Fileting Obama Falsehoods at the Fogbow

A. R. Nash: Barack Obama was born in Vancouver, B. C.

located in the 7th sub-basement dungeon of the off-limits thread known as FEMA Camp 7 1/2 at

Foggy  When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It’s the people around you who suffer.  It is the same when you are stupid.

Fer Sure, stupid like the happy couples in light dramas who are dead but don’t know it.  That pretty much is the same as being totally wrong and not knowing it.  But then who is ever “totally wrong”?  It is the being right 80-90% of the time that leads self-centered minds into certainty about their correctness.  And… that’s where you all come in…


verbalobe  But… where were you born? Or should I say: where do you believe yourself to have been born?  Serious question.

reply: no one “knows” where they were born.  They only know what they’ve been told.  Obama was told that he was born in Hawaii.  We can’t know that he has any reason to doubt that since his mother could not tell him the truth and protect him from it at the same time.

Reality Check, I did a web search for you and came up with my own explosive, eye-opening exposition from a while back.  Do Not Read It if you don’t want your illusions exposed:   The photo revealing what I said is at the bottom of the article.


I wrote: Do you really think that everyone is as stupid as you think they are? You deceitful SOB.  And WHY, WHY WHY??? do you avoid showing a photo of the reel?

Mikedunford: “replied: The picture I posted was one I happened to have on my phone from a prior visit to the library.”

Well, there you go.  A perfect example of presuming facts not in evidence, as all of you folks do in gigantic portions.  What you presume to be the only possible understanding can be totally wrong.  And often is.  A wise person is open to whatever the truth is when it appears, and does not kick sand in its face and complain: “You’re not what I expected!!!  Get lost!  I hate you!”

Whatever4 wrote: Obama announced he was running for President on February 10, 2007.

Obama declares he’s running for president
POSTED: May 2, 2007
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama stood before a cheering crowd in his home state Saturday and announced he will seek the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

Whatever4 wrote:  “The announcement was on February 2, 2007. The day was quite cold and most reporters mentioned that, including your link. No idea why the CNN article was dated May, but every other source has the correct 2/10/2007 date.”

WOW!  Talk about a perfect example of a perfect reason to NOT believe everything that “authoritative sources” promulgate on the internet and media.  If CNN can get something so simple so wrong, who else can’t also?

“Why wouldn’t Hawaii Republican Gov. Lingle say anything to cast doubts to help her candidate McCain?” 

Because she was exactly like you.  Believing the word of those she trusts.  Why would she reasonably assume that her Directer of Health would deliberately lie to her face?  Give me one good reason?

And as for her attitude toward Obama, show me a photo of an icy confrontation between them.  None exist, but the exact opposite do exist.  She liked him.  She was charmed by him.  She preferred to believe that he was a fellow Hawaiian.  Everyone in Hawaii assumed he was born there.  What was different about her?  Nothing.


The Beautiful, Blissful Blindness of Obama’s True Believers

Suranis asks: “Why does Adrien claim that no certified Hawaii birth certificate has been produced? It’s an obviously false statement.”

It is neither obviously false nor obviously true.  The burden of proof is on he who claims to present certification.  It is not on those (the public) to whom it is presented.  To paraphrase Carl Sagan;

Definitive claims require definitive proof, and there is none.

Nothing that is claimed to have come from Hawaii can be verified to have been produced from unaltered sources because in this day and age, all sources used are digital sources drawn from the dept. server.  Inserting a counterfeit digital file into the data-base is a very easy thing to do.

Plus, every communication out of Hawaii is super-suspect.  So much so that I’ve written several expositions on just how pathetic and devious they were.  They are the equivalent of Bonny claiming: “Clyde didn’t rob that ol’ bank.  He was with me the whole time.”

Nothing ever communicated has been done under oath, or penalty of perjury.  In fact nothing that I can recall has even been signed by a human.  Everything is in totally ambiguous language with alternate meanings that the public is not aware of.

“So Interracial adoption wouldn’t have been that big of a deal by 1962” 

That is irrelevant to whether or not there was one or more couples willing.  There were none in Hawaii, and none in Seattle.  Thus Vancouver became the last-ditch hope.

