Beheading Obama’s Brain-Dead, Boot-licking B.C. B.S.

Blog Comments:

Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama’s birth on US soil—-in HAWAII—-has been proven by:

(1) his Hawaii birth certificate;
(2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii;
(3) the public Index Data file;
(4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii);
(5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital;
(6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “They have one child, born in HONOLULU.”

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

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org…

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

http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

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

http://web.archive.org/web/201…

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

http://whatreallyhappened.com/…

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

Here is the Index Data file:  http://www.cleveland.com/…

All canned lies copied and pasted from his lies folder. Nothing new and nothing true. I’ve endlessly debunked all of the falsehoods and false logic and distortions that he religiously peddles to the gullible.

One example of a flat out lie is the story told by one of Obama’s adoring Punahou teachers which is perverted to include “facts” that are lies, all from the terse reply that “A Stanley had a baby.”

How the hell do those words imply birth location? They don’t. A Stanley was seen along with her newborn. There is no implication that the baby was delivered where it was seen.
The truth is that after giving birth in Vancouver, B.C., Ann and baby (and probably mother) flew to Honolulu a day or two later, and due to complications, they went to the maternity & children’s hospital for medical attention.

It’s all laid out as plain as day in the indisputable exposition: “Why baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver” found at https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/reverse-engineering-dunham-obama/

I hope you do yoga regularly. Otherwise the desperate conceptual contortionism that you depend upon to avoid having to accept simple and true statements from other people must be physically debilitating.

And, of course, there isn’t any proof of the claimed “born in Vancouver, Canada” event—though you’d think there would be to back up such a blatant claim (and the Canadians keep good records, I’m told).

You moron. There is no proof of his birth anywhere on planet earth that has ever been uncovered. No photos, no letters, no witnesses, no actual certifiable records. No nothing! Kind of like the inside of your skull.

Poor Adrien Nash. He has not seen the evidence, and he just assumes that the officials in Hawaii are lying and that for some crazy reason EVERY single member of Congress plus Mitt Romney and Huckabee and Gingrich and Santorum and Ann Coulter all believe that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. (in contrast, he made up the ” born in Vancouver” story and admits that there is no evidence to support it—but claims it anyway.)

And now responding to the nutty claim “there is no proof of his birth anywhere…”
Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot).

You are either an infantile naive Pollyanna, and want everyone else to be one, -or you are a Luciferian liar. I’d be willing to bet a boatload on the latter. You corruptly pretend that there is no such things as CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!!

You, many or most judges, and half the Supreme Court need to recuse yourselves from pontificating and adjudicating on the subject because of a huge and obvious conflict of interest.  Anything less is disreputable and contrary to the rules of impartiality.

No one with a gigantic conflict of interest can be trusted! That includes you, you pathetic boot-licking, redistributionist Obamaphile. Wait, is that too harsh??? Forgive me please, I didn’t mean to hurt your black-hearted totalitarian feelings.

Tell us this; how many Hollywood reporters reported that Rock Hudson was gay and outed him?  Answer: Zero.  Gee, one might think a conspiracy of silence was involved.  But little ol’ me knew it all along for decades.  What I had been told was right and everyone else outside of Hollywood was wrong, so what others do or do not know, or are unwilling to speak of, does not determine what is true or not.

The conspiracy of silence regarding Obama’s eligibility resulted initially partly because if Obama was denied the presidency after being elected, America would have burned, -worse than what we recently saw committed by the uncivilized dredges of society in Ferguson. MO.

Poor Adrien. It must be a horrifying thing to live inside your head.

In the meantime, Obama is still President. Birthers have still lost almost 250 court cases and won zero. Now that it is March, Zullo and Arpaio are officially a full year late with their “universe shattering” information.

Grow up. Get a clue. Deal with it.

Yes, it would be horrifying for you to live inside my head where there is a way too much light and truth for the likes of you, -deadly to parasitic vampires like yourself.
You have now devolved to your final gutter position of implying that all that matters is power and not truth. Winning is everything! Truth be damned. The Constitution be damned! -especially since it reveals that he not only is not a qualified president but that he is not even a US citizen at all since he was born fully subject to a foreign power.

But that’s just the ignored constitutional truth and it doesn’t matter at all to traitors such as yourself. The ends justify the means for Luciferian Gruberites like HistorianJerk (still hiding behind his mother’s pseudonym user name).

 Those claiming to have “proved” the documents false are all, without exception, people who have never seen the documents in the first place.

“the documents”??? Where are “the documents”?

I know exactly where they are; they are in ashes in a landfill, burned in a White House fireplace after being waved around in the press conference where Obama was not allowed in the same room with them and never once even mentioned their existence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the transcript and get the shock of your life. To a discerning eye, it is such a transparent fraud on the press and the nation. His WH attorney who presented the hard-copy announced his resignation the very next day just in case some internet sleuth debunked the fake pdf image as happened to Dan Rather’s Bush counterfeit “document”.
He then switched to being Obama’s personal attorney.

Gee,… attorney-client privilege. What purpose would that serve??? No one can force him to divulge a damn thing about the criminal creation of the fake hard-copy or the pdf.
“Mr. Bauer, what exactly was the origin of what you showed to the press?”  “I’m sorry, I can’t talk about that…. you know, –attorney-client privilege.”

Your convenient (if puerile) imagination is not an argument. And if you insist on asking rhetorical questions and then answering them, they should not have such obvious answers that make your own look quite so cretinous. The following documents are all individually adequate to legally establish the place and date of the President’s birth. And we know where all of them are.

1. The original is in a bound volume at the Hawaii Department of Health.

2. At least one certified copy of the short form is in the archives of the President’s Chicago Campaign Office.

3. At least two certified copies of his long form are in the archives of the White House Press Office.

4. One certified verification is the records and files of the Arizona Secretary of State.

5. One certified verification is in the case files for Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and the Mississippi Secretary of State.

Let’s now lovingly look at the wild fiction contained within your latest comment.

1. There is no evidence that “Obama was not allowed in the same room with them.” They simply were not in his hands during his part of the press conference.

2. The certificate was not merely “waved around in the press conference room.” It was actually circulated among the journalists present. We know this because at least two of them photographed it, and one of them reported that she felt the raised seal.

3. There is nothing shocking about the transcript, except perhaps to people like you who hallucinate that other people are always hiding secret messages in otherwise ordinary statements of simple fact and who believe that quotation marks are supposed to indicate a lie.

4. What possible protection from accountability for malfeasance would resigning “the next day” provide a lawyer? As usual, you are making less sense than a nursery rhyme. That said, I have no idea who you are talking about. Robert Bauer (who was White House Counsel at the time of the release) did not resign until June 2 more than a month later.

5. Attorney client privilege does not end when a lawyer and client sever their relationship. So it wouldn’t have mattered one whit what Bauer’s next job was. You know, to connect the dots, you must first actually have dots.

Arguing with you is the functional equivalent of being stoned to death with popcorn.

“The following documents are all individually adequate to legally establish the place and date of the birth of anyone [except the President of the United States!!], regardless of who he is or what party he represents…”

THAT is the truth of the matter regarding certification of original vital records needed to verify presidential eligibility, which no birth place record can do since eligibility is based not on birth location but on one’s political inheritance by blood lineage.

What is at issue with Obama’s birth place is the fact that the ignorant public thinks that birth place alone confers citizenship, and citizenship equals eligibility to every office in the land including the presidency. Both erroneous assumptions have been proven over and over to be totally false.

