Rep. Eric Swafford Joins The Obama Presidential Eligibility Fight

99 Responses to “Rep. Eric Swafford Joins The Obama Presidential Eligibility Fight”

1. TennDemocrat writes
   February 10th, 2009 11:22 am

   Well, he had better get that tin foil hat right away and start looking for those black helicopters. I wonder how “they” knew back when Barack was born that he was going to be a godlesscommiepinkodrestroyamericaandhateourvalues candidate for president? The same way “they” knew to give John Kerry those fake purple heart medals because “they” were planning even then to run him for president.

   Do you suppose the people in Swafford’s district are embarrassed by this, or are they just as slack-jawed stupid as he is?

2. Martin Kennedy writes
   February 10th, 2009 11:38 am

   Oye Veh

3. benintn writes
   February 10th, 2009 11:39 am

   Let me get this straight … this guy is an elected official of the state of Tennessee?

   Come on - this is tinfoil hat territory…

   I wonder if Robin Smith will kick him out of the party too…

4. TennDemocrat writes
   February 10th, 2009 11:43 am

   Are you kidding? He and Robin (I’m-Not-Racist-Because-I-Played-With-Black-Kids-Back-When) Smith are soulmates on this kind of stuff.

5. Tom Paine writes
   February 10th, 2009 11:50 am

   You can’t spell “wing nut politics” without T-N-G-O-P!

6. Sean Braisted writes
   February 10th, 2009 12:00 pm

   Wait, is it April 1st and nobody told me?

7. Elrod writes
   February 10th, 2009 12:37 pm

   Question: Are the people of the 25th district, which includes Cumberland and Bledsoe Counties, as stupid as their representative?

8. Judy Whelan writes
   February 10th, 2009 1:12 pm

   I commend Eric joining a growing number of citizens concerned about the Constitution of the United States. It is not uncommon to be asked to produce a valid birth certificate as criteria for many licenses as well as government appointments and school admissions. Most would assume that to run for President of the United States, that would be a core criteria. Judy

9. DG writes
   February 10th, 2009 1:18 pm

   Rep. Eric Swafford (R-Crazytown)

10. vibinc writes
    February 10th, 2009 1:24 pm

    Seriously people, get a hobby.

    I suggest building those little boats in bottles or something.

11. Tennessee Values Authority writes
    February 10th, 2009 1:37 pm

    The truly shocking thing about this is that Campfield missed his chance to be the first to sign on to this campaign.

12. TJ writes
    February 10th, 2009 1:39 pm

    Excellent!
    The citizens of America deserve to know the truth. Is it too much to ask someone running for President to actually show their birth certificate? Why would someone spend about $1M to avoid showing their birth certificate?
    Wasn’t this the candidate of accountability and transparency?
    Obama is counting on many continuing to behave like sheep. Time to wake up and hold all of our elected officials accountable!

13. GoldnI writes
    February 10th, 2009 1:46 pm

    Personally, I blame the Jews, the Lizard People, and the corporate MSM that refuses to report on the r0|\| |>@u1 Revolution.

14. Joe writes
    February 10th, 2009 1:59 pm

    TJ, Google is your friend. Here’s what I found.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

15. Joe writes
    February 10th, 2009 2:04 pm

    Nevermind. I’ve been proven wrong.

    http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=colmkbtwlgh2.gif

16. DG writes
    February 10th, 2009 2:21 pm

    Since every legal standard has been met, the crazies feel that they get to set their own standard of evidence.

    My favorite thing is the birth announcement in the archives of the local newspaper. Still waiting to hear about Obama’s time machine.

    This is the nuttiest of nutty theories. Why anyone would want to discredit themselves by obsessing on it is beyond me, but have at it.

17. State Rep. Eric Swafford (R) demands to see President’s birth certificate « Nashville Is Talking writes
    February 10th, 2009 2:30 pm

    [...] Kleinheider) State Rep. Eric Swafford has become the first state representative in the nation to demand [...]

18. Tennessee Legislator becomes a Plaintiff in Action for Obama birth certificate « Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog writes
    February 10th, 2009 3:38 pm

    [...] http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/02/10/rep-eric-swafford-joins-the-obama-presidential-eligibil... [...]

19. Chris Christoph writes
    February 10th, 2009 4:40 pm

    Here is a site (www.theobamafile.com) that tracks known facts on Obama. The US Library of Congress has requested to use his info. (until it’s scrubbed by the Obama team)
    Date Tue 2/3/2009 9:30 AM
    From webcapture @ loc.gov
    To Beckwith @ TheObamaFile.com
    Subject Library of Congress Permission Request

    To Whom It May Concern:

    The United States Library of Congress has selected your Web site for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises. The Library of Congress preserves the Nation’s cultural artifacts and provides enduring access to them. The Library’s traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collection materials of historical importance to the Congress and the American people to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital materials, including Web sites.

    The following URL has been selected:

    http://www.theobamafile.com

    The Library of Congress or its agent will engage in the collection of content from your Web site at regular intervals. The Library will make this collection available to researchers onsite at Library facilities.

    The Library also wishes to make the collection available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on the Library’s public access Web site. The Library hopes that you share its vision of preserving materials about the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises and permitting researchers from across the world to access them.

    If you agree to permit offsite access to your materials through the Library’s Web site please click here to signify your consent:

    Note: Consent link redacted

    For several years, the Library of Congress has collected Web sites within certain themes or topics. As our collections have grown, we have had to contact some Web site producers repeatedly. To reduce this duplication and to save site owners from having to respond to multiple requests for information, we are now giving notice that the Library will collect, over time and in varying frequency, sites of research interest. Your site has been identified as a Web site of interest related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises. If you grant permission to display offsite access to your materials through the Library’s Web site, we will take your permission as notice that we may include it in our future collections. If in the future you no longer wish your materials to be displayed offsite or if you wish to be contacted for each new collection, please contact us.

    Our Web Archives are important because they contribute to the historical record of the United States, capturing information that could otherwise be lost. With the growing role of the Web as an influential medium, records of historic events could be considered incomplete without materials that were “born digital” and never printed on paper. The Library has developed previous Web Archives some of which are available through the Library’s Web site (http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/). For more information about these Web Archive collections, please visit our Web site.

    If you have questions, comments or recommendations concerning the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises Web Archive project or future projects, please e-mail the Library’s Web Capture team at webcapture @ loc.gov at your earliest convenience.

    Thank You,

    Web Capture Team
    Library of Congress
    Washington, D.C.
    webcapture@loc.gov
    http://www.loc.gov/webcapture

    ——
    LC Reference: PT-Crises 92773 D

20. Aimee writes
    February 10th, 2009 6:13 pm

    The Certificate of Live Birth shown on Factcheck.org (a site with a known left liberal bias - don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up) is simply a certificate of birth registration which, at the time of Obama’s birth, could be issued to parents who wanted to register foreign born children.