“When the U.S. entered the war, the University Extension Services responded by providing classes to defense industry workers…”

You do understand that “classes” is not synonymous with “courses” don’t you?  Extension classes… off-campus in Seattle.

“Since right away you make the claim that SAD had posed nude for Frank Marshall Davis – despite absolutely no proof to support the claim.”

I’m sorry to be the one to pop your bubble, but that issue isn’t even questionable.  They exist.  Most have viewed them, and they have been written about by the writer that found them among the personal effects of Frank Davis, -to his total surprise.  I don’t recall which writer is was.  It might have been Jack Cashill.  I might have, and should have, reblogged his piece which might have been in American Thinker.

[I’m sorry to be the one to pop your bubble, but while those pictures do exist they were published in 1958 in 4 issues of a magazine called Exotique and one each in magazines called Secret Pleasures, Battling Babes and Bizarre Life, published when SAD was 14 and 2 years before she had the opportunity to even meet Frank Marshal Davis.

If you are interested in confirming the truth,  Loren Collins, a libertarian, demolished this lie on his blog where he ordered the collection of Exotique magazines and went through them and found the pictures Joel Dilbert falsely claimed were from December 1960. … -nude.html


“Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.”

I very carefully read the Indonesian naturalization law, and what you are referring to is “automatic naturalization” without need for a paperwork process.  Barry had to be adopted and naturalized via it, not automatically.  Once a child reaches school age, his status changes and naturalization becomes formal.

“Obama’s Indonesian School record and the Soetoro-Dunham Hawaiian divorce decree. Neither though say adoption anywhere in the paperwork.”

You are deceptively using weasel logic.  They didn’t have to mention adoption.  They stipulate that they have two children, Barry being one of them.

“~as of 1910 there were still only 695 Africans in Hawaii of whom 537 were multiracial.”

So there were 158 pure black African descent inhabitants.  Among a population of about 200, 000 that comes out to .079% by my humble calculation.  As I plainly state in the Scenario, in 1960 the Black population was around 2+%, but only potential adoptive parents count.

If 95% of them were single, then they were irrelevant.  If they were poor, uneducated, or old, they were irrelevant.  If they had plenty of their own children, they would be highly unlikely to be interested in more.

Whatever4 wrote: “The State of Hawaii through its officials [through its socialism-loving loyal sycophantic Democrat Party appointees…] have repeatedly certified, testified, verified, confirmed, registered, and reported that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

No official from the HDoH has ever once testified to anything under oath, nor signed anything under penalty of perjury.  Thus nothing by them has been verified, nor has anything been certified since that requires the Dept. Seal and a hand signature otherwise it is false certification in every court in the world.  State to State government recognition must be given but that is not a court of law.

“I can provide links, but they will make no difference to you as you don’t believe the official records of Hawaii.”

Nothing produced from a digital source can be trusted.  Only the original “half-hand written, half typed” affidavit in the State archive, or the original microfilm image of it can be trusted.  Not a counterfeit piece of paper that Obama’s lawyer would not even allow to be in the same room with him.  (read his astonishing statement at the LFBC release press conference.)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: “Adrien also forgets about the INS records for Lolo Soetoro and Barack Obama Sr which confirm that Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii on August 4th 1961. These two records are from 1967 and 1961.”

“confirm” does not really mean confirm, -as in “proves”.  It only means “states”, “iterates” “claims”, “asserts”, etc.  The INS could have gotten their info from only one place; a phone call to the HDoH.

When the clerk that took their call checked the files and found only the affidavit which was insufficient to prompt production of a birth certificate, she had to say something to the State Dept agent.  Were her words emphatically clear and decisive regarding the question?  Or were they squirmy?  Indefinite, equivocal?

“Yes we have a proper affidavit  statement by his mother that he was born at home in Hawaii.  We’re just waiting on the final paperwork from her in order to validate it.”

~ “Well, obviously he must have been born in Honolulu since his mother said that he was, and what possible reason could an American mother have to prompt her to commit perjury about where her baby was born???  Why, none of course.  So we can assume that he was born in Hawaii and is therefore an American citizen.” ~so says the logic of the agent’s thinking process which has no reason to think otherwise.

