Open Topic for Eligibility Discussions

ObamaThis is the place to discuss all things related to presidential eligibility including the President Obama’s birth place, natural born citizen discussions, and other conspiracy theories that do not fit any place else. Just remember to follow the blog’s comment policy.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Open Topic for Eligibility Discussions

  1. Jim says:

    Day 682 of the investigation…Mr Zullo begs for more money, Xerox copier still at large. Film at 11.

  2. Ben Strong says:

    All information can be found in one (DOCUMENTED) place:
    Obama’s real birth certificate can be found @:
    World Intelligence investigation of Obama’s birth certificate can be found @:

  3. Ben Strong says:

    OK ‘talk the talk’ show Us where it is not legitimate…

  4. Ben Strong says:

    And don’t show Us ‘leftwing’ crap from a web site owned by your Marxist crew!

  5. Ben Strong says:

    Obama’s first ‘forged’ birth certificate produced by Obama and Soros treasonous criminal’s at Fact Check and PolitiFact was introduced and (forensically analyzed ) in July 2008.This just shows you how long this crime has been going on!

    • Jim says:

      Ben Strong says: “Obama’s first ‘forged’ birth certificate produced by Obama and Soros treasonous criminal’s at Fact Check and PolitiFact was introduced and (forensically analyzed ) in July 2008.This just shows you how long this crime has been going on!”

      And yet, not a single case has been won, not a single Congressperson convinced, not a single SCOTUS jurist agrees with you, and a majority of the voters didn’t agree with you. Seems to me the only crime is your inability for rational thinking…but, since that’s a crime against nature and not law we’ll just laugh at you instead. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      • Ben Strong says:

        Another Marxist Obamatard speaks:
        Yes, you right Jim…This just shows Us that Your USSA is being ‘TOTALLY’ run ( and DESTROYED) by gullible, anti-American, Marxist like yourself .
        Here’s more information about the Indonesian (DOCUMENT!) citizen Barry Soetoro (AKA) Barack Hussein Obama…that You ‘ narrow minded, anti-American’s worship….

        PROVE IT’S WRONG…I didn’t think so!BWAHAHAHAH!!!

        • smrstrauss says:

          [My apologies; this comment was caught by the spam filter and I just found it. RC 8/7/13]

          Re: “PROVE IT’S WRONG…I didn’t think so!BWAHAHAHAH!!!”


          One way to prove it is wrong is to show that the Kenyan government said that it investigated—- and that Obama was NOT born there.

          So, here:

          “Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

          “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

          Another is to show how unlikely such a trip would be. For example, birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother HAD A PASSPORT in 1961—and very few 18-year-olds did in those days. And even fewer (lots fewer) women traveled outside the the USA when they were in the last two months of pregnancy in 1961—because of the risk of stillbirths.

          Still another is to point out that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate has repeatedly been confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor, a friend of Sarah Palin) and the officials of Hawaii have also stated several times that all the facts, repeat ALL of the facts, are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

          Still another way is to show that such a trip would hve been virtually impossible. According to the INS report for fiscal 1961 only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya that year, all but one of them came BY SHIP, and there were no regularly scheduled ships from Kenya to Hawaii.

          Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for fiscal 1961 (which includes August 1961):

          Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals. Notice that they came by sea, by ship, with the exception of one person—and that person was not a US citizen.

          And then there is the background of the birth certificate itself. If you are referring to the one with the footprint, it was shown by Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon, one of whose crimes was forgery, and he CLAIMED that he got it on a trip to Mombasa, Kenya. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show any proof that he actually had gone to Kenya. All that would take would be for him to scan the page on his passport with the Kenya stamp on it and put the result online—but he has refused to do it.

          In short, the “Kenya birth certificate” is forged, and there is absolutely no proof whatever that Obama was born anywhere else than where his Hawaii birth certificate shows, in Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu (which, btw, did exist at the time). I bet that birther sites have not shown you this:

          Oh, and birther sites LIED when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya. She never said any such thing (and in fact the birther sites simply cut off the tape recorded interview just BEFORE she was asked: “Where was he born”—she answered that by saying “In Hawaii, where his father was studying”—but birther sites simply did not quote her.

          Oh, and the notion that Obama “spent millions” to hide his background is also a birther myth. He did not spend a cent. In fact he showed his birth certificate twice—short form and long form (and as noted the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to Obama and confirmed the facts on them). And he does not have to show his school grades, college admission application, college transcripts, graduate school transcripts, etc.—because, duh, other presidents and presidential candidates have not shown theirs either. Mitt Romney and John McCain certainly didn’t.

        • Awww… Poor widdle piss-ant wingnut wetting his diapers over losing an election. How sad. Stomp yer widdle feet all you want. The adults have things to do.

          Better get used to it. Independents are hip to your throwing around “marxist” and Muslim” and all that, and they think YOU’RE unbalanced. And your grandchildren will learn about a good man who was fairly elected the first mixed-race President, and that it caused people like you to lose their minds. You will be remembered in pity (if at all) like flat-earthers and moon-landing-hoaxers.

