<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Man in the White House</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:35:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: ImMikeSpike</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5469543</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ImMikeSpike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5469543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democrats still like him!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Democrats still like him!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: haveittodayray</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5346164</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[haveittodayray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 03:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5346164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google &quot;theprojectmuslimbrotherhood &quot; for truth folks.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google &#8220;theprojectmuslimbrotherhood &#8221; for truth folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marvin nubwaxer</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5346029</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[marvin nubwaxer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5346029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[so sending military aid to a military regime to use against its own citizens is a great and patriotic thing to do in the name of democracy?
your &quot;muslim(s) in the white house&quot; fear mongering only appeals to a small minority of right wing extremists, fundamentalist crusaders, ignorant bigots, and conspiracy nuts--in other words the republican base.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so sending military aid to a military regime to use against its own citizens is a great and patriotic thing to do in the name of democracy?<br />
your &#8220;muslim(s) in the white house&#8221; fear mongering only appeals to a small minority of right wing extremists, fundamentalist crusaders, ignorant bigots, and conspiracy nuts&#8211;in other words the republican base.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5301912</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5301912</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/776412/Birther-lunacy-leaves-all-Republicans-painted-as-racist-crackpots.aspx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/776412/Birther-lunacy-leaves-all-Republicans-painted-as-racist-crackpots.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/776412/Birther-lunacy-leaves-all-Republicans-painted-as-racist-crackpots.aspx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5301079</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5301079</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &quot;Of all those cases you mentioned how many of them actually were argued.&quot;

Answer: All TEN of them. Here are some of the rulings:

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

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

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

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

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

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

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

And, on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that &quot;children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.&quot; By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;Of all those cases you mentioned how many of them actually were argued.&#8221;</p>
<p>Answer: All TEN of them. Here are some of the rulings:</p>
<p>Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”</p>
<p>Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”</p>
<p>Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”</p>
<p>Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.&#8221; </p>
<p>Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” </p>
<p>Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”</p>
<p>And, on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that &#8220;children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.&#8221; By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5301078</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5301078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &quot;or whatever his name is.&quot;

His name is shown on his birth certificate. It is Barack Hussein Obama II. And, since it was never legally changed, it is still Barack Hussein Obama II.

And by the way, he was never adopted by his step-father in Indonesia---which requires the action of a district court, and no such court document has every been shown. And he was never a citizen of Indonesia either, as a telephone call to the embassy of that country in Washington will confirm. Yes, he used his step-father&#039;s name when he lived in Indonesia, but he simply used it, and did not legally change his name to Soetoro.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;or whatever his name is.&#8221;</p>
<p>His name is shown on his birth certificate. It is Barack Hussein Obama II. And, since it was never legally changed, it is still Barack Hussein Obama II.</p>
<p>And by the way, he was never adopted by his step-father in Indonesia&#8212;which requires the action of a district court, and no such court document has every been shown. And he was never a citizen of Indonesia either, as a telephone call to the embassy of that country in Washington will confirm. Yes, he used his step-father&#8217;s name when he lived in Indonesia, but he simply used it, and did not legally change his name to Soetoro.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5301076</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5301076</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &quot;they just wanted the clause changed,&quot;

Answer: So? The Constitution allows for changes, and it has been amended 27 times. The motives of some of the people who wanted to change the Natural Born Citizen clause was to enable Schwartzenegger, a naturalized citizen, to become president. Earlier, people had tried to amend it to allow Henry Kissinger to become president. Still earlier, in the 1950s, it was pointed out that Irving Berlin, the writer of God Bless America, would not be eligible to become president, and many people wanted to amend it to allow him and other totally loyal naturalized citizens to become president. None of those attempts were successful, but none of them were evil either. In any case, NONE of the efforts to change the Natural Born Citizen clause were done for Obama&#039;s benefit because, duh, he was not a naturalized citizen. He really was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties shows.

Re: &quot;The National Review never reviewed any of Apuzzo&#039;s work.&quot;

They said this about the claim that Obama&#039;s birth certificate was forged because of &quot;layers,&quot; however:

 Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

And the National Review, and Mitt Romney, and other members of Congress are perfectly capable of asking themselves this question and drawing the obvious conclusion that Obama MUST have been born in Hawaii.

 For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

So, obviously, they do not believe Sheriff Joe because the chance of Obama having been born anywhere else than Hawaii is so low. Also because of some of Sheriff Joe&#039;s LIES in the past, such as the meaning of the penciled numeral &quot;9&quot;:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;they just wanted the clause changed,&#8221;</p>
<p>Answer: So? The Constitution allows for changes, and it has been amended 27 times. The motives of some of the people who wanted to change the Natural Born Citizen clause was to enable Schwartzenegger, a naturalized citizen, to become president. Earlier, people had tried to amend it to allow Henry Kissinger to become president. Still earlier, in the 1950s, it was pointed out that Irving Berlin, the writer of God Bless America, would not be eligible to become president, and many people wanted to amend it to allow him and other totally loyal naturalized citizens to become president. None of those attempts were successful, but none of them were evil either. In any case, NONE of the efforts to change the Natural Born Citizen clause were done for Obama&#8217;s benefit because, duh, he was not a naturalized citizen. He really was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties shows.</p>
<p>Re: &#8220;The National Review never reviewed any of Apuzzo&#8217;s work.&#8221;</p>
<p>They said this about the claim that Obama&#8217;s birth certificate was forged because of &#8220;layers,&#8221; however:</p>
<p> Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”</p>
<p>And the National Review, and Mitt Romney, and other members of Congress are perfectly capable of asking themselves this question and drawing the obvious conclusion that Obama MUST have been born in Hawaii.</p>
<p> For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:</p>
<p>(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;</p>
<p>(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);</p>
<p>(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).</p>
<p>If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.</p>
<p>So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?</p>
<p>So, obviously, they do not believe Sheriff Joe because the chance of Obama having been born anywhere else than Hawaii is so low. Also because of some of Sheriff Joe&#8217;s LIES in the past, such as the meaning of the penciled numeral &#8220;9&#8243;:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/" rel="nofollow">http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sendtheclunkerbacktochicago</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300853</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sendtheclunkerbacktochicago]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300853</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree, those Congresspersons were not even thinking about Obama, they just wanted the clause changed, they think that the Constitution is a living breathing document and the original intent of that clause served its purpose and is meaningless in this modern era where there is such diversity in America.  Well, we sure learned the idiocy in that thinking, look what we have Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his name is).  

Of all those cases you mentioned how many of them actually were argued.  The National Review never reviewed any of Apuzzo&#039;s work.  Apuzzo never had one conversation with Mitt Romney or any of his campaign staff.  Do you really think the Electoral College ever considered any of Apuzzo&#039;s work, not in your lifetime or mine.  They could have cared less about Apuzzo&#039;s work or anyone else&#039;s work.  They are always a &quot;rubber stamp&quot; on the election results, always have been and always will be. Once in a great while a couple will break ranks but that is a rare duck. 

You are dead wrong about the Wong Kim Ark case. Neither the Wong Kim Ark case or the 14th Amendment make one a &quot;natural born Citizen.&quot;

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

Obama is a citizen of the United States (if we find a birth certificate that declares that) but NOT a &quot;natural born Citizen.&quot;

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

Obama&#039;s SUPPOSED Daddy was not an American Citizen.  

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

Consequences of his father&#039;s roots. 

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, those Congresspersons were not even thinking about Obama, they just wanted the clause changed, they think that the Constitution is a living breathing document and the original intent of that clause served its purpose and is meaningless in this modern era where there is such diversity in America.  Well, we sure learned the idiocy in that thinking, look what we have Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his name is).  </p>
<p>Of all those cases you mentioned how many of them actually were argued.  The National Review never reviewed any of Apuzzo&#8217;s work.  Apuzzo never had one conversation with Mitt Romney or any of his campaign staff.  Do you really think the Electoral College ever considered any of Apuzzo&#8217;s work, not in your lifetime or mine.  They could have cared less about Apuzzo&#8217;s work or anyone else&#8217;s work.  They are always a &#8220;rubber stamp&#8221; on the election results, always have been and always will be. Once in a great while a couple will break ranks but that is a rare duck. </p>
<p>You are dead wrong about the Wong Kim Ark case. Neither the Wong Kim Ark case or the 14th Amendment make one a &#8220;natural born Citizen.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html</a></p>
<p>Obama is a citizen of the United States (if we find a birth certificate that declares that) but NOT a &#8220;natural born Citizen.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html</a></p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s SUPPOSED Daddy was not an American Citizen.  </p>
<p><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html</a></p>
<p>Consequences of his father&#8217;s roots. </p>
<p><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300830</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because it is based on biased unreliable sources which have not been confirmed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because it is based on biased unreliable sources which have not been confirmed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300754</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &quot; it wasn&#039;t all about Schwartzenegger.&quot;


Answer: It was MAINLY about Schwartzenegger. It wasn&#039;t about Obama at all because, unlike Schwartzenegger, Obama was born on US soil---in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii shows), and as the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.


Apuzzo is wrong, and if he cannot convince even the National Review or Mitt Romney of his legal argument, he is not likely to convince any rational person. And, in fact, his views have been rejected by TEN appeals courts, some of which I quoted. Worse, Apuzzo was not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote. Obama received 356 electoral votes in the general election of 2008, and he received the votes of 356 electors---not one changed. Obama received 332 electoral votes in the general election of 2012 and he received the votes of 332 electors---not one changed.


Apuzzo has not proven his case to even ONE of those nearly 800 electors. And he was not able to convince a single member of Congress; they confirmed Obama&#039;s election unanimously in the 2008 and 2012 elections (and that included Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann), and he was not able to convince even one of the ten appeals courts.


Meese and the Heritage Foundation (and Senator Fred Thompson, and senators Hatch and Graham) are right, and Apuzzo is wrong.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8221; it wasn&#8217;t all about Schwartzenegger.&#8221;</p>
<p>Answer: It was MAINLY about Schwartzenegger. It wasn&#8217;t about Obama at all because, unlike Schwartzenegger, Obama was born on US soil&#8212;in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii shows), and as the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.</p>
<p>Apuzzo is wrong, and if he cannot convince even the National Review or Mitt Romney of his legal argument, he is not likely to convince any rational person. And, in fact, his views have been rejected by TEN appeals courts, some of which I quoted. Worse, Apuzzo was not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote. Obama received 356 electoral votes in the general election of 2008, and he received the votes of 356 electors&#8212;not one changed. Obama received 332 electoral votes in the general election of 2012 and he received the votes of 332 electors&#8212;not one changed.</p>
<p>Apuzzo has not proven his case to even ONE of those nearly 800 electors. And he was not able to convince a single member of Congress; they confirmed Obama&#8217;s election unanimously in the 2008 and 2012 elections (and that included Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann), and he was not able to convince even one of the ten appeals courts.</p>
<p>Meese and the Heritage Foundation (and Senator Fred Thompson, and senators Hatch and Graham) are right, and Apuzzo is wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sendtheclunkerbacktochicago</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300746</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sendtheclunkerbacktochicago]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WRONG, here is the list of the attempts made by Congress to change the &quot;natural born Citizen&quot; clause.  Count the Democrats and Republicans, it wasn&#039;t all about Schwartzenegger.  Again, you need to spend time on Attorney Mario Apuzzo&#039;s blog, he has done more research by far than anyone.  Nobody comes close to his research.  

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WRONG, here is the list of the attempts made by Congress to change the &#8220;natural born Citizen&#8221; clause.  Count the Democrats and Republicans, it wasn&#8217;t all about Schwartzenegger.  Again, you need to spend time on Attorney Mario Apuzzo&#8217;s blog, he has done more research by far than anyone.  Nobody comes close to his research.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300687</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: Apuzzo. He is wrong, and Meese and the Heritage Foundation are right.

Apuzzo is wrong and former senator Fred Thompson is right. Apuzzo is wrong and the Economist is right. Apuzzo is wrong and the Wall Street Journal is right:

&quot;Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identicalin meaning.&quot;---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article)

Apuzzo is wrong, and these appeals courts are right:

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

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

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

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

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

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

On October 1 of last year, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that &quot;children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.&quot; By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.” 

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Apuzzo. He is wrong, and Meese and the Heritage Foundation are right.</p>
<p>Apuzzo is wrong and former senator Fred Thompson is right. Apuzzo is wrong and the Economist is right. Apuzzo is wrong and the Wall Street Journal is right:</p>
<p>&#8220;Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identicalin meaning.&#8221;&#8212;The Wall Street Journal (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article</a>)</p>
<p>Apuzzo is wrong, and these appeals courts are right:</p>
<p>Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”</p>
<p>Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”</p>
<p>Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.&#8221; </p>
<p>Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” </p>
<p>Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”</p>
<p>On October 1 of last year, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that &#8220;children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.&#8221; By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.</p>
<p>In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:</p>
<p>Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):</p>
<p>“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.” </p>
<p>Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):</p>
<p>“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”</p>
<p>Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):</p>
<p>“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”<br />
That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300680</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They were mainly REPUBLICANS trying to get Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, a naturalized US citizen, to become eligible. Schwartzenegger, born in Austria and naturalized, is not eligible. Obama, born in Hawaii, is eligible, as Meese and ALL the appeals courts have ruled. (And, BTW, even the Minor v. Happersett case does not say what birthers think it says).

More reading on  the subject:
 
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
 
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
 
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They were mainly REPUBLICANS trying to get Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, a naturalized US citizen, to become eligible. Schwartzenegger, born in Austria and naturalized, is not eligible. Obama, born in Hawaii, is eligible, as Meese and ALL the appeals courts have ruled. (And, BTW, even the Minor v. Happersett case does not say what birthers think it says).</p>
<p>More reading on  the subject:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/" rel="nofollow">http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution</a></p>
<p><a href="http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html" rel="nofollow">http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &quot;  It is the number that appears on his Income Tax forms and has never been changed.&quot;

And  you know that &quot;it has never been changed&quot;---how? 

Re: &quot;Bill O&#039;Reilly attempted to cover for Obama by saying the reason for Obama&#039;s Conn. SS# was because his &quot;supposed&quot; Daddy lived in Conn.  Lied through his teeth...&quot;

Answer: Bill O&#039;Reilly was simply wrong. There are millions upon millions of data entry errors in the SS database, and one of them cause Obama&#039;s SS number to be from CT and not from Hawaii. Who ever told you that SS clerks did not make errors? Who ever told you that if a SS clerk made an error in entering the zip code of a person that the number generated would not be from a different state?

Re: &quot;Do you really believe that Lt. Mike Zullo would be going around to the offices of Congresspersons and Washington VIPS with evidence that was not truthful?

Answer: YES.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

Re: &quot;It is going to get very ugly for this administration when this scandal finally gets a platform from which the American people will finally see what a fraud this man is.  It will set the radical progressive movement back a hundred years....&quot;

Answer: Dream on. The nutty birther movement has already set the Republican Party and the Conservative movement back 100 years.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776412.shtml#.Um6gLVOamCl

The birther movement is truly loony. It believes sites that blatantly lied when they said that Obama&#039;s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. (She actually said right on the tape that he was &quot;born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.&quot;) Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just before she was asked: &quot;Where was he born.&quot; And they lied when they claimed that Abercrombie said that he could not find Obama&#039;s birth certificate (He also never said any such thing, and three officials in Hawaii---two Republican, one Democrat---have stated that Obama&#039;s birth certificate is right in the files, where it is supposed to be.)

And yet a few gullible people believe these lies, and hope---desperately---that they will find a court somewhere (perhaps in Alabama, but even there they are not that nutty) will support their loony notions. 

 For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8221;  It is the number that appears on his Income Tax forms and has never been changed.&#8221;</p>
<p>And  you know that &#8220;it has never been changed&#8221;&#8212;how? </p>
<p>Re: &#8220;Bill O&#8217;Reilly attempted to cover for Obama by saying the reason for Obama&#8217;s Conn. SS# was because his &#8220;supposed&#8221; Daddy lived in Conn.  Lied through his teeth&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Answer: Bill O&#8217;Reilly was simply wrong. There are millions upon millions of data entry errors in the SS database, and one of them cause Obama&#8217;s SS number to be from CT and not from Hawaii. Who ever told you that SS clerks did not make errors? Who ever told you that if a SS clerk made an error in entering the zip code of a person that the number generated would not be from a different state?</p>
<p>Re: &#8220;Do you really believe that Lt. Mike Zullo would be going around to the offices of Congresspersons and Washington VIPS with evidence that was not truthful?</p>
<p>Answer: YES.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors</a></p>
<p>Re: &#8220;It is going to get very ugly for this administration when this scandal finally gets a platform from which the American people will finally see what a fraud this man is.  It will set the radical progressive movement back a hundred years&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>Answer: Dream on. The nutty birther movement has already set the Republican Party and the Conservative movement back 100 years.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776412.shtml#.Um6gLVOamCl" rel="nofollow">http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776412.shtml#.Um6gLVOamCl</a></p>
<p>The birther movement is truly loony. It believes sites that blatantly lied when they said that Obama&#8217;s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. (She actually said right on the tape that he was &#8220;born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.&#8221;) Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just before she was asked: &#8220;Where was he born.&#8221; And they lied when they claimed that Abercrombie said that he could not find Obama&#8217;s birth certificate (He also never said any such thing, and three officials in Hawaii&#8212;two Republican, one Democrat&#8212;have stated that Obama&#8217;s birth certificate is right in the files, where it is supposed to be.)</p>
<p>And yet a few gullible people believe these lies, and hope&#8212;desperately&#8212;that they will find a court somewhere (perhaps in Alabama, but even there they are not that nutty) will support their loony notions. </p>
<p> For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:</p>
<p>(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;</p>
<p>(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);</p>
<p>(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).</p>
<p>If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.</p>
<p>So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sendtheclunkerbacktochicago</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300655</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sendtheclunkerbacktochicago]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It that were all true (it isn&#039;t) certain members of Congress would not have made at least 8 attempts to change the clause since 2003.  It seems certain members of Congress realize the ramifications caused by the requirement.  Thank God it would take an amendment to change the requirement and it will never happen in our lifetime.  You need to spend some time on Attorney Mario Apuzzo&#039;s blog.  He destroys that argument above.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It that were all true (it isn&#8217;t) certain members of Congress would not have made at least 8 attempts to change the clause since 2003.  It seems certain members of Congress realize the ramifications caused by the requirement.  Thank God it would take an amendment to change the requirement and it will never happen in our lifetime.  You need to spend some time on Attorney Mario Apuzzo&#8217;s blog.  He destroys that argument above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300654</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &quot;Chief Justice Roy Moore is not going to sit back and allow nothing to happen.&quot;