“And we know where all of them are.”

Who the hell is “we”??? Is that you and the hamster in your pocket?  Duffus…
WE KNOW NOTHING and YOU KNOW NOTHING because nothing has EVER, EVER been proven in any way.

None of those documents currently exist. They have all been destroyed because they are evidence of criminality and conspiracy. Only a fool would allow them to not be destroyed, and when it comes to criminal conspiracy, Obama has the best people in that regard.

“4. One certified verification is the records and files of the Arizona Secretary of State.”

Too late to use that old falsehood. I’ve already exposed it and even wrote an entire exposition debunking its clever pretense that would naturally fool suckers as gullible as you pretend to be, you lying fraud.

“1. There is no evidence that “Obama was not allowed in the same room with them.” They simply were not in his hands during his part of the press conference.”

And thereby you expose that you have not done your homework. The White House attorney, Bauer, himself stated when asked by a reporter, that he would not allow the birth certificate to remain in the room when Obama was present.

Totally plausible deniability for his client. Obama: “I never even saw or touched (nor mentioned) anything about a “long-form birth certificate” so how can I be accused of being a part of a conspiracy? I’m innocent your honor!”
Yeah, as innocent as Bernie Maddoff, or John Mitchell -ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES! (convicted and sent to prison!)

“at least two of them photographed it, and one of them reported that she felt the raised seal.”

Oh Hallelujah! They photographed it and Guthrie “felt” something but couldn’t tell what the heck it was. ALL BOW DOWN TO THE GREAT IMPLICATION!!! IT MUST BE GENUINE!!! PHOTOSHOP DOES NOT EXIST!!!

“What possible protection from accountability for malfeasance would resigning “the next day” provide a lawyer?”

Good grief! Your warped bias has warped your thinking. The protection was not for himself; it was for the White House and Obama. He was no longer the White House attorney, so any criminality would not taint his former employer, he hoped. He announced his resignation the next day, regardless if he waited a month to finish all unfinished business.

“Attorney client privilege does not end when a lawyer and client sever their relationship.”

I didn’t imply that it did. I pointed out its continuing protection for Obama since his corrupt attorney would never be testifying against him, unlike non-attorney personnel might.

After shepherding the fabrication of the fake long-form, there was no one that Obama was more beholden to than Bauer, so keeping him as close as a brother was Obama’s reasonable intention.

And btw, please explain to us all: Why did Obama refuse to accept Trump’s offer of $10,000,000 to show his college transcripts?  What’s that? I couldn’t quite hear that answer….

So much of this last comment of yours is a psychotic descent into baseless delusion. Unlike those of us who are neural normal, you possess no capacity to recognize the difference between what are established objective facts and what are the products of your fevered imagination.

There is no evidence that any documents have been “destroyed.” There is no evidence that anybody has lied. There is no evidence that anything has been “amended.” There are only these facts for which birthers have no contradicting evidence:

1) The President was born on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu Hawai’i.

2) The legal documentation of that event is in perfect conformance with the legal standard for proof of that fact. No “evidence” ever offered that the documentation is forged has been able to stand even minimal critical scrutiny.

3) The definition of “natural born citizen” as per more than 500 years of Anglo-American common law, the SCOTUS decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, and 24 court cases filed by birthers over the last six years is anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.

These are the facts. If you want to contradict them, you must do so with more facts, not with hand waving, bluster, wild hypotheticals or tendentious speculation.

If you don’t believe Savannah Guthrie, nobody can force you to.  She has reported what she saw and did. You have nothing to contradict her other than your prejudice.

Just for fun, though, lets address and handful of your irrelevant red herring.

A) The comment ” The White House attorney, Bauer, himself stated when asked by a reporter, that he would not allow the birth certificate to remain in the room when Obama was present,” is of course a complete lie.

Bauer said he was not leaving the certificate behind when Obama entered the briefing room. One room. In the real universe there are many other rooms, and the claim that Obama was never in the same one of any of them with the certificate is a declaration of omniscience that puts you firmly in the same category as those deluded to believe they are the Emperor Napoleon or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

B) You are very unclear on the concept of “plausible deniability.” It must first be deniable, and it must (second) actually be plausible. The idea that the President could ever have plausible deniability for the forgery of his own birth certificate is so stupid as to deserve little more consideration.

Not having him in the same room with the certificate at a press conference would certainly never establish it. At least, outside of the crackpottery of birthistan where no idea is too stupid to embrace.

Actually, there is evidence that ONE person lied, Adrien Nash. He said about a day ago: ” the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the source of the information given to the newspapers.” And he made that all up.

There is no doubt he made that all up. But I am more generous than you. Rather than declare Nash to be a bald faced liar, I lean more to the opinion that he is simply not mentally well, and cannot tell the difference between reality and delusion.

Dear HistorianDuffus, Your psychotic descent into baseless delusion is made manifest by your utter failure to recognize the facts right in front of your face.

You are pretending to be standing on a solid foundation when in fact you are suspended in mid-air by the hot air of your security-blanket fantasy about your lord and master, Obozo.

You fail to recognize what are established objective facts and instead invent products of your own fevered imagination. There is no evidence that any documents exist or that any statements are certified and true. If there were any evidence then you would have shared it. But you didn’t because you can’t because it does NOT exist.

You moan about there being “no evidence” of this or that and so it must be accepted as true… what a fool! The objective approach to science and highly important political, financial, and legal matters is NOT to take the side of the claimant but to take the opposite attitude to all claims made.

Imagined analogous response: “You say you have a new theory of creationism? And you want me to believe it unquestioningly? And you offer no proof of your claim? Sorry, only a fool would believe that which is unsupported by anything objectively provable, and everything that you’ve submitted is totally unproven by anything certifiably true.”

There, now do you see your Pollyannaish problem, Polly? You’ve taken the attitude of a religious true believer and assumed that everything that you want to believe is incontestably factual when there is no basis for it.

“Apostates’ heads are to be cut off? Ok, oh great Imam, if you say so then it must be so!” “The sun revolves around the earth? Ok, oh great holy Pope; if you say so, then it must be true.”

Could you possibly make yourself look more juvenile and naive than you do? Nope, not in any sane world.

“There are only these FACTS for which obots have no contradicting evidence:

1. There are no known witnesses to the birth of Obama.
2. There are no photos of a pregnant or post-birth only-child S.A.Dunham.
3. No official of any hospital has ever attested that Obama was born in their facility nor shown any record that he or his mother were ever patients in it.

4. No paper reproduction nor image of an original Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth has ever been seen nor even mentioned. No damned “Abstract” with “security paper” background serves as “a True and Original Copy” of anything.

5. No evidence exists that the fake birth certificates are NOT fakes, and the first one has been thoroughly exposed as an unvetted fraud that is easily replicated in under 30 minutes.

6. No person of any professional background has been allowed to examine the print-out of the pdf that was shown only once the day of the press conference.

7. Just like expertly-made counterfeit currency, any superficial look at it gives the impression that it’s real, and who is the only person claiming to totally believe a claim that it is in fact real? That’s right, the counterfeiter and his gang, only in Obama’s case, he is not included in that gang out of fear of what happened to Dan Rather.

Oh great and wise Duffus, please explain why law instructor Obama was unwilling to even mention the existence of a new birth certificate during the press conference called for the purpose of releasing it? Why, oh why???? [-attempted plausible deniability insurance to the extreme!]