    We simply want to see the long form of his birth certificate which shows hospital of birth with attending physicians. This document is on file in Hawaii as Hawaiian officials indicated. While they endorsed the document on file as being genuine, they did NOT

21. Aimee writes
    February 10th, 2009 6:13 pm

    …they did NOT indicate the details on the long form birth certificate.

22. Aimee writes
    February 10th, 2009 6:20 pm

    Another issue is Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro and his citizenship of Indonesia he acquired from his adoptive father. Obama was registered in school as a citizen of Indonesia. Dual citizenship is and was not allowed in Indonesia. Obama lost any U.S. citizenship he might have had.

    Finally, the definition of “natural born citizen” MUST be clarified by the Supreme Court. One can be a citizen of the U.S. and not be a “natural born” citizen. Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen (British Subject) at the time of Obama’s birth. Obama was born with dual citizenship at the very least. A person with dual citizen ship - with allegiance to a second country - CANNOT be a “natural born citizen.” The founding fathers were all British citizens before the revolution. They adopted the “natural born citizen” amendment to the constitution to ensure than no-one born with divided loyalties could be elected to the presidency.

    So much to clarify…..so much at stake - like the Constitution of the United States.

    Bravo, Mr Swafford!!!!!!!!

23. mimi writes
    February 10th, 2009 7:21 pm

    For an entertaining look at the “birthers”, check out Patrick’s recaps at Say Yes To Democracy. You have no idea what these folks believe in.

    Phil Berg actually mentioned the Canadian Birth Certificate in his first complaint he filed with the Court. (It was signed “Dudley Doright”)

    Orly Taitz, the attorney representing Swafford, got her law degree via distance learning. In her defence, she was one of the top 3 in her graduating class. Of course, as there were only 3 in her class, I guess you could say she was also in the bottom 3.

    This group is fun to watch.

    http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

24. mimi writes
    February 10th, 2009 7:27 pm

    I can see Aimee is a birther. (Adjust your hat there Aimee… let everyone see you.)

    Anyway, if any of you Tennesseeans (hope I spelled that right)have any info on Swafford, sure appreciate it if you could deposit the info over at Yes to Democracy.

    I did see his proposed legislation on the sex toy ban. OMG!!! What goes on in Tennessee that he feels the need to ban dildos? And, when I saw there were allowances if doctor prescribed… just too funny. (the other allowances puzzled me. Museums? Libraries? Hmmmmmm. )

25. Aimee writes
    February 10th, 2009 7:47 pm

    I’m not a “birther.” I was simply stating the issues. My greatest concern is the issue of “natural born citizen.” The Supreme Court must give a ruling on what constitutes the requirement to meet that qualification. A look at history and the words of the framers weighs heavily towards a child born of parents who are American citizens (that’s parents - plural) on American soil.

    Poking fun at someone’s concerns and legitimate questions, to me, displays a shallow, insecure and easily swayed individual whose opinions have been formed by mob influence. IMHO

26. mimi writes
    February 10th, 2009 8:18 pm

    “Aimee writes
    February 10th, 2009 6:13 pm

    The Certificate of Live Birth shown on Factcheck.org (a site with a known left liberal bias - don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up) is simply a certificate of birth registration which, at the time of Obama’s birth, could be issued to parents who wanted to register foreign born children.

    We simply want to see the long form of his birth certificate which shows hospital of birth with attending physicians. This document is on file in Hawaii as Hawaiian officials indicated. While they endorsed the document on file as being genuine, they did NOT”

    =========

    then…

    ++++++++++

    “Aimee writes
    February 10th, 2009 7:47 pm

    I’m not a “birther.” I was simply stating the issues.

    ==========

    lol

27. Swafford, Believe It Or Not, Is Not Alone : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    February 10th, 2009 8:26 pm

    [...] “Aimee writes February 10th, 2009… [...]

28. CCC writes
    February 10th, 2009 8:45 pm

    What is the problem here? Big Kudos to Swafford for doing the right thing. I wish more elected officials (and the media) were “interested” in the vetting of the President of the United States. There is no other position in America, private or public, that should require a most complete vetting. I have to show more information, than Obama did, to obtain a drivers license.

29. BIGJER writes
    February 10th, 2009 9:22 pm

    congrats to the tennessee representative for having the cajones to defy the humongus law firms that obama has hired to fight these challenges in court.

    aimee has it right. obama’s adoption by an indonesian makes him an indonesian citizen and also shows he was enrolled in to a muslim school, and the adoption papers list his religion as islam.
    now, if anyone wanted to re-claim his american citizenship, why hasnt obama done so ?

    there are no records, and this seems to be a necesary thing, although he still isnt a “natural-born” citizen, no matter which route you choose to take.
    he has hired a humongus team of arab attorneys and has paid out a small fortune to keep all of his records sealed …..why ? what exzctly does this man have to hide ?
    his team has so much power that items seen once are gone erased from the internet. any info on google is tatally wiped out….why ? ( 2+2= 4) always has ,always will….so logic tells us that there is something he wants hidden drastically ….may take a long time to find out.
    I’m an independent, never voted for him, but the part that gets me going is the fact that he refuses to be honest….reminds me of the pied piper who all of the mice followed right to their drowning…..they call us tin-foilers, yeah like that really hurts….ouch….
    maybe one day soon, the name callers will have some tin foil where the sun dont shine…sooner or later…..we can wait…

30. Big John writes
    February 10th, 2009 11:14 pm

    Congratulations for fighting for our Constitution. This is the fault of the Democratic Party for their failure to vet Obama before they placed his name on the ballot. This issue was first raised by Hillary LAST FEBRUARY. Long enough for the Democratic Party to require Obama to submit a certified copy of his birth certificate, school records and other information to ensure Obama is a natural born citizen before they placed his name on the primary ballots. The Democratic sold us out and the only vetting that happened is Obama putting a worthless short form abstract of birth on pro-Obama websites. When did the Democratic Party subcontract out this responsibility to factcheck and other such websites? The point that almost everyone that looks at this that is so galling is Obama could pay $10.00 and produce a certified copy of his birth certificate that would name the hospital he was born in, the names of the doctors and any witnesses. All of these verifiable facts are conveniently left off the short form abstract of birth Obama produced.

    Thank you for standing up for our Constitution. By the way, keep the clown shoes BoBo may need them for a new career when he leaves the office for which he is not eligible to hold.

31. 25th district voter writes
    February 11th, 2009 12:06 am

    Contrary to popular belief, the voters of district 25 are for the most part, quite intelligent AND even have all of their teeth. Rep. Swafford recieved more votes than Lamar! or anyone (complimentary, mind you) last go around. So, we’re quite happy with his representation of our district. Rep. Swafford is perfectly entitled to investigate and or question OUR new President’s personal history. I along with so many others are proud of him for delving deeper into this subject with so many questions to be answered and come what may, it is well within our rights as American citizens to question our government. Especially our newly elected President who was a complete unknown before his famous sermon at the democratic convention in 2004. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that the office of the Preseident is now being held by a black man! Don’t throw stones at someone simply because they raise qustions that should have been addressed before then Senator Obama’s candidacy was announced. Thank you, Eric.

32. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 1:23 am

    The search to do on the web is for the version of the Birth Certificate with his mother’s signature. That one has NEVER been posted on FactCheck or anywhere else.

    The officials in Hawaii stated they have seen it, but have NEVER state what was on it.

    WHY would Soetero / Obama rather spend $1,000,000 fighting its display than $10 actually displaying it?

33. Patrick McKinnion writes
    February 11th, 2009 1:31 am

    Aimee - You do know that, under US law, there is no way either a minor or a minor’s parents can renounce that minor’s US citizenship, right?

    The claims of Indonesian citizenship due to adoption by Lolo Soetoro started at the PUMA blog “TexasDarlin”, and were written by someone using the Nom de Plume of “Judah Benjamin”. Later, Philip Berg used those claims in his initial lawsuit. However, there’s a couple major flaws in the theory.

    First off is the US Natualization Act of 1940. Later amended in 1952. In both the original act and the amendment, it states clearly that a US citizen who is a minor CANNOT renounce that citizenship nor can any action of the parents renounce that citizenship. Obama would either have had to live overseas until the age of 23 and NOT take any actions to keep his US citizenship, or go to a US embassy after the age of 18 and renounce it before witnesses, to loose his US citizenship. This is according to US Law. The US law in question is the Nationality Act of 1940, Sections 401 and 407, and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, sections 349(a) and 355.

    In Indonesian law, an adoptive father cannot gain Indonesian citizenship for an adoptive child if it results in dual citizenship. Which means that even if Lolo Soetoro wanted to grant Indonesian citizenship to Barack Obama, (mind you, no credible evidence of any adoption has been found), he could not under Indonesian law. The Indonesian law in question is #62/1958, passed on 29 July 1958

    So in other words, according to US Law, there is no way Barack Obama OR his parents could have given up his US citizenship as a minor, and according to Indonesian law, there’s no way Lolo Soetoro could have gotten Indonesian citizenship FOR Barack Obama due to his having US Citizenship which could not be renounced until he was an adult.

    And for those claiming he’s spent millions, well, where is the *proof* that he’s spent “Millions of Dollars trying to hide his history”??? I keep seeing estimates ranging from $500,000 to “millions”, but no proof at all.

    The majority of the lawsuits have been against state officials, (Secretary of States and the like). The people paying attorney fees to defend themselves in those cases are the taxpayers of those states. In the two cases (Berg v Obama and Hollister v “Soetoro”) that attorneys for Obama have responded, they’ve been fairly standard moves to dismiss the case, which doesn’t cost “millions of dollars”.

    So I ask again. Where is the proof of that amount?

34. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 1:42 am

    How much did it cost then? Was it more than $10? How much more?

    Why not just spend the $10? WHY NOT?

35. Patrick McKinnion writes
    February 11th, 2009 2:00 am

    WhyWillItBe - I can answer that pretty easily. What good would it do??

    Seriously, look at the history of this. He released his birth certificate during the primaries over charges his middle name was “Mohammed”.

    When he did that, two nameless, faceless internet “experts”, (”Polarik” and “TechDude”), neither of which has any proof they have any sort of credentials in the field of forensic document examination, and both of which have been dismissed by real experts as fakes, immediately claimed the were forgeries. When Factcheck, (an organization that was called non-partisan by Dick Chaney of all people), took pictures of the actual document, THOSE were dismissed as forgeries and Factcheck as an “Obama shill”

    There is absolutely NO level of evidence either Berg, Taitz, their followers, or any of their supporters will accept. Even if President Obama provided the vault copy of his birth certificate, passport data, school records, and they were ALL verified by the respective state, federal, and educational authorities involved, what would happen is:

    1) Immediately the people buying into this would start mining it looking for any scrap of evidence they could find.

    2) 24-48 hours “Polarik” or “Techdude” will announce that whatever the evidence, however it’s verified, he “can tell it’s a forgery”, and release a long technobabble explaination that doesn’t hold water to anyone who knows graphic art software, document verification, or forensic examination.

    3) The birthers will take that claim and treat it as gospel truth. Posts will go up claiming “it’s a fact that these documents were forged, and….”

    4) World Net Daily will write something along the lines of “Obama forced to give up documents, doubts remain.”

    5) The bar would be raised again, with people calling for a new level of evidence and claiming President Obama “must have something to hide” if he doesn’t meet THAT new goalpost.

    In short, the people promoting these claims will NOT accept any level of information needed to verify place of birth, citizenship, etc. There’s been too much emotional energy invested in these beliefs that it’s now a matter of faith.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-inauguration-day-birther-platonic.html

36. Tennessee Legislator becomes a Plaintiff in Action for Obama birth certificate | New World News writes
    February 11th, 2009 2:07 am

    [...] http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/02/10/rep-eric-swafford-joins-the-obama-presidential-eligibil... [...]

37. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 2:12 am

    Wrong, If he produces it, I and all of Berg’s supporters will fade into the fog.

    Most of us ask only that he show the version that has his mother’s signature on it.

    It has NEVER been shown. I can produce the parental signed version for all of my children, and can have mine sent to me for a small postage fee.

    Show the MOMMY SIGNED VERSION! That’s all it will take for most of us.

38. Cymraeg writes
    February 11th, 2009 7:34 am

    To Aimee and others:

    I am speaking as an attorney with 40 years of practice before I retired. Under Hawaiian Law the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama is prima facie evidence of his birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. This places the burden of proving otherwise on Taitz, Berg, et.al. After extensive research I have found not a single item of “evidence” from the birthers which is admissible in a court of law. As attorneys, Taitz, Berg, et.al. know or should know this. I therefore reach the conclusion that the last thing they want is to try these cases. They will loose and expose themselves to the possibility of sanctions from the court or courts. I suspect they have some other agenda, although I do not know what it is. There is also the issue of court costs which Taitz, Berg, et.al. will be required to pay if they loose. If there is to be a trial on the merits, Obama’s attorneys will be conducting extensive depositions in Kenya, England, India, Indonesia, the states of Washington, Massachusetts, Hawaii,Illinois, New York, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia which will run court costs easily into seven figures. If (and I am firmly convinced they will) Taitz, Berg, et.al. loose they will be required to pay these costs. The court or courts may also assess Obama’s attorney fees against them.

39. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 8:42 am

    And OB’s lawyers they still refuse to show the $10 Birth Certificate. You would think he would want it shown so as to nail Berg to the wall. But NO.

    As a lawyer are you not concerned with how much effort is going into HIDING the TRUTH?