Please find the flaw in that and illuminate us.

LMK wrote:

  “Colleges and Universities allow late registration all the time. Students often change their class schedule during the first week of classes. At times I have 20 unregistered students show up for my class the first day of class in hope that I’ll give them permission to add the class that first week.”

So true. My mind hadn’t gone back that far in my own experience to recall that fact. So she could have taken an extension class beginning on Sept. 19th, but that can’t explain why the barely visible month digit on her transcript indicating either 08 or 09 for the month, looks more like the side of an eight than the side of a nine.

But the bigger problem is that nothing known explains why the heck she was back in Seattle where she spent her teen years and high school. If she was there in Sept. then why not in August and July and June?

No one can give any reason for her to not be sticking close to her mother since she was not financially independent nor ever cared for a newborn.

There is no good “education” reason for her to take Washington State correspondence nor extension courses when she could have been taking courses in Honolulu with her parents as late afternoon and evening babysitters. The best reason to set up living back in Seattle was the very important goal of not getting stuck with a newborn permanently.

Just put yourself in her shoes. Abortions isn’t even an option, and there are no middle-aged, middle-class Black (or white) couples in the islands that respond to the offer of a free half-black newborn for adoption.

Where would you turn next in order to extricate yourself from the dilemma you were facing? It would have to look beyond the ocean, -back on the mainland.

One could speculate that maybe she gave birth in Seattle with no medical witnesses and never got a birth certificate there before flying back to Hawaii for some days or weeks.
But one still has to explain the missing INS microfilm record of flight manifest name lists of those on international flights flying into (Hawaii? or) the U.S. from foreign embarkation points only for the first week of August and no other period.

An explanation of how that missing section of microfilm is even possible has never been offered.

Sam wrote: “There is no dispute about the President”s birth place or date. That’s why no official has testified. “

 What planet have you been living on for the last 6 years??? You and everyone else knows that no official has testified because no official has ever been subpenaed since no case was allowed to proceed to discovery. It’s hard for a case to proceed when it’s dismissed based purely on standing, or the defendant’s lawyer doesn’t even show up and yet is handed the victory crown anyway. Funny how that is explained by the laws of American jurisprudence.

“And the real lawyers would probably tell you that none would need to if there were a real case because the current certificates (not the PDFs, the paper ones) are adequate evidence on their own.”

Yes, they would be evidence, -of forgery. That is why no one will ever see them. In fact they have no doubt already been destroyed, -kind of like the Lois Lerner emails. No evidence, no indictment.
“I’m sorry your honor, but the dog ate them.”


Whatever4:  Nash wrote: No official from the HDoH has ever once testified to anything under oath, nor signed anything under penalty of perjury.  

Testimony of Chiyome Leinaala Fukino, M.D.
Director of Health 

I shouldn’t have to point out the obvious, namely that most congressional hearings are information gathering in nature, with no swearing in; -not investigative with possible criminality involved.

Nash wrote: “Nothing produced from a digital source can be trusted.”  OK, you are in a minority. Obviously you will never be satisfied. The rest of the US has moved on.

reply: Yes, and no. I can’t be satisfied because the truth can never be revealed, especially when the person at the heart of it was mysteriously murdered.

As for the rest of the US, it can’t move on from a topic about which it knows zero because it is radioactive Plutonium to all politicians and media outlets other than the internet.

Adrianinflorida : A sealed and signed birth certificate from any of the 50 United States is the same thing as a sworn affidavit by said state that the information is accurate.

There’s two things wrong with that statement.  The first is that no birth certificate from Hawaii is ever signed, rendering it uncertified.  Were it not from a State, or purported from a State, every judge in the world would throw it out until it was return with a human signature of the proper person making it.

Second, no State can testify in court or before Congress, including under oath.  Only persons can do that, and no one from Hawaii has ever been put in that position, so no unsigned statement by unproven Hawaiian sources regarding Obama’s BC is worth the paper they were printed on.  Show me one that is and is written under penalty of perjury.

Whatever4 wrote: “In that case, nothing from any source can ever be trusted.  That’s ridiculous.”