          Run off and play in the sandbox now, loser.

        • Anybody who thinks it is clever to begin a response with the word-salad slogan “marxist obamatard” clearly has not moved beyond fifth grade level in terms of insults or arguments, and is wasting internet bandwidth. When you can grow up and assemble an argument, you might find people taking some notice of you. Until that point, however, you’re just an example of bloviating emptiness.

  6. Jim says:

    Ben Strong says: “PROVE IT’S WRONG…I didn’t think so!BWAHAHAHAH!!!”
    Sure, the President’s in the WH as our Constitutionally elected President. That proves it’s useless in deciding eligibility. Now, all the documentation shows the President was born in Hawaii, prove he wasn’t. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    • Ben Strong says:

      You must be sharing O’Commies crack pipe….But you Marxist..Obamatards need to keep posting your ignorance …that way the WORLD will know how this country ‘REALLY’ got screwed up…BWAHAHAH

  7. Ben Strong says:

    This totally a waste of time…Looks like I blogged in to Obama and Soros ‘SOCIALIST SEWER’…You anti-American, gullible, ‘LEFTIES’ need to take off your blinder’s and start reading the ‘TRUTH!’
    I’m Out of Here!

  8. Jim says:

    Ben Strong says: “I’m Out of Here!”

    See you later Ben…make sure to take your meds.

  9. Ben Strong says:

    Hit with the ‘TRUTH’ and run from ‘STUPITITY!’

  10. richCares says:

    Ben Strong must be satire, nobody can be that stupid.

  11. arnash says:

    Requesting feedback of an objective factual nature to my newest exposition titled: Why Obama Is Not A Real American.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      Your exposition is lacking objectivity and factuality.

    • Hawaii was one of the 50 states of these United States when President Obama was born. As a brand new state Hawaiians were probably more aware of what it meant to be citizens of the United States than the 48 states. President Obama was born there and primarily grew up there. You seem to imply that Hawaiians are somehow not “real Americans”. I find that disgusting and stupid.

      President Obama attended three excellent universities and excelled at Harvard Law School. He chose a life of service versus what could have been a most lucrative law practice at the highest level. The fact that you cannot appreciate what a great American our President is only makes me question what kind of American you are.

    • Foggy says:

      It’s August 2013. President Obama has been elected twice and inaugurated twice and found to be eligible twice in the only way any president is ever found eligible: by Congress at the counting of the electoral votes. The government of Hawaii has said numerous times that he was born there, which is all he needs to be a natural born citizen. The birthers have lost more than 200 lawsuits with their frivolous lies. But they’re too retarded to understand that they’re never going to win. More than 90% of the birthers have already quit. There are more of us than there are die hard birthers left. All that remains of the birther movement is the most retarded of the lunatic trash morons. Arnash’s post is wonderful if you count lies and insanity as wonderful. Other than that, Arnash has shown himself to be nothing but unpatriotic, unAmerican birther SCUM.

  12. arnash says:

    About Hawaiians, would you claim that the natives of Hawaii are real natural members of the American nation? What on earth would make them natural members? They themselves do not consider themselves as natural Americans but as natural Hawaiians. Same with Puerto Ricans. Same with Eskimos and Inuit peoples. How far away and dissimilar in every way do a people have to be before they are recognized as being different?
    Plus, there is no evidence that Obama was anything other than a mediocre Harvard student outside of doing a good job of herding the cats of the Law Review (which was facilitated by his greater age and experience). Nor is there any evidence that he took and passed the Illinois State Bar exam. If he was legitimately admitted to it, that could have been the result of their allowance for those who don’t practice law but merely teach it. He did practice law but it very likely could have been as a legal clerk working under a licensed attorney. Again, no evidence either way.

    Requesting your considered and fact-based response to the exposition I posted last night to my blog, titled: OBAMA & OFFICIAL STATE ERROR; The Final Word.

    It illuminates the nature of the errors that led to the wide-spread misconception that one such as Obama is eligible to serve as the American President.

  13. arnash says:

    Here’s something that I wrote to Apuzzo last night, and another person:
    Mario said: “You continue to reap from me and sow [my work] as if your own.”
    With some unknown exceptions I ceased reaping from you almost three years ago, and it took me about two for the scales of delusion I absorbed from you to fall off. I refer to the delusion that “natural born citizen” is a term of art and one that needs defining.
    My writings for a long time regurgitated that from you until the light of the simple truth finally dawn in my unshackled mind.
    The words mean what the words mean and nothing else, and the entire edifice you have built half based on a false meaning is an unnecessary impediment to people understanding the simple Natural Law truth.
    The Law of Nature is the Law of Natural Membership. It has nothing to do with law or government and exists without them. It existed a billion years before them and will still exist a million years after them. By that law we are members of our parents’ group, -both their family group and their national group. AN

    No one’s opinion means squat to me. Including the nine kings in black robes. All that matters is seeing through the fog of error and misconceptions that sound really logical and persuasive but are not founded on reality. There are forms of philosophy which are inherently deceitful because they distort logic and perception of truth.