8. “The definition of natural born citizen” does not exist in any law or any court ruling, ever, anywhere, -especially in British common law history which only covers royal subjects and not citizens who are NOT subjects of any monarch nor any government.

Oh great and wise one, please point your humble student to the section of US Law or judicial holdings where those simple English words were given a “definition”.

What’s that?? You can’t? There is none? hmmmm…. it must still be a matter of unsettled opinion.
And what is needed to settle it?
Very simple, a common understanding of the English language. A natural citizen is a citizen by nature, by inherited political character or status, i.e., national membership by birth to citizen-members.

Just to demonstrate your degree of ignorance, please illuminate the difference between these two statements:

Natural born citizens are those born of citizen parents.
A natural born citizen is one born of citizen parents.

If you are unable to distinguish the huge difference between those two statements, then you are normal and unable to detect inherent language ambiguity. That flaw is the reason for your misconception, along with that of the entire legal establishment.

The first statement uses the plural version of citizen and then refers to two or more parents which would relate to many citizen children, thereby leaving no clue as to whether an NBC is anyone born of a single parent who is a citizen or only born of parents, both of which are of the same nationality.  The second statement has no ambiguity because a single child is mentioned and therefore two parents who are citizens is required.

“If you don’t believe Savannah Guthrie, nobody can force you to.”

Here we have a great example of falsehood by false implication. You are the one asserting that I disbelieve Guthrie when you know that I never said nor implied any such disbelief. (Your first falsehood.)

But your main falsehood is implied by your deliberately ambiguous, over simplistic assertion that there is some meaningful thing to believe or disbelieve, when in fact there is nothing.
She said that she felt an embossing of the paper. That is irrelevant to the authenticity of the seal that was used.

As your pathetic brain apparently fails to grasp, authenticity and certification are not the result of the presence of some sort or other of embossed impression. It is the result of nothing other than an embossing made by a unique seal that is identical to the published requirement and/or image of what the state mandates that a particular official seal looks like.

So what is it again that one is to not disbelieve? Clearly, by implication, it is that Guthrie, as a professional Seal Examiner, has stated “on the record” that the raised surface her fingers detected was identical to the official HDoH seal. That is what you want to run up the flag pole and salute?
Only an idiot would do that.  -but then it’s you, so no surprise.

“Bauer said he was not leaving the certificate behind when Obama entered the briefing room.”

More baseless implications. As I clearly recall hearing in the video, he stated that he would not allow it to be present in the room when Obama entered.  A very, very odd thing to say, hence my memory of it.  So… according to you, he simply had to remove it when he left while everyone waited for Obozo to appear because…. one of the reporters might steal it right out in the open?

And even if that happened or could happen, the down side would be so catastrophic because…. because of nothing, It was not needed for anything because it was not ever again shown to anyone else in public or private, nor needed for any legal purpose, nor its fictional duplicate.

Has anyone ever seen the “two copies” together?  There was never a need for two print-outs of the pdf.  The “Two copies” tale was a tactic to reinforce the false authenticity of the fake that was produced and printed.

After all, who would order the production of two fakes?? No one, therefore no one would come up with such a story if it were not true, right? WRONG! That was EXACTLY why that story was fabricated. The low thinkers would simply fall right into that false presumption. It is a perfect logical deflection.

“The idea that the President could ever have plausible deniability for the forgery of his own birth certificate is so stupid as to deserve little more consideration.”

And there you fell off your horse. His plausible deniability was not regarding the forgery, but the ordinary acquisition of his birth certificate, which, “Your honor, I sincerely believed existed, and was legitimately acquired. I had no idea that my people would engage in forgery. I never ordered them to do that nor knew of their scheme to do so. I’m innocent.”

Protect the emperor and his unsullied reputation at all costs. By your own attitude about Obama, that would be his legitimate response if accused because of course, he would have to be innocent of any such nefarious conspiracy. OBAMA IS INNOCENT! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

“Bauer’s resignation would offer no protection for the White House or President Obama from anything.”

More disingenuous BS. You use the word “protection” in the legal sense, but that was not the consideration, you bonehead. It was reputational protection. The White House and its Dear Leader had to be protected from the stinking stain of criminality that would attach if a forgery was connected to Obama’s closest aides.

“No, honestly, he hasn’t been the White House attorney for a long time”… -so he has nothing to do with the impeccable reputation of the White House. “Bill Ayers was just a guy from the neighborhood.” Sure, and Santa Claus is real.
btw, did you see the photo I came across yesterday which shows Obama sitting next to Ayers at a table and microphone? Some stranger, hey?  Co-chairs of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge sponsored partly by George Soros.

There are in fact two witnesses to Obama’s birth, You will find their signatures on his birth certificate.

Unless you are professing to be God again, there is no possible way you could know if there were or were not pictures of a pregnant Ann Obama. There are literally billions of women who have been pregnant whose pictures you have never seen. [arn: and how many of them were mothers of a President??? Bonehead!]

It would a violation of HIPAA laws for any hospital to officially declare that Obama was born there. [and yet the governor did exactly that!] But that’s okay. We know he was born at Kap’olani because a) it’s on his birth certificate and b) it is the only hospital that has ever been claimed as his place of birth by anyone in the actual position to know.

His bound paper original has been viewed and attested to by at least three people. His certified and sealed paper short form has been reviewed, photographed, handled and reported on by at least TWO [!!! unquestioning] people.
His signed and certified long form has been circulated among dozens of reporters, at least two of whom then photographed it and one of whom reported on it. You really have to stop making shit up.

The burden of proof that the documents are counterfeit rests entirely on your shoulders. You have failed to meet it.

Mrs. Nordyke never claimed to remember Obama and his mother. She remembered giving birth to her twins there at that same time. She admitted that she did not remember seeing white Ann Dunham and her black baby, which no one would ever forget. And she was a huge Obama fan.

Also, Onaka certified nothing. His signature is not found on any document issued by the HDoH. A rubber stamp facsimile of a signature is not acceptable as authentication in any outside court in the world, except by progressive judges in the U.S. who would be facilitators of the cover-up.

In point of fact you are wrong concerning the legal weight and validity of the rubber stamp. The point of a signature is to indicate the signer’s intent and exercise of discretion in making the signature.  In general, unless a jurisdiction has adopted a statute specifying specific requirements as to how a signature can be made someone can sign a document in many different ways.
This includes facsimiles and rubber stamps and this is true all over the world. You can read more about this concept in a legal encyclopedia such as 80 Corpus Juris Secundum, Signatures, sections 2 through 7.

  • You are a blind fool if you think that the purpose of a signature is not to verify by its unique individual form the authenticity of a document. With the assumption that all signatures are unique, a legal authority can discern if something (like a will) was signed by someone else who signed the name of another.
    Otherwise, everyone could just “sign” by printing their name.  When did that become acceptable?  Never!
    Did you sign your name on your drivers license or credit card, or did you simply print it?

    You are also an ass if you think that jurisdictions anywhere accept anything in place of a hand-signed cursive signature for all legal documents other than those issued by State government which can allow anything.
    Your brain-dead pretense is that courts would and routinely do accept rubber-stamped, photostatic, or hand-printed non-cursive “signatures” from outside jurisdictions when they are not required to do so by state law.

    No court in the world is devoid of the right to require all submitted state-issued documents from “foreign” jurisdictions to contain a real hand signature, as well as home-state documents that are questionable. All the crap about “exercise of discretion” is a total betrayal of fidelity to true certification.