No, THAT is ridiculous!  “nothing”???  Who said “nothing from any source”?  Not me.  I said digital source.  And trust is in proportion to the magnitude of a motive for falsehood.  No motive?  Then no distrust.

“The presumption is that official certified documents are proof that the events attested to are correct,”

The presumption is safe to make, until you involve the office of the presidency and a candidate unqualified to hold be because he is constitutionally ineligible and has no proof of even being an American.

But you completely miss the point.  It isn’t about the validity of attested events or information in the documents.  It is about the very document itselfIT can’t be trusted if its source is digital and those with access to it, have a super-gigantic motive to alter it.

Every communication out of Hawaii is super-suspect. So much so that I’ve written several expositions on just how pathetic and devious they were.”  links:

Mendacious & Fabricated Letters of Verification

Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

Obama’s Unbelievable Birth Announcements


I said: “The birth of a black newborn wouldn’t automatically be welcomed by the grandparents, since they would still be feeling a lot of reserve about the  social situation and the perceptions of others.  With Frank Davis being in their circle of friends, it’s likely they had no reservation about accepting their grandchild.

My own mother had similar feelings to Ruth since her empty-nest syndrome led her to adopt a 10 year old daughter from a third world country who could have been the demographic (racial) sister to Obama.  We all lived together until she married.

“What’s shocking about introducing a married pregnant daughter?”

Nothing, if introducing one  married to a man who’s not significantly older and more mature, or one married to a white man, or if black, married to a black man, or if American, married to an American and not a citizen and native of Africa.

In 1961 a pure white teen and a mature pure-black African would be surprising to just about everyone, and even shocking to many.

“Do you have evidence that adoptions in Canada were easier for mixed-race infants than in the US? Or black infants? Because in the US, it was pretty rare in 1960.”

Thanks, you’ve proved my point.  Rare in Seattle, and rare in Vancouver, -thus, no success.


Slarti wrote: “the DoH scanned the original paper document (which is not, as most birthers seem to believe, the official record) printed it onto green basket-weave security paper, stamped and embossed it as well as providing an official letter verifying the document (another extraordinary step).” 

Except for the “stamped” statement, none of that actually happened nor was some of it even possible, which you’ll learn from reading my exposition about the long form birth certificate.

This is a serious problem for the birthers because if the Hawai’i DoH produced a physical document then the full faith and credit clause applies.”

Applies to whom? To other State Governments and lesser government entities. No one else. No court in America has to accept anything issued by a State official if it is highly questioned.
That is one of the powers of the judiciary. It is not answerable to State government authority. It dictates to State government, not the other way around.

Yesterday while working, the idea came to me to author something called “The Innocence of Barack Obama”  as in the context of “The Trial of Barack Obama”, with himself on the witness stand.  I haven’t given it any thought yet but suspect that it would lead to three things; his certainty that he was born in Hawaii; there being absolutely no paper trail whatsoever back to him regarding production of a fake BC; and attorney-client privilege (along with the 5th Amendment and executive privilege) shielding him from revealing anything incriminating regarding conversations he had with his lawyers or staff.  He would be totally protected, pure Teflon.

As you should know, testimony to a state legislature, like testimony to Congress, is done under oath and under penalty of perjury ” 

I know no such thing, and neither do you.  It is dependent on the nature of the testimony.  Do movie stars swear that their testimony about social problems in third world countries will be the God’s honest truth under penalty of perjury, or do they just relate their experience and insight?

The State of Hawaii has never equivocated regarding President Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961.”

  Stop being such a child.  Everyone can see through your anthropomorphizing of a political entity into a human being.  A State is not a person and cannot testify to anything.  Only honest or dishonest individuals working for the State can testify.  And all or most of those in the socialist State of Hawaii were willing to fudge or hide the truth for Obama, -perhaps believing as he does, that he really was born in Hawaii.

why would you reject any of President Obama’s documents without evidence? The reasonable point of view is to accept them at face value” 

Grow the hell up Pollyanna!  You’re approach to validation is: “Who ya gonna believe, Obama? or yer lying eyes?”  I’ve looked at that Selective Service joke, (released in 1/4 size to eliminate any high-resolution examination) and I’ve proven that it is a poor fake with multiple diagram enlargements and comparisons.  It isn’t even debatable anymore.