    They are the false reality that is as convincing as The Matrix. No one in the Matrix is going to tell you that you are in the Matrix. Only after you are out of it do you come to realize that the whole thing was a big fat falsehood.

    If someone inside the Matrix tells someone outside of it that it is in fact the real reality, well, what does it take to convince them otherwise? Nothing will work except leaving the Matrix and finding out it was all an elaborate illusion. That is what the issue of citizenship is like.

    It is all an elaborate illusion perpetuated for over a century as a thoroughly institutionalized error. Like the error that slavery and involuntary servitude are banned, when in fact they are both still perfectly legal. Read the 13th Amendment very, very closely and you’ll see at least part of the reason why. But everyone, including Supreme Court justices, are unaware of the truth that is there for everyone to read. AN

    dick head said: “children of foreigners cannot possibly be born in the allegiance of the US.”

    Under the fundamental principles of the Law of Nature on which the United States is founded, the notion of allegiance from birth is abolished. In its play is the individual responsibility of Citizenship. We all are kings and responsible for the defense of our kingdom, if…(and it’s a big “if”), we are adults and male.
    Children and females are not subject to that responsibility because they are our protected class. They are not citizens in the same sense. Just as children are not citizens at all in the true sense of its meaning, so females are lesser citizens also because their citizenship requires significantly less of them.

    They are more akin to American subjects. Subjects have equal rights with citizens but not equal responsibility because citizens are not under the protection of the nation since they are the skeleton of the nation,-without which it cannot stand in perpetuity.
    Female foreigners were once not allowed to naturalize because they could not be subjected to an oath that was written exclusively for men. That oath has never changed. “I swear to bear arms, true faith and allegiance.” That is a citizens oath. A man’s oath. A pledge to stand in harm’s way if necessary.

    • Northland10 says:

      That is a citizens oath. A man’s oath.

      Wow.. just wow.

      • Northland10

        You know that thing you posted about drugs? I think he is beyond help.

      • Adrien Nash says:

        Your “wow” implies that you fail to grasp the realities of life, which include the fact that women and children are a universally protected class, with the exception of Israel. No woman would nor could be required to swear to bear arms to defend the United States except in a situation that was unnatural since she would be swearing an oath written only for men. Women were not fully citizens in any realistic sense when the oath was written centuries ago, and foreign women were not allowed to be naturalized by process, -only by marriage.

  14. arnash says:

    Here’s a thot to ponder:
    When the 14th Amendment was written, single foreign women could not become naturalized because having American citizenship was pointless since they couldn’t take the oath swearing to bear arms to defend the nation, and since female Americans had no major civic rights and thus were no different from foreign women aside from during travel outside of the country.

    So, since the subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government required by the 14th Amdmt was applicable solely to males who one day would grow up to be responsible for national defense as well as civic and political positions and duties, AND..since nationality was passed from the father to the children, how could the native-born daughter of a lesbian couple be born as a 14th Amendment citizen?
    She would be born to women who were not fully citizens themselves, -whose citizenship equality was none-existent except as a fiction of law. Neither she nor her mothers would ever be fully subject to the authority that governments exercise over male CITIZENS, and so without an acknowledged American male father, how could such a daughter even be considered to be an American citizen?
    A citizen via what mechanism? Jus Sanguinis only applied by law well into the 20th Century after women’s suffrage was obtained, and even then it was only in circumstances of foreign birth.
    Also, there was no precedence for citizenship of married mothers to pass to their children, so even if one of the two women was considered the head of the household, such a position didn’t even conceptually exist at the time within marriage since the head would only be the husband and father.

    It’s a very confusing hypothetical philosophically, traditionally, legally, and completely unknown to the common law. Spanning ages to when such a situation was socially unthinkable makes it even more muddied.

    But what is clear is that in certain circumstances citizenship could only be ascribed as a matter of policy and not a matter of law. Obama’s citizenship is equally extra-legal since WKA doesn’t cover children born to non-immigrant aliens. Hence he isn’t a citizen by WKA, naturalization, jus sanguinis, nor statutes naturalizing foreign-born children of American women.
    His supposed citizenship is purely a presumption of long established institutionalized policy error, not U.S. law or SCOTUS holding.

  15. arnash says:

    Here’s a few thoughts to mull over. Does Israel allow Arab-born Israeli citizens to have any association with its atomic weapons? How about no chance in a billion? Why? The same concerns as those of the framers of the Constitution regarding foreign influence gaining position in the command of the American military via election to the presidency. You can’t have people that you can’t fully trust wielding ultimate power. Hence no native-born son of foreigners being allowed since they are not natural members of the nation due to direct connection to a foreign power.

    The early naturalization acts omitted addressing the native-born sons of foreigners specifically, so would they therefore be automatically included among the sons made citizens upon their father’s naturalization (and not before), or can the obamunists claim that they were excluded in effect because as justice Gray and other native-birthers proclaim; “it’s the law of the land inherited from the English common law.”?
    That would have to suppose that all of those Congresses embraced jus soli as a nation-wide “given” and de facto national policy even in the absence of it being passed in any form of law, and that they therefore didn’t bother to state the “obvious”, -namely that the native-born are automatically citizens of their own state of birth.

