Organizing Against WorldNetDaily

This is just hideously embarrassing for the Right.

[T]he Web site says that the government is considering Nazi-like concentration camps for dissidents. Jerome Corsi, the author of "The Obama Nation," an anti-Obama book, says that a proposal in Congress "appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany."

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet.  The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration.  For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list.  They should stop. [SEE UPDATE II]

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles.  Those who do are not respectable. 

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.


I have inquired with F.I.R.E., but they have not responded to my email.  I will attempt to get an answer from them again.  If you know or can contact somebody with F.I.R.E, please let me know what you hear.

I have also inquired with the RNC, which appears to have recently paid for access to the WorldNetDaily email list.  I have not gotten a substantive response from the RNC yet.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to (a) email me with any substantive information you have on what other right-of-center groups advertise on, or rent email lists from, WorldNetDaily, and (b) email or call to let these groups know that Republican, conservative or libertarian groups should not support Birther/Concentration Camp conspiracy theories.


I tried to contact F.I.R.E. yesterday before publishing this and I tried again today, but never received a response.  However, David Mastio, Senior Editor for Online Opinion and Innovation at the Washington Times, emails to tell me the response he got from F.I.R.E.

I called Fire and talked to the Veep Robert Shibley.

According to him, Fire rented a list from WND through a third party broker on one occasion (SOP for list rental) and does not have any continuing relationship or plans to rent from them again. He says that they were not aware of any loopy views espoused by WND as they didn't see a need to investigate before they rented the list.

I think that is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation from F.I.R.E.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (9 votes)


And while you are at it

how about a primary challenger for Michele Bachmann? The words that Corsi said could have just as easily come out of her mouth.


 Funny I did a search at WND for Jerome Corsi and not one matched the quote attributed to him here. SOMEBODY needs to read Isaiah.


I like WND.  Boycott your momma.

WND too complex for Artskoe

Funny, I did a search for what Corsi is quoted as saying, and it came up first in the queue, no problem whatsoever.  SOMEBODY needs to learn how to use a search engine.

"Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies'" by Jerome R. Corsi, posted Feb. 1, 2009.


WND is hurting the cause

Conservatives have plenty of ammunition to use in order to illustrate the extreme left positions of this administration. I agree that this is an embarrassment. The left, with its willing accomplices in the media, will use garbage like this to paint conservatives with their broad brush. The frustrating part is that similar nutcases on the left are not held up as examples of liberalism. But that's old news. The encouraging part is that for the time being, we seem to be winning anyway.

:clapping: Thank you, Jon. 


Thank you, Jon.  We rarely agree, but this is the kind of post I thought The Next Right was going to be all about (I've been mostly disappointed).

Jon, I've not had any dealings with WorldNet people...

but I know in GOP circles they have less credibility than Kevin Phillips or Ed Rollins these days.

Good piece.

John doesn't like my question

I ask again, sir. Where is the birth certificate? Why can't we see the original long form birth certificate, showing the hospital and the doctor?

Birth certificate...

You can't see the original forms because Hawaii no longer uses them.

Go here for details.

"No longer uses"

Hawaii may have switched to an electronic record system, but does that mean they destroyed all the original paper files?

According to, "In October 2008, and again in July 2009, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified that Barack Obama's original birth certificate was in the Hawaii State Department files."

I think Obama almost certainly is a U.S. citizen who was born in Hawaii, but it's odd that he doesn't tell state officials to release certified copies of the original birth certificate.

And yes, WND does seem to be run by weirdos.

No more odd than...

... but it's odd that he (Obama) doesn't tell state officials to release certified copies of the original birth certificate.

Of course, there's is a parallel... recall waiting more than two years (and long after the conclusion of the 04 Prez race) for Sen John -TossMyMedals- Kerry to authorize the release of his war records?  When he did do it in 2005, he said he refused earlier because it meant that he would have been "caving in" to the right wing whack jobs who used the issue in a partisan manner to discredit his service.

Sort of sounds like today's birthers?  Justice Earl Warren and Prez Ford (both members of the Kennedy Assassination Report) had it right: you'll never provide enough to proof to satisify a conspiracy freak... because they have invested their life in believing the lie and your target of evidence should be toward a "reasonable man, in control of his sanity".

