Obama did not attend college under a Fulbright Scholarship or as a foreign student (both nutty ideas come from AN APRIL FOOL’s article). Don’t believe me. Why not call up Occidental and Columbia University and ask for the PR departments and ASK.

Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm (and the “you had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend school in Indonesia” story is also false—which you also can check by calling the Indonesian embassy. Here’s the number: (202) 775 5200 — ask for the press officer.

The “his birth certificate…has been obviously falsified” story is false too.

The raised seal on Obama’s short form (which is the official BC of Hawaii, accepted by the US State Department for issuing visas) is clearly visible in the Factcheck pictures, and it is faintly visible in the jpg version of Obama’s long form birth certificate that Savannah Gutherie put on the Web. More importantly, the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly stated that the facts on Obama’s long form birth certificate are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

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

John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.

The story that he “spent $5 million” or one million or anything at all on keeping his records “sealed” is another birther lie. In fact, there has never been a lawsuit against Obama for any records at all. The only lawsuits against him were to keep him off of the ballot, so Obama spend a little money (it does not cost very much to file the same legal papers over and over) on staying on the ballot. But he did not spend a cent on hiding his records.

He showed his birth certificate, twice, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and the long form to him, and that all the facts on the long form that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

I sure do HOPE that our SCOTUS and others involved in the running of our Country soon WAKE UP and get some definition to the Natural Born Citizen clause in our Constitution and the reason that it was put into that document originally. There was a purpose for that Clause and it was to protect America against just what is happening right now. Obama has clearly stated and acted against or Country in many ways, and the reason that Clause was inserted was to PROTECT AMERICA from divided loyalties, which Obama clearly has and has shown. He has no LOYALTY to America what-so-ever, and it is about time to get him out of the Office he holds so that he cannot do any more damage to America and the CONCEPT that started the Founding Fathers in their first rational to build a Country that protects its Citizens from EVEN DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

To David Bryan:
You can deny these allegations, but the Obama Administration has effectively kept any of the people making these allegations from getting into any court to present evidence. Why? If they could disprove any of this they would have welcomed a court trial and counter-sued.

Your opinion on the intent of SCOTUS rulings in 1898 is YOUR OPINION. That decision should be examined in light of issue before the court, the facts, and the law in THAT CASE! I do not believe that ruling was intended to give citizenship to Illegal Immigrants, criminal invaders, that are here in clear defiance of US Law!

Obama’s State Department can deny Barry’s Indonesian citizenship, like they can deny the Benghazi attack was by Islamofascist terrorists. Barry was registered in school as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. He was an Indonesian under Indonesian law, whether you like it or not.

I, for one, hope that this gets to court; the evidence is heard, records of schools & passports subpoenaed , the laws are stated as in effect, and documents examined. The court can order Perkins-Coie to reveal what legal work they did for the Obama Campaign to justify such a huge “legal bill”. It will end “the chatter”. Hopefully the Court will rule in a Constitutional manner, as it was written, not as Liberal/Progressive/Socialists seek to twist it. Perhaps it will force Congress to pass laws that clarify citizenship, but Obama will veto them. He only enforces the “laws” he wants anyway. Especially on immigration, citizenship, and voting laws. We have the most politicized Dept of (In)Justice ever. Most other Depts of this Administration have been shown to be criminally politicized. Now Obama is demonstrating that he puts the welfare of African nations above the interests and safety of American Citizens. But after 6 years of this, I am NOT surprised!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/20/Top-Men-Ebola
Why do you continue to defend the indefensible? White Guilt? Masochism?
THINK!

On the 14th Amendment
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.”
This was enacted in some haste to guarantee the freedom and protection of the recently freed slaves, was ratified July 9, 1868. The key phrase “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, (the United States) caused later Court decisions to exclude Diplomats and “Indians not taxed” specifically. The Indians not taxed included the “wild Indians” that were definitely not under US jurisdiction and for sometime “reservation Indians” that were “Wards of the State”.
The point is what constitutes “under US jurisdiction”? Illegal aliens are here in DEFIANCE of US law and obviously not “under US jurisdiction”, so by definition are excluded from 14th Amendment claims to citizenship.
Furthermore, I submit that people traveling under a passport issued by a Foreign Power with a Temporary Visa while subject to local laws during their visit, are not totally “under US Jurisdiction” but under a passport protection by treaty and therefor SHOULD be excluded from 14th Amendment citizenship. It was unthinkable, or at least beneath discussion, in Victorian 1968 that a foreign woman would be travelling here in “such a delicate condition.” This loop-hole encourages a “Citizenship Tourist Industry” where wealthy foreign women come here for good hospitals and to secure US Citizenship for their child. Also any poor woman that can set foot in the US before giving birth can claim citizenship for her child, permanent residence, and access to all welfare and entitlements. That was not the intent of this Amendment. But Lib/Prog activist judges have intentionally misinterpreted it that way since about 1980.
This needs to be ruled on by SCOTUS and if necessary clarified by Congress, or even by a new Amendment if necessary.
This is my opinion based on my reading of history and the law.

Re; Obama Sr
Documents uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, show that Harvard University officials worked with the INS to deny Obama’s student visa extension. An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote on June 8, 1964:

“They (Harvard officials) weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him. They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”

Another memo by McKeon, dated May 19, 1964, says:

“OBAMA has passed his general exams, which indicates on academic grounds he is entitled to stay around here and write his thesis; however, they are going to try to cook something up to ease him out. All three will have to agree to this, however. They are planning on telling him that they will not give him any money, and that he’d better return to Kenya and prepare his thesis at home.”

Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Harvard University, disputed those allegations.

“While we cannot verify accounts of conversations that occurred nearly 50 years ago, a review of our existing files did not find any support for either the language or the implied intent described by the U.S. government official in the government documents.”

Neal said that university documents predating the INS file, which was compiled between 1961 and 1965, indicate “the University’s Center for International Affairs faced serious constraints in providing financial support for research by international graduate students in Cambridge, and that these students were required to secure and demonstrate independent and sufficient sources of funding in order to remain on campus.”

Documents show Obama, Sr. was denied an extension of his student visa in July, 1964 and subsequently returned to Kenya.
http://theobamafile.com/_family/Senior.htm

Stanley Ann receives Indonesian passport:
“Stanley Ann married Lolo Soetoro in March of 1965. She acquired her passport (F777788) on July 19, 1965 — 12 to 16 months in which to get little “Barry” adopted — and the automatic Indonesian citizenship.

Bluecat6 says that without a doubt Stanley Ann WAS an Indonesia citizen. She became an Indonesia citizen after her marriage to Lolo — see article 7 here:

“…the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted…”

Without a doubt — when they were in Indonesia — this family was 100% Indonesian. How the US would have viewed Stanley Ann and little “Barry” from a US citizenship perspective may be better answered by others.

But between 1966 and 1971 this family was Indonesian.

“…the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted…”

Without a doubt — when they were in Indonesia — this family was 100% Indonesian. How the US would have viewed Stanley Ann and little “Barry” from a US citizenship perspective may be better answered by others.

But between 1966 and 1971 this family was Indonesian.”

from The Obama Files, Archives, Family, Indonesia.

The name of the case that David referred to, and I explained further in Comment #8 was Wong Kim Ark.
The paradox is in this case the Federal Govt tried to exclude Mr. Wong, their reason was to protect American culture from a foreign unassimilatable minority person.
Now the Federal govt is flooding the US with foreign unassimilatable minorities in an effort to “Change” our culture and political demographic.

To Dave B.
Both of those you cite were “hearings”, not trials with discovery. Both were with Orly Taitz as counsel. I admire her passion for our Constitutional Republic, but she is a refugee from the Soviet Union and English is her 3rd (possibly) 4th) language. She blew her chance with Mahili. The other one, I don’t remember the details, but it was Orly again petitioning for subpoena power to get the information in question, but was denied. I believe that was one that the Holder DoJ was involved in. There has never been a TRIAL with full discovery. Admittedly, competent Counsel that more fluent in legal English, and less excitable would be a big help. Larry Klayman may just do it.
Why are the Obama Campaign and their rabid supporters so opposed to an investigation if they are confident their evidence exists and is unimpeachable? Anyone should be suspicious of this mantle of secrecy that whenever there is a tiny hole another lie is revealed. Obama’s true history does not match his “Legend”, and as small discoveries are made the “Legend” seems a huge political fabrication to pull the greatest FRAUD ever on the American People.

How can you not question this after 6 years? Do you think Obama really has the best interests of Americans in his heart and is just incompetent, confused, and unable to make good decisions? Or is his “AGENDA” something that brings “Hope” to our enemies, and political, economic, and demographic “Change” that will impoverish Americans and bring a totalitarian Federal Govt to power?

Appling the SCOTUS verdict in “Wong Kim Ark” to present Illegal Aliens (persons invading the country in defiance of Federal Law) even if they have a child here, is a huge misrepresentation of the case and decision.

To Dave B.
I have never read the so-called parody about Obama going to Occidental as a Fulbright Scholar.
I started to suspect that he was a “Foreign Exchange Student” because he was such poor student in high school. Remember the Choom Gang? Also there were stories that he traveled with friends to Pakistan in a time when travel was not authorized for regular Americans with US Passports. There are constant indications that he used an Indonesian passport, even after age 18. If he kept a foreign passport, either Indonesian or Kenyan instead of getting a US passport after he was living in Hawaii there had to be a reason.
He could get into a good college as a foreign student even with lousy grades, especially with such an international resume – Kenyan birth father, adopted by an Indonesian, mother living in Indonesia (using an Indonesian passport), and strong indications that Barry had an Indonesian passport also. This suspicion was increased when it was impossible to find out from INS & Passport Control when he had a passport, & was it US or foreign. The possibility of his applying for a Fulbright Scholarship came later from other comments in discussion groups. It fit, Stanley Ann for all her Marxist ideology, still knew how to “milk the System”. Also, he was still using the Barry Soetoro, or Barry Subartha(sp?) Soetoro at the time he entered Occidental. I believe he started using his Kenyan name in his second year, Barack Hussein Obama. He said in his book, ‘Dreams from My Father’ that he sought out the foreign students and the most Marxist professors as friends and companions.
It would be perfect Alinskyite tactic to right the truth as sarcastic parody if the truth was about to be exposed, so I’m not surprised by your use of it as an argument. When was this parody published, when did you hear of it, and who told you?
The Occidental Foreign Student theory was being bandyed about in the summer of 2008 by people that read his first book and had read stories by or about some of Choom Gang pot-smoking buddies.
The Fulbright angle didn’t come to me until much later. But it fit so well. Frank Marshall Davis was his friend and mentor and as a Marxist writer & activist from Chicago he had connects throughout the University systems, and could have guided his protégé to a favorable source of funding if not a Fulbright Scholarship.
The suspicion about the Indonesian passport and reading Obama’s first book was the key to me suspecting the Foreign Student scam.
If you will, send me a link to your “Parody”, I would like to read it for comparison.