    And btw, please tell us what state of the union allows notary public officers to use a rubber stamp for their signature? Any number of people can get their hand on a lame rubber signature stamp but no one can replicate a natural hand signature without willful deliberate effort at counterfeiting one via lots of practice, -which is a crime.

    ” someone can sign a document in many different ways”, Yeah, and any judge can reject all of them except those signed by an actual human hand. No other substitute qualifies for use of the word “signature”.  That is the meaning and nothing else.
    Read the notations of old birth certificates and certified documents; “signed by my hand”.

    Nothing commands and determines what a judge must accept as evidence of certification other than the authority of a constitutional jurisdiction (State government) which follows its own certification laws, which includes, universally perhaps, an embossing seal. They also are unique and so with an actual signature, provide a high degree of credibility.

  •  

    As you already know, the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the source of the information given to the newspapers.

    Fact: a child was born and that is information to be made public.
    Fact; the child is in Hawaii with his mother and father.
    Fact: the mother swears under penalty of perjury that he was born in Hawaii.
    Fact: there is NO REASON to not include the notice of his birth with the other births since its full proven truthfulness is not relevant to newspaper readership.
    Fact: he was born in Vancouver in a last ditch effort to find an adoptive couple willing to take a newborn mulatto baby when no such couple could be found in Hawaii or Seattle.

    RE: “and as you already know, the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the source of the information given to the newspapers.”

    Actually, you MADE THAT UP. It is your fabricated LIE.

    Obama’s long form birth certificate shows that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital (which, duh, really did exist at the time and which, in fact, actually had precisely the same name as on Obama’s birth certificate—birther “research” being wrong as it usually is). And, guess what, the WIDOW of the delivery doctor said that she recognized his signature.

    Moreover the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly stated that they sent that birth certificate to Obama and that all the facts on it—-including the hospital—were exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

    Nash: “and as you already know, the affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote out and signed in attestation of her son’s birth at home in Honolulu was the source of the information given to the newspapers.”

    “Actually, you MADE THAT UP. It is your fabricated LIE.”

    Prove that it is not true. I mean real proof, not the lying word of lying complicit socialists in the Dept. of Health.
    You cannot prove it is false anymore than I can prove that it is true. That being the case, you have no basis whatsoever to call it “a lie”.

    You simply have no idea if it is true or not, but you know that it would explain everything that is unknown and kept secret. What PROVEN fact would it not explain? I’m still waiting for an obot to find one.

    Re: Prove that it is false.

    Well, you see, poor Adrien Nash. Your comment was that the “affidavit that Ann Dunham wrote…”

    But there is no affidavit.

    You said that there was an affidavit as if you had seen one—but there isn’t any.

    Saying that there is an affidavit—without seeing it or even a witness having seen it—and then adding that Obama’s mother signed it because she had given birth at home is your fantasy.

    “Re: Prove that it is false.”
    “But there is no affidavit.”

    Gee, I looked and I looked, but guess what? I couldn’t find your proof anywhere! Did you misplace it? It seems to be MIA.

    “Saying that there is an affidavit…is a lie.” Is it??? Prove it. Why don’t you simply prove that a lie is a lie? Oh, because there is NO PROOF OF ANYTHING!
    But there was the statement by governor Abercrombie that all that was found as a result of his initiated hunt was something in the archive… something half hand-written and half typed.  No birth certificate.

    Guess what an application affidavit looks like?  Yep, it’s half hand written by the applying mother or parent and then the info is typed in form fashion.

    How convenient for Barack Xerxes Obama. And how convenient for your brain-dead logic that by saying that one unknown “fact” is “true” must mean that it is therefore true, while disregarding another unknown “fact”, -saying that it’s a lie means it must be a lie. Gee, Beaver, that’s like having your cake and eating it too.

    And to correct your inability to read and comprehend plain English, I did NOT say that Obama was born at home. His mother claimed that in her affidavit because it was the ONLY way that he could be recognized as a US citizen since she acquired no birth certificate in Vancouver because she left within a day or two. [prove that isn’t true]

    So he had no citizenship of any kind. We was a stateless person. And still is, regardless of the delusions of Kool-Aid drinkers such as yourself.
    But I give you an undeserved ding. You do NOT really believe in the hog swill that you dish out, -you know it is all a big fat political, constitutional and criminal lie.

    As for the signature of the delivery doctor, it is NOT a signature, you moron. It is a digital replication of a depiction of his signature extracted from ANOTHER BIRTH CERTIFICATE DIGITAL FILE! Hello!!!! PHOTOSHOP!!!!

    “you will claim that the operator at the hospital was lying or that the people who told her that Obama was born there was lying”

    NEED I SAY MORE ABOUT LYING AND LIARS??? I’ve pretty much covered that topic thoroughly. And neither you nor your cohorts have disputed anything that I wrote about it.

    Just tell me this; would her reply be admissible as fact in any honest court in the civilized world? [hearsay! -inadmissible!]  How about your so sincere testimony regarding anything related to Obama’s original birth record? No. none of it would be admissible.  It’s all crap with no validity and no certification whatsoever.

    It’s damn easy for you to dishonestly claim anything that you want because you know that nothing can be proven nor disproven.
    Let’s see…. the king dies without an heir…. here you come professing:

    “I’m his long lost natural child given up for adoption. You must believe me and make me king because you cannot prove that I’m a lying charlatan fraud.”

    That is what you ask sane people to swallow??? How stupid are you for thinking that people are as stupid as you pretend they are?

    “Nash says a forgery of the doctor’s signature was made that was good enough to fool his widow”

    This is AMAZING!!! You are either a spectacular LIAR or a colossal IDIOT! Is it even possible for your lame-brain to believe that the subject of forgery was even raised once regarding the facsimile replica of the doctor’s actual penned hand signature?

    I don’t know which to give you credit for; stupidity or dishonesty. One or the other is off the charts.

    “the officials of Hawaii of both parties confirming the facts on Obama’s birth certificate”

    Oh great and powerful OZ, please deign to share with us mere mortals how exactly they “confirmed” any damn thing whatsoever. I always thought that “confirmed” meant something along the lines of verifying, validating, certifying, proving something with something called proof or credible eye-witness account.

    You, as a five year old, might actually believe everything that the grown-ups tell you, but I have some bad news for you. Santa is NOT REAL! GROWN-UPS LIE!!!! Grown-up political hacks in government lie the most of all, especially the socialist variety.

    But, unfortunately for the Obamaphiles, no witnesses exist and those who claim to be witnesses in the HDoH are not CREDIBLE!!!!
    Gee, I thought that fact was already covered. I guess some lying numbskulls are too thick or too dishonest for such facts to sink in.

    “although the folks in Vancouver are known to keep good records—there isn’t one that shows that Obama was born in Vancouver.” Prove it!

    What if there was one, -like the one from Kenya that looks perfectly legit? What would that prove? Not much unless it can be shown to be 100% legit. Can that be said of Obama’s fake long-form? When exactly was it shown to be legit???

    So you want to have it both ways; invalidate what may or may not exist with the mindless logic that if you and yours don’t have proof of something then it can’t possibly be a fact or be true, and yet by that same lame logic Obama is rendered illegitimate since there is no validation of anything claimed by anyone in the HDoH at anytime anywhere in any certified way.

    “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” NO. IT IS NOT! Absence of evidence is only absence of evidence, nothing more. It proves nothing. Same with the presence of claims that are unproven and unprovable. They also prove nothing. So you have no proof and I have no proof. THAT is the real situation which you must do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to hide.