40. Cymraeg writes
    February 11th, 2009 9:24 am

    To WhyWillltbe:

    The demanded list of documents keeps getting longer and longer. The next thing that they will be demanding is that Obama go on live TV and drop his pants to prove le is not a Moslem. There is no legal requirement that he produce any of this stuff.

    We have worked very hard for over 1000 years to build the best legal system in the world and these birthers want us to short circuit it just to satisfy their perverse curiosity. I will fight to protect the law from the wreckers who are trying to trash it.

    To be honest, I cannot see any difference between Taitz, Berg and company and a lynch mob.

41. TennDemocrat writes
    February 11th, 2009 9:49 am

    Aimee ia a nut. Sorry, Miss Coo-Coo, but you are. So are the rest of these clowns on this issue. The Governor of Hawaii, a Republican by the way, also has verified the certificate. I can’t believe this kind of stupid, idiotic, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed moronic kind of discussion.

    McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Didn’t hear anyone challenging his citizenship.

    Now if you really believe that his broke-as-hell mama flew off to Kenya to give birth and then flew right back to Hawaii to plant a false birth announcement in the lcoal paper and then concoced a fake birth certificate because she knew even then that he was going to move to Illinois and get elected senator and then President, more power to you. I guess it makes up for Jim Jones being gone to Kool-Aid land for you.

    And as a poster mentioned earlier, a parent cannot renounced a child’s citizenship. Sorry, that’s stupid too. So living in Indonesia didn’t make him not a citizen.

    So, Aimee, I am sorry you are so stupid and crazy. And for the rest of you that are flogging this always nonexistent, not to mention dead, horse, I am sorry for you, too. You are really pathetic nutjobs.

42. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 10:58 am

    CYMRAEG,

    Your argument is a canard. You cannot answer the most basic questions:

    WHERE IS THE MOMMY SIGNED VERSION OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    WHY KEEP HIDING IT?

    DOES NOT TRUTH MATTER TO YOU?

43. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 11:05 am

    TennDemocrat is dissembling. He is afraid to explore the possibility that the real detail is that:

    1) she went to meet O Seniors family.
    2) That the baby was born in Kenya before she could get back to the US.
    3) She announced the birth in Hawaii because it is a natural thing for any proud new parent to do. BTW, does anyone have the link to the announcement where it states where the baby was born? Or just that it was born?
    4) That she had nothing to do with faking any Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth. She did not have to have any idea whether he would be POTUS or not. That it was only when SOTOERO/OBAMA needed it that he conveniently found a version WITHOUT HER SIGNATURE.
    5) That the real BIrth Certificate with his mother’s signature has NEVER been posted on ANY site ANYWHERE on the web.
    6) That a great deal of money has been spent on the battle to show it by both sides.

    WHERE IS THE MOMMY SIGNED VERSION.

44. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 11:07 am

    TennDemocrat,

    Furthermore Jim Jones served Flavor-Aid, noit Kool-Aid to his followers. But if you really cared about detail and Kool-Aid (a metaphor for truth in case that went over your head), you would’ve known and said that.

45. Cymraeg writes
    February 11th, 2009 11:53 am

    What Obama has produced on his website is legally adequate to provide birth on US soil. If I were he, I would be doing what he is: Ignoring a handful of niddering nudnick nobodys who are trying to get the attention they did not received as children. He does have the time for this nonsence.

46. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 12:02 pm

    Cymraeg,

    Again with the dissembling and distraction, and still no answer to the question:

    WHERE IS THE VERSION WITH HIS MOMMY’s SIGNATURE?

    You distract and dissemble because you know it is the one question the answer to which, would make all but the very loonies fold up their arguments and go away. BUT, it is also the one question which you most certainly CANNOT, and Sotoero / Obama most certainly WILL NOT answer.

47. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 12:04 pm

    BTW, were you channelling Spiro T. when you cast the aspersion “niddering nudnick nobodys” ?

    He too was forced to resign in disgrace.

48. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 12:48 pm

    TennDemocrat,

    Two more nits to pick with you and your straw-man argument:

    1) McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Didn’t hear anyone challenging his citizenship.

    Uh, um, actually there were court challenges, and McCain happily provided his MOMMY SIGNED BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The issue of whether he was citizen or not, was fair game, and may well have been challenged in court had he won.

    2) Now if you really believe that his broke-as-hell mama flew off to Kenya to give birth and then flew right back to Hawaii…

    What makes you think she was “Broke-as-hell” and therefore too poor to go to Kenya? Sr. went back to Kenya during this time period. Could he have taken her with him to meet his family? Are there State Department Records that would reveal this?

49. Cymraeg writes
    February 11th, 2009 2:56 pm

    The “Certification of Live Birth” published by the Obama is legally sufficient. THer only to challenge the information therein is the suspicion that it is fake. Since the Certification is prima facie evidence of the birth in Hawaii it is up to Taitz, et.al. to prove it is false. Why should Obama do Olry’s or Phil’s work for them. THe need to get past the standing issue and have a court accept their claim for a hearing on the merits. They will then have to go the Hawaii and elsewhere, schedule depositions with court reporters and with due notice to Obama’s attorneys so that they can appear and cross-examine the witnesses.

50. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 5:16 pm

    Cymraeg

    “Why should Obama do Olry’s or Phil’s work for them. ”

    Quite obviously he is not. In fact, he is obstructing them in getting to the TRUTH.

    And all it would take is exposing 1 little document:

    THE MOMMY SIGNED VERSION OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    You can try to take the subject away from that all you want. He can use the law to the fullest extent available to him, but he only shows he has SOMETHING TO HIDE!

    WHAT IS IT?

    BTW, Cymraeg, since you are an attorney, have you read all the filings for all the cases Berg has filed?

    If not, you can find all the documents at http://www.obamacrimes.com.

    On that site, you can also find most of the arguments you have made so far discussed and refuted. Perhaps you should join the dialog and enlighten them with your wisdom.

    You will also see that the cases so far have not been dismissed on evidence, but rather on standing. One of the cases was sent back to the 3rd Circuit. As you know the Wheels of Justice turn slowly. Too slowly to prevent Sotoero / Obama from becoming POTUS, but not too slowly to eventually get to the TRUTH.

51. Joe writes
    February 11th, 2009 5:18 pm

    Wingnuts are so entertaining.

52. Joe writes
    February 11th, 2009 5:19 pm

    THE MOMMY SIGNED VERSION OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    You don’t need it.

    Hawaii has certified that Obama is a natural born citizens. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The case is closed.

53. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 5:33 pm

    Joe:

    You apparently think that Jim Jones served Kool-Aid to his followers. It was Flavor-Aid.

    The point is that you need to listen to EXACTLY what they said. They have the MOMMY SIGNED VERSION, but they NEVER STATED HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    They said, they had seen it, not what it contained.

    WHERE IS THE MOMMY SIGNED VERSION?

54. Joe writes
    February 11th, 2009 5:42 pm

    I know it was Flavor-Aid at Georgetown.