    BUT…no federal law governed the principle that each semi-sovereign state followed and legislated as the basis of its citizenship. Congress had no say in determining which principle the States embraced and therefore there could not have been a national policy for Congress to have universally acknowledged as “the law of the land”, -a law so endemic to all of the states that it need not even be mentioned in the naturalization acts since “everyone” “accepted” that it (jus soli) was the law of the land.
    How could any sane person espouse such a view unless absurdly ignorant and absurdly self-confident in their presumptuous viewpoint?

    So either all of the Congresses that passed the naturalization acts had no other thought than that just soli was the unwritten, and thus not actually legal, policy of the U.S. or all of them understood that the mention of the children of immigrants included all children, regardless of where born. It can’t be both, and showing which it was should be fairly easy. Quotes are in order, if anyone’s got some.

    • Northland10 says:

      Here’s a few thoughts to mull over. Does Israel allow Arab-born Israeli citizens to have any association with its atomic weapons?

      Here’s a thought to mull over…. This is not Israel.

  16. arnash says:

    Reality Check:
    Mr. Nash,
    I don’t claim to be that smart. I just deal in facts and not dreamed up fantasy as you seem to like to do.
    You were wrong about the LFBC PDF being a forgery. (It was scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre)
    You were wrong about the AP photo being derived from the LFBC PDF (It wasn’t)
    You were wrong about Obama being born in Canada.
    Why should anyone pay the least bit of attention to your drivel?
    How can I be wrong about the PDF when I don’t have a position on it other than to assume that it likely was produced by the Xerox workstation?

    What is the implication of that? It’s that a hard-copy counterfeit was produced, -not just a digital one, thus the AP photo could be of it. And what of it? It was the reason that WH attorney Baer gave orders to the entire WH Press corps (not “corpse”) that no one was to take a single photo of it, not even with a camera phone.
    Gee, why would the WH attorney, who was in fact at the center of the operation, and who resigned the next day to give Obama a clean separation from him just in case some internet sleuth discovered something nefarious about the BC as happened with Dan Rather’s counterfeit of Bush’s National Guard service record, -why would he give such an order to the American press? It must be because there was nothing to hide? Grow up.

    I’m wrong about Vancouver you proclaim but without a speck of evidence to back your invented fantasy that anything is provable about where he was born. You do NOT deal in facts. You deal in naive, childish suppositions of faith while I deal in likely possibilities and probabilities.

    You said “I don’t claim to be that smart.” What I wrote and sent was not inspired by you, rather it was hoped that it might open your eyes a little regarding others in whose intelligence you might put too much faith.
    As for your question: “Why should anyone pay the least bit of attention to your drivel?” Here’s an answer that was given yesterday in response to a very similar question:
    Sojourner wrote:
    Well, just for starters . . .

    Because his purported parents and grandparents were Socialists, and he was mentored by Communists.
    Because of his past self-identified affinity for Communism
    Because in Chicago he aligned with Communist groups, criminal elements and was a Saul Alinsky acolyte.
    Because in his 2004 speech before the Democrat National Convention he lied about his biographical narrative (his parents did NOT live together as a family EVER).
    Because a terrorist wrote much of his (first) autobiography which was a constructed fiction.
    Because he stated in the bio he submitted to his publisher that he was born in Kenya.
    Because he omitted his foreign travel to Pakistan in TWO autobiographies.
    Because he only divulged his Pakistan travel after the 2008 breach of national Passport Office records.
    Because in 2006 on Kenyan soil, in contravention to US law, he campaigned for the vicious Islamist Raila Odinga.
    Because 2006 news reports of his Kenyan jaunt referred to him as Kenyan-born.
    Because on Kenyan soil he referred to Kenya as home.
    Because his wife is on record referring to him as Kenyan.
    Because the Kenyan Parliament and Kenyan officials referred to him as a native son.
    Because of evidence of microfiche tampering associated with newspaper birth announcements.
    Because of mysterious microfiche gaps in archived records of 1961 inbound international flights.
    Because he himself couldn’t keep straight in which Honolulu hospital he was born.
    Because of the dead infant Virginia Sunahara and her off-limits original birth certificate.
    Because no one save for known liars can place him in Hawaii before the age of five.
    Because official narratives and timelines are wrought with inconsistencies and inexplicable gaps.
    Because Neil Abercrombie and other Hawaiian officials were caught in one lie after another.
    Because of strong-arm tactics and obfuscation on the part of Hawaiian officials and agency heads.
    Because of Hawaii’s longstanding history of skirting U.S. citizenship and immigration laws.
    Because a left-wing website mysteriously posted a fraudulent short form certificate of live birth.

    Because his Selective Service Registration card is fraudulent, and the low resolution copier-produced image of it has either been reduced in size 75% and then re-enlarged to full-size but with all fine detail destroyed, as was the purpose, -or…it was copied at the lowest resolution setting possible, and deliberately so. And…SSA cannot account for its origin.
    Because the long form pdf image he posted at White is of a counterfeit.
    Because he has at varying times used different aliases.
    Because he is using a Connecticut-based SSN that did pass E-Verify.
    Because at Occidental he resided in the foreign student dorms.
    Because no professor in the Political Science Dept at Columbia (to include the Dept Chair) remembers him.
    Because the widely published Columbia years’ photo of him with his grandparents was photoshopped.
    Because he headed the Harvard Law Review but never authored any articles.
    Because ‘publish or perish’ never applied to him when he was a ‘constitutional scholar and law professor.’
    Because no known proof exists that he ever took the Illinois State Bar exam, much less passed it.
    Because his purported academic credentials are at odds with his poor grammar and appalling lack of knowledge, -witness “Navy CorpsEman”, “Attorney GeneralS”. Only a total fraud wouldn’t know that the plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General. And he’s a Harvard Law graduate?
    Because the American people have a right to know the truth about the man who lied his way to the Oval Office.
    Because, in a word, the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama is a fabrication.

    Make no mistake, millions of maligned patriots won’t rest until that which is veiled in secrecy is exposed. Then too, we’re an inquisitive lot and this is one hell of a mystery. More importantly, this is one hell of a high stakes chess game with national security implications. In the end my money says we shout “check-mate!”

    • How lazy, Adrien. You can’t even take the time to make up your own lies so you have to recycle other people’s.

    • Since Nash decided to publish my email reply to his mindless drivel I decided I should publish said mindless drivel:

      Adrien Nash says:

      an insight: It seems that some smart people who know that they are smart don’t know the limits of their ability to always be smart. They are, in fact, not smart enough to realize that they are not smart enough to recognize when they are being the opposite of smart, -as in when their innate truth-meter is rendered silent by their avoidance of allowing or forcing it to focus and render judgement on issues that they have already subjectively decided.

      They love perceiving and flaunting truths that satisfy them and / or debunk the views of their opponents, but they have a built-in defense mechanism when it comes to rooting out the truffles of truth that taste bitter to them, and which attack the nervous system of their embraced bias.

      Like the swine with the powerful sense of smell that can detect delicious truffles many inches below the ground, they can sense when there’s a truffle that is bitter and that causes them to reflexively turn away without thinking or digging because they know, at least subconsciously, that what they’d find is something they wouldn’t like, -and in fact would hate.

      No one wants to have to force one’s self to eat something bitter, and so to avoid having to confront the requirement of intellectual honesty to “eat your vegetables!” we pretend they don’t exist by ignoring them, turning away from facing them under the excuse that they are not real food anyway, -just as unpleasant facts are not real truths anyway.

      Self-confident automatic dismissal is the bias-driven response of the self-confident mind what relies on that confidence as the legitimate basis for rejecting (without unbiased consideration) that which turns some part of one’s world upside-down.

      Self-confidence preempts even having to think about the motive behind their dismissal since they simply assume that their view is right, and therefore consideration of an opposite view would simply be consideration of that which is patently wrong. Thus they are not dismissing any truth, but are simply dismissing “error” or falsehood, which makes absolutely perfect sense. But without being smart enough to recognize the sub-conscious motive behind their conscious motive, they fail to allow themselves to consider an issue on a purely objective logical basis.

      The consequence is that any truth that is contrary to their bias is dismissed without consideration, like a judge that renders a verdict & sentence before hearing the case. Like a miscarriage of justice, they are guilty of a miscarriage of logical analysis which they can justify on the basis that judgement isn’t required for matters that are already determined (like guilt) so proceeding straight to judgement without analysis is perfectly justified. But what about when the accused is actually innocent as sometimes happens?

      That is not a concern for them because they already “know” that he is guilty, -like Major Hasan. What reasonable person in a sane world would insist that justice could not be had without indulging the legal profession’s self-serving standard-operating-procedure of putting on an extensive and expensive trial in order to arrive at a determination of Hasan’s guilt? General George Washington would have tried him the same day, rendered a verdict the same day, and shot him the same day. But I digress.

      The problem with over-confidence in one’s judgement is that it doesn’t work when one has a built-in bias. Under that circumstance judgement is not arrived at because of the facts but without the facts even being considered since one already “knows” that they are either irrelevant, distorted, red herrings, strawmen, perverse logic, erroneous, or outright lies, so why bother considering such “evidence” when dismissal is so much more “reasonable” and convenient for the preservation of one’s embraced bias?
      The low road is much preferable to the high road. The high road leads to the wrong destination, (the unwanted truth) and is too steep and too disturbing. It’s only natural to not take it.

      By Adrien Nash September 2013

      • “Adrien,” you have penned an excellent analysis of the way every Fox/Koch/Limbaugh/Tea Party right-wing nut job “thinks.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

        And as for the last comment you made above, I checked… and every single badly-formatted statement you made was wrong. Seems statistically unlikely, but there you have it. You are 100% wrong about everything. At least, everything Obama-related… For all I know you are an expert at some other skills, such as pretending to be a man or tying up little boys in the back of your windowless panel truck.