I'm glad someone is saying it!

Thank you, Jon, for saying what so many of us think.  The Birthers are making those of us on the conservative side look like idiots, and we need to find a way to publically distance ourselves from those people. 


Finally we are starting to organize against the nuttiness that has dominated the Right for TOO LONG!

dominating the right

When those nuts decide that they are not longer welcome nor effective in the republican party then they will move to a third party, as many already have.  That would result in the republican party being just another third party. 

You want the party purified? Go ahead throw us loonies out and then see what you get accomplished!!

Why are you worried about

Why are you worried about birthers and others loons at WorldNutDaily when there are Republican Congresscritters who continue to pander to their nonsense?  They actively enable the crazies with the talk about how 'people asking questions deserve a response from the president, why won't he just show the birth certificate?,' etc. 

I couldn't care less about random loons at WorldNutDaily but the GOP congress members pushing their pet theories?  That's another thing.  This seems like the Lynndie England approach to opposing it:  go after the little guys and ignore the powerful who are using the lunacy to advance their own interests.  I'll be impressed when you write a post encouraging the loon-enablers in Congress to grow a spine and stop coddling these people and their whackadoodle nonsense. 

How is what you quoted much different than what Michelle Bachmann spouts on a regular basis on 'respectable' (?) shows like Hannity?


It is a start

By organizing a boycott, we can get attention and start putting pressure on politicians to stop catering to these elements. Politicians are cowards. If the make the calculation that being associated with the likes of WND hurts more than helps, they will drop them and their pet issues.

Yes, it's a start.

Still, I'd like to see GOP leadership called out for their complicity in feeding crazy conspiracy theories.

Not all politicians are as cowardly or craven as those pandering to the birthers. GOP AZ Rep. Trent Franks was clear in his statement that his staff investigated and found nothing credible to the birthers' claims, there is no credible evidence the president does not meet the constitutional requirements and he will not join any efforts to question the president's eligbility.  Pretty straigthforward.  I also got a response from Sen. Kyl expressing a similar position.  Still waiting on Sen. McCain's response to my question on this point but not really expecting him to declare himself a birther.  Maybe we just doesn't have enough loons in AZ for them to worry about.

I have to think the others who have been weaseling on the birther question either have a significant number of loons in their districts or they are themselves loons.  With Michele Bachmann I think it's the latter; you're likely right that the others are just cowardly weasels. 

As a resident of Bachmann territory

I can assure you that many of my fellow citizens agree with the rank trash that comes out of her mouth, unfortunately.  She's not even close to the craziest of her constituents.  It can be really frightening up here in Wobegon...

Yep, that's truly frightening.

You mean she's actually pandering to even loonier people than she?  I guess I can stop wondering who's going to take her up on her suggestion to slit your wrists for a blood covenant to stop health care reform.  (  Here's hoping they know that their insurance companies won't cover their medical costs resulting from intentionally self-inflicted wounds.

This was also a stroke of genius on her part:  "Then it comes down to the Senate, where Bachmann said “the lobbyists and special interests only have to hover around 15 senators,” with a bill expected by the end of the year."  Almost writes the Dems' ads for them; nothing like crowing about the lobbyists and special interests behind the campaign against reform.  So much for the grassroots meme.  Frightening AND a dim bulb.

I would ask Jon again:  why just go after WorldNutDaily when the Bachmanns of the world have a standing invitation to spew utter nonsense on allegedly mainstream respectable programs like Hannity?  She was expounding on "re-education camps" on Hannity a few months ago; how is that substantially different from the detention camps quote from WND?  What about pressure on Hannity to take a step back from the crazies?

Obama admin actions feed the craziness

"Still, I'd like to see GOP leadership called out for their complicity in feeding crazy conspiracy theories."


Still, I'd like to see Obama leadership called out for their complicity in feeding crazy conspiracy theories.

- fishy emails to collect tattle-tales on dissenters of his plan

- plan to troll the internet and collect personal daa from social media sites on people commenting about him (Nixonian paranoia or big brotherism?)

- Trying to talk to 50 million kids all at once ( a "Dear Leader" complex?)