“Regarding the alleged forgery (of the birth certificate), …there is nothing on it which would suggest forgery to anyone”

There certainly is but it’s not in the content but in the spacing of the typed text. It fails a grid alignment test. It could not have possibly been typed like all other such documents were. The spacing of the letters and words is highly imperfect and typewriters only produce perfect spacing.  That indicates a digital cut & paste job in a photo-editing program.  I’ve done similar work myself so I’m familiar with what’s involved.

I wrote: You do understand that extension “classes” is not synonymous with correspondence “courses” don’t you? Extension classes off-campus in Seattle. [Ann’s Washington State transcript was for Correspondence & Extension Courses, -not regular classes, providing a possibility that she took them from Honolulu.]

“If you believe that “classes” and “courses” are not synonymous in this case then you are an idiot.” 

When have you ever used the language: “I have to get to my course now.”  Or “I left my books in the course-room”?  Classes require a classroom.  Courses do not.

I wrote:  They didn’t have to mention adoption in the divorce papers. They stipulated that they have two children, Barry being one of them.

Do they in any way indicate that President Obama is the legal child of Lolo Soetoro?

Yes they do.  That is what the legal meaning of “have” is.  Otherwise it would be only that Ann has a child unrelated to the marriage.  Lolo possessed equal custody rights over his son Barry Soetoro whom he had made a full member of the marriage union.

The ultimate authority on the validity of a government issued document is the government that issued it. – Foggy

Where the hell do you get the lame-ass idea that authority has a damn thing to do with veracity?  What dishonest government on earth is incapable of “certifying” lies in their official papers and communications?

A government-employee produced & issued document can be entirely “valid” and totally false. As is every birth certificate fake produced following an early infancy or childhood adoption. They all are claimed to be “the original birth certificate” and yet none of them are, and millions of adopted Americans have to go through life never knowing who their real parents are, all because government is the author of a lying legal fiction. Same with witness protection documents.

The issue regarding what the gullible accept as a valid Obama birth certificate is not about validity. It’s about reality.

Reality doesn’t give a damn about State or court authority. Something is either real of its fake. It’s not an issue of legal acceptance.

Please, come back to reality from La-La land.


“The fact is that the validity of this information is unimpeachable in any US court (including the SCOTUS) without credible evidence of fraud.”

 Nothing has been certified since that requires the Dept. Seal and a hand signature otherwise it is false certification in every court in the world. State to State government recognition must be given but that is not a court of law.

~A month after that appearance in Iowa, and after his election to the Senate, Obama told reporters,

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, without having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”

Obama promised to overhaul a political system he says is dominated by lobbyists and special interest groups “who’ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we’re here today to take it back. The time for that kind of politics is over,” he said. “It’s time to turn the page right here and right now.”


Missing the Point & Ignoring the Facts

“You should very carefully read the AMERICAN adoption laws. You will find that Barack Obama Sr. would have had to give up all parental rights.”

First, he didn’t want any parental rights nor the financial responsibilities that would come with them. Second, he and Ann were not adopting out the child of their union and marriage. They had no marriage and their divorce only served to provide her with full parental rights, (which he would have zero motive to resist) and an open pathway to remarry.

And third, what family court recognizes a divorced foreign father’s parental rights when he is not even a U.S. resident?

Also, the government response to Strunk’s FOIA demand flatly states there was no adoption and no Indonesian citizenship.

How and why would the U.S. government have knowledge of an adoption of a person who had no proof of U.S. citizenship when that adoption involved a foreign country and was none of the U.S. government’s business?

“The State Department requires that written consent be in the form of a signed, notarized statement from the individual(s) authorizing the Department of State to release information to the other party. (Strunk)
The statement should bear the original signature of the individual and original seal of the notary, and be dated within six months of the date of request.