        • arnash says:

          Actually, it accurately describes people like yourself. Unable to perceive your own bias blindness while going about your life with full self-confidence in your own views and opinions and “facts”. Your impervious conceit makes you think that you are exempt from the foibles of mere mortals because you can see everything so clearly, -that is everything except what you do not want to see. Your subconscious devotion to your own embraced zeitgeit protects you from the disturbing truth that would upset your well-ordered viewpoint.

        • gorefan says:


          Without going through the entire list of rumors and speculation that you posted, here are a few outright lies:

          “Because at Occidental he resided in the foreign student dorms.”

          Not true. He lived in Haines Hall (not a foreign dorm). His roommates were Paul Carpenter ’83, a political science major from Claremont, and Imad Husain ’83, an econ major from Dubai.

          “Because no professor in the Political Science Dept at Columbia (to include the Dept Chair) remembers him.”

          Columbia College Professor Michael Baron remembers President Obama from his year long course in International Politics.

          “Because no known proof exists that he ever took the Illinois State Bar exam, much less passed it.”

          The Illinois Bar webpage lists him as having been admitted to the Illinois State Bar in 12/17/1991. You don’t get bar membership without passing the bar exam.

          Most of the rest of your list is either false or pure speculation (just because you say someone lied doesn’t make it true) which is why it is meaningless.

          • Nash was just regurgitating a pack of lies someone had posted at that joke of blog ORYR. I don’t bother to reply to him any more. He will just post some other lies instead of acknowledging these were lies. It is what Birthers do.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            Your correction of the falsehoods or errors in the quoted comments I shared is to be commended as only the truth is acceptable, -whatever it might happen to be. But in regard to membership in the Illinois State Bar; from what I found online regarding it, it was clear that a Law School graduate who was going into teaching or lecturing could be admitted to the association of his peers even without passing nor taking the exam since it is only given in order to weed-out those not competent enough to deserve a license to practice law, -not to weed out those unwanted as members of the Bar. That would mean he could be a member of the Bar but not licensed to practice law. Therefore the assumption that since he was a member of the Bar, he therefore must have taken and passed the test is invalid. Any evidence to the contrary should be shared. I couldn’t find any.

            “~just because you say someone lied doesn’t make it true, which is why it is meaningless.”

            That logic is meaningless because it presumes that simply because a suspicion is not matched by public knowledge confirming it, then it must be false. I don’t need to even explain how ridiculous that is. What you should have written is: “Just because you say someone told the truth does not make it so.” That would reflect a realistic awareness of “realpolitik”.

            And speaking of telling the truth, today I was thinking about the consequences of supporting the Democrat Knight in Shine Armor with nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, and lies which is exemplified by the extreme consequences for Lois Lerner. The Dept. of Health in Hawaii can tell any lie they want, as long as it’s not before Congress or a court of law, and if called to account all they have to do is invoke the 5th Amendment, like Lois Lerner, and Presto! Off the hook! Free pass. Heck, you might even get several months of paid vacation! There’s no downside to protecting the President with obfuscation, distortion and outright lies because they most likely will be rewarded for it.
            That being the real situation, no one should ever point to the Democratic socialists in the DoH as a source of unquestionable TRUTH. Instead one must NOT trust, AND verify. Of course there is no way to verify anything unless Congress issues a subpena for the “vital record” in their archive.

            Let the truth be known though the sky fall.

        • gore fan says:


          I just find it interesting that Nash tries to make an argument based on lies and he sees nothing contradictory in that. What does that say about his character and integrity?

        • Northland10 says:

          Arnash claims he will correct his errors, yet after being shown that there is no special admission to the bar rules in Illinois, evidence that Obama was admitted as an attorney by the Illonois Supreme Court, and a 7th circuit ruling that mentions one of the arguing attorneys was Obama, all Arnash does is repeat the same lie. He claims he read his proof online (ORYR?) but has never shown where he read it. Thus we are left with an outright lie by Mr. Nash.

          For some extra crunchy goodness, when I mentioned that a school such as the University of Chicago would not be looking for lecturers who could not pass the bar, Nash responded with a mention of affirmative action. He just can’t handle the fact that a black man is much smarter and far more successful. Arnash, is just pathetic.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            “yet after being shown that there is no special admission to the bar rules in Illinois, evidence that Obama was admitted as an attorney by the Illonois Supreme Court, and a 7th circuit ruling that mentions one of the arguing attorneys was Obama, all Arnash does is repeat the same lie. He claims he read his proof online (ORYR?) but has never shown where he read it. Thus we are left with an outright lie by Mr. Nash.”