- displaying hints of cult-of-personality disorder

- the whitewash of 9/11 and turning it from remembering terrorist attacks to a generic 'day of caring'. 

- ignoring the national day of prayer and then going over-the-top on Ramadan (after he goes to Turkey and says we not a Christian nation... "oy vey!")

- calling old grandmas at townhalls a 'mob' and comparing them to terrorists

- This is on top of the most ambitious, outrageous over-the-top expansion-of-govt agenda of the most left-wing administration ever.

It's enough to drive people crazy, so we shouldnt be surprised if some people actually are.

... The Obama administration actions feed the craziness.


 It's about time WND (World Nut Daily) is the subject of a boycott by the Reasonable Right!

At The Pink Flamingo, I've been following their exploits for several years.  They've truly caused some heart-break for some very good people.



The Pink Flamingo

Do you really want to boycott WorldNet Daily?

Dear "sjreidhead", you say that "they've truly caused some heart-break for some very good people." Can you name one? And while you're also boycotting what you call "World Nut Daily", are you ready to call Kevin McCullough a nut? As you may know, McCullough's stuff has been posted at WND. I'd like a reply please, so that I know for sure that you're hearing me.


re: Birth Certificate

Roark, when are you going to get it through your head that it doesn't f'ing matter!

He could have been born in the wilds of Yemen midwifed by 12 women of the bin Laden clan and it wouldn't change the core fact that his mother was an American citizen - therefore, so, too, would be her child no matter where they were born.

Unless you are now going to retrench and claim that the mother who raised him is not his actual birth mother, in which case your ignorance is invincible.



your wrong if he was born in

your wrong if he was born in yemen or anywhere other than Hi he would not be a citizen, his mother was not old enough to convey us citizen status on him(10 years in usa and 5 of which after 14.) I believe obama grandparents registered his birth and there will not be a hospital on the long form but proving it will never happen


but its a false path-- These people are concerned with the rule of law  and so should be following the path that the media will not touch and that path is that obama himself admits he is a dual citizen his father not a usa citizen and was not a permanent resident- there for - Obama maybe, is a citizen, not a naturalborn citizen! Neither was mcCain even with congress 511 -stated that he was- It has no force of law.


this site seems to be pretend conservatives or mcCain type centrist- true conservatives would concede wnd right to pursue a legitimate investigation (that started year before he was elected) of a man who has his complete history sealed, or any company's right to use the email list- for even wmd readers are on the right mostly and are the demographics they wished to reach regardless of what wmd you are proposing an unconservative anti capitalist agenda and acting as if you want to create discord in the republican ranks even though wnd readers are dems repub and independents



you are out of your mind

"his mother was not old enough to convey us citizen status on him(10 years in usa and 5 of which after 14.)"

Ann Dunham was born in Kansas to two US citizens.  She lived her entire life up until BHO's birth in the US. 

You claim to be concerned with the rule of law, but here you are engaged in an attempt to twist that law so you can pretend that the duly elected president is somehow illegitimate.

you are the "pretend conservative" - conservatism means nothing if it does not mean respect for the law, regardless of whether our side is in power or not.



your rant did not disprove

your rant did not disprove what i said.

"his mother was not old enough to convey us citizen status on him(10 years in usa and 5 of which after 14.)"

where she was born does not matter if she had a child anywhere else but the usa.

before you post you should read the law before you try to explain it.

no one will deny she was a citizen- i was responding to the guy who said he was a citizen even if he was born in yemen. It was obvious i was doing so- your attempt is to supplant the point, and you did it on purpose.

i notice you did this to distract from the more important point in my post that obama is a dual citizen and not a natural born citizen

you are the one ranting

"his mother was not old enough to convey us citizen status on him(10 years in usa and 5 of which after 14.)"

that is not the law.

8 U.S.C. 1409 paragraph g states unequivocally that

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

So, even if he was not born in Hawaii, he is a citizen.  your 10/5 rule is utter nonsense and completely fabricated.

If he was born in Hawaii, then your argument is even more stupid, because 8 U.S.C. 1409 paragraph a states that:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


wrong again

it was changed to the 5/2 years that your referring to in 1986- the law in effect in 1961 was 10/5 years.

keep muddying the water- the first part of your rant is if obama was not born on usa soil.

why you say this?

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

 if he WAS born in usa than he is a citizen! as long as he was under the jurisdiction of usa.

agreed (he would not be an anchor baby)

now - anymore of your falsehoods?

by golly you are right

but on the larger matter, you are wrong.

because, even if he was not born in honolulu, there is not enough here to remove him from the presidency.  you will not get the proper majorities in the house to offer bills of impeachment, nor in the senate to convict, because young Ann Dunham, who had lived her entire life in the US as a citizen, was 57 months past her 14th birthday rather than 60 months when she gave birth.

and, even if you could convince a decent # of people that those three months in a 19 year old's life is enough to overturn the largest majority to vote for a democratic president in 44 years, then the dems have a hole card:  Barack Obama, Sr. was already married at the time he married Ann Dunham.  It will be relatively easy to find a sympathetic judge in the deep blue state of Hawaii who will declare that marriage illegal.  The proper definition of citizenship will then be for a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen parent, and BHO meets that definition.

the bottom line is that your obsession is a colossal waste of time and energy that could be put to better use (a) fighting the actual policies of the president and his party in ways that don't turn people off and (b) recruiting and working for Republican candidates at all levels of government, because that is where the rebirth is going to happen.

so, congrats - if (and that is a very big if) BHO was born somewhere other than Hawaii, you have found thin gruel to contend his citizenship, but the gruel is too thin for anyone to care about.  very few people are going to deny his citizenship over 3 months in a 19 year old's life, especially since the law for nearly a quarter of a century would clearly cover him.

but, you win the fine point.  you have successfully identified the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

and it still doesn't matter.

citizen does not equal natural born

The rule of law is thin gruel? thats what people been doing since 1917 bending the constitution and law till law makers dont even ask anymore if bills satisfy the ennumerated powers. call it living constitution to gain power.

citizen does not equal natural born- nancy polosi committed fraud by stating obama was qualified (vetted) to head the dem ticket.

dual citizen is unqualified to be president. !!!!!!!!

the only way repub will regain power is if they let go of the middle--(middies-no principle and no passion and no history to back them)

main stream media is not even commenting on the marxist czars in D.C.

not too mention 33 czars each one unconstitutional-- the rebuttle - other presidents had them too hmmmm  most was 4!!!!!! from 4 to 33 is a radical agenda especially when alot are marxist

so I will take anything to shed light on obama


Hear, hear!

Reminds me of one of my favorite net responses: "Get off my side. You're making my side look stupid."

Speaking of Crazies on the Right


Just when you thought Michelle Bachamann couldn't get any nuttier:

<A href="">Bachmann: We Have to ‘Slit Our Wrists, Be Blood Brothers’ Against Health Care Reform</A>

H/T: New Majority

Don't get your panties in a bunch...

Just because WND puts some nutty stuff out there doesn't necessarily mean that advertisers don't have a lot to gain from their audience.  There are plenty of people who take what WND says with a grain of salt (much like any other website...), and read the site for entertainment value.  I know I do.  Disclaimer: I believe Obama is a natural-born citizen who came into this world on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii.  Don't get on the advertiser's case just because WND puts out stories you don't like.



define naturalborn!

define naturalborn!


A native born citizen of 2 citizen parents- before someone starts yelling there is only 2 types of citizen- native and naturalized-and that naturalborn = native = citizen- your wrong--

natural born is a state of being not a type/class---

in other words a requirement for only one thing-- president.


a dual citizen has alliegence to other countries- president can not and should not


You remind me of Orly Taitz

I remember when i first heard her make that argument, and I remember thinking "This woman has no idea what she's talking about".

We actually had another president with one parent that wasn't a citizen; Chester A. Arthur.

no one knew his father was

no one knew his father was not a citizen when chester Arthur was born-- nice try


Who is Jon Henke?  Does he not know that Obama is GOD and that this planet is not big enough for two Gods?  Perhaps Mr Henke should ask Obama to step aside since he "obviously" knows what is good for Republicans and America.


If you boycott WND, then you must. . .

Know this: Kevin McCullough is on the WND team. If you boycott WND, then you must therefore boycott Kevin McCullough.