The declaration you provided with your request unfortunately does not suffice, as it is signed by you, rather than the individual (Obama) to whom the records pertain and thus does not serve to waive the other individual’s privacy interest. To the extent they exist, the records you seek about Mr. Obama would be personal records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974;”

Well, it appears from my perspective that you are a big fat liar since the U.S. government makes it plain that such information cannot be given out. So how can it be “flatly stated”???

You really shouldn’t have forced me to check out that matter because now I have to point out that Ann D/O/S never once included her son on any of her passport applications or forms.

Why not? Because that would require proof of citizenship via a birth certificate, and she never got one for him. He was a stateless person until adopted by Soetoro.

“they’ve been perfectly clear about President Obama being born in Hawai’i in 1961 (the only information which is relevant to his eligibility for the presidency”

Such information is utterly irrelevant to presidential eligibility. Natural citizens are those Americans born with the unalienable right to be born anywhere in the world due to being born to Americans. I’ve shown that to be the truth in a million different ways.

“Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawai’i Director of the Health Department, Hawai’i wrote:Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i,…”

I have completely destroyed that document “release” as a complete farce, which you can learn about in one of the links already provided previously. It’s fakeness would be laughable if not so serious.

And you, Nash, and your fellow birthers, are “persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record”.

We, The People, comprising all American voters, have nothing less than the most tangible interest in a counterfeit document from an ineligible candidate.

As for the label “fellow birthers”, I question whether I have any “fellow” birthers since none of the birther groups have added a link to my blog being as I’m totally opposed to their delusional concept of citizenship, just as I am with yours. EVERYONE IS WRONG!

…and that is my que for…

When Experts Are Idiots & Authorities Are Fools

and… When Brilliant Minds Are Morons

So, Nash, are you suggesting or insinuating that Dr. Fukino lied?

I’m suggesting that in that release there is no Dr. Fukino, as you’ll learn in my exposition on the subject. You’ve been willingly duped, and due to your favorable bias, badly.

I wrote: It isn’t about the validity of attested events or information in the documents. It is about the very document itself. IT can’t be trusted if its source is digital, and if those with access to it have a super-gigantic motive to alter it.

No, you completely miss the point: the information is the official record, not any document.

If the document is not valid or certified, then the information is worthless. It is certified by the presence of the notary-like Dept. Seal and the hand signature of the Registrar or Director. Lacking either one, it is not truly certified by certification standards the world over.

Ballantine wrote: claiming you know the meaning of NBC by simply repeating over and over that you are right because you say you are right and everyone else is wrong because you say so…

Man! now it’s really, really obvious how desperate you are. I’ve got a million dollars sitting here on the table. It’s all yours. All you have to do is quote one example of “(repeating over and over) that you are right because you say you are right and everyone else is wrong because you say so…” Just one will do. That shouldn’t be too hard.

A desperate man is one who must resort to the creation of falsehoods and straw-men in order to discredit his opponent.

“When I pointed out to you that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment said jus soli was the rule of natural law,…”

You did??? Funny, since they never said any such thing, and you never quoted any such thing to me. Prove me wrong and I’ll have another million dollars for you.
I assume that what you’ll find is that they said it is the rule of the common law, which it was, having nothing whatsoever to do with natural law.

“you are still think you are right and they are wrong because you say so and can’t imagine yourself are ever wrong”

You duffus. I’ve been wrong about major things; the nature of the PDF, the nature of natural citizenship, the view of the founders about their own citizenship, and yesterday revealed, wrong about the Ann Dunham “photos”. Try to stay awake or you discredit yourself badly.

“with the silly notion that you are the only person in history to understand citizenship.”

How dumb. Your time reference is way off. It might be semi-true though about modern history since 1898, -if referring to the consensus view. What I claim is that no one else, that I’ve come across, has uncovered the full big picture of the very nature of citizenship.

And you might get a glimpse of how wide and deep has been the subject matter of what I’ve discovered and written by taking a look at the incomplete list of titles on my home page.

“In the real world, we have always followed jus soli and there is no jus sanguinis outside of a Congressional grant under its naturalization power.”

Your conceptualization of reality could fit inside of a thimble. “followed” is a meaningless term and neither you nor anyone else can define what the hell it means in practice.
Were you born in America? Then you are a U.S. citizen. Were you born of American parents? Then you are a U.S. citizen. Please illuminate the circumstance in which a child of American parents is not a citizen.