How about this David and Ellen? How do you defend this?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/10/obama-asserts-fast-furious-executive-privilege-claim-holders-wife-2/

Judicial Watch announced today that it received from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) a “Vaughn index” detailing records about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. The index was forced out of the Obama administration thanks to JW’s June 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequent September 2012 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)). A federal court had ordered the production over the objections of the Obama Justice Department.

The document details the Attorney General Holder’s personal involvement in managing the Justice Department’s strategy on media and Congressional investigations into the Fast and Furious scandal. Notably, the document discloses that emails between Attorney General Holder and his wife Sharon Malone – as well as his mother – are being withheld under an extraordinary claim of executive privilege as well as a dubious claim of deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act. The “First Lady of the Justice Department” is a physician and not a government employee.

This is the first time that the Obama administration has provided a detailed listing of all records being withheld from Congress and the American people about the deadly Fast and Furious gun running scandal. The 1307-page “draft” Vaughn index was emailed to Judicial Watch at 8:34 p.m. last night, a few hours before a federal court-ordered deadline. In its cover letter, the Department of Justice asserts that all of the responsive records described in the index are “subject to the assertion of executive privilege.”

The Vaughn index explains 15,662 documents. Typically, a Vaughn index must: (1) identify each record withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption. The Vaughn index arguably fails to provide all of this required information but does provide plenty of interesting information for a public kept in the dark for years about the Fast and Furious scandal.

Based on a preliminary review of the massive document, Judicial Watch can disclose that the Vaughn index reveals:
•Numerous emails that detail Attorney General Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, the timing of public disclosures, and handling Congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious matter.
•President Obama has asserted executive privilege over nearly 20 email communications between Holder and his spouse Sharon Malone. The administration also claims that the records are also subject to withholding under the “deliberative process” exemption. This exemption ordinarily exempts from public disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.
•Numerous entries detail DOJ’s communications (including those of Eric Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
•The scandal required the attention of virtually every top official of the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Communications to and from the United States Ambassador to Mexico about the Fast and Furious matter are also described.
•Many of the records are already publicly available such as letters from Congress, press clips, and typical agency communications. Ordinarily, these records would, in whole or part, be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Few of the records seem to even implicate presidential decision-making and advice that might be subject to President Obama’s broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim.

It is ugly for me to say, but this Administration has had an Anti-American Agenda and it is slowly being revealed.
If the truth about Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, had been honestly revealed, this may not have happened.
WE are chipping away at the Stonewall of the Obamunists of hiding their Agenda of destroying the Constitution and Freedom for the American People.
You can spin, obfuscate, twist the Law, threaten political judges, but “IT DON”T MATTER!” Sooner or later the American People (ESPECIALLY TEXANS) will prevail!

Lord, what a mess. What you’ve done is drop a great big text dump on us, of stuff you’ve copied from the Obama File. If that’s all you’re going to do, why not just post the links and be done with it? You’re trying to substitute quantity for quality, as I’ll point out:
I don’t know what your point is with all that business about the President’s father, but none of it proves your claim, which was irrelevant in the first place and which you appear to have abandoned, that Barack Obama, Sr. was deported.

You go on to claim that “At some time, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barry, and Barry would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen according to the country’s laws in the 1960’s, which stipulated any child is immediately granted Indonesian citizenship upon completion of the adoption process.”
In support of that claim of adoption, you say “His half-sister Maya stated so publically (sic),” without providing a reference to that statement, or indicating why it would have substantial probative value. You add,

“As evidence that an adoption occurred, there are the following artifacts:

1. The registration document from the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item), in Jakarta, Indonesia. Barry Soetoro is registered as a “citizen” of Indonesia.”

That’s not proof of naturalization. Such a document would at best be considered secondary evidence of citizenship, when accompanied by other documentation, in the absence of primary evidence.

“2. According to Indonesian legal experts, only Indonesian citizens could attend state-operated public schools, and Barry would attend two of them.”

You make this claim without ANY references.

“3. In the divorce documents (page1 and page2), Lolo Soetoro is described as “father” — “husband has not contributed to support of wife and children” — “oldest child in university” — and this curious note, “both mother and child are U. S. citizens while father an Indonesian citizen.””

How is that a “curious note”? It’s absolutely in accord with facts and ALL available government records. You go on to claim that

“That Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro is not in the realm of speculation. It is fact”

without ever having established that fact. And you provide a quote,

““The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that children’s citizenship is derived solely from the citizenship of the father. Children of citizen mothers and foreign fathers are considered foreigners and require visas to remain in the country until the age of 18, at which time they may apply for citizenship. They are prohibited from attending public schools and must attend private, international schools, which usually are more expensive”

attributed to the State Department at its source, the Obama File website. Feel free to try and provide a State Department source for that quote. What the State Department actually HAS done, unequivocally and without ambiguity, is categorically deny, in federal district court, that Barack Obama was EVER a citizen of Indonesia:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strunk-answer.pdf
(Item 20, page 5)

You then go on– and this is especially precious– to claim,
“Stanley Ann receives Indonesian passport.”
You better scurry back to your Obama File source, William, because the passport referred to there is her UNITED STATES passport. Duh. Quality, William. Not Quantity. For crying out loud, you even identified it BY NUMBER.