    Re: ” Absence of evidence is only absence of evidence, nothing more.”

    Without EVIDENCE a liar can claim anything at all, and in this discussion there is a person who has claimed that there is an affidavit with Obama’s mother’s signature on it and that Obama was born in Vancouver, Canada.

    There is no evidence for either of those claims. [and no evidence that they are false]

    Re: “When exactly was it shown to be legit???”[referring to Obama’s birth certificate]

    Answer: When the officials in Hawaii of both parties confirmed that they had sent it to him and that all the facts on the published copy MATCH what they sent to him, of course.

    You are either ignorant or brain dead. “SHOWN to be legit” is only accomplished by the presentation of PROOF, you duffus, -not by ambiguous, disingenuous statements by the flying monkeys in the socialist Dept of Health.

    Nothing that liars say “confirms” a damn thing, -which you know while continuing to pretend that we all live in Pollyanna-land where everything said by any hack in government is like the truth sent down from Mount Sinai.

    Little-strauss’ la-la-land doctrine: “EVERYTHING SPOKEN BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IS ABSOLUTELY THE UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH!”
    OK, moron, defend your doctrine.

    “They issued press releases and official documents….”

    “Gee, Wally, someone said it’s so, so it must be so, right?”
    Now for a nut-crushing hypothetical:
    suppose you are in a court of law and under oath and you make that unsupported statement. How will you provide proof that it is true? The judge orders that you either corroborate your claim or retract it since it is unaccompanied by any prima fascia evidence.

    What do you do if your whole case rests on the gullible believing your unsupported claim? You crap your pants because you can never prove it.

    “Since they were involved in the sending process…” Here’s a thought: they were NOT involved in the sending process.
    “Your honor, he has just committed perjury with that false claim. I demand that he substantiate it with evidence.” And your evidence is….. oh, nothing. Empty lies backed by nothing but lying hot air.

    “Plus, your honor, he claims that Hawaii claims that the facts seen in the long-form “match” those in “what was sent” when there is no proof that anything was sent, nor, and more importantly, even any claim that the document image posted on the WH website actually is exactly the very document that Hawaii supposedly sent.
    Your honor, where is their claim that the WH “document” IS what Hawaii sent??? IT IS NOTABLY ABSENT!!! They are not even willing to claim that they are one and the same! Why??? Because everything about it is a big fat LIE!

    And then, following that stupidity, strauss once again, like a hundred times before (including in comments at my blog, so repetitious that I had to cull them), pulls out his canned quotes & links to substantiate his thoroughly discredited claims, expecting the gullible, (at least), to fall for the almighty word of ALL-WISE and TOTALLY HONEST government AUTHORITIES.
    Wow! with so many instances of lying hacks farting the same deceptive “facts” over and over, by golly, there must be a big grain of truth to them, right Wally?

    I referenced you to a legal dictionary. Stamped signatures and facsimile signatures are accepted as fully legally binding in courts all over the world (and especially all over the United States) every single day. I cannot help it if that offends you. The falling boulder will crush you regardless of whether or not you enjoy the experience.

    You are correct at least that one of the uses of a signature is to uniquely identify the signer. But that’s purely a forensic nicety. Its LEGAL purpose is to validate the intention of the signer.

    This is why we depend on notaries rather than some subjective assessment of authenticity. In truth, there are only a handful of circumstances where “wet signatures” are required. And certification of government documents has never been one of them.

    And here’s the best part: under the US Constitutions full faith and credit clause, “no court in the world” (well, no court in the US actually) can refuse to accept as prima facie true any document a state wished to send it, regardless of whether it carries a wet signature, or a facsimile. or a stamp, or a lipstick kiss.

    Your context is totally missing, and thus absurd. Of course they are accepted when no issue of authenticity exists, which is almost always. That is NOT the case with counterfeit documents.

    Documents can not be certified by anything other than original unique cursive hand signatures and unique official seals, -like those of a Notary!. That is why signatures and seals exist. They authenticate questionable documents.

    “~there are only a handful of circumstances where “wet signatures” are required. And certification of government documents has never been one of them.”

    You bonehead. There is no certification that a document even is an official government document and not a forgery except the presence of an official seal and a hand signature that is authenticated. NOTHING ELSE CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION!

    In your compromised universe, all documents are assumed to be legitimate, especially the most questionable ones, -like the birth certificate forgery that de-legitimizes the President and his constitutionality.

    As for printed “signatures”, they serve no purpose whatsoever, just as they serve no purpose on paper currency. It is all a great big fraudulent pretense of authenticity where none exists.

    Tell me this, oh genius: when a Treasury Dept. counterfeit currency examiner looks at a fake bill, does he look to see if the printed signature of the Sec. of Treasury is printed on it or is missing? Any moron knows that it means nothing that it’s there. Only actual signatures serve as authentication.

    And as for the full-faith-&-credit clause, it has nothing to do with actual authentication of anything. It is only about the required acceptance of the legal validity of an official document from a State. No judge is required to accept any and every submitted document as being authentic. It is within his authority to require that a questionable document be certified by the State certifier of the document. Only then is it mandatory that it be accepted, otherwise any and every counterfeit would also have to be accepted.

    You avoided addressing anything that I wrote, and that’s because you have no valid response to any of it. You distract and deflect by raising the issue of what is “accepted” when that is irrelevant. Every court in the land could accept fraudulent well-produced counterfeits and they wouldn’t know the damn difference.

    Acceptance is unrelated to CERTIFICATION!

    You’ve exposed yourself as the dunderhead fake that you are by your reference to signatures on currency. What did I tell you?-that the fake signature printed on currency means NOTHING!
    Same with rubber-stamped signatures. They also mean nothing. Only a real hand signature has any meaning. Everything else is pretense. And pretense is fraudulence and a con. Like your logic.

     Stamped and facsimile (and now electronic) signatures are exactly as valid as “wet signatures” and accepted as equally binding by every court in the country. [arn: assuming their authenticity is uncontested]

    ~the Hawaii Revised Statutes establish the absolute legitimacy of Alvin Onaka’s signature stamp as legally binding:

    HRS §501-13 Validity of facsimile signature. A facsimile of the signature of the registrar, imprinted by the registrar or by such office assistant as the registrar in writing may designate, on any paper which the registrar is required by law to certify as a true copy, except a copy of a decree for transcription in a registry of deeds, and such facsimile imprinted by the registrar upon any writ, summons, order of notice or order of attachment, except executions, shall have the same validity as the registrar’s written signature. This authorization shall apply to assistant registrars under section 501-9. [L 1975, c 140, §1; gen ch 1993]

    “Therefore, the statement that “Documents can not be certified by anything other than original unique cursive hand signatures and unique official seals” is an absolute lie.”


    You dingbat!  That is Hawaiian law, applicable to Hawaii and its legal system, not to other states.  If a court in another state suspects the fraudulence of a presented Hawaiian document, he is obligated to have it authenticated or else he is committing an abuse of office by his dereliction [nonfeasance].

    Plus, you stupidly conflate “validity” with “certification”.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!  Validity refers to legal validity, not authenticity nor expert-confirmed or witness-confirmed certification.
    To a non-expect, a fake will look the same as a real document and be legally accepted as legally “valid” all the while it is an inauthentic counterfeit certified to be authentic by no  one.

    There is a term for requiring the acceptance of that which is unauthenticated and uncertifiable: it called BASTARDIZATION.  The standards of authentication are absent, and the rules of certification have then been ignored for the sake of routine convenience.

