Red Pill’s “Amplified Version” of Fukino’s 2nd News Release

Here is the link to the actual text of Dr. Fukino’s July 27, 2009 News Release.

Here is my “amplified version” of her statement:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records

[but I won't tell you what those records are]

maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health

[but note that I didn't say that all of those records are "on record in accordance with state policies and procedures"]

verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i

[but I wasn’t willing to say that until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first]

 and is a natural-born

[that is, born naturally, via natural childbirth, without any medical procedure such as a C-Section]

 [Native] American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.

[That is, I am still not willing to say that the COLB shown on “Fight the Smears” is authentic, and I’m still not willing to say that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born Citizen of the United States of America.  Now GO AWAY and STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!]

———————————————

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting (to say the least!) “blast from the past”…

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations…

The Standard Ltd
I & M Building, Kenyatta Avenue,
P.O Box 30080, 00100 GPO, Nairobi-Kenya.

This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Red Pill’s “Amplified Version” of Fukino’s 2nd News Release

  1. Ryan says:

    What is your basis for thinking that she meant “born naturally, without any medical procedure such as a C-Section” other than the common use of the phrase “natural born citizen”?

    Is it pure speculation, or do you have something else?

    Are there any words you can’t twist?

  2. Ryan,

    The legal definition of “natural-born” is different from the legal definition of “natural born”.

    Fukino’s statement was approved by the Attorney General of Hawaii.

    Do you remember when President Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”?

    Clinton both performed, and allowed to be performed on him, acts that most people would consider “sexual”. But Clinton relied on a legal definition that didn’t explicitly include the specific types of activities in which he and Miss Lewinsky engaged.

    Legal definitions matter, especially when reviewed by attorneys.

    Remember “it dependes on what the meaning of ‘is’, is”?

  3. The Constitution itself, even including the 14th Amendment, does not define “natural born citizen”.

    Obama does not qualify under Vattel’s definition.

    The question of how to define “natural born citizen”, and whether or not the founders intended Vattel’s definition, is a matter for the Supreme Court of the United States (not the Attorney General of Hawaii) to decide.

  4. Ryan says:

    The legal definition of “natural-born” is different from the legal definition of “natural born”.

    No it is not. In fact, the use of the hyphen here is a grammatical error. The common grammatical conventions say to “not use a hyphen in a compound using a comparative or superlative adjective”. The fact that a grammatical error has been made here does not change the meaning because in both cases of possible meaning here, the hyphen is out of place. Given the discussion around the status of Obama as a “natural born citizen”, the use by Fukino of “natural-born” is most definitely a reference to that discussion, and not of the method of birth, which, as a medical procedure, would be a breach of privacy to divulge.

    Given that you admit to the Constitution not defining “natural born”, why would you be so completely convinced that the eligibility for president (which is otherwise very well defined) includes anything other than citizenship obtained by birthplace?

    The does not make sense, and I can’t believe that you are dumb enough to not admit to the flaws in your arguments. There has got to be something else that is driving you to come to these conclusions.

  5. smrstrauss says:

    Re :”Obama does not qualify under Vattel’s definition.”

    Neither did Andrew Jackson, both of whose parents were born in Ireland. It is said, but it has never been proven, that they were naturalized before Jackson was born.

    But according to British law at the time (and Ireland was part of the British empire at the time), a subject of the King did not give up his British nationality simply because she or he was naturalized in a foreign country. So, if they were naturalized, they were dual nationals. If they weren’t naturalized, they were British subjects.

    So much for the technical points. The broad point is that in real life there is absolutely no difference between a child whose parents were naturalized before he was born and one whose parents were naturalized after he was born. That is why the writers of the Constitution did not focus on the citizenship of the parents. They focused on the fact of birth in the USA. That is what Natural Born meant at the time. It stemmed from the common law meaning.

    And that meaning continued for a long time. When men were asked to fill out forms for registering for the draft in World War I, they were asked if they were a citizen, and then if they were naturalized or natural born. There were only two possibilities, a citizen who had been born outside of the country and was naturalized, and one who had been born in the country–a Natural Born citizen.

  6. Ryan,

    From: Okubo, Janice S..
    Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
    To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…

    Aloha Justin,

    The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

    Janice Okubo
    Communications Office
    Hawaii State Department of Health…

    Do you really believe that a statement of this importance, which was reviewed by Dr. Fukino, Janice Okubo, and Attorney General Mark Bennett, had a “grammatical error” in this central phrase?

    Hardly.

    There has been a concerted effort underway on the web to try to equate “natural-born” and “natural born”. For example, Wikipedia is not a great source, but a lot of people still go there for (mis)information. On Wikipedia, “natural-born citizen” and “natural born citizen” both redirect to the same place.

  7. smrstrauss says:

    Further to Natural Born. I spotted this on another Web site:

    “Black’s Law Dictionary in front of me. It defines “natural born citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” It then defines “naturalized citizen” as being “A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.” It does not list any other kinds of citizen, only by birth or naturalization. It does not require two citizen parents.” http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-believe-obama-is-natural-born.html

  8. Ryan,

    Given that you admit to the Constitution not defining “natural born”, why would you be so completely convinced that the eligibility for president (which is otherwise very well defined) includes anything other than citizenship obtained by birthplace?

    You should know the answer by now. Read this post.

    And if you want the opinion of an attorney, read Leo Donofrio’s blog, starting off with this post: THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION.

    You are projecting when you say:

    The does not make sense, and I can’t believe that you are dumb enough to not admit to the flaws in your arguments. There has got to be something else that is driving you to come to these conclusions.

    What is driving you, Ryan? Are you one of Obama’s paid minions?

  9. Ryan says:

    Those redirect to the same page on Wikipedia because most good web applications ignore punctuation when conducting alphanumeric database searches. At least I do. Wikipedia also redirects common misspellings and colloquialisms. Check this one out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hahvahd

    I do believe that the statement could have contained grammatical errors because it does in fact contain a grammatical error. The hyphen is not required. It’s a fairly innocuous error, so I’m not too concerned, and neither should you. Are you saying that you would have believed them had it not been for the hyphen? I doubt it.

  10. Ryan says:

    What is driving you, Ryan? Are you one of Obama’s paid minions?

    I applied, but they said I wasn’t communist enough.

    [Ed. That's both funny and sad at the same time. ]

  11. Check this one out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hahvahd

    I’m glad you brought up Harvard. Harvard’s motto is today presented as “Veritas” (“Truth”). But the truth is that Harvard’s motto is “Christo et Ecclesiae” (”For Christ and the church“) which appears in impressions of the university’s seal. (And Jesus Christ is the truth).

    See my post: Demoralization in America’s Universities

  12. Jax says:

    “Do you really believe that a statement of this importance, which was reviewed by Dr. Fukino, Janice Okubo, and Attorney General Mark Bennett, had a “grammatical error” in this central phrase?”

    In the original United States Constitution, Pennsylvania is misspelled once as Pensylvania, and “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws” should be “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws.”

    That important document was reviewed by some of the greatest minds in the history of the world, and THEY still got two typos in there. So do I believe a couple of state bureaucrats could misplace a hyphen? Yeah, I think I buy that.

  13. Submitted on 2009/10/08 at 3:16pm

    Re :”Obama does not qualify under Vattel’s definition.”

    Neither did Andrew Jackson, both of whose parents were born in Ireland. It is said, but it has never been proven, that they were naturalized before Jackson was born.

    I love it when people bring up Andrew Jackson.

    You think he is an example of someone being born on US soil, to one or more British subjects, and was eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief. On that, you are correct. But you then go on to think that this somehow set a precedent for Obama. On that, you are incorrect.

    Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the United States Constition says:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Break that down. To be eligible to the Office of President, a person must meet three requirements. The first requirement included a “grandfather clause”.

    1a) natural born Citizen of the United States, or
    1b) (“grandfather clause”) a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

    2) attained to the Age of thirty-five Years

    3) been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

    You imply that Andrew Jackson set a precedent for Barack Obama.
    You imply that Andrew Jackson met requirements 1a, 2, and 3.
    That is dead wrong.
    Andrew Jackson did not meet requirement 1a.
    He met requirements 1b, 2, and 3.
    He qualified under the “grandfather clause”. He was born March 15, 1767, and became a U.S. citizen when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776.

    Andrew Jackson was not the last President born before the Declaration of Independence was signed (William Henry Harrison was), but Andrew Jackson was the last President who was not a natural born citizen yet still Constitutionally eligible to hold the office.

  14. Ryan says:

    Harvard’s motto is today presented as “Veritas” (“Truth”). But the truth is that Harvard’s motto is “Christo et Ecclesiae”

    Harvard’s motto is whatever Harvard says it is.

  15. Jax says:

    Do you love it when people bring up Chester A. Arthur?

  16. Jax said:

    Do you love it when people bring up Chester A. Arthur?

    Yes.

  17. smrstrauss said:

    Further to Natural Born. I spotted this on another Web site:

    “Black’s Law Dictionary in front of me. It defines “natural born citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” It then defines “naturalized citizen” as being “A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.” It does not list any other kinds of citizen, only by birth or naturalization. It does not require two citizen parents.”

    Expand your reading beyond “barackryphal”.

    I recommend that you read at least these three posts from Leo’s blog:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/natural-born-citizen-defined-by-14th-amendment-framers-and-in-treatise-relied-on-by-scalia/

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/world-net-daily-aiding-and-abetting-obama-eligibility-propaganda/

  18. What is required to put this all to rest?

    1) An initial birth certificate, certified by and released from the Hawaii Department of Health, proving conclusively that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961.

    2) A ruling by the United States Supreme Court on the definition of the Constitutional requirement of “natural born citizen”.

    3) A determination of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II meets the constitutional requirement for President, that is, that under the Supreme Court’s definition he was born a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and he never relinquished U.S. citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country as an adult.

  19. Jax says:

    Nah, I think we’ll let you keep flailing around on the internet like a crew of lunatics. Keeps you out of trouble.

  20. Harry H says:

    I appreciate your succinct 3-point summary above (5:17 pm), but the matter may not be that simple. Re #1, his real initial birth certificate appears to be in Kenya.

    Re #2, the SCOTUS has amply defined nbc already, as in “Venus” (1814), Dred Scott (1857), and Minor (1875), in reference to which attorney Mario Apuzzo said on Sept. 8, “Here we can see that the U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a ‘natural born Citizen” is, and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test. Dred Scott even removed the word ‘father’ and replaced it with the word ‘parents.’ ” No ruling is needed to define nbc, but honest jurisprudence is required to recognize Obama’s constitutional disability.

    Re #3, yes, you are right, but who among the mice is going to bell the cat? Best hope seems to be that Leo Donofrio will eventually get a quo warranto petition filed in D.C. District Court, but AG Holder can probably hold that up for a long time. Maybe Judge Carter will midwife a California miracle.

  21. Jax says:

    #1: Do you mean the forgery that came from the birth certificate of the old guy in New Zealand, or the forgery that came from the YouTube guy who just filed suit against Orly Taitz?

    #2: Are you too lazy to quote the actual case law Apuzzo is citing here, or are you worried that we’ll track down the quotes, cite them in context, and show that Apuzzo is heavily editing his quotes at best and outright misquoting them at worst?

    #3: Yeah, none of those things are going to happen either.

  22. Pingback: Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”? « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  23. Sally HIll says:

    Ryan, It’s not RedPill that is twisting words, if anyone is doing any twisting and squirming, it’s Fukino.

    Why did she parse her words so carefully? If the Constitution specifically says ‘natural born Citizen’, if you truly wanted to dispell ANY and ALL questions surrounding Obama’s status, why wouldn’t she have said ‘natural born Citizen’ instead of ‘natural-born American citizen’.

    Personally, I do not think she is THAT incompetent – maybe you do. I think it was done on purpose.

    Also, we see her parsing of words here: “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures” versus “original vital records maintained on file”. These 2 statements have totally different meanings within the realm of the Vital Statistics World. Why the differences in her comments?

    Again, I do not think she is THAT incompetent for this to have been accidentally said, in error, or grammatically wrong – perhaps you do.

    Why does Obama’s COLB state “Date Filed with Registrar” and not, “Date Accepted by Registrar”? Could it be that SOME of the information contained within Obama’s COLB has not yet been verified to the point where the DOH can Accept it? If this is the case, that would explain it. As Fukino correctly stated, his Vital Records are maintained on file, but not on Record.

    Fukino’s first statement didn’t state it was on record either. She stated that she has seen and verified that there was a record of his BC being on file – basically she was saying she had seen and verified the index record, not the Birth Certificate. If you read it carefully – taking out her yada, yada, yada – you would see that she NEVER said she had seen and verified Obama’s actual BC!

    So now, who exactly is parsing and twisting words? You seem to think Fukino is incompetent to the point where she is unaware of the words she is putting together and to their meaning. She is a highly intelligent woman – with a doctorate – I highly doubt that she had no idea what she was stating. On the contrary – I think she knew EXACTLY what she was stating, and not only EXACTLY what it meant, but EXACTLY how it could be and probably would be interpreted by the majority of Americans.

    She is NOT incompetent and you seemingly suggest.

  24. Ryan says:

    Sally, I’ll ask you what I’ve asked here many time without an answer.

    If you are willing to believe that Fukino, and everyone else on her staff is willing to perjure themselves (and yes, deliberately misleading is perjury, even if your words are technically true). If they are willing to perjure themselves to protect Obama, why do they stop there? Why don’t they just print up a birth certificate with all the information that Obama wants on it? That’s what the birthers say they want to see, but because of the fact that they don’t trust anyone but their own conspiracy theories, even a paper birth certificate would not be enough.

    There is nothing that anyone can do to convince you that he was born in Hawaii.

  25. Sally,
    Thank you for your excellent comment.

    Wouldn’t be interesting if Obama’s “Hawaiian birth” had been reported by his grandmother, but was only “on file”, not “accepted”, because it had to be verified?

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if, since Obama’s parents are now both deceased, the State of Hawaii accepted the U.S. House of Representatives’ H. RES. 593 resolution, saying “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961″, as verification of the birth reported by his grandmother???

    Members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not witness Obama’s birth. They only voted in favor of that statement because they believed the lies told by Annenberg Political Fact Check and the media… specifically the lies that Dr. Fukino had in October 2008 “confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii” and “verified the legitimacy of Obama’s COLB”.

    FactCheck LIED when they said:

    The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

    The media LIED when they said:

    The state’s Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.

  26. Ryan,

    You don’t seem to understand. Dr. Fukino was very careful not to perjure herself. In both News releases, what she said was technically accurate, though highly deceptive.

  27. Ryan says:

    Dr. Fukino was very careful not to perjure herself. In both News releases, what she said was technically accurate, though highly deceptive.

    I’ sorry, but could you use her full name, I’m not sure if you mean Dr Chiyome Fukino from Hawaii, or Dr. Koichi Fukino from Japan. Without the clarification, your sentence is really quite deceptive.

    You have also capitalized “News”, leading me to believe that you must be referring to the New York (or Halifax, or London, who knows) newspaper “The Daily News” I’m not sure if either Drs Fukino have made a comment on the releases from those papers.

    And by “highly” deceptive, do you mean “very” deceptive, or deceptive in a “influenced by drugs” way? If it is the latter, where is your evidence of drug use?

    I eagerly await your reply – hopefully using less deceptive language.

  28. Ryan,

    Care to comment on how FactCheck LIED when they said:

    The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

  29. Ryan says:

    Sure I’ll comment on that. They did not lie, and even if they did, I don’t really care. I don’t really give a rat’s ass what FactCheck says.

    To all of us who can read, and have a basic understanding of English, Fukino confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. You seem to thing that a piece of paper bears more weight than the person in charge of that piece of paper. The birth certificate is a representation of the opinion of the state of Hawaii as to the birth of a person. In the case of all birth certificates, we take it on faith that the issuer of said certificate is not lying. Anyone in a vital records office could make you a fake births certificate. You have heard confirmation from a person in charge of those records. You don’t like it, but you don’t really have any justification to challenge her, since you have no evidence that he was born anywhere else. None.

  30. Sally HIll says:

    Ryan, do I think she would perjure herself? Absolutely not. Nor do I think she did. Why do you think she is an ignorant person? Let me assure you – she is a HIGHLY intelligent person. As I said previously, she said EXACTLY what she meant to say – PRECISELY. And she said it that EXACT way for a reason – the words were and word order were very deliberate.

    Therefore, since she has NOT perjured herself, nor has she really crossed the line in misdirection or misinformation – not really – I don’t see how she could possibly be held liable for any information she has given. She has been OH SO VERY CAREFUL with her words. She very well knows the game she is playing. She is a government employee and they ALL (I know, I was a government employee for 6 years) know very well how to parse words to say one thing and mean another. It’s a very accepted political game in the world of statute driven statements.

    “There is nothing that anyone can do to convince you that he was born in Hawaii.”
    I apologize if I said anything that made you think this – it was not my intention to deceive. I most positively believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The issue about FactCheck lying is a HUGE issue. Multiple, dare I say ALL of Congress relied upon FactCheck’s Facts to communicate with their constitutents regarding Obama’s legitimacy. To point to FACTS on a website that has been shown time and again, not to get their FACTS correct – throws a wrench in the whole FACT CHECK base.

    But Ryan is correct on one issue. It really doesn’t matter what FactCheck says. Obama was under British Law at the time of his birth – as he himself admits, he was born a dual-citizen and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS. Period. End of story.

    We The People just want the truth. The truth that we deserve to know about a man who is our Commander In Chief – it is our right to know the truth. If he won’t tell us, then we MUST – as American patriots, in honor of those that fought with their lives for our freedoms, find it out ourselves.

  31. Ryan says:

    Obama was under British Law at the time of his birth – as he himself admits, he was born a dual-citizen and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS. Period. End of story.

    Yeah, but here’s the thing… That isn’t actually true. There is no mention of that rule anywhere in any law in the United States, or in the Constitution. The people who say that are basing it on a Swiss publication that was written long ago, predating the Constitution. Even Britain doesn’t have that rule, and didn’t back then either. In fact, no other country has that rule to my knowledge.

    You can’t say that there is a rule because it is implied. It needs to be written down. People have known about Obamas father through his entire campaign, and yet, he is now president. Does that not tell you that pretty much everyone disagrees with you?

    We The People just want the truth. The truth that we deserve to know about a man who is our Commander In Chief – it is our right to know the truth. If he won’t tell us, then we MUST – as American patriots, in honor of those that fought with their lives for our freedoms, find it out ourselves.

    What truth? You just told me you believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was born in Hawaii, and that his Dad was a British subject. We all agree on that. What other truth are you looking for?

    On top of that, if you believe what Fukino said to be true, whether she reworded it or not, then why is she being deceitful?

  32. Sally HIll says:

    What ‘rule’ are you referring to? I didn’t refer to a rule or say that one existed. The Constitution is clear in the requirements for POTUS. Being a NBC is in fact, one of the requirements that Obama needed to have, which he doesn’t.

    While the Constitution does NOT, nor anywhere is there a legal definition of NBC, that term is somewhat open for interpretation until SCOTUS or some ruling is handed down on the matter.

    The FACT remains, that Obama WAS, by his own admission a dual-citizen at the time of his birth. Are you calling him a liar?

    How in the world can you be a Natural born citizen of the US at the same time that you are governed under British Law?

    With dual-citizenships, comes dual-allegiences. I believe that our Founding Fathers wanted to guard against just such an occurance, by stating a different standard for POTUS from that of Congress.

    POTUS is human, and as such is NOT immune to emotions which could easily attach to parantage. Now, lets address those emotions to which Obama seems to have many. Obama (or someone under his name) wrote a whole novel dedicated to a Father with whom he had little contact and knew little about. He would APPEAR to have a rather strong EMOTIONAL attachment to his foreign born Father.

    Well after the age of majority, Obama travelled to Kenya (on the US tax payers dollar) to campaign for a man named Odinga, who is speculated to be his father’s cousin. Obama campaigned for this man, who believed in Sharia Law. Why would Obama have done that? Now – either Obama himself believes in Sharia Law, or he did so out of PATERNAL LOYALTY. Either way, it speaks to his dual-allegiances.

    Since becoming POTUS, he has appointed Harold Koh as legal counsel. Not only does Koh believe in Sharia Law, but also transnationalism. I guess this speaks to a connection between Obama and his belief in Sharia Law and perhaps another dual-allegiance issue.

    Point is – Actions speak louder than words…and Obama has a VERY apparent dual-allegiance issue. This is precisely the issue the Founding Father’s wanted to guard against.

    The truth? The fact that there are many Obama documents which should be made public, but are in fact hidden and sealed from public view. We the People want to know who our President is as well as his past. He may very well not be hiding a thing, but I think common sense tells us, he is – we want the truth – we want to know what it is and who this man is.

    What people are you referring to that knew about Obama’s father through his entire campaign? And because a little more than half of an uninformed public voted for him based on the color of his skin – does that tell me that pretty much everyone disagrees with me? Absolutely not! I’m not an idiot. Are you talking about the scores and scores of people that couldn’t tell you who Obama’s running mate was? or Who thought there were 57 states? or Who thought since Iran was a tiny country they weren’t a threat? – OHHH…you meant THOSE intelligent and well informed people who voted for him, therefore MUST have known about his foreign born father and his dual-citizenship.
    uhhhh huh….sure…if you say so….

    Why is she being deceitful? I didn’t say she was being deceitful – you were insinuating that, not me. I think she is artful with her words – and rightly so. She is a government employee – that’s what they do. They don’t like to be questioned, and certainly don’t want to have to give any answers. However, I do feel there is ‘some’ issue with Obama’s BC / Vital Records, that she is not at all comfortable with – but according to statutes, must answer questions regarding. She answers them in an ARTFUL way – not deceitful, but artful. Truthfully, but could be misconstrued – how in the world would you get deceitful out of a true statement?

  33. Jax says:

    “How in the world can you be a Natural born citizen of the US at the same time that you are governed under British Law?”

    Because he was born an American citizen. America does not recognize the authority of other governments over its citizens. Period. Say some small country like Estonia passed a law that said, “All American citizens are now dual citizens of Estonia.” By your logic, all of us would then be dual citizens and no American citizen would be eligible to be President.

    I enjoyed how you admitted that no law, court or Congress agreed with your definition, then pressed ahead anyway. Can’t believe you birthers aren’t getting anywhere in court.

  34. Jax says:

    “What people are you referring to that knew about Obama’s father through his entire campaign? And because a little more than half of an uninformed public voted for him based on the color of his skin – does that tell me that pretty much everyone disagrees with me? Absolutely not! I’m not an idiot. Are you talking about the scores and scores of people that couldn’t tell you who Obama’s running mate was? or Who thought there were 57 states? or Who thought since Iran was a tiny country they weren’t a threat? – OHHH…you meant THOSE intelligent and well informed people who voted for him, therefore MUST have known about his foreign born father and his dual-citizenship.
    uhhhh huh….sure…if you say so….”

    The Birther argument:

    In 2004, the Democrats lost because they treated American people like they were stupid.

    In 2008, the Democrats won because the American people are stupid.

    Gosh, it’s almost like you’re a bunch of spoiled children who just want their own way! Huh.

  35. Sally HIll says:

    Look, Obama won – he is President – what more do you want? Do I think he will be removed from office? Yes, in 2012, not before. Do I think he is a NBC, no. Do I still want the truth about him, yes.

    Most level headed Obama supporters agree that there is no legal definition of NBC, yet they press ahead with their views. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Last I checked, as an American, I am free to express my opinion – as are you. At least I’m not calling you names and berrating you – and I appreciate the same from you.

    And btw, I’m not a birther….I’m an American. If you are American, then we are on the same side!!!!! If we don’t stop this bickering between us, we are going to tear ourselves apart. I’m not saying it is a conservative / liberal issue. I merely have a different opinion, but that doesn’t make you any more right than me – since there is NO legal definition of NBC. I was under the impression that this was a blog where we were having a debate – not making laws.

    And Yes, the US does recognize dual-citizenship. You might want to check out this link: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
    “However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.”

    And your arguement, actually strauss’s arguement is not relevant and you know it. Which parent has Estonian citizenship in order to pass it to you AT BIRTH, AFTER the Estonian’s passed that law? If neither parent is Estonian, how does the law then affect you? If both of Obama’s parents were US Citizens, there would be no issue of British Law even being discussed. Do you see how your example hurts your arguement – badly, I might add.

    It’s odd – whereever I post, I NEVER have anyone EVER respond to or defend his travels to Kenya…..very odd.

    But I will give you one point that you made. Obama was born an American Citizen. Yes, that he was. JUST an American Citizen, not a NBC. I agree with you whole-heartedly.

  36. Ladysforest says:

    I wondered where my buddies Jax and Ryan toddled off to.

    You folks do know they are trolls, yes? And on the previous topic one of these little darlings logged in using MY screen name and left a racially derisive comment. They are not only trolls, but very poor sports.

    Here is the notice that should be posted after each of their posts:

    RE: Jax, Ryan – ALERT !! DO NOT REPLY TO THEIR POSTS!
    They are trolls at best, or poor misguided simpletons, being paid by obama to try and deflect attention away from the natural born citizen issue at worst.

    Thanks for all of the good work Redpill.

  37. Ryan says:

    I wondered where my buddies Jax and Ryan toddled off to.

    Sorry, we were all at the Annual Convention of Communists, Marxists, Socialists and Model Railroading, working the Obama booth, selling Kenyan dolls and giving away free health care plans.

    We partied late into the night.

    And one more thing… Don’t call me “buddy”, pal.

  38. Math says:

    What you were there too Ryan? What a shame that we didn’t run into one another, I was at the Hawaiian department of health booth handing out COLBs to everyone and anyone passing by! Let me know if you want one, I’ll be sure to mail it to you. That way when you run for President, we can laugh at them trying to say you’re not a natural born when they’ve been calling Canada the 51st state for years.

  39. Sally HIll says:

    Lady – I think it’s pretty evident they are most likely either DOJ employees being paid to pro-Obama post, or either wannabee’s.

    But we can’t argue with ourselves :) In either case, they do serve a purpose and I for one, will take advantage of the purpose they serve for me. I wonder if Holder ever looked at the situation from the other side to see that his little paid minions could actually be working against him.

  40. Ladysforest says:

    Yes Sally Hill,

    As they attempt their “arguments” it does become more clear to anyone reading these blogs that our chummies, Jax, Ryan and lets not leave out Math, are without any facts to support their glib claims that obama can legitimately claim natural born citizen status.

    The more they wiggle and squirm in their attempts to cover obamas tracks by using insults, misdirection and misinformation, the more they reveal how little evidence, or how few supporting facts (none) they bring to the table.

    This I know. I just prefer that the newer readers be aware of what those posters are.

    So tag ‘em as trolls -then add your answer. Trust me, they love it very much. That is why one of those little cuties logged in stealing my screen name and left a racially derisive comment about obama. Poor sports as well as being paid trolls for obama. Ah, but what can you expect from those types?

  41. Jax says:

    Sally Hill – let me ask you one question. What happens if everything you believe comes to pass? The Supreme Court rules on your side, natural born citizens have to be born in the United States to two parents who are citizens. What happens then? Do the laws that Obama signed into law while in office remain, or are they nullified?

  42. Jax says:

    “The more they wiggle and squirm in their attempts to cover obamas tracks by using insults, misdirection and misinformation, the more they reveal how little evidence, or how few supporting facts (none) they bring to the table.”

    Don’t talk about Captain Steve like that. He’s a gentle, sensitive soul.

  43. Ladysforest says:

    RE: Jax, Ryan and Math – ALERT !! DO NOT REPLY TO THEIR POSTS!

    They are trolls at best, or poor misguided simpletons, being paid by obama to try and deflect attention away from the natural born citizen issue at worst.

  44. Ryan says:

    Hi ChickThicket

    I thought you were not going to respond to us, yet there it is, a reply, plain as day.

  45. Ladysforest says:

    RE: Jax, Ryan and Math – ALERT !! DO NOT REPLY TO THEIR POSTS!

    They are trolls at best, or poor misguided simpletons (oh my!), being paid by obama to try and deflect attention away from the natural born citizen issue at worst.

  46. Math says:

    Sally Hill – let me ask you one question. What happens if everything you believe comes to pass? The Supreme Court rules on your side, natural born citizens have to be born in the United States to two parents who are citizens. What happens then? Do the laws that Obama signed into law while in office remain, or are they nullified?

    Even if what you suggest happens, what is ironic is, by the time this is done in court and all the appeals and procedures are exhausted, they will be rid of Obama for good anyways because of the 22nd amendment, and only the mess of figuring out what to do with his 8 years in office will remain.

    RE: Jax, Ryan and Math – ALERT !! DO NOT REPLY TO THEIR POSTS!

    They are trolls at best, or poor misguided simpletons (oh my!), being paid by obama to try and deflect attention away from the natural born citizen issue at worst.

    Even if you’re on his side, I imagine there is a limit to Red’s tolerance of copy/pasting the same stuff over and over (a.k.a. spam and trolling) So we’ll make a point of making you do it as much as possible. If Red wanted to ban us he would have done so a long time ago.

  47. Ladysforest says:

    mmmm mmmm mmmm, Math loves barack obama!

    Know what I mean?

    Spare us all the divisive rhetoric, mkay? It’s just like any other annoying noise, after awhile people learn to ignore it and just don’t hear it anymore.

  48. Math says:

    Spare us all the divisive rhetoric, mkay? It’s just like any other annoying noise, after awhile people learn to ignore it and just don’t hear it anymore.

    Sorry did you say something hun? Hey it’s starting to work you’re right!

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