. But it is your side that consistently piles on the hatred more and more every time a compromise is proposed. It is beyond sickening, beyond nauseating. It grinds on the soul in ways I’ve never experienced before. If we had had Alan Keyes these last two terms, none of what I’ve just written would be applicable. He would be a far better President than Bush was, let alone Obama. But for whatever reason, he did not stay in the running, choosing another path for himself.

          It is commonly heard today that in a democracy, when things go bad, the people have no one to blame but themselves. I’ve repeated this myself over the years. But I see now I was naïve about that. Secular democracy is not a solution to the historical problems of other secular governments, because it is always only as good as the people tasked with conducting it. So its results (good or bad) are really only a reflection of the character of those at the top of the organizational chart. Therefore, when we have had great success with it in the past, it has only been by the grace of God.

          (Please let me not have the usual suspects heckling me that we’re not a democracy. This is nonsense, every republic is by definition a democracy, and I don’t want to discuss it right now. And if you have an ounce of care for the topic at hand, you will not want to distract from that.)

          In closing, Mr. or Ms. Strauss, (probably Ms.), my advice to you, assuming you don’t believe in God or just simply hate Him, is to try thinking for yourself again, which I’m willing to bet is something you used to do a lot more of. And if I were you, I wouldn’t use this moment to bombard me with another litany of your evidence or conclusions about Obama. Believe it or not, I’m really not that interested in it now, and haven’t been for years. I was interested in some of the psychology behind the arguments on both sides, but I think we’ve already covered that about as well as we can. Let it go. You want to talk some more about it, talk to someone else. Whatever the reason for your huge concern about the “stupidity” of those on the other side of the question, I do not welcome you carrying on about it to such an extent, especially with so much repetition of the same points. Good night.

          RTF

          Footnote:

          [1] Regarding that whole paragraph, I guess you’d probably say approximately the same thing about me, but you’d be stupendously wrong.

        • philjourdan says:

          The only thing I would add to your comment is that, like you, I do not hate them, but I do pity them.

        • Correction, not “Stalin’s Russia” of course, but Lenin’s. (And also Stalin’s.)

        • smrstrauss says:

          I’m going to answer your crap, not for your benefit but on the off-chance that someone rational may be visiting this site.

          Re: “There is clearly some kind of cover-up with respect to information on his real birth certification (wherever that might be)..”

          Answer: Obama’s REAL birth certificate(s) are the ones that the DOH of Hawaii SENT TO HIM. (The one in the DOH files is NOT an official birth certificate, nor are those of anybody in the files because they do not have the official seal on them). And we know that they SENT the birth certificates to him because the officials of BOTH parties said that they did, repeatedly. Moreover, we know that the information on the birth certificate that the White House put online is EXACTLY the same as on what they sent to him, because they said that too, repeatedly—ALL the facts MATCH what they sent to him.

          Re: “with Social Security information..”

          Answer: Obama’s CT Social Security number was the result of a data entry error (did you think that SS clerks never made mistakes???) and the birther CLAIMS (once again driven by their motives) that Obama used the SS number of either Ludwig or “Harrison J. Bounel” have both been crushed. Ludwig’s SS number was published and it is not the same as Obama’s, and Bounel does not even have an SS file, the SS Administration told the court.

          The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

          Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:

          http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

          http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html

          Re: “and with school admissions.”

          Answer: Are you referring to the nutty idea that Obama was a foreign student? That comes from an April Fool’s article. Or do you think his grades were so bad that he should have been allowed into college. (Not likely, he got a Magna from Harvard Law School.)

          Re: “I think this cover-up probably involves the adoption issue…”

          Adoptions require the actions of district courts in both Hawaii and in Indonesia, and no such court papers have ever been found (and in fact no birther site has ever said that it LOOKED—I wonder why not??). Yes Obama used his step father’s name—so what? That does not mean that he changed his name legally. That also would require the action of a district court in Hawaii or Indonesia, and once again no such papers have been found.

          Re: “and certainly has involved the intelligence community as various times.”

          Obama’s mother might have been involved in the 1980s or later. The notion that Obama’s socialist-leaning father or his grandfather (a furniture salesman in the1960s) or his grandmother (who worked at a bank) were with intelligence is absurd.

          Re: ” But none of this really proves anything about whether he lost U.S. citizenship…”

          Answer: A US child CANNOT LOSE citizenship. It is not possible. That is something that the US Supreme Court ruled on. Moreover, a US citizen OF ANY AGE cannot lose citizenship—she or he can only formally renounce it, and that has to be IN WRITING before the appropriate US government official (overseas a US consul), and there is NO such document. Moreover, Obama never became a citizen of Indonesia—-as a TELEPHONE CALL to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm. (202) 775 5200 —and ask for the Press Officer.)

          Re: “your evidence does not prove your beliefs about it…”

          If you are referring to the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, it is OVERWHELMING, and yes indeed it DOES prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. YOU agree that Obama was born in Hawaii—but there are others reading this site, so here is SOME of the evidence.

          For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

          (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

          (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

          (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

          So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

          (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

          Re: “. But I despise much of what he does, and much of what he wants to do..”

          Answer: You have a constitutional right to despise him or anyone in government, and many people despise Obama just like you. But that does not make him born in a foreign country or his SS number stolen or him having been adopted (which would have no effect in any case) or his having lost citizenship (which is impossible), and it does not affect the fact that he was elected and re-elected, so you’ll just have to suffer. I won’t.

          Re: “There is a deep and vast racism or, I dare say, racial hatred behind such an attitude…”

          Answer: NUTS. We support him because we LIKE his policies. There are even people who hope for presidents to the LEFT of Obama. Don’t like it? TOUGH. In any case, the reason that Obama is supported is because of his policies, not because of his racial mixture.

          Hillary may well be slightly to the left of Obama. Don’t like the excellent chance that she will become the next president? You will have the chance to support someone whom you prefer in the next presidential election, but then so will I.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, any rational person has already concluded you are FOS. next time, try some facts.

        • philjourdan says:

          Nursery rhymes do make sense – but not to children as they do not know the history behind them.

          So you just proved your mental age. Come back when you grow up.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: ” You erect strawmen, ”

          Notice that philjourdan has once again not said whether he believes Obama was born in Kenya or not. In my posting above I showed the facts in response to Richard T. Fowler, who had said:

          “Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you disagree with Miriam about A simply because you are a naked opportunist who doesn’t care about evidence or logical foundation, and because you believe that to agree with Miriam would hinder your objective of harming Obama.”

          My response was to show that I never said anything like “naked opportunist” and that all I did was show the facts, and so I showed them again.

          That WAS a response to Richard T. Fowler, and not a strawman.

          However, I wonder why philjourdan objects to seeing the facts about where Obama was born?

        • philjourdan says:

          Well, you got one thing correct moron. I did not say what I believe. That is because it is Irrelevant!

          But you got the next statement wrong. Notice you presented NO FACTS. Opinions are not facts moron.

          What I believe does not matter. What you believe does not matter and is simply stupidity.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan has asked for facts:

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

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

          http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2014/02/breaking-update-maricopa-county.html

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

          http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

          Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

          Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

          Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

          http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

          Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

          http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

          (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

          Here is the Index Data file:

          http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

          And birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and it would have been rare for her to have one since so few 18-year-olds did in that year. And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 (and she would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy since she was attending college for most of the year) because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birthers hope to convince a few GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND the officials of BOTH parties are lying about it AND so is the Index Data AND so are the birth notices AND so is the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley, and BTW, Kapionani Hospital has now confirmed Obama was born there–in fact it has done so TWICE (birther sites did not show either of them).

          And BTW, birther sites LIED about the Kenyan grandmother. She never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii repeatedly. Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just BEFORE she was asked where he was born (I wonder why they did that??) Her answer to the question where Obama was born was “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” (But birther sites refused to quote her and cut off the tape that included her statement.)

        • philjourdan says:

          Yes, turnip, we know the sky is blue and the grass is green. All non sequiturs.

          FACTS to support your opinion idiot! None of which are present in your links (and Wiki is NOT a source for facts turnip!).

          Again, show us the FACT that Obama did not know about his OWN Bio for 17 years. SHow us the FACT he did not approve it. Show us the FACT he did not tell the idiot who wrote it that he was born in Kenya.

          Facts to SUPPORT your pathetic opinion turnip!

          And I apologize to turnips. This clown has less brains than they do.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Again, show us the FACT that Obama did not know about his OWN Bio for 17 years. SHow us the FACT he did not approve it. Show us the FACT he did not tell the idiot who wrote it that he was born in Kenya.”

          Actually, it is you who are making the accusations that both Obama and the publicist lied, and so it is YOU who have to prove them.

          Plenty of people do not see something that has been posted at a small Web site for years and years. You assume that Obama cruised the web regularly and searched for his name—but there is no evidence of it. For Obama to have written or provided the “born in Kenya” information for that bio blurb, he would have had to have switched from the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” statement in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” in his book Dreams from My Father in 1995—AND the publicist who said she made a mistake would have to be lying.

          YOU have to provide facts that show Obama wrote or told her that he was born in Kenya—and you haven’t.

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF Turnip. I am making NO ACCUSATIONS. I really do not care WHO made the mistake (or revealed the truth). We know they lied, I have referenced their lies. The evidence shows the source of the birther controversy is Obama himself. YOU have to prove he was so stupid and ignorant that he never read his own bio turnip!

          And for that you need facts. I have facts. See above. So far, you have not produced a single fact turnip! A lie is not a fact turnip. An opinion is NOT a fact turnip!

          So yes, you HAVE to provide some facts. And so far you have not turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The evidence shows the source of the birther controversy is Obama himself.”

          No, there is no evidence for that whatever. The evidence is that the source of the birther controversy was the bio blurb written by the literary agent, and she said that she made a MISTAKE in writing it. Therefore the source of the birther controversy was NOT Obama but the mistake of the literary agent.

          The facts are (1) She stated that she made a mistake; (2) Obama said in interviews in 1990 and in his book in 1995 that he was born in Hawaii (both of which are truthful); (3) there is NO evidence whatever that he changed his story from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991; and (4) it was an easy mistake for the literary agent to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          Yes, turnip there is. Apparently you have no clue what evidence is, do you turnip?

          We have his bio, unchallenged for 17 years turnip. We have newspaper clippings from the idiots own campaign turnip. That is called evidence turnip. And what do you have turnip?

          You have a non sequitur newspaper clipping that does not quote, paraphrase or attribute his being born in Hawaii to the idiot. You have hearsay from a known admitted liar (which is never admissible in court). In other words you have NOTHING turnip.

          Evidence turnip, evidence. You still have no clue what that means turnip.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      I read your first sentence several times trying to form a connection. It doesn’t follow. If I show evidence that you are an anarchist who likes to blow things up that doesn’t make me an anarchist or a bomber.

      • omanuel says:

        The statements seem reasonable to me:

        If “Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage, and the written record shows that “the original birther seems to have been Barack Obama.”

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said yet again: “The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to. ”

          Philjordan is claiming that a woman he has never met is LYING just so he can provide additional proof to the well-known fact that Obama has not always said what is factual.

          It’s well known that politicians lie, but to accuse an unknown woman (who is not a politician) of lying when she admits to making a perfectly human mistake is vile.

          Moreover, Obama had said in previous interviews with newspapers that he was BORN IN HAWAII. So the notion that he changed and suddenly told her or wrote a bio that said that he was born in Kenya is farfetched, to say the least.

          If you think that he was lying about being born in HAWAII, we can discuss the total birther notion and the extreme improbability of Obama’s mother having taken a trip abroad in 1961. If you think that he was telling the truth about being born in Hawaii, then why should he suddenly turn from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya”? Surely not to sell books because he did not know that the book involved was even going to be published—and it wasn’t. Then when he did get a book published, it said in it that Obama was born in Hawaii—and it sold very nicely.

          Obama has undoubtedly lied and made mistaken statements some times—as have most politicians—so what else is new—but he did not lie about being born in Hawaii. He really was born in Hawaii, and he did not tell the publicist that he was born in Kenya, and she is not lying when she said that she made the mistake all by herself and that she did not show the bio to Obama and that he was not told when it was put online so that he could not fix it. Obama’s FATHER, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya—-that is where the publicist’s mistake came from.

        • philjourdan says:

          See, you are caught in a lie trap.

          #1 – The only way you can know I never met her is if you are her. So you lied when denying you are her.
          #2 – If you are not her, you are lying about me never meeting her.
          #3 – Obama is not the first junior nor the last, so that lame excuse does not fly – so you lied again.

          So how is anyone going to believe a lying sock puppet?

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: ” The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to.”

          philjourdan is calling a woman whom he does no even know a liar. And she is not even a politician. And what she says makes sense. It was entirely possible to make a mistake. After all Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was born in Kenya. Obama, the author and current president, is Barack Hussein Obama II. So, she got them mixed up.

          She is not lying when she said she made A MISTAKE.

      • Worse, that is nobody’s actual definition of “birther.” Generally, “birther” refers to any individual who has promoted as true the theory that Barack Obama
        is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and therefore not eligible for the presidency. It fully encompasses any and all of the theories relating to place of birth, citizenship of parents or loss of citizenship via naturalization by other nations.

        Birthers do not believe that Obama lied that he was born in Kenya. They believe that Obama was ACTUALLY born in Kenya, and lied that he was born in Hawaii.

        • A birther is someone like Obama who apparently told his agents that he was born in Kenya

        • Assumes facts not in evidence.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “A birther is someone like Obama who apparently told his agents that he was born in Kenya.”

          Answer: No, but publicist for the literary agent admitted to making that MISTAKE. For details see above.

        • philjourdan says:

          Let me guess – you bought a bridge in Brooklyn?

          yea, no one has ever fallen on a sword for their master! Here’s the catch 22. The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to. So are you going to believe that Obama never lies? “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.

          Seriously, you are not even believable.

        • philjourdan says:

          again, it does not matter where he was born. A birther is one who believes he was born in Kenya. So who first stated he was born in Kenya? Steven Goddard provides evidence of who DID.

          The rest of your soliloquy is a non sequitur. The evidence has been presented on who was first. Dispute it or just claim ignorance of the written word.

        • @philjourdan

          Actually, no. A birther is anyone who believes Obama is not eligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen. Belief that he was born in Kenya is only one of the flavors, and there appears to be no evidence that Miriam Goderich ever believed Obama was not eligible for the Presidency.

          Nice try though.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, no linkies again. Your opinion is irrelevant. So you are wrong again. As i said, you seem to care, I do not. Anyone saying he was born in Kenya is the original definition of birther. Being born in the US makes one an NBC automatically.

          No cookie for you. And not even a nice try.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjordan said: “The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to. ”

          Philjordan is claiming that a woman he has never met is LYING just so he can provide additional proof to the well-known fact that Obama has not always said what is factual. It’s well known that politicians lie, but to accuse an unknown woman of lying when she admits to making a perfectly human mistake is vile. Moreover, Obama had said in previous interviews with newspapers that he was BORN IN HAWAII.

          If you think that he was lying about THAT we can discuss the total birther notion and the extreme improbability of Obama’s mother having taken a trip abroad in 1961. If you think that he was telling the truth, then why should he suddenly turn from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya”? Surely not to sell books because he did not know that the book involved was even going to be published—and it wasn’t. Then when he did get a book published, it said in it that Obama was born in Hawaii—and it sold very nicely.

          Obama has undoubtedly lied—as have most politicians, so what else is new—but he did not lie about being born in Hawaii. He really was born in Hawaii, and he did not tell the publicist that he was born in Kenya, and she is not lying when she said that she made the mistake all by herself and that she did not show the bio to Obama and that he was not told when it was put online so that he could not fix it. Obama’s FATHER, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya—-that is where the publicist’s mistake came from.

          So are you going to believe that Obama never lies? “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.

        • philjourdan says:

          There is only one way you can know I never met her. That is if you are her, and you know who I am. Both conditions fail the skunk test.

          And my statement was not the basis for anything. It was a throw away line, but then you are not smart enough to see that. However the truth is now out. You are she. And you think you know who I am. And you are wrong.

          You have stated NO facts. period. Facts require proof or substantiation. All you have done is give us your stupid (proven now) opinion. Until you understand the difference between facts and opinions, your posts will contain no useful information and can be laughed at and ridiculed as the expressed opinion of an ignorant puppet

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: ” Being born in the US makes one an NBC automatically.”

          Answer: That is actually precisely right. (I assume you mean Natural Born Citizen by NBC.) And Obama really was born in Hawaii has been proven overwhelmingly. Want me to show the evidence?

          So the fact that the publicist made a mistake does not affect Obama’s NBC status.

          YOU have claimed that she did not make a mistake, that she LIED when she said that she made a mistake, and that Obama had told her that he was born in Kenya. But there is no evidence that he did, and he had told newspapers before that that he was born In Hawaii (which he knew from more than his mother telling him; his book says that recalls seeing his birth certificate “in an old book.) So it is highly unlikely that he lied to her.

          He did not lie. She told the truth when she said she made a mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).

          Obama, Barack Hussein Obama II, really was born in Hawaii (the evidence is overwhelming), and because of that he really is a NBC.

          YOU are entirely right Being born in the US makes one an NBC automatically. (slcraignbc’s screwy claims not withstanding.)

        • philjourdan says:

          non sequitur moron. Again, no one cares where the idiot was born! The subject is who started the birther crap. And the evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) is Obama. There is no counterfactual evidence, and certainly none has been produced by you or your puppet master.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: “There is only one way you can know I never met her.”

          Okay, we rational people will simply have to assume that you never met her since there are about 150 million women in the USA and it is unlikely that you met them all, and since you did not say that you met her.

          The facts are that (1) Obama said that he was born in Hawaii both before the bio blurb and after the bio blurb in his book; (2) He really was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate that the confirmations of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices all show; (3) The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama or send him what she had written for him to check and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.

          It is YOU who are claiming that the publicist is lying in her statement that she made a mistake. But people do make mistakes, and Obama had told the newspapers before and wrote in his book after that he was born in HAWAII, so the notion that he made an exception for the publicity writer and told her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. Moreover, it has nothing whatever as evidence behind it exact the fact that such bios are OFTEN (but not always) written by the authors or shown to them to correct.

          The fact that neither happened in this case was part of the mistake. (And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, really was born in Kenya).

          All these are facts. Your claim that the publicist is lying when she admitted to making a mistake is YOUR speculation and has no evidence to support it.

        • philjourdan says:

          There are more than 150 million women. And your assumptions are like you lies. baseless and stupid.

          Again, you DO NOT KNOW. We are dealing with facts. You are dealing lies, ignorance and assumptions.

          I guess we know now that turnips cannot advance beyond vegetable state.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Again, no one cares where the idiot was born! The subject is who started the birther crap.”

          Although philjourdain can say that he does not care where Obama is born, he CANNOT say that no one cares about that matter. There are people who care. In fact, there is an entire web site, the Birther Report, devoted to that matter. So all that philjourdan is saying when he says “no one cares” is that HE does not care.

          NOW turning to the subject of who started the birthe crap (and yes indeed it is CRAP), I agree with you, the first mention of the false story that Obama was born in Kenya appears to be the bio blurb written by the publicist in 1991. However, you have used that fact to claim that Obama wrote the bio blurb or told her that he was born in Kenya., THAT is false since she said she made the MISTAKE all by herself and did not get it from Obama, and the fact that he had previously told newspapers twice that he was born IN HAWAII before 1991 and wrote in Dreams from My Father that he was born in Hawaii in 1995 makes it farfetched (to say the least) that he said he was born in Kenya in 1991.

          So the MISTAKE by the publicist appears to be the first mention. If that is important to you, then that is what happened.

          But it is not all that happened, the right wing took up the story and ran with it. They manufactured lies that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (she really said he was born in Hawaii). They published three forged “Kenyan birth certificates (one from a convicted felon one of whose crimes was forgery). They posted links to a forged video in which Obama is supposed to have said “I was born in Kenya” (but you cannot see his mouth move; I wonder why not?). They claimed that Obama’s wife said he was born in Kenya (she said it was his “native country” meaning where his ancestors came from).

          Those lies are important to the birther myth too, not just who started it.

          In any case, the publicist admitted to making a mistake, and Obama’s birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties (and the index data and the birth notices in the 1961 newspapers sent to the papers by the DOH) show that Obama really was born in Hawaii.

        • philjourdan says:

          The “no one” is no one here, since that is the audience turnip.

          There is no use in asking you to learn how to read. You have demonstrated you are incapable of being educated.

        • Diogenes says:

          @smrstrauss – All I can say is wow…

          Do they pay you by the word? Because I cannot imagine anyone being that passionate about defending the presidential liar of the united states unless they were paid for it.

          Maybe the publicist screwed-up. And maybe Obama thought he’d get more book sales as a foreign author. At this point, who knows? I don’t care. Maybe you care. Pecious few others seem to. I think the majority of the US citizens are aware that Obama lies as naturally as he breathes. As does most of the world.

          Fact is, Obama doesn’t deal in truth. He never has and likely never will. He only says what he thinks he must to acheive his agenda. Nothing else matters. If it suited him, he would disavow his most ardent defenders without a second thought.

          Stop defending what cannot be defended. Take a walk. Go enjoy life for a change. Defending the liar of the united states is a waste of your life.

        • philjourdan says:

          +10

          The funny part is that the money he is being paid is wasted. He is convincing no one (mostly due to the fact that no one cares, but partly due to the fact he has no facts), but then I guess when you have scammed millions of dollars from idiots as Obama has, you have money to waste.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Diogenes said: “Stop defending what cannot be defended. Take a walk. Go enjoy life for a change. Defending the liar of the united states is a waste of your life.”

          Thanks for your advice. You should know that I was equally zealous in defending the FACT that George W. Bush really did receive more votes that Gore in Florida in the 2000 election and hence he really was elected, not “chosen by the US Supreme Court” as many liberals claimed. And I was equally zealous against the nutty myth of the “truthers.”

          Of course Obama has lied and made mis-statements, but that does not mean that he was born in a foreign country (which is truly nutty) or that Miriam Goderich, the publicist, is lying when she admits to making a MISTAKE about the “born in Kenya” she wrote. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya, and that is the source of her mistake.

        • philjourdan says:

          And it finally comes out. Again ,it is all BOOSH’s fault. Wapo, AP, NY Crimes – all of them counted and found Bush won, yet the turnip NOW brings that out as his gotcha! Why? Because no one cares! He is a sore loser and having lost the debate here, he is trying another change of subject to see if he can lick his wounds and claims some sort of victory.

          But alas, he does not have 2 brain cells to realize he cannot even lie his way out of a non-issue that is 14 years old. But then he is a turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “but partly due to the fact he has no facts),”

          The facts are that (1) Obama said that he was born in Hawaii both before the bio blurb and after the bio blurb in his book; (2) He really was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate that the confirmations of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices all show; (3) The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama or send him what she had written for him to check and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.

          It is YOU who are claiming that the publicist is lying in her statement that she made a mistake. But people do make mistakes, and Obama had told the newspapers before and wrote in his book after that he was born in HAWAII, so the notion that he made an exception for the publicity writer and told her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched—to say the least. And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama (Barack Hussein Obama I), and Obama’s father actually was born in Kenya. Obama was not; he was born in Kapiolani Hospital—as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the index data and the birth notices sent to the 1961 newspapers and the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s status and wrote “one child born in Honolulu” all show.

          Those are FACTS.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non Sequitur turnip. I really do not care what Obama said before, or after. I really do not care where he was born turnip. We are only concerned with what he said for 17 years – in his Bio. So again, you have no facts. PERIOD.

          learn what a fact is turnip. You still have NONE! Since you are being paid for this disinformation, it is up to YOU to prove he was totally CLUELESS about a Bio of HIMSELF for 17 years.

          Good luck with that. turnip. Everything else is non sequitur.

        • smrstrauss says:

          The Brussels sprout philjourdan said: “Again ,it is all BOOSH’s fault. ”

          Sane people will notice that I never said that Bush had anything at all to do with the claim that Obama was born in Kenya or the allegation that Obama lied in the “born in Kenya” claim in his literary bio. I simply said that Bush really was elected president in the 2000 election and that I have defended that fact the same way that I defend the facts that Obama really was born in Hawaii and that the publicist is not lying when she said that she made a mistake about Obama’s place of birth. The fact remains that Barack Hussein Obama I, Obama’s father, really was born in Kenya, and it was easy to mix them up. She admitted to making a MISTAKE, and she is not lying.