You then go on,
“Bluecat6 says that without a doubt Stanley Ann WAS an Indonesia citizen. She became an Indonesia citizen after her marriage to Lolo — see article 7 here:
“…the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted…””

So there you’re quoting a commenter on Free Republic by way of the Obama File AS IF that were some kind of authoritative reference. That’s just silly. But let’s look at that “article 7”, and what follows Bluecat6’s ellipsis:

“A foreign woman married to a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after contracting said marriage, except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality, in which case the statement may not be made.”

Ann Dunham DID “possess still another nationality,” and did until she died. That being her US citizenship. Your OWN REFERENCE includes a link to her US passport records. That’s another big “Duh,” William.
So you’ve established NO basis for Obama being a citizen of Indonesia– which would have had no bearing on his US citizenship ANYWAY.
Moving on, you refer to US v. Wong Kim Ark. I’ll just quote from George D. Collins’ brief for the government:

“For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage.”

What you refer to as an attempt “to protect American culture from a foreign unassimilatable minority person” was undiluted racism.

Moving on, you say,
“Both of those you cite were “hearings”, not trials with discovery. Both were with Orly Taitz as counsel.”

I referred to Farrar et al. v. Obama, in which Orly was indeed counsel, and to Purpura v. Obama, in which she was not involved at all. Mario Apuzzo, who at least knows how to file a motion, was counsel in that case. Those were hearings before an administrative law judge, in which the standard for evidence of fact is LOOSER than in a civil court trial. Yet your birther “evidence” failed miserably. Judge Margines presided over a civil court trial, and Orly failed miserably there, too. Orly doesn’t give a hoot about “our Constitutional Republic.” She’s perfectly willing to trample all over the Constitution when it suits her politics to do so.

Moving on you you talk about your “desire to see an honest investigation and trial on the real evidence that has been hidden.” No, you don’t want an honest investigation and trial on the real evidence– you don’t even ACKNOWLEDGE the REAL evidence. You want a witch hunt and a kangaroo court.
You say I “propose a great expansion to the Wong Kim Ark decision.” What the heck does that even mean?

Moving on, you say,
“I have never read the so-called parody about Obama going to Occidental as a Fulbright Scholar.”
Then I wonder how many versions that lie passed through before you heard it. The Fulbright story came out in a chain e-mail. Here’s a story about it:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/30/news/la-pn-birthers-claim-obama-applied-to-college-as-a-foreigner-20120529
It’s painfully obvious you never bothered to check into the authenticity of the story, because Fulbright grants aren’t offered to undergraduates. Yet another big “Duh,” William.

You go on,
“Also there were stories that he traveled with friends to Pakistan in a time when travel was not authorized for regular Americans with US Passports.”
Yes, those “stories” are called “gossip,” and they’re not true; there was NO period when “travel was not authorized for regular Americans with US Passports.” Duh again!

What the heck is an “Alinskyite”?

Since when did Saul Alinsky become a Marxist, and what, exactly, does it take to be a “follower of Saul Alinsky”? Have you ever READ his books?
I already pointed out how poorly sourced The Obama Files is. And what, exactly, do you mean when you say “It has been selected as a Library of Congress source”?
Why would somebody who disagrees with you, and who actually (unlike you) knows what he’s talking about– and I assure you, NOBODY who genuinely knows what he’s talking about is going to AGREE with you– have to be a “paid political operative”?
When you refer to “Obama’s submitted Bio for the publishers of his first book,” what exactly do you mean? That Obama HIMSELF submitted the biography? He didn’t. And it was the publicists, not the publishers, that put out the biography in a publicity brochure for their own purposes. Publicists…publishers. Look those up, why don’t you?
I can imagine you “pissing off Beckwith.” You tend to just make stuff up out of thin air, and Beckwith likes at least a SHADOW of credibility, even if it’s no more than quoting an unauthoritative commenter on Free Republic. If you’re not up to THAT standard, it should tell you something.
I wonder how many of you secession crackpots get all hot and bothered over the Pledge of Allegiance. Remember that part about “indivisible”? Or do you need to look THAT one up, too?
Your buddy BECKWITH flat out states, in one of the things he genuinely sources and gets RIGHT, that that’s Ann Dunham’s US passport. He PROVES it, too– he’s got her passport records right there, for crying out loud. Don’t you even look at your own sources?
I’m not “giving a LA Times article as a credible source to dispute serious investigation”; I’m giving you a reference to that April Fools Day chain e-mail. What “serious investigation” EVER made that goofy “Fulbright scholarship” claim? If I had a “serious investigation” to refute, I’d do that with sources related directly to the program.
You go on,
“The real problem is because all these “records are Sealed”
They’re no more “sealed” than any other such similar records; they’re protected by the exact same laws that protect your records and mine.
You continue,
“Investigators have to go on what they can find out from WITNESSES, this is called investigation.”
No, when people make up goofy stuff to put in chain e-mails, it’s not based on witness accounts, and it’s certainly not called “investigation.” And I call gossip what it is no matter WHO it’s about. You’ve done a really, really poor job supporting your spurious claims; you are of course handicapped by the fact that they ARE spurious claims– but you’re really just not very good at this, Mr. Brayshaw.

Obama’s Bio:
Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
…………………………………..
NOTE: His ‘first book’ “Journeys in Black and White” was never published. I think because Obama never finished it. Bill Ayres, socialist revolutionary, Weatherman terrorist, now a college professor in Chicago, most probably edited and ghost wrote “Dreams from my Father” for Obama. Obama was a political construct by Ayres, ACORN, and other Chicago socialists and sympathizers.
Read some of his speeches and positions when he was coming up in ACORN and their fancy-named affiliates in Chicago.

Mr. Brayshaw–
Yes, I’ve read “Rules for Radicals.” It’s dedicated simply “To Irene.” If YOU’D read it, you’d know that. Alinsky didn’t have a particular ideology– other than being an anti-fascist, he had about as much use for one ideology as another. Here’s what he called his “credo”:
“Believing in people, the radical has the job of organizing them so that they will have the power and opportunity to best meet each unforeseeable future crisis as they move ahead in their eternal search for those values of equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judaeo-Christianity and the democratic political tradition. Democracy is not an end but the best means towards achieving these values. This is my credo for which I live and, if need be, die.”
Oh, the horror.
Obama didn’t furnish that bio to his publiCIST (for crying out loud, just look it up), he didn’t write it, and he didn’t claim “he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
Beckwith gave the number of Ann Dunham’s AMERICAN passport. It’s right there on the site YOU USE FOR REFERENCE, plain as day. Look at YOUR OWN SOURCE.
You go on,
“Your claims and insults are obviously a symptom of your frustration. You are in a completely untenable position: you are claiming all the “Proof”, but denying any legal examination of evidence from either side, and demanding that all the ‘records’ that could settle this argument remain ‘sealed’. That is totally illogical. But Liberalism today has metastasized into a mental disease, so a lack of logic is understandable. Insults are not a substitute for sound arguments based on what is known.”
I will merely note the supreme irony of that passage; and that you refuse to accept the records that conclusively settled the matter.
You go on,
“AND the MAJOR FACT is VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN about Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama because the records are kept sealed. And the story seems to be constantly changing and bits of contradictory evidence keep surfacing.”
Well, a birther is never so convincing than when proclaiming how little he knows. What you refer to as “contradictory evidence” is by no means evidence. Rumor, gossip, allegations, misinformation, bad science and outright lies are NOT evidence. And that’s all you’ve ever had.
You say your “suspicion about the Fulbright Scholarship came later.” That’s hardly surprising– you got your gossip when it was already old. It’s a very specific claim. You would be able to identify a credible, authoritative source for it IF ONE EXISTED. Feel free to try and do so.

“IRENE”? Are you nuts? Do you think you can get away with that?
You must have a copy specially printed to confuse young gullible socialist students. Saul Alinsky was a Fabian Socialist (one who tried to hide his dedication to Marxism from the public) but was loved and revered for his dedicated actions to support Communist causes by his Community Organizing and always exploiting or creating Social Crises. Only an ostrich would not recognize him as a Marxist, only his “revolution” was based on creating crises and using Community Organizing and fixing elections to get govt to do what he wanted. See Chicago.

You are either a fool or a liar! “Rules for Radicals” – Opening page – Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Doesn’t look like “Irene” to me. And “she” must be the one that said “corporations and businesses don’t create jobs”. Who does in ObamaLand? The Tooth Fairy?

The number Beckwith gives was reported as the Indonesian Passport #, and does not appear to be an American Passport # for the late 60s. Who told you that? “Irene”? Or did you make that up too?

Why do you keep harping on your Hoax Email? Why not just show the records from Occidental? Show the name he registered under, nationality claimed, grades, who paid his tuition, grades, all of it and WIN THE ARGUMENT! Quit your whining about people trying to get to the truth.
Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

ObamaCare was a train wreck and Obama has put off enforcement, on “his constituents” but many young people are seeing the facts and abandoning him in droves. The Scandals are endless. Gunrunning to the cartels to embarrass border gun dealers, abandoning our Ambassador and protection detail in Benghazi and then telling ridiculous lies about, spying on reporters, calling patriots “potential Domestic Terrorists”, IRS harassment of patriots, and the constant lies about ObamaCare, reducing ‘unemployment’ by putting able-bodied people on welfare, not enforcement of border protection and releasing known criminals on innocent Americans that he constantly seeks to disarm. The wheels are falling off the Obama Band-Wagon, most Dem politicians don’t want him anywhere around their campaigns. If Obama does try to ‘help’ them they take huge losses in the next polls.

Hey Dave! I have to agree with Karla. Trying to explain anything to you is worse than trying to teach pigs to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pigs. You are a waste of time, Bubba, you don’t want to learn or see any facts. Hopeless!

I can only hope you are a paid Obot operative, that would explain it.

The “Lucifer”passage isn’t a dedication. It’s an epigraph– another word for you to look up. If you HAD actually read the book, you’d know that what I said is true. You can read the entire book, including the dedication and epigraph, here:
http://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt
Here’s what you said in comment #13:
“Stanley Ann receives Indonesian passport:
“Stanley Ann married Lolo Soetoro in March of 1965. She acquired her passport (F777788) on July 19, 1965 — 12 to 16 months in which to get little “Barry” adopted — and the automatic Indonesian citizenship.”
You INSIST even now that that is her Indonesian passport. Your OWN reference source:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_family/SoetoroDunhamMarriage.htm
from which you copied that passage, has a link at the passport number– going to Ann Dunham’s US passport records. Passport #F777788 is her US passport. YOUR OWN REFERENCE SAYS SO. The very first document in the passport file is her 1968 application– a US Department of State Foreign Service form FS-299– for renewal of US passport #F777788.
I’m not “harping on your Hoax Email”– and it is YOUR Hoax Email, not mine. I merely pointed out that when you said, in the original article,
“There is much anecdotal evidence that he attended Occidental College as an Indonesian Student under a Fulbright Scholarship, but his records are “sealed””
you were lying. There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. I don’t need any records to support that claim; I have YOUR inability to produce that purported “much anecdotal evidence.” Or so much as a shred of it.
Which must be why you’re always trying to change the subject.

http://weaselzippers.us/203886-poll-huge-majority-of-americans-say-they-have-no-confidence-in-obama/

Meanwhile, 62 percent of American voters lack confidence in President Obama’s leadership. That includes 28 percent who say they are losing confidence, and 34 percent who never had confidence.
…………………………….
Evidently more Americans had worked in stables and barns then I thought! Recognized it from the beginning.
Even “Political Correctness” and the “Lap-Dog Media” can’t fool most of Americans all of the time, or even most of the time anymore.

Hey, Dave! You better cash your ObamaChecks as soon as they come in!

The wheels are coming off. Brace yourself.

Thanks for proving my point.

They’re ALL dedicated “To Irene,” and they all have the “Lucifer” epigraph. You all just don’t know what a book dedication IS.

Thanks Karla.
Dave, you are so busted!
Benko tries to ‘sheep-dip’ a Chicago socialist ‘hero’ in the magical mythology of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevera, Man of the People, fighting for Social Justice, Equal Economic Outcomes, and the Glorious World of Next Tuesday, World Socialist Totalitarianism. But Che was just another murderous Commie Revolutionary, trying to build World Communism in Central and South America with himself as a high Commissar if not Dictator.
He, and you, may be able to con some semi ignorant and semi-innocent college freshman steeped in socialist theory, Political Correctness, White Guilt, and the wild-eyed radical politics and hedonism that passes for “education” these days. Alinsky for all his Fabian Socialist denials (their symbol was ‘a wolf covered with a sheep-skin, literally a wolf in sheep’s clothing’), his record was destruction of capitalism and the Constitutional Republic, to be replaced with socialism. He was the Community Organizer creating the Welfare State and govt depedency that the Cloward-Pivens Strategy would use to destroy our economy and our dollar.
Perhaps you actually believe in this often failed Fairy Tale of Central Planning and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but I don’t. And I don’t believe most people in this area do either.

Benko does admit that Hillary Clinton is a great admirer of Alinsky. She is going to more Obama, maybe with a little better salesmanship and in smaller bites, but to appeal to the Radical Democrat Base she is sounding crazy to normal people. The “Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs” was idiotic, more Elizabeth Warren than vintage Hillary, but Hillary is loosing her grip on reality after being buried so long and so deep in the New Democrat Socialist political mantras.

Mr. Brayshaw–
It’s embarrassing to go along with this change of subject, but I suppose I brought it upon myself by calling you on it in the first place. And I will note that such changes of subject suit your inability to back up what you’ve said to a T. The problem is, you’re not any more capable of supporting THIS change of subject than you are the nonsense you wrote in the original article.
Where, exactly, did you come up with the idea Alinsky’s “record was destruction of capitalism and the Constitutional Republic, to be replaced with socialism,” and that he “was the Community Organizer creating the Welfare State and govt depedency that the Cloward-Pivens Strategy would use to destroy our economy and our dollar”?
Does THIS sound like someone bent on “creating the Welfare State”?
“We are not here concerned with people who profess the democratic faith but yearn for the dark security of dependency where they can be spared the burden of decisions. Reluctant to grow up, or incapable of doing so, they want to remain children and be cared for by others. Those who can, should be encouraged to grow; for the others, the fault lies not in the system but in themselves.
Here we are desperately concerned with the vast mass of our people who, thwarted through lack of interest or opportunity, or both, do not participate in the endless responsibilities of citizenship and are resigned to lives determined by others. To lose your “identity” as a citizen of democracy is but a step from losing your identity as a person. People react to this frustration by not acting at all. The separation of the people from the routine daily functions of citizenship is heartbreak in a democracy.”
Now, how about returning to your failed attempts to back up what you said in the article?

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
I believe this is the edition that I have (somewhere). His original book Reveille for Radicals was dedicated to Helene, his first wife?
Irene was his 3rd.

I note that the edition you cite is 1989? I also found a a pdf copy that in the acknowledgements it did say “to Irene” and the Lucifer dedication was moved to the next page with 2 other quotes.
Editors must have changed it, especially in later editions. So your book may say “to Irene”, but I’ll bet it has the original ‘homage’ to Lucifer in there too!

Alinsky is still who he was, constantly deceptive. Sugar coat it for the public when necessary, but pure quest for power with his followers, and his goal was revolution and the destruction of America and turn over the remains to the “Have Nots” with the Vanguard in firm control of the real power.

HERE YOU ARE DAVE: THIS ADMIN DOES ALL OF THESE RULES BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMIES

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Dave are you blind? I said the article was a report on what others were doing to secure the info necessary to settle these questions that have been asked my many concerned Americans. I voice my suspicions. There is no way to “prove” any either way because the “PROOF” is sealed and that sealing is defended by people like you that agree with the destruction of America and defend them being what even the Lap-Dog Media now admits is “The most secretive Administration in history”. ALSO the most UnConstitutional, in my opinion.

To refute your quoting one of Alinsky’s “Public Speeches” for the Sheeple and recruiting the unwary, I offer you an excerpt from David Horowitz a reformed Communist and Radical that has studied Alinsky for many years:
David Horowitz explains Alinsky’s reference to Lucifer, “Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of a system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven on earth built by humans is a fantasy -an impossible dream – the radical’s only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

This is something that conservatives generally have a hard time understanding. As a former radical, I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America and why they want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive, and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. The answer to this question is thar radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth – the kingdom of social justice and freedom – they think they are building. And compared to this heaven even America is hell!

In my experience, conservatives are generally too decent and too civilized to match up adequately with their radical adversaries, at least in the initial stages of the battle. They are too prone to give them the benefit of the doubt, to believe there is a goodness and good sense in them which will outweigh their determination to change the world. Radicals talk of justice and democracy and equality. They can’t really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal, more equal than others, and that has brought wealth and prosperity to so many people. OH yes they can! There is no goodness that trumps the dream of heaven on earth. And because America is a real world society, managed by real and problematic human beings, it will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies -to compensate them for their longing for a perfect world, and for their unhappiness in this one.”
…………………………………
My opinion, based on many years experience and over three decades of study is:
I think this explains it well. Alinsky and his followers have created this desire in the radicals for an impossibly perfect world – heaven on earth – an impossible fantasy, and have convinced them that anything less is unacceptable and must be destroyed. This is infantile and insane. The reality is that The Vanguard, the Nomenclatur (Russian), or the ‘Inner Party’ are always pushing for the destruction of the ‘Haves’, to be redistributed to the ‘Have Nots’ by these self appointed Elitists. “Equality for the people”, but some pigs (the Elite) are a lot more equal than “the people”.

Also they easily ignore the Hell that every Marxist nation has been. Most wallow in poverty, famine, and disease. China is the only one that has become an “economic success”, but at what cost? Millions murdered, famines, enslavement of most of the population, forced abortion, and the worst pollution in the world. And this in a homogenous society, there is no tolerance even though there is no diversity, they are all the same race! There are some regional sub-groups, but they are all the same race.

Dave,

I’m not here to argue with you nor do I wish to help you learn anything. All I want to do is call you out for what you are paid to be – a chronic contrarian. You have no real point to make, no desire to “set the record straight” or anything of value to add to the conversation. You apparently don’t have an idea or belief of your own because you simply contradict whatever you read. You offer few if any links to support what you say yet you demand proof from others. I will give you credit for being a fairly accomplished writer, and it is easy to see how you use that skill to confuse and distract your readers from the truth. Your goal is to send readers on a long, involved search to confirm what you say even though you know such information does not exist except in the most liberal websites. But if you say it convincingly enough some people will believe you without any validation. You have already wasted way too much time of those who have attempted to enlighten you.

Mr. Bradshaw and the others who have offered comments following his article have been surprisingly patient with you and your nonsense. It is certain they are engaged in a losing battle since they are unwilling to be embroiled in such fantasy as what you offer yet they continue to try to inject some truth in what you say for the benefit of other readers. However, in an attempt to salvage some good from even the most deceitful of comments (yours), I must express some gratitude to you for exposing the readers to the sort of warped facts and baseless accusations liberals consider to be “truth.” I have every faith that those who are willing and able to learn will spend some time validating Mr. Bradshaw’s facts while, at the same time, proving yours to be total fabrication.

Dave, we have read your outrageous claims and arguments – all without proof, I might add – and shake our heads in disbelief. Your intent has become increasingly obvious, that being to send all Mr. Bradshaw’s readers on long, involved and mostly futile searches to verify the “facts” you present. You accuse him of not offering any links – which he has done – yet your arguments are strikingly void of the same. You want proof but proof is impossible to offer when it has been sealed as Obama’s has been. What do you suppose EO 13489 was about? When the US is teetering on the edge of disaster, Obama’s first executive order was one which sealed his personal records. Please read it then explain it.

Mr. Bradshaw has, in good faith, shared some valuable knowledge in an attempt to make us more enlightened voters. Surely you realize you are supporting an ineligible, America-hating Marxist whose intent is to destroy this country. And before you try to refute that, read these 407 things Obama did as of exactly one year ago:
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/407-sourced-examples-of-obamas-lies-deceptions-distortions-etc/ A reasonably intelligent person could easily assign every one of these things to one of Alinsky’s Rules, and I am assuming you are intelligent enough to do that, too. And please don’t reply with baseless arguments – we want PROOF. Now, please tell us 400 examples of Obama’s “accomplishments” that helped this country – or even seven examples. With SOLID PROOF, of course.

Go away, Dave, and find a board where the other paid obots hang out and whose readers will join you in supporting this rogue administration.

Ms. Brotherton–
I will add that you should feel free to challenge any particular claim I’ve made. I’ll be happy to back up what I’ve said.

S.Biamonte–
The claim that “Obama Has/did spend over a million dollars to seal his records” rests first upon the presumption that his records are “sealed.” They are in fact protected by the same state and federal laws that protect all such similar records. The Privacy Act, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protect your personal records and mine just as much as they protect the President’s. No one has to spend a nickel for that protection.
Access to Hawaii’s vital records is controlled by Hawaii State Law, Sec. 338-18:
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2013/title-19/chapter-338/section-338-18/
The subject of such a record, in this case President Obama, has no control at all over access to the original records kept by the Department of Health. What President Obama HAS done is the exact OPPOSITE of having those records “sealed.” He made his own certified copies of those records available to the public– and went the extra measure of obtaining a waiver of the Department of Health’s policy of only issuing a short-form Certification of Live Birth in order to obtain certified copies of his long-form Certificate of Live Birth. He made THAT document public two days after acquiring those copies.
Second, the claim rests upon the presumption that such sums were expended for the stated purpose. The President’s campaign DID have large legal expenses; the claim presumes that that money was spent on “sealing” his personal records. ALL recent major party Presidential campaigns have had such large legal expenses, related to the general conduct of the campaigns; Obama’s campaigns have been the biggest, most expensive in history. They’ve had the biggest legal expenses. But “sealing” records hasn’t been one of those legal expenses.

Dave, Dave, Dave,

In addition to providing all readers with their “laugh of the day” you severely under estimated the intelligence of every American reading this column. So tell us, Dave, are you a liar or just hopelessly stupid? Unless your head is stuck deep in the toilet drain you know this is totally false:

Access to Hawaii’s vital records is controlled by Hawaii State Law, Sec. 338-18:
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2013/title-19/chapter-338/section-338-18/
The subject of such a record, in this case President Obama, has no control at all over access to the original records kept by the Department of Health. What President Obama HAS done is the exact OPPOSITE of having those records “sealed.” He made his own certified copies of those records available to the public– and went the extra measure of obtaining a waiver of the Department of Health’s policy of only issuing a short-form Certification of Live Birth in order to obtain certified copies of his long-form Certificate of Live Birth. He made THAT document public two days after acquiring those copies.

If what you say – without even a hint of proof – is true, then explain why nobody – that is NOBODY – has been able to access any records of his life. And don’t give us that crap about all presidents keeping their records secret. Remember all of GWB’s college and military records were made public – heck, we even knew what brand of hemorrhoid cream he used.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

You say, “So you see, unlike YOU, I actually HAVE read that order, and CAN explain it. You obviously never read it, yet were perfectly willing to repeat a lie about what’s in it.” No, his records aren’t technically“sealed” – they just need Holder’s permission to be released. Too bad you didn’t read the whole thing. Read your own link only this time go on to read section 3.

A few records you could release since a lot of people are looking for them but, so far, not one has been able to locate.
Occidental College records
Columbia College records
Columbia Thesis paper
Harvard College records
Selective Service Registration
Medical records
Illinois State Senate records
Illinois State Senate schedule
Law practice client list
A Certified Copy of his original Birth certificate
Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
Harvard Law Review articles that were supposedly published
University of Chicago scholarly articles
Record of baptism

Also you might explain why he is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut at a time when he was a high school student in Hawaii. And why that number previously belonged to someone else.

What about the mortgage on his Chicago house? Did you know Obamas are NOT the registered owners of that house? Look it up.

I am not going to waste my time searching for links to prove how wrong you are. This is obviously just another ploy to get me and others to waste our time gathering links to prove what most Americans already know to be so.

When you have located all the missing records I listed, then come back to talk to us. Until then, find something else to amuse yourself with. There must be something that needs to be done there in your mom’s basement . . .

Mr. Brayshaw–
I’ve just been defending the facts. I’m not particularly interested in your opinions. Where have I expressed any ideology at all?
Are you EVER going to stop running away from your inability to back up what you said in the article?

Ms. Brotherton–
To what facts are you referring?

Ms. Brotherton
All right, you say
“Obama has been ordered by the court to release some of his records.”
What court has done so, and when?
You say,
“These things are missing. Where are they? Why can nobody access any of them in spite of many legal attempts to do so?”
To what specific “legal attempts to do so” are you referring?
Your list is downright silly– in fact, most of it originated, in the order you present it, as a satirical article that first appeared in August, 2008. It’s nothing REMOTELY like a genuine search for proof; it’s a fishing expedition for ANYTHING that would be damaging. Most of the items on your list have NOTHING to do with the president’s constitutional eligibility. Some are publicly available. Others are protected by the same laws that protect ALL such records.
The RELEVANT items on your list HAVE been made public:
“A Certified Copy of his original Birth certificate
Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth”
and have been verified as accurate and authentic by the agency that issued them. What do you want, a paper copy delivered to your door?
Aside from your list, you say,
“Also you might explain why he is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut at a time when he was a high school student in Hawaii. And why that number previously belonged to someone else.”
He isn’t, and it wasn’t. Social security numbers are assigned according to the ZIP Code of the address on the application for a number. A handwritten application with Honolulu’s ZIP Code 96814 could very easily have resulted in a number associated with Danbury, CT’s ZIP Code 06814 being issued. Unless, of course, you think government bureaucracies never make simple clerical errors. It’s not at all RARE for a person to have a social security number with an anomalous area number. And the President’s social security number NEVER “belonged to someone else.”
You include as another item in your fishing expedition “Records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia.” What, exactly, do you mean by that?
And what is the significance of “Baptism records”?