    “but they NEVER STATED HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.”

    I also know that the Hawaii Certificate at the factcheck.org link above certifies that Obama was born in Honolulu. Regardless of what was spoken or not spoken, the document speaks for itself.

    You don’t need anything else.

55. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 5:50 pm

    Joe,

    How do you know this? Faith?

    You certainly cannot provide a quote which substantiates your belief.

    Stay on point here….Why does SOTOERO / OBAMA want to hide WHAT IS ON THE MOMMY SIGNED VERSION OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

56. Joe writes
    February 11th, 2009 10:57 pm

    Okay, you’re just trolling. Goodbye.

57. WhyWillItBe writes
    February 11th, 2009 11:02 pm

    Goodbye Joe.

    Stop by http://www.obamacrimes.com when you are ready to be intellectually curious.

58. Open Letter to Eric Swafford | Obama Conspiracy Theories writes
    February 12th, 2009 10:57 am

    [...] You might feel that some investigation should be made into Obama’s eligibility, but that will never be achieved without a competent attorney. You’re already being laughed at on the Internet as a “tin foil hat” for associating with Orly. Example here: http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/02/10/rep-eric-swafford-joins-the-obama-presidential-eligibil... [...]

59. Retired Enforcement Officer writes
    February 12th, 2009 3:18 pm

    First of all we do NOT live in a Democracy, we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that was designed by our Forefathers and is defined by the US Constitution. Democracy is the equivalent of rule of the majority (mob rule), whereas a Republic is a governmental system in which elected officials represent the people and are ruled by law. Every time you say the Pledge of Allegiance you repeat this by saying “…and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…”. Those who say we live in a Democracy obviously do not have a clue what that means. (http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm)

    I applaud Mr. Swafford for having the courage to challenge Obama on his credentials because Obama has NOT proven that he meets the qualifications for the office of POTUS. When I first heard about this issue I thought it was just a political smear tactic, however the more I followed it, the more I believe that there is something seriously wrong. A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public. This is incredibly suspicious, as well as unbelievably arrogant for anyone running for the Office of President of the United States. Why spend all that money when the issue can be laid to rest by publishing a $12 certified copy of the vault birth certificate? The only explanation is that there is something to hide.

    I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution, just as all attorneys do. This is the same oath that Obama swore when he graduated from Law School, again when he took office as Senator, and again when he was sworn in as President. This was his first official act of office and this act was committed fraudulently. I took my oath very seriously at the time I was sworn in and I continue to do so to this day. When I graduated from college I spent several hundred dollars getting dozens of certified copies of my birth certificate, college transcripts, and high school transcripts because along with every application I submitted for an entry level position with police/sheriff/probation departments that I applied to I was required to submit these documents along with copies of my diplomas. I also had to submit a list of all the addresses where I had lived since becoming an adult, and any trips I had made out of country. This information was used to conduct background investigations since I was applying for jobs that required a security clearance. Obama now holds the highest office in the land and is refusing to produce these documents, even though he admits in his book, Dreams from My Father, that he had a copy of his birth certificate. What he posted on his website is not a birth certificate, but a certification of live birth (COLB). Under the laws of Hawaii, a COLB may be issued for a child born outside of the US, and it is not proof of ‘natural born’ citizenship status. While you cannot have the original ‘vault’ birth certificate, you may obtain a certified copy of the original vault birth certificate, and that document indicates the county, the hospital, and the name of the doctor or individual that delivered the baby.

    I looked over my own birth certificate recently and went over the information on it. It clearly states on the document the address and Parish (I was born in Louisiana so the term “Parish” would be the equivalent of “County”) where I was born, as well as who delivered me. I also went over my college transcripts and there are fields on it that indicate what your citizenship is as well as what grants, scholarships, and financial aid you received during your education there. I am sure that grad schools would have similar information on their transcripts as well.

    This is a link to an excellent article describing what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means as defined by an author of the 14th Amendment (towards the bottom of the article).
    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
    “Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being BORN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
    According to the statement by Rep. Bingham, it seems clear that Obama does not qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ because his father, as admitted by the Obama campaign, was not a US citizen. The entire purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to ensure that whoever holds the office of POTUS has undivided loyalty to the sovereignty of the United States. This is a matter paramount to our security as a nation since whoever holds this office has the authority to launch nuclear weapons.

    The comment from Obama’s campaign website reads:
    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    I do not accept Obama as POTUS because he does not meet the eligibility requirements of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause for that office. I also think that his citizenship status itself is questionable because of the trip to Pakistan he took as an adult on a foreign passport since he would have had to declare himself an Indonesian citizen to get that passport and Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship at that time.

    All nine Justices of the SCOTUS have sworn an oath to uphold, protect and defend the US Constitution, just as I have. As an attorney having specialized in Constitutional Law, I have no doubt that Obama himself is very much aware of the fact that he does not meet the eligibility qualifications for the office of POTUS, and has thus committed fraud. Further fraud occurred when he signed the sworn statement that he was eligible for this office prior to his presidential campaign.

    This is not a personal issue, it is a matter of Constitutional Law. If you disagree with it, there is a procedure in place to make Constitutional Amendments. However, you cannot choose to simply ignore the US Constitution when it inconveniences you, and this is exactly what Obama has done. We are a nation based on the rule of law, the basis of which was provided to us by our founding fathers in the form of the US Constitution. Without it, there would be nothing but mob rule.

60. More state GOP lawmakers sign on to Obama citizenship lawsuit at In Session | Politics & Government Blog | Tennessean.com writes
    February 12th, 2009 4:01 pm

    [...] it was Rep.  Eric Swafford, who signed on a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s citizenship. Now, Theo Emery reports [...]

61. Cymraeg writes
    February 12th, 2009 10:26 pm

    To Retired EMforcement Officer:

    On “Natural Born Citizen” you are wrong. The comment by Rep. Bingham has no legal import whatsoever. You need to read US v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898). The Supreme Court defines a natural born citizen sd following English Common Law: a natural born citizen is a person who was born on American soil. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. His parents were subjects of the Empire of China and forbidden by American law from being naturalized. The Supreme Court decided that he was a natural born citizen. I strongly urge you to read the case and decided for yourself.

    I would also strongly urge you to listed to the complete Grandma Obama tape and the edited tape. Both are on ther web. On the full tape you clearly hear her say Hawaii when asked where BHO II was born. This part has been removed in the edit. Draw your own conclusions.

    As to the Pakistan trip, the allegation that he used a foreigh passport is conjecture without a shred of evidence. The alleogation that America had forbidden Americans to go to Pakistan is a lie. There was merely a travel advisory.

    Thhere are rumors,conjecture, and falsehoods being asserted by the Orly Camp as the truth. You owe it to yourself to verify facts for yourself.

62. Dave writes
    February 13th, 2009 12:29 am

    I commend Rep. Swafford for having a backbone, unlike the vast majority of the spineless Establishment. Why hasn’t Obama simply provided proof of his citizenship, way back when this issue was brought up?(HE CAN’T) And for all of you Obamanites, why would you follow someone who is not forthcoming with a simple document that would qualify himself in the eyes of not only America but the World? HE IS A LIAR AND A CON MAN. If you’re a true American, you should demand the truth.

63. Fathertime.. writes
    February 13th, 2009 1:29 am

    All the birfers in here are trolls, surfing over from their Obama hater sites.

    The COLB Obama has shown is in fact legal proof of U.S. soil birth. It has every detail mandated by the U.S. State Department as proof OF U.S. birth

    For WhyWillItBe screaming about ” WHERES MOMMY SIGNED VERSION” do tell how does a mothers signature prove to you he is a NBC? You seem to be under the delusion that his vault copy says something different then the one shown, maybe if you took the time to read Hawaii revised statutes you will find, if his COLB has anything altered from the vault copy it must state right on the copy “ALTERED” Hence, Obamas COLB says “birth place Hawaii” vault copy must say Hawaii..

64. Newscoma » Blog Archive » Friday The 13th writes
    February 13th, 2009 7:13 am

    [...] Scene and Kleinheider in a double shot: This time, it’s Republican Rep. Eric Swafford who’s slipping on the banana peel. He’s proudly become America’s first state legislator to join the wacky legal action by [...]

65. NON-Sheep follower writes
    February 13th, 2009 7:18 am

    Statements without facts are just merely statements. (sometimes idiotic statements)

    Barack Obama did not supply a “birth certificate”. Barack Obama did not supply a “Certificate of Live Birth”. What Barack Obama supplied was a “Certification of Live Birth”. Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, it allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

66. Fathertime.. writes
    February 13th, 2009 12:50 pm

    NON-Sheep follower why lie?

    Hawaii revised statutes 338-17.8 didn’t exist until 1982 as the statute states “[L 1982, c 182, §1]” thats 21 years after Obama was born. Nice try

    “[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

    Also, Hawaii revised statutes §338-13 Certified copies says “(b)Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”

    Just in case you missed that “shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”

    Do you really think putting out misinformation will help you? You’re a perfect example why no one takes you people serious.. try researching

67. NON-Sheep follower writes
    February 13th, 2009 1:13 pm

    that’s right its 338-5 passed in 1949
    Fathertime fixes the error so the correct information of why Obama needs to present his VAULT BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0005.htm

    A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under.
    See law below

    This law states that “every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.”

    §338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

    The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]

68. Fathertime.. writes
    February 13th, 2009 2:06 pm

    NON-Sheep follower

    §338-5 Compulsory registration of births has nothing to do with showing ones vault copy. all §338-5 is the MANDATORY guidelines for registering a birth. Nice try

    so far both your post have been completely false interpretation of Hawaii statutes, once again “Do you really think putting out misinformation will help you?”

69. Fathertime.. writes
    February 13th, 2009 2:15 pm

    NON-Sheep follower

    Now you know that 338-17.8 didn’t exist until 1982, you can see it’s impossible to register Obamas 1961 birth unless born in Hawaii, do tell why you still need to see a vault copy? Wasn’t the whole reason you want to see the vault copy is to see if he was born in Hawaii.

70. Impeach writes
    February 13th, 2009 7:50 pm

    Impeach OBAMA!! or is it Soetoro?

71. NON-Sheep follower writes
    February 14th, 2009 7:13 am

    Fathertime

    §338-5 Compulsory registration of births has nothing to do with showing ones vault copy. (WHO SAID IT DOES?) DID YOU READ 338-5? (SPECIFICALLY THE PART THAT “every birth shall be substantially completed and filed….by one of the parents.”

    This leads to why not show the vault copy.

    You say
    The COLB Obama has shown is in fact legal proof of U.S. soil birth. It has every detail mandated by the U.S. State Department as proof OF U.S. birth.

    OH REALLY. YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT AS IT IS SUPPOSE TO BE ACCEPTED AS FACT. PROOF IT.

72. Fathertime writes
    February 14th, 2009 4:40 pm

    NON-Sheep follower

    first what is “PROOF IT” do you mean prove it?

    I love the fact you make accusation about Obamas birth without proving one thing, then ask someone else to “PROOF IT” LOL. go on the U.S. state department website and look for yourself, not one place does it say anything about a parents signature, it does talk about stamps, seals and health department signature. Like I said go look it up

    §338-5 Compulsory registration of births has nothing to do with proving anything, you seem to think a mothers signature means something more then what the U.S. State Department says. LOL

    “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births has nothing to do with showing ones vault copy. (WHO SAID IT DOES?) DID YOU READ 338-5? (SPECIFICALLY THE PART THAT “every birth shall be substantially completed and filed….by one of the parents.

    This leads to why not show the vault copy.”

    I see your trying to ignore §338-13 Certified copies (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”

    DO YOU READ? I GUESS NOT, BECAUSE IT VERY CLEAR “certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original” MEANING THE CERTIFIED COPY THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOWED IS PROOF

    Your sad trying to use one statute as proof (which you got wrong) then ignore other Hawaii statutes that does not fit your agendas..

    Again if 338-17.8 didn’t exist until 1982 how can Obama have a Vault copy on record? that’s right he was born there, backed by the U.S. State Department, Congress, Hawaii Health Department. Whats your back up, two dysfunctional lawyers, one who got her degree online, the other one been fined from the courts and sued by his clients plus a handful of rumors done by political motivated blog sites LMAO@YOU.

73. NON-Sheep follower writes
    February 14th, 2009 6:10 pm

    Fathertimeless

    Are you reading the statements or just pretending too? I feel like I am talking to a child. I can’t SLOOOOWWWWLLY reiterate for the illiterate AGAIN. Go back and read it.
    Why should I look for support to you statements? Your job sheep follower.

    Why during the time that only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools was Mr Barry Soetoro (AKA OBAMA) registered? His citizenship was listed as Indonesian, his religion as Islam, and his father as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was also no dual citizenship at the time. If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or
    she becomes an American. (I’ll reference where I got this information so you can attack the messenger instead of answering the questions… Philip Berg)

74. Scoop writes
    February 15th, 2009 12:13 am

    Phil Berg works out of an apartment.
    (take his address and use GoogleEarth.)
    His house is currently in foreclosure.
    He pulled the same scam for 9/11 and filed suit against Bush and many others.
    Then, like now, he offered no proof whatsoever.
    That’s the thing his followers don’t quite get.
    Phil’s intentions are NOT to win a case or even have one heard.
    As a lawyer, he knows full well his cases won’t be accepted.
    Standing is the first thing they teach you in law school.
    That’s why he asks for donations from the tin foil’s.
    He can string them along forever.
    Look up Phil in Wikipedia.

    Btw, you’ll notice that Phil cites donations as being for “personal expenses.”
    This is in case he gets sued.
    For example, let’s say someone sues him for fraud.
    They have to prove intent.
    If Phil comes back with “I said donations were for me personally”, he’s fine.
    Equally, he cannot be held for intentional fraud if he went through the motions.
    There’s nothing in the law regarding competency at claims or pleadings.
    Cases are decided on their merits and how they adhere to legal protocol.
    Again, this is why Phil takes donations and makes cases that won’t be heard and can’t possibly win.
    He’s pocketed the money while providing a very reasonable defense in case he’s caught.
    He’s been doing this for almost a decade now.
    Experience pays!

75. NON-Sheep follower writes
    February 15th, 2009 7:20 am

    As predicted

    (I’ll reference where I got this information so you can attack the messenger instead of answering the questions… Philip Berg)

    Now try answering the questions:

    Why during the time that only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools was Mr Barry Soetoro (AKA OBAMA) registered? His citizenship was listed as Indonesian, his religion as Islam, and his father as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was also no dual citizenship at the time. If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or
    she becomes an American.

76. Scoop writes
    February 15th, 2009 12:16 pm

    If only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools, how is that Obama’s place of birth was listed as Hawaii?

77. NON-Sheep follower writes
    February 15th, 2009 6:11 pm

    That’s the right question Scoop!

78. Scoop writes
    February 16th, 2009 2:05 am

    Correct questions are easy to identify.
    They’re the ones the birthers have no answers to.

    I’m still looking for even the smallest shred of proof that supports the $800K-$1M that Obama has supposedly spent on defense.
    What’s incredible is that Obama hasn’t even had to answer most of these claims.
    Lawyers charge for formulating a strategy to counter a claim. If a claim never makes it to court, there’s nothing to defend.
    Thus there’s been no defense necessary and little or no money spent.

79. Fathertime.. writes
    February 16th, 2009 3:58 am

    NON-Sheep follower

    Only slow one is you. Each time I point out your lack of understanding laws, you switch to something else.. typical silly birfer.. So do tell how this child is schooling you in the written law.. lol

    try reading slow poke

    U.S. State Department
    Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act F. Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.

    let me repeat that, being your slow “Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.” that’s U.S. LAW. No matter what President Obamas parents did, he would not lose his U.S. citizenship, even if his step dad signed on a school registering Indonesian or adopted him, Indonesian law has no barring on U.S. law.. nice try

    let this child school you more..

    Also under U.S. State Department
    Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
    B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

    A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

    1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
    2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
    3. sign an oath of renunciation

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MEANS??? If some how they got around law 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN they still would have to show up at a “U.S. Embassy or Consulate” and “sign an oath of renunciation’ which would be on record. Wheres the sign oath??

    The registered school paper said birth place Hawaii.. so let me get this straight, the same piece of paper his step dad filled in claims, his a Muslim which you believe, said he was a Indonesian which you believe and said he was born in Hawaii which you don’t believe LMAO.. Must be nice living in a delusional state to pick and choose which thing you want to believe..

    No matter, not once have you addressed one single law we talked about.. all you do is skip to something else which is a true sign of a BULLSH*TTER..

    FYI: It’s not the same as an American adopting, lol being I have a beautiful 4 year old girl from china we adopted 3 years ago, I understand adopting and the LAWS far better then you will ever know.

    You can have the last word seeing your nothing but a echo chamber bringing nothing to the table that has not been shot down months ago..

    Checkmate…

80. Fathertime.. writes
    February 16th, 2009 4:08 am

    Scoop

    Birfers are so hell bent they can careless they are getting Scammed. Screw them if they are to stupid to see it.

81. Scoop writes
    February 16th, 2009 5:06 am

    Non-sheep.. I didn’t realize you took my question as an endorsement of your “indonesian” claim.
    I didn’t and I don’t.

    I was pointing out that the Indonesian records said Obama’s birthplace was Hawaii.
    You said that “only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools.”

    Again, if this is so, how come Obama was able to enroll in an Indonesian school with an application that says he was born in Hawaii?
    Why would Indonesia let a US citizen study there if it was against the law?
    And if he was truly born there, why on Earth would he claim he was born in the US if it was against the law and likely couldn’t attend there?
    That would make no sense at all.

    Sort of like you.

82. JanC writes
    February 16th, 2009 8:44 am

    One of the things that people forget is that Indonesia is a third world country where money talks and bribes and personal connections go a long way in paving the way for getting a job done. Given that many illegal things can easily be done (hey it may even take extra money to get things done LEGALLY) it is just plain wrong to assume Barry Soetoro was not ever considered a citizen of Indonesia based on the listing of his birth as Hawaii, but for the same reason it cannot be assumed that he actually did become a citizen. The point is, this under the table economy invalidates the ‘laws’ of Indonesia as a basis for determining what Barry Soetoro’s status was.

83. Scoop writes
    February 16th, 2009 11:09 am

    Yep, it’s moot.
    Obama couldn’t denounce his own US citizenship at that age, his parents couldn’t do it for him and even if Indonesia said he was a citizen of their country, it didn’t affect his US citizenship.
    The man is an American.

84. StanleyG writes
    February 16th, 2009 11:48 am

    The man is the PRESIDENT of America. I would think that if there were ANY reason, ANY reason at all that could or would have prevented him from even running, Cheney and his peeps would have found it long ago.

85. Eleanor A writes
    February 16th, 2009 12:11 pm

    Fact of the matter is this: Even if they get some sort of documentation questioning his parentage and citizenship, the man’s already been sworn in. What exactly would be the procedure for having him removed from office? At best you’d wind up with Vice President MBNA in control (which I guess would actually sit pretty well with Republicans, thus the effort perhaps.)

    I can’t quite remember what the rationale was for keeping George W. Bush in office after a consortium of media outlets concluded after the 2000 elections that Gore had in fact won Florida. Something about ‘destabilizing the country.’ Interesting how the facts always look different depending on what your interest is, eh?

86. DG writes
    February 16th, 2009 12:47 pm

    “Barry Soetoro”

    Who?

87. Bob writes
    February 16th, 2009 5:10 pm

    Eric Swafford is a huge douchsack…and stupid to boot.

88. Tom from Tennessee writes
    February 17th, 2009 1:15 pm

    All you Obama supporters can do is name call. You hve NO FACTS. Now that we have State Representatives from different states you are all running scared. This is evident by the threats, and harrasment, that the attorney and representatives have been receiving.
    Go ahead and laugh. We will have the best laugh when Obama is shown to be the scaner that he is.

89. Tom from Tennessee writes
    February 17th, 2009 1:26 pm

    BBC - oldest and largest broadcasting company from Great Britain just recorded an interview with me in regards to Obama ineligibility cases. It will be transmitted in their Russian edition tomorrow , prime time 7-8pm Moscow time, 4-5PM London time.

    They feel it is the case of the Century and were amazed, as to why US media doesn’t report it. I explained that in my opinion most of US media is in the hands of a few members of US oligarchy that find Obama convenient for their purposes and refuse to report on his total illegitimacy for presidency. I have explained to the interviewer, Seva Novgorodski, that US President has to be a Natural born citizen, meaning being a child of two US citizen parents and born in the country.

    Obama does not qualify for several reasons:
    1. His father was here on a student visa and was never a US citizen

    2. HI statue 338 allows foreign born children of HI residents to obtain HI certification of life birth. Short version COLB, that Obama posted on the Internet is a worthless peace of paper, since it does not show any corroborating evidence, such as name of the hospital and name and signature of a doctor, that should be on the actual birth certificate. Obama refuses to release his original BC from HI and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys to file motions to keep them sealed. His attorneys have been threatening, harassing and intimidated us with sanctions for mere requesting the records. This behavior can be explained only by the fact that the original birth certificate shows him ineligible.

    3. When Obama immigrated to Indonesia, he lost his US citizenship, while getting Indonesian Citizenship, since Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Obama reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship and therefor relinquished his US citizenship yet again (if he ever had it) as an adult, while studying at Occidental College and traveling to Pakistan.

    The interviewer has asked if I am not afraid to go against such a mountain and so much money. I have stated that nothing can be achieved by virtue of fear and I am more concerned about a prospect of Obama being allowed to continue to stay in the White House Illegally, in that all the orders and bills and international treaties signed by him will be illegal. I also stated that in my opinion this is a giant on legs of clay, since his rise was achieved by massive voter fraud during primaries and general elections and US media providing one sided reporting.

    They wished me luck and stated that they are fascinated by the case and asked to come back on the program, when there are new developments .

    Program BBC-Seva, Novosti s Chelovecheskim Lizom
    Interviewer Seva Novgorodsky
    Producer Viktoria Melohina (spelled with k)
    audio file can be obtained from:
    viktoria.melohina@BBC.com.UK
    011-44-772-522-1938
    Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

90. Denis Kiely writes
    February 21st, 2009 9:58 am

    As a resident of Representative Eric Swafford’s district, I am appalled at the use of his office to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. While Mr. Swafford claims that his endorsement of a law suit that would make the president provide additional “proof” of his citizenship is the action of a private (and patriotic) citizen, his comments to the press prove otherwise.

    As America faces its worse economic crisis since the Great Depression, it seems Mr. Swafford would rather spend time and energy engaging in a frivolous and partisan political gesture (akin to banning sexual toys) rather than helping local school systems and colleges find adequate funds for the coming year or figuring out how the president’s economic stimulus package might help our district put unemployed residents back to work.

    Mr. Swafford says his course is “the right thing to do,” ignoring that the United States Supreme Court has already rejected a similar case as having no merit, and blindly dismissing the American voters who chose Mr. Obama in November’s election. Perhaps the next time that Mr. Swafford visits the Emerald City, he will remember to ask the wizard for a certificate of his own, one proving that he actually has a brain.

91. jtx writes
    February 22nd, 2009 1:02 pm

    To Cymraeg:

    “Attorney” or not, you are quite incorrect on many of your assertions. Among these “misunderstandings” of yours is the fact that the COLB (the image of the birth certificate loudly pronounded as a legal BC by at lease 4 different pro-O websites) is somehow legally sufficient).

    It isn’t and in fact is shown to be a counterfeit document of “birth” compiled by those wishing the putative Prez were somehoe eligible (he isn’t). This is clearly shown by the 40 - 60 page forensic strength anslysis available on the web which not only shows it to be bogus but also shows definitively that all 4 of the pro-O sites compiled their fraudulent documents using the same source material.

    Also, you need to read Wong Kim Ark more carefully since it does not rule that the subject involved was a “natural born citizen”. It merely discussed the NBC subject as dicta in the case (irrelevant, but interesting commentary which is not part of any legal ruling or precedent). It calls him a citizen but NOT a natural born citizen. Even the SCOTUS realizes this point as one of its Justices has written in one of his formal papers. There’s a difference that your “finely-honed” legal mind completely misses.

92. Scoop writes
    February 22nd, 2009 7:24 pm

    JTX found his crayons and scribbled “There’s a difference that your “finely-honed” legal mind completely misses.”

    Well I sure am glad all those supreme court justices didn’t miss.
    Especially all those conservative judges.
    Yep, they know a lot less about the law than you, JTX.
    You’re the expert. They just wear gowns.

93. Karen Sue writes
    February 23rd, 2009 12:05 am

    Finally someone with a back bone. People that think this is just “nuts” haven’t done their research. You can’t rely on TV for your education people. Wake up!

    As for the Senators, there will be more joining the case against Obama, someone had to be the first one.

94. CKH in OKC writes
    February 23rd, 2009 4:18 am

    Hawaii says they have a document in a vault, they never seem to say what it is, they don’t claim it to be the same document shown. I don’t like “careful wording” in my truth.

    Cymraeg. I would never hire an attorney that doesn’t know the difference between “lose” and “loose,” I may need representation regarding my “nose” and end up in a “noose.”

95. Ed MS writes
    April 4th, 2009 4:06 pm

    After reading all the guessing, hoping for change, dishonest debate tactics from both sides (Tinfoil Hats vs Obots? Come on, if we can not muster any more imaginative dialogue than that, it is no wonder we have gotten to the place we now find ourselves. With his oratorical skills, Obama is potentially a great leader. With his lack of experience, shady associations, and questionable past, he may be a potential liability for this great country.
    To clear this whole mess up and move forward, we must ask the US Attorney in DC for Quo Warranto to validate our President. Personal transparency and accountability doesn’t mean we will understand and agree with everything he says and does. Those qualities will bring honor to himself, his family, our country, and the office which he now holds.

96. RedWolf writes
    July 22nd, 2009 10:24 am

    The Hawaii statute that STILL allows for “birth certificates” of FOREIGN BORN children:
    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

97. Mike writes
    September 15th, 2009 8:24 am

    Oh Please! Come on with the conspiracy theories already! And Dick Cheney blew up the twin towers on 9/11 too; right? That would actually be more believable than this Obama Birth Certificate lie, given Dick Cheney’s “Darth Vader” enigma. So for all who would like to know; Here is the truth.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

    The man is our president. GET OVER IT; You LOST!!

98. Josh Arrowood writes
    September 15th, 2009 8:48 am

    Couple of months late Mike?

99. pohknee writes
    October 28th, 2009 2:19 pm

    Everyday I see more and more comments critcizing, running down or stereotyping people that believe there is an eligibility problem here ie “birthers”). What they all have in common is that not a single one of them can say they have seen a real birth certificate. People should refer to these people as “the blinders”. They believith but don’t seeith. Or maybe the “trustees” would be a good name. I have my birth certificate and you have yours. “Where’s his?