        • philjourdan says:

          People will also note I did not say you did, turnip. I pointed out you merely again raised the issue of the 2k election turnip.

          If you cannot read, stop writing. Your responses are merely ad hominems surrounded by non seuqiturs turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “We are only concerned with what he said for 17 years – in his Bio. So again, you have no facts. PERIOD.”

          Answer: He did not say it. The literary agent said it and admitted to making a mistake in saying it. The fact that it was not fixed for 17 years is explained by Obama not being told that it was written and that it was put online. You cannot fix something that you do not know about.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non sequitur answer turnip. You have no evidence. You do not even have a signed affidavit from the admitted liars about it turnip. You have nothing turnip.

          We on the other hand have mountains of evidence turnip. I realize you have no clue what evidence means, but that is your problem turnip. You have convinced me that he is hiding something – the fact he was not born in the US turnip. Congratulations! That endorsement should get you a promotion in the democrat party turnip. They like their leaders stupid and failures turnip. You fill both qualifications turnip.

      • geran says:

        smrstrauss, have you ever considered counseling?

    • Hugh K says:

      Indeed. How it works — If I disagree with the young Kenyan’s policies then I am a racist.
      You know who I really feel sorry for? Zero’s typical white grandmother and everyone else on that side of the family that temporarily disrupted the media’s quest for the first black US president….until Zero threw her, his mom and the rest under the bus. Don’t you love a happy ending?

    • schauminator says:

      And never to forget the immediate follow up Birthers were the Clintons. That is until their daughter was threatened. At this point the Clintons knew they were not the chosen ones.

  3. Ernest Bush says:

    It shows he was willing to lie early on to keep his past a secret no matter where he was born. However, that only puts him in the same boat as most politicians. It’s what happened later that formed such an unspeakably arrogant lack of character. I think it is the extreme arrogance in front of a mind that is totally incompetent and ignorant that bothers me the most. It’s like he inherited the worst traits of his parents and none of the good ones.

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    Does this issue matter anymore? No.

    But calling someone a “birther,” if true, is now the easiest way that the left can stigmatize someone as being a nutty ultra-fringe extremist. And guess what? By doing this post you are turning yourself into… a “birther.” To no benefit. This is a battle we’ve lost: any effort to “mainstream” birthers is going to fail, despite Trump’s flirtation with it a couple years ago.

    And the fact that a publicist said Obama is from Kenya is far from definitive evidence that he was actually born there. Arguably the publicist was motivated to sell books, and saying O was from Africa helped achieve that end. O has, what, two years left? Even if in the highly unlikely event that a majority of Americans all of a sudden concluded that despite his supposed birth certificate that he was in fact born elsewhere, nothing would change. What would change? Nothing. I don’t know what this has to do with climate change, but every time this issue is posted here again, when Drudge or whoever headlines a major breakthrough climate point made at Steven Goddard, the left can summarily dismiss the point as sheer quackery by simply saying that it was reported “by a birther.” I think we need to pick our spots to fight, and this like a Pickett’s Charge. Pickett was right to think that their bullets shot from the charging soldiers could hurt the Union. But his bullets never got there.

    Of course, any non-climate-change related political posts are going to diminish the effectiveness of the climate aspect of this blog, because almost by definition that is showing overt political motivation. The point that climate change is almost exclusively pushed by a bunch of leftists needs to be constantly driven home, but the converse, that skepticism is solely the domain of political or worse “religious” right wingers is a characterization we should make an all out effort to fight. It’s great that now almost all conservatives, with a few bizarre exceptions, don’t buy the leftist garbage on climate change. But it would be a huge benefit if we could invite even a small fraction of Independents and Dems to join us as skeptics.

    • ROFL.
      This blog is mainly about researching left wing BS. It is all the same cesspool.

      • BallBounces says:

        You need to read what Tony posted again, slowly, focusing on the “in order to gain political or economic advantage”:

        “Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage. – The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama.”

        If I have interpreted Tony correctly, this post is not about where Obama was born. It’s about Obama’s (apparently) malleable approach to truth for “political or economic advantage”.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Bingo!

        • That would be more compelling were Tony capable of identifying a “political or economic advantage” to falsely claiming a Kenyan birth. But as Tony’s ultimate rhetorical question shows, he was not up to that task.

        • Sorry Mr. Alinsky, I am not responsible for Obama’s lying.

        • slcraignbc says:

          So, now it is required to prove the “elements of the motive” and not the “elements of the crime” ….?

          But then, perhaps, you may have just un-artfully attempted to say “where’s the crime”, given that the 1st Amendment allows a person to lie freely about just about anything as long as it does no harm to others. And politicians are given even greater latitude to lie when campaigning.

          Given that the structure of the “0”s life narrative appears to be a progression of endless campaigns where the lies begin and end may forever be lost in the murky twilight produced with the smoke and mirrors persona that the endless lies created.

          Regardless of what “crimes” of fraud or forgeries that may exist, the Constitutional offense happens to be a “civil offence” by statutes. Of course, being found guilty of that particular “civil offense” opens the door to the full force of Political Will that could choose to pursue witnesses to some higher crimes.

          Some where in your responses you seem to say that the Founders did NOT renounce allegiance to their prior attachments to Foreign Nations and Countries and therefore were Dual-Citizens post Ratification of the COTUS.

          I take exception to such an interpretation of the structure of U.S. Citizenship and would cite the U.S. v Villato and Talbot v Janson to put such a notion to rest.

          Returning to “motives and life narratives” I note in the later the possible cause of your positions on the subject in the former, as if following in the steps of Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg.

        • philjourdan says:

          What would be more compelling is if you could actually read.

          You are interjecting your own bias. Tony did not care about any implications, he merely was searching for the originator of the rumor/fact. Perhaps when you learn to read, you will quit making assumptions based upon your own biases.

        • @stevengoddard

          You also do not appear to be responsible for your own posts.

        • philjourdan says:

          You do not seem to be able to read.

        • @philjourdan

          Don’t be obtuse. Tony’s entire position depends on there having been some advantage to pretending to be born in Kenya. He even specifically asked the question.

          What were you saying about being able to read?

        • philjourdan says:

          😆 Now you pretend to be clairvoyant again! Tony was not assigning any “advantage”. he DOCUMENTED who was the original. Do not speak for others. You are barely capable of doing so for yourself. idiot.

        • Yes, I went back in time to 1991 and created the fake bio which Dystel used for the next 17 years. Thanks for clearing that up.

        • Once again, Tony leaps back into the discussion and apropos of nothing blesses us with a non sequitur of the first order.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually that is a description of yourself. You made an accusation. he answered it. You do not like the answer as it is factual and counter to your attempt to turn the discussion.

          In other words, you are the epitome of a troll. And a very bad one at that. Might help when you grow up to learn about such things.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey HistorianDude! You say: “Tony’s entire position depends on there having been some advantage to pretending to be born in Kenya.”

          Sorry, but isn’t that a little obvious? Let us assume for the sake of discussion that Obama was born in the US. Being born in Kenya means qualifying for foreign student status and special scholarships while Obama was in college. There is also a certain societal advantage to being the “poor African who came to the United States and worked his way up by sheer dint of personal effort”. Once he left school, the obvious advantage to “being born in Kenya” was that when running for office, having immediate ties to Africa is a real vote getter among black voters. (No lectures, please. I am mixed race and live in a majority black neighborhood. That is how things work.) Additionally, if he said otherwise for his book, then he would be caught out in his earlier lies. It was not until Obama became a serious contender for the Presidency that being born in Kenya became a liability, and viola! Suddenly, he is no longer born in Kenya! Of course Obama is the original “birther.”

        • smrstrauss says:

          Jason Calley said: “Being born in Kenya means qualifying for foreign student status..”

          It also means NOT qualifying for US government student LOANS, which are available only to US students. And, BTW, the claim that Obama went to college as a foreign student and/or received financial aid as a foreign student CAME FROM AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE.

          Moreover, it is easy to show that he didn’t do either. How? Well, duh, by calling Occidental and Columbia and asking for the PR department and ASKING—what an idea. You will learn that he was never a foreign student.

          Moreover, it has been pointed out on this page that Obama was interviewed several times before the bio blurb appeared, and each time he said that he was born in HAWAII. Moreover, when Obama’s first published book, “Dreams from My Father” was published, in 1995, it said right in it that Obama was born in Hawaii, and it was a best seller. So there is no evidence that the allegation of birth in a foreign country would increase the sales of the book.

        • philjourdan says:

          He would not have qualified in any event due to his family’s income.

          You keep tripping over your own tongue. Moron.

        • @Jason Calley

          “Sorry, but isn’t that a little obvious?”

          It could not be less obvious, and up to this very moment not a single person in any of these 200+ comments has even ventured to speculate. Let’s see if you can do better.

          “Being born in Kenya means qualifying for foreign student status and special scholarships while Obama was in college. ”

          Gong! In the first instance you simply restate the problem rather than provide a possible solution. I have been asking what the ADVANTAGES are from “qualifying for foreign student status.” Certainly you would not suggest that anybody be satisfied with a tautology.

          But now we get the meat of the matter. Exactly what “special scholarships” would Obama have qualified for by being a “foreign student?” Birthers keep tossing that out there like it’s common knowledge, but you know what? In six years, no birther has ever been able to show us one that he would have qualified for. There was a funny effort four years ago to claim he went to Occidental on a Fulbright Scholarship. Too bad there’s no such thing as a Fulbright for undergraduate work, which is what Obama did at Occidental. And when you research Universities, they are happy to point international students to scholarship opportunities offered by third parties… but they almost never offer them themselves (and Occidental did not in the 1980s).

          In actuality, international students are far more likely to pay full boat at US universities than any other class of person. That is why US universities love the foreigners.

          “There is also a certain societal advantage to being the ‘poor African who came to the United States and worked his way up by sheer dint of personal effort’.”

          Like what? Getting laid more? Guess what? You don’t need to REGISTER as a foreign student to pull that particular scam.

          “Once he left school, the obvious advantage to “being born in Kenya” was that when running for office, having immediate ties to Africa is a real vote getter among black voters.”

          Well, now you’ve crashed completely on the rocks of reality. Because when you actually look at all the coverage of Obama as a public person starting in 1990 with his selection as President of the Harvard Law Review, guess where he always and exclusively said he was born? Hawaii.

          How, pray tell, does one get votes for being born in Africa when all your campaign material and publicity says you were born in Hawaii?

          “Additionally, if he said otherwise for his book, then he would be caught out in his earlier lies.”

          Oohh. Guess what. His book says he was born in Hawaii. That had to hurt.

      • rah says:

        I always laugh when a Blog visitor comes and demands that the context of the blog as the blogger who runs it envisions it be changed because it does not agree with what the visitor thinks the blogger should be doing. A blog is not a democracy. The host holds all the power. it is his house and we visitors are guests. Visitors need to learn to live with it or leave, or as some have found out that have become a nuisance, get banned.

        • mjc says:

          In my over 12 yrs as moderator on various forums, it never ceases to amaze me that so many who yell and scream about how things should be run, are for ‘freedom’ of speech, profess unending and all encompassing toleration…at others forums/blogs/bbs/other venues.

      • smrstrauss says:

        philjourdan said: “He would not have qualified in any event due to his family’s income.”

        Question, what is the thing that you claim that Obama would not have qualified for in any event due to his family’s income? (And what, pray tell, was his mother’s income at the time? [His father was back in Kenya.])

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Ok, but I thought this blog was about climate change. Remember, there are literally thousands of blogs of every degree of professionalism reporting on conservative politics and the leftwing cesspool. In contrast, there’s only one Steven Goddard. I think that in terms of potential impact on climate change you could be the #1 blogger in the world. That’s why I care, and anything to increase your effectiveness in delivering the devastating kinetic energy round to the bullshit artists is helpful.

      • This blog is about whatever happens to be going through my head at the time.
        I learned a long time ago that you can’t rationalize with progressives and other mentally ill people. Either they get it, or they don’t.

      • Justa Joe says:

        I gotta disagree with you.

        #1 Never concede anything to a leftist that is not IN FACT true. The left wants you to cow to them when they push untruths. The more you concede the more outrageous they become. The story of how BHO’s birth cert disappeared and then suddenly re-appears is about as sound as the story concerning lois lerner’s hard drive’s disappearance.

        #2 The birth cert stuff does hurt them a little. The non-going away furor over his phony birth cert does undercut his credibility even if most of the public is cowed into not speaking about it. The WTC truther hoax definitely hurt the Bush administration, and the Donks helped it continue.

    • geran says:

      Eric, what you don’t realize is that Leftists are going to attack anyone that does not COMPLETELY agree with everything they espouse. They use terms like “Denier” and “Birther” in an effort to intimidate folks. They do not want free thinking.

      People that are afraid of being attacked by the Left are called “Moderates”. In “Moderate-ville”, you leave your core values at the door.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      One of the things that I would seriously hope you would try to do is whatever to get more left-leaners and especially independents to come on over to the skeptic point of view. Because that’s where the climate change battle lines are right now. Actually, you could say that a couple of years ago the battle front line had to do with breaking the hold that the leftist climate loons had on many conservatives. We won that battle, for the most part. Now, the left is trying to move the front of the battle back to being over conservatives. Well, we can hope (and work to make sure) that that effort fails, and so keep the front lines of this battle on the issue of whether the leftist leaners etc will start to over sally over to our side on the climate change issue. And once that happens, even the support of the MSM for the fear mongers will be shaken.

      So, this is the epic battle now on climate change, to win over a majority of independents and ultimately at least a fraction of those from the left. If we achieve that the whole agw edifice will fall apart. With that being the key thing, mixing in divisive politics on unrelated issues may not help “the cause” because it will tend to repel those independents et al that may be attracted to what we have to say. On the other hand, you can make this blog about whatever you feel like at the time, which, I understand and agree with, as life is about doing what one enjoys. But as far as making the greatest impact, doing your bit to “save the world,” that should be considered something enjoyable to pursue.

      • geran says:

        Eric, you’re still not getting it. If “Goddard” acquiesces and stops posting about how irresponsible the Leftists are, what will he have to do next? And, after that, what will he have to do next? Do you not understand “core values”?

        Obama slacked his responsibility to provide creditable evidence of his birth, BEFORE the election. It was not until Trump forced the issue that the “birth certificate” appeared. Experts find MANY problems with the “birth certificate”.

        Now, I believe that Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but it was HIS responsibility to resolve the issue, BEFORE his first campaign. He failed. Could it be that the original birth certificate no longer exists? Could it be that forgers, with or without Obama’s approval, crafted a fake birth certificate? It is Obama’s RESPONSIBILITY to provide verifiable evidence, not “Birthers”.

        Why do you not want to hold Leftists responsible?

        • geran says:

          BTW, are you the same “Eric Simpson” that writes for Huffpo?

          That might explain a lot….

        • geran says:

          This might be him, unless he goes into “denial”…

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-simpson/

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “it was HIS responsibility to resolve the issue, BEFORE his first campaign. He failed.”

          Only if you assume that birthers—who have the motive to keep asking questions about things that are already are proven—are the people of the USA. Except for those highly motivated enemies of Obama, showing the short-form birth certificate of Obama (which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, accepted by both the US State Department and the branches of the military for proof of birth in America) is entirely sufficient. And, guess what, the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii including the former Republican governor of Hawaii repeatedly confirmed that they sent it to him. THAT is sufficient. The fact that Trump gets publicity by alleging that those facts are not sufficient, does not change the FACT that by releasing his short form birth certificate, the OFFICIAL birth certificate, Obama proved that he was born in the USA in June 2008—FIVE MONTHS before the election.

        • philjourdan says:

          Why would we assume anything about Obama? he is the original birther after all. And not too smart, like his publicist.

        • geran says:

          Long, entangled, sentences are NOW your effort to do what Obama should have done years ago. He did NOT take assume that responsibility. He left it for his obedient adherents to clean up his mess.

        • smrstrauss says:

          geran said: “Long, entangled, sentences are NOW your effort to do what Obama should have done years ago.”

          Obama was the first presidential candidate in US history to put his birth certificate online. He did so in June 2008, five months before the election of that year. He put online the birth certificate that Hawaii sent to him, and which the officials subsequently confirmed repeatedly that they sent to him. And it was, and remains, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. FIVE months before the election in 2008—years and years ago.

        • philjourdan says:

          Liar. He never put his BC on line. He put a COPY on line. A copy there is reason to suspect is a forgery (since there was no nation of Kenya at the time).

          That is a fact.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “he is the original birther after all.”

          There is no evidence whatever that Obama ever claimed to be born in Kenya, and the publicist made a mistake. If making a mistake makes you a birther—then, yes, she was one. But Obama wasn’t. He told the newspapers and wrote in his 1995 book that he was born in HAWAII, and there isn’t any evidence at all that he wrote the bio blurb or told her he was born in Kenya. She said that she made that mistake—and it is an easy mistake to make (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).

        • philjourdan says:

          Liar. There is a lot of evidence. There is his bio – never refuted for him for 17 years. There are 2 newspaper reports from his ascension into the senate. These are facts, presented by our host.

          You have presented nothing except moronic opinion. And until you do, you are now simply a liar.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: ” he is the original birther after all.”

          NO, SHE is. She made the mistake after all, and she has admitted it. There is no evidence whatever that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya or wrote the bio blurb. She said that she made the mistake all by herself and that she did not send what she wrote to him to check and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.

        • philjourdan says:

          I have heard rumors that Obama is really a tranny, but I guess turnip believes he (sorry, she) is.

          See how rumors are started turnip? You just started the one about Obama being a tranny – but like all libtards, you will blame the right for it.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “You just started the one about Obama being a tranny..”

          What is a “tranny?” And where did I ever use that word??

        • philjourdan says:

          I was going to say “don’t play stupid with me”, but you are not playing turnip.

          And you know what a tranny is – and you just started that rumor. One I will not repeat as it comes for a known liar, you turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “And you know what a tranny is – and you just started that rumor. ”

          Answer: How could I, since I do not know what a “tranny? is Is it some form of a perambulator?

        • philjourdan says:

          It is what you do on Tuesday nights turnip.

      • B says:

        It doesn’t matter where Obama was born. The only thing that matters at this point is what the post points out, the story changes. Birthers like 911 truthers or Sandy Hook truthers make the mistake of going to far. They speculate on what the truth is. That is unnecessary, all that is necessary is to show the lies.

        Speculation leaves one open to attack. Those who are vested in the politics, the government story, etc encourage speculation because that gives them something to attack. A demonstration of government’s lies without speculation leaves them with nothing, so at this point they demand speculation. It’s a trap.

        The above post approaches the issue correctly. It demonstrates that there is a lie. Obama could have been born in both places. One or both is a lie. We don’t know which. We don’t have to. All we need to know is we’ve been lied to at one time or the other. That Obama’s birthplace changes for what is best for Obama at the time.

        • All stories change. Certainly, at least once in your life you must have played the children’s game of “Telephone.”

          Welcome to the human condition.

        • Opportunistic stories opportunistically change.
          Liars lie.
          Apologists apologize.

          Welcome to the human condition.

        • philjourdan says:

          Very well stated.

        • slcraignbc says:

          To say that it does not matter is to say that the Laws derived from the statutory construction of the COTUS does not matter……..

          …… so much for the value you place on YOUR “U.S. Citizenship”, if any………..

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, but the Constitution does NOT define natural born. Period. So I am NOT saying the Constitution is not valid.

          try reading the thing. You might get an education and a surprise.

        • slcraignbc says:

          The Constitution is STATUTORY in its Construction, (Marbury v Madison), and so TOO are the Acts of the Congress made in pursuance thereof.

          Statutory language, the vernacular and nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, says things about people, places and things in such a way as to produce an effect within the parameters of the circumstances and context of the subject.

          In other words, if the desired effect is to produce a U.S. natural born Citizen then you describe the circumstances wherein they will be produced.

          The Constitution nor the 1790 Act does NOT describe the Doctrine of Coverture, in fact neither mention women specifically in any manner, yet the 1790 Act speaks of a child being born so a WOMAN MUST EXIST, and they existed under the doctrine of coverture, which made the wife of the same political character as the husband. REGARDLESS of previous political character, (1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act).

          So now the circumstances are defined to this point, a U.S. Citizen husband/father and a wife/mother who, by marriage, is considered as a U.S. Citizen insofar as the Privileges and immunity’s of the COTUS extends to a woman, and we have a child being born OUT OF THE LIMITS of the U.S. yet within the U.S. CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION JURISDICTION under the authority of the U.S. Congress.between March of 1790 to January of 1795.

          So during that period of time it can be succinctly stated that a U.S. natural born Citizen is a person born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.

          The 1795 REPEAL of the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen, that PROVES the SR 511 re: J. McLame and the Senate that produced it as being IGNORANT of U.S. Laws written in their own chambers, but it did NOT extinguish the Constitutional requirement that they MUST exist to satisfy the needs of A2S1C5.

          Also, the REPEALING ACT ONLY repealed the “natural born” hyphenation leaving a child born abroad under the same circumstances as the former being considered as a U.S. Citizen.

          Thereafter and hitherto the circumstance of the birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen has been limited to within the limits of the U.S. to two (2) Citizen parents, married or not post the Cable Act, and not otherwise…….there are no constructions of U.S. Laws that would support the existence of any alternative circumstances notwithstanding the FACT that numerous proposed Acts and or Amendments have been suggested within both Houses of the Congress which have all been tabled.

          As a matter of speculation, having read them all, that made to write-ups, is that they ALL failed by the lack of addressing the fatal flaw. In order to MODIFY something the something must be identified, i.e., it requires that the “existing circumstances” be identified before “modifications” could be made to them. Once correctly identified the prospect of “modifying” them by Congressional Vote or Ratification of Amendment would be doubtful.

          So, the punted ball has been named “ambiguity” and is being fumbled back and forth between the opposing teams as if a hot potato.

          And the bottom line is that just as the “definition” of a U.S. natural born Citizen is in a state of “legal ambiguity”, being avoided by the we that Justice Thomas referred to, then so to is the “legal occupancy” of the Office of the POTUS…….. “0”mbiguous.

        • philjourdan says:

          “so somewhere along the way…”

          Funny thing is about laws and lawyers. “Somewhere” does not exist in the law. However when written down, and enacted lawfully, they become laws. Just as the US Code did.

          I gave you a specific reference that sets both the law and precedence. You come back with “somewhere”???

          Please! Stop out-stupiding morondude. You are not up to the task.

        • @Colorado Wellington

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

        • philjourdan says:

          There is no assumption in his post. You need to learn English.

        • @slcraignbc

          So during that period of time it can be succinctly stated that a U.S. natural born Citizen is a person born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.

          That would be one non-exclusive definition of natural born citizen. It forecloses no other definitions that might have their source in the common law.

        • slcraignbc says:

          HistorianDude RESPONDS @slcraignbc statement;

          .…….”So during that period of time it can be succinctly stated that a U.S. natural born Citizen is a person born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.”………

          with a statement that is non-responsive to the context of the statement, i.e., the “time period” of March 1790 to January 1795 by saying

          That would be one non-exclusive definition of natural born citizen. It forecloses no other definitions that might have their source in the common law.

          What revisedHistory Dude fails to acknowledge and attempt to obscure is that I never said that a U.S. natural born Citizen as I interpret them under the statutory construction and interpretations of the Constitution and ITS Laws was NOT consistent with MANY of the historical definitions arising out of natural law, English Common Law as interpreted by Lord Coke & Blackstone from the Queen Anne Statutes, et seq, on British Nationality, the ancient common laws and Doctrines of Just Soli & Jus Sanguinis going back to Aristotles, 350 BC, True Citizens”.

          What I do say is that it does not matter if they do or don’t, the Constitution and its Laws ARE the Supreme Law of the land and that A2S1C5 and and the 1790 Act, et seq, ARE BLACK-LETTER LAW.

          What is irritating is that the 0’pologists seem to think and suggest is that the Framers of the COTUS and the Congress’s that followed did not use Statutory Construction to arrive at the same EFFECTS that were to be found in the natural and common law histories on the subject.