THERE ARE NONE because they inherit their American membership. That is the natural law of all mankind. “Like father, like son.”

Foreign birth changes nothing because, as I’ve explain in a million different ways. Congress has no constitutional authority to “naturalize” a child of Americans, -nor foreigners for that matter. It’s only legitimate authority is to write the rules for the States to use in ascribing citizenship to naturalizing foreigners, their children, and children of mixed nationality marriages.

It has zero authority over the citizenship of American citizens and children born to them.

You are one of the neo-imperialist that ascribe to Congress the same unlimited authority that Parliament possesses, but Parliament is not limited by a very narrowly written Constitution, and our Congress is.

“And why is only digital suspect? At some point, a reasonable person has to draw the line as to what sources are trustworthy. You draw your line… where? Why?”

Almost all sources are trustworthy, as long as an entire mammoth presidential administration is not riding on the outcome. And if you were a little older, you might have lived most of your life before the advent of digitization. Oh how in the world could the world have managed without computers in every office and home???

Evidence that Vancouver had a well organized and functioning family services organization where Seattle did not? Statistics on adoptions?
I’m sorry, your theories without any statistics are nothing more than idle speculation.

Are you serious? Even with statistics they are nothing more than idle speculation. But your points are worthless because no one is adopted by statistics or odds, but by a particular couple at a particular time who are ready and desiring. If they aren’t there when the baby comes, then the baby ends up staying with the mother, maybe for say… ten years. Just sayin’.

“Obama posted his short-form BC in June 2008, less than a week after The National Review Online made it an issue. It WAS the one he had and had used since 2007, when it was requested from Hawaii. He did what everyone else would have done.”

You are misinformed.  The tale from the Obama campaign was that he requested it after the campaign was in full swing in 2008 in assumedly June, but sharp eyes noticed text bleeding through from the backside, backwards, and discerned that it was from a date stamp and it said 2007.  No explanation has ever been given for the discrepancy.

Reality Check: “From the Fact Check article “Born in the USA”

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, [ON THE UNRELEASED BACKSIDE OF WHICH THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PHOTO BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE WHEN THE FAKE WAS PRODUCED]

The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information,

What a concocted fabrication! “couldn’t get someone on the phone”??? What happened?  It was after business hours? Everyone was out to lunch? It was the weekend?  Office was closed for holiday?

Anyone that answered the phone could have and would have given them everything under the sun to support their fellow Democrat “native-son” Barack. They all knew the answer. So what was the lie really saying? That they never got Hawaii to answer the phone???

And how convenient to come up with a story about how they were in such a self-deadlined rush to get it out to the public immediately!  Why??? What the heck was the big rush?  The answer is that there was no rush and the entire excuse is one big fat easily proven and documented lie that everyone who has investigated it knows.  The campaign did NOT release the short-form to the public.

It mysteriously appeared out of nowhere, on an obscure Obama-supporting, socialism-loving website (“the daily kos”) with no attribution whatsoever, -with no one willing to take credit for what might quickly be exposed as another fraud just like happened to Dan Rather and his fake National Guard document discrediting Bush just weeks before the election.

Reality Check wrote: “You misstated what the campaign said about when they obtained the birth certificate. I corrected you. Now you changed your story to cover your lie with another lie.”

Yes and no. I stated what I remembered as an imprecise recollection from four years ago. That’s why I said “The tale from the Obama campaign…” but I had nothing more than that recollection.

But that doesn’t help your position because the tale that emerged was not offered before the bleed-though date was discovered and broadcast. It was in response to it, -to cover-up the unexplained appearance on the internet of a short-form COLB that no one had taken responsibility for.  So it appeared without announcement and NOT on the campaign website “”. No one wanted to go down for releasing a fake.