Answer: I will bet you that that is EXACTLY what he will do. That is because no matter how much he hates Obama and liberals, he is not a nut.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;Chief Justice Roy Moore is not going to sit back and allow nothing to happen.&#8221;</p>
<p>Answer: I will bet you that that is EXACTLY what he will do. That is because no matter how much he hates Obama and liberals, he is not a nut.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sendtheclunkerbacktochicago</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300649</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sendtheclunkerbacktochicago]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chief Justice Roy Moore is not going to sit back and allow nothing to happen.  As scandals go it always begins with &quot;I am not aware&quot; to a bunch of folks getting fired and then finally it is scandal and the barn door opens and out come the horses.  This has taken a long time to get to the &quot;people getting fired&quot; because Democrats will always remain faithful to their partners in crime, unlike the Republicans who fire people very quickly.  Anyway, we shall see who is right about this and if I were a gambling man, even with the cards stacked against me, would bet Barry doesn&#039;t finish this term.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chief Justice Roy Moore is not going to sit back and allow nothing to happen.  As scandals go it always begins with &#8220;I am not aware&#8221; to a bunch of folks getting fired and then finally it is scandal and the barn door opens and out come the horses.  This has taken a long time to get to the &#8220;people getting fired&#8221; because Democrats will always remain faithful to their partners in crime, unlike the Republicans who fire people very quickly.  Anyway, we shall see who is right about this and if I were a gambling man, even with the cards stacked against me, would bet Barry doesn&#8217;t finish this term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300509</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe not. But Rubio and Jindal were both born on US soil and hence they ARE Natural Born Citizens.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are &quot;natural born citizens&quot; and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are &quot;natural born citizens&quot; eligible to serve as President ...&quot;---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe not. But Rubio and Jindal were both born on US soil and hence they ARE Natural Born Citizens.</p>
<p>“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are &#8220;natural born citizens&#8221; and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are &#8220;natural born citizens&#8221; eligible to serve as President &#8230;&#8221;&#8212;- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300452</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The reason is that (1) they do not believe that Obama&#039;s birth certificate is forged---along with Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O&#039;Reilly and the National Review, and Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum and Huckabee; and (2) Obama&#039;s Selective Service card was NOT posted by Obama. It was posted by a birther, who, duh, forged it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason is that (1) they do not believe that Obama&#8217;s birth certificate is forged&#8212;along with Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O&#8217;Reilly and the National Review, and Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum and Huckabee; and (2) Obama&#8217;s Selective Service card was NOT posted by Obama. It was posted by a birther, who, duh, forged it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smrstrauss</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-muslim-brotherhoods-man-in-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-5300451</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[smrstrauss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208267#comment-5300451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dream on. PDF uses LAYERS, that is how it works. The Xerox workstation uses layers and pixilates some text. That is how it works. The birther sites did not show their readers all the experts who say that the birth certificate is forged, and in fact they did not publish one of the experts whom they hired themselves when he said that there was no evidence that Obama&#039;s birth certificate was forged. And they certainly have not shown their readers the evidence of the Xerox workstation tests. Reed Hayes is an expert in personal signatures, not digital documents. And his alleged 40-page report was, the Cold Case Posse CLAIMS, before the Xerox workstation tests:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org...

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.c...

http://nativeborncitizen.wordp...

Moreover, for Obama&#039;s birth certificate to have been forged, the forger would have had to have made his mistake DELIBERATELY, which is hardly likely:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org...

Finally, birthers have not even shown that Obama&#039;s mother had a passport in 1961, nor have the birther sites told their readers how very very few 18-year-olds had passports in that year. And they have not told their readers how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet they would like gullible people to believe that Obama&#039;s mother was one of the very very few 18-year-olds to have a passport, and one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled abroad late in pregnancy----and that the birth certificate of Hawaii is forged and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii who said that they sent a Hawaii birth certificate to Obama are lying (and that the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 must be forged too).

In short, the birther myth is nutty. This, by the way, is what the National Review says about Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dream on. PDF uses LAYERS, that is how it works. The Xerox workstation uses layers and pixilates some text. That is how it works. The birther sites did not show their readers all the experts who say that the birth certificate is forged, and in fact they did not publish one of the experts whom they hired themselves when he said that there was no evidence that Obama&#8217;s birth certificate was forged. And they certainly have not shown their readers the evidence of the Xerox workstation tests. Reed Hayes is an expert in personal signatures, not digital documents. And his alleged 40-page report was, the Cold Case Posse CLAIMS, before the Xerox workstation tests:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.obamaconspiracy.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.obamaconspiracy.org</a>&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://rcradioblog.wordpress.c" rel="nofollow">http://rcradioblog.wordpress.c</a>&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://nativeborncitizen.wordp" rel="nofollow">http://nativeborncitizen.wordp</a>&#8230;</p>
<p>Moreover, for Obama&#8217;s birth certificate to have been forged, the forger would have had to have made his mistake DELIBERATELY, which is hardly likely:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.obamaconspiracy.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.obamaconspiracy.org</a>&#8230;</p>
<p>Finally, birthers have not even shown that Obama&#8217;s mother had a passport in 1961, nor have the birther sites told their readers how very very few 18-year-olds had passports in that year. And they have not told their readers how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet they would like gullible people to believe that Obama&#8217;s mother was one of the very very few 18-year-olds to have a passport, and one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled abroad late in pregnancy&#8212;-and that the birth certificate of Hawaii is forged and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii who said that they sent a Hawaii birth certificate to Obama are lying (and that the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 must be forged too).</p>
<p>In short, the birther myth is nutty. This, by the way, is what the National Review says about Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 767/820 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 00:28:36 by W3 Total Cache -->