          The Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality is what those who support the Court Opinions and Dicta and call it English Common Law because the Statutes WERE interpreted by Coke and Blackstone under the system of stare decisis.

          So, show me a case in which the question asked was “who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen as identified by parentage status, place and circumstance”, other than my failed attempts of course.

          But back to the non-responsive response, which I will assert is, by context and on several levels, exclusive to the Constitution, its laws and U.S. Citizenship by ITS STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION under the authority of the COTUS ( as opposed to being DICTA from a case that may or may not have been incidentally, but not specifically, related.)

          Now, if you’re referring to “exclusionary”, then again I would assert that it is by the certainty of circumstances provided for and with the REPEAL of the “foreign-born provision” in 1795 it becomes even more “exclusionary”, as to place.

        • At this point, Steve Craig has essentially stopped making any effort to actually communicate an argument. This no doubt has contributed directly to his multiple losses in court. He resorts ironically to declaring my comments “non responsive” and so he substantively ignores them. It is curious that he would keep up this particular style of discussion since by now he must understand that it gets him nowhere.

          There are certainly details on the margin of this issue that can be debated. But there are other that cannot. Let us move from most clearly settled to most ambiguous.

          The single most settled criteria for being a natural born citizen is the definition provided by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark decision. To wit: Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen. This is the ancient common law definition of the term. After all, natural born citizen/subject was a specific term of art exclusive to the British common law. At the time of the Constitution’s framing there was no competing definition in the entire English language. It is absurd to suggest that the Framers would use the term in some new and innovative way… and then forget to tell anybody.

          This also remains to this day the only definition of NBC that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court. It is the precedent that at least two dozen courts have used to explicitly declare Obama a natural born US citizen and thus effectively settles the issue for this particular president. If Obama’s eligibility is the only issue at hand, the discussion would end here.

          But if we are to consider other individuals, specifically John McCain or Ted Cruz, the the question is a different one. The question is whether or not the children of citizens born beyond the seas are also natural born citizens.

          We clearly observe based on the Naturalization Act of 1790 that the First Congress (composed overwhelmingly of Framers) was certainly of the opinion that the answer was affirmative. This also reconciles with the understanding of the term inherited from the mother country, as the common law definition had been statutorily augmented in exactly this same way by the British parliament. The supercession (not “repeal”) of the 1790 law in 1795 replaced “natural born Citizens” with the more general term, but as generalization is not contradiction it tells us nothing about intent. The 1790 law remains the only direct window we have into the position the Framers had on whether or not the children of citizens born beyond the seas were natural born citizens. As such, it carries a vast amount of weight in any consideration of the issue.

          Most importantly, though, the US Constitution itself considers two and only two effective classes of citizenship; naturalized and natural born. The similarity in the terms is not accidental, and there is no third class. Subsequent discussion by courts both supreme and petty have repeatedly made this observation; that there are only two classes of citizen. While both are subsumed in the general category of “citizens of the United States,” they are within that superset mutually exclusive. One therefore informs the other.

          To conclude that the children of citizens born beyond the seas are not natural born citizens is to invent from whole cloth a new, third class of citizen for which there exists no basis in the law. Certainly the 1795 act suggests no new third class. Neither do any of the subsequent supercessions or repeals. Hence, it was of the utmost ease for the Senate to unanimously pass Senate Resolution 511 without any debate and declare John McCain a natural born citizen. And while fewer and farther between, court challenges to McCain’s eligibility have failed with exactly the same level of consistency as challenges to Obama’s. Anticipate the same result should there eventually be challenges to Cruz’s.

          Now, before I leave this discussion for good, I need to point out again that in all of the vast amount of typing that Steve has placed on this forum supposedly in response to my comments, he has still made no effort to substantively disagree with me on any of my primary positions. For just one example, he seemed almost apoplectic that I would write that “there has never been a single US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits a dual citizen from eligibility to the Presidency.” And yet, onthe thousands of words he has written since, he never even tried to prove my statement false by showing us A SINGLE US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that did so.

          We got hand waving. We got long run-on sentences of often dubious coherence. We got rhetorical contortionism of the highest form. But never the simple “fact” that would destroy the beautiful theory.

          Steve tells us he is now returning to court because, Eureka, he has found in one of Strauss’s responses what he believes will be the magic bullet that ends his otherwise perfect streak of courtroom disasters. I am looking forward to more theater. I have always enjoyed a well written farce.

        • slcraignbc says:

          You say…………..

          The single most settled criteria for being a natural born citizen is the definition provided by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark decision.

          I say, what a twit……….

          The single most definition derives from Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretation of English Barristers interpretations of English Common-Law cases interpretations of Queen nne Statutes on British Nationality…………..

          What a twit……..

          So, you accept that Justice penumbra zone Gray can MAKE LAW by saying that a “Citizen is a Citizen is a Citizen is a Citizen and ignore the FACT that the Constitution at A2S1C5 DISTINGUISHES between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen ON PURPOSE and WITH CAUSE.

          What a twit……….

          P.S. Aside from equating the two forms of Citizenship in DICTA where in the Order does he call lil’ wong a U.S. natural born Citizen…………

          ….not withstanding the FACT that lil’ wong would NOT have been born Stateless as he was born under the JURISDICTION of the Burlingame Treaty that provided for the temporary domicile of his parents, who were prohibited from naturalizing/expatriating under Article 6 of the Treaty….

          So much wrong with Justice penumbra zone Gray’s Opinion that only a twit would stand by it…

    • David A says:

      Eric asks, “Does this issue matter anymore? No.”
      ===============================
      YES!, it matters. Historically it is very cogent for the truth to come out. A bold faced lie enabling someone like BO to win the presidency is important history, if that is what happened. Knowing if this happened or not is very important to protect it from happening in the future. You sound like Hilary, “what difference does it make.”

    • jlc says:

      Regardless, the salient points are one can’t be President if one holds dual citizenship (have to be a natural born citizen with no competing allegiance to other countries) nor can one attend public school in Indonesia without being an Indonesian citizen.

      This is how those loss of Indonesian records may have gone down:
      http://laotze.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-throwing-papau-under-bus.html

      • nielszoo says:

        As long as Obama renounced the other citizenship before his 18th birthday it’s not relevant as his mother was a US citizen he is automatically a “natural born” US citizen. The point is that these people continue to lie about everything for no good reason.

        • jlc says:

          No record of his denouncing Indonesian citizenship. Ted Cruz, born in Canada to US citizens, renounced his Canadian citizenship recently pending a possible run for President.

          Plus, there’s that pesky matter of how did Pres. Obama, as an adult, travel to Pakistan during the travel ban for those relying on US passports in 1987. No restrictions applied to those traveling under Indonesian passports, however.

        • kuhnkat says:

          1) at the time the Naturalization law did NOT allow his mother to pass citizenship.
          2) A Natural Born Citizen is the requirement for President and no other office.
          3) An NBC requires born on the land AND Citizen parents.
          4) BHO’s father was NOT a citizen. Arguably he is not an NBC due to his father not being a citizen along with his mother!!

          http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry Kuhn, check out the US Code, Title 8, Section 1401. His mother was a natural born citizen, so he is as well. Regardless of where he was born.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Reply to philjourdan;

          You say……….
          “Sorry Kuhn, check out the US Code, Title 8, Section 1401. His mother was a natural born citizen, so he is as well. Regardless of where he was born.”

          1401 says;

          ” 8 U.S. Code Part I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

          The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

          (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;..”

          So “Citizenship, by COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION turns on the Statutory Interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

          We’ll leave that fight for another time given that I see NOWHERE does the STATUTE suggest, imply or state that such a child would be a U.S. natural born Citizen, nor “considered as” such or any other reference to the term of words found in A2S1C5 and the 1790 Act and NOWHERE ELSE.

          Also; the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 INCLUDES the EXCLUSION of “Citizens” , post the passing of the Founding generation which would necessarily include ANY hyphenated form other than “natural born”, to say otherwise is to say that the Clause and provision has NO EFFECT, and such an argument is deemed inadmissible according to Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison.

        • philjourdan says:

          Try here – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

          Specifically, this portion:

          (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

          Or this one:

          (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

        • slcraignbc says:

          I’ve lost the progression of this specific thread so my impulsive response is to say I do not see “”natural born” attached anywhere in the citations you post.

        • philjourdan says:

          Guess I should have quoted the entire page to you so you could read the entire thing. Notice the numbering (D, G). That means they are SUBSECTIONS. Of what you ask? (well if you had GONE to the page, you would SEE the section) headed by:

          The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

          Don’t play stupid. You are not going to out stupid morondude and his sockpuppet.

        • slcraignbc says:

          THERE is NO “sub-section” that uses the term of words “natural born Citizen” whether “U.S.” is implicit or not., nowhere within 8 USC, zero, zip, nada……………..your acceptance that Jus Soli is equivalent to “natural born Citizen” only exposes your intellectual limitations given that it takes a purely “thought process” to READ the word “Citizen” have have the mind interpret that as “natural born Citizen”…………… The Constitution is SPECIFIC that “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are NOT one in the same and makes the distinction that excludes the one and requires the other within the provision of A2S1C5………….notwithstanding the FACT that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires a determination as to what extent the Jurisdiction applies to a person before applying any Constitutional provision and ONLY those provisions of Law that deal with immigrants and naturalization applies to alien foreign nationals in the 1st instant, which is made plain when you reconcile ALL OF THE PROVISIONS of the 8 USC.

        • philjourdan says:

          “Citizen at birth” is an NBC. There are ONLY 2 types of citizens. NBC and Naturalized. Period. RTFM – You could actually be something if you ever used your brain. Instead you are trying to be a moron. Congratulations. You are succeeding.

        • slcraignbc says:

          “Citizen at birth” is not the same as the term of words used at A2S1C5 and NO ACT or Opinion can change the Constitutional term of words;< (U.S.) natural born Citizen; save for a Constitutional Amendment.

          Look at the Congressional record of PROPOSED ACTS and or AMENDMENTS that would provide for what you say IS, except for the lack of support to have them voted on……….

          An "AMBIGUITY" exists, to that I acknowledge as FACT, however, to any definition that would depart from the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen that does not possess the REQUIRED characteristics as to provide a strong check against foreign influence and is consistent with the circumstance of the 1790 / '95 Acts I will continue to rebut, resorting to the ACTUAL U.S. Laws and to the EXCLUSION of FOREIGN LAW, especially the English Laws of subjegation as expressed by Justice Rutledge in the Talbot v Janson case 3 US 133 On the 22nd of August, 1795

        • philjourdan says:

          No one said anyone was trying to change the meaning of the words moron! However, the Constitution does NOT define it. SO it is left up to others to define it. And they have. That is the purpose of the US Code. Not to change anything in the Constitution, but to define it further to avoid arguments such as yours.

          You ignore it at your own stupidity. Frankly, just like the turnip, I do not care about your opinion. I only care about the facts. I have given them to you. Go file the case in court. You will get nowhere because judges do not care about your opinion either.

        • Calling me a moron is a bit ironic when you accept that the COTUS does NOT define the term of words, but then IGNORE the FACT that the 1790 Act DOES by the EFFECT of the words and what the words then REQUIRE, i.e, TWO (2) Citizen parents any where in the world,between March 1790 and January 1795, and then ONLY within the limits of the U.S……….

          There is not and never have been any “extra-Constitutional” common or natural laws that have been controlling on U.S. Citizenship, that PLENARY POWER was given to the U.S. Congress by the mandate of A2S1C5 which was applied THROUGHOUT the United States.

        • philjourdan says:

          You also are a maker of scare crows. i said you are a moron because you are living 225 years in the past. the 1790 act has no weight. period.

          The US Code does. READ IT. It states who is eligible. Then argue whether any of the paragraphs pertain to Obama or not.

        • The CURRENT U.S. CODE does NOT contain the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen and Article II Section I Clause V SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY REQUIRES a distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen.

          The 1790 Act REQUIRED two (2) U.S. Citizen parents to produce a U.S. natural born Citizen to be born ANYWHERE in the world. The 1795 Act then LIMITED WHERE a U.S. natural born Citizen could be born, i.e., within the limits of the U.S.

          There has been NO Constitutional Amendment OR Congressional ACT that has changed the circumstances as required under the 1790 Act, except as to Race, the 14th Amendment, and marriage, the 1922 Cable Act.

          The illegal alien anchor-baby policy citizenship is NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen under the INTENT of A2S1C5 and to argue that is to spit in the face of John Jay and the ENTIRE Founding generation.

        • philjourdan says:

          There are only 2 types of citizens moron. Those naturalized and those citizens at birth – NBC.

          The constitution makes no other distinction. Nor does the US Code. The US code defines the qualifications for the latter.

          I tire of repeating myself, but you are almost as thick as the turnip.

        • Well, I’m a hair split-er, kinda like Statutory Laws are……kinda like A2S1C5 is when it makes a distinction between a U.S. Citizen, (the Founding Generation), and a U.S. natural born Citizen, (the progeny of the Founding Generation U.S. Citizens and the Posterity,(the U.S. Citizens that come after them from all over the world),

          The ONLY WAY to be BORN a U.S. Citizen under the Constitution is to be born to at least one U.S. Citizen parent, however, that was not possible before the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

          Prior to that Act if a woman was married to a U.S. Citizen then the woman was ALSO a U.S. Citizen so when they had a child together the child was born a U.S. natural born Citizen

          The 14th Amendment ONLY provides POLICY Citizenship to the children of alien foreign nationals and NO OTHERS.

          ANY child with at least one U.S. Citizen parent is born with U.S. Citizenship and when BOTH parents are U.S. Citizens then the child is born a U.S. natural born Citizen.

          Splitting hairs helps to get at the roots of the circumstances and actual EFFECTS of the Laws.

          Dismiss ALL the SCOTUS Opinions and RECONCILE the ACTUAL Statutes for your self.

          Statute at Large: 1 U.S.C. (March 26,1790;)

          Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.

          “The enactment of the law is positive, and in its terms perpetual. Its provisions are not made dependent on the treaty, and although the peculiar state of things then existing might constitute the principal motive for the law, the act remains in force from its words, however that state of things may change….” Chirac v Chirac 15 US 259 (1817) pg 15

        • kuhnkat says:

          phil,

          at the time the code was different. Ex Post Facto laws are illegal. His father was not a citizen.

          I am not trying to claim Barry is not a citizen of the US. That is a different argument. I am claiming he is not an NBC!! As the Supreme stated in the case I linked, there are two classes of citizens, NBC and Naturalized. The code only applies to Naturalized anyway. The requirements for NBC are clearly stated in the case as two citizen parents and born on the land. McCain might make it based on the fact his parents were out of the country due to Federal and not Personal Business similar to Ambassadors. Everyone’s favorite Cruz is NOT an NBC.

          Don’t confuse the 14th Amendment and its alleged making everyone born on the soil citizens with making them NBC.

        • philjourdan says:

          Kuhnkat – Can you find what it was at the time of his birth? I have not searched hard for it, but if you can find what it was, you have a case. Otherwise, we have to go with the law as it is written. And it clearly states he is.

          Even if the law was not in effect when he was born, there is still a question as his mother was an NBC. And as I tried to tell the troll, the Constitution does not define NBC, so until over ridden with a different code, the fact his mother was (and had not renounced) he was an NBC.

          There are only 2 types of citizens. naturalized and NBC. Obama is not naturalized. (he is not natural either, but as you said, that is a different debate).

        • @jlc

          There was no possibility for Obama to renounce Indonesian citizenship since he was never an Indonesian citizen in the first place. Under Indonesian law at the time, he was already too old on arrival in Indonesia to gain citizenship through any act of his parents, and was required by law to wait until he was 18 to apply. By ten, he was already living back in the US, so the whole thing was moot.

          @kuhnkat

          Since he was born in US soil, his mother’s age was irrelevant. According to the US Supreme Court, anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

        • kuhnkat says:

          HistorianDude, apparently you are too ignorant to actually READ the Supreme Decision, which happens to be the latest on the subject, which I conveniently posted for those who are literate enough to READ something more complex than Jack and Jill.

        • @jlc

          In all of recorded history, there has never once been a restriction for traveling to Pakistan on a US passport.

        • @kuhnkat

          Again? Really, you want me to read Minor v. Happersett AGAIN? Sorry, I decline. I know the decision like the back of my hand. This is why I dismiss it as completely irrelevant to the definition of natural born citizen. Why?

          1. The case was not a citizenship case, it was a suffrage case in which Virginia Minor’s citizenship ultimately proved completely irrelevant. Furthermore, her citizenship was never an issue before the court. It was full conceded by both sides without argument.

          2. The “definition” offered in the case that is so beloved by birthers is mere dicta, and not a precedent setting decision of the court. As a result, it has never once been cited as precedent by any subsequent court regarding the definition of natural born citizen. And more devastatingly, it has been explicitly rejected as precedent by several courts which have ruled Obama to be a natural born US citizen.

          3. The “definition” is also non-exclusive. It says that there is no doubt that children of citizens born on US soil are NBC. And of course, there IS no doubt of that. But it also immediately recognizes that there may be others that qualify as well, and then declines to settle the issue. As such, it tells us only what is sufficient for NBC status, but not what is necessary.

          4. Even if we pretended arguendo that it defined natural born citizenship, it would have been abrogated by the more comprehensive and recent decision in the case US v. Wong Kim Ark. As you know, This is how stare decisis works. It is the most recent cases that set the reigning precedent, not the more ancient cases.

          5. But that was just for argument sake. Wong did not abrogate Minor at all. Instead it settled the issue that the Minor court explicitly refused to consider; i.e. the status of children born in US soil to alien parents. This is (of course) closer to the category relevant to our President. And the court decided that anyone born on US soil who was not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation was a natural born US citizen. Since Barack Obama was not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation, then he is a natural born US citizen. At least two dozen courts have drawn that conclusion, and all of them have based their decision largely on US. Wong Kim Ark.

          6. Wong remains the only SCOTUS decision that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

        • slcraignbc says:

          You dissemble again with your analysis of Minor v even though noting that Justice Waite expressly disavowed any pretense to “defining” who was and was not a U.S. natural born Citizen.

          ” … For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. ”

          Then you mistreat his words insinuating that any child is “citizen” when he ACTUALLY says;

          “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

          The most pertinent takeaway from the DICTA,, which I believe stands and stands out, is;

          “The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen…”

          “The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen.”

          I’ll let that sit for now and address my major issue with Justice Waite and his words. “Resort elsewhere”….., that damnable admonish-en avow-ably to be railed against as being offered as if a compass without the needle.

          When he could as easily have said, “RESORT AS I HAVE, to the 1790, ’95, ’98 Act of Congress on the subject, having found all that was necessary for this case, perhaps the balance of the answers will be found there.”

          But for good or ill, a great deal time spent on Aristotle to the Enlightenment gang of writers all lead back to the COTUS and ITS Laws, the culmination of eons of philosophy on nature and its laws and they apply to the conduct and affairs of men and nations.

          The “established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization as expressed in the 1790 Act can be characterized as saying;

          “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so oo are their children, at birth or otherwise…”

          As for the 14th, it did and does turn on the Constitutional meaning of “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”, but suffice it to say that any one who REQUIRES and DEPENDS on the 14th for “Citizenship” MUST be a child of an alien foreign national, as Title 8 provides for all others under the “uniform Rule” as I characterized it.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “The requirements for NBC are clearly stated in the case as two citizen parents and born on the land. ”

          Who told you that It is WRONG. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the Common Law (not from Vattel, who was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times and always with praise). And in the common law Natural Born refers to the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents—not two parents, not even one parent.

          And the US Supreme Court case that you THINK defined the matter, the Minor v. Happersett case, did not say what you think at all. It NEVER said that two citizen parents were required. It only said that if you had the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, place of birth and both parents, like the plaintiff Virginia Minor, it was never doubted that you were, of course a Natural Born Citizen. OF COURSE if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen you ARE a natural born citizen. But, duh, that does not say that you HAVE to have both of the two possible ways, one might be just fine.

          So the Minor v. Happersett case did not say what birthers think. The case that did was the Wong Kim Ark case, which was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, so it would nevertheless be the key ruling if the Minor v. Happersett decision had really said something on the subject (which it didn’t). And the Wong Kim Ark ruling (six justices to two, one not voting) said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth and hence EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and of members of invading enemy armies.

          “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

          “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

          More reading on the subject:

          http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

          http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

          http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

        • philjourdan says:

          You can be lucent at times, and then you can be your normal idiot troll self.

          English Common law may be where the founders got their ideas, but it is not “the law of the land” here. So is irrelevant. The ruling law is the US Code. Period. What it stated at the time of his birth is the only thing you need to know.

          You trolls should get your acts together. You are arguing against your idiot brother in pay, history something.

        • slcraignbc says:

          If you ACTUALLY read the U.S. Code you’ll may note the disguised deception that is in plain sight.

          8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Subchapter III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

          8 U.S. Code Part I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

          8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

          The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

          (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

          Now look at Part I that says “nationality at birth and Collective Naturalization. 1401 (a) REQUIRES that the person born be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

          The LAWS PROHIBIT persons to enter the U.S. without permission, so anyone that does is OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction insofar as the law is concerned.

          There are other points of view on the term of words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” but no matter how you cut it the only jurisdiction that the COTUS and its Laws have over a person that broke its laws by entering illegally are those parts of the JURISDICTION that PROSECUTES the offender ultimately leading to DEPORTATION.

          But to the point of who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen I ask you where do you see it anywhere in the U.S. Code besides the STATUTE at LARGE as ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act….?

          NOT Court Opinions, but ACTUAL duly enacted Law….

          And (a) is followed by 9 more provisions with 3 of those being sub-sections.

        • philjourdan says:

          Part A is a non sequitur. I never quoted it nor used it. Try D & G. or talk to a lawyer about suing the government for producing the US Code.

          I really do not care. You are wrong. Period. There is only one thing that can save you, and Kuhn has not found it yet. I suggest you help him in that endeavor.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Now I really have no idea what you are talking about or what positions you cling to or whether you are some kind of programmed spider spitting out words to see if they get a response or what……

          How can can you say I am wrong if you have no position or interpretation of what I am saying that resides in reality……..??

        • philjourdan says:

          READ THE FREAKING CODE!

          I can link to it all day long, but if you do not read it, or cannot understand it, you will always be clueless.

        • slcraignbc says:

          SHOW me in the U.S. Codes where the term of words “(U.S.) natural born Citizen” is used !!!!

          I’ve been looking since 2008 and the ONLY place I find it in the U.S. Law in at A2S1C5 and the 1790 Act……………”Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are NOT and can NOT be by the statutory construction of A2S1C5 and the 1790 Act…….

          The SCOTUS can NOT define a Constitutional “term of words” that it has NEVER been asked to define…….

          Learn the Law and obey it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Show me where the constitution defines it moron.

        • You’re being insolently obtuse………

          We can agree that the Constitution does NOT define who, how, why or when, a U.S. natural born Citizen was to be within the Clause of the Articles in which the term of words were used.

          But the 1790 Act DID, and there were NO OBJECTIONS to it BECAUSE the PROVISIONS that provided for their ACKNOWLEDGEMENT were consistent with the natural law, common law, English common law and Aristotle’s conception of 350 BC.

          The CIRCUMSTANCES that are relevant, in order of importance, IS 1st PARENTAGE CITIZENSHIP STATUS, and 2ndly PLACE of BIRTH.

          It can ONLY be speculation WHY the 1st Congress provided for a “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen but I have 2 plausible explanations.

          What is RELEVANT is that the “foreign-born” were ACKNOWLEDGED and “considered as IF’ born within the limits of the U.S., as would be occurring throughout the States during the time of the Acts authority.

          There WAS / IS NO Jus Soli and or Jus Sanguinis in the U.S. Citizenship Laws because ALL of the Citizenship Laws requires a person to be SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution as a CONSENTING PARTY to which CONSENT is ACKNOWLEDGED.

          Granting ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP is POLICY and NOT LAW and the PARENTS, being alien foreign nationals who have ENTERED the U.S. LIMITS without CONSENT are SUBJECT to DEPORTATION ……….assuming the Justice Department follows the ACTUAL LAWS.

        • philjourdan says:

          No Craig, you are being obdurate. The 1790 act is not germane. The US Code IS. You are free to believe what you want, but you are clearly wrong. And I do not care! He is a citizen, he is President, and no court will hear the objection., So go bark at turnips. You are wasting both your time and mine time by being obstinate.

        • There is a Statute at Large that emanates from the original 1790 Act that is represented throughout the current U.S. Code, that is, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”……….

          Try finding a Statute in the current Code that contradicts that.

          The Constitution, the Acts of the Congress and the U.S. Code are ALL Statutory in their construction and they are ALL written and interpreted under the same Rules.

          When you RECONCILE the EFFECTS that are provided for in the 1790 Act you’ll find that the EFFECTS visited on newly naturalized aliens is the SAME effect as ATTACHED to existing U.S. Citizens, ergo. “an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization.

        • @slcraignbc

          I don’t think you know what “dissemble” means. You certainly do not use it correctly. It would have at least been interesting to find (in a post that pretends to be responding to mine) an actual response. As far as I can tell, you have disagreed with nothing I said.

          Certainly, your prolix diversion into the completely non-controversial fact that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is simply declarative of preexisting law stands rather starkly as an answer to a question never asked. I have no idea how you found it relevant to anything we are discussing.

          And while you rail against Wait’s needleless compass, I think I’ll go have a limoncello. Minor’s irrelevance to any discussion of the NBC clause renders it entirely uninteresting to me. So too with the wild leap into a discussion of naturalization… a subject relevant only in the negative, since under the Constitution naturalized citizens are the only citizens who are not natural born.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Well, I’ve read through your’s and your sidekicks non-responsive responses that make declaratory statements as if you knew of what you speak even though you say nothing wroth knowing.

          But obfuscation is your goal so it did not really expect you to debate with any real interest in FACTS regarding the nature of U.S. Citizenship or the ACTUAL Laws, their words and the effects of their words.

          You dismiss just as you dismiss the COTUS and the TRUTH, with disdain for having been found out and exposed as a fraud.

          SO, unless and until you are willing to accept or offer a rebuttal, without RESORTING ELSEWHERE, to the characterization of the “established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship & naturalization which I state as ” Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”, I will know you to be an 0’poligist and NOTHING more.

        • @ slcraigbc

          I have sidekicks? Who’d a thunk?

        • philjourdan says:

          Apparently not you. You have yet to pen a single thought.

        • smrstrauss says:

          jlc said:

          “No record of his denouncing Indonesian citizenship. ”

          Answer: Obama was never an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm. ((202) 775 5200 —- and ask for the press officer.)

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “English Common law may be where the founders got their ideas, but it is not “the law of the land” here. So is irrelevant. The ruling law is the US Code. Period.”

          What IS relevant is (1) the US Electoral College, whose role in the selection of the president is specified in the US Constitution, elected Obama TWICE; (2) the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election twice unanimously; (3) the chief justice of the USA swore Obama in many times (at least a couple after each of the two elections); (4) Birthers brought specific lawsuits against Obama on the specific issue of whether he is a Natural Born Citizen and in every single one of them THEY LOST, and the courts ruled that, yes, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

          So to argue that Obama does not fulfill a statue in the US Code seems, well, extremely farfetched.

          Yes, the founders got their definition of Natural Born from the common law, and they used it when they created the term Natural Born Citizen in the constitution. That phrase refers to the place of birth, and since Obama really was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born US citizen. Neither any statute nor the words of the Constitution disagree with that fact.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non Sequiturs again. Nothing you write has any bearing on the issue at hand. Absolutely NOTHING. Even a monkey gets somethings correct. You cannot even get that much. I should not insult morons by describing you as one.

          They are smarter than you are.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdain said:

          “No one said anyone was trying to change the meaning of the words moron! However, the Constitution does NOT define it. SO it is left up to others to define it. ”

          Answer: That is actually correct, and in the United States of America the final decision on what the US Constitution means is left to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six justices to two justices, one justice not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.

          Here are its words:

          It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

          III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

          A short summary of what the above means was given by the Heritage Foundation in its book on the US Constitution, and it said:

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          More reading on the subject:

          http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

          http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

          http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

        • philjourdan says:

          Wrong again Turnip. Wang did NOT define NBC. nor is it up to them! You are making Craig’s case for him idiot. Keep it up. You will end up in jail for defrauding OFA(l) due to your incompetence.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: ” That is the purpose of the US Code. Not to change anything in the Constitution, but to define it further to avoid arguments such as yours.”

          Answer: It is the Supreme Court, not laws, that define the meaning of terms in the US Constitution. And the US Supreme Court defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled six to two (one justice not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.

        • philjourdan says:

          Wrong again turnip! SCOTUS can do NOTHING unless a suit is brought. So far, none have. Until that time, if the Constitution does not say it, the FEDS are free to define it! Moron.

          SCOTUS does not go around looking for things to define. And to date, they have not. YOu are wrong again turnip. Wang is not on point moron.

        • Well, it seems you’ve come a long way, baby……….BUT; you say;

          ” … the FEDS are free to define it! Moron….”

          The FEDS have NOT defined it except as it applies to ILLEGAL ALIENS….., go figure; but as far as the USDC Western TN is concerned ;

          Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

          “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
          And;
          “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

          The best way to understand the status of the term of words is to take out the “0”s name and position and insert “ANY GIVEN PERSON”.

          What is LOSTt on a lot of people is that the TRANSIENT POLITICAL ASPECT of “eligibility” does NOT attach until the person is actually born and MAY detach due to alienating circumstances, (which may be self-evident and / or contestable)

          As for the Feds getting to say whatever they want stands a a violation of the COTUS of a Constitutional black-letter law that has NO Statute of Limitations attached to it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Craig, I would suggest you quit while you are behind. The turnip has convinced me you are correct. Another stupid post like this and you will convince me you are not.

          RTFM – in this case the US Code.

        • I’ve lost my de-coder ring so I can’t make heads or tails of what you mean by this.

          “Craig, I would suggest you quit while you are behind. The turnip has convinced me you are correct. Another stupid post like this and you will convince me you are not.

          RTFM – in this case the US Code.” ………..

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The US Code does. READ IT. It states who is eligible.”

          No it doesn’t.

          The US Supreme Court defined who is a Natural Born citizen in the Wong Kim Ark decision.

        • philjourdan says:

          Wong again turnip. Wang defined one instance. The US Code defines 8. 8 is not 1 turnip. But I guess for someone who has no clue about what evidence is, numbers are especially hard for you turnip.

      • There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President. At least the following Presidents were all dual citizens: Taft, Truman, Tyler, Eisenhower, Arthur, FDR and JFK. Kennedy was arguably a triple.

        Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were dual citizens of the US and France… and we were even in an undeclared war his adopted second country during Jefferson’s Vice Presidency. The US Congress at the time (overwhelmingly composed of Constitutional Framers) were fully aware of those dual allegiances and still elected them to either VP or President at least five times. It appears that the Framers did not share your convenient abhorrence of dual citizenship.

        • That has nothing to do with the topic of this post.

        • That’s okay. It has everything to do with the discussion in the thread.

        • philjourdan says:

          Only to an illiterate. Thank you for confirming that.

        • kuhnkat says:

          HistorianDude,

          lotta smoke, but, I notice you offer ZERO documentation of your claims.

          Try some reality instead of that smoke you are breathing.

        • slcraignbc says:

          HistorianDude says:
          August 25, 2014 at 2:00 pm
          There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President…..”

          Well, you are just completely out in the weeds on that little screed that contains not one FACT.

          The provision in question, which reduces to an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” in analysis of its statutory language, says, IN FACT; “no person except a (U.S.) natural born Citizen …….{snip to remove defunct “Grandfather Clause”}, shall be eligible for the Office of President of the United States of America…”

          Now, let’s vist the DEFUNCT Grandfather Clause, which DID provide for a U.S. Citizen who was NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen to be POTUS.

          THAT provision is DEFUNCT and with ITS passing “no person except …. shall be” is the LAW of the LAND.

          At the time of the Ratification of the COTUS any and all PERCEIVED “dual-Citizens” were SEPARATED with on set being U.S. Citizens and the others then “aliens” as there was NO provision to RECOGNIZE Dual=Citizenship given that to BE a U.S. Citizen required AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT and RENUNCIATION of any FOREIGN ATTACHMENTS. (see Talbot v Janson)

          But while we’re on the subject of HYPHENATED CITIZENSHIP lets’ put the confusion to rest.

          “No person (with any hyphenation other than less and) EXCEPT a (U.S.) natural born Citizen shall be eligible”.

          Adding to, abridging or otherwise modifying the Constitutional term of words REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment.

          The ENUMERATED PLENARY POWER of the Congress on the subject of the “established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization” can NOT do it Act or POLICY nor can the effects of an election change it.

          So your little canard of declaring the Founding Fathers “Dual-Citizens” fails in its fallaciousness as they threw off the bonds that tied them to their past and embraced the new with these words as U.S. Citizens of the Founding Generation;

          “” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….”

        • @ kuhnkat

          How, pray tell, does one “document” something that has never existed?

          That would be a very neat trick.

        • philjourdan says:

          You seem to think your very word can do just that! He is just calling you out on your own stupidity,.

        • kuhnkat says:

          So Propagandistic HistorianDudette,

          You claim there is no evidence to support the claims you make??

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          That’s OK, it would appear that slcraignbc already ate your lunch and midnight snacks. That doesn’t really matter either as you try to use junk logic to carry your propaganda.

          The fact that a number of people manage to get away with breaking a law does NOT make that law inapplicable bozo!!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        • @slcraignbc

          The comment to which you objected was “There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President.”

          One would have imagined that when challenging such a statement, your task would be simply to demonstrate a US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that ever prohibited dual citizens from being President. But instead you provided 345 words worth of hand waving, without referencing a single one.

          The Constitution in general (and the grandfather clause in particular) makes no mention of dual citizenship. You tacitly concede this fact by noting that there was “NO provision to RECOGNIZE Dual=Citizenship.” It was so completely a non issue to the Framers that it was never even considered. This is also true in the records of the Constitution Convention. Dual citizenship was so irrelevant that it was never even brought up.

          This of course comports completely with the fact that both Madison and Jefferson BECAME dual citizens of France subsequent to the Framing. While I recognize that they were covered by the grandfather clause, that only made them eligible… they still needed (to become President) be found acceptable EVEN AS DUAL CITIZENS to the Congresses that elected them. Congresses that were overwhelmingly populated by Framers of the Constitution. No objections to their dual status can be found anywhere in the records.

          Now, it goes with that saying that just because you are unable to come up with any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that ever prohibited dual citizens from being President, that does not permit you to retroactively rewrite actual laws and insert into them phrases, words and concepts they do not otherwise contain. This is especially true with the Constitution, a document that I appear to hold in greater reverence than you do. It would never have crossed my mind to take the Article II NBC clause and insert a tendentious seven word phrase that has no justification beyond your desire to make it say something it does not. It takes a vast amount of chutzpah to do that level of violence to our foundational document. I would have been unable to marshal quite that level of disrespect.

      • Billy Rawle says:

        “the salient points are one can’t be President if one holds dual citizenship (have to be a natural born citizen with no competing allegiance to other countries) nor can one attend public school in Indonesia without being an Indonesian citizen.”

        Not true as previous President’s have been dual citizens (Chester Arthur and Andrew Jackson were specifically mentioned by Theodore Roosevelt as being British subjects under British law).

        There has never been an Indonesian law that prevented non-citizens from attending public school.

        More importantly, President Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen under the law in effect at the time.

        http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html

        Under Article 2, a child adopted before the age of five could gain Indonesian citizenship but there are no provisions in the law for adopted children over the age of five (Article 4 might be interpreted to allow them to naturalize by petition within one year after the age of 18). Under Law No.62 to be eligible under Article 2, President Obama would have needed to have been adopted by August 4th, 1966. In his step-father’s (Lolo Soetoro) immigration file there is a memo from September, 1967 that states that Barack Obama was legally classified as a “step-child” of Lolo Soetoro. In fact there are several letters and memos that refer him as the son from a prior marriage or the child of a previous marriage. He is never referred to as the adopted child of Lolo Soetoro.

    • “Does this issue matter anymore? No.”

      Wha…? The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people doesn’t matter?

      Have you heard of Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation?

      • The veracity of the president is important.

        • smrstrauss says:

          The publicist for the literary agent admitted to making the mistake entirely by herself. See details above.

        • philjourdan says:

          And Obama has never lied – see above.

        • Miriam, you said that you didn’t do your “fact checking”
          What facts were you checking? Who told you that Obama was born in Kenya?

        • She has answered that question. No one. The mistake was original with her.

        • philjourdan says:

          And Obama has never lied. How much is OFA(l) paying you?

          As I said (see above) plausible deniability has to be believable.

        • Since the President has never said he was born in Kenya, his veracity in this instance is not in question.

        • philjourdan says:

          Yes he has – as the evidence proves. You do not know the rules of evidence do you?

          OFA(l) should pay better to get better stooges.

        • philjourdan says:

          “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” – His veracity was proven a long time ago.

        • @philjourdan

          I’ll take your violent change of subject as a full concession on the relevant discussion underway.

        • philjourdan says:

          😆 You are ESL! I did not change the subject. YOU introduced the honesty of the clown. I provided evidence as to its level.

          You really do not understand English.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “And Obama has never lied – see above.”

          Answer. Of course, he has lied—hasn’t every politician. But YOU are claiming that the publicist is lying, and she is not a politician—and you don’t even know her. And, as noted, Obama had given previous interviews to newspapers in which he said that he was born in Hawaii. So, if you are claiming that he always lies (which would be dumb), then he lied in those interviews–so you’d think that he was born in Kenya. But he wasn’t born in Kenya (want to see the evidence? It’s overwhelming.). So he told the truth to the newspapers interviews, and she is telling the TRUTH that she made a mistake in saying he was born in Kenya and that he never told her that he was born in Kenya. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya, and that is where the mistake comes from.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non sequitur. The issue is not about “every politician”. It is about Obama. Nor can you prove that “every politician” lies. So do not even bother.

          Your duplicity and evasion is duly noted. You have no justification for your opinion other than “everyone” does it, with no evidence to support your stupidity.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “And Obama has never lied. How much is OFA(l) paying you?”

          First, I’m not be paid a cent. Are you? Well, if you are , good for you, but it would not change the facts. I’m not, and that does not change the facts either (and if I were, that also would not change the facts). But, sadly, I’m not.

          And, duh, of course Obama has lied—as have most politicians—but that does not make the publicist, who is not a politician, a liar, and she said that she made a mistake. And it was an easy mistake to make, mixing up Barack Hussein Obama, Obama’s father who actually was born in Kenya, with Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, who was born in Hawaii. And that is what Obama had told newspapers before the bio was published, and the notion that he would switch and tell the writer that he was born in Kenya is farfetched.

          She did not lie. She really made a mistake.

        • philjourdan says:

          Liar. You are paid. Or you are living on welfare which means you are a slave owner. You pick.

          I fully admit I get paid. By my customers when I take care of their IT needs.

          So you are proven a liar. And we are supposed to believe you did not lie when you said it was your mistake because you had never heard of a son being named after the father?

          2 of the first 6 presidents had the same name moron! Father and son. And you are thinking of talking about history? Cut us a break! Not even you can be that stupid!

          You have no facts. Nothing you have said has been backed up with even a scintilla of evidence. So stop talking about facts you have presented., You have presented none. And stop lying about getting paid by OFA(l). It is no secret that your “job” is to hunt out the truth and squelch it. Obama has stated as much. But then, yea he is a liar, so he may just be paying you for being a brown shirt. He sure is not paying you for any mental capacity.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Non sequitur. The issue is not about “every politician”. It is about Obama.”

          Non sequitur to you too. Even though Obama lies, you cannot prove that he lies in all things, so you cannot prove that he falsely told the publicist that he was born in Kenya.

          Moreover, the fact that HE lies does not prove that she does, and she has said that she MADE A MISTAKE.

          Obama had told two newspapers before 1991 that he was born IN HAWAII, and he wrote in his book that he was born IN HAWAII. IF you claim that he was lying in those three examples, we would have to discuss the factual situation of his birth (which you have said no one cares about). But, if you think that he was telling the truth in those examples, then it is a fantasy to imply that he changed his story from “I was born in Hawaii” before 1991 and again in 1995 to “I was born in Kenya” in the middle.

          Non sequitur to you too—particularly about your claim that the publicist lied when she admitted to making a mistake.

        • philjourdan says:

          No Turnip, non sequitur is not an insult. it means the statement is not on point. Obama IS ON POINT turnip. So my statement is not a non sequitur.

          Nor do I have to re-prove he has lied. I have already shown he lies. I know you have no clue about evidence, proof and opinion, but that is the way it works turnip.

          The statement is on point, and the proof is already provided. But that would require you to learn to read and retain the information for more than 3 seconds. A feat not possible for a turnip.

      • We’ve hear about Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation for three years. In that time it has accomplished nothing other than help Joe fund raise for reelection.

      • philjourdan says:

        He has been president for almost 6 years and elected twice. The issue of if he is or is not does not matter. However, this article is about WHO started it. And the evidence is clear.

        • @philjourdan

          You guys really don’t think very hard about stuff. For Miriam Goderich to be accused of “starting” something, she would have actually had to start something. But nobody noticed this bio until May of 2012, at which point the birther movement was already four years old. SO how could she be accused of starting it?

          The birther movement (to include the rumour that Obama was born in Kenya) was started on the right-wing FreeRepublic Forum at about 3:00 AM on the morning of March 1, 2008 with this post:

          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1978110/posts?page=391#391

        • philjourdan says:

          😆 Still a moron. As I have said repeatedly, where he was born does not matter. WHO started it does matter. Since you provide no evidence to back up a clearly made up story, then you are grasping at straws. So much that you do not even recognize when a post of mine actually buttresses your pathetic lies!

          Clearly you have no clue. And clearly you have no evidence that Obama did not direct it except the word of a proven liar. Those are facts.

          Now prove me wrong. Or continue to spew unintelligible garbage. That is the only thing you have proven you can do.

        • Yes Tony. Two Kenyan newspapers made the same mistake. Are you going to get around to trying to make an actual point?

          Oh… I forgot. That generally doesn’t go so well for you. Never mind.

        • philjourdan says:

          He has made several – for those with an IQ above a turnip. let me recap for the goldfish memory among us.

          #1 – Obama was saying he was born in Kenya for 17 years before anyone else
          #2 – The claim that it was a right wing conspiracy (which makes you a conspiracy theorist) was debunked by him by showing clippings from 2004 (4 years before you citation) saying exactly that.

          Now all you have to do is PROVE the newspapers retracted the stories (alleged never shown) to prove one of your points that is a complete non sequitur.

          OFA(l) is wasting money on you.

        • Nigeria is in Kenya?
          2004 is after 2008?
          1991 is after 2008?

          Your BS isn’t going to get you very far around here.

        • Oh look! A garbled detail!! Gosh, I was so certain that never happens.

        • philjourdan says:

          I noticed that when you cannot respond to something (or more likely just plain do not understand it) you say it is a “garbled detail”. I would suggest you get a better browser that does not garble web pages, or you learn the meaning of the term.

          Or just simply quit lying. Yes, I know, another garbled detail for the moron and her sock puppet.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The records are sealed moron.”

          Answer: NO, they are not “sealed.” They are protected against disclosure by the normal state and federal privacy law. That is all. The same state and federal privacy laws prevent the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s records and John McCain’s records, and my records and your records—none of them are “sealed.”

          He then said: “#1 – Obama was saying he was born in Kenya for 17 years before anyone else.”

          Answer: No, the publicist made the mistake, and it was not corrected for 17 years.

        • philjourdan says:

          Calling morondude – your puppet is broken again. Still stuck on stupid and irrelevant.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “#1 – Obama was saying he was born in Kenya for 17 years before anyone else.”

          NO, the publicist said it. Obama didn’t.

        • philjourdan says:

          No turnip – it is NOT a biography of you. It is HIS biography. In other words, his preening of his feathers. if he is as stupid as you (probable) then yea, he never read it. He just OKed it.

          Evidence turnip. You still need to get some. On the good side, I am laughing at the money Obama is wasting on the worthless carbon emitter that you are.

        • philjourdan says:

          it is worth bearing in mind that the manufactured controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has its origins in anonymous e-mails sent by Hillary Clinton partisans during the 2008 Democratic primary.

          Yep, and as the turnip turns.

  5. BallBounces says:

    He was smitten by Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA and, er, changed his tune?

  6. au1corsair says:

    Expose Barack Obama? Noooooo!

  7. au1corsair says:

    Expose Barack Obama? Noooooo!

  8. Shazaam says:

    The laughingstock-in-chief is just a disaster all around.

    Like this:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/21/Obama-Considering-Unilaterally-Granting-800K-Guest-Worker-Visas-as-90-Believe-American-Workers-Should-Be-Favored — the only reason I can think of for that escapade is to solicit some more “campaign contributions” (aka bribes) for his political party….

    wtf is that vacuum-between-the-ears idiot thinking?

    • 0bama is not a laughing stock or a nincompoop. He is not stupid or foolish.
      He’s doing exactly what his oligarch handlers are telling him to do.

    • Gamecock says:

      “the only reason I can think of for that escapade is to solicit some more “campaign contributions” (aka bribes) for his political party….”

      Ol’ altruistic Barry. Horsehockey! He is raising money for himself; he cares nothing about the party.

  9. Ed Martin says:

    I am proud of my 1/2 Seminole ancestry, if I could say I was born on a Seminole reservation, definitely. But I would not be a lying sack of shyt running around telling everyone that I was born next door to ‘Walton’ville to get around some kind of election law.

    The guy had no father to bring him up right.

  10. Smokey says:

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio is Mr. Common Sense. When he started looking into the issue, at first he was very skeptical. But now he has changed his opinion 180º. He is emphatic that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and he has completely deconstructed the recent, computer-generated fabrication that was passed off as Obama’s birth certificate.

    I will believe Sheriff Arpaio way before I would believe Obama’s spokesholes.

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      Smokey, where can I find Arpaio asserting he wasn’t born in Hawaii? I try to follow everything on that issue, and haven’t seen that. What I have seen is his Posse lead stating that what they have uncovered was “Universe Shattering”, so I assume pretty shocking. His team actually got an affidavit from the document expert most often used by Obama’s legal team… on the BC posted on White House.org

      This guy is a lefty, and didn’t even want to look at it, but after spending 15 minutes with the file, he could see multiple problems, and ultimately wrote a 45 page scathing opinion of the document, saying at one point that it was the most obviously altered document he had ever examined.

      • Send Al to the Pole says:

        From WND on Arpaio’s investigation:

        Most recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

        “We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.

        “Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

        The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.

        “There is something wrong with this,” Hayes had said.

        Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

        “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.

        Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/cnn-raises-alarm-over-cruz-eligibility/#jYcrR5D0x8XMURt0.99

        • Smokey says:

          Send Al to the Pole,

          I worded my comment badly. Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, and Sheriff Joe says that birth certificate is a forgery.

        • Reed Hayes has never been “used as (Perkins Coie’s) reliable expert” to testify in any case, ever. Perkins-Coie is also not the law firm that Obama uses to defend himself in eligibility cases.

          Finally, Reed Hayes has exactly zero experience in digital document forensics. He is a handwriting analyst whose most significant work to date are books about the pseudoscience of Astrology.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Reed Hayes is the ONLY real expert that the birthers have on their side, and he admits that he did not read the results of the investigation of the way the Xerox WorkCentre works.

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

          So, with the single exception of Reed Hayes, who has not proven his expertise in examining digital documents (he is a specialist in documents on paper, and he has not seen the paper copies) and who admits he has not seen the research on the way that the Xerox WorkCentre works) ONLY birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate forged. And they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

          One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

          Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

          And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

          Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

          Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

          John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

          Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

          Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

          Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

          And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

          Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.

        • philjourdan says:

          So Reed hayes is on Obama’s side? Since when?

          RTFM – the article is about the ORIGINAL birther. Not some ad hominem you throw around out of total ignorance.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “So Reed hayes is on Obama’s side? Since when?”

          As noted above, he is the ONLY birther expert who has some qualifications in court, and even his digital document qualifications are vague. (He is an expert in physical documents). And he admits that he did not read the research on the Xerox WorkCentre, which is a tremendous admission of not being fully qualified.

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

          And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly said that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that all the facts on the copy that the White House put online MATCH those on what they sent to him.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non Sequitur. I asked a question. I did not need your ignorant and erroneous opinion. As I have said before, you have yet to present a single fact. And you did not just then.

        • kuhnkat says:

          That is an Obamanism. They never said they sent the short form to Barry. If they sent what was posted on the WH website, the Long Form, to Barry, they are part of the FRAUD!!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be??

        • smrstrauss says:

          Khunkat said: “They never said they sent the short form to Barry. If they sent what was posted on the WH website, the Long Form, to Barry, they are part of the FRAUD!!”

          Poor Khunkat, another gullible person who has been fooled by the LIES of birther sites.

          The officials in Hawaii have said that they sent both Obama’s short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL of the facts on them are exactly the same as on what they sent to him. That includes the former Republican governor of Hawaii, who was a strong supporter of Sarah Palin (it is not likely that a strong supporter of Sarah Palin would commit a fraud to benefit Obama). In addition to these confirmations by people there is also three documents : (1) the pubic Index Data file that has been open in Hawaii since LONG before Obama’s first election and shows he was issued a birth certificate in 1961; (2) microfilmed copies of the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so in 1961 for births IN Hawaii; (3) a handwritten note by an inspector for the INS in 1962 or 1963 that reports on Obama’s father’s residence status and says “One child, born in Honolulu.”

          Also, there is no indication that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy.

          Yet birthers hope a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that both of those happened and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged and the officials of both parties are lying and the Index Data and the birth notices are forged and the INS inspector made an error in his “one child, born in Honolulu” note. But you’d have to be terribly GULLIBLE to think that all of that happened.

          To repeat what khunkat said: “If they sent what was posted on the WH website, the Long Form, to Barry, they are part of the FRAUD!!”

          Answer. They certainly said it, and here are only SOME of the many times that they did:

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

          (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who agreed that that statement is legal proof that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and that he has a birth certificate from Hawaii, and who then then put Obama on the ballot.)

      • Arpaio has stated he doesn’t care where Barry was born. He’s got this phony birth certificate on his hands.

        • This story is about Obama lying about his birthplace.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “This story is about Obama lying about his birthplace.”

          Answer. No, the publicist for the literary agent admitted to making the MISTAKE entirely by herself. See details above.

        • philjourdan says:

          Answer: Yes it is. he lied by commission or omission. I will let you pick.

        • @ stevengoddard

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually no.

          RTFM – or in this case the article.

        • There was no Internet and no Google in 1991. The bio contains details which would have had to have been obtained directly from Obama. That is how these bios are done.

        • philjourdan says:

          There was an Internet – but you would not find Bios on there (just the latest egg head stuff and some commercial stuff).

          I remember Archie and Gopher. You do not want to remember those things.

        • There does not need to be any source at all for a garbled detail.

          That’s why we call them “garbled.”

        • philjourdan says:

          YOU call them garbled. That does not make them so. You do so to explain away your own ignorance.

          They are not garbled. They are clear and easily understood. That does not make them true, but that does not make them garbled either.

          get a dictionary. And learn how to use real words.

        • geran says:

          “There does not need to be any source at all for a garbled detail.”
          >>>>>>>>
          HD, after you believe you have finished defending the indefensible, you might want to consider a career in “climate science”.

        • @geran

          At this point is becomes crystal clear that you do not understand what “indefensible” means,

        • philjourdan says:

          At this point it is clear you have no clue on what it means.

        • geran says:

          What was your excuse before “this point”?

        • Excuse for… what exactly? Go ahead. Use your words.

        • geran says:

          “At this point is becomes crystal clear that you do not understand what “indefensible” means,”
          >>>>>>
          You indicated your confusion brought you to the conclusion that I did not understand what “indefensible” meant. Your conclusion is, of course, wrong. So, your “crystal-clear” logic makes you wrong. My asking “what was your excuse before” referred to what “fuel” were you running on before you switched to illogic?

        • I indicate no confusion. You STILL don’t know what indefensible means.

          For that observation I need no excuse.

        • philjourdan says:

          And you still lie. Touting opinions as facts is indefensible. it is also not a rebuttal. But then being ESL, we should cut you some clack for your lack of understanding.

        • geran says:

          “I indicate no confusion.”
          >>>>>>>
          You sure are in denial about a lot of things. Have you ever made a list? Here’s a start:
          1) You deny that you are in confusion.
          2) You deny that Obama, whether because he is trying to hide something or is just incompetent, has allowed the whole “birthed” issue to exist.
          3) You deny that others have the right to come to their own decisions.

          (I’ll let you finish the long list.)

        • philjourdan says:

          @Geran

          You deny that Obama, whether because he is trying to hide something or is just incompetent, has allowed the whole “birthed” issue to exist.

          Here you nail the core of the issue. Obama not only started the birther issue, he fostered it, and nurtured it and continues to keep it brewing! he could have easily squelched it long ago! But he keeps it going. Why? Well morondude will tell you that is not happening as there is no reason for him to do it. But the facts speak for themselves.

          it is a distraction! Like any magician, he pretends something is going on in one area (birth place) while pulling the rug out from under you with the other hand!

          I stated long before Steven Goddard proved, that Obama was responsible for the whole conspiracy tripe as it served his purpose. I applaud Steven for basically presenting the evidence that backed up my hypothesis.

          As long as people waste time on where Obama was born, he will continue to lie, cheat and steal from his current thrown of repression.

        • @geran

          You really need to learn how to argue with the people you are arguing with rather than the voices in your own head.

        • philjourdan says:

          You should look up the definition of strawman. Then take your own advice.

        • geran says:

          4) You deny that you have nothing else of substance to add.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjordan said: “Answer: Yes it is. he lied by commission or omission. I will let you pick.”

          You are accusing a woman whom you don’t even know and who is not a politician of lying. Obama had given previous interviews to the press in which he said he was born IN HAWAII. The idea that he would suddenly reverse that statement and tell the publicist that he was born in Kenya, is farfetched. Far more credible is that she saw that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, and assumed that that BHO was the author, Barack Hussein Obama II.

          She is not lying. She really did make a mistake, and it wasn’t fixed for years and years because she did not tell him that she wrote the bio and did not tell him when it was put online, so he could not fix it.

          Obama the president was born in Honolulu (and the evidence for that is overwhelming). Barack Hussein Obama I, his father, was born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          Stop with the stupidity already. Either prove that I do not know you, or shut up. You really do not want me to reveal what I really know about the slut.

        • smrstrauss says:

          steven goddard said:

          “details which would have had to have been obtained directly from Obama. That is how these bios are done.”

          Answer: The details were in the text of the unpublished book, which was an autobiography, and bios OFTEN, but not always, are written by the authors or sent to the authors for checking, but the publicist admits that neither were done in this case. SHE made the mistake—and it was an easy mistake to make. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          Another lie. You claim that no one read the book because it was unpublished. Now you are claiming everyone read it and that is how they got out of talking to Obama.

          You keep contradicting yourself turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: ” Obama not only started the birther issue, he fostered it, and nurtured it…”

          NO, the publicist admitted to making the mistake. He did not say it or write it; she did.

          Here is what she said: “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

          YOU claim, without any evidence, that she did not make a mistake, that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya. But you have no proof of that, and Obama’s having given newspaper interviews saying that he was born IN HAWAII before the bio and his book Dreams from My Father having said that he was born IN HAWAII after the bio makes the notion that he told her that he was born in Kenya farfetched, to say the least.

          Oh, and it was an easy mistake to make because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          Evidence turnip, still need evidence. So far, all we have is the opinion of a turnip.

          The only evidence we have supports my conclusion.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “You really do not want me to reveal what I really know about the slut.”

          The above sentence is an example of the politeness and respect for other people of the extreme right wing of the Conservative movement.

        • philjourdan says:

          Again, your inability to comprehend the written language means you have no clue.

          It has nothing to do with conservatives or respect. As the statement attests to. I have no respect for you and never indicated I did. But I guess that went right over your head turnip.

  11. GeologyJim says:

    The line that makes me spit coffee on the laptop is “and [Obama] was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago”

    Obama never saw Chicago until about 1985 when he began “community organizing”, following his law degree from Harvard.

    At what point does the young lad stop being “raised” and begin making his own way in the world?

    Of course, he was certainly being influenced/mentored by Vernon Jarrett, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, and various other Communists/Marxists/proto-Progressives, and the like, but “raised”?

    Sounds like someone was still changing his Pampers.

  12. Robertv says:

    What is it that people don’t understand about politicians? Most of them would sell their mother/father sister/brother wife/husband and soul to gain more power. The problem is that these politicians don’t understand that it is the buyer who is in power and that the buyer can take him/her out whenever they want to. You play the game or you’re dead.
    There is no left or right or We The People. Slavery was never abolished It only changed shape.

    • bit chilly says:

      nice to see someone else really gets it.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Slavery was never abolished It only changed shape.”

      I am guessing that you meant that metaphorically. We citizens today are living under the control of what are in essence “masters.” On a historic scale they are fairly good masters, but still masters. But in actual fact, what you said is literally true. The 13th Amendment did not outlaw slavery — it nationalized it. Here is what it says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” So, while private individuals may not place any person into a state of slavery, it is still perfectly legal for a local, state, or federal court to punish a person convicted of crime (what crime? Any crime…) by declaring them a slave. The court could, hypothetically at least, then auction off the new slave to the highest bidder. One difference between the old slavery and the new post-13th slavery is that under the new slavery, children of slaves would not automatically be slaves as well. I understand that the 13th has not been implemented this way — but a good lawyer could easily interpret it exactly like that.

      • rah says:

        Ah, heck, those that were defending slavery in the 1850s were saying that it was really no different in the free states. That those in the North were “wage slaves” and instead of a plantation they were working under their slave master in a factory or shop.

        • This is a serious question. Can you point me to ANYBODY in the 1850s who actually ever made that argument? I would be obliged of you had a link.

        • philjourdan says:

          How about you give ANY link to support ANY of your stupid opinions?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Northern Wage Slaves:

          …Attempts to Justify Slavery

          Despite the rampant poverty and social inequity, the vast majority of southern whites believed firmly in the superiority of their social system. Ironically, the poorest whites often were the most ardent supporters of slavery, because they dreamed of becoming rich planters with slaves of their own.

          Slaveholders attempted to justify slavery in many ways. Some championed the “paternal” nature of slavery by arguing that they took care of the “inferior race” as fathers would small children. Others told themselves that blacks were better off as slaves in America than as “savages” in Africa. More often, however, defensive slave owners pointed accusing fingers at the North, claiming that the impersonal industrial system in the North was based on “wage slavery.”

          Also

          One byproduct of the increase in manufacturing and mass migration to the cities was the development of wage labor. As more factories sprang up in the North, more workers were needed to tend to the machines. Rather than learn a trade skill, these day laborers worked alongside scores of others for as many as sixteen hours a day, six or seven days a week, for a meager hourly wage.

          Though many early wage laborers were children, often under the age of thirteen, most were men. Some factories, such as the Lowell Mills in Massachusetts, employed only girls and young women. These factories provided room and board and attempted to “moralize” the women with heavy doses of religious preaching and strict discipline.

          From: http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/section7.rhtml

          Also: indentured servant

          noun, American History
          1.
          a person who came to America and was placed under contract to work for another over a period of time, usually seven years, especially during the 17th to 19th centuries. Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured+servant

          Apprenticeships

          …Apprenticeship came to American soil by way of England, where it was the first step on the road to economic independence. In England, master craftsmen hired apprentices in an exchange of training for service. Once their term of apprenticeship was completed, former apprentices traveled from employer to employer earning wages as journeymen. When, or if, they accumulated enough capital, journeymen set up shop as independent masters and became members of their craft guilds. These institutions had the power to bestow and withdraw rights and privileges upon their members, and thereby to regulate competition among themselves.

          One major concern of the guilds was to prevent unrestricted trade entry and thus apprenticeship became the object of much regulation. Epstein (1998), however, argues that monopoly or rent-seeking activity (the deliberate production of scarcity) was only incidental to the guilds’ primary interest in supplying skilled workmen. To the extent that guilds successfully regulated apprenticeship in Britain, that pattern was less readily replicated in the Americas …

          The revolutionary logic of contract ate away at the edges of the long-term apprenticeship relationship and such indentures became substantially less common in the first half of the nineteenth century. Gillian Hamilton (2000) has tested whether the decline in apprenticeship stemmed from problems in enforcing long-term contracts, or whether it was the result of a shift by employers to hire unskilled workers for factory work. While neither theory alone explains the decline in the stock of apprenticeship contracts, both demonstrate how emerging contractual relations undermined tradition by providing new choices. During this period she finds that masters began to pay their apprentices, that over time those payments rose more steeply with experience, and that indenture contracts were shortened, all of which suggest employers consciously patterned contracts to reduce the turnover that resulted when apprentices left for preferable situations. That employers increasingly preferred to be freed from the long-term obligations they owed their apprentices suggests that these responsibilities in loco parentis imposed burdens upon masters as well as apprentices. The payment of money wages reflected, in part, costs associated with their parental authorities that could now, more easily, be avoided in urban areas by shifting responsibilities back to youths and their parents.

          Hamilton’s evidence comes from Montreal, where indentures were centrally recorded. While Canadian experiences differed in several identifiable ways from those in the United States, the broader trends she describes are consistent with those observed in the United States. In Frederick County Maryland, for example, Rorabaugh (1986) finds that the percentage of white males formally bound as apprentices fell from nearly 20% of boys aged 15 to 20 to less than 1% between 1800 and 1860…. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/apprenticeship-in-the-united-states/

        • rah says:

          Historian dude. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/lincolns-Fitzhugh/

          My own statement is from reading of dead tree literature, both history books such as ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’ and some source materials in Southern Newspapers way back when I was researching it. It was an argument that appears to have been made frequently in the South in defense of Slavery. I guess if your wanting this for reasons of knowledge instead of argument I can dig some actual names of the authors up.

        • @Gail Combs

          Thank you very much. Great reference. I deeply appreciate it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You are correct You are a slave. You probably do not realize it, but you are.

      What is a slave? Someone who’s labor is confiscated by another by force.

      …Free people can say “no”. Free people can refuse demands for their money, time, and children. Slaves cannot. There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”. If someone demands that you do something and you can say “no” and refuse to do it, then you are a free human being. If you can be forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to, then you are a slave. No other test need be applied.

      Freedom is the freedom to say “no.”…
      Throughout history, slaves were expected to perform the work needed for their own upkeep, then perform additional work for the rulers. For Roman slaves, the ratio of work-for-self versus work-for-rulers was about 50-50. The same ratio applied to Medieval Serfs, and even to the slaves of the American south….

      However now through political sleight of hand or rulers confiscate a lot more than the 50% confiscated from the slaves and serfs of olden days.

      25 years ago when I first started a small business I added up the visible taxes I paid. It was 64.5% of my earnings (This does not include “151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread — it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread.” — Reagan 1975) That is ~ 18% more in invisible taxes or ~82% of my earning/labor was confiscated at gun point by the US governments, local state and federal.

      What about the 18% I had left? The bankers confiscate another chunk through interest on student loans, car loans, credit card loans, mortgages (a large part of rent payments likely goes to mortgage payments) ….

      The US money supply is 3% cash and the rest is LOANS! As Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada said to the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939.
      “Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.”

      Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?

      Mr. Towers: Yes.

      Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?

      Mr. Towers: That is right.

      Q. Now, the same thing holds true when the municipality or the province goes to the bank?

      Mr. Towers: Or an individual borrower.

      Q. Or when a private person goes to a bank?

      Mr. Towers: Yes.

      Q. When I borrow $100 from the bank as a private citizen, the bank makes a bookkeeping entry, and there is a $100 increase in the deposits of that bank, in the total deposits of that bank?

      Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 238)

      So all that tax money you pay is also funneled to the Banksters because governments ‘borrow’ fairy dust created on the spot ‘money’ from banksters and then pay them back with YOUR LABOR!

      I wish the Progressives would get this through their thick skulls. Obummer’s trillions in debt is the mechanism for the banksters to confiscate MORE wealth from the masses.

      If you think the 1% are going to pay that extra tax you really are a turnip. Complicated IRS rules are specifically made to provide loop holes for the elite.

  13. Fuzz Was says:

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now? Sometimes you just don’t know with liars.

    • Streetcred says:

      None of the above, he has never stopped lying … it’s pathological.
      http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pathological-Liar

    • smrstrauss says:

      He wasn’t lying at all. The publicist for the literary agent admitted to making the MISTAKE entirely by herself and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it. (See details above.)

      • philjourdan says:

        He is lying. And she is covering for him.

        Prove she is not covering for him.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “Prove that she is not covering for him.”

          Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that she lied, and the fact that OBAMA has lied (as have most politicians) is not proof of that.

          Obama had told newspapers before the publicists bio blurb was written that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and the notion that he would reverse that and tell her or write her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched.

          What is far more likely is the simple mistake that the publicist saw the name Barack Hussein Obama in the unpublished manuscript, read that that BHO was born in Kenya, and thought that that BHO was the author and the current president. In fact, it was Barack Hussein Obama I, his father, not Barack Hussein Obama II, the author and president.

        • philjourdan says:

          😆 Nope! I have the evidence that shows he knew and validated it. It is in the fact he did nothing for 17 years. YOU have to prove that he did not know. Which would include your lie.

          Sorry, you fail logic 101. As already explained, even a turnip would not buy into the contortions you are trying to create.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: ” It is in the fact he did nothing for 17 years. YOU have to prove that he did not know. ”

          Once again, the burden of proof is on you, the accuser.

          It is a fact that the mistake was online for 17 years. Now YOU prove that Obama knew about it.

          BTW, I noticed recently that the New York Times early this year corrected a mistake that it had made 161 years earlier.

        • philjourdan says:

          Once again the turnip throws around words he has no clue on.

          I already proved he is a liar. The Bio is about him. I am stating facts. It is up to you to prove the totally incredulous. I can just sit back and laugh at the money Obama is wasting on vegetables like you who are so pathetic that you are doing more harm than good.

          You are convincing me that Obama is hiding something. And I never thought he was until you decided to rant about it so childishly.

  14. u.k.(us) says:

    If you can get past the decibels, it’s not a new thing.

  15. Jim Jensen says:

    My belief is that all birthers who formed their birther beliefs after 2000 are losers. All people who made mistaken birther comments before the year 2000 were simply mistaken. The present day birthers need a spokesperson similar to the Reverend Al Sharpton who can ignite the masses. Right now, the masses don’t care and the birthers are in need of something to fill the void in their lives.

    • My belief is that people who think this post is about Obama’s birthplace, are not very intelligent.

      • Jim Jensen says:

        My belief is that Birthers are not as intelligent as they think they are. And, if I wanted to find out why various people mistakenly reported that Obama was born in Kenya, I would at least ask one or more of them why they said what they said and if they still believe that Obama was born in Kenya. But then maybe the Birther movement is not really about where Obama was born.

        • u.k.(us) says:

          Maybe not.
          You wanna get into qualifications ?

        • Jim,

          I take it that you didn’t actually read anything in this post, and are just spouting off. That makes you look pretty ignorant. You don’t even know what the topic is.

        • philjourdan says:

          You will have to ask Hillary Clinton the true purpose. She started it.

        • @philjourdan

          You are misinformed. Neither Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton nor anyone even distantly associated with the Clinton campaign ever once questioned Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth or eligibility for the presidency.

        • philjourdan says:

          And you are a liar (and a poor one) – http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-30/the-democratic-roots-of-the-birther-movement

          Seriously dude, get a better lie going. But do not demand more money from OFA(l) – you are not earning the money they are paying you now.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan cites a Business Week article, which everyone should read because it does not say that Hillary or Bill or any Democrat ever said that Obama was born in Kenya. To be sure, they wanted to raise the question and HOPE that they could pick up votes by misleading people on the subject. What else would you expect a political campaign to do? But they never SAID that Obama was born in a foreign country.

          Okay, so why didn’t they say that Obama was born in a foreign country? Also why didn’t McCain and Mitt Romney? Because, of course, Obama wasn’t born in a foreign country.

          Would they have said that he was born in a foreign country IF he had been born in a foreign country? Of course they would have, and so they checked on whether or not he was, and they found that he was born in Hawaii. It is nutty to think that all three of them did not check, and there is an article about one of McCain’s lawyers who said that of course they checked, and that they could not find anything to prove that Obama was born in a foreign country. Want to see the article? (And it is farfetched to think that one of McCain’s lawyers would have lied about that.)

          That of course is by no means all the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the chance that Obama’s mother even took a trip abroad in 1961 is extremely unlikely. (Want to see that evidence too?)

          But, specifically about this point, the article that is linked to does not show that Hillary or Bill or any Democrat SAID that Obama was born in a foreign country.

        • philjourdan says:

          Another straw man. The challenge was that Hillary or any democrats did not USE it. The article clearly shows they DID use it. The challenge was not origination for that source, It was usage.

          Now given that you want people to believe that Obama was so nobody that no one wanted to read his bio, yet so famous that everyone wanted to write it, you are trying to say that democrats never knew about the controversy. When Hillary’s campaign raised it first! Of course through deniability, you will not find the memo where she said float it. But as it is HER campaign, and under HER total control, only a moron like you would say “duh, gee, yea, her campaign was rogue”. Which is still a non sequitur since the article was not to prove she did it, it was to prove DEMOCRATS did.

          you really need to get your story straight with your puppet master.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “Another straw man. The challenge was that Hillary or any democrats did not USE it. The article clearly shows they DID use it.”

          It is normal to cast aspersions during a political campaign, but that does not mean that Hillary went so far as to SAY that Obama was born in Kenya. IF she had said it, it would have indicated that she had checked out the possibility and believed that he was born in Kenya. But she didn’t say it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non sequitur. Again, who cares what you think is “normal”. That was not the discussion. The challenge was if they USED it. The article proves she did.

          You have no capacity for higher levels of thought turnip.

  16. daveburton says:

    The folks who, out of generosity or politeness, believe or pretend to believe that Obama didn’t write or approve his own bio, are being silly. That’s not even plausible.

    Miriam Goderich now claims that the Kenyan Birthplace claim was her fault. But even her acceptance of responsibility was weaselly: she claimed it was her own “fact checking error,” but never said where the “facts” came from that she didn’t check.

    In fact, she obviously lied. Publicists for new authors don’t invent bios for those authors.

    Dystel requires, as is standard practice in the industry, that a prospective author submit his OWN bio. The claim that they invented a fictitious foreign birthplace for a new American author, and inserted it into his bio, is utterly absurd.

    Who would presume to write a new author’s bio for him? In fact, who would presume to write anything about her client, and publish it, without at least running it by him?

    And how could such a falsehood in an author’s be disseminated by the author’s publicist from 1991 until April 2007, if the author didn’t want it to be?

    Here’s what an industry insider has to say about the absurdity of that lie:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/a-word-from-tom-lipscomb.php

    If someone suggests that Obama and his confederates would never tell a lie, ask them if they are the last person on the planet who still believes that if you like your health care plan you can keep it under Obamacare.

    Goderich’s lie for Obama doesn’t even pass the laugh test:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/why_kenyan_birth_claim_was_no_fact_checking_error.html
    {Why Kenyan Birth Claim Was No ‘Fact Checking Error’}

    Goderich’s motive to cover for Obama’s lie is obvious. Her firm has a contract with Obama for future book deals. She hopes to make a bunch of money from him. So she scratches his back, and he scratches hers.

    Under U.S. law in 1961, if Obama’s parents were legally married, and if he were born overseas, then he’d not have been entitled to U.S. citizenship.

    The requirements have changed over the years, but in 1961 the requirement was that the citizen parent have resided within the USA for five years after her 14th birthday.

    Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942, and Obama was born August 4, 1961, so Dunham was only 18 years, 8 months & 5 days old when her baby (the future President Obama) was born. That means only 4 years, 8 months & 5 days had elapsed since her 14th birthday, which is less than the 5 year minimum needed to qualify her baby for citizenship on that basis.

    If Obama’s parents were legally married, then he would not have qualified for citizenship if born overseas, because his mother hadn’t resided in the USA for a full five years since her 14th birthday, per this chart:
    http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-a-2014-05_01_final.pdf
    (Chart A)

    However, that didn’t apply to Obama, because his parents were not legally married, because his father was a bigamist. When Obama’s father married 18yo Stanley Ann Dunham in Hawaii, who was already pregnant, he already had another wife back in Kenya. That means his marriage to Dunham was illegal and invalid, so Obama is a bastard. Because of that, he would have been entitled to U.S. citizenship solely by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, even if born overseas. That means he would have been a “natural-born” citizen, qualified to run for President, even if he had been born overseas.

    This is the chart that actually applies to Obama:
    http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-b-2014-05_1_final.pdf
    (Chart B: Acquisition of Citizenship – Determining If Children Born Outside The U.S. and Born Out of Wedlock Acquired U.S. Citizenship at Birth)

    You might suppose that would eliminate any incentive that Obama’s parents might have had to ensure that his birth was recorded as having occurred in the United States, and perhaps to lie for that purpose. However, Obama’s mother presumably didn’t know about Obama Sr’s other wife. She thought she was legally married. Thinking that, she’d have also believed that her baby would only have U.S. citizenship if born in the USA. That would have given her a strong motive to make sure that she was in Hawaii when her baby was due — or, failing that, to lie about his birthplace — so that he could have U.S. citizenship.

    Since we now, finally, as of 2011, have a birth certificate for Obama showing a hospital birth (albeit not in the hospital that he used to claim as his birthplace), it seems very unlikely that he was actually born overseas and then brought to Hawaii as an infant. If that had happened, his mother would almost certainly have claimed that he was born at home, and his birth certificate would show that as his birthplace. Since the birth certificate records a hospital birth, that scenario doesn’t seem plausible.

    So I don’t think he was actually born overseas. That means he lied to his book publicists (and probably to others, perhaps including one or more of his three colleges), when he claimed that he “was born in Kenya.”

    I don’t fault Obama for his father’s crimes of adultery and bigamy, but it is relevant to this conversation because it is only due to his father’s bigamy that Obama’s parents’ marriage was invalid, and it was only that lack of a legal marriage that makes the issue of Obama’s actual birthplace moot w/r/t the question of whether Obama is really entitled to be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen, constitionally qualified to serve as President.

    If his parents had been legally married, then his citizenship would have been dependent on his birthplace. Since his parents were not legally married, his birthplace does not matter: he would have been a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born.

    • No silliness necessary. In simple point of fact, there is no good reason to suspect Obama was ever aware of this “bio” or of the original publication within which the detail was first garbled. Its subsequent casual replication on the Internet is a classic example of a persistent and ubiquitous problem with the World Wide Web… the cutting and pasting of material without any effort at fact checking.

      First and foremost, lets put the specific “fact” back into its actual context. Birthers are fond of representing it as an “invented biographical detail.” In actuality it is the sort of mildly garbled detail that is so common that anyone who has ever attempted to write biography or do family history is generally able to come up with a half dozen similar examples without significant effort. Obama’s father WAS born in Kenya. Obama himself is ethnically half Kenyan. If this mistake was going to be made, what other country would be more likely? South Korea? In the course of 30 years of genealogy research, I have identified in my own family no fewer than eleven mistaken accounts of place of birth. In seven of them, the mistake was to attribute a parent’s place of birth to a child.

      Second… this is not the only garbled detail on that particular page of the Dystel client list. The publication included three bios per page, and while one of the three bios on Obama’s page is difficult to fact check (as the individual has left almost no significant on-line paper trail) the third, Tip O’Neil’s, is not. And O’Neil’s bio ALSO garbles a detail; specifically the date on which he became Speaker of the House. I note that no one is asserting that Tip O’Neil was responsible for a deliberate misrepresentation on his Dystel bio.

      Third… the claim is repeatedly made that the mistake somehow served to benefit Obama. Heller here asserts that “For 17 years it was advantageous to say that he was born in Kenya.” Oh? What pray tell would have been “advantageous” about that? There is a remarkable gap in the birther narrative at this point, where the assertion is that some inchoate advantage would have accrued but nobody seems to know what it might have been. Even Heller comes up empty, ending his silly post with the loaded “Why did Obama choose to lie about his birthplace?”

      In fact, not only is there no clear advantage to such a claim, the widely accessible record of the entire 17 year time period shows that had there been such an advantage Obama was doing his damnedest to avoid gaining it. The original Dystel client list was published in 1991. But Obama had already long been giving interviews and profiles in which he was explicit that he had been born in Hawaii.

      For example, the February 6, 1990 New York TImes published an article “First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review,” in which we find, “His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html?pagewanted=1

      The very next day, the Chicago Tribune’s article on Obama’s rise to the head of the Law Review explained that, “Born in Hawaii to the late Barack Obama, once a finance minister in Kenya, and Ann Dunham, an American anthropologist, Obama went to Columbia University before moving to Chicago to work as a community organizer.”

      http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-07/news/9001110408_1_ann-dunham-chicago-housing-authority-barack-obama

      A month later, the LA Times noted that “His own upbringing is a blending of diverse cultures. Born in Hawaii, where his parents met in college, Obama was named Barack (blessed in Arabic) after his father.”

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

      How does one seriously reconcile the claim that Obama was trying to misrepresent his birthplace with the actual fact that Obama every other time he was being interviewed or profiled in the nations most important publications the detail was correct? And more droll is the fact that when Obama’s book was finally published in 1995, it claimed a Hawaiian birth, and not a Kenyan one… even as the Dystel and Goederich web site cluelessly replicated the error for another 12 years,

      One of the key characteristics of irrational conspiracy theorists is their affection for anomaly mining. And it works for them specifically because all of us have left paper trails and traditions that are filled with anomalies. Some are significant, some are not… but since all of us have them anybody with the time and intention to find them will never be disappointed. The hard part comes, however, when the conspiracy theorist tries to use those anomalies to assemble an alternative theory of history. It is an exercise in dot connecting that resolutely resists providing an actual picture at the end. This is why conspiracy theories generally spin off the rails into complex Rube Goldbergian contraptions that defy logic, probability and often even possibility. Birthers (for example) regularly solve problems in their otherwise incoherent narratives by appealing to time travel.

      In 1991, Miriam Goederich garbled a detail. Occam’s razor is your friend.

      • Complete bullshit. This story is about Obama and his literary agents.

      • The President could clear up the whole thing at once, go on TV and say to the nation:

        “I did not have birthplace fudging relations with that woman, Miss Goderich. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.”

      • kuhnkat says:

        You still are not explaining why Barry and wife lied and claimed he was born in Keny, on video.

        So, what kind of conspiracy theorist are you HistorianDude??

        Still no FACTS, just that smoke coming from under your dress…

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “You still are not explaining why Barry and wife lied and claimed he was born in Keny, on video.”

          Answer. They didn’t. Neither of them did. Michele said that Kenya was Obama’s Home Country—meaning the place where his ancestors came from, not the place where he was born. And except for obvious jokes about the subject (you do know what a joke is, don’t you?), Obama has NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. There is a forged video that claims to show him saying it, but it is obviously forged because (1) you cannot see his mouth move; and (2) the original of the video before “born in Kenya” was inserted is available on the Web, and it does not say “I was born in Kenya.” The reason that birthers feel compelled to forge videos that say “I was born in Kenya” and forge “Kenyan birth certificates” THREE times and say that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—where the transcript of the tape recording show that she said that he was born IN HAWAII several times and birthers simply did not quote her—reveals the MOTIVES of the birthers, as well as their willingness to lie.

          So neither Michele nor Obama SAID that Obama was born in Kenya (and for that matter neither did any relative).

          And, more importantly, Obama WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA. He was born in Hawaii.

          Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for the year that included August 1961:

          http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/n4/mode/1up

          Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals.

          On page 77, the same report shows the number of people who WENT to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and that shows that only 63 did (of whom 60 were Americans), and that of the 63 not a single person, not one, went by air. They ALL went by ship.

          So, according to birther theory, Obama’s mother, in the last two months of pregnancy at the age of 18, was among the 60 Americans who went to Kenya by sea in fiscal 1961 and one of the seven Americans who came to the USA from Kenya in fiscal 1961, and again she traveled by sea (since no Americans came to the USA from Kenya by air).

          There were, by the way, no normally scheduled direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961—making an alleged trip by Obama’s mother and Obama highly unlikely—-to say the very least.

          AND: (1) the government of Kenya has said that Obama was not born in Kenya; and (2) the government of Hawaii, the birth certificate plus the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties, plus the Index Data file plus the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii) all show that Obama was born in HAWAII.

        • Nobody in a position to actually know (to include Obama himself and his wife) have ever claimed Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii. There is certainly no video of either ever doing so.

        • philjourdan says:

          Before there was video, there was the written word. And in a court of law, that is still called evidence.

          So you lied again.

      • philjourdan says:

        Lack of knowledge is called ignorance. Rejection of knowledge is called stupidity. So it is safe to call you stupid now, without using it as a pejorative.

        Again, it does not matter. It was the bio he PUSHED. If there was an error, it was up to him to correct it. Period. Show us proof of his efforts to correct the error. If you cannot, your whole long rambling of nonsense is merely trying to cover for him about his lying. A trait that has more evidence than you have rambling words.

    • @philjourdan

      Close, but no cigar.

      Lack of knowledge is called ignorance. Rejection of knowledge is NOT called stupidity. It is called WILLFUL ignorance. Of course, that presumes that knowledge was actually rejected, and that the knowledge was true. As usual in your posts, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

      1. It was not only a bio he never “pushed” it was a bio of which he was never even aware.

      2. It is up to nobody to correct an error of which they are unaware.

      3. There can be no proof of something that never could have happened in the first place.

      4. There can be no lie if the claimed lie never happened in the first place.

      • So the story is that the bio was created by someone other than Obama, no one sent it to him for his approval, and no one Obama knew noticed it for 17 years.

        Makes sense, if you have the IQ of a turnip.

        • philjourdan says:

          Please Steven! Do not insult turnips!

        • slcraignbc says:

          You are truly a [redacted]…………..the 1790 Act’s provision for the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen was the ONLY non-re-established provision of the 1795 Act which re-established all other provisions of the 1790 Act.

          The net EFFECT was ONLY to limit WHERE U.S. natural born Citizen could be born thereafter.

          But understanding Statutes at Large has proved to be a bit beyond you abilities of comprehension, but I’ll offer this as a bread crumb tale since you’re fond of the WKA et al, fairy tales;

          A2S1C5 REQUIRES that U.S. natural born Citizens MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be Constitutionally Legally occupied and its “Grandfather Clause” established that a DISTINCTION EXISTS between a U.S. natural born Citizens and all other “hyphenated” forms of U.S. Citizenship, such as, “naturalized, foreign-born”, “dual, aka, alienated” along with any other forms of Citizenship the Congress may establish, such as “U.S. national”.

          The 1790 Act established the CIRCUMSTANCES required to be born a U,S, natural born Citizen, two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world, (similar to some British Nationality Statutes).

          The 1795 Act repealed the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision consigning their births to WITHIN THE LIMITS of the U.S. leaving the “foreign-born” children of U.S. Citizens to be considered as U.S. Citizens.

          The 1790 Act, having established the requisite circumstances, less the foreign-born’ provision, attaches to the use of the term of words of A2S1C5 by virtue of their CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT to “exist” and thereby becomes a Statute at Large established by the repeal and replace provisions of the 1795 Act.

          Unless of course anyone is suggesting that U.S. Law is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land.

      • You’re finally catching on, Tony! Good for you. The boy can be taught.

        One small correction, though. For 17 years NOBODY noticed, whether they were people who knew Obama or not. This includes all the well paid teams of opposition researchers hired to dig up dirt against him in campaigns going back to at least 1997.

        • People create their own bios. That is how everyone does it.

          If you think that behaving like a jackass is going to convince anyone of anything, you are sorely mistaken.

        • No, Tony. People do not always create their own bios. It is not how everybody does it, and the head of Acton & Dystel (Jay Acton) is on the record in the original Bruetbart piece that “almost nobody” wrote their own.

          And you think I’m being a Jackass? You? The guy declaring the people who are kicking you all over your own blog have “the IQ of turnip”? You must have a vampire’s aversion to mirrors.

        • So you claim Dystel writes their client’s bios, and doesn’t have them approved by the client before releasing promotional literature? You are really a piece of work.

          ROFLMAO

        • philjourdan says:

          Um, morondude – no one is kicking him anywhere on his blog. So far, you have yet to address what the blog said. You have set up a field of scarecrows, but you have YET to provide even a scintilla of evidence of your opinion or lies!

          You really are 3 beers short of a six pack.

        • I don’t have to make the claim. Jay Acton and Miriam Goderich already made it for me.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, they lied. You have to swallow the lie and then propagate it. Which you are doing.

          RIF – you really need it.

        • philjourdan says:

          It is not a tree, and it is not a forest. For 17 years no one CARED. Many noticed.

          I notice that when you lose a point you resort to childish rants. You were just proven wrong again.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “For 17 years no one CARED. Many noticed.”

          Notice that he does not have a shred of evidence to back up either claim.

          Moreover, the publicist said this:

          ““You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

          philjourdan claims that the above statement is a lie, but has no evidence to prove that claim.

          Yes publicists often send what they write to the people involved for checking, but not always, and in this case she admits to not doing that and that she made the mistake all by herself. And it was an easy mistake to make because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          What claim? That his bio for 17 years says he was born in Kenya? Do you have the memory of a goldfish turnip? The evidence has been presented.

          You CLAIM the author made it up. Yet you have never presented any evidence. In other words, it is your OPINION which given your now multiple proven lies, is as worthless as you are.

          Yes, I have not repeated all the evidence presented in this article as any moron can read it. But vegetables apparently cannot. Turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdain said: “No, they lied. You have to swallow the lie and then propagate it.”

          NO, they told the truth. It is you who are lying.

          And it is a stupid lie. Obama had told newspapers before 1991 that he was born in Hawaii, and he wrote in Dreams from My Father in 1995 that he was born in Hawaii, and the notion that he would switch in the middle to the lie that he was born in Kenya is farfetched, to say the least.

        • philjourdan says:

          Your problem turnip is that if you said that in court, you would perjure yourself. You have no evidence. And since you have shown a great propensity to lie, your opinion is worthless.

          I have evidence they lied. So until you can prove otherwise, the evidence stands.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “#1 – Prove it. Not one link yet.”

          Here is proof that Obama told the New York Times in 1990, repeat 1990, that he was born in HAWAII.

          http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22

          The fact that Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” says he was born in Hawaii is well-known. It is not online, but, if you doubt me, you can check on that FACT by reading the Wikipedia article on “Dreams from My Father.”

          So Obama had told the press BEFORE that bio blurb he was born in Hawaii, and he wrote in his book AFTER that bio blurb that he was born in Hawaii. Yet, you’re claiming that in the middle, in 1991, he wrote or said that he was born in Kenya.

          AND not only are you claiming that Obama did said that he was born in Kenya in the middle of two sets of “I was born in Hawaii”—-but you are claiming that the publicist, who admitted making the mistake about Obama’s place of birth, was lying in admitting that she had made a mistake. Yet, it was a fairly easy mistake to make—-Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.

          You asked for links, and there they are.

        • slcraignbc says:

          All we know about the “0”s TRUE bio is that he was a “work in progress” from an early age surrounded by anti-“Constitutional” America communist sympathizers, at the least, and full-blown radical revolutionary’s at the worst.

          The bits and pieces of his “documentation” were acquired and or fabricated as needed during the course of his life and as the usefulness of one set of documents came to an end or became a liability they were scrubbed.

          At the same time, as holes were noted in his “public persona documentation” actions were taken to “retroactively” plug the holes, with glaring examples being the “birth notice” in the HI papers and the Selective Service Registration unicorn date stamp.

          Having so far being successful in “sealing” most school records or access to the original entry documents and or ledgers along with Pass-Port Records, which are apparently sketchy enough to require the death of those that have seen them, we are left with a half-non-white and half-caucasion half muslim half Christian half U.S Citizen half British Colonial Kenyan National subject with a bio so full of holes it makes you wonder where the Swiss cheese connection comes in and if there is any real American cheese at all.

        • philjourdan says:

          #1 – It does not show that. It shows the NY times SAID it. It does not QUOTE him turnip!
          #2 – He did not change his story until 91. And he has since changed it again!

          So you have proven nothing again! Turnip. That is merely more of the lies of Obama.

          Learn what a quote is turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said:

          “Having so far being successful in “sealing” most school records or access to the original entry documents and or ledgers along with Pass-Port Records, which are apparently sketchy enough to require the death of those that have seen them, we are left with a half-non-white and half-caucasion half muslim half Christian half U.S Citizen half British Colonial Kenyan National subject with a bio so full of holes it makes you wonder where the Swiss cheese connection comes in and if there is any real American cheese at all.”

          Poor slcaignbc. The above is an excellent example of why Ann Coluter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.

          BTW, I’m not paid, and Obama’s school records and other records are not “sealed”—they are covered under the normal state and federal privacy laws, the same laws that prevent the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s grades and other records, and the same for John McCain—and the same for you and me. In short, they are not “sealed.” They are private, and Obama like Romney an McCain (and previous presidents) simply chose not to disclose them.

          As for Obama having at one time been friends with communists and other leftists. He was elected despite that, and if you don’t like it—TOUGH.

          The links I have provided show that Obama said both before and after the bio blurb that he was born in HAWAII, and others that I showed prove that Obama’s parents were married. The allegation that they were not married simply shows the extent of the dislike of Obama by the radical right. But that does not justify LYING.

        • slcraignbc says:

          You say…….

          ” …. As for Obama having at one time been friends with communists and other leftists. He was elected despite that, and if you don’t like it—TOUGH…..”

          I say, …..Aye, there’s the rub ….whether ’tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous SOCIALISM, or to take up arms, rise up, and oppose it, ………for in the depths of SOCIALISM is the tyranny that binds men’s minds to slavery that gives rise to thoughts of death being a better end, so bitter the life under the yoke of FOREIGN IDEALS ………. thoughts of FREEDOM being the only true HOME where TRUTH resides for any man and every man being conscious with a conscience,….to be, or not to be, I say NOT to SOCIALISM, that foreign born philosophy antithetical in word and effect to the COTUS……….

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said:

          “, I say NOT to SOCIALISM, that foreign born philosophy antithetical in word and effect to the COTUS……….”

          Answer: You are entitled to your OPINION, and there are millions just like you, but your and their OPINIONS do not make Obama born in a foreign country, nor do they change the legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen, which the US Supreme Court has already ruled came from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.

          And it does not change the fact that Obama, who had Socialist and Communist friends, was elected president TWICE and is the president at the moment—and his term will run until Noon on January 20, 2017. (And if anything were to happen to him, Joe Biden, who is slightly to the left of Obama, would take over).

          Don’t like it–TOUGH.

        • slcraignbc says:

          You remain obtuse, apparently by choice, given that you have NEVER read anything that I have written that would suggest that I think the “0” was born in Kenya, or Indonesia or any other 3rd World shit-hole country, nothing, zero, nada………!!!!

          Want to know why….???

          Because his “Public Personnel Bio” says that he was born a DUAL-CITIZEN and for purposes of qualifying for the National Election Ballots, Electoral College Vote and the Congressional Count and certifying IS, under the Law of the Constitution, un-Constitutional.

          Now I understand that you accept the Rulings of Black-Robes AS IF LAW, but when they did not and HAVE NOT looked at the ACTUAL U.S. Law I have a RIGHT to disagree ……

          It is ALSO true that the attempts I’ve made in the Courts have failed under the proposition of Law that the Courts should construe the Law on their own when there is an unresolved conflict, when a SCOTUS openly in a Senate Hearing yuks it up over the subject acknowledging that the “we” he was referring to was “avoiding the question.

          Well, I have refined my argument and augmented my “standing” and have designed a Petition under the Rules of the Court that will. IMO, cause a rally ’round the question across the country by causing the realization that “AMBIGUITY” is in fact a “legal-loop-hole” that allowed the SR 511 diminish the eligibility requirement to the point where a DUAL-CITIZEN, by his own account, usurp the Office and allow a gaggle of FOREIGN BORN U.S. Citizen, along with Naturalized Citizens waiting to throw their hats in the ring. Following that track leads to the U.N APPOINTING POTUS or some other type of FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE………(narrative, conjecture and speculation not part of the Petition).

          I do however believe that the “0” clings to the Communist Manifesto and the Koran which I consider “Foreign Influence” that is irreconcilable with the COTUS and the Principles, Ideals and Intent of the COTUS.

          Socialism fails as soon as other peoples money and all people’s hope under it is gone everywhere it is tried and the Jeffersonian model of dealing with the Mooselmen is as apt today as while it worked for the 1st 200 years it was used.

          There is NO WAY to reconcile the National Security wise and seasonable concern of John Jay and your mixed up Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretation of Lord Cokes and Blackstones interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes as addressed in cases where the interpretations of the Statutes were in conflict before a British Courts. Seriously,….???

          The term of words of “natural born Citizen” PRECEDED English common law by at least 1,200 years and defined by a writer who at once is known as the Father of Natural Law theory and the Father of the Western Civilization in 350 BC..Politic’s BK III Part II

          “But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’ Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. ”

          Not ONLY does this paragraph encapsulate the concept of a “true” Citizen, but is a primer on the Political Concept of “naturalization” along with some insights of both as they apply to a NEW STATE for those with the intellectual fortitude to flesh it out.

          So I understand your insistence of trying to change the CONCEPT of a U.S. natural born Citizen to mean anybody because the the ACTUAL definition of a U.S. natural born Citizen is applied, well, don’t worry, after Marx was Lenin, after Lenin came Statlin, after Stalin came Gorby with Putin in the wings…………..so hold fast, people like you always have another Dear Leader in your future……

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said: “Because his “Public Personnel Bio” says that he was born a DUAL-CITIZEN and for purposes of qualifying for the National Election Ballots, Electoral College Vote and the Congressional Count and certifying IS, under the Law of the Constitution, un-Constitutional.>”

          Yes, Obama was born a dual citizen—which he states quite clearly in his book.

          Like Obama, Woodrow Wilson was born a dual citizen since his mother had never relinquished her British subject status when she married Wilson’s father becoming automatically a US citizen but without having to relinquish her British subject status or swear an oath. Thus under British law Wilson was a dual citizen at Birth. He appears to have been a loyal citizen and president.

          Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both dual citizens WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENT, since both had been made full voting citizens of France during the French Revolution, and neither relinquished that citizenship.

          Neither James Buchanan’s father nor Chester A. Arthur’s fathers were US citizens when they were born (and although birthers have claimed that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen—there is no evidence of any of hiding whatever). Moreover, the father of the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, James C. Fremont, was French at the time that Fremont was born, and Fremont did not hide that fact but instead proclaimed it loudly in his campaign biography—and, you know, if Fremont had thought that his father’s nationality would have any effect on his eligibility, he would not have been so public about it. (Fremont lost that election, but it was not because of his father’s citizenship.)

          There are some articles claiming that EISENHOWER was a dual citizen at birth because of old German laws that made the grandchildren of its citizens GERMAN at birth.. He certainly does not seem to have had much loyalty to Germany.

          Spiro Agnew, a vice president, was certainly a dual citizen of the USA and Italy.

          Fogbow points out that: “Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson were all eligible for French citizenship through ancestry. ‘

          So there seems to be NO historical precedent for your notion that dual citizenship affects Natural Born Citizen status.

          NOR does it legally affect—since the term Natural Born Subject INCLUDED dual citizens at birth—-and, duh, the writers of the US Constitution would have told us if they were changing the legal requirements to be a Natural Born Citizen from the legal requirements to be a Natural Born Subject (and they didn’t).

          Finally, the notion that dual citizenship affects Natural Born Citizen status makes no sense at all LOGICALLY. That is because if it were true ANY foreign nation could fool around with US presidential eligibility by simply passing any law that they wanted. For example, if Mexico had the notion that it did not want anyone born in the areas once part of Mexico (say Texas) to become president of the USA—well, then Mexico could just pass a law saying that any child born in Texas was also a Mexican citizen at birth, making millions of people dual citizens, and so those millions of people would not be eligible to be president.

          It is truly sad that your hatred of Obama makes you blind to the possible presidential eligibility of Jindal, Rubio, Santorum and Cruz. They all were dual citizens at birth, and Santorum and Cruz may still be (Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, but he may still be a dual citizen of Cuba).

          Face it, hatred does not make a good insight into the meaning of a law. The common law meaning of Natural Born Citizen included the US-born children of foreigners INCLUDING dual citizens, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen come from the common law. And that is that.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Well, I’ll address you CONTRIVED CONTROVERSIES over the Citizenship status of previous POTUS”, albeit with a tinge of contempt and disdain……

          Woodrow Wilson happened to be the POTUS that signed BOTH the 19th Amendment Suffrage act, fulfilling Virginia Minor’s aspirations, and the 1922 Cable Act on the heel’s of the 19th. Up to the time of the Cable Act, a womans Citizenship status was COVERED under the Doctrine of Coverture, insofar as a woman’s U.S. Citizenship is concerned. Your attempt to assign some obligation by the U.S to acknowledge PERPETUAL ALLEGIANCE of subjection by U.S. Citizens is somewhat Ironic but the DOCTRINE of Coverture BOUND Mrs Wilson to her husband and NO OTHER.

          Jefferson and Madison were covered under the Grandfather Clause WHICH ESTABLISHED a distinction between a U.S. natural born Citizen and ALL other forms of hyphenated Citizenships.

          James Buchanan’s situation is actually covered under the two previous FACTS.

          Chester Authors Citizenship status WAS contested vigorously during his campaign, but whether by contrivance, oversight or ignorance of the requirements the contesting parties were RESORTING to the wrong question. They, like many “birthers” persist on the question to determine birth place rather than the Citizenship status of his father at the time of lil’ Chets birth. It was NOT until post 2008 that the Chet’s daddy’s Citizenship status was verified as being UN-naturalized at the time of Chet’s birth, putting all of Chet’s tenure in Office in question. Woe to Justice penumbra zone Gray.

          Now, under the laws of naturalization the Notice of intent to naturalize carries some legal weight statutorily regarding a wife and children, born or unborn of that father in the event of his death prior to completing the process. I see where that could EASILY be the basis of a legal argument but will offer no speculation whether it would prevail in an effort to legitimize lil’ Chet’s term in office.

          President General Eisenhower and the German connection is just an example as to how LOW 0’poligists will go and the suggestions that Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson were all eligible for French citizenship through ancestry is barely a step up.

          ALL U.S. Citizens have the RIGHT to EXPATRIATE and or ALIENATE their Citizenship by AFFIRMATIVE ACTS, such as Lil’ Stanley Annie did by conceiving issue with the Big Daddy “0”.

          And here offers me the OPPORTUNITY to explain another reason that the current AMBIGUITY is harmful to otherwise well intentions people. CHOICES have consequences, and although ignorance of the Law is no excuse, the Law should be clear, NOT ambiguous in meaning so that the consequences can be known.

          That, in sentiment, is my conclusion why the 1790 Act contained the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision. Given that the U.S. uniform Rule of Citizenship departed from the convoluted English system, those persons who were abroad, many in service to the interests of the U.S. Foreign Affairs under John Jay, would have an EX POST FACTO law unfairly attach to any of their children that may have been born after Ratification. I don’t know it as FACT, nevertheless, the ‘temporary’ reprieve could not be called anything but just

        • slcraignbc says:

          You say;

          ” … Face it, hatred does not make a good insight into the meaning of a law. The common law meaning of Natural Born Citizen included the US-born children of foreigners INCLUDING dual citizens, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen come from the common law. And that is that….”

          I say, NUTS…!!! Except to the HATRED, of that I am guilty, and hold ANYONE that clings to the SOCIALIST DOCTRINE in BOTH contempt and all the HATRED my Spiritual underpinnings allow.

          You want me to relent to Stare Dicisis” of the cases you cits as being the LAWwhile YOU refuse to acknowledge the RULINGS of the contemporaneous Justices in the cases U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet who ACTUALLY LOOKED at the U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization..

          You Citizens of the world are tiresome and vexing at once…..U.S. Citizenship is a product of the U.S. Citizenship naturalization Laws and THOSE LAWS ONLY, beginning with the “collective naturalization EFFECT” of the Ratification of the COTUS…..And that is that.

          ….Stare Dicises, had it been followed, would, and still may, NULLIFY all of the holdings in the cases you cite.

          But I can not imagine that you or you sidekicks would bother to have the intellectual honesty to read even the “synopsis”, let alone the the Majority Opinion, (noting that it was originally the practice for each Justice to issue their Opinions “seriatim”, (individually)

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said: “ALL U.S. Citizens have the RIGHT to EXPATRIATE and or ALIENATE their Citizenship by AFFIRMATIVE ACTS, such as Lil’ Stanley Annie did by conceiving issue with the Big Daddy “0”.”

          Answer: The above is another example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.

          The fact that Jefferson and Madison were covered under the Grandfather clause does not by magic make them loyal. They were dual citizens and they were loyal, and the grandfather clause is not the thing that makes them loyal.

          Wilson and the others, including probably Eisenhower, were all to some extent affected by foreign nationality laws, and yet they were perfectly loyal. There is no evidence that Buchanan’s father was naturalized, nor Fremont’s, and there is no evidence that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. And the bottom line is that the common law includes dual citizens as Natural Born, and there is NO evidence that the writers of the US Constitution switched from the criteria of the common law (birth in the country regardless of the citizenship of the parents, even including dual citizens) to some new criteria—and IF they had switched, they would have told us.

          More importantly, the meaning of Constitutional terms is defined by PRECEDENT, and the precedent is the Wong Kim Ark case, and unless and until that is overturned or there is a new constitutional amendment on the subject (neither of which is remotely possible), its ruling remains the LAW.

          So the Heritage Foundation book is right, and the ten appeals court cases, and the views of Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson, and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Congressional Research service, and your view is wrong—and nutty.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Well, obviously you refuse to do ANY critical thinking whatsoever, proved to be the case by this odd repetitive statement that I prove to be incorrect every time you assert it…..

          “… (from smartass); : … And the bottom line is that the common law includes dual citizens as Natural Born,….”

          ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, .. IS NOT ….. IS NOT ….. IS NOT ….. IS NOT …., U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!! U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!! U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!! U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!!

          See U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet ………they ain’t going to disappear just because you ignore them……..!!!!

        • smrstrauss says:

          SLcraignbc said: “You want me to relent to Stare Dicisis” of the cases you cits as being the LAWwhile YOU refuse to acknowledge the RULINGS of the contemporaneous Justices in the cases U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet who ACTUALLY LOOKED at the U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…

          Answer: NONE of those cases even mentioned the term Natural Born, and the all were before the Wong Kim Ark ruling (and later rulings overturn earlier ones—don’t like it? TOUGH).

          So the Heritage Foundation Book is right, and so are senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Congressional Research Service and the ten appeals courts and the current US Supreme Court that turned down the appeal of one of those case (which had ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen). And you are wrong.

          https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+inaugration+2008&oq=obama+inaugration+2008&gs_l=img.3…1954.7367.0.7741.22.17.0.5.2.0.242.1794.11j5j1.17.0….0…1ac.1.52.img..4.18.1732.LZHB-fK-Smc#hl=en&q=obama+inaugration+&tbm=isch

        • slcraignbc says:

          Now you have PROVED that you are a COMPLETE IDIOT and TOTALLY disdainful of the Rule of Law emanating from the Constitution and Congress and submitting to idiots in Black Robes ….

          …. do you NOT notice that the cases that you cite are interpreting FOREIGN LAWS on the subject of U.S. Citizenship……….and that’s who you want to believe …????

          I never said that the cases I cite said the words, “natural born Citizen”……….what they DO SAY is that the various State Laws were not consistent with the 1790 Act, et seq, and therefore NULL and VOID insofar as U.S. Citizenship and naturalization was concerned.

          That you do NOT understand that “common-law” is the evolution of “natural law” “as they affect the conduct and affairs of men and nations”, as expressed by Vattel 1,300 years after Aristotles Books on Politic’s ……..

          You idiots that think that there is ANY LAWS, including the Judeo Christian Laws of God and Allah of Isalambmuhama that are NOT POLITICAL are neophytes to comprehended thoughts.

          a CITIZEN is a POLITICAL CREATURE by definition and their existence requires the POLITICAL DETERMINATION to create and acknowledge them.

          And you want to retroactively surrender to the British Law of WKA to the exclusion of the Laws of the U.S. Congress….???

          What a dolt….!!!!

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said: “ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, .. ”

          Why YES, you are absolutely right. The term does come from the English Common law (like Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto), and when both the US Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution say that it comes from the common law, you can bet that it does indeed come from the common law.

          The cases you cite are not relevant because they do not have the words Natural Born Citizen in them, and all of them in any case were BEFORE the Wong Kim Ark case, and later cases overturn earlier cases. That’s simply the way that Supreme Court cases work.

          So your loony dream is yours and you can keep on dreaming it, but the Electoral College elected Obama twice (without a single elector changing her or his vote to vote against Obama out of the notion that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election and received the votes of 356 electors, and he wan 332 electoral votes in the 2012 election and received the votes of 332 electors—in other words not one of the thought that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen (and not every state has law binding electors to vote the way that the general election in that state went). And Obama’s election was confirmed twice UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress, and Obama was sworn in repeatedly by that RINO, the Chief Justice of the USA, and birthers have lost all ten of the appeals court cases they brought claiming that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen—and the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of the ten (which had ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen).

          So face it, nobody sensible gives a fart about your loony theory.

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said: “That you do NOT understand that “common-law” is the evolution of “natural law” “as they affect the conduct and affairs of men and nations”, as expressed by Vattel 1,300 years after Aristotles Books on Politic’s”

          Answer: Vattel recommended that every country should have a STATE RELIGION and force people to join it or force them to leave the country. We did not adopt that, in fact we adopted the reverse of that—-that there cannot be a state religion in the USA. And there is no evidence that the Constitution adopted his two-citizen-parent idea either. In fact, he is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the COMMON LAW is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise.

          Moreover there is not a single quotation from any of the men who had attended the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. They only used it the same way as in the COMMON LAW, to refer to to citizenship due to the place of birth. And in fact John Jay, apparently the first American leader to use the term Natural Born Citizen, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW, and so he would have said if he intended to use the term any differently than in the common law, and he never did.

          The Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court are right, and your loony theory is wrong.

        • slcraignbc says:

          “…So face it, nobody sensible gives a fart about your loony theory….”

          I’m taking an editorial prerogative and correcting your over generalization;

          ” So face it, nobody SOCIALIST gives a fart about your loony theory.”

          But your ignorance and lack of intellectual honesty has kept you from even reading the actual LAW of the 1790 Act and its provisions so you argue in self-imposed ignorance.

          You think that it is proper that an Amendment that had NO INTENTION EXPRESSED to change a provision in the Executive Articles can do so on the words of a Justice that did not even CITE THE ACTUAL LAW you say he changed…………idiot socialist 0’pologist, you iz……..

        • slcraignbc says:

          Just a little P.S. to snap you back into REALITY, I am NOT the only one that grasps the situation and recognizes the LACK of a Constitutional identification of circumstances that constitutes actually being a U.S. natural born Citizen; 1st;

          Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

          “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
          And;
          “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

          and then there is a sitting SCOTUS Justice;

          Uploaded on Apr 17, 2010

          Clarence Thomas admits they are avoiding the Constitutional requirements of being a Natural Born citizen to be President

          filmed on April 15th, 2010 during the Appropriations Subcomittee on General Government. Here is the audio exchange between Rep. Jose Serrano and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Just out of curiosity I’m offering “definitions” of a “citizen” found in the historical writings of a “natural law and political philosopher” to ask you a simple question:

          “Did the adoption and ratification of the COTUS establish a more perfect Union …???”

          ” …. But we must not forget that things of which the underlying principles differ in kind, one of them being first, another second, another third, have, when regarded in this relation, nothing, or hardly anything, worth mentioning in common. Now we see that governments differ in kind, and that some of them are prior and that others are posterior; those which are faulty or perverted are necessarily posterior to those which are perfect. (What we mean by perversion will be hereafter explained.) The citizen then of necessity differs under each form of government; and our definition is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy; but not necessarily to other states. For in some states the people are not acknowledged, nor have they any regular assembly, but only extraordinary ones; and suits are distributed by sections among the magistrates. At Lacedaemon, for instance, the Ephors determine suits about contracts, which they distribute among themselves, while the elders are judges of homicide, and other causes are decided by other magistrates. A similar principle prevails at Carthage; there certain magistrates decide all causes. We may, indeed, modify our definition of the citizen so as to include these states. In them it is the holder of a definite, not of an indefinite office, who legislates and judges, and to some or all such holders of definite offices is reserved the right of deliberating or judging about some things or about all things. The conception of the citizen now begins to clear up.

          He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life. …”

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said:

          “Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;”

          Answer: The quotation merely says that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship is important. And that is only a preliminary motion. In the final decision Judge Anderson ruled, as has the judges and justices in every single other case, that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

          Justice Thomas was, anyone sane will notice, JOKING. And he was talking specifically about the issue of whether someone born in Puerto Rico, which is merely a territory not a state (like Hawaii), can become president.

        • slcraignbc says:

          Judge Stephens made NO determination regarding the “0” Citizenship status, the case was dismissed on other procedural issues.

          As for Thomas yukking it up over a the question with a “foreign born” naturalized U.S. Senator because he was unable and unwilling to express his opinion whether the foreign born naturalized Senator would be eligible for the office of POTUS is significant in that it is a perpetuation of the AMBIGUITY emanating from the highest levels of the Federal Government and ESTABLISHING that it is NOT a SETTLED QUESTION of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

      • philjourdan says:

        Sorry, no candy cigar for you. Ignoring knowledge is WILLFUL ignorance. rejection of knowledge is stupidity. WHich is more proof of your stupidity.

        #1 – Prove it. Not one link yet. And I am sure you want it both ways, that the smartest man in the world is also the stupidest, but no one buys that. If he is stupid, he may not have known. If he is smart, he knew.
        #2 – It is up to nobody except the one who created it. However prudence says you try to correct it. As he did know about it, your statement is proven false.
        #3 The proof is that it did happen. Plugging your fingers in your ears while yelling lalalalala is not how to deny facts. I doubt you will, but the phrase put up or shut up comes to mind. So far, you have put up nothing. And given the juvenile behavior of you and your sock puppet, shutting up is also not your forté.
        #4 – repetition is not rebuttal. learn it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Obama’s father was a Muslim it was easy for him to divorce a wife

      Formalities required: 1. The husband may make three pronouncements in a period of purity(Tuhr ) saying “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee” or he may also declare in one sentence saying “I divorce thee thrice” or “I pronounce my first, second and third Talaq”. 2. The husband may make only one declaration in a period of purity expressing his intention to divorce the wife irrevocably saying: “I divorcee thee irrevocably”

      Besides Talaq a Muslim husband may also repudiate his marriage by Ila. It is the constructive divorce by husband. The husband does not expressly repudiate the marriage but the conduct of the husband is of such nature that it is concluded that he intends to dissolve the marriage In Ila the husband takes an oath not to have sexual intercourse with the wife. Followed by this oath there is no consummation for a period of four months. After the expiry of four months, the marriage dissolves irrevocably. But if the husband resumes cohabitation within the prescribed period of four months Ila is cancelled and the marriage is not dissolved.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Obama’s father was an atheist, and his divorce from Obama’s mother was done under Hawaii law. And what, pray tell, does your posting have to do with the overall subject of this page?

        • slcraignbc says:

          No, it was done in Chambers without proof of legal marriage as a common-law relation with “issue” in order to facilitate a legal marriage and possible adoption.

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said: “No, it was done in Chambers without proof of legal marriage as a common-law relation”

          The following link shows both an index page showing marriages conducted and the actual divorce papers.

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

          (And American Thinker is a conservative site.)

        • slcraignbc says:

          Isn’t it interesting that as the “holes” are noticed the HI DOH comes to the rescue with their trusty dot matrix printer and an editable data base in order to show what it would have looked like if it had been printed in ’60 to ’65 instead of using their multi-million dollar computer system to access the data base servers and use their lazer-jet or xerox to pdf system to print out the info……. nice try, but that b.s. has no wings and won’t fly…….nice two’fer of hole filling though, BHO & Lolo, alphabetically and chronologically in order, one on top the other………..also note that the INS last typewritten caution on the reliability of the marriage claim…….

          But then, I’m skeptical of ALL things regarding the “0” ……. being a socialist is enough, if only that were the worst of it……

        • Gail Combs says:

          Someone upstream said Obama Sr had not divorced first wife.

          ….

          The last two sentences of the third paragraph appear to be Obama’s rebuttal to an accusation of bigamy: He apparently explained to McCabe that he was divorced from his wife in Kenya because Kenya did not require anything more than a husband expressing to his wife a desire to terminate the marriage.

          The fourth paragraph dismisses the bigamy concern, explaining Obama was in the United States not as an immigrant seeking U.S. citizenship but on a temporary student visa under which suspicion of polygamy was insufficient to support a deportation charge.

          The last paragraph indicates that if Dunham, as a “U.S. citizen wife,” were to petition for Obama Sr. to receive permanent residence status as an immigrant on track to citizenship, the INS should conduct an investigation to make sure the alleged marriage was legitimate.

          Contrary to Maraniss’ assertion, the INS officers didn’t appear to be concerned about the interracial nature of the Kenyan’s sexual activities at the university.

          What was of concern was that Obama Sr. and Dunham were not living together as husband and wife, and their marriage might have been arranged for immigration purposes…..

          And from the same source this interesting bit of scuttlebutt:

          …A memo from a British diplomat in Washington to Whitehall — released today by the National Archives in West London — sets out their concerns about the young Kenyans.

          Dated September 1, 1959, it says: “I have discussed with the State Department. They are as disturbed about these developments as we are. They point out that Kenya students have a bad reputation over here for falling into the wrong hands and for becoming both anti-American and anti-white.”

          In one of the Foreign Office files, the future president’s father appears on a list of Kenyan students…
          Mr Obama Sr. was among 100 or so Kenyan students brought to America by the African American Students Foundation.

          U.S. and British officials were deeply suspicious of this outfit, observing that the AASF — though backed by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Sidney Poitier — had links to a Kenyan nationalist leader.

          “The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational,” warned a letter from the British Embassy in Washington.

          It added: “The arrival here of these students, many of them of indifferent academic calibre and ill-prepared for the venture, is likely to give rise to difficult problems.”
          http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/senior.htm

        • smrstrauss says:

          slcraignbc said:

          “Isn’t it interesting that as the “holes” are noticed the HI DOH comes to the rescue with their trusty dot matrix printer and an editable data base in order to show what it would have looked like….”

          Sadly slcraignbc cannot refrain from showing how loony slcraignbc is—an example of the overall lack of sanity of the extreme right wing of the Conservative movement.

          Notice that slcraignbc does not actually reference any document, much less provide links.

          The overall claim that Obama’s birth certificate is forged can be answered with this:

          With the single exception of Reed Hayes, who has not proven his expertise in examining digital documents (he is a specialist in documents on paper, and he has not seen the paper copies) and who admits he has not seen the research on the way that the Xerox WorkCentre works, ONLY birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate forged. And they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

          One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

          Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

          And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

          Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

          Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

          John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

          Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

          Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

          Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

          And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

          Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “Someone upstream said Obama Sr had not divorced first wife. ”

          Maybe, but if so it has no legal effect on Obama whatever. And in fact it does not change the fact that Obama’s mother and father were legally married in Hawaii.

        • philjourdan says:

          yes it does turnip. If his father was already married, the marriage to his mother was not legal, period. Making Obama a bastard child (now he is just the first half, although still very childish).

          Bigamy is not legal in the US even today. Another lie from the turnip.

        • philjourdan says:

          What does your post have to do with the subject of this page turnip?

        • Phil: You, I and the turnips are one nation, one people. You must believe. For the children.

        • philjourdan says:

          My children are too smart for the turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “Making Obama a bastard child…”

          I suggest that you read up on illegitimacy:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29

          Notice the part about ” putative marriages.”

        • philjourdan says:

          I suggest you look up the meaning of the word bastard – not the slang meaning turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “bastard.”

          A bastard is a person born of parents who are not married to each other. Obama’s parents were married under Hawaii law, and the evidence for that is both a marriage listing and their divorce.

        • philjourdan says:

          No turnip. A marriage license obtained under fraudulent circumstances is not legal or valid turnip.

          Still no evidence turnip.

  17. philjourdan says:

    Obama would pimp out his own daughters if he thought he would profit by it.

  18. u.k.(us) says:

    philjourdan says:

    August 24, 2014 at 1:47 am

    Obama would pimp out his own daughters if he thought he would profit by it.
    ==============
    Whoa Nellie.
    You sure you wanna go there ?

  19. GoneWithTheWind says:

    Does this issue matter anymore?
    Yes. If true it seems that a lot of people conspired to commit a crime. If true it may well make it a future requirement that candidates are vetted by the government. If true it could make laws, regulations and executive orders unenforceable.

    • What “crime” pray tell are you suggesting that “a lot of people conspired to commit”?

    • The Magic M says:

      > it may well make it a future requirement that candidates are vetted by the government

      So you want a Democratic government to have a say in which Republican can become President? Not really, do you?

  20. Steve Fox says:

    GoneWithTheWind says:
    ‘A lot of people conspired to commit a crime’
    Yes, and millions of people believed the lie without question, even when it was challenged. It’s very depressing.

    • smrstrauss says:

      Not too bad, really.

      Birther sites have been banging away at this lie for six years or so, and yet only slightly more people believe it than believe that space aliens crash landed at Rosewell, NM.

      There have been active LIARS for the “he was born in a foreign country” lunacy, and nobody organized is backing the “space aliens in Roswell, NM” lunacy . Yet only slightly more Americans believe “he is a foreigner” than believe that space aliens crash landed. The survey shows that 23% believe the “Obama is a foreigner” myth, while 20% believe that space aliens crash landed in Rosewell, NM.

      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/have_we_got_a_conspiracy_for_you_9_11_jfk_obama_s_citizenship

      Oh, and a varying percentage—increasing rapidly—believe in ghosts. The latest appears to be 40-45% (It was 35% about ten years ago, I recall.)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/real-ghosts-americans-poll_n_2049485.html

      That doesn’t seem so bad, does it?

      • philjourdan says:

        So you support slavery eh?

        😆 Who cares who believes that he was born in Kenya??? Really after all this you still come back to the straw man! You are an idiot.

        It is not about WHERE he was born. It is about WHO SAID IT FIRST.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Well, it certainly wasn’t Hillary or Bill or McCain or Mitt Romney, and it certainly wasn’t Obama either. He had given interviews to the press in which he said that he was born in Hawaii, and it is farfetched to think that he reversed that and told the publicist that he was born in Kenya. If her mistake mixing up Obama’s father who was really born in Kenya with Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was the first birther story, so be it—but it remains a mistake.

        • philjourdan says:

          Since it WAS Obama, as the evidence shows. If you have evidence to the contrary, produce it. hearsay is NOT evidence.

          So shut up moron.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said:

          “Since it WAS Obama, as the evidence shows. ”

          No it was the publicist, as the evidence shows, and she has admitted to making the mistake. And, to repeat, Hillary and John McCain and Mitt Romney all never said that Obama was born in Kenya.

        • philjourdan says:

          Evidence turnip, Evidence. I did not say your opinion. I know you have no clue what evidence is, but until you understand that concept, you are simply a mouthpiece for a liar and a liar yourself.

          You lied. We know that. It is not in question. Obama lied as well. We know that. it is not in question.

  21. slcraignbc says:

    The question is which is the lie, that he was born in Kenya or that he was born in Hawaii ….????

    • Neither. He was born in Hawaii, and the bio’s assertion that he was born in Kenya is merely a garbled detail.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Ya, “plausible deniability defense” follows the “0” around like the “nuke-code-football” that’s attached to his “body man” full of alternate scenarios that allowed he and his mommy to be in two places at once and to go to places that U.S. Passport holders were warned off of and or work out negotiations with the State Dept. to get back into the country or the marriage cert and registration is misfiled but an In-chambers” divorce decree is relied on to confirm a marriage and an ABSTRACT Certification is all that’s avaiable until an MODIFIED_ABSTRACT LONG-FORM is negotiated in a 24 hr turn-around D.C. to HI trip and on and on and on and …..the “plausible deniability defense” follows the “0” around like the “nuke-code-football” that’s attached to his “body man” ………………..

        • “Plausible deniability” has nothing to do with it. Before, during and after the time this bio was being composed and published, Obama was widely and very publicly declaring his Hawaiian birth. To this day, nobody in an actual position to know has ever declared a place of birth for Obama anywhere other than Honolulu.

          Most of the rest of your post is incoherent. While you have a well deserved reputation as an “anomaly miner,” several of what you appear to be declaring anomalies are simply false facts.

          For example… there is no record of Obama ever “to places that U.S. Passport holders were warned off of.” That certainly would not describe his 1987 trip to Pakistan, a country that at that time offered a no-questions-asked 30 day tourist Visas automatically to anybody who showed up at a Pakistani airport with a US passport. And your descriptions of Obama’s birth certificates (both short and long forms) is so tendentious as to border on parody.

          Why is that birthers believe such goofy stuff?

        • slcraignbc says:

          There certainly was a State Department Travel Advisory Warning regarding Pakistan at the time the “0” said he made his Hajj.

          Now, whether he actually went to Pakistan remains unclear and as you well know there is NO documented “proofs” one way or the other.

          Maybe, being a ‘blessed one,’ he just fabricated the story to enrich his relations with his muslim friends, with memories of a Virtual Pilgrimage of composite recollections of imaginings of what may have been.had any of it actually happened.

          As for what I believe is obviously diametrically opposed to MOST of you positions.

          I happen to know a lot about Birth Certs, having been intrigued at a young age with the “anomaly” within my own at a young age and since have studied 1,000’s from all over the country wondering if I’ll ever see another “anomaly” like the one on mine.

          That alone does NOT make me an expert, but I know enough to say that a PDF file without an Original Signature and seal from the State Registrar is NOT an Original Certified Copy, so until one is entered into evidence within a Court of competent Jurisdiction and Rules on its authenticity we will continue to disagree on the legitimacy of the one the “0” had posted on his campaign cum White House web site.

          But, I feel that the topic of this blog along with all of the red-herrings, wild geese and monkeys chasing weasels around the mulberry bush are calculated distractions from the ONLY issue that holds the FORCE of the Constitution, including the Operation of Law, in enforcing its requirement.

        • philjourdan says:

          Plausible Deniability has everything to do with it. That is because you lied again.

          Steven presented DOCUMENTED evidence that Obama knew. You CLAIM Obama was doing something else, yet have presented NO EVIDENCE of your claim.

          That is called not being believable. And that is why it is all about plausible deniability.

          And you are fraudulently getting paid by OFA(l) because you are not doing your job. In fact, you are making us think there is something there, as that would be the only reason Obama would be paying idiots to argue against documented evidence that has NOTHING to do with his legitimacy, just his honesty – which is already destroyed from his own lips!

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “There certainly was a State Department Travel Advisory Warning regarding Pakistan at the time…”

          Answer: Baloney there was. The US government was eager to have US citizens visit Pakistan at the time because Pakistan was at the time a GOOD ALLY (remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War”?). And Pakistan on its part certainly did not keep US citizens from visiting because it was very anxious for tourist dollars, so it gave every US citizen who showed up a free 30-day visa. US newspapers were even running travel articles recommending visiting “scenic Lahore” at the time.

        • @slcraignbc

          First off… you have a detail garbled. How ironic considering the post that started this thread don’t you think? Obama’s Pakistan trip did not take place in 1987. It took place in 1981. And look… I even replicated the error in my responding comment. And we don’t even have Miriam Goderich to take the blame for our mistake.

          See how that works?

          Your problem is that the State Department issues travel advisories even when things are hunky-dory and when there are no travel restrictions. Here is the Pakistan travel advisory that was in effect when Obama went to Pakistan. Read it:

          http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

          You will notice that there is no travel restriction… in fact no hint of any reason a US Citizen traveling on a US passport should be at all anxious about going there. As to whether or not Obama “actually” went to Pakistan then, I could not possible care less. I also do not care where George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Katy Perry went the summers before they went to college either.

          I have no reason to challenge your claimed familiarity with birth certificates. But in response, I should point out that my user name, HistorianDude comes from the fact that I am my family’s historian… well, four families actually. Those of my parents and those pf my parents-in-law. I am actually an engineer. But as a family historian I have in my own files at least 850 birth certificates from 19 states and 6 foreign countries. With that context in place, let’s look at your comments.

          No one except birthers have ever suggested that the Whitehouse.com PDF is admissible in court as proof of the President’s citizenship. Instead the signed and certified paper document from which the PDF scanned is that proof. So in the manner of public document releases since long before the Internet, the paper certified copy was circulated to the journalists present at the release for them to verify it’s authenticity. The PDF is merely a method for allowing as large an audience as possible to see it, just as in generations past a picture in a newspaper would have accompanied the article covering the release.

          Now… your special demand (irrelevant to any actual authority) that “until one is entered into evidence within a Court of competent Jurisdiction and Rules on its authenticity” it is somehow suspect betrays only that you are completely unclear on the concept of why we invented them in the first place. They were invented so that the details of a person’s birth could be guaranteed as true without any additional requirements for verification. We do not need a court ruling to use them for any legal purpose. Furthermore, under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, no court has the authority to even make such a ruling. They must, under the Constitution, accept it as prima facie proof of the information contained.

          Now of course, we both know that there is an exception to the acceptance of prima facie evidence as true. Prima facie evidence can be rebutted by contradicting evidence of equal or greater probative value. Alas… here we are six years into the birther movement, however, and birthers still have been unable to provide any admissible contradictory evidence. Worse, given the “preponderance of evidence” standard of civil court (in which 100% of all birther efforts have taken place) birthers have failed to even come up with admissible evidence that would contradict Obama’s simple assertion that he was born in Hawaii. That is how weak your position actually is. Obama (or his sister even) could simply walk into court and declare without any corroboration that Obama was born in Hawaii, and you have lost your case,

        • rah says:

          Nope don’t remember the term “bIrther” showing up in reference to McCain until after the fact. As I recall it the moniker was made up originally and specifically to label those demanding a birth certificate for BHO.

      • rah says:

        This truck driver just had to get re certified for my HazMat endorsement. To do so I had to produce either a Birth Certificate or a US Passport. Apparently the current president didn’t have to produce either to be elected either time.

        And yet, when John McCain was running against candidate Obama I well remember there being questions raised about his eligibility because he was born to US parents at a US military facility in the Panama canal zone. They claimed he was not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. If such a claim were true then every single person born to US parents anywhere outside of the United states that is not deemed to be sovereign to the US, would be ineligible to be president even if their parents were their in the service of the country.

        • au1corsair says:

          I think a valid green card would have worked for HazMat certification. Not that it matters. Mexican and Canadian truck drivers carrying HazMat in the USA don’t have to comply with US HazMat certification because of NAFTA. Canadian and Mexican truckers drive on their nations’ equivalent of America’s CDL–I have to screen truck drivers for possession of a valid CDL in order to allow them admission to a warehouse complex. It gets complicated because my Spanish and French are rudimentary at best.

          Not to be confused with the International Driver’s Licenses…

          Candidate Obama didn’t even have to produce a driver’s license to run, having been vetted by his party–but I did need “government issued picture identification” to vote. To get a driver’s license I needed proof of residence, my birth certificate and a Social Security card.

          Ain’t democracy great?

        • @rah

          No. Neither the current President nor any prior president has ever needed to produce either a birth certificate or passport to be elected, ever. This is good since of the 43 people who have ever been President, 35 of them never had birth certificates at all, and at least two others never got them until after they had already become President.

          As to McCain, the “McCain birthers” absolutely did challenge his eligibility for the Presidency. What is less well known is that the “McCain birthers” were all right-wing conservatives. The meme was most aggressively pushed by Ron Paul supporters, championed at the Paulista web site, The Daily Paul. The two legal cases that were filed against McCain were filed by hard core conservative and Markham Robinson (chairman of the right-wing American Independent Party) in California and Republican activist Fred Hollander in New Hampshire.

          In response, the two Democrats who (at that time) were most likely to end up facing McCain in the 2008 general election, Clinton and Obama, sponsored Senate Resolution 511 “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.”

        • rah says:

          Oh yes, that legally meaningless nonbinding resolution. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to bestow citizenship or citizenship status upon anyone.

          As for where the whole question came from? Fred v. John McCain. That doesn’t really matter so much as where the question was amplified into the national news. And that would be every single major leftist media organ in this country pretty much from the DailyKos to the NYT.. The very same ones that picked up the moniker “birther” to describe those that questioned where BHO was born.

        • Just as with Obama birthers, it was covered in the media. This surprises you… why?

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan posts a link to a WND article showing that there were several news articles raising the question of McCain’s eligibility due to his birth in the Canal Zone. What the article posted does not say is that while the news articles raise the question, they ultimately concluded that McCain IS a Natural Born Citizen, as did the one lawsuit against McCain on that issue.

          HIstorian Dude’s point about presidents before Obama never showing their birth certificates remains accurate, of course.

        • philjourdan says:

          The challenge turnip, was not whether he was cleared or NOT (of course he was turnip!). The challenged was that McCain’s right to run for president was challenged!

          Notice how the turnip does not seem to be able to read and comprehend what he reads. so he is constantly trying to interject non sequiturs.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: “The challenged was that McCain’s right to run for president was challenged! ”

          NO, it was discussed. Big deal. He would have been the first US president who was not born in on of the US states, and naturally it was discussed. There was one lawsuit against him, in contrast to more than 200 against Obama, and the one lawsuit against McCain lost—just as the more than 200 against Obama lost.

        • philjourdan says:

          RTFM turnip – it was CHALLENGED. Just as Obama’s was. Did it ever make it to SCOTUS? WHO the hell cares! The challenge was if it was CHALLENGED. It was. The proof is in hundreds of articles from the year.

          You still need to learn to read turnip.

      • philjourdan says:

        That’s a new one – a lie is now a garbled detail.

        No, it is a lie. Obama Knew, and the biographer took the fall.

        • smrstrauss says:

          By saying “No, it is a lie. Obama Knew, and the biographer took the fall.” philjourdan is claiming that the biographer, whom he does not even know, is lying when she admits to making a perfectly natural mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya, you know). But notice that philjourdan does not produce any evidence whatever to support his claim that the biographer did not make a mistake.

        • philjourdan says:

          Notice how the turnip tries to enter his lies as facts into the debate. He claims to know everything about me, yet cannot read simple sentences that are posted!

          OK, turnip, prove I do not know anyone.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: ” claims to know everything about me, yet cannot read simple sentences that are posted!”

          He claimed above that Obama “knew” and his biographer “took the fall”—meaning that what she said was false. She said that Obama did not know. philjourndan said “Obama Knew.” philjourdan does not know that Obama knew, he just claims it, and he claims that the biographer, who wrote the bio, is lying when she said that she wrote it, and made the mistake and that Obama did not know.

          philjourdan has also claimed, without any proof whatever, that I am paid to post. Well, i’m not.

          So, philjourdan is also lying in his claim that the publicist lied. She SAID that she made the mistake, and it was an easy mistake to make. Yet philjourdan insists that this woman is lying. Obama said that he was born in HAWAII in newspaper interviews in 1990 and in his book Dreams from My Father in 1995—yet philjourdan insists (without any proof) that Obama lied in 1991 and told the publicist or wrote that he was born in Kenya. Well, there isn’t any evidence of it, and it would be extremely unlikely and the publicist said that she made the mistake—and yet philjourdan says that she is lying.

        • philjourdan says:

          Still cannot read, eh Turnip? Quote where I stated the fact.

          Then look up the word “implausible” idiot. And stop your lying. You have NO EVIDENCE Obama did not know and also approve of the bio. NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NICHTS.

          learn to read, Your lack of a brain is getting tiresome turnip.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “Implausible.”

          Philjourdain claims that Obama switched from saying in newspaper interviews “I was born in Hawaii” to the lie: “I was born in Kenya” in 1991—-and that he then switched back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book in 1995, and that the 1991 biography was not the result of a MISTAKE that the publicist admitted to making. All this despite the fact that Obam’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he really was born in Kenya, so it was easy for the publicist to make the mistake that she has admitted to.

          Talk about “Implausible.”

        • philjourdan says:

          Turnip, show us where he said it in a Newspaper interview. YOu have not. Learn what a quote is turnip.

          Implausible is finding someone as stupid as you. You would be dead long ago after forgetting to breathe. So it is just an act turnip. You are merely Obama in drag.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjhoudan said: “Turnip, show us where he said it in a Newspaper interview. YOu have not. Learn what a quote is turnip.”

          Here is a newspaper article in 1990 that says that he was born in Hawaii. Are you claiming that the newspaper made it up and that Obama never told them where he was born?

          http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

          Moreover, the article certainly does NOT say that Obama was born in Kenya or that he said that he was.

        • philjourdan says:

          You already showed us that turnip. And I pointed out to you it was not a quote, paraphrase or attribution turnip. And it predated his story about BEING born in kenya turnip. So it has no bearing on this article or the originator of the birther story turnip.

          Still do not have any facts, are clueless on the meaning or definition of evidence, have no clue about the difference between opinion and fact, and now showing more pronounced signs of dementia. You are clearly first class liberal material turnip.

  22. Billy Rawle says:

    The author of this piece left out some very important facts:

    1) In 1990 (before the literary agent’s brochure) the Los Angles Times, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune did interviews with Barack Obama II on the occasion of his being elected to be the President of the Harvard Law Review. All three articles say he was born in Hawaii. In fact, between 1990 and 1999 there are approximately a dozen newspaper or magazine articles that say he was born in Hawaii. this is culminated by his Illinois State Senate webpage which says he was born in Hawaii.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

    2) In the original Breitbart article about the literary agent brochure “the text [of the brochure] was edited by Miriam Goderich”. The Breitbart article goes on to say “He [Jay Acton of Acton and Dystel] indicated that while “almost nobody” wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom “the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,” were “probably” approached to approve the text as presented.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

    3) Miriam Goderich (the editor of the brochure) wrote:

    “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html

    I guess when it comes to ignoring salient facts, the left and the right are the same coin.

    So how do these facts add to the narrative? Apparently, in publications meant for widespread circulation (newspapers, magazines, etc.) President Obama indicated he was born in Hawaii, but in one publication only seen by a small group of publishing companies, in a bio he likely didn’t write, he was born in Kenya.

    Okay, how is this for a scenario that incorporates the known facts?

    A relatively obscure, 30 year old potential author submits a list of biographical facts to his literary agent for use in a brochure. The editor of the brochure in drafting the bio conflates the name Barack Hussein Obama (who was born in Kenya) with the name Barack Hussein Obama II (who was born in Hawaii). Jay Acton says the authors “probably” reviewed the text but that doesn’t mean they definitely reviewed them. This leads to several possibilities:

    1) As he was the one who sent the facts to the agent the text was not sent to him for review.

    2) The text was sent to him for review, he suggested a change from Kenya to Hawaii but the agency screwed up and the change was not implemented.

    3) The text was sent to him for review, he never sent it back for correction either by oversight or neglect (this would be supported by the Obama was a slacker mime).

    4) The text was sent to him for review, he decided to leave it since being born in Kenya rather than Hawaii would sell more books (Okay, that one I don’t quite get as to why Kenya would be more marketable than Hawaii for a book on race relations in the United States).

    I’m sure that there are other possible explanations could be developed but these seem to me to be the most likely.

    Now as to the occasional “updates”. These updates are not updates to the brochure but are simply their clients list. The client list consist of three or four lines of biography. Wouldn’t the facts in the client list be taken from the their existing bio that was used for the brochure? Wouldn’t they assume that it was accurate? Would they really send the three or four line listing to the authors for review?

    I think a reasonable person would say that yes, they would take the info from the original bio rather than starting over from scratch and yes, they would assume the facts are correct and no, they would not send the client list entry to the authors for review of previously published information.

    • Until Miriam Goderich explains who told her that Obama was born in Kenya, and why they persisted with that story for 17 years, your comments are a complete waste of time.

      • smrstrauss says:

        The explanation is very simple. Obama’s father has the same name as Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, WAS born in Kenya. Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, was not born in Kenya; he was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii all show.

        It is a common literary device when talking about someone’s past in a book to start off with their full name, even if they are your father. So, the book probably said something like: “Barack Hussein Obama was born in x place Kenya.” And the publicist glimpsed that and thought that it was Barack Hussein Obama II, the author.

        So, that accounts for the MISTAKE. She also said that (1) she did not get the information from Obama; (2) she did not check the bio blurb with Obama; (3) she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it. The notion that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya is also undercut by Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father, published in 1995—-which says right in it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii, and of course, he was.

        • smrstrauss says:

          Further to: “A relatively obscure, 30 year old potential author submits a list of biographical facts to his literary agent for use in a brochure…”

          Answer: As noted above. She said that she DID NOT GET THE INFORMATION FROM OBAMA. So he did not submit a list of facts, or in fact anything. She got the mistake by misreading the text of the draft book (it was never published).

        • philjourdan says:

          Answer: As noted above, the lie does not carry on for almost 20 years without the person knowing about it.

          And (great shock for OFA(l) idiots) People lie – especially those told to by the liar in chief himself.

        • This went on for 17 years, until Obama announced his candidacy for President. Then it changed immediately.

          No one that Obama knew noticed for 17 years?

          http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

        • Miriam,

          Why are you telling me this under a fake name? Why not go to the press and explain it to them?

        • philjourdan says:

          The press are fools – but they are not even that stupid.

        • Yep. No one that Obama knew noticed for 17 years.

        • philjourdan says:

          So how’s that bridge working for you?

        • philjourdan says:

          Rightttt! No one in the history of the planet had the same name as his father until Obama!

          I see they are gutting the budget for OFA(l) as the quality of the help has deteriorated significantly.

          Hint: You are not believable. See above.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said:

          “People lie…”

          Answer. No question about it. Birther lies are CLASSIC.

          Some examples of classic birther lies:

          (1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)

          (2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.

          (3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?

          (4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?

          (5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?

          (6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?

          (7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)

          (8) Birther sites said that Obama spent “millions” on hiding his birth certificate. But Obama showed his birth certificate and did not spend a cent on hiding anything. And in fact, as birther sites did not tell their readers, there wasn’t even one lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate or for records, not one. There were lawsuits to keep Obama off of ballots, but NO lawsuits for his birth certificate or records of any kind. Why do you suppose that birther sites implied that there were lawsuits for Obama’s BC—when there weren’t ANY???

          (9) Birther sites said that Obama’s records are “sealed,” but they are not sealed. They are covered under the ordinary state and federal privacy laws, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not release similar records either.

          (10) The claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport is also a LIE. As the facts show above, Obama never had an Indonesian passport. Moreover, he did not need an Indonesian passport or any other passport than an ordinary US passport because, it is a LIE that Pakistan was on some kind of a no-travel list when Obama went there or that Pakistan kept US tourists from visiting. NEITHER are true. When Obam went to Pakistan, the country was relatively peaceful, and it encouraged tourists to vist, and so did the US government because at the time Pakistan was a US ALLY (Remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War?”) So, it is LIE that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He never had an Indonesian passport, and he didn’t need one.

          And the lie on this site is the claim that the publicist is lying, when she has admitted to making a mistake. (And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.)

        • philjourdan says:

          Non sequitur again turnip. The story is not about those who REPEATED the rumor. It is about who STARTED it. I doubt you will ever understand that as that does require more than 2 brain cells turnip, and you are not even half way there.

          Frankly,. you calling anyone a liar means they are more trustworthy than you or Obama. Since the 2 of you have not been able to state a single word of truth YET.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said:

          “The story is not about those who REPEATED the rumor. It is about who STARTED it.”

          NOTICE that philjourdan would like to obscure the interesting facts about the people who CONTINUED the birther myth by their lies by simply focusing on who started it. Well, duh, things that exist do so for two reasons, the things that cause them and the things that continue them—but philjourdan wants to mislead people by just focusing on the start (I wonder why?)

          Second, okay, the blurb written by the publicist was the start, and it was a mistake, so the myth started with a MISTAKE. It then was continued and deepened by the birther lies, such as the LIE that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when she actually said that he was born in Hawaii).

        • philjourdan says:

          You really are a moron turnip. The story is NOT about who continues it. RTFM again! It is about who STARTED it. I am obscuring nothing. I am COMMENTING on an article about who STARTED it. If you want to write an article about who is CONTINUING IT (see, the 2 words even start with different letters), get your own blog (kind of hard since you cannot read) or ask Steven if you can guest host an article.

          Until such time, turnip, you are the only one obscuring anything. idiot.

          Starting =/= Continuing (which is evident to all sentient life, which leaves the turnip out).

        • smrstrauss says:

          Philjourdan said: “You really are a moron turnip. The story is NOT about who continues it. RTFM again! It is about who STARTED it. ”

          Too bad for you Brussels Sprout that things have a beginning and a continuation. The fact that someone stresses the beginning does not make the continuation less important. In fact, it is just as important.

          So the beginning of the story was a MISTAKE made by a publicist. That was the start, but it was not the whole story. The rest of the story was the continuation of the myth that was mainly caused by birther lies—such as the LIE that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she really said that he was born in HAWAII. And that was only part of the lie. Another large part of it was birther sites not telling their readers that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copies the White House has put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

          philjourdan would like to hide all those nasty lies by the birthers by just saying over and over “this story is NOT about who continues it.”

        • philjourdan says:

          Too bad for you turnip that you still do not understand “begin” versus “continue”. Too bad for you that you are so brainless that all you can do is parrot – even your insults are parroting.

          Too bad for you turnip that I now agree with S. L. Craig and Kuhnkat – and you convinced me.

          But I am not sad that Obama wastes his money on you turnip. As long as he is wasting it.

      • Again. Miriam Goderich is on the record that the error was original with her.

      • She has explained it to the press. Why slay again the already slain?

      • Nonsense, as long as Miriam Goderich has explained that she did not get the detail from Obama, EVERYTHING else is a complete waste of time.

    • philjourdan says:

      Let me guess Billy, reading is not your strong point.

      The title of the article is “The Original Birther” – in other words who started the rumor that he was not born in the US FIRST. Where he was born is immaterial. As is any evidence pre-dating the start of the myth (or fact) of him being born in Kenya. Since the article is about who started the talk about him being born in Kenya, and NOT about where he was actually born, your putrid drool is irrelevant.

      Seriously, try to keep up.

      • Since this bio did not start the rumor, I can only respond as we used to say in Ranger School.

        “Nice attack. Wrong hill.”

        • Speaking of Hill …

          “supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.”

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html

        • Sadly, that pleasant fiction also turns out to not be true. While PUMAS were certainly early adopters of the meme, it did not begin with them.

          The very first birther post took place at about 3:00 AM, March 1, 2008 on the conservative right-wing web forum Free Republic, Here is that post:

          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1978110/posts?page=391#391

          Three days later the rumor was picked by pseudonymous right-wing blogger Alan Peters here:

          http://alanpetersroundup.blogspot.com/2008/03/freedoms-enemies-obama-story.html

          At that point it was off and running in the right-wing blogosphere. The first use of the meme by an apparent Hillary supporter was not until more than a month later in a comment at Snopes.com. And yes, Democrat Phil Berg was the first to file a birther lawsuit. But at no point in the history of birthism were Clinton supporters the primary promoters of the meme. It has always been a right-wing Republican franchise.

          But nobody actually associated with the Clinton campaign (to include Bill and Hillary) ever expressed the tiniest doubt as to the President’s eligibility.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sadly, you still cannot read or write. Evidence has been presented showing the first birther posts to be 1991 (by Obama) and 2004 (by his native country). To any sane, rational person, they clearly know that 2008 > 2004 and 1991. Except to kooks that are obsessed with maintaining the purity of the messiah’s bloodline.

        • philjourdan says:

          False acclamations of accomplishment are as useful as your opinion. And as worthless.

          You have only proven how you reject knowledge. Which is why stupid in your case is a description, not a pejorative.

        • smrstrauss says:

          philjourdan said: ” Evidence has been presented showing the first birther posts to be 1991 (by Obama) and 2004 (by his native country). ”

          The 1991 post was by a publicist who admitted to making a mistake, not by Obama, and the 2004 post was by a Kenyan newspaper, not by Kenya (the country) or even by the government of Kenya.

          Those mistakes may have been the start of the birther movement, but the LIES of birther sites certainly fostered it.

          Some examples of classic birther lies:

          (1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)

          (2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indon