    That is the price of having to deal with dense population.  Mind-numbing repetition must be avoided for the sake of sanity, and so certification goes right out the window.

    After all, how many damn documents must an official have to sign every day?  Hundreds?  Well, in order to truly make them “official” requires the actual unique signature of the “official officer” who authenticates them, along with his official seal. Neither one by itself is enough.

    How about this: along with a fake facsimile of a signature, the state also allows a fake, printed image of the impression of the official seal.  You might argue that in that case, there would be no certification whatsoever, and you would be right.

    What states have done for convenience is akin to changing the methodology for launching a nuclear missile.  That requires two serving officers, each with a unique key, to insert their key into two locks and turn then simultaneously.

    Now suppose that the commanding general decides that’s too complicated, so one of the keys will be left in its lock and turned already.  In that situation, where is the dual-layered, double-barreled cross-protection of a dual system?  GONE!

    It’s the same with fake images of official seals and fake images of real signatures.  Without both being present, nothing is certified because a seal authenticates a signature.  It could be forged by an expert, but no expert has an official state seal in his pocket.

    [Although I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire embossing seal industry has been deeply compromised and bastardized to the point that a counterfeit could be purchased for the right price.  For them it may be first and foremost all about money.]

    Explain this: what real function does a fake rubber-stamp or facsimile signature serve since they aren’t unique? A duplicate could be made and used easily and inexpensively.  So it serves no purpose other than a continuing of tradition in a full-bore pretense of authenticity which is accepted for the sake of human convenience.

    So, “legal validity” is only tangentially connected to real certification.

    Onaka stated along with Fukino in a press release that he had seen Obama’s birth certificate in the files. Subsequently Onaka confirmed in official confirmation of birth forms sent to state officials that he had seen the copy of Obama’s birth certificate and the facts on it MATCH those on the original in the files.

    Onaka stated nothing. There was no “Press Release”.  As I have meticulously exposed in an entire exposition devoted to debunking it, it was all a carefully crafted lawyer-devised scheme to defraud the public and the press.

    Every “statement” in the fake press release was couched in quotation marks to shield the persons to whom they were attributed from legal liability. There is no attribution as to where, when, or by whom the statements were “recorded”, meaning that they were simply made up by an Obama-serving lawyer.

    Real press release facts are not legally shielded by quotation marks. They are printed as the words of the releaser and author of the “release”, which is the person in charge, -written by or for the signer of the release.

    But you know what? No one signed it. It contains no signature at all. Just a digitally printed image of a worthless signature-facsimile from a rubber stamp. Thus, the so-called release is non-certified, confirms nothing, and is unattributed since the author is unknown.
    Onaka could have been in Davy Jones’ Locker for anyone knew, or in a slave-labor prison camp in Shanghai.  But seriously, he could have been dead and if a conspiracy of silence was being maintained and an active campaign of disinformation was being waged…

    He has never testified to anything in any court or deposition or affidavit. He is totally absent in every way from validating that Barry Obama is the subject of a real Hawaiian HOSPITAL Certificate of Live birth.

    He has NEVER stated to anyone that one exists. That is because one does NOT exist, and never has until one was fabricated from Ann Dunham’s “Late Birth Certificate Application” affidavit.

    It required sworn witnesses to attest to the birth since her word alone was insufficient evidence of birth within the United States. There were no witnesses since he was not born in the United States, hence no birth certificate was ever issued.

    ~in response to: ” He has NEVER stated to anyone that one exists…”http://www.obamaconspiracy.org…(Note the comment at the bottom of the the pages of the THREE “Verifications of Birth” that there is a signed statement that reads:
    “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”

    That means, of course, that there is indeed a vital record (a birth certificate, since the event being verified is a birth and not a marriage or a death) on file at the DOH of Hawaii—which is what Adrien Nash said did not exist.Oh, and BTW, the reason that Onaka, Fukino and Fuddy did not testify on this at any court was, duh, because no court ever asked them to do so.

    hmmmm…. which are you? the dumbest person who ever lived… or the biggest liar???

    THERE WERE NO VERIFICATIONS OF BIRTH!!! Nothing was verified by anyone because not one of the three letters was signed by anyone! No signature??? No verification, no validation, no certification. Especially, nothing was conveyed of any legitimate substance by the rubber-stamped or printed impression of a rubber stamp stating a boiler-plate pseudo-validation. It was all 100% PRETENSE!!! -and suckers like you fell for it just as you fell for the Great Obaminator, your god.

    “He has NEVER stated to anyone that one exists…” Your link to Dr. Communist won’t help you to find any quote at any time by anyone in Hawaii that a HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL Certificate of Live Birth is “on record” in their paper archive. ANYTHING could be in their digital files because digital files are easily faked (and that is why Obama now has a “birth certificate”).

    Hilarious. You have actually completely reversed the operational, grammatical and legal meaning of quotation marks. In the real, non-bizarro, non-backwards, non-birther universe, quotation marks actually signify that the words and phrases they contain are the verbatim and exact words spoken by the person being quoted. Rather than “shield(ing)” the person quoted, they hold him or her accountable for them.

    Your mind is in backwards-land. Quotation marks are not used by the person making a statement, you lame-brain. That would be quoting yourself!!!

    A Press Release by Onaka would be something that he wrote, or had written, and then signed. None of that is what is seen in the fake validation. Only an unknown source making claims that are not directly attributable to anyone since there is no signature by any human being and no human being testifying that the statements are his and he stands by them and would do so in any court of law.

    Instead, Onaka is a GHOST! His fingerprints are nowhere to be found on those statements. And that is why they have to be taken as fakes. If they were real then there would be some evidence of authenticity, but there is none.

    You cannot be as stupid as you pretend. If I make a statement for the press, I do NOT quote myself!!! I write what I want to convey and sign it.

    Don’t give me your crap about some mysterious unnamed person quoting him when there is no attribution given by any named quoter that the statements herein quoted were from the mouth of the handless paralyzed, crippled Onaka.

    Can’t you comprehend how foolish your pretend position looks? And your attention to certification is astoundingly absent! Who certifies that the initials were printed by Onaka?  That may fly in Hawaiian courts by legal requirement but no other state is under any such requirement.  Every one of the other 49 states could require that Onaka sign whatever it is that he pretends to authenticate.

    Did the MIA Onaka certify anything about the “official Press Release”? No, he did not. His hands are no where to be found connected to that fake release. He is prosecution proof. His pension is safe.  He has committed no chargeable crime, unlike Fuddy.

    Onaka: “I didn’t authorize that release! -nor make those statements, nor sign my name to it, nor print my initials on it. I don’t know who did. Don’t tie me to any conspiracy. I’m innocent.” Who the hell can prove otherwise? You?

    The Hawaii Department of Health issued two statements. The statements THE DEPARTMENT issued quoted Fukino.

    Onaka didn’t have to certify anything about the press releases. Press releases are press releases. Not certifications.

    Onaka certified both the President’s short form released in 2008 and his long form released in 2011. He has since verified that birth certificate twice; once to the Arizona Secretary of State and once to the Judge in Taitz’s Mississippi ballot challenge.


    Gee, Now I’m confused.  First you claimed that “THE DEPARTMENT issued” the “releases” and that they were “not certifications” and yet now you are claiming that Onakacertified” both birth certificates via the “press releases written by someone named “the DEPARTMENT”.
    How can I meet “The DEPARTMENT”?  What does he or she look like?  Is the department directed by The Department or by the director?  Who exactly “released” those releases?  Was it the director?  Was it Onaka?  Was it Obama?
    Tell me this, how on earth can anyone possibly show evidence of who produced those documents or where they originated from?  You do know what “evidence” is, don’t you?   I’m not so sure you do.