The beauty of the Obama eligibility fraud is that everything is fake so it’s really hard for conventional thinking to get their head around such a possibility. Fake name pronunciation, fake birth place, fake birth announcements, fake birth documents, fake letters of verification, faked Candidate Certification documents, fake state legitimization of his candidacy, fake CRS citizenship theory, and on it goes right into his administration. Lies, lies, and more lies. And willing fools who eat up his lies and love it


You Barry backers are like kids hiding under their mother’s “full faith and credit” skirt, unable, as the sycophantic vampiric devotees of Barackula, to come out into the sunlight of the truth because it will incinerate your delusions and that will hurt a lot.


Everything you said is nonsense. It’s not even rubbish, it’s worse than that. It’s flat out lies, and there is no good reason for you to continue to promulgate such lies in the face of the mountain of evidence that your twice democratically elected president was born in Hawai’i in 1961 and is therefore a natural born citizen.
There is absolutely no evidence that SAD and her parents were anything other than welcoming to the baby born to SAD in August 1961 – other than the voices in your head.
You’re not even entertaining any more. Your ‘facts’ are nothing other than conjecture built on pillars of sand balanced precariously on a foundation of nonsense which is slipping away faster than you can stamp your widdle feets.You’ve ‘proven’ nothing other than you’re a delusionaut, listening to the voices in your head instead of the voices of reason.

by realist » Wed Jun 18, 2014

Delusional Moron wrote: “reply: Yes, and no. I can’t be satisfied because the truth can never be revealed, especially when the person at the heart of it was mysteriously murdered.”

You finally did it. Posted something that leads to a fact. The fact that you are delusional, lying, moronic asshole. Not worth the powder to blow you straight to hell. Yes, you can post this wherever you are copying and pasting our comments (perhaps without editing them, but who knows, cuz you’re such a liar).

There is absolutely no evidence of such. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

You, much like Orly Taitz, are nothing but a worthless piece of human filth.

Getting The Fuddy Death Facts; like pulling teeth

What if Fuddy’s Death Was A Homicide?

Behind the Fuddy Autopsy Fraud; a Bullet or a Bribe?

Obama and Hawaiian DoH Director Fuddy’s Convenient Death


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to Fileting Obama Falsehoods at the Fogbow

  1. arnash says:

    Slartibartfast wrote:Adrien,

    You keep implying that everyone who believes President Obama is eligible is a supporter of President Obama and complicit with the conspiracy when anti-Obama anti-birthers are easy to find (Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin for starters), Why is that?

    Two reasons; fear and disagreement. Some are vulnerable to their bosses and media owners who maintain a policy of allowing no discussion whatsoever of Obama’s eligibility due to fear of regulator hell, as with the IRS interference with non-profit conservative groups, or of secrets obtained via the NSA about the enemies who were going to get what was coming to them.

    Any who disagree, like Levin, have a very emotional and irrational resistance to even tolerating open discussion of the issue. The reason may be that they already have a hardened viewed that is different, or they were exposed to the Donofrio-Apuzzo irrational doctrine that marries jus soli with jus sanguinis and rightfully despise its historical and logical baselessness.

    Delusionist wrote: And that is why you’re a moron. And a lying one.

    In all of that blather, [about Fuddy’s death] there is not one scintilla of evidence, much less proof, of any murder. No evidence of any “autopsy fraud” or “fiasco”.
    All birthers are alike. Lying, delusional, moronic assholes.

    Get this straight you mental midget, I made not one single claim about what evidence existed. Why???
    Because all evidence is missing or unreleased!
    Why??? Oh, because the public has no damn right to have public information!

    How stupid are you to take such a sick, sycophantic, boot-licking attitude toward your Marxist prince and his flying-monkey minions who manage to keep every incriminating fact related to him secret?

    Now to shut you up, I demand that you tell everyone the actual proven cause of Fuddy’s death. Do it! Put up or shut the hell up! -you Quisling.

    Your problem, like all of your kind, is that you view yourselves as the property of the GOVERNMENT. You are it’s subjects. It is your Lord & Master. Your Sovereign. Your Slave-owner.

    But guess what traitor, real Americans know that THEY are the SOVEREIGNS, and government is THEIR “subject”. IT must answer to THEM!!!
    So get off of your knees for once in your pathetic life and stand up like a man. I’m sure that that is too much to ask.

    PS. Have a nice day!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: