Educating the confused – Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Update: Seems that some people, somewhat mindlessly repeat already explained issues such as the number on the certificate
We know these certificate numbers from August 4th and 5th:
- Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 11/5/1961
- Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 11/5/1961
- Obama, Barack – 10641- 11/4/1961
- Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 11/5/1961
The list is sorted numerically by birth certificate number; however, you might also note that they are alphabetically sorted by surname and that they are not in order by date of birth. My hypothesis is a batch of certificates was alphabetized by surname and then fed into the numbering machine and that hypothesis is borne out with the new information provided by CNN of the Waidelich certificate number. Note that NORDYKE and OBAMA are close both alphabetically and numerically (just 4 off) and that WAIDELICH is not close numerically nor alphabetically.
Source: Dr Conspiracy’s Obama Conspiracy blog
Update: It seems that some people, in spite of all the evidence are still not convinced that they are wrong. So let’s add some additional evidence
Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital v. Wodehouse, 70 F.2d 793. DCNY 1932.
Source: Legal Case
The Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital of Honolulu announces three new residents to their resident staff: Dr. Charles M. Van Duyne, of Wilmington, Illinois, graduate of University of Illinois in 1947,
Source: Hawaii medical journal: Volume 10, 1950
at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, Honolulu, during the 10 year period from 1952 to 1961.
Source: Obstetrical & gynecological survey, Volume 18, Issues 4-6
Richard Davi has been appointed administrator of Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, Honolulu, where he has been assistant administrator since 1962.
Source: Modern hospital: Volume 102, 1962 Devvy: Wrong Hospital Name On Obama’s New Birth Certificate
Well, the fine print could come back to bite you. … I went and did a scroogle search and Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital does not come up as a facility. Just Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children as search engines do by word association. I went over to the hospital’s official web site (last link at bottom) and they don’t call themselves a Gynecological Hopsital.
Google search: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital brings up countless examples 
Source: Laws of the territory of Hawaii passed by the Legislature, 1954, page 358 This was also the name on the Nordyke Twins birth certificate. Note how the name of the hospital is Maternity and Gynecological Hospital as well? 
So incompetent…
i agree with you about no such hospital. also this form says certificate of live birth. why would you want a certificate that stated a dead birth. it should say nothing but state of hawwaii birth cirtificate.
where does this clipping come from? it looks old – but I don’t understand the significance without a reference point.
Can you link to the relevant section of those records you reference?
Dewy, I did the same search as you plus I have a niece who lives in Hawaii with the US Army. She took a weeks leave and looked all over and could not find that exact name for a hospital any where. That so called copy doesn’t even have a seal of any kind on it. For all legal purposes a birth certificate has to have a raised seal for it to be accepted as legal by any government agency. But then for us regular folks, the laws are strict, but as we know politicians can do anything they want and get away with it. I myself took my oldest daughters birth certificate and made a copy that looked just like his then I changed her date of birth to make her 2 years older just so she could attend an R rated movie. It is easy even for us old folks….
See updated posting above. Link to google search, page number as well as Nordyke twin BC
Screenshot of one of the many entries that mention the hospital name that Devvy insists she could not find.
But there is in fact such a hospital and the term ‘certificate of live birth’ is a standard term. Really you guys… Educate yourself Wikipedia Birth Certificate
I looked at MY birth certificate (dated 1965). It does state “live birth” on it, AND there is no official California Seal on it. Does that mean I am not a legal citizen either?
OK, I’m confused. I was interested about the hospital name problem (appears to have acquired a similar name in 1978 per Wikipedia) but having the same hospital name on the Nordyke birth certificate really throws a monkey wrench into that idea. Anybody got any good data on this issue?
Maverick, are you incapable of reading? NBC has posted a similar birth certificate from another person born the next day in the Hospital with the same name. Hospitals, like any business, do change their names, especially after 50 years. Give it a rest. He was born in the US and is a natural born citizen. Accept it, don’t accept it, but just shut up. You just make yourself look even stupider every time you try (oh, so desperately) to justify your belief in his ineligiblity. Of course, you can continue on this path, which is just fine, because you will do nothing but convince the rest of America that there are nothing but a bunch of loons in the Republican Party, thereby ensuring Obama’s re-election.
BTW, did anybody notice that the doctor’s name is Similac and the registrar is Ukulele?
While we’re on the subject, what’s up with that tiny little ‘M’ in the ‘hour of birth’ field. No typewriter could do that?
It’s David A Sinclair, he also was the MD who attended Miki Booth’s birth… Miki has been outspoken against Obama and his birth certificate.
I assume you have never used a typewriter. This is a simple alignment problem
[oops, the M is preprinted on the document...]
“While we’re on the subject, what’s up with that tiny little ‘M’ in the ‘hour of birth’ field. No typewriter could do that?”
You are kidding, right. The tiny M is preprinted on the forms, since there are only two options A.M. or P.M., they preprinted the M.
Some papers in the medical journals
Antepartum cervical cerclage operations. Analysis at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital from 1957 through 1966.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5781901
Maternal mortality in Honolulu hospitals; review for 1939-1948 at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15421591
Oh my god you are so correct. The Nordyke bc shows the same.
I feel so silly… Thanks for debunking another ‘myth’
Didn’t anyone notice that if you compare O’s alleged BC with the girl’s BC who was born the day AFTER him, that the hospital has a DIFFERENT address? Did they move under the cover of night on August 4, 1961 to get to that new address by August 5, 1961???
The address is not for the Hospital but rather where the parents, or in this case, Ann Dunham lived.
Geez…
I’m still confused. The above COLB is Aug 5, 1961 and the no is 10637 – Obama’s is dated Aug 4, 1961 and the no is 10641. Why would a number be less on the day after, it should be more. Numbering systems don’t go backwards generally. The accepted date on the one above is 8/11 and Obama’s is 8/8 so that’s consistent.
I still have a problem with Sr’s race being African. In the 60′s it would have been negro or negroid. I don’t know, call me a skeptic, but it seems strange.
There are various explanations for this, none of them are really relevant, other than that the numbers are quite close. For instance let’s assume that the mother of the Twins showed up before Obama’s mother and the staff put aside a birth certificate to be filled out. It all depends on how the birth certificates are handled and assigned numbers.
Race is self reported by the parents. In Kenya, african is the preferred description of race on census forms in 1962. Would a Kenyan really describe himself as black or negro, two quite loaded terms?
Miki Booth showed a birth certificate with 4 or 5 entries for race. It’s whatever the parent believes is relevant.
Sr.’s ‘race’ is NOT listed as being African. The space does not ask for ‘RACE’, it asks for: “BIRTHPLACE”, therefore ‘Kenya, East Africa’ is correct. Meaning Obama Sr. had a Dual Citizenship, which is passed from father to son, and made Jr.’s citizenship dual also. Disqualifying him for the presidency – regardless of where he was born.
Question…’ Why on Obama’s Birth Certificate In section 7c it states “Honolulu, Hawaii, but on the example above it states Honolulu, Oahu?
I found some other HI birth certificates and they show Honolulu, Hawaii… just curious.
Diane,
Did you miss CNN’s story this past Monday? They went to the DOH with Stig Waidelich. Stig was born on August 5th, 1961. His BC was filed on the same day as the President’s (August 8, 1961), He appears in the same newspaper announcements as the President. And his ceritifaction number is 010920. So you have the Nordyke’s with 10637 and 10638, and the President’s with 10641 and then Mr. Waidelich with 10920. So what if they were all placed in alphabetic order and then numbered,
A,B,C,…..M,N,O,P,…….V,W,X,Y,Z.
Where would the Nordykes be relative to the President and Mr. Waidelich?
Where
Further grist for the fact mill: The website for the hospital states merely that the Kapiolani Maternity Home was founded in 1890 and merged in 1978 with another hospital. However, according to the 1962 “American Directory of Obstetricians & Gynecologists” (pages 105, 132, and 202), the Kapiolani Maternity Home was renamed the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. That name change is also cited in a book published three years before the President’s birth: “Social Service in Hawaii” by Margaret Mary Louise Catton (Pacific Book Publishers, 1959), In it the hospital’s name change from Kapiolani Maternity Home to Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital is cited on page 103. Two other books, “Social Process in Hawaii: Volume 32″ (University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1989) and “The Health of Native Hawaiians” by Eldon L. Wegner (University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1989), both state that in the hospital’s “charter was amended to change the organization’s name to Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.” This name change took place prior to 1950, according to the “Hawaii Medical Journal,” Volume 10 (published 1950), which calls the hospital the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on pages 53, 129, and 453.
The first issue is the pdf layering. 10 Layers make for fraud.
If it said that, I would start thinking the form was fake since I would usually expect a state government to spell the name of the state correctly (not to mention certificate, or learning how to use a shift key).
That is of course incorrect. Dual allegiance is NOT disqualifying for natural born citizenship. I have debunked this thoroughly on this site and if you need some hand holding, we can walk through the argument together. Let me know.
The original copy should lay to rest any such issue but come on, the possibility of fraud does not make it a likelihood. Geez..
Hawaii: State
Oahu: Island within the state
Honolulu: County
Why is the name of the Local Registrar different? Obama’s is signed by U K La Lee, Nordyke’s is signed by Putrui L Ygnain (sp)
There are apparently more than one registrar. Makes sense. Name is the same as on Edith’s certificate
The office probably had more than one employee. If they processed one week’s births as a batch there would be a few hundred to do at a time. It would be most efficient to split them up.
PROOF OF FRAUD–GO TO THIS LINK IMMEDIATELY!! Rush mentioned this today. I have the PDF and opened it in illustrator. All the layers are there. They should have made it a simple Pic or JPG. Somebody really messed up. The PDF is still available. It will not be available by tomorrow.
There are more then one local registrars, Kapiolani may have more then one for times when someone was sick or on vacation. The President’s was stamped on August 8th, the Nordyke’s on August 11th. Maybe Ms. Lee was off.
Hilarious, the foolishness never stops. Do people understand how OCR scanning software works?
Let me explain, if you scan in the OCR software identifies blocks of text which can subsequently be converted to text strings using the OCR process. Fascinating how the myths continue at all cost. Is it so hard to accept that our President was born on US soil?
The extent Americans will go… to save this county from further ruin.
and then you have the birthers and the tea party who appear to be quite intent on dragging the US through the mud
Fake!
The software to make this birth certificate didn’t even exist in 1961!
Has anyone noticed something really strange here?
Look at the Birth Certificate of Susan Nordyke above specifically look at the date that it was accepted by the State Registrar. August 11th. 1961. Now look at her Department of Health Certificate Number: 61 10637
Now compare this with the one released for Obama which says the date his was accepted by the State Registrar was August 8th. His Certificate number is 61 10641. If his was accepted by the registrar 3 days prior then wouldn’t he have a lower certificate number like 61 10634 ? I would assume those numbers are assigned in chronological order in accordance with the date accepted by the local registrar. I would like to compare against more birth certificates if anyone has from the same year.
Does anyone have a good explanation for this?
Thanks.
I copyed and pasted the document everything disapread exeped for the signiture at the bottom
Hawaii legislation act Act 165 of the 2000 Hawaii Legislature, prompted by House Bill No. 750 was signed by Governor Benjamin J. Cayetano on June 9, 2000.
Nor did the security paper or the laser print…
Yes, the issue with dates and the number are somewhat of a mystery. Stig who was born the same weekend and whose name showed up in the same birth announcements in the newspapers had a much higher number. I doubt that the numbering is truly sequential.
Anonymous
Did you miss CNN’s story this past Monday? They went to the DOH with Stig Waidelich. Stig was born on August 5th, 1961. His BC was filed on the same day as the President’s (August 8, 1961), He appears in the same newspaper announcements as the President. And his ceritifaction number is 010920. So you have the Nordyke’s with 10637 and 10638, and the President’s with 10641 and then Mr. Waidelich with 10920. So what if they were all placed in alphabetic order and then numbered,
A,B,C,…..M,N,O,P,…….V,W,X,Y,Z.
Where would the Nordykes be relative to the President and Mr. Waidelich?
This was Act 165 (HB 1179) passed in 1954.
okay simple facts Obama Aug 4 is born Friday; Nordyke is born Aug 5 Saturday; both certificates are signed by moms on Monday Aug 7, Doctor Sinclair signs Obama’s Tues Aug 8, but Nordyke’s is signed Friday Aug 11. The question they all ask is not whether he was born there on Friday Aug 4 but whether Mrs.Obama had flown in on the weekend from Kenya.
Sure, days after giving birth and from a Country from which flights to Hawaii were hardly an everyday event.
Simple facts are so much simpler than imaginary stories. Foolish people
Another interesting factor is Obama’s certificate for his birth Aug 4, and Nordyke’s birth Aug 5, both issued on Aug 7 and signed by moms was issued by a number of 4 documanets (4 babies) being 41 after Nordyke’s 37. I assume that births 38-40 got signed really quick by Aug 8 too (?) or did they too wait until Friday the 11th. And is it typical for only 4 babies to be born between Aug 4 and Aug 7? perhaps those 3 in between should be dug up too.
Richard, CNN found a guy who had been born only a few hours after the Nordyke twins. His birth certain number was more than 300 digits different. The difference? His last name starts with “W.” “N” and “O” are right next to each other with “N” (like Nordyke) coming before O (like Obama).
This is some weak-ass birthering. Are all the professional birthers drinking themselves into stupors? Is that why you newbs are bringing up stuff that has been debunked for years?
Does Hawaii issue B/C in reverse order- the two samples (Obama/Nordyke) births were 8/4 and 8/5, Obamas B/C (10641) was issued 3 days before the one on 8/5 (issued 8/11) but the serial # is 10637
OK folks how about this… the addresses for the same hospital one day apart are different. Obamas hospital is at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, and Nordykes is at 2013 Kakela Dr. Wassup with that?
The addresses are the home addresses of the parents. Duh…. Really Rich, it’s not that hard to apply some common sense, reading comprehension and do the necessary research.
We don’t know. People have suggested alphabetic, random, there are just not enough data points.
Bill,
You forgot a data point Stig Waidelich, born August 5th, date filed August 8th. Certification number 10920.
For those questioning why the birth mothers signed on August 7 and Obama’s doctor signed on the 8th and the twins doctor on the 11th, I’d suggest you check the name of the physicians since they each had different attending Obstetricians.
Please, use a little common sense before you try this nonsense again!
“Is it so hard to accept that our President was born on US soil?” Not for you “TRUTHER” idiots..
I thought his name was Barry not Obama ?
Huh? Barack Barry?
The birth certificate confirms Obama is not a natural born citizen.. Natural born citizen are born to citizen parents..not to a transient alien African student.
The twins certificate is totally different at the bottom. Obama’s is missing the signature of Charles Bennet the Registrar General at the time. My father was born in Honolulu at the Kapiolani Maternity Home and even then there was a large gold seal of the Territory of Hawaii and the signature of the Registrar General. Not on Obama’s
I guess when barry released this pasted together document…he is really telling us..the first document placed by Gibbs on the internet was not good enough to stand as a birth certificate. Obama was elected on a document that is not suitable in Obama’s judgement.
We are pleased he released the second computer generated form. The son of an African transient alien student cannot be a natural born citizen.
Compare the date 8-7-61 on the twins certificate and Obama’s. They are identical. I bet if they were overlayed it would prove it. What are the odds of that. Certification at bottom is missing. I think that Obama used this other
certificate as a template.
Vattel you are unnatural. You are a bot posting from a boiler room in India.
Not knowing the exact procedures on that day (or who was working in whatever office), it would be hard to say. However, the same person who signed Obama’s also signed one in June of 1962 (see Edith cert at link below).
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/evolution-of-the-hawaiian-long-form/
e.v
You have been wrong in every one of your posts, why stop now. hahahahahahahaha
Remember, the document came from the Department of Health in Hawaii and is confirmed by Birth Announcements and index data. Sorry elaine…
Hahaha. Your dad got a souvenir hospital birth certificate which has no value.
My goodness sakes…
No it isn’t there is a date and signature but it lacks a raised seal as the State of Hawaii no longer certifies long forms. If you want to get a US passport, a short form will have to do.
Question,
under race of father African,( at that time it would have said Black or Negro )…
race of mother, Caucasian (again at that time would have said White ) please correct me if I am wrong
Just curious why Obama’s birth certificate is 61 10641 and the Nordyke twins are 61 10637 and
61 10638.. The twins were born on August 5, 1961.. The registrar recorded the forms on August 11, 1961. Obama was born a day earlier on August 4, 1961 and the registrar recorded it on August 8, 1961. Why would his form have a later number than the twins who were born a day later?
Nope, the race of the father was and mother would be filled out by the parents, based on which the DOH would determine the race classification of the child. In Kenya for instance, African was considered to be the race description for those born on that Continent as document in a contemporaneous Census document.
Unknown but there is another data sample who was born after Obama and before the twins whose number ends in 920. There is some speculation that this was either random or based on the last name. Nordyke, Obama, and Weidelich.
If a covert operation to give an ineligible president a false appearance of legitimacy can forge one birth certificate, then it can forge two, three, or any other number of similar false documents. As many as it might take. The existence of the same hospital name on the hospital lines of two birth certificates really doesn’t mean a whole lot. More important would be the history of the hospital in regard to when its name was what.
The medical facility in which Obama says he was born acquired this name in 1978: “The Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children.” It was created by the merger of two pre-existing medical facilities, namely Kapilani Maternity Home (established 1890) and Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital (established 1909). Obama would have been born in one of those. Even if “The Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children” sometimes does business as “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital,” that hospital, by either name, did not exist until 1978.
This is odd in two different ways. First, it seems unlikely that the document that Obama recently showed us is genuine. Second, it is surprising that an mistake so easily discovered would be made at this stage of the game. You’d have thought that all these little details would have been attended to.
I found many references to the name which contradicts your point. Your response is that these other long forms, which were provided by their respective parents, were somehow forged as well. There is of course a much simpler solution: Your research is wrong. And all falls in place quite logically. I showed how the name shows up as early as 1954 in official documents. Did you even follow the Google link I provided?
However, since you have presumed that the document is unlikely to be genuine, you have already abandoned logic, reason and evidence in favor of pure speculation.
Why is that?
The Nordyke certificate is NOT A FORGERY. Mrs Nordyke is alive and she provided it.
I think YOU are a forgery. There is no “David Sims”. It is a scam operated by Bernie Madoff on a prison computer.
‘DAVID SIMS = BERNIE MADOFF = FRAUD
David Sims – are you say the Nordyke twins who were born in the same hospital as the President and only one day later them him, and whose birth certificates were produced in 1966, are fakes?
Their birth ceritifcates both say “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. So when did this conspiracy begin 1966? or 1961? Hahahahahahahaha
You must be an idiot.
e.vattel:The son of an African transient alien student cannot be a natural born citizen.
He was not a transient but yes, he was a son of an African.
Compare hospital addresses on Obama’s and The Nordyke Twins’ certificates.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347
Ooops, mother’s address.
mea culpa
Relying on WND is done at one’s own risk. I am glad you found out quickly. Try next time a more reputable source.
It is falling apart..
“If the President doesn’t want to stand up and be a leader, then his silence would be appreciated from people who are trying to find solutions.” Congressman Boren, Democrat
Obama told us..enough of this silliness he has to get to work for the American people to solve the problems…he hops on his jet..burns fuel to do a taping on Oprah in Chicago discussing the birth certificate. What a fraud. He is not a natural born citizen.
Check out the address of the hospital, it is different on both.
Another one. It’s the address of the parents.. For goodness sakes do some research before making yourself look foolish. Have you no self respect?
Is Patrica like the fifth person to come here and make the same stupid claim? I think their just messing with you. They cannot all be that stupid.
While reading the article “Educating the confused – Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and comparing the birth cetificate for the president and that of Nordyke Twins, I noticed that, while the hospital name is the same on both certificates, the address for the hospital is different. What gives?
They are all coming from the same link of disinformation, likely WND… Fools
There we have number six who is unable to read the document and realize it is the address of the parents.
Fools. Sorry guys but a bit of research could have presented making a fool of yourselves for believing WND’s lies. Show some skepticism rather than mindlessly believing the lies. Do you understand how you allow others to manipulate you? Have you no self respect?
It appears that WND literally rots your brain from the inside out. This is part of the reason that birtherism will never die: no fact or logical argument can penetrate the birthers’ iron cloak of stupidity.
What’s amazing is that guys like Joe Cruz and Patricia are so stupid, they think they’ve stumbled onto something big. Like Woodward and Bernstein. They’re going to be famous. LOL
Either that or their just screwing with you.
Tomorrow, you’ll probably start getting posters asking about the tiny M.
I find it fascinating how there is still a small group, unable at independent thought and reason and who are willing to let themselves be manipulated by others.
Where are all these newbies coming from?
Well, it provides us with an opportunity to educate them but really, how can people make such foolish assertions and not apply a scintilla of logic and reason to explore what is wrong with their argument. or more likely the argument they were fed by third parties.
Some people are so easy to manipulate…
gorefan, you said
“Is Patrica like the fifth person to come here and make the same stupid claim? I think their just messing with you. They cannot all be that stupid.”
Oh, yes they can be.
I was comparing the birth certificate above and that of Obama’s and some questions arose.
1 Why are the birth certificates different colors. 2 Susan was born 8-5-61 file #151 Dept of Health # 61 10637, date excepted by local register on 8-11-61
Obama was born 8-4-61 (the day before Susan) file #151 Dept of Health # 61 10641, date excepted by local register on 8-8-61
How can their DoH # be so far apart considering the dates provided? I want to believe that he is a US Citizen so all of this can be quieted once and for all. However, it just creates more questions for me.
Explain why 2 supposed certificates, from the same hospital, same place geographically, can have the Serial number of the newer document have a LOWER number than the previous one?
Above example:
#61 10637
Birth Date – Aug 5th, 1961
Date Accepted by Register General – August 11th, 1961
Obama’s supposed certificate:
#61 10641
Birth Date – Aug 4th, 1961
Date Accepted by Register General – August 8th, 1961
Obama’s supposed BC, filled out and registered BEFORE this example has a Higher number How?
I have never seen serial numbered forms count down as they are used as these seem to here, have you?
That would tell me one of these documents must be a forgery, how about you?
Also note that the progressive curving of both forms are identical, possibly because the above one is what was used to forge Obama’s certificate?
And, as before, it is a Certificate of Live Birth, long form, which still is NOT a Birth Certificate.
Brenda, Zermold, the issue of the numbering has been explained. What is being ignored is how close Obama’s number is to the twins and even Stigs. although his ends in 920 and he was born in the same time period.
And yes, it is a certificate of live birth, an official and legally binding copy of the birth certificate.
People were right, even releasing the long form would not be sufficient for some how appear to hate our President enough that they are willing to smear the Office of the President and our Nation
Read also Dr Conspiracy
We know these certificate numbers from August 4th and 5th:
Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 11/5/1961
Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 11/5/1961
Obama, Barack – 10641- 11/4/1961
Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 11/5/1961
The list is sorted numerically by birth certificate number; however, you might also note that they are alphabetically sorted by surname and that they are not in order by date of birth. My hypothesis is a batch of certificates was alphabetized by surname and then fed into the numbering machine and that hypothesis is borne out with the new information provided by CNN of the Waidelich certificate number. Note that NORDYKE and OBAMA are close both alphabetically and numerically (just 4 off) and that WAIDELICH is not close numerically nor alphabetically. Armed with these examples, is it possible to estimate the size of such a sorted batch?
“And, as before, it is a Certificate of Live Birth, long form, which still is NOT a Birth Certificate”
What is the definition of a Birth Certificate vs a Certificate of live birth?
With all the new birthers posting here, it appears that birtherism may be the first and only mental illness that can be spread over the internet.
It’s a combination of strong dislikes combined with easy access to information that supports one’s position, combined with a lack of curiosity to find out if the information is accurate.
Brenda and Zermoid – the Nordyke BC’s were issued in 1966. Those are 45 year old documents. At that time BC were copied by use of what was known as a photostatic process. It resulted in a negative image. That process is not used today. In the vaults of the DOH there are books that are filled with the original BCs. Have you ever made a copy of a real thich book? The curve is produced by the books binding. Now back in 1966, they took the book with the Nordyke sisters BC, placed it on the glass plate of the photostatic machine along with a half sheet of paper that had the signatures of the current registrar and general registrar and the current date stamp. This created the composite negative image you see in the Nordyke BCs. For the President’s they took the book and xeroxed it on to plain paper then scanned that into a computer and printed it onto green security paper. Then it was date stamped (April 25, 2011)and the current registrar (Dr. Onaka) stamp was added.
As for the file numbers. At the end of the week, the pile of BC’s were placed in alphabetic order and file numbers added. Look at the following example:
A,B,C,…….M,N,O,………..V,W,X,Y,Z
See how O follows N but is right next to it. And W follows N and O but is much further away?
Now look at the known file numbers, Names and alphabet:
10637, 10638,..10641,……………….10920
Nordyke, Nordyke,..Obama,………….Waidelich
N,N,..O,……………………………………….W
Notice any patterns?
@GOREFAN: So if this “pattern” is true, that means approx 300 children were born with surnames starting with letters between N and W in the span of a week.
Then you need to consider how many children with surnames in the A-M bracket were also born.
I’ll even let you assume that NO children were born in the X-Z bracket.
I’d assume that by your “pattern” that about 700 children were born in that hospital in the span of a week.
Do you really believe that many children were born in the span of a week?
Hawaii reported in 1961 about 340 births per week. I am not sure Gorefan insisted that they all be born in the same hospital. A better estimate is that the certificates were handled once every 3 or 4 weeks. This makes sense as all he outlying Islands had per Hawaii Public Health Regulation Ch. 8, to send in their certificates once per month.
What about the addresses on the BCs the hospital Address on Obama’s BC is different from the one on the Nordyke Twin’s.
They keep coming with the same foolish question. It’s the address of the parents. Geez guys…
It was posted that the address on the birth certificate of Obama, is the address of the parent(s) – then why is the address in the informational section of the hospital. Also, why would the file # of Obma’s birth certificate (file #151) be the same as the Nordyke Twins (file #151)? Isn’t the file number representative of each individuals record #.
Could the person filling the certificate out not remember what state they were in ?
Are you talking about the Nordyke twins, where one is Hawaii, the other Oahu? ROTFL
Indeed that is the funniest thing.
The Nordyke certificates, although being for twins (!) born within minutes (!), differ significantly in the “country and state” column. Is Oahu a state? Is “Honolulu, Oahu” on one and “Honolulu, Hawaii” on the other an indication at least one of them is a fake?
Well, if you were an anti-Nordyke birther (as opposed to the default anti-Obama birther), you’d say “HELL YES IT IS!”.
I also love how the birfers keep saying “it’s not a long-form BC” when the only real difference they can find isn’t in the data.
It’s only in the certification text below, but of course they ignore that the twins’ certified copy was issued 45 years (!) before the Obama certified copy. Somehow birfers seem to think Hawaii must always write the same things on their certifications.
Also, if Obama’s is not a long form birth certificate, the Nordykes’ isn’t either.
Birfers still owe us an explanation why
(a) suddenly a “certificate of live birth” is not the same as a “birth certificate” when
(b) they were perfectly fine touting the Nordyke “certificate of live birth” as “the real thing” when attacking the COLB and
(c) a copy from 1966 has to look the same as a copy from 2011 or, alternatively, how one retroactively creates a 1966 copy if one somehow neglected to order one that early.
It’s also telling they now selectively quote another statement into its opposite, claiming Hawaii made an exception by issuing an electronic copy when in fact they made an exception *to* issuing an electronic copy. *duh*
@CAIN/WEST
Is it possible that the outer island sent a glut of birth certificates to the Honolulu DOH on the 4th of August and they were labeled at the same time as everyone elses? Who knows?
Here issome additional information. The President’s BC was filed with the DOH on August 8th and the Nordyke’s were filed on August 11th. And Mr. Waidelich’s was also filed on August 8th. So his BC number should be lower then the Nordyke’s but as we see from CNN, it is much higher. Clearly, BC numbers were not assigned on the day the BC was filed with the DOH and are not related to day of birth. So when were they assigned? Weekly? Monthly?
The fact is there are only four data points and that is not enough information to draw any conclusions.
Now if someone wants an extra credit project, they can collect all the newspaper birth announcements from August. 1961, create a database of last names, and birth dates. Then play with them by listing them alphabetically on a weekly basis or twice weekly basis and seeing where the Nordykes, the President and Mr. Waidelich fall.
I am concerned how it is that the birth certificate says that Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Kenya was not the name of that African country until 1963. Were the hospital people just clairvoyant or did they guess?
Surely an error so glaring as that casts real doubts on this BC’s authenticity.
What do you say?
We’re having a vote as to what the odds are that the Kenya question will not be accepted by the moderators. Considering how partisan the reviewers are it appears you are rapidly losing credibility. Responding by ridicule and personal attacks is the last resort of those in an indefensible position.
Make your responses sincere and you’ll gain more credibility.
Simple: Kenya was initially a protectorate and became independent in 1963 I believe. Your point? That it was not called Kenya?
Have you no abilities to do even the minimal research? Do you really believe that spreading myths raised by others is going to make you look smart?
Kenya Gazette 1950
Time to admit that you were wrong? Or are you going to run and hide in shame?
As usual, you lost and I showed you how foolish your question was as it took me literally 5 seconds to find references to Kenya.
Speaking of losing credibility… Why do you disrespect our office of the President so much that you are willing to smear its occupant based on myths, rumors and innuendo?
People have come to this blog with their usuals myths about the name of the hospital, and other foolish claims of fraud, claims which are, with minimal research, rebutted. I do not suffer fools lightly and certainly not those who come here, repeating mindlessly the ignorance of others, and somehow do not feel responsible for their ignorance as they clearly have refused to do even the minimal amount of research.
Point in case with Kenya, which was known initially as the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya and later as the Republic of Kenya. You are so convinced that the birth certificate must be flawed that you allow your prejudices to cause you to draw flawed conclusions which expose you as fools at best.
For almost three years people have been spreading rumor, innuendo, myths, outright lies, about the birth of our President. And even when shown the facts, they continue their follies. As I said, I do not suffer fools lightly.
Look at the hospital address for nordyke then look at the street name from obama’s just released birth certificate. And if he, obama, has had this bc then why is it dated April 2011. Just wondering.
[Ed: SImple, the address is for the parents, not the hospital. I even addressed this in my posting here. But you seem to be so intent on repeating myths that you are blinded to the facts. As to the date? It was copied and certified on April 2011. You do understand what this means? It means that an official of the Department of Health in Hawaii has certified that the data on this form are accurate.
Sigh....Come on Paula, think for yourself, and spend a little effort before repeating the same old 'what about the hospital address' statement. To many people have allowed themselves to be fooled by this. Don't you feel a little bit silly and will you venture to correct those who have misled you?]
What is absolutely amazing is that people like buzzard so hate America and the Constitution, that they would accept something so totally ridiculous as Kenya not existing until 1963. It shows an incredible level of ignorance and laziness that they didn’t even bother to look it up themselves. It was just easier to believe lies.
Here is the Law Report of Kenya 1956
http://books.google.com/books?id=B8k-AQAAIAAJ&q=law+report+of+kenya&dq=law+report+of+kenya&hl=en&ei=fnTDTbe9KY3EsAPXwuGjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CFwQ6AEwAw
Google books also has the collection of “The Official Gazette of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya”, gonig back to at least 1922.
Let’s have a vote to see if buzzard has the courage to come back here and respond.
Whether through laziness or through mischief, these people show that there is not much behind the ideas that our President is ineligible, other than vague and easily rebutted speculation not based on fact but rather based on ignorance.
I can understand that these people have no respect for the Office of the President but that they have no self respect is beyond me.
Here is a report from 1938 about Kenya. What is interesting about this book is it was posted on the web by Lucas Smith of the famous faked Kenyan BC.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30311179/Colonial-Report-Annual-Kenya-Colony-and-Protectorate-1938
On page three of the report under Climate, it says,
“The range of temperature in various-parts of Kenya is very wide,”
So what do you think? Buzzard brave enough to respond, I vote no.
Yellow belly I predict… Too embarrassed…
“As usual, you lost and I showed you how foolish your question was as it took me literally 5 seconds to find references to Kenya.”
That’s the thing, all buzzard had to do was google “Kenya” and put almost any date behind it (Kenya 1940, Kenya 1950, Kenya 1930) and they would have gotten thousand of hits. Just look on E-bay there are hundreds of items from Kenyapre-1960, stamps coins, books, you name it.
But buzzard is such a patriot, he/she couldn’t be bothered.
Patriots are no fools..
Buzzards on the other hand
Certainly nothing like the American Eagle
No response so far… Bunch of cowards.
@Zermoid:
> Explain why 2 supposed certificates, from the same hospital, same place geographically, can have the Serial number of the newer document have a LOWER number than the previous one?
Explain why 2 supposed certificates, from the same hospital, same place geographically, TWINS BORN MINUTES APART, can have two different values for “State of Birth”, the one having “Honolulu, Hawaii” and the other “Honolulu, Oahu”? And is Oahu a state?
In other words: are the Nordyke BC’s fakes? The ones you birfers keep touting as “the real thing”? Riddle me the discrepancies, birfer!
You’re so funny…
As for Kenya — Princess Elizabeth was in Kenya (At Treetops in Nairobi) when her father died in 1952. There was plenty of news coverage at the time, all of it referring to Kenya. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TwIaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aiMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6044,1442822&dq=elizabeth+treetops&hl=en
And the Mau Mau uprising was in Kenya as it was referred to at the time: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0opaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LU8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=1493,2756093&dq=elizabeth+kenya&hl=en
Good try, but in the ‘private’ school system ‘S’ comes after ‘G’ as in Nordyke, Susan would come after Nordyke, Gertchen. But if you look closer, you will see Gretchen was born in time after Susan as in 2:12 pm and 2:17 pm which again would but Barrack before by almost 19 hours of the Nordyke twins.
Seriously, math is needed your whole life.
CP – “Good try” You make a good point about Gretchen coming before Susan. But any theory about cetification numbers has to include Stig Waidelich. He was born approximatesly 5 hours after the Nordykes. His birth was filed with the DOH on August 8th, the same as President Obama while the Nordyke’s was filed on Auguist 11th. He is in the same newspaer birth announcements as the President while the Nordykes are not. And his certificate number (10920) is 282 numbers higher then the Nordykes. Were there 282 births between 2:17 p.m and 7;40 p.m. on August 5th? Not likely.
And, as before, it is a Certificate of Live Birth, long form, which still is NOT a Birth Certificate.
The LFBC Donald Trump released, after accidentally releasing the “Certification of Birth” Short form that he got and has been using since 1999, was called a “Certificate of Vital Record.” That didn’t stop the birthers having online screaming orgasms about how this was a genuine Birth Certificate.
And the LFBCs Miki Booth and Danae released had Certificate of Live Birth on them and that didn’t stop the birthers claiming they were genuine BCs
But when President Obama releases something, it has to say “Birth Certificate” in the exact same script as the constitution was written in, in ink made from, I dunno, the blood of George Washington maybe, and the Paper has to be made from the wood of trees from the Garden of Gethsemane, before the Birthers will spit out that it MIGHT be genuine.
Gorefan, you are still trying to show the CNN reported ’151 1961 3010920′ which was unreadable on the Television. I have an HD projector and at 120″ x 80″ watching an HD feed the numbers could not be made out. to be what you explain them to be. It looked more like …10620 to me. But, knowing first hand how hospital’s list birth’s, I would have to ask this; What hospital was he born in? This decides the document number as well as the time and date of birth. What is the actual book document number, being that the CNN report wasn’t clear and they haven’t verified the documents to questioners that wanted to see actual copies of the document to ensure the number.
What I can tell you without a doubt, knowing the rules and regulations for documenting Birth’s in all the United States per federal documents as far back as 1956. I can tell you these tidbit’s: The numbers and documents have to be listed in each hospital by time of birth, by end of shift. The use of the term ‘negro’ was used to describe ‘anyone’ that was born colored, except latin or Islanders. This is in regulations up and to 1970.
The reason for a Birth Certificate, Suranis, is due to the fact that he already faked two of them. The other and real fact is that anyone born in the United States of America of a non-citizen parent, father being the overall determining factor, (per the laws of the U.S.A. backed up in United States Supreme Court Cases, the most known and used is the Wong, Kim Ark case), Decide whether a person is a ‘natural born citizen’, which is needed to run and hold office of POTUS or a ‘citizen’, that can hold all offices put ‘POTUS’. This is the true reason for the questioning. All of you ‘birther accusers’ came attempted to push the issue to the birth in the United States to hide the fact that is being requested, but his BIRTH in the United States is not in question, it is his citizenship!
To make this as SIMPLE as possible for all who read this to understand.
The issue should never be as to whether or not he was ‘born’ in the United States. The question that is needed to be answered for a person to run for POTUS (President of the United States) is whether or NOT they are a ‘Natural born Citizen’.
For this example:
Citizen refers to (Citizen of the United States)
Natural Born Citizen refers to (Natural Born Citizen of the United States)
You see a Citizen is a person born on American soil, or one that has applied for and has passed the requirements to become a citizen. This form of person can run for any political office EXCEPT that of POTUS, (President of the United States), since no one today could have been born of Parents before the Constitution has been ratified.
A Natural Born Citizen is a person that is born with both parents being at least current Citizens, and born on American soil or at the very least on foreign soil while doing the business of the United States, or born on Foreign soil where both parents have not been outside the United States for more then 2yrs and both are current Citizens in good standing.
This is from the Constitution of the United States and the Laws governing the United States and United States Supreme Court Cases regarding this issue.
As for me, I am a former Democrat, U.S. Marine, and currently a Natural Born Citizen of the United States that wants the truth and regulations of the Constitutional Republic to be upheld.
I watched the feed on Hd TV also as did a number of other posters, we clearly saw the certification number as 10920. And if it was 10620 that would not make sense for someone born after the Nordykes. As to which hospital, when they interviewed his mother, she remember the little black baby next to her son in the hospital nursery. So unless, they were truck all the newborns to Kapiolani, it makes sense that Stig was born in Kapioliani.
“The numbers and documents have to be listed in each hospital by time of birth”
But it is the DOH that puts the certification numbers on the documents and they have already said they do it at the time the documents are filed in their office.
The use of the term ‘negro’ was used to describe ‘anyone’ that was born colored, except latin or Islanders. This is in regulations up and to 1970.
Except, the race of the parents is whatever the parents list. The parents fill out the parts of the forms that has their personal information (age, address, occupation and race). Obama Sr. was from Africa. And in the 1962 Kenya census form, it lists race for non-white, non-asian as African. Obama Sr. would not consider himself to be a “negro” as that was a term for an American black.
Here is a WND article that provides an image of a Hawaiian long form birth certificate. Note the race of the mother, “Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, German, English, Portuguese”. How would that fit into your into the “regulations”.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292053
As to the question of citizenship, we know that the Founders used the English Common Law as their guide to citizenship.
Thus James Madison said, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”
And William Rawle said, “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 Zephania Swift, “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.
So in the United States, place of birth determines allegiance and place of birth determines NBC status. That’s why, if you notice, virtually everyone says if the Preisident was born in the United States he is eligible.
CP
“A Natural Born Citizen is a person that is born with both parents being at least current Citizens”
Simple yes or no question, do you agree with James Madison’s statement?
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”
He said this on May 22nd, 1789, on the floor of the House of Representatives. Do you agree with him? Yes or no?
Then why is your interpretation of the Constitution based on a fallacy? And why have you not read US v Wong Kim Ark or Ankeny v Daniels which would have clarified your fallacy?
Citizens of the United States = Natural-borns+natural-ized
Two kinds of citizens.
As to the fake Birth Certificates, I agree that there are several examples which have pnked the birthers, in their haste to declare our President ineligible. So gullible…
We already know that US v Wong Kim Ark found a child born to two non US citizens to be natural born. In Ankeny v Daniels, the Court repeated the analysis and found President Obama to be a natural born.
NBC do you not read the post you reply to?? The Wong case as shown above clarifies the citizenship of a citizen and shows that they are not a Natural born Citizen. Take your time to read it this time and then reply, I can tell by the response time that you didn’t not read the post through but only gazed at it.
By the way you NBC/GOREFAN, or whomever it is you say it is, James Madison did not write the Constitution, nor was he the father of the country and he definitely was never Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court so for you to claim what he said makes the Constitution and the U.S.S.C. cases fallacies shows how far you are willing to stretch the fabric known as the truth to get your way. That just doesn’t work in the real world.
You are incorrect about Wong. This time, try reading the case!
James Madison is called the “Father of the Constitution” because he was the principal author of the Constitution.
Yes I did read the case, as well I saw the Indiana case, Ankeny, Kruse v Daniels that you also responded to. Do you know why it was denied? Due to standing and harm, yes these are important items that need to be addressed for a Superior and Supreme Court to ‘hear’ the case. notes given as quoted from the case;
“The trial court also granted the Governor.s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we find that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address the trial court.s alternative grounds for dismissal.”
…
” The Complaint also named the Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee, and John McCain as defendants. The Plaintiffs state, without citation to the record, that “only the Governor of the State of Indiana accepted Service of Summons.” Appellants. Brief at 3. We note that the Plaintiffs. case summary lists only the Governor as appellee, the Plaintiffs. notice of appeal lists only the Governor as defendant, and the Plaintiffs. briefs contain certificates of service indicating that the briefs were served upon only the governor.
For these reasons the case was not heard. To Dismiss a case for lack of relevance is far different then dismissing a case for lack of evidence.
So in summarizing, Wong, Kim Ark was proved to be a citizen of the United States not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and Ankeny, Kruse v Indiana was not heard due to LACK of standing and the provision that the Defendants were not properly notified.
Instead of stating “Your incorrect”, try proving it if case information as I have done.
This isn’t a playground were you can whine; “I’ll take my ball and go home”. Show some class by showing information to back up your foot stomping….
I am extremely familiar with US v Wong Kim Ark and anyone who is claiming that the Court found Wong not to be natural born is misleading himself. The court clearly outlines that there are two kinds of citizens: natural born (born on soil) and natural-ized (statutory) and that since Wong cannot by statute be naturalized, he can only be a citizen if he were natural born. This is how the Government presented the issue to the Court and this is why the dissenting Judge lamented that under the ruling, Wong Kim Ark and others like him could run for the office of the President while children born abroad to two US citizens would not be eligible.
The Court in Wong Kim Ark, in deciding if he were natural born, which was the only path to citizenship available to Wong Kim Ark, found that the term Natural Born was left undefined in the Constitution and thus its meaning had to be found in Common Law, which in the early days of the Republic was largely based on English Common Law. Under Common Law, the meaning of the term natural born was well understood (see for instance Lynch v Clarke or Re: Look Tin Sing) which all came to the same conclusion that a child, born on US soil, is natural born unless the parents are ambassadors or equivalents or invading military.
As to you misrepresenting what we said about Madison, who was one of the many who captured the same sentiment about Natural Born, appears to be missing the point. What concerns me more is your unfamiliarity with the legal jurisprudence.
Greg…really he is the father of the Constitution, so what he says goes??? Do you know how long it took for them ‘all’ to decide on each piece of the Constitution? Then the Ratification process brought the ‘Bill of Rights’.
Just to help you, James Madison is known as the ‘father’ of the Constitution due to the fact that he was the leader in getting the Constitutional Convention to convene after several failed attempt’s.
Its OK that you didn’t know this, most American’s aren’t taught this is public school anymore.
In fact, under WKA, Obama, as Ankeny concurred, would have been found a Natural Born Citizen, since there were only two paths to citizenship: Natural born and natural-ized and he could not have been natural-ized because of anti-Chinese immigration statutes.
Ankeny v Daniels had to resolve the natural born citizen clause as the Court points out
Ruling
and
The Court had to review anew, the decision reached by the lower Court:
Sorry my friend but these rulings provide no support for your position, which even the Ankeny Court rejected as
The Government brief in US v Wong Kim Ark reads
Fuller in his dissenting opinion
They all fully understood the implications of the lower Court’s ruling and the decision by the majority to let the ruling stand…
CP
Do you agree with Alexander Porter Morse, who wrote in 1881,
“The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
Again another yes or no, do you agree with A.P. Morse that the Constitution only recognizes two types of citizens, “natural, home-born” and “alien, foreign-born.”
And let’s not forget that the lower court had explicitly rejected the arguments raised by the Government, based on the law of nations (Vattel).
Which makes sense because even Vattel accepted that the country in question may decide who are and are not its natural born citizens, although he believed that the status of the father was more important, he accepted that under English Common law, it was the place of birth.
And so the list of authorities continues, contradicting any hopes that it was the law of nations which decided who in the United States were natural born citizens.
What have you cited in Wong Kim Ark? All you have done is repeat that it “proves” that Wong was not a natural born citizen.
And, you know what? Citing something then misunderstanding it doesn’t help your case. Let me pull something from your quote of Ankeny:
The appeals court did NOT address mootness, laches, or any other issue. It decided that, even if everything were exactly as the plaintiff said, there was no case!
That’s what 12(B)(6) means – failure to state a claim. You can see for yourself here.
The standard for evaluating a 12(B)(6) motion is extremely generous to the plaintiff. It pretends that every fact alleged is true (in this case, that Obama’s dad was not a citizen) and then asks, “Given those facts, is there some way that a case can be made here?”
Ankeny was not dismissed for a lack of evidence, or a lack of relevance, numbnuts. It was dismissed because there are no facts that would make a child born here in the United States to someone not a diplomat a non-natural born citizen!
12(B)(6), learn it, love it, live it. It’s not surprising that you don’t know this, since you clearly didn’t finish kindergarten!
Let’s step back to Wong, which you have never once cited or quoted or anything. Here’s what it says:
Wong Kim Ark was a citizen because he was a natural born citizen.
That’s what Wong Kim Ark says, CP, which you would know if you’d read the case. Clearly, you weren’t taught to read in public school, were you?
Gorefan, “no” I do not agree with A.P. Morse
As to Wong: Again in Justice Gray’s Opinion:
”
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: ‘Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth ‘subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.’ 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399. ”
Maybe you missed this little factoid, Barrack Hussan Obama ‘SR’ was a foreign student here on temporary visa. Which equates him quite well to the decision in the WONG case.
The reason for a Birth Certificate, Suranis, is due to the fact that he already faked two of them.
Not according to anyone with any credentials on the subject. And not according to 2 seperate Hawai’in administrations with access to the files. And not according to World Net Daily today which found that he had been investigated at age 5 and found to have been born in Hawai’i and been a Natural Born Citizen, though they buried the info at 800 words in. So if even World net daily admits he was born in the US, whats there to fake?
The other and real fact is that anyone born in the United States of America of a non-citizen parent, father being the overall determining factor, (per the laws of the U.S.A. backed up in United States Supreme Court Cases, the most known and used is the Wong, Kim Ark case), Decide whether a person is a ‘natural born citizen’, which is needed to run and hold office of POTUS or a ‘citizen’, that can hold all offices put ‘POTUS’. This is the true reason for the questioning. All of you ‘birther accusers’ came attempted to push the issue to the birth in the United States to hide the fact that is being requested, but his BIRTH in the United States is not in question, it is his citizenship!
REALLY?? then how come all the first birther suits were all about his birthplace. The first suits regarding the 2 parent crap came after the guy was elected. Phil Berg says straight out that if the guy was born in Hawai’i. How come Jerome Corsi never mentioned the 2 parent requirement of NBC in his Obama Nation book, published may 2008 (hint, because 2 parent NBC was only invented in June 2008) How come Spiro Agnew was VP for years without anyone bringing up the fact his dad had not naturalized? Now come Chester Arthur donated his fathers naturalization papers, showing his dad naturalized when Chester was 14, to the library of congress?
How come Obama flat out said his dad had never naturalized in his book in the 1990s AND his fight the smears website in 2008, and no-one cared? DO you think he would have done that for 30 seconds if he thought there was a problem?
A Natural Born Citizen is a person that is born with both parents being at least current Citizens, and born on American soil or at the very least on foreign soil while doing the business of the United States, or born on Foreign soil where both parents have not been outside the United States for more then 2yrs and both are current Citizens in good standing.
This is from the Constitution of the United States and the Laws governing the United States and United States Supreme Court Cases regarding this issue.
Bull. Shit.
Here’s some quotes from the time of the founding that show you are full of it, my ex marine friend.
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“… If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“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.”
January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Etc etc etc. There are 200 years of legal quotes like this, stretching from the founding of the United States to today. All clearly showing that NBC = native born. And that native born people can be president without regard to their parents.
All you have is a lie that citizen doesn’t really mean citizen.
The fact that you are now pushing a perversion of the constitution just because you don’t happen to like the CIC means you are now a disgrace to your Oath and to your old uniform. You are the threat to the constitution you claim to despise.You should apologize to your ex brothers in uniform who are going out and doing their jobs every day even if they don’t like Obama either, use your vote against Obama if that’s what you want to do, and get on with your life
Really? And your proof for this contention is what?
How about I look at what the Library of Congress says:
I don’t know, should I accept the word of some random guy posting on the internet without even a shred of a source to back him up, or the Library of Congress?
What you cite isn’t from Gray’s opinion. It’s from the dissent.
Do you know what a dissent is? It’s the losing side!
As to Wong: Again in Justice Gray’s Opinion:
”
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: ‘Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth ‘subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.’ 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399. ”
Maybe you missed this little factoid, Barrack Hussan Obama ‘SR’ was a foreign student here on temporary visa. Which equates him quite well to the decision in the WONG case.
I don’t know where you got that, pal, but that’s not an opinion stated by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark
See for yourself.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Pretty ironic that you can be a smartass while citing the DISSENT thinking it’s the main decision!
Did you miss that little factoid? That you were citing the losing side of the argument?
Now, here’s a puzzler. If Wong wasn’t made a natural born citizen, why did the dissent, which you are obviously familiar with (lol!), think that Wong was eligible for the Presidency?
If the majority opinion didn’t MAKE Wong eligible for the Presidency, why did the dissent feel the need to argue that he wasn’t eligible for the Presidency?
Here’s a good one. Stienkauler’s case from the 1870s
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
As quoted in Perkins Vs Elg.
Greg as stated Ankeny, Kruse had no standing and because Indiana has no ability to govern on Federal Law they ruled correctly. Maybe you should learn this. Also I didn’t go to Public school, I did teach in school and I was School Board Director for two terms, first as a write in candidate (I served because the people asked, by way of voting for, me too) the second term I filled out the paperwork and won by 90% of the vote.
NBC; so you are saying that a lawyer stating an issue is a guarantee of truth, you Quote A.P.Morse as “list of authorities continues”. By the way I have noticed in my research on the numbers issue that GoreFan started this debate on all stem from only his first posting of the number ’10920′, I have found no one else except those referring to his post as that number being correct, is that and authority to you as well?
Suranis: I really don’t care what others are claiming or discussing. I able discussing items I want to have answered to me, so that either I come to the understanding that the question has been satisfied or not.
Don’t tell me to apologize to my brother’s you fat assed little puke. I stand with my brother’s and sister’s, and to that; They deserve to know that we care about the Constitution they and I swore an Oath to.
Now that is fascinating quote mining… and from the dissenting opinion as well. Have you no shame?
Why misrepresent this as Gray’s opinion? Explain yourself… Constitutional Patsy
Hilarious indeed… They seek so desperately and avoid to read the real ruling…
CP – so do you agree with William Rawle when he says 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”?
Before answering, remember that Rawle was appointed to be the United States District Attorney for Philadelphia by President Washington and you were not.
Nope, I am saying that Morse’s opinion is one of countless opinions that show the scholarly understanding of the term Natural born. There is a large amount of scholarly and legal opinions all pointing to the single conclusion.
Then learn more about the Constitution before making such a spectacle of yourself.
But he is a marine who knows his version of the ‘Constitution’… At least the dissenting version thereof…
The word standing is not mentioned in Ankeny. So, how did the court rule on standing?
If it was anything other than PE, that is a sad commentary on the state of education.
You cite from the dissent in a Supreme Court case, thinking it’s the main decision. You think Ankeny was about standing, when they didn’t even mention the word! You think you know more than the Library of Congress about why Madison was called the “Father of the Constitution” after claiming Madison did NOT write the Constitution.
I don’t think there’s a single issue you’ve opined upon in which you were correct!
Well, uh… Because… uh…
I would concur with that. What I find incredibly fascinating however is how he cited a dissenting opinion as if it were the opinion of the Court, explicitly assigning the statement to Judge Gray who wrote the majority opinion.
Shame shame shame…
Nobody is saying that Ankeny was not decided correctly. They decided the case correctly because they found McCain and Obama eligible!
As the facts were presented to the court, Obama and McCain were eligible, and therefore, the plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
12(B)(6)
Not standing (standing is never mentioned, not once, in the case).
Not mootness
Not laches.
It was dismissed because the plaintiffs were saying that the governor had to confirm the eligibility of two candidates who were obviously eligible!
No I do not agree with Rawle, I again agree with the document’s that guide the United States.
Greg: I thank you for pointing this mistake on my part out. This is why one should not attempt to work do legal research on multiple issue in a hurried fashion. If you can point out, to satisfy my question: A person born on American soil to a person, (father) that is a temporary domiciled, (in this case student) foreign national. By the reading of the law it shows the child to be a national of the father’s country, and not a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’. It seems that you have the time and knowledge to help me understand this, and I am willing to extend my trust in you to garner this knowledge which I will then verify, as I would expect you to do with my information.
NBC: I never intended to misrepresent the opinion, as said above, I should not try to use hast when looking through Supreme Court cases. for that I apologize, but the question has not been answered. I do ask that if you want me to stop questioning what is and is not a natural born citizen, then walk me through the proof in order to satisfy the question which will in turn satisfy any question regarding Natural born citizen and citizen.
“I don’t think there’s a single issue you’ve opined upon in which you were correct!”
Don’t forget, he was wrong about the definition of “natural born” used by the Framers.
I notice CP has not provided any quotes from the Founders that says they used a different definition of the term then the Common Law definition. Maybe because they are so difficult to find.
Greg: here is the ‘rub’ that separates us:
Greg Quote: “Nobody is saying that Ankeny was not decided correctly. They decided the case correctly because they found McCain and Obama eligible!”
Case quote:
“However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, FOR THE REASONS BELOW we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. We will handle each of Plaintiffs’ arguments in turn.”
Greg I do understand the law, I still can’t believe I made the rookie mistake for rushing through a case. But the answer you give is still eluding me.
GOREFAN: to belittle someone when you are so uneducated… You mean the framers not the founders you dolt!
We do know of examples where the term native and natural were used interchangeably, and one example where the term natural born was replaced with native born because the former may cause confusion as to the manner of birth (excluding caesarian births for example). ROTFL
Greg as stated Ankeny, Kruse had no standing and because Indiana has no ability to govern on Federal Law they ruled correctly.
Ankeny was not about standing, it was a novel legal argument about electors. However the issue of Obama’s eligibility was before the court, as it was central to the Plaintiffs case, so the court chose to rule on it. It is the sole case that went before a state supreme court of appeals that was not appealed to the US supreme court, as one it was dismissed then Birthism would have been destroyed.
Suranis: I really don’t care what others are claiming or discussing. I able discussing items I want to have answered to me, so that either I come to the understanding that the question has been satisfied or not.
Then why are you ignoring the legal cases and definitions cited by people including myself, choosing to believe falshoods about the founders of your nation so that you can dismiss their legal opinions, and lying about the opinions of the judges of the cases you cite.
Don’t tell me to apologize to my brother’s you fat assed little puke. I stand with my brother’s and sister’s, and to that; They deserve to know that we care about the Constitution they and I swore an Oath to.
Every christian has a duty to point out when a fellow soul is in a wrong road. The fact is, you are trying to change the meaning of the constitution to a theory that’s less than three years old. You are attacking the very meaning of the constitution, and that has to be pointed out to you.
Either way, you have no evidence. So instead you focus on something as minor as founder/framer. I understand. Now explain how this compares to someone confusing majority opinion and dissenting opinion and presents the latter as if it were the former?
CP – “No I do not agree with Rawle, I again agree with the document’s that guide the United States.”
So you know more about the Constitution then the people who were there when it was adopted.
Ok, so where did the Framers get the term “natural born”?
And while you are at it, how about these:
Where did the Framers get the term “ex post facto”?
Where did the Framers get the term “habeas corpus”?
Where did the Framers get the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”?
Where did the Framers get the term “impeachment”?
Where did the Framers get the term “Corruption of Blood”?
Where did the Framers get the term “pardon”?
Where did the Framers get the term “excise”?
Where did the Framers get the term “Bills of Attainder”?
CP, Wong isn’t that hard to read once you notice the Roman numeral headers. In the paragraph starting each Roman numeraled section, Gray gives a thesis statement which he then proves. In section II, he states the common law of England:
In section III, he says that the US adopted the same rule:
There, I’ve summarized pages 655-666 of the case, and given you the heart of the matter. Section IV of the case, pages 666-675 rejects Vattel and the “continental” view that citizenship descends through parental blood. Section V says that the 14th Amendment didn’t change anything.
Was Obama Sr a diplomat? Was he an invading soldier? Nope, therefore his children were natural born citizens. Those were the only times that a child did not owe allegiance as described in the first quote.
And he was also not a child born to Indians not paying taxes, who were for a while distinguished under Elk v Wilkins as being born on soil but due to their particular status, not subject to our jurisdiction.
Greg: here is the ‘rub’ that separates us:
Greg Quote: “Nobody is saying that Ankeny was not decided correctly. They decided the case correctly because they found McCain and Obama eligible!”
Case quote:
“However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, FOR THE REASONS BELOW we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. We will handle each of Plaintiffs’ arguments in turn.”
Greg I do understand the law, I still can’t believe I made the rookie mistake for rushing through a case. But the answer you give is still eluding me.
Let me give you a hand in that
If someone is not ineligible for an office, what are they?
Take your time.
Ankeny was not about standing. It was about whether there were any grounds given to decide the case. It was a 12(B)(6) case. That’s what it was decided on. Look up the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12.
If I sued you for being a twit, it would be dismissed because there’s no cause of action for being a twit.
The court in Ankeny said “We don’t know if there’s an action for being a twit, but the plaintiffs have given us no evidence to suggest that McCain or Obama are twits!”
The court looked at the evidence of ineligibility, found it wanting, and therefore, there was no case!
12(B)(6)
“GOREFAN: to belittle someone when you are so uneducated… You mean the framers not the founders you dolt!”
No, I used the correct term. What you don’t seem to understand is that the definition of “natural born” was widely known even to those who were not at the Convention. It was term used in the colonies before 1776 and it was a term they used after 1776. And yet the founders do not say that the definition changed with the Constitution. They continued to use the term in the exact same way, with the exact same meaning.
Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted… Another ‘oversight’ by our ‘Constitutional’ friend
Will these idiots never go away. Article III standing in not relevant in a state court. Duh. In Ankeny, the plaintiff sought equitable relief raising both state law and Constitutional issues. While the court could have dismissed the claim by addressing the state law claims, it rather dismissed the case by dismissing the Constitutional arguments. Hence, the holding of the case is that a claim that a President with non-citizen parents is ineligible is without merit since the English rule based upon locality of birth is what defines who is a natural born citizen under the Constitution. It arrived at this conclusion by citing the Wong Kim Ark majority which, like it or not, is the controlling authority on this issue until the court revisits the issue. Time to go to law school and learn something about these legal concepts we are talking about.
“Greg: I thank you for pointing this mistake on my part out. This is why one should not attempt to work do legal research on multiple issue in a hurried fashion. If you can point out, to satisfy my question: A person born on American soil to a person, (father) that is a temporary domiciled, (in this case student) foreign national. By the reading of the law it shows the child to be a national of the father’s country, and not a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’. It seems that you have the time and knowledge to help me understand this, and I am willing to extend my trust in you to garner this knowledge which I will then verify, as I would expect you to do with my information.”
Hate to butt in, but there is no legal authority to support the notion that “A person born on American soil to a person, (father) that is a temporary domiciled” is not a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark said both Article II and the 14th Amendment were declaratory of the English common law which made no distinction between children of permanent and temporary residents. Hence, such is the rationale of the case which is precedent on all lower courts. The notion that children of temporary residents were to be excluded from native citizenship was rejected by the 14th Amendment Congress and there is almost no pre-amendment authority to support it. It was a notion of international law that was never embraced by any legal authority in any significance in America.
The 14th Amendment applies to all people born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In Plyler v. Doe the Court suggested that “jurisdiction” applies to anyone here – legally or illegally:
Note 10 continues the analysis, quoting Wong Kim Ark, and concludes:
The term “jurisdiction,” whether in the 14th Amendment’s “subject to” or the Equal Protection Clause’s “within the” phrases, includes all aliens, legal aliens, illegal aliens, temporary aliens, transitory aliens, etc.
The only people that aren’t included are diplomats, invading armies, and sometimes, Indian tribes.
Greg, thank you. this is what was needed to clarify the issue.
It is just sad that you have to hang with fools that chatter with no real knowledge such as suranis and gorefan. Ballantine coming late, I will over look his comment’s on the idea that be Ballantine thinks before speaking. I should let it side for that reason alone due to my rushing on the previously mentioned Wong case.
Gorefan before you say something stupid again the founders were basing their knowledge of natural born on the English laws I we discussed earlier. Think about it.
Again Greg, excellent work and thank you for the information.
Blaming others for his own follies and making claims that do not make sense… But Ballantine, Suranis and Gorefan all contributed with known facts to lay to rest your ‘arguments’. Greg, more patient, decided to provide you with the necessary direct references that destroyed your position.
“Gorefan before you say something stupid again the founders were basing their knowledge of natural born on the English laws I we discussed earlier. Think about it. ”
Gorefan’s position (and it is Greg’s and NBC’s position as well) that the founders based their opinion of “natural born” on English law is the position set forth by the majority in Wong Kim Ark and every other court that has ever actually addressed the issue of natural born or native citizenship. It is the postition of every significant scholar in the early republic including Rawle, Kent, Tucker, Story, Bouvier, Duer and on and on. It is the postition of every significant legal dictionary and Constitutional treatise in our history. If you read the debates from the Convention, you would find the framers themselves only talked about native birth when discussing eligiblity. The English rule was the position of pretty much everyone who spoke on the issue in the 39th Congress that adopted the 14th Amendment. The most important members of such Congress said it was not only the English rule, but the universal rule. Before you call someone stupid, I suggest you put forth some legal authority to support your position that the Supreme Court and almost all legal authority over the past 200 years is wrong. I think you have some research to do. If you would like citations, I’ll be happy to provide them.
“Gorefan before you say something stupid again the founders were basing their knowledge of natural born on the English laws I we discussed earlier. Think about it.”
So you agree “natural born” is based on the English Law definition.
And what were the English Laws, maybe like what was described in Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the English Laws”
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
Does that sound familar, what did William Rawle say again,
“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 then we what did Zephania Swift said,
“The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens. “
Sounds like these founders were using Blackstone’s as their guide.
Here is a factoid for you, Zephania Swift became the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
And where did the Founders use Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, well they used it at the Constitutional Convention.
“Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.” James Madison’s “Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention”
So do you agree that English Law says that the children of aliens born in England are “natural born”? and this was transferred over to the colonies and then to the United States just like Justice Gray said in Wong Kim Ark?
Oh, by the way, a dolt like me, knows the difference between the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. What does that make you?
I can appreciate sloppiness on your part as an explanation as to why you would quote a dissenting opinion as if it were the majority’s opinion.
I am not asking you to stop questioning who is and who is not a natural born citizen, I am hoping that you would support your position with references to legal and scholarly material, allowing us to discuss these issues on their merits.
US v Wong Kim Ark clearly defined the meaning of the term Natural Born to apply to a child born on soil, born under our jurisdiction. The latter was added to exclude the common law exceptions of children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military. Residency requirements were not part of the argument, since the jurisdiction we have as a country over children born here, does not depend on the status of the parents.
It is just sad that you have to hang with fools that chatter with no real knowledge such as suranis and gorefan.
You know, its at times like this that I casually mention I’m not actually a US citizen, but that I live and was born in Ireland. This is when birthers generally jump in and scream that I could not know anything as I am not and American, at which point I ask them “How come I know a lot more of this stuff than you, who both grew up in America and claim to love your history and constitution, when I don’t even live there?”
I haven’t really gotten a satisfactory answer to that. Which I find extremely sad.
By the way before you ask why don’t I look at my own history, I work in a tourist office. I tell visitors local history for a living.
“By the way before you ask why don’t I look at my own history, I work in a tourist office. I tell visitors local history for a living”
CP has left the building, like birthers before him, he arrived with much bravado about how he was going to teach us something. And like the birthers who preceeeded him, he turned tail and ran when confronted with facts.
I am always amazed at how birthers show up, talking about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, and how much they love them both, but as soon as you show them the Founders words, they runaway like scared little rabbits. It happens almost everytime. I think it has to do with, if they run away, they can pretend that they didn’t see the truth and keep posting what are now lies.
Gorefan, Actually DICK, your name would be DICK, correct. I work for a living unlike you who it would seem is a full time blogger. To your statement of running… I never run DICK. As a matter of fact if you are ever in Conway N.H., that is if you ever pry your fat lazy ass out of the seat. Maybe then you can show us how tough you are outside your keyboard DICK.
No…. I know you will just opine on about how afraid I am of you, of course from behind your keyboard. Go ahead… Start typing your response, it will only go to show how big a PUSSY you are.
By the way NBC, isn’t it correct that in order from someone to understand what they do not know, or misunderstand it takes the time of someone showing them the truth??
That would be why I thanked Greg… Where you still are worthless in my eye’s, why? because you found it easier to belittle them explain.
Suranis, I glad you show your history to visitors, just as I am glad Greg to the time to help me learn. What I found as ridiculous was your ranting, by coping others without adding anything to the discussion. That would be the little Irish man syndrome of standing behind others and throwing shot’s. Try stepping up sometime, I’m sure you could add valued information to the right discussion.
…and just so you all will be aware, I don’t hang out on blogs when I gain or express the needed information I have no need to remain. Don’t forget DICK, its Conway N.H., I will await your response of when you will be here.
Goodbye…
Got, that, Conway, NH. Nice place, near Mt Washington…
By the way, did you notice you mis-spelled “Constitutional” ?
Goodbye…patti…cakes…
Please Do let the door hit you on your ass on way out. We just need another opportunity to laugh and point.
Can’t even spell Constitutional… and with the availability of spell check too.
You have totally embarrassed yourself and whatever berg you are the animal cleanup department for.
Business “picking up”??
Gettting all threaty – my, my behaving like an immature hick doesn’t get you any points. In fact please do stop posting. Most sane folks would have stopped and slunk away after you had your ass handed to you time and time again. It is a continual bloodbath only Birferblood – nasty stuff…
I am glad you are headed back to your safe echo chamber. Leave the adult alone and go back to playing with your playschool contemporaries.
Well, I’m sorry that ranting is pointing out that the “2 parents = NBC” rule is total rubbish by using the founders and early legal experts own words, and pointing out the “it was never about the birth certificate” line was total rubbish by pointing out what actually happened in reality during the last 3 years. I’m also sorry I hurt your little feelings, you big bad Marine type you.
I guess giving raw facts doesn’t equal “giving information” in redneckstan. vOv
Let’s hope our friend has learned from this. Remember how he, full of hope, started the discussion
Things went downhill from there. Quoting from the dissenting opinion as if it were the majority’s opinion. Failure to understand that Ankeny v Daniels was not dismissed on lack of standing but rather on failure to state a claim. Perhaps our “Constitutional” friend came here to educate himself, and now that he has learned his lesson, he appears to be disappearing again, however all this sounds a bit hollow in light of the failed mission.
Romans 1:22 comes to mind.
As to our friend complaining about the ridicule he received here, let it be pointed out that ridicule was a mild response to some of the things we witnessed here.
Maybe it was all a big misunderstanding.
While we were trying to defend the Constitution, Pattie was trying to defend the “Constituion”.
But, my favorite CP mistake was when he tried to convince Greg that Madison’s major contribution to the Constitution was that Madison sent out the invitations to the Convention. Yikes.
“Just to help you, James Madison is known as the ‘father’ of the Constitution due to the fact that he was the leader in getting the Constitutional Convention to convene after several failed attempt’s.”
That rigtht there took him from the “simpleton” category and vaulted him into the “complete and total moron” category.
CP, if you read this, I apologize if I hurt your delicate feelings, but next time before posting to a website, have your facts straight. And I’m sure that now that you know that an NBC does not require two citizen parents, you will not make that mistake again.