Last week, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama’s mother – but those records for the years surrounding Obama’s 1961 birth are missing.
The State Department claims that a 1980s General Services Administration directive had resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other “non-vital” passport records, including Dunham’s 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.
Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama’s birth.
The claim made in the FOIA response letter that many passport records were destroyed during the 1980s comes despite a statement on the State Department website that claims Passport Services maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present.
That records that were released, however, do contain interesting tidbits of new information about Obama’s mother, including the odd listing of two different dates and locations for her marriage to Obama’s Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
for the full story: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=186677
Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog 
73 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 1, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Tweets that mention Obama’s Mother’s Passport Records Prior to 1965 are Missing « Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog -- Topsy.com
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Carmen Britton, Beth , 爱上网的伊万, Dave K., Dave K. and others. Dave K. said: @ThorntonB1 FOIA: Obama’s Mother’s Passport Records Prior to 1965 are Missing http://bit.ly/dviOk2 records were destroyed. […]
August 2, 2010 at 5:08 am
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
Just a coincidence I’m sure.
A couple of observations, first, one of the documents released was for a “renewal”, and it was from 1965. Wouldn’t this suggest that she had an older passport?
Another thing is, was she in Indonesia in 1965, or was this “renewal” for her trip to Indonesia?
I couldn’t get the scribds page to load right. Kept locking up my computer.
But for them to have conveniently “destroyed” the documents, is just “another brick in the wall” of the evidence of a concerted effort by this President to keep this part of his life a secret.
Just release the documents Mr “so called” Transparent President.
What are you hiding?
August 2, 2010 at 7:15 am
HistorianDude
Perhaps you should read more carefully. There are no documents in the FOIA release from 1965. The earliest document is from 1968.
It references a passport originally issued in 1965 (just prior to her departure to Indonesia to live with her new husband). And it is being renewed to 1970. In those days (and you can check with the State Department on this, I did) passports were issued for three years, renewable for two years for 5 total. That is what the first document shows.
There was no amendment to the passport, it was a simple renewal. But it does prove at least two things:
1. Obama’s mother never became an Indonesian citizen, putting to bed the old Birther lie that she (and by extension her son) lost their American citizenship upon he marriage to Lolo Soetoro.
2. In 1968 (two years fater Obama had moved to Indonesia), his name was still Barack Hussein Obama… not “Barry Soetoro.” Another Birther lie put to bed.
If that 1965 passport was her first (and by all this paperwork, that’s how it looks), then Obama cannot have been born outside the country.
The only documents the State Department said were destroyed were the documents that Strunk asked for… her passport applications. The State Department has actual passport files back to 1925, Strunk just didn’t think to ask for them.
Thankfully, Obots are smarter than Birthers and Dr. Conspiracy has had a FOIA request for those other records pending for sometime. So we should then be able to tell definitively if her 1965 passport was her first. And if it was, there is no way Obama could have been born outside the country.
August 2, 2010 at 8:58 am
HistorianDude
One additional note. The second paragraph in Jame’s post here is not true. It reads:
The highlighted clause above is a complete fabrication. The State Department made no such claim. What they actually said was:
August 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm
DrWhiz
English is not your first tongue, I hope! If English is your first tongue, you sure are a mess!
August 2, 2010 at 3:07 pm
gumply
My that was an interesting bed time story.
Are we all suppose to let out a sigh of relief now? We have all heard it before many times over and we don’t believe it just like you don’t believe our story. Which is totally ok with us. We don’t care one iota what you believe and we are not interested in your fairy tales either.
Barry Soetero is somebody’s idea of a nightmare and it is his name whether you like it or not. That is the name he was known as at Occidental College. It is precisely why he has spent over 2 million of we the people’s hard earned dollars trying to hide it.
Thanks for the laughs, it is always good to laugh even when you are laughing at obots.
Have a good day, you need it.
August 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm
JAMES
The Manchurian candidate becomes the POTUS
August 3, 2010 at 10:09 am
HistorianDude
Another set of Gumply Lie that never dies.
Obama was not known as “Barry Soetoro” at Occidental College.
He was known as Barry Obama.
And Obama has not spent 2 million dollars (of your money or his) defending anything.
But if you object to any government dollars being spent at all to defend him from idiotic Birther lawsuits, then tell your fellow Birthers to stop suing him.
In case you haven’t notice, he has never sued himself.
And yes, I’m having another great day. Thanks. I almost always do.
August 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm
DrWhiz
Very well stated!
August 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Megan
More Breibart style ‘facts.’ Argue against Obama’s policies. This conspiracy stuff is getting old.
August 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Interested Bystander
Yo Megan,
Why aren’t you asking for Obama to clear up this “conspiracy stuff”?
All he’d have to do is release his long form birth certificate, college entrance records, passport information and his selective service registration form.
But NOOOOOO, your side seems content with Obama spending millions of OUR dollars defending his “right” to keep these documents sealed.
If Obama would release the documents, we may not have to argue his policies, because they may be deemed illegal, and Obama would be dragged from the White House in cuffs (how ironic would it be if they called that Cambridge police officer to do the handcuffing?).
August 3, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Megan
I’m not on any side. I believe as Americans we all wish the best for our country, we may not agree on the path to success, but I don’t believe that should divide us.
I don’t mind disagreement with particular policies, and the offering of alternative solutions. I do think that spending time on baseless theories is not productive. Our country needs to focus on improving our economy, not on speculation. I do not need to see the long form of the birth certificate. Mine is exactly like his. The unproven narrative concerning his ‘not American’ birth, has zero credibility with me.
In any case, the man is the President, and his policies are of greater concern to me. I think his administration enjoys the distraction on which the birthers have focused their attention. In the meantime, they move forward with policy implementation.
August 2, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Jule
Why would the application state she wants to return home indefinate, but then she marked she intended to travel abroad in 5 years?
August 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Interested Bystander
Julie,
That would be because the Dunham’s, Obama’s and Soetoro’s knew how to “play” the system.
August 3, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Megan
They ask if you ‘expect’ to travel within a certain amount of time. For example you may return home and plan on staying there indefinitely, however you also expect that you will travel abroad sometime within the next year or so and return home again. Unless she had a specific time frame ( 2 weeks, 3 months, whatever) then she had to put indefinite.
August 4, 2010 at 12:53 pm
HistorianDude
Because indefinite doesn’t mean “forever.” It means “not definite.”
August 3, 2010 at 5:08 am
Interested Bystander
Hey JAMES,
Have you seen these documents:
At least these documents loaded for me, the link above locks up my computer, and I haven’t been able to read them all.
Maybe HRD will interpret them for us, but from what I read (I read all of the 97 pages TWICE, at least the ones I CAN read), I come to the conclusion that Lolo didn’t leave the United States until June 1966, and that as of 1967 Stanley was still in the United States.
There are multiple questions I have about these documents.
HRD suggests that Stanley’s application for a passport was in 1965 “(just prior to her departure to Indonesia to live with her new husband)”, but according to these documents, Stanley was still in the US in 1967 (at least tha’s the way I read these documents, with an address and everything for Stanley). Heck, Lolo didn’t leave until 1966, but I guess she thought Lolo was going back in 1965, and wanted to be prepared.
Another interesting thing to me about these documents, is the LIES told by both Stanley, AND Lolo.
In one interview Lolo goes on about Stanley having some stomach ailment, and then another document has some “gibberish” about how Stanley would suffer if Lolo had to go back to Indonesia.
But doesn’t this throw a wrench in Obama’s story? I believe the “story” is that he was in Indonesia from 1965 until 1970, but these documents CLEARLY state that Lolo was under a visa (which was extended one year) and was supposed to leave in June of 1965, but FAILED to do so until a year later.
So which is it?
HRD, “clear” this up for us, would you?
August 3, 2010 at 9:57 am
HistorianDude
Clear what up?
Obama always asserted that he moved to Indonesia when he was “six years old.” That would have been (come on IB, do the math with me) in 1967. Also, google is your friend. Even all the anti-Obama web sites always have had his move to Indonesia pegged as 1967.
So… what have we learned from the two FOIA releases of the last several days? We have learned that the following Birther lies have been crushed by official documentation… yet watch. The Birther lies will still never die.
Birther Lie #1: Stanley Ann Dunham lost her American citizenship upon her marriage to Lolo Soetoro.
In fact, the documentation shows that she remained an American citizen and traveled on American passports for the entire duration of her marriage to Soetoro.
Birther Lie #2: Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.
The US State Department investigated Obama’s formal relationship with Lolo Soetoro in September 1967… two years after the marriage. They determined that Obama was Lolo’s “step-son” and not his adopted son.
Birther Lie #3: Obama was not a US citizen.
The US State Department investigated Obama’s citizenship in September 1967… two years after the marriage. They determined that Obama was “a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961.”
Birther Lie #4: Obama’s name was changed to Barry Soetoro.
Stanley Ann’s August 1968 passport ( a year after the move to Indonesia) renewal still shows his name as Barack Hussein Obama.
August 3, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Interested Bystander
HRD,
Say it with me:
“HYPOCRITE”.
That would be YOU sir.
Do you remember not so long ago when you commented that you NEVER defend Obama?
You have no problem with Obama’s LIES (or his mother’s, father’s grandparent’s, or step father’s), but boy if WE get something wrong, you deem us liars, and comment about how you can’t stand people lying.
You correct every contradiction that JAMES, or one of us make, but when it comes to Obama, he can’t do ANYTHING wrong.
You pooh pooh off when Soetoro, Obama or Stanley are trying to “play” the Government, but you don’t give us the same generosity.
The documents also state that Stanley was ONLY known as Stanley Ann Dunham, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, and Stanley Ann Soetoro. What happened to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, or Stanley Ann Obama? I’m sure you’ll argue it was just a little “mistake” on Stanley’s part. You think maybe Stanley was “mistaken” as to the name of her son, on the passport extension application? Seems like a good explaination to me.
This is the line from your comment to gumply that really gets me:
“But if you object to any government dollars being spent at all to defend him from idiotic Birther lawsuits, then tell your fellow Birthers to stop suing him.”
But the easiest, most INexpensive way to “defend” these suits, is to simply release the documents. You seem complicant in allowing Obama to keep his life secret, but yet you are so defensive of Obama’s LIES.
So what we REALLY learned in the documents I linked, is that Lolo stayed in the US for a year AFTER his visa expired. His “extension” is illegal, because it states the “East-West” group as sponsoring him, when it is clear from the documents that the “East-West” group told him they COULDN’T sponsor him for another year, and the Indonesian Government had asked for him to be returned to Indonesia.
We also learned that Soetoro LIED about Stanley being “sick”, and could only produce some letter from a “doctor” (who we don’t even know if he was a doctor or not, and we don’t even know if the letter was from a doctor who even saw Stanley), stating that Lolo’s departure would create a “hardship” for Stanley.
You don’t even defend YOUR contradictions in your comments. That being that Stanley applied for a passport in 1965 “(just prior to her departure to Indonesia to live with her new husband)” (YOUR words not mine), and then you commenting that the Obama story hasn’t changed. YOU can’t even keep the story straight. Not in ANYONE’s imagination would someone consider almost two years being “(just prior to her departure to Indonesia to live with her new husband)”.
Lies, lies and more lies. Oh what a web we weave.
Better get back to HQ HRD and find out how you are going to “spin” your next response, since you seem to have CHANGED your story in just this thread.
The “bricks in the wall” seem to be coming out.
It’s just a shame Obama couldn’t come clean from the start.
It’s like pulling teeth, but Obama’s roots are becoming more clear.
A couple other things I’d like to point out:
You commented:
“In fact, the documentation shows that she remained an American citizen and traveled on American passports for the entire duration of her marriage to Soetoro.”
UMMMMMMMMMMM no, it does NOT mean Stanley “traveled on American passports for the entire duration of her marriage”. She could have had an Indonesian passport also, and traveled on that. Simply having an American passport is NOT evidence it was used, it means she had one, and that is it. Stretching the truth there just a little aren’t you HRD? Some might even consider that statement a LIE.
You next comment this:
“The US State Department investigated Obama’s formal relationship with Lolo Soetoro in September 1967… two years after the marriage. They determined that Obama was Lolo’s “step-son” and not his adopted son.”
Again, no, this is a blatant LIE. The State Department did NOT Investigate Obama’s relationship to Lolo, they took the Soetoro’s word for it, and with the numerous LIES proven in these documents, one could assume that they lied about Obama’s relationship to Lolo.
Again, this is evidence of how YOU spin the documents. By the Soetoro’s providing the evidence, how could you claim that the State Department “investigated” Obama’s relationship to Lolo?
Stretching the truth just a little there aren’t you?
You continue:
“The US State Department investigated Obama’s citizenship in September 1967… two years after the marriage. They determined that Obama was “a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961.”
Again, you simply take the evidence submitted by Stanley and Lolo, as the State Department “investigating” Obama. What the State Department did was NOT an investigation, it was taking what was submitted as being truthful. The evidence submitted is NOT truthful, and ALL of the evidence should be taken with that “grain of salt”.
But not to YOU, right HRD? You don’t want to question the inaccuracies in the documents, you take them at face value, when in other documents it is clear that they are out and out LIES.
And lastly you comment:
“Stanley Ann’s August 1968 passport ( a year after the move to Indonesia) renewal still shows his name as Barack Hussein Obama.”
Well given the EVIDENCE that Stanley stated she had only been known as Stanley Ann Dunham, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, and Stanley Ann Soetoro, and ommiting the FACT that she was at some point Stanley Obama, one could conclude that she did the same with Barack’s name.
You HRD are a hypocrite.
August 3, 2010 at 7:18 pm
JAMES
The bottom line is the contention that documents are missing. Ironically, the documents that pertain to the President and his family’s past are missing. I would have had greater respect for the FOIA response if they had said they were sealed by executive order or something like that. No, they are missing. Too coincidental !
August 4, 2010 at 4:45 am
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
The missing documents are the result of them destroying documents back in the 80’s (dontcha know??)
What a joke that explaination is. You can’t tell me that they didn’t put the documents on microfish, or scan them in to a data base, or something, but to destroy records of a living human, just seems like the other side “grasping at straws”.
I read a comment on Citizen Wells that stated that she had just recently gotten passport applications for her grandparents from 1927. I’m thinking that the State Department destroyed documents from anyone who’s name was Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro. They probably drew the name out of a hat, and poof, the documents were incinerated with a ray gun witn not even ashes left.
What a crock.
But the thing that peaks my interest, is the length that the Soetoro’s went to try to keep Lolo here in the United States. (I’m commenting on the link that I provided, because I still haven’t gotten the link you provided to load on my puter).
It seems clear from the documents released, that Lolo was told to leave in June of 1965, and he went to the agency and LIED to them, and got another extension stating that the East West group was still sponsoring him, when he didn’t even have any connections with them at the time. Not only that, but that during that year he was here ILLEGALLY, he begged and pleaded with people to try to stay, going as far as telling the interviewer that Stanley had a stomach ailment, but couldn’t produce anything to back that up. In other words, HE LIED to get his extension, and HE LIED about Stanley being sick.
I’m wondering what else they LIED about.
Another thing that is not quite so intriguing to me, but yet still leaves more questions than answers is that it seems that Lolo was here on OUR DIME. He was paid while here, was provided housing, meals, medical insurance and even had an allowance for clothing.
Another thing was that he was supposed to go to Wisconsin during one of the summers he was here on OUR DIME. I’m wondering if he actually went.
Another thing was that he was here on a NON degree program (2 years supposedly), but yet the documents I linked to above states that during an interview, Lolo stated he had recieved a degree while here.
Look, and all I’m going on is what is provided, but Lolo was here starting in 1962. Stanley and Barack were married in 1961, but there is NO evidence that they lived together.
I’m wondering if maybe Lolo broke up Stanley and Sr’s marriage?
August 4, 2010 at 1:29 pm
HistorianDude
If Obama was here lying on this board, I would be all over it. But he’s not here. You are. And it is your lies that I am calling you on. But it is funny that even when you just get things wrong and I don’t call you a liar, you pretend I did. That’s what a guilty conscience will do to you, IB. It must eat you up inside. That’s probably why you’re so miserable all the time.
They are both dead. You are not. I can hold you accountable for your dishonesty and errors.
Them? Not so much.
The mistake here is not Stanley’s. It is (as usual) yours. The documents state that those are the only names under which she had ever held a passport. Since she apparently never traveled outside of the country prior to 1967… she clearly never held a passport with the Obama name?
You really don’t think very hard most of the time, do you?
As usual, you jump into subjects that you know nothing about, make a bald and amateurish assertion, and get it completely wrong.
The easiest, most inexpensive way to defend any suit is to have it dismissed before it costs very much. And Obama has been 100% successful in getting every suit filed against him dismissed in exactly that way.
He has actually been saving you scads of the taxpayer dollars that your Birther brethren insist on otherwise wasting with these frivolous suits.
You get it wrong yet again. His extension was to complete additional training and was not only perfectly legal, it was approved by the US State Department.
Now you’re just making stuff up again. You have no evidence that Stanley was not sick.
If you couldn’t quibble, you would have nothing at all to say. The point remains that she got her first passport immediately after she was married and for the purpose of traveling to Indonesia as she rather clearly did. You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton arguing over the meaning of the word “is.”
What a stupid argument. You have outdone yourself. She possessed a US passport for the duration of her marriage meaning she was an American citizen for the entire duration of her marriage. What other point you might be trying to make here is buried in your inability to articulate an argument.
And there you go again, making stuff up again. The State Department says in the document that they investigated. Many of the documents they used in their investigations were released along with everything else. You have no basis for the fabricated claim that they took anybody’s word for anything.
You really should stop writing fiction. You’re no good at it.
There you go again. The State Department says they investigated. Among the documents they released were Ann’s birth certificate, divorce certificate from Obama senior and marriage certificate to Lolo. They clearly were not just taking somebody’s word for it. Obama’s own BC would have necessarily been among the documents they withheld from release because he is rather clearly still alive.
Think, IB. Actually think. Or if you can’t think, then try to read better.
Covered already.
Not on this planet.
August 4, 2010 at 1:33 pm
HistorianDude
No James, they are not “missing.” They were destroyed. Along with everybody else’s passport applications prior to a certain date.
Now, if you want to assert that “the conspiracy” also includes the Reagan Administration who destroyed these documents thirty years ago so that Barack Obama could become president more than quarter century later, you’re welcome to go down that rabbit hole.
It’s no weirder than some of the other things you believe.
August 4, 2010 at 6:45 pm
JAMES
Wrong HD… not everyone’s… just Stanley Ann Dunham’s.
August 5, 2010 at 6:54 am
Interested Bystander
HRD commented:
“If Obama was here lying on this board, I would be all over it. But he’s not here. You are. And it is your lies that I am calling you on. But it is funny that even when you just get things wrong and I don’t call you a liar, you pretend I did. That’s what a guilty conscience will do to you, IB. It must eat you up inside. That’s probably why you’re so miserable all the time.”
I don’t post lies HRD, you know that. But to be honest, I simply consider who made that comment, and it means NOTHING.
You have NEVER caught me in a lie. Most things you believe to be lies, are my OPINIONS, and thoughts.
You continue:
“They are both dead. You are not. I can hold you accountable for your dishonesty and errors.
Them? Not so much.”
But my opinions mean nothing (except to me), and their LIES are evidence of how Obama was raised. You grow up to be like your role models, and Stanley and Lolo’s lies, along with all of the other people who influenced Obama (Frank Davis comes to mind) you have to conclude that Obama LIES as easily as his role models did.
Why can’t you understand, that like yourself, our back and forth means very little in the whole of the Country?
I have never been “dishonest”. You see, I was raised not to lie, and I don’t. I am human, and I have made some “errors”, like when I believed that the newspaper article about Obama telling a woman about being born in Queens Hospital was overheard by the reporter, and YOU corrected me, and I admitted to as much. I simply read the paragraph out of context (I blame the author…………lol) YOU have also errored.
On you go:
“The mistake here is not Stanley’s. It is (as usual) yours. The documents state that those are the only names under which she had ever held a passport. Since she apparently never traveled outside of the country prior to 1967… she clearly never held a passport with the Obama name?”
You are correct to put a question mark at the end of that comment. We sure don’t know, now do we HRD? If only they wouldn’t have “destroyed” those documents. Darn them.
More blather from HRD:
“As usual, you jump into subjects that you know nothing about, make a bald and amateurish assertion, and get it completely wrong.
The easiest, most inexpensive way to defend any suit is to have it dismissed before it costs very much. And Obama has been 100% successful in getting every suit filed against him dismissed in exactly that way.
He has actually been saving you scads of the taxpayer dollars that your Birther brethren insist on otherwise wasting with these frivolous suits.”
UMMMMMMMM no HRD, the most INexpensive way would be for him to spend the probably somewhere in the 100 dollar range to get the documents released, instead of sending Justice Department lawyers all over the Country trying to explain how normal citizens don’t have “standing”.
I sure hope those attoney’s don’t stay at five star hotels like the Misses is doing this week over in Spain (with how many guests?).
I’ve been chomping at the bit to respond to this out right LIE:
“You get it wrong yet again. His extension was to complete additional training and was not only perfectly legal, it was approved by the US State Department.”
Read the documents released HRD. Page 79 and 80, a letter from a Robert Zumwinkle clearly states that Lolo was supposed to go back to Indonesia on JUNE 15, 1965.
On pages 22, 24, 26, 53, 60, and 76 it states Lolo didn’t leave until June of 1966.
On page 69 the question of why he was still in the US was raised.
On pages 81 and 82 a letter from Robert Wooster is VERY intersting since he was familiar with Lolo’s case being himself tied to the East West Foundation.
Read them and weep HRD, YOU errored in stating that Lolo’s stay was legal.
On page 65 a memo states his file was placed in the FRAUD catagory.
Another comment I can’t wait to respond too:
“Now you’re just making stuff up again. You have no evidence that Stanley was not sick.”
Now don’t get me wrong, I may be misreading this also, but on page 81, in Robert Wooster’s letter, he states that he interviewed Lolo, and he said Stanley was sick, but when pressed for details, he “could not remember exactly”. HMMMMMMMMMM maybe Wooster believes Lolo may have been “stretching” the truth?
You continue:
“If you couldn’t quibble, you would have nothing at all to say. The point remains that she got her first passport immediately after she was married and for the purpose of traveling to Indonesia as she rather clearly did. You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton arguing over the meaning of the word “is.”
Oh quibble I will. You don’t have ANY clue whether Stanley’s first passport was the one she applied for in 1965.
Them darn beaurocrats destroyed the applications prior to 1967 (at least), we really don’t know which applications were destroyed, only that Stanley’s was. No conspiracy theory or anything, simply stating the FACTS.
“Clearly” kind of embellishes the truth doesn’t it HRD?
And on HRD goes:
“What a stupid argument. You have outdone yourself. She possessed a US passport for the duration of her marriage meaning she was an American citizen for the entire duration of her marriage. What other point you might be trying to make here is buried in your inability to articulate an argument.”
You commented that she “traveled on American passports for the entire duration of her marriage”.
You can’t prove that tho can you HRD? Maybe, just maybe, she had an Indonesian passport she traveled under on her trips to Moscow to deliver those “sensitive” documents.
I stand by my comment, and it’s not “stupid”, so na, na, na, na, na.
And then you have this response:
“And there you go again, making stuff up again. The State Department says in the document that they investigated. Many of the documents they used in their investigations were released along with everything else. You have no basis for the fabricated claim that they took anybody’s word for anything.
You really should stop writing fiction. You’re no good at it.”
Point out to me where in ANY of these documents, does it state that there was “an investigation”? The “investigation” was simply correspondence between four or five or six people. There is NO evidence that they INVESTGATED anything. They took Lolo and Stanley’s word for everything, except when it was revealed that Mr Wooster had first hand knowledge about Lolo, and his LIES.
Mr Wooster sure does throw a wrench in your argument HRD.
Then this comment:
“There you go again. The State Department says they investigated. Among the documents they released were Ann’s birth certificate, divorce certificate from Obama senior and marriage certificate to Lolo. They clearly were not just taking somebody’s word for it. Obama’s own BC would have necessarily been among the documents they withheld from release because he is rather clearly still alive.
Think, IB. Actually think. Or if you can’t think, then try to read better.”
I am rolling on the floor laughing HRD. You REALLY made this comment? Where do you suppose they got those documents? Hello…………..they came from Stanley and Lolo. They took their word that they were authentic. I’m not commenting that they shouldn’t (oh wait, there is ample evidence that they LIED, but no need to concern ourselves with that).
You call THAT an investigation?
You conclude this comment with this:
“Not on this planet.”
Well we agree. “Not on this planet” could you consider that an investigation, it shows just how much of a hypocrite you are.
I believe that would be considered “being punked” HRD.
Lastly, I’d like to link this site:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/120/319/BREAKING:_Stanley_Ann_Dunham_Obama_Soetoro-_Passport_Records_Released_Under_FOIA,_Earliest_Passport_Application_No_Longer_Exists,_Got_Purged.html
I think you’d have a “field day” ever there.
That’s where I FINALLY got to see the link in JAMES’ thread. His link really messed with my computer.
Have a good day HRD.
August 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
HistorianDude
August 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm
HistorianDude
IB, we all know you to constantly post and re-post lies long after they have been conclusively proven to be lies. This is why I repeatedly refer to them as “Birther lies that never die.” I rarely accuse you of lying the first time you post an untruth. But when it has been shown to be an untruth and you persist in re-posting it anyway, really… what option do you leave me?
What is excruciatingly clear is that your emotionally driven agenda does not contribute to clear thinking on your part, and inspires you repeatedly to leap to obviously untrue conclusions when even the slightest amount of critical thinking would have cause a more reasonable person to qualify their speculation. That is why you so often find yourself furiously backpedaling as you do in this post. And sometimes in the moment of passion, yes, you lie.
For example:
Here you are asserting without qualification that the FOIA releases show that Lolo and Ann Dunham are liars. And yet… they don’t show that. You have accused them of lying because you seem to have some magic crystal ball that identifies lies when there is certainly no conclusive evidence of such a thing. You insist Lolo lied when he said his wife was ill. How do you pretend know she wasn’t ill? Because somebody else expressed skepticism?
It is pure hypocrisy that you object to me calling you a liar when I can prove that what you’ve said is not true, yet you feel completely comfortable calling long dead people liars for things they said a half century ago that could very well have been true after all.
My experience, IB, is that people like you who believe themselves to be so completely surrounded by liars, and who leap at every opportunity to label anybody they disagree with a liar, are often projecting their own guilty consciences.
But back to the point… I do not know, nor do I care whether or not Lolo or Ann lied to try and keep Lolo in country. There is certainly no proof of any lies in these documents, but again that is neither here nor there. That issue a red herring that serves only to distract from the real issue here.
That real issue is the eligibility of the president. And these two FOIA releases destroy a significant portion of the Birther narrative, proving it to have always been completely false.
First and foremost… blame Ronald Reagan for the destruction of those documents. It happened on his watch. But the real point here is… who cares? The issue you are pushing here is another accusation of dishonesty on the part of a dead woman. I care about a different thing… the eligibility of the President.
Now IB, you absolutely know that this is a lie. We have been over this several times before. I know this to be true because I have actually read the Birther lawsuits and followed them in detail…. All 71 of them. It does not appear that you have ever actually read a single one of them.
So I am repeating this point for possibly the 20th time in response to your repeated post of this falsehood. Please try to pay attention this time:
Not a single Birther lawsuit would have ended or been avoided by the release of these documents. Every single lawsuit had multiple other claims that would have continued to be litigated even if all these documents were released. Every single one.
So again (and you really need to start learning from people who actually do know more about this than you do) the single least expensive way to deal with these Birther lawsuit is to have them dismissed. Obama has done this every single time.
You should be thanking him for saving you money.
Blah, blah, blah, blah…. You seem to have read every page except the ones that actually count.
On page 81, in the exact same letter you mention below, you will discover the following:
On June 4, 1965 (18 days before his visa was set to expire) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Honolulu extended his J Visa until June 20th, 1966.
Get that? Before his visa expired, the INS extended it for another year. By any definition, his stay here was legal. He followed the rules perfectly.
You are wrong again, IB. Suck it up.
It does not matter what Robert Wooster believed or implied. What matters is that you accused Lolo Soetoro of lying without any qualification. It is good now that you seem to be back pedaling and admitting that “you may be misreading this.”
If you did more of that, I would accuse you of lying far less.
I will take your astounding and sudden change of subject here for a complete concession of the point that was actually being discussed. It is also good that you are no longer trying to claim (as you did originally) that there was in 1965 an extension of an earlier passport.
Welcome to the human condition.
Of course we can prove it. The documents themselves show that she used American passports to travel to and from Indonesia a number of different times during the entire duration of her marriage.
But again I repeat that is a stupid and pointless argument, consisting of nothing beyond the wildest and wackiest speculation and serving no actual purpose. What we know is that she possessed American passports during her entire marriage, destroying the Birther lie that she lost her American citizenship upon her marriage to Lolo Soetoro.
And that is the point.
Okay… so your claim here is what? That in 1967, Ann Dunham forged her own birth certificate (containing only information we already know is true), a marriage certificate for herself and Lolo (containing only information we already know is true), and the divorce documents from her prior marriage (containing only information we already know is true)? Is that really your claim?
Because guess what? It’s stupid. Who forges documents that only say the same thing the real documents say?
But more to the point, of course they came from Ann and Lolo. Duh! That’s why we make certified copies of documents and give them to people. So that when authorities ask to see them, they can be provided.
Let me make this point again so that you finally get it:
The reason why we created certified copies of documents in the first place is so that when an authority needs proof of something, you can show them that copy as proof!!!
How can you still be so confused about that simple fact?
So for the investigators to get those documents from Anna and Lolo is absolutely the way an investigation of those details is actually done!!!
Again… at least on this planet.
Absolutely and by the book!
August 6, 2010 at 6:17 am
Interested Bystander
Hey HRD,
The debate continues:
“IB, we all know you to constantly post and re-post lies long after they have been conclusively proven to be lies.”
Post ONE lie that I “constantly post”. Just one, that’s all I ask.
You continue:
“What is excruciatingly clear is that your emotionally driven agenda does not contribute to clear thinking on your part, and inspires you repeatedly to leap to obviously untrue conclusions when even the slightest amount of critical thinking would have cause a more reasonable person to qualify their speculation. That is why you so often find yourself furiously backpedaling as you do in this post. And sometimes in the moment of passion, yes, you lie.”
I haven’t “backpedaled”. Point out where I am “backpedaled” in this post.
As a matter of FACT, I PUNKED you with that post. YOU are the one who looks like a fool.
You continue:
“Here you are asserting without qualification that the FOIA releases show that Lolo and Ann Dunham are liars. And yet… they don’t show that.”
They sure do. They show that Lolo LIED when he got that second extension of his visa filed under “fraud” as page 65 of the link proves.
Wooster pretty much sums up where and when Lolo and Stanley LIED. You may want to read that letter again. Wooster saw Lolo for what he was, and that would be a LIAR.
And then you comment this:
“You insist Lolo lied when he said his wife was ill. How do you pretend know she wasn’t ill? Because somebody else expressed skepticism?”
That would be because when Lolo was pressed for more details, he couldn’t remember. That in itself is pretty damning evidence.
You know, the whole reason for Lolo meeting with Wooster, was to try and get his visa extended. Now if I’m going to use the excuse of my wife being ill to get my visa extended, then I would bring some EVIDENCE to back that up. He couldn’t, and the interviewer didn’t take him at his word.
The “doctor’s” letter was also suspect, according to the documents. The doctor wrote in generalities, not specifics.
It was determined that Lolo was LYING to get his visa extended, and THAT’s why it wasn’t. But Lolo went and got his visa extended for a FOURTH year, by LYING to the agent when he told them that the East West Center was his sponsor. It is CLEAR from Wooster’s letter that Lolo was told that the East West Center would NOT sponsor him for another year.
Then you go on:
“It is pure hypocrisy that you object to me calling you a liar when I can prove that what you’ve said is not true, yet you feel completely comfortable calling long dead people liars for things they said a half century ago that could very well have been true after all.”
I don’t “say” anything HRD, I WRITE, or COMMENT, but I have never TALKED to you, so you can not state that I “say” anything.
Again PROVE that ANYTHING that I have wrote is “untrue”. Just ONE that’s all I ask of you.
There has been NOTHING that I have posted that I have blantantly lied about. What I have commented has been the TRUTH.
Honestly, with you continually commenting that Lolo’s last year here in the United States was “legal”, is an outright LIE, because the proof is in the letter from Wooster. Lolo FRAUDULENTLY told the agency that he was sponsored by the East West Center, when the FACT is Wooster told him that the East West Center would NOT sponsor another extension.
This is a blantant LIE on your part.
Your next comment is a doosey:
“My experience, IB, is that people like you who believe themselves to be so completely surrounded by liars, and who leap at every opportunity to label anybody they disagree with a liar, are often projecting their own guilty consciences.”
My reply to that is “pot, meet kettle”.
I don’t believe that I am “completely surrounded by liars”. Quit lying, you liar.
YOU sir are the one who continually calls JAMES, myself and gumply liars. I only call you a liar, so it seems to me that the one who believes they are “completely surrounded by liars” would be YOU.
And then you comment this:
“But back to the point… I do not know, nor do I care whether or not Lolo or Ann lied to try and keep Lolo in country. There is certainly no proof of any lies in these documents, but again that is neither here nor there. That issue a red herring that serves only to distract from the real issue here.”
Again HRD, look at Wooster’s letter, and Lolo’s visa which states he was being sponsored by the East West Center. THAT would be PROOF of Lolo lying.
HRD goes on:
“That real issue is the eligibility of the president. And these two FOIA releases destroy a significant portion of the Birther narrative, proving it to have always been completely false.”
That’s some mighty fine “backpedaling” there HRD.
HRD makes this comment next:
“First and foremost… blame Ronald Reagan for the destruction of those documents. It happened on his watch. But the real point here is… who cares? The issue you are pushing here is another accusation of dishonesty on the part of a dead woman. I care about a different thing… the eligibility of the President.”
You sure do follow the “plan” don’t you.
Blame it on Bush
Blame it on Reagan
Blame it on carbon dioxide
Blame it on Smokey the Bear
What a joke.
Here’s something that I find most interesting, and maybe you could clear this up for me:
I find it interesting that the letter you linked states that documents that were 15 or 20 years old were destroyed. If that were the case, then WHY is it that they still have the application from 1967?
If the Reagan policy was to destory anything 15 or 20 years old, then the 1967 application would have been destroyed in 1982 OR 1987, both years that Reagan was President. I also do not understand how in 2010 you can get a passport application for 1967 when that application should have been destroyed in 1987. Did Reagan change his mind, and decide he didn’t want the files destroyed.
Besides HRD, come on, if the files were going to be destroyed, they would have been put on microfish or scanned in to a computer or something to back them up. You should know better from being in the Military. EVEYTHING is backed up before being destroyed.
I also find it interesting that passport files are kept as PERSONAL files, and not by year. In other words, the application for a passport would be kept in a file with your name on it, not kept in a file by year. So the people that they hired to purge those documents would have had to go through each INDIVIDUAL file, which seems like an invasion of privacy to me. There may be information in those files that I don’t want someone other than the agency seeing.
I find this explaination a pretty large “coincidence”.
HRD goes on:
“First and foremost… blame Ronald Reagan for the destruction of those documents. It happened on his watch. But the real point here is… who cares? The issue you are pushing here is another accusation of dishonesty on the part of a dead woman. I care about a different thing… the eligibility of the President.”
My best advice then would be to quit replying to my comments.
I’m glad you have finally come around, because LIKE you, I too care about the eligiblity of our President. When did you change your stance? I thought you KNEW Obama was eligible, but now it seems even you are questioning it, because why else would you “care about the eligibility of our Presdient”, if you already supposedly KNOW that he is eligible?
Or maybe I misinterpreted the way you meant that to read.
Then you comment this:
“Not a single Birther lawsuit would have ended or been avoided by the release of these documents. Every single lawsuit had multiple other claims that would have continued to be litigated even if all these documents were released. Every single one.”
Ever heard the term “if you throw enough stuff against the wall, something’s bound to stick”?
Your ASSUMPTION is just that, assumption. You don’t know which suits would have continued, and which ones would have been withdrawn IF Obama would have simply released the documents.
But I would suggest that MOST of them would have been withdrawn, IF the documents answer the question DEFINITIVELY that Obama was born in a Hospital with a doctor’s signature and all, or if his college entrance papers stated he was enrolled as an AMERICAN citizen, or if he used an AMERICAN passport when he traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981, AND if it was proven that Obama registered for the Selective Service within the lawful time period.
Anyway, when I comment that the issue would be closed, that would be for me, I can’t “speak” for anyone else, and YOU can’t either.
You finish this part of your reply with this:
“So again (and you really need to start learning from people who actually do know more about this than you do) the single least expensive way to deal with these Birther lawsuit is to have them dismissed. Obama has done this every single time.”
And again, I will comment this
No it isn’t. This is complete speculation on your part. Just because you continually comment this, doesn’t make it true, except in your mind.
Besides, it costs Obama another 100 bucks to release the documents, but yet he is spending millions fighting the lawsuits. You know he’s got the money, I mean he lives right down the street from the Treasury (run by a tax cheat, by the way), and I’m sure “Tiny Tim” would find a hundred dollar bill laying on the floor somewhere.
Your argument is simply ridiculous to believe that the amount Obama, and the Justice Department is spending to fight these suits would cost more IF the documents were released.
This comment just does not compute in my mind.
How could clearing something up by spending a “C” note cost more than what they are spending fighting these suits?
Then you make this comment:
“On page 81, in the exact same letter you mention below, you will discover the following:
On June 4, 1965 (18 days before his visa was set to expire) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Honolulu extended his J Visa until June 20th, 1966.”
But if you read on then you undertsatnd that the visa was extended by FRAUD. It was NOT legal.
And then this:
“Get that? Before his visa expired, the INS extended it for another year. By any definition, his stay here was legal. He followed the rules perfectly.”
He did NOT. He “played” the rules. He actually LIED and told them that he was still being sposored by the East Wast Center, when in FACT, as Mr Wooster writes, Lolo was told that their sponsorship could NOT continue.
Come on HRD, you are wrong, admit it. Lolo was here for the last year of his stay FRAUDULENTLY, and that my blogger “buddy” is NOT legal.
HRD continues:
“It does not matter what Robert Wooster believed or implied. What matters is that you accused Lolo Soetoro of lying without any qualification. It is good now that you seem to be back pedaling and admitting that “you may be misreading this.”
I was being sarcastic with that comment of “I may be misreading this”. It’s quite clear that Mr Wooster (who was looking in to whether Lolo should be able to stay another year), was “less than impressed” with Lolo’s explainations, and does everything but writes that Lolo was LYING.
Wooster PROVED Lolo was lying when he PROVED that the East West Center was NOT sponsoring him for an extension, but yet the extension states they were. That would be known as LYING to someone to get something approved.
You next comment this:
“I will take your astounding and sudden change of subject here for a complete concession of the point that was actually being discussed. It is also good that you are no longer trying to claim (as you did originally) that there was in 1965 an extension of an earlier passport.”
But we don’t know for a fact one way or the other, do we HRD?
Damn Ronald Reagan for telling the State Department to “purge” those records.
Then you comment this:
“Of course we can prove it. The documents themselves show that she used American passports to travel to and from Indonesia a number of different times during the entire duration of her marriage.”
You can’t prove squat except that she possessed an American Passport. You can’t PROVE that she used it.
If you can, I’d love to see the link to her actual passport with the stamps on it and the time and date of exit or entry to and from Indonesia.
I’m thinking you can’t provide such a link, only the proof that she had an American Passport at the time.
You write those words so arrogantly, but yet you can’t back them up.
You go on with this:
“Okay… so your claim here is what? That in 1967, Ann Dunham forged her own birth certificate (containing only information we already know is true), a marriage certificate for herself and Lolo (containing only information we already know is true), and the divorce documents from her prior marriage (containing only information we already know is true)? Is that really your claim?”
My claim is that YOU claimed that an investigation was conducted. There wasn’t, and you know it. If the “investigator” was actually “investigating” then the person would have VERIFIED the information, but there is no indication that he did.
That’s all I meant by that. Heck, I’ve done more investigating than the “investigator” did.
Your comment was a joke, a complete disillutioned belief that someone asking someone for a document was an “investigation”.
I never commented that the documents provided were fakes, simply that someone handing over documents does NOT constitute an “investigation, as you suggested it did.
You’re almost done when you comment this:
“The reason why we created certified copies of documents in the first place is so that when an authority needs proof of something, you can show them that copy as proof!!!”
Right, but providing them to someone does NOT mean that the person was doing an “investigation”.
Look, if the police in Arizona pulls someone over and asks for papers, and the person supplies a valid drivers license, the police officer ASSUMES the person is legal. THAT is NOT an investigation. An investigation would be fingerprinting or DNA tests to PROVE that the person is the one on the license.
YOU are the one who commented that there was an “investigation”. Maybe an inquiry, but DEFINATELY NOT an “investigation”.
You conclude with this:
“Absolutely and by the book!”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one HRD.
You DO have a demented sense of humor (but I like it).
August 6, 2010 at 11:25 am
HistorianDude
Here’s one: “If Obama just released the records, this whole issue would go away.”
If you want more examples, just ask.
What the hell are you even talking about here?
Unless you can prove to us here that Ann Soetoro was not sick, then you are just blowing smoke. And that’s a pretty tall order we both know, since it’s impossible for you to do so. You cannot prove a negative.
If you were honest, you would admit that. But you’re not, so you don’t.
Again, you hypocritically assert that you possess some magic power to determine when other people are liars, while denying that anybody can call you the same. Typical.
Lolo’s visa was extended. And it was extended for the reason that his wife was ill. How do you keep missing that?
If it was “determined that he lied” why then was he not summarily tossed out of the country? I’ll tell you why?
Because he has a legal visa to stay until June 20, 1966.
And they didn’t sponsor him for another year.
The INS extended his visa anyway.
Do you have any idea how stupid that comment is?
Your confusion is profound. The East West Center did not and could not grant visas. It could only sponsor exchange students.
The INS on the other hand did and could grant visas. And they did, extending Lolo’s visa until June 1966. Even without the sponsorship of the East West Center.
Suck it up.
That’s three people you point out I call liars.
In contrast you have indicted a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people. You call me liar, Obama a liar, his mother and stepfather liars, his maternal grandparents liars, his sister a liar, uncounted numbers of congressmen and women, senators, judges and government employees liars, to include the Republican governor of Hawaii, a number of Hawaiian government officials… and you now appear to be calling Ronald Reagan’s State Department lairs as well.
That’s hardly a “pot v. kettle” comparison, IB.
You’re just making stuff up again. Lol’s visa extension was not sponsored by the East West Center. Nobody ever said it was.
Awwww. Are you sad I stopped chasing your red herring? Tough.
Because the destruction was not an ongoing process or policy. It was an event. Duh.
You really don’t think very hard about this stuff, do you?
You’re making stuff up again. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. You were just an enlisted guy, so it appears you have the excuse of ignorance in this case.
In contrast, what I know from the military is that it is completely false to claim that everything is backed up before being destroyed. I know in my nuclear detachment we had a scheduled document burn every week… no back ups. Back ups would have been a security violation.
So, like I said, sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this case… no.
In the 1980s, it does not appear that the Reagan administration particularly cared about what you did or did not want them to see.
Because Birthers exist and their lies should be debunked.
Without misinterpretations you would have nothing to talk about.
Sure I have. Smart people do not generally accept such sayings as eternal cosmic truths.
I assume nothing. Unlike you, I have actually read the cases. It’s not an assumption, a speculation, or a guess. It is a statement of objective fact.
Your “suggestion” is directly contradicted by the cases themselves. Go read them.
Another Birther lie that never dies. Obama has not spent millions fighting Birther lawsuits. So there you go, another example of a lie that you keep repeating even though you have been repeatedly corrected. You only asked for one. here you have at least two.
By definition it would cost more. Are you also that bad at math? It’s simple addition.
Show us where the visa extension said anything about the East West Center sponsoring it. You are making up stuff again.
Look? I didn’t say you were lying, even though I would be justified in doing so.
Why do you keep making this incredibly stupid point?
Then how did they get the documents? Don’t keep being stupid, IB. They were asked to investigate a specific issue, and they came back with the results. It’s all there in the FOIA release, IB.
The documents verified the information. Do you honestly not understand why documents exist? The depth of your confusion on such simple issues continues to astound.
If so, then you are being goofy. Investigations have a purpose. When they accomplish the purpose. They’re done.
But of course it constitutes an investigation. What planet did you say you were from?
If the person asked for them, yes. That’s exactly what it means.
Exactly. That’s WHY we have driver’s licenses. See how that works?
You are being amazingly stupid here. You can always do additional investigation, sure. But the reason we invented certified documents (like driver’s licenses and COLBs) is so you don’t have to.
That doesn’t mean the original investigation is somehow magically not an investigation.
Again… what planet are you on?
August 7, 2010 at 4:05 am
Interested Bystander
HRD responded:
“Here’s one: “If Obama just released the records, this whole issue would go away.”
If you want more examples, just ask.”
That’s not a lie HRD, that would be the TRUTH. Besides, I don’t believe I have ever thought it would “go away”. What it WOULD do is answer some questions. IF the long form birth certificate stated that he was born somewhere other than Kapialani (however you spell it), then there would be some questions RAISED, dontcha think?
At any rate, it wouldn’t hurt to try that route, the current route sure isn’t working out too well, did you see where 1 in 4 people now question Obama’s eligibility? More and more people are becoming aware of the TRUTH when it comes to Obama’s lack of proof of eligibility.
I WANT to believe that Obama is eligible, but the evidence is such that I can NOT.
HRD then responds with this:
“Unless you can prove to us here that Ann Soetoro was not sick, then you are just blowing smoke. And that’s a pretty tall order we both know, since it’s impossible for you to do so. You cannot prove a negative.”
No I can’t. But what I CAN do is look at the evidence provided me. What we have is Lolo Soetoro going to INS stating that Stanley was ill. Then when an agent of the East West Center interviewed Lolo and ASKED for proof, and Lolo “couldn’t remember”. Ya think maybe he FABRICATED Stanley’s illness? Not only that but soon there after, in a letter Lolo himself wrote, he states that his wife was “anxious” about him leaving, and goes on to write “I have been advised by our doctor that a prolonged seperation under these circumstances would endanger my wife’s health and mental outlook.”
No mention of the illness that “may require surgery” that he told Wooster about.
Come on now HRD, it’s not hard to conclude that Lolo LIED about Stanley being sick.
By the way, Lolo’s dead, I dont think I’m “hurting his feelings” by calling him a liar (which I believe he was).
Your next comment is this:
“Again, you hypocritically assert that you possess some magic power to determine when other people are liars, while denying that anybody can call you the same. Typical.”
I don’t mind being called a liar when I lie.
You haven’t shown where I have lied, THAT’s why take exception to being called a liar.
You go on:
“Lolo’s visa was extended. And it was extended for the reason that his wife was ill. How do you keep missing that?
If it was “determined that he lied” why then was he not summarily tossed out of the country? I’ll tell you why?
Because he has a legal visa to stay until June 20, 1966.”
Read the documents HRD, they CLEARLY show that there was a suggestion in one document about deporture. There are others who “concur” with the recomendations.
He got the extension under FRAUD, it’s as simple as that.
His visa WAS extended until 1966, but it wasn’t “lawful” for it to have been. Indonesia had requested he be returned ASAP according to Wooster’s memo, and he was in DIRECT CONTACT with Indonesia.
See that big nose on your face HRD? THAT’s how OBVIOUS it is that Lolo’s last year in the United States never should have been.
Deal with it HRD, you are wrong about this. You’re right about some things, but you are wrong about this.
You continue:
“Your confusion is profound. The East West Center did not and could not grant visas. It could only sponsor exchange students.
The INS on the other hand did and could grant visas. And they did, extending Lolo’s visa until June 1966. Even without the sponsorship of the East West Center.
Suck it up.”
You are wrong about this. YOU need to “suck it up” and realize that Lolo LIED to get that extension.
Remember your nose HRD.
Then you go on this rant:
“That’s three people you point out I call liars.
In contrast you have indicted a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people. You call me liar, Obama a liar, his mother and stepfather liars, his maternal grandparents liars, his sister a liar, uncounted numbers of congressmen and women, senators, judges and government employees liars, to include the Republican governor of Hawaii, a number of Hawaiian government officials… and you now appear to be calling Ronald Reagan’s State Department lairs as well.
That’s hardly a “pot v. kettle” comparison, IB.”
What’s your point? I have NEVER called Obama’s sister a liar. You take that back.
Let me take these one at a time:
You call me liar…………..You are
Obama a liar…………….He is
his mother and stepfather liars………………..They were
his maternal grandparents liars………………Don’t recall doing that
his sister a liar……………….NEVER
uncounted numbers of congressmen and women…………..They are
senators…………….MOST are, both Demcrats and Republicans
judges………………Don’t believe I have
government employees liars………….Some are
the Republican governor of Hawaii……………She did lie
Hawaiian government officials…………………Don’t think I have
and you now appear to be calling Ronald Reagan’s State Department lairs…………no not really, just really, really coincidental isn’t it? A “one time” purge to gain some space”. I’m just thinking that since that time, they should have purged more documents, you know because they have to have that “space”, and it’s been 25 years since they did it. I’m surprised they still have Stanely’s 1967 application.
That was fun
“You’re just making stuff up again. Lol’s visa extension was not sponsored by the East West Center. Nobody ever said it was.”
Let me see if I can clear this up for you.
Lolo came here as a GUEST through an agreement between the East West Center and the Indonesian Government. That agreement was for 2 years which should have ended in 1964. The Indonesian Government approved his extension for ONE YEAR. During that year, the Indonesian Government requested Lolo’s return at the end of the extension.
His Country requested his return. Lolo is not an American Citizen and he should have returned in June of 1965.
What about that don’t you understand?
You then insult me:
“You’re making stuff up again. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. You were just an enlisted guy, so it appears you have the excuse of ignorance in this case. ”
“Just an enlisted guy”? Well let me tell you something Mister, if it wasn’t for “just an enlisted guy”, your butt wouldn’t know what to do.
You show your arrogance with that comment.
I just lost a little respect for you HRD. That comment is rude, and offensive.
You go on:
“I assume nothing. Unlike you, I have actually read the cases. It’s not an assumption, a speculation, or a guess. It is a statement of objective fact.”
No it isn’t. It’s the OPINION of an arrogant man who is full of himself.
And on:
“Your “suggestion” is directly contradicted by the cases themselves. Go read them.”
I don’t need to read the cases to understand that the core issue is Obama’s eligibility.
Obama simply needs to release the documents, and PROVE that he is.
Cases closed.
And on some more:
“Another Birther lie that never dies. Obama has not spent millions fighting Birther lawsuits. So there you go, another example of a lie that you keep repeating even though you have been repeatedly corrected. You only asked for one. here you have at least two.”
Yes he has, and it’s been proven. Just look at the Justice Department’s budget, the increase in funds is directly connected to Obama fighting the suits brought against him.
It never stops:
“By definition it would cost more. Are you also that bad at math? It’s simple addition.”
Must be that “new” math thingy when someone can spend a hundred bucks to clear up his eligibilty, and ends up spending millions NOT to clear it up.
Yeah “new” math, it’s a wonderful thing.
You comment this:
“Why do you keep making this incredibly stupid point?”
That would be because YOU keep posting that she USED her passport.
Prove it, you can’t just like I can’t prove Stanley was or wasn’t sick.
What you are doing is coming to a logical conclusion, just like I do about Lolo lying about Stanley being sick.
She very well may have only used an American Passport, but we do NOT know whether she held any other passports.
You conclude with this:
“You are being amazingly stupid here. You can always do additional investigation, sure. But the reason we invented certified documents (like driver’s licenses and COLBs) is so you don’t have to.
That doesn’t mean the original investigation is somehow magically not an investigation.”
Ok, I didn’t copy and paste the “planet” line.
I’ll give you the investigation argument.
You win.
I will end you with this:
It sure wasn’t a very thorough investigation.
Must be why he was working for the Government.
Kind of like Officers in the Military.
August 7, 2010 at 11:46 am
HistorianDude
August 7, 2010 at 11:48 am
HistorianDude
No IB. It is a willful, deliberate, knowing and despicable lie. It might have simply been an ignorant comment the first few times you made it, but you have been pointed (by now) more than a dozen times to the proof that it is false; Specifically, the court cases that have been filed. They are explicit that what you repeatedly post is not true. And they are not my writing, IB, they are the writing of your fellow Birthers.
When you have been corrected multiple times and provided proof, yet you continue to post the falsehood, it is by every standard or reason and morality a deliberate lie.
And you make it in almost every Birther thread on this blog.
And if you had two wheels, you would be a bicycle. Your fascination with idle and irrelevant speculation is yours alone. I do not share it. Especially since it has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility
Your confusion on that issue is a reflection entirely on you. Your personal standards for evidence are meaningless, especially since you keep moving the goal posts.
Now, in response to the direct question regarding whether or not you could prove Stanley was not sick, you answer:
There you go. That part of the conversation is now over. Your gratuitous accusations that Lolo lied or defrauded anybody is admitted by you to be mere opinion.
Another reflection of the complete moral vacuum that informs your smug and arrogant world view. Unlike you, I actually try to afford respect to people who are not here to defend themselves. Furthermore, it is a weird position for a person I always assumed was religious.
Perhaps you’re an atheist. If so, I take that last comment back.
There was never once a question of “deporting” Lolo because he was never, not for one second on American soil without an official and legal visa. All discussions regarding his status were resolved neatly, legally and completely by the Honolulu INS when they extended his visa to June 20, 1966.
Tut, tut, tut, IB. You just got finished admitting you can’t prove that. But it seems you can’t help yourself, can you? You are possessed with this visceral and overwhelming compulsion to call everybody and everything around you a liar. Please… knock it off. It does you no credit to contradict yourself so quickly, and it certainly cannot be good for your blood pressure.
There you go again, IB. You should be worried about an aneurysm. I hope somebody nearby has 911 on speed dial.
Now, I won’t bother to quote your hilarious rant where you proved my previous point that you believe you are surrounded by liars in all directions; Tens of thousands of them it appears. What a dismal world view you have, accounting no doubt for the personal unhappiness, anger and misery that suffuses your posts.
But it is not mentally healthy to carry such suspicion, paranoia and hatred for your fellow man. Misanthropy of such intensity will shorten your life, damage your personal relationships, and relegate you to helplessness and hopelessness in the face of ordinary change.
Your wounded pride here is misplaced. The point was and the point remains that you have no idea what you were talking about because you were “just an enlisted guy.” It was not a reflection on your personal worth, but on the actual operational responsibilities of the jobs you held. You were pretending (as you repeatedly do) to have knowledge and understanding about things that were simply and objectively “above your pay grade.”
My point stands. Regarding what gets destroyed and what gets backed up, your head remains completely and firmly in rectal defilade.
Until you actually go read those cases, this is worse than just a falsehood. It is a willful, deliberate lie. And a pathetic one as well.
It is the equivalent of a six year old standing with his fingers in his ears and whining “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!!!”
Bullsh*t. The core issue is an attempt by right wingers to reverse by judicial coup an election that they could not win in November 2008. We know this because (as you would understand if you ever actually read the cases) they are assembled with several mutually contradictory legal theories, only some of which have anything to do with the release of any records.
You do need to read them to honestly make the claim that any of them would end if Obama released the records. But it appears you are too afraid to read them at all.
Should we can add intellectual and moral cowardice to your list of personal shortfalls?
Obama released the only relevant document and proved it over two years ago. Since then there have been 71 frivolous cases filed.
Yes, all of those cases are now closed.
And Obama remains the 44th President of the United States of America,
There are three lies in those two sentences.
Addition is hardly new math. Recent evidence shows that even monkeys can do it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071218101240.htm
It proved Obama was a citizen. It was exactly as thorough as needed to accomplish that proof.
August 8, 2010 at 12:09 am
Interested Bystander
HRD starts his response with this:
“No IB. It is a willful, deliberate, knowing and despicable lie. It might have simply been an ignorant comment the first few times you made it, but you have been pointed (by now) more than a dozen times to the proof that it is false; Specifically, the court cases that have been filed. They are explicit that what you repeatedly post is not true. And they are not my writing, IB, they are the writing of your fellow Birthers.
When you have been corrected multiple times and provided proof, yet you continue to post the falsehood, it is by every standard or reason and morality a deliberate lie.
And you make it in almost every Birther thread on this blog.”
I believe that 95% of the cases would be withdrawn if Obama would simply show PROOF that he is eligible to be President of the United States.
I’m sure that one or two would continue (without needing too).
It is the truth in my mind, and I’m comfortable making that statement.
It just amazes me that Obama won’t release the documents.
It would be the RIGHT thing to do.
HRD responds with this to my BC question:
“And if you had two wheels, you would be a bicycle. Your fascination with idle and irrelevant speculation is yours alone. I do not share it. Especially since it has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility”
So I take it that IF the long form showed that Obama was born somewhere other than Kapialani Hospital, then you’d be ok with that?
YOU believe that it has been shown that he was, but yet you comment above that it wouldn’t make any difference if the long form showed he was born say…………at the Dunham’s house? (of course we don’t actually KNOW where Obama was born, because he won’t allow the release the document)
Then he responds with this:
“There you go. That part of the conversation is now over. Your gratuitous accusations that Lolo lied or defrauded anybody is admitted by you to be mere opinion.”
As are all of the comments that you and I make. Opinions, it’s called “debate” HRD, not continually putting someone down.
But the evidence is that he pretty much did, and I believe that he did lie out of selfishness.
HRD then speculates:
“Another reflection of the complete moral vacuum that informs your smug and arrogant world view. Unlike you, I actually try to afford respect to people who are not here to defend themselves. Furthermore, it is a weird position for a person I always assumed was religious.
Perhaps you’re an atheist. If so, I take that last comment back.”
Agnostic HRD, do you STILL take the last comment back?
Besides, I’d say it to his face, I swear to GOD I would!!!
HRD is incorrect with this comment:
“There was never once a question of “deporting” Lolo because he was never, not for one second on American soil without an official and legal visa. All discussions regarding his status were resolved neatly, legally and completely by the Honolulu INS when they extended his visa to June 20, 1966.”
Read page 80 carefully HRD.
It says, and I quote “including deportation action”.
Read it and weep July 13 AFTER Lolo got his extension.
Then HRD goes on:
“Tut, tut, tut, IB. You just got finished admitting you can’t prove that. But it seems you can’t help yourself, can you? You are possessed with this visceral and overwhelming compulsion to call everybody and everything around you a liar. Please… knock it off. It does you no credit to contradict yourself so quickly, and it certainly cannot be good for your blood pressure.”
My blood pressure is fine, The statement is an OPINION arrived at by REASONABLY looking at the evidence, do I have to repeat that EVERY time I make that statement?
Kind of like the cases against Obama being withdrawn. REASONABLE people come to REASONABLE conclusions.
HRD then comments this gobbly goop:
“There you go again, IB. You should be worried about an aneurysm. I hope somebody nearby has 911 on speed dial.
Now, I won’t bother to quote your hilarious rant where you proved my previous point that you believe you are surrounded by liars in all directions; Tens of thousands of them it appears. What a dismal world view you have, accounting no doubt for the personal unhappiness, anger and misery that suffuses your posts.
But it is not mentally healthy to carry such suspicion, paranoia and hatred for your fellow man. Misanthropy of such intensity will shorten your life, damage your personal relationships, and relegate you to helplessness and hopelessness in the face of ordinary change.”
Thanks for the concern HRD, just had a physical with breathing test and everything……………….healthy as an OX.
I actually REMEMBER the doctor’s name, unlike Lolo could for a doctor who “might have to perform surgery” (paraphrasing there) on his wife, and the REASON he asked for and recieved an extension of his visa FRAUDULENTLY (opinion), I might add.
I remember the doctor’s names of the TWO doctors who operated on my wife, and THAT was 20 or 28 years ago respectively.
Then HRD comments this:
“Your wounded pride here is misplaced. The point was and the point remains that you have no idea what you were talking about because you were “just an enlisted guy.” It was not a reflection on your personal worth, but on the actual operational responsibilities of the jobs you held. You were pretending (as you repeatedly do) to have knowledge and understanding about things that were simply and objectively “above your pay grade.”
My point stands. Regarding what gets destroyed and what gets backed up, your head remains completely and firmly in rectal defilade.”
You still hurt my feelings.
Bad HRD, one more time, and I think a “time out” will be in order.
HRD continues with this:
“Until you actually go read those cases, this is worse than just a falsehood. It is a willful, deliberate lie. And a pathetic one as well.
It is the equivalent of a six year old standing with his fingers in his ears and whining “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!!!”
That is YOUR opinion of how YOU read the cases.
MY opinion of how I read the cases is that they would be withdrawn.
More from HRD:
“Bullsh*t. The core issue is an attempt by right wingers to reverse by judicial coup an election that they could not win in November 2008. We know this because (as you would understand if you ever actually read the cases) they are assembled with several mutually contradictory legal theories, only some of which have anything to do with the release of any records.
You do need to read them to honestly make the claim that any of them would end if Obama released the records. But it appears you are too afraid to read them at all.
Should we can add intellectual and moral cowardice to your list of personal shortfalls?”
No it’s not, it is to determine if the man who ran for President and won in 2008 is ELIGIBLE to hold the office.
It’s THAT simple.
HRD comments this next:
“Obama released the only relevant document and proved it over two years ago. Since then there have been 71 frivolous cases filed.”
The document the Campaigned “released” is INVALID. You see the black line throught the document number? That would be an alteration. The ONLY pictures I know of that are of the document that the campaign released without the black line is the “factcheck” pictures.
Then this:
“Yes, all of those cases are now closed.”
No they aren’t. Some are still under appeal. There’s still hope!
And then this:
“And Obama remains the 44th President of the United States of America, ”
And we STILL don’t know if he’s eligible.
August 8, 2010 at 3:09 pm
HistorianDude
First and foremost, you are now changing your story. In what has become for you a regular and recurring display of intellectual cowardice, rather than admit you were wrong, you change your story and start pretending you said something completely different. In this case you have suddenly gone all mealy mouthed and qualified the comment with “I believe,” and also changed your demands from specific documents to the more general and (to you) ambiguous “proof.” You are again trying to quibble yourself out of having been caught lying through your teeth.
Ignoring the simple fact that he showed absolute legal proof of his eligibility more than two years ago (and that this shows your comment to be false on its face), the point that remains is this:
It is a lie to assert (as you have repeatedly asserted) that the release of any documents would have ended a single Birther law suit. This can be demonstrated by doing something you have explicitly refused to do (claiming you didn’t “need to”); actually reading the lawsuits.
August 8, 2010 at 3:13 pm
HistorianDude
PS, IB:
When you have just admitted to being an agnostic, don’t you feel just a little hypocritical insisting afterward you “swear to GOD” about something.
I mean, are we supposed to be impressed that you swore on something you don’t even believe in?
August 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Interested Bystander
HRD responds:
“Ignoring the simple fact that he showed absolute legal proof of his eligibility more than two years ago (and that this shows your comment to be false on its face), the point that remains is this:”
In YOUR mind he did, to those of us who are asking the questions, he didn’t. It is YOUR opinion that he showed “absolute proof”. Why won’t a Court “settle” this? You think maybe they’re scared of the fall out?
HRD comments this:
“It is a lie to assert (as you have repeatedly asserted) that the release of any documents would have ended a single Birther law suit. This can be demonstrated by doing something you have explicitly refused to do (claiming you didn’t “need to”); actually reading the lawsuits.”
No it isn’t, just like you asserting that the lawsuits would continue (no matter if you’ve read them or not).
That’s your OPINION, but yet you continually comment that as if it is the truth, and unless you are in the body of each of those who have brought the suits, you don’t KNOW what whould happen.
Again, pot meet kettle.
HRD goes on:
“And he would be able to responds as he saw fit. But he cannot now. He is dead. And you are pissing on the grave of a person who never did a single thing to offend you personally. That is a reflection entirely on your personal “values.”
I’m right here, and not afraid of how Lolo “would be able to respond”.
HRD comments this next:
“I don’t know why I sometimes give you credit for the ability to reason your way out of a paper bag. But no IB, the redaction of a number on the released image was not an alteration to the document at all.”
Yes it is.
And then this:
“The document remained untouched.”
There are fingers “touching” the document in the factcheck pictures.
YOU just lied.
Then this:
“Now let’s ponder this a minute here, IB. You admitted without any prompting that you knew the document was not altered. Yet, you still went on to insist it was.”
The document “released” on the website is altered, and NOT valid. Without the numbers being visible in the pictures, we do NOT know if the document posted on the site is the same document factcheck looked at.
HRD concludes with this:
“PS, IB:
When you have just admitted to being an agnostic, don’t you feel just a little hypocritical insisting afterward you “swear to GOD” about something.
I mean, are we supposed to be impressed that you swore on something you don’t even believe in?”
No I don’t. Being Agnostic doesn’t mean that there is no God, it means that it hasn’t been sufficiently proven to me that there is a God.
Kind of like Obama’s eligibility. I have not once commented that Obama isn’t eligible, only that he won’t release the documents that would prove it one way or the other.
August 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Interested Bystander
PS,
You really need to learn how to use the fancy colored responses.
I let it go the first time, but that’s twice in the same thread.
Shows your intelligence.
August 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm
HistorianDude
It’s not my opinion at all. It is official, formal, in black and white and was set down in US State Department Regulations in 1995. It is called 7 FAM 1110. Look it up.
Courts do not settle things that are already settled.
August 9, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Interested Bystander
HRD responds:
“It’s not my opinion at all. It is official, formal, in black and white and was set down in US State Department Regulations in 1995. It is called 7 FAM 1110. Look it up.
Courts do not settle things that are already settled.”
You mean like the folks of California voting to amend their Constitution, or Arizona passing a law?
I didn’t see anything in the regulation about “natural born citizen”.
The issue is NOT settled, except in your warped mind.
HRD goes on:
“No it is not my opinion at all. It is official, formal, in black and white and set down in the filings in the Birther lawsuits. Of course, you wouldn’t know that because you are too lazy, too cowardly, or too uncertain of your own reading skills to go look.”
Well HRD, you see I’m not a lawyer (like yourself), and I don’t have time to read through 71 suits, but what I believe is that the suits would be withdrawn if Obama would release the documents.
I stand by my comment, you BELIEVE the suits would continue, you do NOT “know” that they would.
And then he comments this:
“The document was not altered. The image had a number redacted. You can do anything you want to the image and the document remains (yes, I’ll use the word again because your stupidity should not be permitted to infect others) untouched.”
The document that is posted on the internet is altered and invalid.
And HRD concludes with this:
“That doesn’t answer the question. Why you are swearing on something you don’t believe in? How is that different from swearing on Santa Clause?”
Because I can, besides it was a play on Donnie Baker, look him up.
Hey HRD, why no response about Lolo being deported?
Can’t admit when you are WRONG?
Shows YOUR cowardice.
You need to take some meds, with the comments you are making on this thread, and the Lakin thread, it is obvious that you need something for that temper of yours.
You just can’t stand it when you are proven wrong.
What a gutless, spineless coward you seem to be. Instead of arguing the points made, you have to resort to name calling, intimidation, and or simply ignoring the fact that you have been proven to be wrong.
August 10, 2010 at 11:07 am
HistorianDude
No. Nothing like those at all. Not even close. It is simply bizarre that you find any similarity whatsoever.
Sure you do. You are just too lazy or cowardly to do so.
But since you refuse, stop lying about what you admit here you do not even understand.
You’re not standing by your comment at all. You are running away from it and now saying something very different. It is a tacit admission that your previous comment was a lie, and that you know full well that it was.
No, it is not. The document that was posted on the Internet is unaltered to this very day. It still exists in its original completely unaltered form.
Becasue we settled that several posts ago. Lolo was not deported. He was never in the country illegally. Not for one second.
You can’t deport somebody who is here legally and has committed no crime.
August 11, 2010 at 4:35 am
Interested Bystander
HRD commented this:
“No. Nothing like those at all. Not even close. It is simply bizarre that you find any similarity whatsoever.”
Try to stay with the “back and forth” HRD,
You commented:
“Courts do not settle things that are already settled.”
The people of California voted to Amend their Constitution, and a Court has delayed the Amendment. The case was settled, and the Courts are trying to “settle” it AFTER it received an overwhelming victory.
I’m sure you are aware of the Arizona law that PROHIBITS racial profiling, but yet the Courts are delaying the implimentation of the law. The case was “settled”, but yet the Courts are trying to “settle” it yet again.
Now do you get it?
To my comment about not having time to read the 71 lawsuits (like he says he has), HRD responds with this:
“Sure you do. You are just too lazy or cowardly to do so.”
No I don’t have time to read them, I actually have to WORK for a living.
Besides the lawsuits are all basically asking for Obama to prove he is eligible to hold the office he now holds.
All he has to do is release the documents, and IF they prove he is eligible, then the lawsuits would be withdrawn.
You really have to stop believing in all of those conspiracy theories.
HRD continues:
“You’re not standing by your comment at all. You are running away from it and now saying something very different. It is a tacit admission that your previous comment was a lie, and that you know full well that it was.”
My response hasn’t changed in the slightest.
The suits would be dropped IF Obama released the documents, and they PROVED he is eligible to hold the office of President.
That’s the TRUTH.
Deal with it.
On the on line version of the COLB HRD responds with this:
“No, it is not. The document that was posted on the Internet is unaltered to this very day. It still exists in its original completely unaltered form.”
You see that black line through the document number HRD?
THAT would be an alteration to the original document.
The COLB released by the Obama Campaign on Obama’s own web site, has been altered and is INvalid.
HRD concludes with this about the discussion about Lolo being deported:
“Becasue we settled that several posts ago. Lolo was not deported. He was never in the country illegally. Not for one second.
You can’t deport somebody who is here legally and has committed no crime.”
Lolo’s last year in the United States was ILLEGAL, and you know it.
Wooster was the head of the East West Center and was responsible for Lolo getting here, being here and going home.
Besides you commented this:
“There was never once a question of “deporting” Lolo because he was never, not for one second on American soil without an official and legal visa.”
I proved you wrong. Not only was there a question, there was a suggestion that he be deported, and that Zumwinkle (or whatever his name is/was), and many others “concured” with Wooster.
Lolo’s last year in the United States was approved by FRAUD and was ILLEGAL.
You simply can’t bring yourself to admit when you are wrong.
Shows a weakness HRD.
August 11, 2010 at 9:39 am
HistorianDude
Yes. I get it completely. There is no similarity whatsoever. The objective legal standards for proof of citizenship at birth have been well known for at least 15 years since their last publication by the Department of State. Obama’s COLB meets them. It is a settled issue.
Other unrelated and random court cases are just that. Unrelated and random court cases. Please try to stick to the subject.
We all work for a living, IB. And yet honest men and women don’t merely pretend they know what they are talking about. They actually find out.
You on the other hand are just too lazy or too cowardly.
Yet more proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of these 71 cases are not. Most ask certain officials involved in elections to check eligibility. Several others ask for miscellaneous stays and writs of mandamus having nothing to do with Obama. In most of them, Obama is not even a defendant at all. Several others try to redefine “natural born citizenship” without reference to any documents at all.
Not a single one would end even if all those documents are released.
Of course, you wouldn’t know that since you are too cowardly or lazy to read any of them.
He has already released all the documentation necessary to prove he is eligible. And yet not one of those lawsuits stopped.
You are wrong again.
No. It is a lie.
Your persistent stupidity here is breathtaking. That black box (not line) is a redaction of the image, not the document. The document remains pristine as you have yourself admitted.
That is a lie.
Lolo’s visa was valid until June 20, 1966. He never spent a day on American soil that wasn’t completely legal.
That is lie. You have already admitted that you can prove no fraud. Wooster (in spite of his own clear skepticism) made no effort to prove any fraud, and Lolo was not deported which he would have been had a fraud taken place.
At no time was Lolo ever in the country illegally. You cannot deport somebody who is legally here and has committed no crime.
You seem to spend all your effort to score tiny and frivolous personal points rather than saying anything substantive. If you spent a fraction of the time reading the actual cases that you spend parsing and reinterpreting phrases of previous posts, you would be much smarter, much wiser, and less prone to the gratuitous lies that you stumble into like clockwork.
The reason you lie so much is because you are lazy rather than malicious.
August 12, 2010 at 5:52 am
Interested Bystander
HRD responds:
“Yes. I get it completely. There is no similarity whatsoever. The objective legal standards for proof of citizenship at birth have been well known for at least 15 years since their last publication by the Department of State. Obama’s COLB meets them. It is a settled issue.”
I could give a crap about “objective legal standards”. It’s all a bunch of BS, and you know it.
“Objective legal standards”…………………BWAHAHAHA
Obama has NOT proven he is eligible to 27% of the people.
THAT should “tell” you something. The more people understand what the circumstances are surrounding Obama’s COLB, the more people will be asking questions.
Your quibbling about “objective legal standards” is idiotic.
The man could shut us up by releasing the documents, IF they prove he is eligible.
What’s he hiding?
HRD continues:
“Other unrelated and random court cases are just that. Unrelated and random court cases. Please try to stick to the subject.”
YOU are the one who brought it up. Don’t bring it up, if you don’t want to debate it.
More from HRD:
“We all work for a living, IB. And yet honest men and women don’t merely pretend they know what they are talking about. They actually find out.”
Some of us do REAL work, while others sit at a computer reading court cases while sucking off of your employers teat. I would be the former, you would be the latter.
And then this from HRD:
“You on the other hand are just too lazy or too cowardly”
Oh man, another “put down” from HRD.
Shows your desperation and lack of argument.
Next HRD responds with this:
“Yet more proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of these 71 cases are not. Most ask certain officials involved in elections to check eligibility. Several others ask for miscellaneous stays and writs of mandamus having nothing to do with Obama. In most of them, Obama is not even a defendant at all. Several others try to redefine “natural born citizenship” without reference to any documents at all.”
So YOU are admitting to throwing “unrelated and random court cases” in with those cases that question OBAMA’s eligbility.
Hypocrite
The ELIGIBILITY cases would be dropped, withdrawn or dismissed IF Obama would simply release the documents and they PROVE he is eligible. The longer he waits to release them, the larger that 27% number becomes. Doesn’t seem to me to be a very good strategy.
HRD continues:
“Not a single one would end even if all those documents are released.”
Yes they would, ALL of the cases about OBAMA’S eligibility would be gone. POOF, and it would save us MILLIONS of dollars that he is spending of OUR money to defend his “empty suit”.
And HRD goes on:
“Of course, you wouldn’t know that since you are too cowardly or lazy to read any of them.”
Of course I haven’t. MOST of those cases that you are refering too, as you admit, is simply you throwing “”unrelated and random court cases” in to that number.
HRD responds with this:
“He has already released all the documentation necessary to prove he is eligible. And yet not one of those lawsuits stopped.
You are wrong again.”
No he hasn’t. Maybe by your “objective legal standards” bullcrap, but not to MILLIONS of people.
There has NEVER been a case about someone being a “natural born citizen”. Your Kim case was simply a 14th Amendment case and NOT a “natural born citizen” case. As a matter of FACT, the term “natural born citizen” is not even in the 14th Amendment.
It’s not a matter of who is right, or who is wrong. It is a matter about an “empty suit” of a man, who all through his campaign, and in his first address to Congress, pledged to have the most “transparent” Administration in history, and he won’t even release the documents that would prove one way or another whether he is eligible.
I can be “wrong” until the cows come home, it still won’t stop me from asking the questions.
Until Obama releases the documents, we don’t know who is “wrong” or who is “right”.
And then this:
“No. It is a lie.”
It’s the truth, have Obama release the documents and find out.
On HRD goes:
“Your persistent stupidity here is breathtaking. That black box (not line) is a redaction of the image, not the document. The document remains pristine as you have yourself admitted.”
Let’s get this straight. It’s a line from “paint”, not a “box”. What a stupid point to be arguing.
And it’s not a “redaction”, it’s an alteration, and it INvalidates the document.
As far as me admitting that the document “remains pristine as you have yourself admitted”. I have NOT admitted to that. The last time we saw the document was a couple of summers ago, except of course the one that keeps popping up on TV, you know the one that has that line through the document number?
Hell, Obama could have ordered it’s destruction, like Reagan did Stanley’s passport applications filed prior to 1967.
Damn Ronald Reagan for ordering that.
HRD comments this:
“That is a lie.
Lolo’s visa was valid until June 20, 1966. He never spent a day on American soil that wasn’t completely legal.”
It’s not a lie, and you know it.
Lolo’s last year in the United States never should have been. He was here ILLEGALLY.
And HRD goes on:
“That is lie. You have already admitted that you can prove no fraud. Wooster (in spite of his own clear skepticism) made no effort to prove any fraud, and Lolo was not deported which he would have been had a fraud taken place.”
Wooster had DIRECT knowledge of Lolo’s case. Lolo was supposed to return to Indonesia in June of 1965. He already proved FRAUD.
HRD’s next comment is this:
“At no time was Lolo ever in the country illegally. You cannot deport somebody who is legally here and has committed no crime.”
Lolo’s last year in the United States never should have been. He was here ILLEGALLY, and Wooster, Zumwinkle (whatever) and MANY others agreed with the suggestion of deportation. Because it didn’t happen, is NOT proof that he was here legally, because he WASN’T.
Kind of like Obama’s Aunt, you know the one who lives in Government subsidized housing? And SHE was here for YEARS without being deported AFTER being ordered out of the Country, when was that? 2003? Somewhere in there anyway.
And now she gets to stay. What a wonderful Country we live in (that was sarcasm HRD,).
HRD rants:
“You seem to spend all your effort to score tiny and frivolous personal points rather than saying anything substantive. If you spent a fraction of the time reading the actual cases that you spend parsing and reinterpreting phrases of previous posts, you would be much smarter, much wiser, and less prone to the gratuitous lies that you stumble into like clockwork.”
How many times do I have to respond to you with, I’m very happy with myself, just the way I am?
My goal in life is NOT to become a clone of the likes of you. I want to think for myself, after becoming informed about an issue.
I’m not here to impress YOU HRD, I honestly don’t give a crap what you “think”, because you have been indoctrinated. It’s quite clear. You see things in “black and white”. I see things as a mixture of colors. The answer isn’t “black and white”, HRD. It’s more than likely somewhere in between the black and white.
You have demonstrated time and again that you don’t care what the TRUTH is.
You are convinced that the document Obama released is proof positive that he is a “natural born citizen”.
The document does not prove anything other than his birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
Now the long form birth certificate, that document would give us some light on whether Obama was born in a hospital, or if the form was mailed in because he was born somewhere other than a hospital.
Obama could have been born ANYWHERE, and as long as Stanley could prove residence in Hawaii, she could have registered Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
And HRD concludes with this:
“The reason you lie so much is because you are lazy rather than malicious.”
You keep commenting about some “lie” I have posted, and YET have proven one time where I have lied.
Who you trying to convince?
That’s proof of your indoctrination, HRD. I’d like to feel sorry for you, but you are my age, so you should know better by now.
August 3, 2010 at 2:56 pm
gumply
Barry Soetero is alive but not well, he’s demented. Just because he was ashamed of his name and decided to change it does not mean that we have to accept his new islamic name. He loks like Barry, the drugie Soetero. HD is still in Lala land which is right next to Oz.
HD, Do you think if you number the propaganda it will resonate with someone? Well it wont. We don’t believe your lies and we don’t believe the liar in Chief. But the two of you look like you could be buddies.
August 3, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Interested Bystander
gumply,
Oh they’re MORE than buddies.
August 3, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Stothes
The fact he’s a natural born citizen makes all of this irrelevant.
August 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Interested Bystander
Stothes,
We don’t KNOW if he’s a “natural born citizen” or not.
Show us your evidence that he is a “natural born citizen”.
I’d like to see it.
August 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm
gumply
So would I and half of the world too. I think it is great, now everyone all over the world are making signs about where is the birthcertificate.
He is the laughing stock of the world including even in some of his muslim countries. Their all ashamed of him and I really can’t blame them. Look at the wacko Ahmadinejad he even makes fun of him.
Now that I think about it, it’s pretty bad when someone as heinous as Ahmadinejad makes fun of you to all of the world and he is a fellow islamist. Wow that is a low blow. Even your own kind don’t want anything to do with you.
How sad, poor HD, he’ll have to make up some more fairy tales for us about his knight in dingy armor.
August 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm
gumply
Stothes,
In order to be a natural born citizen you are suppose to have two parents that are Americans per the Supreme court.
Don’t listen to HD he is an obot and all obot’s lie, they don’t know the difference between the truth and a lie. And they don’t know if you make something up that is considered a lie too.
August 4, 2010 at 1:38 pm
HistorianDude
Wrong again, Gump. The Supreme Court has said that neither of the parents have to be citizens at all.
Wong Kim Ark baby. Smacks you in the face every time.
August 4, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Stothes
Then by your own definition you are a liar. The Supreme Court has never said that. Once again, you’re making things up. You made the same dumb claim in a previous thread about this alleged Supreme Court precedent. When pressed for proof, the best you could do was pony up a link about DeVattel.
August 4, 2010 at 12:57 pm
HistorianDude
More Birther lies that never die. Birthers that are more honest than IB have repeatedly admitted that the release of this information would end exactly nothing. They have at least five other fallback positions.
Another Birther lie that never died. Obama has not spent millions of ANYBODY’s dollars to keep documents sealed.
August 4, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Megan
Do birthers believe that the money borrowed or the number of Americans killed in war during the Obama presidency will be changed or reversed if he is declared not a citizen? Spending your time believing insane conspiracies does nothing. Once policies and laws are enacted, they won’t simply be overturned.
Focus your attention on the real world … not the dead and departed (his mom, father, grandfather, grandmother etc.)
August 4, 2010 at 4:49 pm
gumply
Megan,
What birthers believe is that when the truth finally comes out after he spends another 3 million trying despartately to hide everything about his background everything he is done will be null and void. He is a usurper, you know that goes with liar in chief………
Get out your crying towel your going to need it. Almost 80 % of Missouri wants to repeal obocare and we haven’t even got started yet! And Virginia is taking it to court. We have five more in the wings waiting for their turn. You need to shake the cobwebs out of your head.
BTW I don’t think that we will get any money back that was spent during the evil reign of Bush 1 or 2 either and we might as well throw slick willie in there too. Unlike obots I have a mind of my own and no one tells me what to think or believe. I do my own research and make my own decisions. Bush was just as corrupt as the liar in chief the only difference is that the liar in chief has the accelerator pushed to the floor and bush was on a sunday stroll but in the end they both screwed the American people along with the rest of the scum bags in DC (disease city).
August 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm
HistorianDude
And that is another example of how Birthers have no idea what they are talking about. The De Facto Officer Doctrine makes every he has done official and fully in effect, even if he really was an usurper after all.
Sucks to be a Birther.
August 4, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Megan
NOTHING will be null and void. That’s what you don’t understand. Lives cannot be reclaimed. Foreign borrowed money will still have to be repaid. The US cannot tell it’s creditors, “Oops we made a mistake.” Any laws that have been passed will NOT simply be overturned. You will not be able to go back in time and change policy without following the legislative process.
As policy continues to be passed and implemented, lives are lost, and debt is accumulated, focusing on conspiracy theories is a complete waste of time. President Obama’s term will be up and people will have spent all their time trying to prove he is not a citizen. Then it will be too late.
August 5, 2010 at 9:12 am
gumply
Usurper Barry Soetero the liar in chief is a disgusting despot and the entire world knows it. No one is trying to prove he is a citizen what we are stating is that he is not eligible to be president that is why he is spending all of our money trying to hide his background.
IF HE WAS ELIGIBLE HE WOULD JUST SHOW THE WORLD HIS PROOF THE FACT THAT HE WONT AND DOESN’T IS BECAUSE HE IS NOT AND YOU CAN PLAY LETS PRETEND TOIL YOU IDE AND IT ISN’T GOING TO CHANGE IT.
The man and I use that word loosely is a liar and he comes from a family of lying communists. I am assuming you can read then go read his history and their history. Lying card carrying communists thats what they are and were. Just because it offends you doesn’t mean it is not true. The FBI files state his maternal grandparents were card carrying communists are the FBI lying to? His pedophile mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying communist according to the FBI files, they must be lying about that too.
I guess you guys must be communists too, why else would you defend the liar in chief so vigorously. Take off your rose colored glasses.
August 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
HistorianDude
No. Only you are lying. there are no such FBI files saying anything of the sort.
August 5, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Megan
Even if you proved to any sane person that he is ‘ineligible’ that still does not reverse time or events, spent and borrowed money, bring back lives, nor void legislation. That’s what you don’t understand. All you will have done is make yourself feel better. That’s it.
It obvious that you hate the president. I can feel the energy of your hate through your words. Your hate is not healthy or productive. The country is moving forward each day and you’re hatred is leaving you in the background screaming. Let it go.
August 5, 2010 at 6:01 pm
JAMES
Please define “moving forward”?
August 5, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Megan
In this context moving forward means not remaining in the past.
Direct your efforts towards what is happening now. You seem like a passionate person and lots of energy. Use your energy in a more positive way that gets policies enacted which you believe will make the country better.
August 5, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Megan
Oops, sorry James, only the first part of my response was directed at your question.
The second part was for Grumply. He seems very passionate about his beliefs.
August 6, 2010 at 4:19 am
Interested Bystander
gumply is a woman Megan, just FYI.
It’s nice to read your comments, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders.
The eligiblity issue is something that I am passionate about having spent over 20 years in the ARMY defending this Country.
The FACTS are that if Obama would simply stand by his pledge to have the most “transparent” Administration in history and release the documents, the issue could be cleared up, despite what HRD writes.
My the way, HRD is HistorianDude, only he likes to rewrite history, so that’s why I respond to him with HRD (HistoryRewritingDude).
August 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm
JAMES
Megan… I agree we must move forward, I just don’t want the move forward to be in the wrong direction.
August 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Stothes
Please define “wrong direction”?
August 6, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Stothes
Hi Megan,
Welcome to the jungle.
IB,
Can you provide specific proof of HD rewriting history?
August 7, 2010 at 2:27 am
Interested Bystander
Stothes,
Yes
August 6, 2010 at 4:33 am
dennis
glad to visit on this blog ..
August 7, 2010 at 2:28 am
Interested Bystander
Welcome dennis,
Feel free to jump in.
August 7, 2010 at 3:58 am
Megan
Thank you for the gender correction and comment IB! As far as the the birth certificate I think he has produced as much as any other president, so we have to accept that and get on with the business of improving the economic situation in the US. We have got to monitor spending.
I do apologize Gumply.
James, I hope that we are moving in the correct direction too. That’s why I think we must focus our attention on these policies which are being so swiftly implemented.
August 9, 2010 at 5:06 am
Interested Bystander
Megan,
I too thought gumply was a man when she first started posting.
She wrote in a comment some time later that she is a woman in her 70s.
She’s got some pretty firm beliefs, and I respect that she lets them be known.
As far as your concern about “monitoring spending”, it seems to me that at this time, “monitoring” is the best we can do, because with the Democrats holding two of the three branches of Government, they can do pretty much whatever they want, as has been witnessed by them passing everything from the stimulus (that the MAJORITY of people who contactd their Representatives were AGAINST), to passing health care reform (at 10:50 or 11:00 at night, again AGAINST the will of the people), to taking over car companies and financial institutions, or them suing Arizona when 70% of Arizona’s citizens approve of the bill passed, and signed in to law by their Governor.
As far as the economy goes, I believe the best way to “jump start” the economy would be for the Government to quit all of the regulations and taxes on businesses.
The health care bill, and the possibility of “Cap and Trade” along with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts has got most businesses very leary of hiring new employees.
But to be honest, we have other problems besides getting the economy going again.
Another important issue I believe would be the gradual “Global Government” that we are being forced to adhere too.
As far as Afghanistan goes, I believe we should have been out by now, with victory and a surrender from the Taliban in hand (same with Iraq). But with the “patty cake” way we run a war now, we’ll probably be there still fighting in 2020. I could give a crap what our “image” around the world would be, the message sent would have been loud and clear, mess with us, and get your butts kicked.
Not in today’s “touchy feely” world, we don’t want to upset someone by actually conducting a WAR. Could you imagine the news reports we’d be getting from the front lines of WWII, if the mind set of the media back then was what it is today? War is a nasty thing, and it should be conducted to WIN in the shortest period of time, for no other reason than protecting the lives of the soldiers fighting the war.
That’s simply not the mindset of today’s news outlets. They report every little thing they believe that we are doing wrong, with very little positive reporting on the war.
It’s called indoctrination, and slowly but surely, they are poluting our brains with a bunch of crap.
Our Country is a shell of what it used to be.
August 7, 2010 at 4:04 am
Megan
Thank you for the welcome Stothes. I am enjoying the civility here. It’s too rare these days.
October 14, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Obama Illegal Alien? - Page 8 - Southern Maryland Community Forums
[…] […]