            News flash; how could I have been “shown” things that I’ve never seen? I have no idea of what proof you are referring to because I never read any such “evidence”. If it was posted, I didn’t ever read it. So before you put on your wings of righteousness and pronounce someone a purveyor of “outright lies” it would be incumbent on any honest person to not make gigantic leaps of presumption.
            Your other mistake is mischaracterizing what I’ve written. After reading on the Illinois State Bar website, or some site related to it, that law school instructors could be accepted as members of the Bar without taking the exam, I took what I’d read and offered reasonable speculation as to how it might have been applied to Obama.
            I knew there was a possibility that he took and somehow passed the exam, but I also knew that I had no more time available to further research it, so to find further facts I’d have to inspire others to find them. That is successfully accomplished by stating a theory as a fact. Then those who reject it will seek out further facts to support their position. Which apparently someone has done, although I haven’t seen such a post yet.
            But there’s a problem regarding the legitimacy of Obama being awarded a license to practice law. We don’t have any way of knowing that nothing dishonest took place in regard to the acceptance of his exam score. It would not look good if all African-Americans who took the exam failed it. To avoid such a result, some benevolent action on the behalf of some would have to be taken, -some liberty with the rules, -some special allowance.
            You may not believe that that happened, but there is very good reason to believe that it did. It is something that I heard come out of his mouth while answering a reporter’s question. What I heard to my surprise was his mis-speaking the term “Attorneys General”. Instead, he said “Attorney Generals” just like I’d heard an African-American deputy or assistance or deputy assistant A.G. of his say. I’d learned from a legal commentator on a news show what the correct usage is and remembered it.
            So,…the question is, “how could a graduate of Harvard Law after years of classes make a mistake that even a non-lawyer wouldn’t make?” How is that possible unless there is a serious issue of intellectual competence when it comes to academics? Can you say “Navy Corpseman, boys and girls?” They are the medics that serve the Navy and the Marine Corpse.

        • gorefan says:

          ‘That logic is meaningless because it presumes that simply because a suspicion is not matched by public knowledge confirming it, then it must be false. I don’t need to even explain how ridiculous that is. What you should have written is: “Just because you say someone told the truth does not make it so.” That would reflect a realistic awareness of “realpolitik”. ”

          Not surprisingly, you have it backassward. In the US there is a presumption that a person is telling the truth until someone provides evidence that they are not. For example, you have been caught lying about President Obama’s past therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide verification any claims you make about him. Other wise how can anyone tell if you are not lying again.

        • gorefan says:

          “no one should ever point to the Democratic socialists in the DoH as a source of unquestionable TRUTH.”

          BTW, this is another lie. Dr. Fukino who made two official statements about President Obama’s birth certificate and in two different interviews, after leaving office (she was the Director of Health), stated that President Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and he was born in Hawaii, is a Republican and a donor to the Hawaii Republican Party.

        • @Gorefan

          I was not criticizing you for replying to Nash’s claims and debunking them. I am glad you did. It just gets tedious debunking the same set of recycled lies over and over again. I bet I have seen the “Obama has spent $X million on legal fees to seal his records.” posted a thousand times where x is an number from 2 to 10 million. First just what is Obama supposed to do when morons bring idiotic lawsuits?

          The fact is though that the figure that WND used to concoct this lie was the total legal expenses paid to the Perkins Coie law firm for all work done during the 2008 presidential election cycle. It was about $2 million according to their filings with the FEC. The campaigns are a billion dollar enterprise and those amounts for legal work are typical. The McCain campaign spend a like amount. I most of the cases filed after he took office the replies were authored by assistant US attorneys as is proper when a government official is sued.

      • gorefan says:

        No problem, I didn’t take it that way.

    • A Nash said:

      Because the widely published Columbia years’ photo of him with his grandparents was photoshopped.

      I got a chuckle out of that one. He is talking about that the photo that Jack Cashill tried to Photoshop out Obama in order to prove the original photo of Obama and his grandparents in New York city was Photoshopped. Cashill’s attempt was so bad that he left Obama’s knee in the picture. He left other tell-tale signs of the removal in the background too.

      Nash is so stupid and gullible that he is still trying to pass of Cashill’s ridiculous story as true.

  17. RoadScholar says:

    “It must be true…. I read it on the internet!” — ARNash.

  18. Adrien Nash says:

    Gorefan wrote: “In the US there is a presumption that a person is telling the truth until someone provides evidence that they are not.” Sure, if you are in the fourth grade and see the world through the eyes of Pollyanna. I have two words for you: Edward Snowdon.

    For example, you have been caught lying about President Obama’s past .” The absence of any substantiation of that lie is evidence of its falsity.
    Reality Check foolishly wrote: “A Nash said: Because the widely published Columbia years’ photo of him with his grandparents was photoshopped.” And “Nash is so stupid and gullible that he is still trying to pass of Cashill’s ridiculous story as true.”

    Talking about stupid, it doesn’t get much more stupid than that. First, the quote you stated is known by all to have been just one statement from a long list of them make by the blogger “Sojouner” as I stated in my post. Learn how to read and comprehend.

    Second, I did not support that statement and have no idea of what it even refers to. But I know that absurd assertions have been made and published on WND regarding supposed photoshopping of a picture of Obama and family, -claims that reason automatically rejected as impossible to take seriously, -evidence that some have a tendency and willingness to go over-board in attacking Obama on any seemingly plausible basis.