    Here is why you are stupid: you have no comprehension of what “CERTIFICATION” even is. Yet you toss the word around in your baseless claims as if you are using it accurately.

    I can’t fix your ignorance. All I can do is inform you that no “Press Release” was ever “certified”, authenticated, or validated by anyone in anyway.
    No signature. No attribution by any known person of the source of “the quotes”, nor the time and place it was supposedly given. It floats in the air suspended by nothing, -like a foul fart that stinks of something rotten as it hangs invisibly in the air.  That is how forensically solid their provable origin is.

    That description pretty well describes just about everything that you’ve written also.

    “Full Faith and Credit!” the little baby cried, oblivious to the fact that required legal recognition of actual other-state documents has nothing at all to do with their actual authenticity. In other words, in WARPED WORLD; counterfeiting DOES NOT EXIST so it’s not even an issue even in a matter of the utmost highest importance possible!!!!!

    Your problem is that even if the still-living Hawaiian officials supported the two fake birth certificates, and even did so under oath, there is no basis on which to believe anything that they say because they are utterly 100% partisan and biased in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s favor. Gigantic conflict of interest!  READ ALL ABOUT IT!  CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

    But that doesn’t matter to you, nor does the truth, because it is only all about FORCING everyone to accept the forgeries. Truth is irrelevant, and hell, -it is even the enemy.

    h

     Chiyome Fukino is a Republican, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence that Alvin Onaka is a Democrat… not that it would matter since he has the job and all the legal authority that goes with it.
    “Press releases are not certified.”
    Man, oh man, your two-bit brain just caused you to shoot yourself in the head! You’ve just invalidated your main source of validation of the lying “facts” regarding a fictional birth certificate. Tell me this; how can a non-certified press release certify any facts???
    Nothing seen in the “Press Releases” is intellectually valid in any way. Shielding a statement in quotation marks shields everyone from legal liability since there is a total absence of attribution. Who quoted whom? When?  No answers.

    Who swears that the quotes are real and not part of a president-protection racket? Who can be held accountable? No one. Where does that buck stop? Nowhere. No signature, no named quoter, no certification of authenticity, exactly what you would see in a statement that was bogus.
    And yet the Kool-Aid drinkers will drink it down when a liar such as yourself authoritatively proclaims its contents to be “the God’s honest Truth!” [There is one born every minute, and you hope to deceive everyone of them.]”Chiyome Fukino is a Republican” You know nothing about how a woman in a socialist, federal government-dependent state (ruled entirely by democrats) votes. She is what she looks like, what all Democrat bosses hire, compliant sheep who will toe the party line if they know what’s good for them.

    ” Gee! Are there really people like that Wally?” “Yes, Beav, there really are.” …and so it goes in the Peter Principle world…

    Just answer me this in defense of your claim that “Fukino is a Republican”: Who did Colin Powell vote for for President, twice?  Fukino is no conservative but may be a fake republicrat whose party affiliation is irrelevant to everyone because it alters nothing.

     Adrien Nash:
    “Full faith and credit” are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Acceptability is NOT certification. Try to use that inter-state requirement on the World Court or any court of any other nation when serious questions of authenticity are involved.
    No lawyer would even dream of attempting something so stupid, except maybe one like you.
    Plus, only hand signatures qualify for the meaning of the word “signature”. Everything else is pure crap and inauthentic.
    Just because a lame government allows its authentication process to be bastardized does not mean that actual validation via actual certification is at all weakened in any way. The SAME RULES APPLY REGARDLESS!
    A thousand morons and a thousand judges could accept a counterfeit as “valid” when it is a fake. How could they do that??? Because of a lack of certification.
    Advertisements

    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”.

    4 Responses to Beheading Obama’s Brain-Dead, Boot-licking B.C. B.S.

    1. slcraignbc says:

      smrstrauss wrote:
      ” … Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama’s birth on US soil—-in HAWAII—-has been proven by:…”
      and then offered a plethora of inane citations that do NOT represent the U.S. Law.

      The “uniform Rule” established by the 1790 Act entitled, ” … an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization was enacted post the Ratification of the COTUS and provided that, ” .. Once a foreigner becomes a U.S. Citizen, then so do his children, at birth or otherwise” as the general uniform Rule that when coupled with the FACT that women were considered as the same political character as the U.S. Citizen husband / father it became unavoidable for a child to be born as anything other than a U.S. natural born Citizen no matter where in the world they might be born, not limiting where a U.S. natural born Citizen could be born.

      NOTHING in ANY Act of the Congress, including early Constitutional Amendments, provided for citizenship by Jus Soli to ANYONE except a person who would otherwise be born STATELESS, notwithstanding the POLICY Citizenship provided to the children of alien foreign nationals, present legally or otherwise, until the flawed WKA Opinion.

      The 1922 Cable Act, aka, The Women’s Independent Citizenship and Retention Act, is the ONLY significant circumstance requiring reconciliation of the circumstances attending a persons birth.

      It is NOT relevant that a U.S. natural born Citizen conforms to the English Law interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality and to the spirit of Vattel’s work.

      The ONLY pertinent FACTS are the circumstances provided for under the COTUS and the Acts and Laws made in pursuance thereof, to the Cable Act of 1922, thereafter REQUIRING a woman’s independent U.S. Citizenship to produce a U.S. natural born Citizen with her U.S. Citizen husband.

      [edited for accuracy]

    2. smrstrauss says:

      Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

      [Nash: ahhh, but you failed to illuminate the fact that in all that time, only the children of Citizens and immigrants were born subject to American jurisdiction, and of them, only those born of citizens were natural citizens and thus eligible to be President.]

      Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

      [Nash: ahhh, but he completely OMITTED the requirement of SUBJECTION to the JURISDICTION! That shows just how ignorant he was on the subject of American nationality. But even worse, his conclusion was NOT based on anything in the holding of the Wong opinion. He made it up.]

      Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

      [Nash: It could very well be true… that it is “well settled”, just like it was well settled that “the sun revolves around the earth”. Consensus opinion, in law as in science, does not mean a damn thing if it is wrong. But it may, like Global Warming, not only be wrong, but be implemented as national policy regardless of being wrong.]

      Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born.

      It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

      [Nash: ~a seemingly astute, erudite elucidation of the legal status quo of today; namely that no court has ruled on the issue before and that means that no court had investigated the historical truth of the matter, and yet he nevertheless was appointing himself the authority to rule that natural citizenship is determined solely by the circumstance of birth location.
      And on what did he base that presumption? He based that on…? NOTHING! He could not tell you because it was nothing more than his ingrained erroneous impression picked up through the years. That was as baseless an assumption as assuming with no proof whatsoever that he was actually born in Hawaii.]

      Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

      [Nash: Holy Cow! What an IDIOT! “becomes at once a citizen“!!! hmmmm, I can’t seem to see the invisible words: “natural born” anywhere in that stupid statement. Can you? They could even be called “born citizens”, but guess what… only those born as NATURAL Citizens are eligible to be President.]

      Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, [nash: so says the SCOTUS, not the Constitution] Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

      [Nash: “precedent fully supports” That’s about as trustworthy as the grand jury that can indict a ham sandwich. Precedent is irrelevant to what is true regarding the English language meaning of what the words “natural born citizen” or “born natural citizen” mean. Any such spineless judge is just farming his thinking out to others. Fear, stupidity, bias, ideology, or erroneous presumption control such men.]

      And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

      [Nash: and your point is… -that every failure to adjudicate the cases presented to them is infallible PROOF! that they have no merit whatsoever,(?) and that the infallible WISDOM! of the status quo consensus view, if not contradicted by the high court, MUST BE the God’s honest truth?
      Listen, moron, a non-decision is not a ruling, and even a ruling is worthless crap when it is a badly split decision because one side is either wise while the other is stupid, or one side is constitutional while the other is treasonous to the constitution.
      Socialist, Progressive, secular humanist, atheist judges vote treasonous opinions all the time. It is what they do. It is their main purpose in life. Support the collective and “social justice”, -NOT the Constitution. Truth is their constant victim as it gets in the way of their agenda.

      Like the two female justices that have performed lesbian weddings when they are not constitutional. Will they recuse themselves as required when it comes time to decide the issue of homosexual marriage? Don’t hold your worthless breath, or it may be your last breath.

    3. smrstrauss says:

      The facts are that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the terhm Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law…
      [NO, Moron! Your Luciferian use of the word “ruled” is 100% false on its face. Their holding was that Wong was a “citizen”, -nothing more than a citizen.
      You have stooped to the lowest low of deliberately lying about the case. Also, they could NOT have even claimed that “natural born citizen” came from the British common law because no term involving citizenship existed in British common law. The most they could have said was that the U.S. term was related to “a natural-born subject“.]

      ~and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen—except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.

      [and…. any such supposed claim in the dictum of the opinion was backed by nothing in British or American law because there was no history of usage of a term which did not described national members of any nation in the world.]

      • smrstrauss says:

        Here is the actual words of the ruling: [YOU IDIOT!!! -or are you just a wicked liar?? -if so, I should say WICKED LIAR!!! As I previously said, you are pretending that you do not know the meaning of “the ruling”… “the holding”, “the decision”, which included NONE of the worthless dictum you quote below.]

        “It thus clearly appears that, [“appears” = “seems”, “might be”, “could be assumed to be” -nothing but a quasi-informed concept or impression] by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??? IT MEANS NOTHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. THEIR ALLEGIANCE OR LOYALTY WAS WITH THEIR OWN MONARCH UNLESS THEY SWORE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO BRITAIN AND HER KING.] -the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign,[all true] and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a [natural]-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        [WHAT THAT FOOLISH AUTHOR [JUSTICE GRAY] FAILED TO MENTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE AMERICAN READERS WHO FOUND THEMSELVES RULED BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPER, WAS THE FACT THAT HE WAS USING A TERM WHICH HAD DEVOLVED INTO A TERM OF LEGAL ARTIFICE, AND HAD LOST ITS NATURAL MEANING. IF HE HAD USED A REALISTIC NON-ARTIFICE TERM, HE WOULD HAVE LABELED THEM “BORN SUBJECTS” INSTEAD, -AND NOT ILLOGICALLY USED THE WORD “NATURAL”.]

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

        [HOLY CRAP! HE’S ADMITTING HIS OWN IGNORANCE AND LACK OF COMPREHENSION! WHAT HE’S SAYING IS THAT IT WAS NEVER A LAW BUT ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF LAWYERS HANDED DOWN GENERATION AFTER GENERATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING OF THE PRINCIPLE SUPPOSEDLY BEHIND IT.
        AND WHAT IS THAT OVER-LOOKED AND UNCONTEMPLATED PRINCIPLE? IT IS THAT OF NATURAL ALLEGIANCE TO ONE’S OWN HOMELAND AND GOVERNMENT OR KING. FOREIGN GUESTS OR VISITORS REMAIN LOYAL AND SUBJECT TO THEIR OWN RULERS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEIR WIFE GIVES BIRTH WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ANOTHER MONARCH’S KINGDOM.
        THEIR CHILD IS SUBJECT TO THEM AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR OWN LAND AND THUS NOT “LOYAL” TO THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN. ONLY PERMANENT IMMIGRANTS TAKE A ROLE OF BEING A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF THEIR NEW HOME, WITH THE OBLIGATION TO DEFEND IT AND SUPPORT ITS LAWS AND ITS GOVERNMENT. VISITORS DO NOT.]

        In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been ASSUMED [!!!] by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

        Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, [THAT MEANS “ESTABLISHED LAWS” OF THE STATES REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF COMMON LAW CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH, AKA NATURALIZATION AT BIRTH. BEAR IN MIND THAT THE STATES HELD THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO BAR ALL NATURALIZATION OF FOREIGNERS, BUT IF THEY ALLOWED IT, IT HAD TO CONFORM TO THE NATIONAL RULE WRITTEN BY CONGRESS.] can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.

        In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth [MEANING BIRTH WITHIN BORDERS BUT WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR NON-SUBJECT OUTSIDERS] was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

        “It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”

        AND THERE YOU HAVE THE PROOF THAT HE WAS A LAZY THINKER AND LAZY WRITER SINCE HE FAILED COMPLETELY TO EVEN MENTION THE “WELL ESTABLISHED” EXCEPTIONS TO THE “ALL PERSONS!” THAT HE TRUMPETED LIKE AN ASS.
        WHERE IS ANY MENTION OF NATIVE-BORN CHILDREN OF FOREIGN ROYALTY, OR FOREIGN MINISTERS, OR FOREIGN GENERALS AND ADMIRALS, OR FOREIGN TOURISTS, OR VISITORS, OR VAGABONDS, OR GYPSIES, OR NATIVE AMERICANS?
        NO WHERE. HIS POMPOUS WIND-BAG CLAIM WAS LIKE THE THINKING OF A FIVE-YEAR OLD. AND WHAT EXACTLY DID HE REFER TO BY HIS USE OF THE ADDED VERBAL BAGGAGE: “NATURAL-BORN”? WHY DID HE NOT SIMPLY SAY “BRITISH SUBJECT”?
        BECAUSE SIMPLE VERSIONS SEEM LESS AUTHORITATIVE THAN MORE COMPLEX VERSIONS. ANY ADDED VERBAL FLOURISH SERVED TO MAKE ONE’S WORDS APPEAR MORE CERTAIN AND LEGALLY CORRECT, WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE DOING JUST THE OPPOSITE, -UNLES…YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE BRITISH USE OF THE TERM AS A LEGAL ARTIFICE, -WHICH HAD BECOME THE COMMON PRACTICE.

        E-V-E-R-Y-B-0-D-Y BORN WITHIN THE KING’S BORDERS WAS HIS “NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT” BECAUSE THEY WERE “NATURALLY” SUBJECT TO HIM FROM BIRTH EVEN THOUGH BY BLOOD THEY WERE REALLY NATURALLY SUBJECT TO ONLY THEIR FATHER AND HE WAS SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN MONARCH. HE ONLY BECAME FULLY SUBJECT TO THE BRITISH KING BY BECOMING A MEMBER OF BRITISH SOCIETY. OTHERWISE HE REMAINED AN ALIEN.
        THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE WORD “ALIEN” IMPLIES. AND HE ONLY BECAME TRULY SUBJECT AND LOYAL BY SWEARING AN OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE, -AS WAS REQUIRED OF ALL NATURALIZED SUBJECTS.]

    Leave a Reply

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

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

    Google+ photo

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

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: