They think if they keep spamming the lie, like Mr 60 Lawsuits over there, it will make it true. The fact is we have the best president we've had in ages and if they make this true somehow, it means we just outsourced our highest office in government.
What is this, revenge after getting caught stealing the election for Bush?

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

To Thomas Lotito, you're still flogging that story? From the same newspaper a week later:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm

Sunday, July 4, 2004

Left’s face it, Obama is not ‘our own’
By Wallace Kantai

So lets see Thomas either you're a liar and knew about the article a week later or are a fool who believes whatever he reads on birther sites. Which is it?

Bob, did that get under your skin?

Not at all Thomas. Why do I get the feeling this isn't the first time you've been corrected on this?

Bob, thanks for the second article, no where in it does it deny Obama wasn't Kenyan born....in the grand scheme of things, at this point it really doesn't matter.. all that matters is we vote him out of office in Nov.

So you don't count that they pretty much said He isn't one of our own and pretty much corrected what the first author said? Yes you're right it doesn't matter that he's legally the President as long as you can smear him. The ends justify the means right?

i kno and i think obama is a graet president and if it was my vote i vote for obama

i feel great

What going on here, a meeting of Obama-zombies?

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate Sunday, June 27, 2004

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

To Thomas Lotito, you're still flogging that story? From the same newspaper a week later:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm

Sunday, July 4, 2004

Left’s face it, Obama is not ‘our own’
By Wallace Kantai

So lets see Thomas either you're a liar and knew about the article a week later or are a fool who believes whatever he reads on birther sites. Which is it?

No he wasn't.

Nelson Rockefeller served as VP under Ford.

So you're admitting it's ironic that Obama was born in Kenya?

Except he wasn't Kenyan born Thomas and the whole kenyan birth scenario is impossible considering 1. Obama Sr never left America between 1959 to 1965 and no American citizen flew from Kenya from 1961-1962 according to the INS.

Arizona was a territory of the United States since 1863.

David, It's more nonsense from your comments. I don't agree with the birthers, but the idea that Arizona was a territory? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison. None of them were born in the U.S., they were British subjects when they were born. So by your thinking all of them were not legitimate?

Washington, Jefferson and Madison were born in Virginia, Adams in Massachusetts. All were natural born subjects of one of the British colonies in America before it declared independence. The intent of the "natural born" clause was to exclude wealthy foreign aristocrats who might want to turn America into their personal fiefdom.

Not at all! Please keep telling people your version of the "truth." It only helps galvanize us to combat you.

Who has suppressed any of this birther nonsense? It seems to me it's gotten plenty of publicity (witness this article).

The notion is preposterous that people plotting to take over the US would hatch a plot that would take more than 40 years to enact and say to themselves, "Hey, we need to elect a guy President for this to work. Who should we pick? A black kid with the middle name Hussein! Yeah, that makes it a lead pipe cinch!"

The Hawaii government is (or was in 1961) the ONLY organisation permitted to place birth notices in Hawaiian newspapers. It was done automatically for every birth. The newspapers were not permitted to accept notices from the public-at-large, even parents.

PhD: Piled higher and deeper!

Clive-

John McCain was born outside the country. So was Mitt Romney's dad - who ran for President. Any kid born of a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen.

Look, instead of whining, why not just win an election?

Here, Clive - since you seem so intent on studying things in detail:
"...the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term 'natural-born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born in the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."

Note those last two. And those were precedents set long before Obama even thought of running.

Clive -

I assume you have tangible evidence that Ann Dunham was in Kenya in Aug 1961?

And by the way, there is indisputable evidence that Barak Obama, Sr was enrolled in classes at Univ of Hawaii in the Summer of 1961.

I think I'm still amazed at the people who float these incredible false statements about the President of the United States. They don't seem to want to believe the Governor of Hawaii who is a Republican who states that the birth certificate is authentic. They never have any answer to me when I tell them that my granddaughters were both born in England to American citizens (my daughter and son-in-law), and are considered under US law to be "natural born" citizens of American parentage. And, no, they are not dual citizens of two countries. Some of you people are just plain hunting for anything to back up your stupid theories. And yes, it is blatantly racism, and believe you me that is not the card of last resort in this fiasco - it is the card of first choice among the tpers and the birther-conspiracists.

Clive, for your own sake and that of your friends, family, and loved ones, let go of the bone! You only show your brainwashed ignorance, time after time after time!

Two out of three, in this case, is still bad (for Clive).
First, I agree with Clive that the phrase "tightening the noose" was used in a normal fashion, and thus we don't have reason to say it was "racist".
Second, Obama's mother being an American citizen is not enough; she had to have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of which have to be after the age of 16 (or something like that). She was only 18 when Obama was born.
But, third, if you think that Obama was not born in the Hawaii, you are by definition a conspiracy theorist. Multiple Hawaii officials have seen the relevant original document (which I believe is in a bound book -- bound I assume by year or month), and have issued first a short-form, and then a long-form document that fills in the relevant information. You must believe that each and every of those Hawaii officials are part of a conspiracy, and have deliberately lied. You also must believe that someone linked to Obama's parents sent information to a Hawaii newspaper back in 1961. If you believe in that, might I suggest you study something called "motivated reasoning." It's when you know the conclusion you want to achieve, and you allow your mind to do/believe/contort in any way needed to get to that conclusion.

Nor has anyone ever explained why an 18-year old American girl would even for a second contemplate traveling to Kenya to give birth in 1961, when it was still in the middle of a very bloody uprising against British rule.

Tag, if you search out the national archives, they have the travel list for ALL people traveling into the US! Put in a request for these records to prove your point. Oh yea, it's already been done, the ONLY records missing from the national archive are those of the week surrounding Obama's birth...hmmm, go figure!

Why not just RELEASE his original birth certificate, show it to reporters, let one of his hand picked media reporters do an analysis and be done with it???? Hey, that is what I would do, throw egg on their face. But this provokes a question: If he does NOT release the original to prove these birther's as nuts, then what is he gaining, or hiding?

Wrong Bastiat because those aren't Obama's records Joe was searching for. In fact I'm willing to guess he didn't even do a search. International flights are recorded by the point of origin into the US. A flight coming from Kenya would have came from London to New York first. If anything Joe should have searched the New York records. He also doesn't bother to tell us what other records he searched for that whole year.

There's also the problem that the INS records show that Obama's father never left the US from 1959 to 1965. Also his mother would have had no reason to travel there. INS also records that not a single US citizen flew by air from Kenya from 1961 to 1962. So that destroys that theory.

No one sees their original birth certificate not ever. All you get is a certified copy. The original is kept in the health records so that it can't be lost. He already showed the copy to reporters in fact Savannah Guthrie took a picture with her cell phone of it and WND's Les Kinsolving also held it. Once again a reporter holding it is meaningless as the Department of Health already stated they certified and issued the document. Yes you are nuts Bastiat.

Barchfeld is entirely incorrect in his reasoning. Minor V Happersett did not define natural born citizen as one born to citizen parents. Minor was a voting rights case not a citizenship case and has no bearing on actual citizenship. The court stated there were never doubts about being born on soil to citizen parents and it stated for the purposes of the case they would not address it. US V Wong Kim Ark addressed it. Further William Rawle who would know a bit about the constitution considering he was alive at the time it was adopted said: "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity"

The only thing dumber than the birthers are the racebaters.

Please, please, please, give us your treatise on how President Obama has crushed small business. That little canard keeps getting trotted out and yet when you talk with the small business owners who are succeeding and helping to get the economy back on track, they make no such complaint. If you have a good business model you will succeed now and if you don't you will blame Obama.

You have it all wrong, Patriot. George W. Bush put us into two illegal wars, not President Obama. George W. Bush paid for the wars with emergency supplements, not by putting them in the budgets. George W. Bush approved the first two stimulus plans (TARP and everyone seems to forget the $300 checks from spring of 2008). Billions of dollars disappeared in Iraq and Afghanastan on his administration's watch. But I guess that is OK, but Obama's attempt to invest in solar energy crashed the economy? And what millions are being supplied to rebel forces? You need to be a bit more specific there.

My question is, were you questioning Bush's policies all along the way the same way you are questioning Obama's?

Patriot, your reasons for questioning the president were not called into question. You've outlined them here, and they're duly noted. But "racist, white, old, idiot, stupid" are rightly descriptive of the birther movement. If the reasons you've listed are your only reasons for questioning the president, then good on you. But if you're a part of the birther movement...then if the shoe fits...

I think you're 4 years late. Sounds like George W. Bush to me.

My husband is a small business owner, a manufacturer even, a rare bird in America today. Not only has he not been crushed this administration, he is thriving. He was able to hire 6 employees for 6 months and train them, on the governments dime. When the 6 months was up, he permanently hired one of them and the other 5 found jobs in the industry. He is getting tax breaks, too.

Next?

What are these "strict regulations"? Perhaps you can list 4 or 5 of them and make a case why they are "crushing small business". Can you do that?

Patriot, your lack of understanding does not speak well of you.

I am involved in launching a small business. I can tell you from personal experience, I have had ZERO problems with federal regulations. ALL of my hassles have come from state regulations.

And involving us in wars without the approval of Congress? That's been going for many, many years. I don't like it either, but it did not start with Obama.

And under the Reagan Administration the US provided tax dollars and training to rebel forces led by a guy named bin Laden - how'd that work out for us?

@RACHEL nearly 250,000 jobs have vanished from NJ, consider your husband and his business fortunate.

Kevin, Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate from 2004

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

To Thomas Lotito, you're still flogging that story? From the same newspaper a week later:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm

Sunday, July 4, 2004

Left’s face it, Obama is not ‘our own’
By Wallace Kantai

So lets see Thomas either you're a liar and knew about the article a week later or are a fool who believes whatever he reads on birther sites. Which is it?

Did you ask about President Bush's birth certificate?

What was Westhoven's offense exactly?

Leftist ?????? He is writing a very positive article about a bunch of racists supporting Corsi. I do however believe this article should never have been written.

@Dan: This article should absolutely been written. When a racist is spreading false information and elected representatives are supporting it, everyone should know.

Okay, say he WAS born in Hawaii...he still is not a "natural-born citizen" because his FATHER was not an American citizen.
Before you disagree, do your homework on this one.

The case isn't closed. He's Kenyan. Period.

Jennifer:
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/two-citizen-parents/

Born in the USA = Natural Born Citizen. Always has been, and always has been understood to be so. Pre-14th Amendment, of course, this did not include negroes. Are you a White Supremacist arguing the 14th is illegitimate? That's the company birthers keep.

No birther has yet found a single citation or reference from any credible or authoritative source to say otherwise. (Other than deliberately or stupidly misreading SCOTUS decisions.) Compared with literally THOUSANDS of references from throughout history that consistently state natural born = native born, and citizenship of parents is irrelevant.

Go back to fantasizing about Kenya -- rewriting the Constitution is not going to fly.

I've watched them. They are 100% Grade A unmitigated Cr*p. Corsi does no investigative reporting, "impressive and extensive" or otherwise. He simply makes stuff up.

Question for you: If I had doubts that, say, GWB was born in the US, how would you prove it to me? Seriously... how?

The birther stuff is 98% Republican smear, intended to keep gullible and fearful low-information voters on a constant simmer of hate disrespect for an entire administration that they consider "illegitimate". It is the lowest form of anti-American, anti-Patriotic, anti-Constitution gutter-trawling. Why would ANY true American actually HOPE that their President was a fraudulent criminal? But there's no way to believe any of this stuff unless you have convinced yourself beforehand not to consider alternatives.

Oh, and the other 2%? It's the "true believers" who are quite simply insane.

I know it was hard for you growing up around a brothel but all of this hate will consume you. Leave your racist ways behind and come and join us in the house god. All will be forgiven.

verbalobe - The "birther stuff" was started by the Clintons. If you've really educated yourself on this topic, you'd know that. Unmitigated cr*p or not - if there's nothing to it, why are there still so many outstanding questions? Oh wait, I'll answer that for you - it's because I must be a racist. Now that we're clear on that, to answer your question - if you had doubts that GWB was born in the U.S. and expected me to prove that he was, I would engage the help of people who had experience in the area of your doubt and likely interview people he had crossed paths with during his lifetime before I could draw any conclusion. Thanks for the giggle. That was fun.

J Rodgers

I don't believe I commented on where and how it "started". Its current form is 98% Republican -- including many, many elected and unelected Republican officials, from Arpaio, to many state legislatures which have tried to write unconstitutional bills that (they think) would bar Obama from the ballot (but which of course would not, even if they passed), to seditionists like Swensson in Georgia, a county Party chairman.

But let's continue this entertaining experiment. You wrote:
"if you had doubts that GWB was born in the U.S. and expected me to prove that he was, I would engage the help of people who had experience in the area of your doubt..."

Oh, like, say the official Vital Records Department in Connecticut, where he was "supposedly" born? They won't release his birth certificate to me. What are they hiding? They're all liars.

"...and likely interview people he had crossed paths with during his lifetime before I could draw any conclusion."

No people who knew him have stepped forward. Nobody remembers him from his teen years or his college years.

The questions just keep mounting. It's really suspicious. Why won't he release his birth certificate?

This is fun. See how easy it is to be a birther? Just lie and ignore common sense. Your turn.

Rogers sorry but no it was not started by the Clintons it was started by the so called Pumas who were pissed off that Clinton didn't win the primary. The Clintons looked into it and saw there was nothing there. There are questions because that's how the conspiracist mindset works. Every answer just leads to more questions and a shifting of the goal posts.

Okay I have doubts George W. Bush was born in the US now prove it.

Mr Rodgers,

Some of the peole who have replied to you have watched all the videos and know far more about the debunking of each and every Corsi lie than you do. Clearly. I know it sounds impressive when it dribbles from Corsi's blubbery lips, but check out the debunking.

As far as I can tell from watching him over the last decade, Corsi has no scruples. It's the only thing he knows anymore...smear.

In fact, he's starting early this election cycle.

Took 3 seconds: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

Even at Fox!

By the way, a book that disproves the conspiracy theorists wouldn't make any money. You guys wouldn't buy it because you wouldn't want to give up the dream and the non-gullible people wouldn't want to waste their time reading it.

The debunkers are debunked in this presentation - http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/arpaio-takes-obamas-forgery-to-public/

There is no conflict this was settled a long time ago. In fact the Johnson State Department even stated in 1967 that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th 1961. You could find that in the document dump on page 38 in the FOIA in Allen V DHS State. The State of Hawaii's department of health says they issued and certified the birth certificate

Yes Dannie, just a few hateful bigots..But unfortunately, a good few of them were our elected representativies.

Yeah, that's it - we need new conspiracies to look into!

BTW putting something in CAPS doesn't make it TRUE! If the birth certificate is "a proven FORGERY," how come every one of these silly lawsuits has been laughed out of court?

So now you have the Republican government of Hawaii and the entire judicial system as part of your conspiracy theory? Actually, I happen to KNOW that it's a proven FACT that Jimmy HOFFA is behind it!

Oh, and learn how to spell "corrupt."

This isn't a conspiracy because the facts are on our side, the conspiracy is the fact that none of this information is getting out into the MSM (Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's report is a scandal in itself Read more: http://times247.com/articles/forgerygate-ignoring-arpaio-s-report-is-a-scandal-in-itself#ixzz1r7GHPm4L) so do yourself a favor, do your party a favor and your children a favor and educate yourself. Don't be quick to dismiss this, it's incredibly serious. They're hoping and banking on the public's dismissal of Sheriff Joe and his cold case posse. If you see it, you'll know you're being had and want answers.
Watch Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yerPzQ4doyU&feature=related

This is very serious...
Exposing the Obama-Soetoro Connection
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45758
Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: “If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again,” said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.

Obama was a foreign student and why this is being coverer up.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/barack-obama-foreign-student-american-media-threatened-into-silence/
On March 7th, 2012, Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.

Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.

Instead of acting sanctamoniously, as one more knowledgable, smarter than all of the people at the event, why don't you debate the facts and tells us why the BO's BC isn't a forgery, why BO's Selective Service card isn't a forgery, why BO is using a CT Social Security number that comes up invalid when put through the gov's E-Verify system. Why did the pres seal all of his records? Why Dan, WHY? You know everything, right?

Because you are making it all up, That is why. This is nothing but making money off of racism and now that rascism has the stamp of approval from the Sheriff, Assemblyman Bucco, Mastranglo and Republican Chairman John Sette. They might as well have been at a Klan Meeting. I know these people and I am embarrassed for them.

Dan, you can't defend it. All you have to attack the messagers. Sad but true.

It has reached the point where the messengers ought to be attacked because their message is hate and degrading to democracy. Patch needs to end this thread. They are bad for even writing it in the first place. Why give these people a platform of legitimacy. Patch isn't long if it keeps going this way. It excites the most ignorant people.

Hmmm... I think you are on to something. Wasn't Mitt Romney's father born in Mexico,this branch of the Romney family that fled the U.S. so as to continue their practice of polygamy? Could Mitt Romney possibly be Mexican, not an American? Let's get Trump's people on this to investigate. It is just as plausible to me as the Obama controversy.

Ron, Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If someone attends a meeting that has to do with does the President qualify to be President then the person attending is a racist. The white man is a racist because the President's father is black. The black man is a racist because the President's mother is white. How about if that person, who is seeking both sides of the story, attends a meeting where the author makes the case that the President does quality. Would the person now be a non-racist or does the color of the person attending still damn them as racists? Are you the Ron Goldberg running for office in Morris Township?. If so, I trust that you will include this calling of "blatant racism" on your resume of qualifications for office. When you stifle people who inquire, who ask, who want to find out information, you take away their rights and say there is only 1 side to a story - your side!

Blatant Racism??
How dare you make such a claim. You feel that you can judge another? You feel that you can debase other people.....you should know better. Any type of discrimination is WRONG!! But you make denigrating remarks about others and feel that you know their motives? Did you ever hear of the word FREEDOM? By the way... Are you running for office again? Shame on you!

Of course it is a computer file! The original has always been in Hawaii. No one has ever claimed the actual document was released. Good grief.

Jim in what world do you live in that the only president to release his birth certificate publicly while in office is somehow hiding something but the other presidents have not? Have you bothered to look at the birther cases? Most of them sue state entities and not the President himself. In fact of the few cases the feds were involved all it takes is a first year law clerk to get the case dismissed. Also he hasn't spent "that kind of money". He showed it publicly, pay attention.

Oh my! factcheck said it . It must be true!

.... says the guy who thinks that Joe Arpaio is a credible and objective source.

What is even more interesting is that both McCain and Clinton deliberately hushed it all up because Obama paid them eleventy billion dollars.

But the notary seal on Timothy Adams' affidavit was a forged scan. Furthermore, the ink was determined to have been the very same ink used on the Shroud of Turin.

Talk about “useful idiots”. Tim Adams was an election clerk in Hawaii. He had absolutely no access to Hawaii birth records, which are maintained by the Department of Health. Do you realize how foolish you look falling into this trap that the birthers set for you???

He was a temp clerk. No he was employed from May to July. His own myspace page says he was let go. He had no access to anything and admitted that WND paid for his affidavit and wrote it themselves.

Tim names no supervisors and cannot recall if his supervisors were told in an email or phone conversation. In other words complete hearsay, inadmissible in any court.

Also Tim worked there during a time when no election was going on. Since Obama wasn't registered in Hawaii Tim would have no basis to access any of the President's records. Names on the ballot weren't handled out of his office. Hawaii didn't have a primary but a caucus in February and the absentee Ballots would have been sent out after he left.

Timothy Adam's sworn statement reads: “I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.”
As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.
“Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,” Adams’ affidavit reads, “and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.”
This is a first person account from an employee in the Hawaiian Dept of Health and it has much more credibility that what the trolls are spewing on this comments page.

No, no, no. It’s a hearsay testimony from some unnamed “senior officers’, who worked for the Honolulu Elections Division, and therefore had no access or knowledge as to what records existed in the Dept of Health, which is where birth records resides. In short, his affidavit isn’t worth a warm cup of spit.

There's your problem Michael you can't even get where Tim Adams worked. It isn't a first hand account from a Hawaii Health Department official we have those from both Dr Fukino and Dr Fuddy. Adams was a temp for the elections division for about 2 months during a non-election time. His account is complete hearsay, he names no supervisors nor where they got their information so Adams would have been twice removed from the source. Adams also admitted to being paid for his affidavit which makes the guy completely noncredible.

Now if we can just get the Today show to skin the pres alive by asking him which newspapers he reads, we'll all be set! Western Civilization will be saved!

You are out of your mind.

But Dan - look at all the comments it generated - think of the hit-count ;-) If only there were pop-ups that Patch made money off of on every click (which thank God they don't)

Tom the hit count may be good for authors writing stupid stories but it doesn't elevate the site at all. This was one stupid story. If they had written about why so many Repubicans in official positions attended this Klan Rally it would have made more sense.

Dan, I understand your ire, but Patch is reporting the event that occurred. Do you feel it would be better that they did not? What other uncomfortable issues should not be reported on, or should editorialize upon? The reporter did what the reporter needed to do.

Now, the hue and cry over this post leads me to ask where the outrage was when this person was actually selling the book? All this outrage spent on the reporter after the fact could have been put to much better use when the guy was selling his book.

The first paragraph says it all. This Reporter thinks is is not old news? It has been kicking around the news for almost 3 years and the only thing new about it is that Morris County Elected officials showed up at this event. Send him over to GreyStone and let him see what "New Conspiracies" he can dig up there.

Its funny for a bunch of "experts" none of the "experts" are named. No one but Zullo is named and there is no proof he was ever in law enforcement. We do know that he is currently a used car salesman. I guess those professions are connected.

Layers happen anytime you take a pdf into illustrator. case closed.

The silliness continues! The article you linked states that Obama was born in Hawaii (a legitimate state in 1961), but fails to qualify as a natural born citizen since his father was not a U.S. citizen. This, of course, is nonsense! See the Supreme Court decision; United States v. Wong Kim Ark; 1898.

Wrong Hookerman. The only way to change the Constitution is through Amendment process which requires 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, then a Constitutional Convention with a 2/3 approval by the states. That has not happened and there is nothing in the Constitutional that allows for judicial presidence. Our Forefathers were genuis to give us a document in simple english that could be understood by everyone. There is no gray in the Constitution. You're wrong, Democrats don't follow the Constitution as we all know.. just look at ObamaCare mandating that we must buy insurance. How ridiculous!

Michael, do you even know what the Constitution says??? Probably not, so let me enlighten you. Article II – The Executive Branch, Section 1 - The President states; “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” That’s it! It doesn’t say anything about the disposition of the person’s parents, and there is no question that a person born in one of the 50 states is a natural born citizen.

What the article you linked references is the 14th amendment (1868), which reads; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. This really has no relevance to presidential qualifications, and was written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves. However, if the issue is whether Obama is a legal citizen based on the status of his father, this was decided in 1898 by the Supreme Court via the Wong Kim Ark decision, which stated that any child born in the U.S. to foreign parents is a natural born citizen of the U.S. with full rights.

Hookerman - the 14 Amendment was written to address the SLAVES born in the US. There wasn't any discussion of changing the qualifications and it had nothing to with the Presidency. There hasn't been any change, period. The qualifications for a "Natural Born" citizen is for a very important reason. Our founders did not want the Pres to have dual allegiances. That has not changed and BO Sr never became a citizen of the US, not before his birth, nor afterwards. BO Jr was born a Dual Citizen, not a Natural Born citizen, because his father was Kenyan and Mother was American and you can never be both a Dual Citizen and a Natural Born citizen.

Obama is NOT a dual citizen, and was never a dual citizen! He was born in Hawaii in 1961, and that makes him a full, U.S. citizen, which is why he has a legitimate U.S. birth certificate. Your interpretation of the 14th amendment has absolutely no legal basis to it!

Its funny how you don't realize how bigoted that sounds. They used to do that to black people in the 50s telling them to constantly show their papers and then not accepting when they did. The State of Hawaii says they issued and certified it, the full faith and credit clause in the constitution requires other states to accept it. He showed it back in 2008 and you guys whined and said if only he would show the long form it would shut up the birthers. It wasn't true then and it isn't now. You've seen his birth certificate and you continue to want more. After you have your examination you will then want his school records, and anything else you could get. It's not about the constitution but rather hoping you find something embarrassing so you can get him out of office.

Whatever Bob... it always ends in racism doesn't it Bob? Funny how the Democratically led Senate thought it was an important enough issue to examine when it came to Republican John McCain. Dude, you're just talking about his BC but there's so much more. The BC is just the tip of the iceberg. His Selective Service Registration is FORGED and there should be nothing private about a Selective Service Registration card, should there? see this: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/feds-refuse-to-release-obama-draft-docs-to-sheriff-joe/
Unfortunately, there's a lot here, too much smoke for no fire. Shame on those who'll betray their country by trying to cover up this fraud. The truth is coming out regardless.

No whatever about it Bob you wanted to talk about appearances but it seems you don't realize this "show us your papers boy" thing continues to make you guys look bigoted. Okay the secret service card. You do know Obama didn't personally present that publicly right? It came from a birther using the selective service hotline pretending to be the president through the automated system and doing a change of address. He was then sent a printout of the card. Now Selective Service says the registration is legit and Obama was registered in 1980. Lets think about this from the birther angle though. You think somehow Obama was able to secretly break into the Bush era selective service in 2008 before he was elected and place his information into their database with 1980s era coding but then somehow not being able to have the power to get a supposed correct stamp. It sounds ridiculous just as the kenyan birth scenario asks the reader to jump through different hoops and make creative reasoning to believe it.

The feds answered the way they did because they know its legit. It would then be illegal for Joe to report it to the feds and have it backfire. Which is why Joe isn't going to do anything. He knows he has nothing.

Bastiat, Obama DID provide his birth certificate four years ago, before he was even elected. The birthers complained that it was a forgery. It was then reviewed and handled and verified by a third party and deemed legitimate, and Hawaiian officials verified his birth records. Once they couldn’t cry forgery anymore, the birthers then demanded to see his long form (even though a long form is never required for id verification), and claimed that would settle the matter. Obama finally received permission from the Hawaii Dept of Health to release his long form, and not the birthers are crying forgery again. Delusional conspiracists will never be satisfied no matter what is staring them in the face.

Bob. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a copy of BO's Selective Service Record. Did you look at the testimony? This is BO's actual selective service card - there is no dispute to that - and it's date stamp is FORGED. Sheriff Joe has asked to see ORIGINAL form.
You'd think that everyone would fall in line to get to the bottom of this and I'm a little shocked at how so many people want to discount it's severity. The implications are enormous and you're not worried about it? Good, honest people looking for answers are getting the run around, are stonewalled and because of that we're suppose to believe that there is nothing there? If there was nothing there, they'd show the evidence. That's what the BC was suppose to do when the WH put it on their website but it has only confirmed many of our worst fears. If you listened to Sheriff Joe's testimony, he says that he wanted to absolve the president of this controversy. That was his intent but what was discovered is what dictates his investigation. If there was no evidence, he'd be telling us that there's nothing there.

No Michael, Joe has what he got from a birther. It did not come from an FOIA request he personally did. The stamp is not forged. Yeah sure Joe wanted to "absolve the president" Okay if that's the case you'd think the first thing Joe would have done is called Selective Service or called the Department of Health he did neither before making his claims about forgery. He started with a negative premise and used this to distract that he's in deep crud with the feds for his own corruption. Also why would a non-partisan sheriff sell a report right away on amazon to try to make money in contravention of his non-profit posse. More ridiculousness. Joe's stupidity has been torn apart http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/04/canceling-the-cold-case-posse/

Whatever Bob. It's really a lost cause with a lot of people and I'm wasting time trying to make sense with someone who doesn't want the truth to be told. I'm in fear for my country and I guess we'll get what we deserve. Thanks Bob.

The reason you lose all credibility Michael is because you're engaging in two separate arguments that contradict each other. On the one hand, you're arguing that Obama's birth records don't exist and the ones that he's released are forgeries, meaning that he wasn't really born in the U.S. On the other hand, you're arguing that Obama was born in Hawaii, but since his father was not a U.S. citizen, he is not a U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible to serve as president. Both can't be true. You have to choose which conspiracy theory you're going to hang your hat on.

So Michael you're going to just take your toys and run home? There's no whatever about it. Obama is legally and lawfully the President of the United States no matter how much whining you do about it. The truth has been told you just choose to ignore it because of your unnatural hate and obsession over the President.

They could have flown there or anywhere on a magic carpet and it would not have mattered. Obama's mother is an US citizen, therefore he is too. Learn the constitution and quit making up stuff. Read some history too. I believe there are 5 previous examples of presidents with a parent or parents as a citizen/s of another country. Please explain his birth anouncement in the Hawaii paper.

Now as far as Mr. Corsi - he can't be a citizen because he is really a jackass.

How polite is it to continue this birther line? You take the most vulnerable people easy prey for a David Koresch or Charles Manson-type, just because their guy didn't get elected and they see the world differently. Political partisanship is fine, it's how our democracy works - however conspiracy theorist are not discussion-worthy.

Now, for a little partisanship:

A few years back, the Republican held congress tried (I believe in some states they succeeded) to re-cast the USA as a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy.

And you people talk about protecting the Constitution!

To respond to Julius:

You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the President deserves the respect regardless of whether you like him or not. You don't attack with this birther nonsense. If you have issue, take issue with the policies. This birther thing is code, it is beneath the process, and justifies the negative connotations shot 'round the world of America being ignorant and "ugly."

As for continuing this thread, it is Patch's policy to report the news and that is exactly what they have done, and well I might add. The calls for taking down the story are inappropriate. You can argue if someone is posting things that "aren't" but to argue against a post that "is" smacks of sticking one's head in the sand for the benefit of pacification.

It's important to know what is happening in one's town, even if it's nasty stuff, provided it is true stuff. Patch is providing truth. It is up to the reader to process it in the manner they're most comfortable with.

Sorry to disagree. It generated alot of stupid comments. Then they spread these stupid comments all over every Patch in the area. What gets me is that something like this generates so many comments while important local issues get none or very few. It speaks to the general intelligence of the people. It is like the difference between Jersey Shore and Masterpiece Theater. Maybe Pogo was absolutely right.

Who's truth? According to the birthers there is their truth and then there is everyone else's. They have an agenda.

The simple form of the birther truth is that they hate the very idea of a black President.

Give it a shot if you think you have a case but you better be sure you can establish you aren't a racist first.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission. By your logic they had something to hide.

And what happened when he finally did release it Jim??? It just gave the fanatic birther more ammunition to hatch wild forgery accusations, which will spur more and more lawsuits. This is after the birthers all claimed that if Obama released his long form, the whole matter would be put to rest. That didn't happen, did it?

Lets muddy the waters even more. A memo was released today from 6 years ago showing that Bush and Cheney were guilty of war crimes for the torture of numerous people. They are war ciminals who need to be tried in the Hague. Once they committed those crimes neither one was a legitimate Office Holder and certainly not as President and Vice-President. If they travel outside of the United States they are subject to arrest.

First off, the president has not been involed in 80 lawsuits, most of the suits do not name him as a defendant. And all of the recent lawsuits that do name him were filed after he released the LFBC.

He released his BC in 2008. Which is more than any other President or Presidential candidate has ever done. The Hawaiian Governor (a Republican and McCain supporter) and the Director of the Hawaiian DOH (also a Republican) both said the President was born in Hawaii. Did that stop the lawsuits? Why not? Why wasn't a Certified Birth Certificate good enough?

You say that the only difference is that the COLB doesn't list the doctor's name. So why have people continued to sue after the BC was released in 2008. Did they really need to know who the doctor was? Or were they frivolus lawsuits meant to harass?

Has the release of the LFBC stopped the harassing lawsuits? Frankly, I would not have released the LFBC if I were him as it set a dangerous precedent for future Presidents. Just as Bush and Cheney did not want to set a precedent of a President and Vice-President testifing before an independent commission.

First of all, as I stated before, he didn’t keep anything secret. He provided his birth certificate four years ago, and allowed it to be examined and held by objective third parties. All of the accusations of forgery (many of them from Corsi, who was making money off suckers then, just as he is now) were quickly debunked. His birth records were also verified by Hawaiian officials. Why did Obama spend all the money on defense? Because anyone can sue anyone else for whatever reason, and even if the suit has absolutely no merit (as is the case with all of the birther suits), you still have to pay lawyers to file the motions to dismiss the case. So please explain to me what irrational behavior you’re referring to.

Yes its not rocket science JIm which is why you keep failing miserably

All he had to do is release his long form and put the controversy to rest???? He did release it, and it caused much more controversy amongst the birthers, and gave opportunists like Jerome Corsi more ammo to sell books to suckers. And once again, do you really think the release of his long form is going to stop the birther lawsuits??? It will probably cause more, now that we have fools like Corsi and Apaio claiming that it’s a forgery.

I’ll tell you what’s not rocket science. It was not rocket science to look at the evidence in 2008; to examine the birth certificate that he released, to consider the testimony of those who handled and examined it, to read the statements made by the Hawaii Dept of Health as to the existence of Obama’s birth records, to view the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper… and come to the reasonable conclusion that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii in 1961. That was pretty simple. Why didn’t Obama release his log form right away? 1) There is no precedent for it since the long form is NEVER required as proof of citizenship, and 2) as President of the U.S., he has other things to worry about.

The elaborate con is the birther claim in and of itself because it can never be "cleared" with any satisfaction for the reasonable. A few posts earlier it was about why Obama has the 60/80/whatever lawsuits, and why would anyone who was innocent engage in so many lawsuits to "suppress the truth." Well, if Obama didn't have the lawsuits, those who want to further the claims would call it an admission of guilt - Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And the truth is that those who are unsatisfied with the current responses will remain unsatisfied with future responses, and no matter how granular and quantum this drilling down goes, the reality is that they're so in love with "the war" that they really don't care about why they're fighting it, and nothing in this world will beggar armistice, neither from god nor man.

Heaven help us all when no answer is ever good enough, because it cheapens the process of inquiry.

Exactly Dunphy notice how Jim keeps shifting his reasoning. It's the lawsuits then it's the long form now he wants hospital records. Next he'll want school records and articles he wrote in college then he'll want case records from when he was a lawyer. None of these have anything to do with the eligibility requirement.

Let’s look at who’s not being objective Jim. You keep saying the same thing again and again, and yet you ignore everything that we’ve said in this thread. I, and others, have said over and over that Obama DID provide a valid birth certificate in 2008, that his office allowed it to be handled and inspected by third parties, and that Hawaiian even verified his birth records. How does that qualify as a “half ass effort”???

You focus on the long form certificate, even though that’s never required to prove citizenship. I’m 52 years old, and have never even seen my long form, since it has never been asked for to obtain a passport, license, or for any other purpose where proof of citizenship is required. Have you ever seen yours? If not, then we could accuse you of the same deception that you are ladling on Obama.

You seem to think that if Obama has provided his long form four years ago, that all the birther lawsuits would have been avoided. All 28 lawsuits claiming that Obama is ineligible to serve as president were files even though he had provided a valid birth certificate and even though Hawaiian officials (including a republican governor) verified his birth records. By what possible logic would we thing that these lawsuits wouldn’t have been filed if Obama had provided his long form four years ago???

As usual Jim instead of reading what others have written you continue to spout the same old birther lies. Obama released his legal birth certificate in 2008 it wasn't a half assed effort as the custodian of the records the Director of the Department of health stated that her department issued it. This is more than you've seen from any President so why the complaints? No president but Obama has released his birth certificate while in office yet you have a totally different standard why is that? Sorry but no you're not being honest nor are you being objective and fair. If you ask for continued records from Obama then you must ask it from every other candidate, I notice you haven't. Also you lied about Chris Matthews he never believed the birther BS. You must not watch him much as he started his show asking a question so his expert guest could answer it. That's how an interview goes, it's not that the host doesn't know the answer. Continue lying Jim it's what you birthers excel at.

Yes you stand by your comment that you are half assing it. You continue to make no amount of sense with your claims. He has made relevant information available but that still isn't good enough for you. How about this Jim, how would you prove yourself eligible. What would Jim Gorham do to prove his eligibility?

You're wrong even if the Sheriff saw the original he still would make these claims. Because it's never about the birth certificate it's about an insane hatred of the president. You have to wonder why Sheriff Joe is selling his report online when his posse is a non-profit entity. That shows corruption. Why did Joe not bother to even pick up the phone and call the issuing authority of the BC before making his claims? You continue to show yourself to be a fool Jim.

“Would you be impressed if say the heritage foundation validated them?”

I would consider what they had to say, and the evidence they bring forth to support their position. I wouldn’t immediately discount it because they are the Heritage Foundation (as conservatives do with FactChect and Snopes). My decision four years ago that Obama’s birth certificate was authentic was not based on who the third party org was, but the evidence they presented.

But what I find amazing is the degree to which you’re willing to believe in a conspiracy. Think about it objective. To believe in a conspiracy, I would have to first of all believe that Obama would purposely provide a false document, a move that would certainly end his political career. I would then have to believe that Dept of Health is also in on this conspiracy. That would mean that every person that has access to Hawaii’s birth records are all on the deception. I would have to believe that a governor from the opposing party, and all his staff, are in on this conspiracy, as well as all the judges who threw out the numerous court cases. In addition, I’d have to believe that Obama’s parents planted a fake birth announcement 51 years ago, just in case their child might run for president some day (a ridiculous notion for a black kid in 1961). It all sounds a little ridicuouls, doesn't it???

"Sherrif Joe for example has concluded that the LFBC released is nothing more than an electronic document and does not exist in paper form."

You do realize that Joe's computer expert is Mara Zebest? She wrote the Cold Case Posse's report on the pdf.

In July, 2008, Mara Zebest said she lived to make a mockery of Barack Obama. Did she finally get her chance in 2011? Do you think she was unbiased in her analysis?

http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/07/25/cupcake-or-turnips/
Read comments #424, #353 and #503

Jim you don't realize how much you destroy your own argument. First off what relevance does a "pregnant illegal alien woman" have to do with Obama than to further expose your own bigotry? Obama's mother was born in Kansas and was an American citizen. She would have no need to cross the border into America as there was no proof she ever left America. So now you just look like a bigoted dbag. Why would they need to "benefit" when everything indicates he was born in Hawaii. His father's own INS records shows he never left America from 1959-1965

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59560239/FOIA-Release-Records-Relating-to-Barry-Soetoro-Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Barack-Obama-Sr-Lolo-Soetoro-Department-of-Homeland-Security

So for what purpose would she leave to go to Kenya only to come right back? Joe has not documented anything about overseas births presented in the newspapers. He has not shown a single entry claiming such. He just made a claim. He showed no documentation on the twins either. But its not just the newspaper announcements.

You also have this state department memo from 1967. This was released by a freedom of information act request in Allen v DHS State. Ken Allen was looking for documents on Lolo Soetoro who was Obama's step dad through his mother's second marriage. Lolo Soetoro spent some time living in Hawaii and tried to argue to stay in America based on his marriage to Ann Dunham and her child. The memo is on Page 38 and is as follows:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35192432/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10

Page 38: Memorandum to file
Sept 14, 1967

Pursuant to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicants' spouses' child by a former marriage.

The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4 1961. He is living with the applicants' spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii.

There you go as plain as day back in 1967. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th 1961. You have nothing to show otherwise. Also you might want to look up the phrase straw man and what it actually means.

You talked wearlier about objectivity. Was the author of the Cold Case Posse's report on the pdf objective.

I posted for you some of her comments from 2008.

Did you know that much of the Sheriff's report was written six months ago? Before the investigation began.

have you ever heard of Michael Nifong?

Does Aaron identify who the three independent forensic examiners are and what their qualifications are? It's funny for Arpaio claiming he did searches didn't bother to contact the Department of Health or Selective Service before making his claims.

No one disputes that when you scan or copy a document the scan or the copy are a modified representation of the original document. All copiers and scanners distort and therefore modify the image. So for three experts to make this claim is not unusual. The only question is were the modifications intentional or part of the coping/scanning process.

Here is what WND's document expert Ivan Zatkovich concluded,

"All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed ."

And here is what WND's computer expert Victoria Nicks concluded,

"The changes made to the original document by OCR software and image optimization have rendered it impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process."

And here is what a real computer expert, Dr. Neal Krawetz (Ph.D in computer science) concluded,

"There are an infinite number of ways to store an image in a PDF document, and the PDF encoding system used to create the PDF decided to use this method. This isn't even odd or abnormal. It is strictly dependent on the encoding system and encoding parameters. Even choices like "apply color profile", "optimize for printer", "use this paper size", and "export as PDF" vs "Save as PDF" can seriously tweak how the final PDF is generated;"

and he concluded,

"The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious."

And the conclusion of computer expert Frank Arduini,

"There is absolutely evidence of digital alteration. But there is no evidence of forgery."

and he concluded,

"Mara Zebest is correct; the Obama PDF has been "digitally altered." But she is not correct that it is a forgery. It is instead an ordinary PDF created by scanning an ordinary document and optimizing it for the Internet. This process does "digitally alter" the document, but it does not change it. "

Joe is very vague. Does he mention which federal agencies he claims would have been expected to investigate? Does he say how it compares to previous Presidents? Does he have proof that the same agencies investigated other Presidents' "bonafides"

As for ridiculous bigotry charges they are no more ridiculous than you continually shifting your goalposts in what Obama should provide. First you say a birth certificate then claim he should release a long form to shush birthers up. Last time around you added hospital records. Are you next going to add school records?

I haven't seen you mention this about any other president or candidate who has shown nothing in terms of birth information to the public. You just took them at their word though, why is that? Why can't you with the President? There is more out there showing that Palin was born in Canada than there is that Obama was born outside the US. Palin admitted that when she was young her family used to sneak across to Canada to get health insurance. Now if her family was willing to scam the canadian government who else would they have been willing to scam?

So, Jim are you saying that the grandparents knew the immigration laws so well that they would not assume the child was an American because he had an American mother?

And they also knew Hawaiian Vital Records laws so well that they knew they could just go into the DOH without any evidence and they would be handed a BC?

And you believe that the DOH would just accept the grandparents word when they said their daughter had a baby just down the street from the Hospital and the DOH, but they can not bring the child in just yet?

BTW, INS records for the period of July 1st, 1961 through June 31st, 1962 show that only one person came by air to the United States from Kenya. And that person was not a US citizen. All the rest came to the US by sea.

Hookerman I must correct you here the indonesian school form does not say he was born in Kenya. In fact it says he was born in Hawaii on it. Which further confirms his Hawaiian birth. Birthers sole reasoning is based off his father being a kenyan but they ignore that the INS said Obama Sr never traveled outside the US from 1959 to 1965. They rely on random papers getting stuff wrong and then ignore the same papers making corrections. They rely on hearsay but nothing concrete. There is nothing showing he was born in Kenya but also the story is ridiculous. It would have been too expensive and pointless for Ann Dunham to fly to Kenya and go to a remote place far away from the main port of entry to have her baby in a rundown backwater village hospital then fly back immediately to the US when she could have drove down the street from her parents house to the hospital.

"Other than an old school record from Indonesia with ‘Kenya’ penciled in for place of birth,"

I believe you are mistaken about this.

The only Indonesian school record I've seen says place of birth Honolulu.

See this is the ironic part Jim you tell others to deal with the meat of the matter when you completely ignore what everyone says to you. Shariff Joe? Did Joe become a sultan somewhere? Are we supposed to Rock the Casbah? Joe has uncovered no evidence whatsoever that it is a forgery. Both the Hawaii Department of Health say the Birth certificate is legit as well as the Selective Service saying that the selective service card is legit. You have absolutely nothing whatsoever which is why you keep ignoring everything people say to you.

Also there hasn't been an actual conversation for you to end. You spouted a bunch of BS. We answered it and asked you questions as to why you believe the BS and you avoided it only to continue repeating the same BS. You didn't want a dialog you just wanted an echo chamber for the lies you believe.

No, no, no Jim... I'm not asking for the evidence that Arpaio has supposedly debunking Obama's birth certificate, I'm asking for the evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Now look at all the evidence we've provided you showing that he was born in Hawaii; birth certificates, authentications, testimonies from the Hawaii Dept of Health and governor, birth announcements from 1961, etc. Now it's your turn. Please provide all the evidence you have that shows Obama being born in Kenya. If the discussion is done from your end, then I'll take that as you have no evidence.

gorefan,
Nice observation but document still loks like forgery. heres why: If you look at all the examples sheriff joe gives you will notice on all of them theouter portion of the stamp is much more fuzzy and ill defined. The inner portion where the date appears is always much clearer.For example on one of the stamps that came from the same post just 2 days later, you see the same thing on the outer part of the stamp, but the 1980 is very well defined. It seems that trying to duplicate obamas stamp with the 19 missing on a regular stamp would be very difficult without leaving even a small trace of the 19.
But most importantly even if we suppose what you suggest. you would still expect the 80 to be in the same location as it is on the other authentic ones , and it just is not. But beyond all that there are many other problems with the document. For example the 10 digit DLN number of the document. has a date of 2008 !!!. And the summary page has the exact same numbers except an 8 was put in front of the 0 to make the date appear to be 1980. this is significant because the card which has a date of 2008 is automatically done by a machine and therefore not easily manipulated. the other date however could easily be changed with the stroke of a key. Lastly this was supposedly register in Hawaii on sept 4 1980, but we know obama attended classes at occidental collge which began aug 24 1980, that's very problomatic. More problems as well but I'm running out of time

To Jim -

Jim, appreciate your continued attempts to both fain being a forgery expert and find a purpose, but you are not an expert nor an authority and neither is Sheriff Joe. You are not that special, really sir, you're just a fairly creepy person who is hell bent on seeing something that does not exist. Why you insist and disregarding experts and officials is beyond any logic. It's scary that your brain works this way. I can only hope that you do not have a license to weapon. You seem frankly, like the kind of person who has evil intent.

Please seek psychiatric help.

Jim,

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-wants-obamas-original-draft-card/

Look at the Cold Case Posse Exhibit D. There are five postal cancellation stamps. the one on the end is dated Jul 31 1980 and it is from Chandler, AZ. Note where the JUL sits on the 31 The "J" is directly over the 3 in 31 and appears to be touching it. The same is true for the third stamp, the one from Hilo dated Jul 28 1980. The JUL is offset and the J is directly over the 2 in 28. For all the other stamps (including the President's) the month and day are centered over each other.

Is there play in the date plugs that are put in the stamp?

BTW, IMO the first stamp in Exhibit D is the same one that was used to stamp the President's since it is missing the first "O" in Honolulu, the MAKIKI STA is missing much of the lettering and USPO is also missing much of it's ink. Compare them to Bruce Henderson's stamp (#2 in exhibit D), it is totally different in quality although it is from the same MAKIKI STA.

Now compare these two images:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/scan0002.jpg
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/scan0001.jpg

They are of the exact same cancellations. See how just the difference between black and white and color makes a difference.

The September 4th date is the date they were processed by the Selective Service Administration. Bruce Henderson's was processed the same day.

More to follow.

Jim,
As to DLN

Bruce Henderson's SSR card was date stamped AUG 2 1980 from the Makiki Sta in Honolulu.

HIs DLN is 0897 080 6130 and President Obama's is 0897 080 6320. Their SSS numbers are 61-1125522-7 and 61-1125539-1, respectively.

Here is an March 30, 2009 e-mail from Associate Director Richard S. Flahavan (he recently sent an letter to Sheriff Arpaio)

a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.
b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.
c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.
d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.

So how did Bruce Henderson and President Obama get DLN and SSS# so close together if they were processed decades apart?

Here are some more DLNs from SSR cards (all were date stamped in Hawaii).

http://tinyurl.com/6nbl7vn

Date - JUL 30 1980 DLN - 0897 270 905
Date - JUL 31 1980 DLN - 0897 080 653 (Oniwa)
Date - JUL 31 1980 DLN - 0897 080 104
Date - JUL 29 1980 DLN - 0897 080 632 (Obama)
Date - AUG 2 1980 DLN - 0897 080 613 (Henderson)

For the three that end 632, 613, and 653, they are stamped on Oahu. The other two were on different islands - 905 (Maui) and 104 (Kaua'i). That may explain the difference in their DLNs.

Also notice how close in number President Obama's DLN is to Henderson's and Oniwa's.

BTW look at the one from Kaua'i. It has the stamp from KAPAA HI. The 1980 is extremely offset and almost touchs the inner ring.

There is also the Kennedy State Department memo from August 31, 1961

"U.S.C. spouse to go to Wash State University next semester. When finished school here plans to go to mainland school for a Doctor Degree in Economics – after that to return to Kenya. They have one child born Honolulu on 8/4/1961 – Barack Obama II, child living with mother (she lives with parents & subject resides at 1482 Alencastre St.). William J. Wood II"

When birthing fails remember to throw random scriptures into it as if God gets involved in petty partisan politics.

My favorite is,

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:28 American King James Version

bvw -

You are clearly over the edge. the is no censorship, you are free to write as you will and birthers are free to speak their minds. It doesn't mean you can disregard expert and true facts for conspiracy. What is shows though is that you are perhaps mentally ill.

keep tilting at windmills Jim, the issuing authority the Department of Health says they issued it. As the issuing authority any document they certify and issue cannot on its face be a forgery as they own the means of production. What they issue is authentic. There is nothing to support a kenyan birth scenario. The only reason you have for a supposed kenyan birth is his father. That was debunked when I posted Obama senior's INS record showing he never left the US during the time in question. Also not one US citizen flew to or from Kenya from 1961 to 1962. Obama's mother was a US citizen and so again there is no proof of a kenyan birth.

I'll take that Jim as meaning that you have absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya... zip, zilch, nada, nothing! All you have is a bunch of far-out conspiracy theories as to why all the documents and testimony proving his native birth are fake.

What is the name of the person on that certificate? I notice he makes no mention of it. Once again INS records show no US citizen traveled to and from Kenya in 1961 to 1962 this defeats the theory that Ann gave birth overseas in Kenya. Sheriff Joe hasn't presented anything that could be remotely considered to be evidence.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/image62.png
Look at this chart from the INS. According to this there was only one Kenyan citizen to travel to the US by air. Now you're claiming supposedly that was Obama. Okay what about his father? Same time period No US Citizen traveled to Kenya by air. Okay so what happened to his mother? The myth you've constructed is Both parents flew to Kenya and had the child there and came back. This theory doesn't match the INS Records.

Jim, look at the table from the article you link.

As to the Certificate of Citienship, it is was not necessarily issued in Kenya, but somewhere in the rest of Africa (other Africa).

That’s a lot of territory.

The Table breaks Africa down into Libya, Morocco, South Africa, Egypt and Other. The authors just assume that "other Africa" means Kenya.

So the first thing that needs to be shown is that the Certificate of Citienship was in fact issued in Kenya.

Another problem with the article, is they link to the Table of Sea and Air arrivals for the wrong time period.

Here is the correct page and Table

http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/74/mode/1up

It clearly shows only one alien person and no American citizens traveling from Kenya by air to the United States.

The INS reports run from July 1st to June 30th.

So no America's came to the United States from Kenya in July, August, or September of 1961.

You really need to start looking at this stuff with a critical eye and not just believe everything you read.

According to the view in the browser I use there are at least 345 Facebook recommendations for this article. Patch as a site is liked on Facebook by "1K". Seems like this article is a major one for Patch.

Sheriff Joe is under federal investigation and just recently his partners were disbarred. Joe's "evidence"is his conspiriatoral theory - not factual evidence. He is highly discredited as a Joe McCarthy figure.

So Jim, the question is to you as to why you take Sheriff Joe at his word?

"In other words if the 19 is completely missing should not the 80 be very faint? when you look at it thats not the case"

One could make the same argument for the "O" in Honolulu. Should not the "H" and the "N" also be faint?

I have read the MCSO report prepared by Mara Zebest.

Let's start with this. Go to the ABC website

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf

This is the xerox copy of the LFBC handed out by the White House on April 27, 2011. Scroll down to Dr. Onaka's signature stamp. Zoom in on the part that says "ABSTRACT OF THE". Can you see how the "H" in "THE" is incomplete, you can still make out that it is a "H". You should also be able to see that the "T" and the "E" are missing some ink. Just like the postal service stamps, hand stamps can have a problem with ink transfer to paper.

Do you see what I'm talking about and do you agree the "H" is a "H" with some ink missing?

One last point about the SSR.

Any theory about forgery needs to explain how the forger was able to obtain a DLN that is so close to other SSR cards from the same place (Honolulu), processed at the same time. He obviously did not guess at a ten digit number.

Kindly indicate where ANYONE (obot or otherwise) has EVER claimed that the Article II Natural born citizen clause no longer pertains. That is the most pathetic strawman argument ever. The 14th Amendment is only relevant in that it PUT INTO WORDS what had always been the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. Far from "overturning" Article II, it REINFORCES Article II.

There is no case "Morris v. Happersett". Your confusion, elsewhere abundantly evident, may be with "Minor v. Happersett," a case that dealt with women's suffrage, not citizenship. Nobody who knows anything about law or history would read Minor to find out anything authoritative about citizenship. In any case, all that court said is that they would NOT OPINE on whether a child born in the USA of non-citizen parents was Natural-born, since it WAS NOT NECESSARY to their case.

You take a case that EXPLICITLY states that it is NOT giving an opinion on the SPECIFIC matter in question, and proclaim it the applicable precedent for President Obama's situation. And you think *I* need to wake up??

U.S. law is not dictated by random letters. Article 2, Section 1 indeed states that the president has to be a natural born citizen, but says nothing about the citizen status of the President’s parents. The Supreme Court case; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) found that all children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens, regardless of the parents’ legal status. This argument about Obama’s father’s citizenship status has no validity, and was the birthers fall back when they couldn’t prove that Obama was born in another country

You are ignoring the writings of William Rawle,

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ 1826, A View of the Constitution of the United States

William Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.

That's a good question. Were both Nikki Haly's parents citizens of the US when she was born, if so by that she's a natural born citizen. The case where her parents were not yet citizens, but were here as legal residents is less clear. Especially if they were in the process of getting citizenship, if it was a process which they completed. If they were here illegally (which is I think not likely) then Nikki is not a natural born citizen.

Nikki Haley was born on January 20, 1972 in Bamberg South Carolina, and that makes her a natural born citizen… period, end of story! The legal disposition of her parents at the time is totally irrelevant. The same for President Obama.

Uh-oh....

Donald Trump's mother was born in Scotland, UK. Now the real truth comes out about why The Donald never pursued his "run" for the Presidency...

LOL

Oh-no..Rick Santorum's father, Aldo, was born in Italy!
Probably the Tea party's constitutional experts quietly told him that he should just leave the race before they went to court and had him removed.

LOL

Citizen at birth is not the same as Natural Born Citizen. And I do reference Emmerich and the Minor case ruling. You behave like a modern US Judge, so afraid and untrusting of fellow citizens on the Jury, that he (or she) bans nearly all evidence. The Founders and later generations through the mid-1900's held to a more respectful view of the franchised citizen, in fully-informed juries. A Judges, Court, the Bar and Law Schools today have become an enbubbled ivory tower of an establishment, making rules and procedures, and rewriting history pertaining to law. Emmerich, Selden, Grotius, Charles-Louis de Secondat -- these men were all regarded by the Founders, as were the earlier colonial settlers in their covenant associations of mutual assistance, land charter and government. What modern law school trained "Esquire" (a damnable term for any American) equally regards or even knows those men and their works of law and natural philosophy?

Some, but far too many do not. And almost none, in my direct experience and reading have much regard for citizen juries if those juries were left to be fully informed and not fed selected pablum in a trial. The modern justice system fails in its regard for fellow citizens, for thinking themselves the better. So too are you, so it appears, ready to achieve a ruling of your own willful predisposition by means of limiting greatly what may be considered.

Have more respect for your fellows!

Mr. White: This is some level of logical discussion? What is the logic of your argument? It is nothing but mocking and name-calling. Grow up, go gain some maturity, and then perhaps your own embarrassment will become a thing of the past.

Dennis: You could be right.

I do find it amusing that the poster responded with exactly the two invalid sources that I said would not be accepted, and nothing from a grade school civics text. In addition, apparently tried to insult me by comparing me to a modern US judge. I'm sorry, I do not consider that an insult. The US judiciary as a whole is remarkable and an honorable, learned, and independent branch of government. The fact that not one Federal or State judge yet has agreed with the birthers (140 cases to zero, so far) is simply evidence that they are not fools.

The attempted insult does, however, show that the poster concedes that current and historical law defines NBC as born in the land without regard to the citizenship of one's parents. He is just advocating for *changing* that, as many racists and xenophobes have done through the years. And he's certainly free to advocate for any change he pleases. Just don't pretend you're describing current reality.

Mr Laity, That's not true, and you know it. Why do you keep saying things that you know aren't true? Do you think people actually won't go read Minor v Happersett? Maybe you spelled HappeRsett wrong on purpose, hoping that people wouldn't find the right case. That's pretty low, even for a birther.

The Happersett case, which was not about citizenship, states in dicta that *the court is NOT going to define natural born citizenship*, as it is not necessary for the case.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Laity's post is a prime exhibit of the birther mentality, to take something that states explicitly and in black-and-white one thing, and proclaim to the world that it states the complete opposite, and hope to be believed. Who will believe such a blatant falsehood? Only people who are predisposed to suspect that an African American is more likely than a Caucasian to violate the Constitution and defraud the people.

There's a word for that.

Mikey,Romney's a questionable Character also. Were HIS parents BOTH Americans?
His Father George was born in Mexico. WHY are both parties proffering Candidates that have questionable citizenship issues.? Both Obama and Romney are "New World Order" advocates. The voters in both parties are being DUPED! There are several others that are NOT NBCs:
Swartzenneger
Rubio
Jindahl

So why do they insist on nominating these disqualified folks. Why are they trying to legislate away,by statute,the NBC requirement? That must be done BY Amendment.
The Founders had a REASON for wanting home grown Presidents. That was to prevent what Obama has already committed...TREASON!!

Mr. Laity spewed: "The Ruling DID however acknowledge the fact that an NBC is "One Born in the US of parentS (plural) who are citizens"."

Bwahahahaha FAIL.

Actually -- as you very well know -- the ruling acknowledged the fact that "One Born in the US of parents who are citizens" is an NBC.

Luckily 90% of the rest of the world can discern that saying "x is an NBC" is not the same as saying "NBC is x".

And by the way, it's delightful to know that you have a personal psychic connection to understand what the founders wanted. However, in this great land of ours, we are organized according to a little thing called the Constitution. Read it sometime, when you're done misquoting Supreme Court opinions.

Minor v. Happerstt (1875) has nothing to do with citizenship, but rather with women’s suffrage, and it became null with the passing of the 19th amendment. The more recent ruling (which I cited above) is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which clearly defined all those born in the U.S. as citizens, regardless of whether their parents are foreigners or not.

But quite frankly, you lose all credibility when you speak one minute of Obama being born in Kenya, and the next about him being born in Hawaii to a Kenyan parent. You clearly have no firm opinion, but are simply engaging in a fishing expedition… throwing out whatever ridiculous birther theory you can come up with and seeing what bites you get.

Robert, blind hate has not improved your reading comprehension. Where did I accuse you of making a typo? I did not.

Again you repeat your inane assertion that Happersett The Ruling DID however "acknowledge the fact that an NBC is 'One Born in the US of parentS (plural) who are citizens'." As you must know it does no such thing. Happersett merely acknowledges that 'One Born in the US of parentS (plural) who are citizens' is an NBC.

Do you really not see the difference??

Hanging by the neck until DEAD is an appropriate execution for a Traiyor. Obama stands accused of Treason. Legal Executions are not lynchings.If Obama is convicted,he faces the Death Penalty:
See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

The civil war era? Really? Things have changed, time to catch up. In the present the republicans are the ones suppressing the vote and marshaling an army of goons who will harass minority voters (Google "true the vote").

True, the Democrats were once the Party of Hate. But today when I listen to all voices it seems to me that the Republicans have taken over that emotion. Just my two cents.

First of all,Obama is a mullato,both white and black. Obama's white genes are just as treasonous as his black genes. Racism is an empty charge. America cannot tolerate a traitor of any race. Beinf Black does not give one carte-blanche from being held accountable. Obama has never been the bona-fides President .He is a Usurper. Obama is both a Traitor and a Spy under US Law. If convicted,he SHOULD BE EXECUTED. If you feel that I have threatened the President why don't you report me to the Secret Service. They are already aware of my formal charegs of Treason against Barack Obama. So is the FBI. Obama is a criiminal.

These are the same types who used to say criticism of the president was tantamount to treason and that you were either for us or against us.

Wrong. The Idiots are the ones who believed this snake oil salesman - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/14/FLASHBACK-Obama-The-Day-Im-Inaugurated-Muslim-Hostility-Will-Ease

"The Law of Nations defines an NBC as "One born in a nation of Parents who are citizens"."

Wrong. It said "Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens."

In addition, Vattel was *describing* the various practices of various countries -- not *prescribing* any sort of universal truth. Most European countries operated under "jus sanguinis" and that is (partly) what he was describing. He could not have been describing the USA because our Constitution wasn't even written at that point. And we know that the FF explicitly *rejected* royalism, including inherited titles.

"The Happersett court addirmed the definition saying there is no doubt that those meeting that definition are NBCs."

Are you dense or just trying to be clever? They also said that there IS doubt about children born in the US of *non-citizen* parents. How do you get to cite Happersett (which is not applicable in any case) and ignore the parts you don't like?

You are trying to tell folks here that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Obama is NOT A CITIZEN, and that Happersett CONFIRMS this -- when Happersett PLAINLY says -- in direct, clear language, that THERE IS DOUBT, and furthermore that the Court is NOT GOING TO GIVE AN OPINION on that question.

Anyone that can read can easily and quickly tell that Happersett HAS NOTHING INTERESTING TO SAY about whether Obama is a NBC or not. They offered NO OPINION on that DOUBT, and SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T.

Please provide the court name, jurisdiction, case title, parties, and docket number of the case where Obama stands accused of treason.

Some blithering twit standing in his underwear in his mother's basement saying "I accuse Obama of treason" doesn't count.