  19. Adrien Nash says:

    Northland10, I’m well familiar with what you naively call “proof” or evidence that Obama was admitted as an attorney by the Illinois Supreme Court. It’s laughable. It could not pass as certifiable in any court on Earth other than a kangaroo court. It is signed by no one. It is merely an unverified “record” in a digital format viewable on the internet. There is no evidence that such a record exists in any hard-copy format, nor that it is something more than a plant by the forces and persons who will do anything necessary to support Obama’s eligibility and credibility.

    They have access to and cooperation from the top echelons of society. It would be very simply to accomplish, just like convincing Chief Justice Roberts to validate the most unconstitutional travesty against individual liberty in American history.

    Click to access obamaattyreg.pdf

    Gorefan wrote: “Dr. Fukino who made two official statements about President Obama’s birth certificate and in two different interviews, after leaving office (she was the Director of Health), stated that President Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and he was born in Hawaii, is a Republican and a donor to the Hawaii Republican Party.”

    Or so it seemed, not just to folks like you but even to folks like me who discounted her statement (and reject the claim that she is a loyal Republican). Today, while working on an unfinished exposition exposing Obama, I realized exactly what I was looking at and hadn’t taken note of previously while looking at the first and primary statement. What we see is that it cannot be attributed to Fukino since she didn’t write it nor sign it. It is just three junk statements by an unknown person quoting supposedly comments by someone at sometime who is presumed to be Dr. Fukino. Check-out the quotation marks surrounding everything, and try to explain what they hell they imply.
    That is totally worthless as an official and legal State document hence it was released as a “News Release”. Did you know that a State government was in the news business? Neither did I!
    No one can be credited for it nor prosecuted for it since it’s unattributed. That shows that it was cunningly crafted by a clever lawyer who knew how to avoid making perjurous statements that might come back to haunt one. So you should take that statement not as evidence of its content being true but as evidence of the falsity of its content. False “facts” in a false and worthless format. Time to get real, people.

    • gorefan says:

      ” What we see is that it cannot be attributed to Fukino since she didn’t write it nor sign it.”

      Did you not read the big title of the release?


      You could also read her interview from November 1, 2008 where she talks about her statement.

      Or watch her April 25, 2011 interview on CNN where she talks about the statement.

      Or her interview with MSNBC on April 11th, 2011 where she again talked about the statements she had made.

      Or you could read her second statement from July, 2009 in which she referenced her “original statement issued in October, 2008”.

      BTW, you are an idiot.

      • Well he is certainly deluded.

      • Adrien Nash says:


        “BTW, you are an idiot.”
        Question: Is that my statement or is it your statement? It is in my post therefore it must be my statement to myself, right?
        Or are you an idiot for not being smart enough to grasp that nothing in quotes is a “statement” by the presenter since it is merely a quote?
        You are also an idiot for not grasping the inescapable fact that nothing quoted is a legal statement attributable to a particular individual unless it is signed by that individual.

        If someone issues a “News Release” that contains a quote from someone unidentified who libels you, and it isn’t signed, is that quote and that “News Release” truly a “statement” by the person that issued the “News Release”? Of course not! It IS A FRAUD on the public! Deliberately designed to pull the wool over the eyes of all of those who are willingly true believers of anything that supports the security blanket of their ideology. Do I really have to demonstrate what a real statement looks like?


        I, Barack Obama, wish to convey to the American people that I was not born in Hawaii, and have never possessed a birth certificate issued by its Dept. of Health. I instead was forced to have a counterfeit fabricated to placate the faithful and deceive the gullible. To these facts I attest, witness my hand, (signed) Barack Obama

        See what’s missing? Quotation marks that a lawyer required be used in order to defend against any future liability for making a false statement in an official capacity.

        • RoadScholar says:

          Does it hurt to be that stupid? Seriously. I mean, does it feel like a hemorrhoid in your head (which in your case makes perfect sense anatomically), or what?

          • Adrien Nash says:

            Brace yourselves for what’s coming tomorrow. I’ll be releasing part 1 of a two-part, 10,000 word exposition demonstrating the inescapable and irrefutable logic behind Obama’s birth having happened in Vancouver, B.C. If you have a brain, and I don’t assume that you do, it will rock your little world.

        • Jim says:

          I have a brain, that’s why I’ll ignore the rantings of a bigoted lunatic who has no knowledge of law and our Constitution. Babble on and enjoy your imaginary self-importance. 😀

        • Oh noes! Should I get ready to pack it in and shut down my blog and radio show? 😆

  20. nbc says:

    Question: Is that my statement or is it your statement?

    It’s a simple observation based on your statements.

  21. Jim says:

    Adrien, once you’re done with the President, here’s another messiah you can go all out on. You, a self-professed “expert” can join with another self-professed “expert” and maybe come up with a couple of million word rambling that makes no sense to sane people.

  22. nbc says:

    Adriien: I’ll be releasing part 1 of a two-part, 10,000 word exposition

    You need a lot of words to say nothing eh? What a fool

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s