In my experience most of the organizations that claim to be on the right's side are conservative in nature and believe in upholding and protecting the constitution.  The first amendment  gives us the freedom of speech and of the press.  To call for a boycott of someone utilizing that freedom is an affront to the constitution.

If you don't like what someone is saying or printing, what you do is not read or listen to that person, but a true conservative does not try to shut them up, that is the game play of the left and their marxist thugs with their Saul Alinsky rules for radicals.

WND is my home page and I read it several times a day. Some things I believe and some I don't, but they have a right to print it.  They are much more truthful than the New York Times or Washington Post or even NBC, CBS ,ABC, CNN that have been in the tank and campaigned for this usurper.  They have abandoned their role of reporting the news and instead have resorted to campaigning for the socialist's agenda all the while demonizing the conservative movement.  They are the real enemy, not WND.

Your time would be better spent demanding that the usurper Obama is removed from office because he is at the most a dual citizen and not qualified to hold the office of the presidency.

when organizations like media matters, a George Soros organization that has donated millions to put this imposter in the oval office, align with you on a issue then you should question your motivations.


John's Wrong About WND

What is this "New Right"?  It seems to be missing something rather important and central to that which our nation's Founding Fathers conceived as the role of the Press: watchdog on the government. 

WorldNetDaily fulfills that role better, and more completely, than any other news/commentary website on the Internet.  It has balance – publishing commentaries by a wide spectrum of author viewpoints, including liberals, leftists, and atheists.  Integrity?  Unlike the NY Times and others of its ilk, if, as a story develops, information is proven to be inaccurate or untrue, WND has the integrity to publish corrected information and not bury it in small print on its Page 2.  

They just did this with the recent story about the "eBay birth certificate forgery."  WND covered it all the way, and headlined its being proven to be a fake.  That's journalistic integrity. 

It's reporters are not weirdos, but seasoned pro's who do their homework and tell the whole story.  Several WND writers are NY Times best selling authors, even when their books have been totally blackballed by the MSM. 

Those who condemn the so-called "birthers" just don't get it.  The issue of the birth certificate is much bigger than Obama's presidency.  It's about the deliberate violation of the Constitution and the rule of Law, to illegally acquire the highest position of authority in this nation. It's also about the violation of journalistic ethics and standards of objectivity.  The mainstream media is in bed with the Democrats and everyone knows it. If a Republican president tried to hide critically important personal documents, would their reaction be the same? 

WND is the one and only news organization that has had the guts to stick with this story when all others have acquiesced.  Does it matter if the president has deliberately lied and withheld information that proves him ineligible to hold office?  

Yeah, it matters.  And if "New Righters" don't think so, then they don't deserve to be called Conservatives.  It's the integrity of the Constitution, the bedrock foundation of our nation.  If you're willing to let Obama get away with hiding records that divulge his true nation of birth, what else are you willing to let pass? 

Is it rreally no big deal that the president refuses to let his birth certificate be released to the public, or any of his school records?  An innocent man does not spend a ton of money paying for lawyers to fight against releasing basic personal documents that we citizens all must produce to prove who we are. 

I believe Joseph Farah and WND will be vindicated on this issue – sooner or later the truth will out, and he is right in believing that this is a big deal.  "Birthers," as they are disrespectfully called, like "Tea Partiers," are patriots who are concerned about the erosion of our Constitution and they are standing up for it. 

What does the New Right stand for?  Accommodation? Compromise? 



After I posted last night I couldn't get to sleep.  I was thinking about the absurdity that this article represents.  I have been a registered Republican all my adult life but, in the past couple of weeks have been seriously thinking about registering as an Independent.  Part of the reason for that is embedded in your arrogance.  I am a Conservatilve and a "truther"first, in the past that has generally meant Republican more than Democrat.  It is articles like yours and others in addition to the limpwristed attittude of numerous elected Republicans that has caused me to rethink what the Republican party stands for.  It seems you are more concerned about Republican power than Republican principles---sounding more like a Democrat to me.  Following in the Democrat mold, maybe we should start a boycott of your blog.  I guess freedom of speech is something you can sacrifice on the alter of Republican power.   

He's Interested in Truth, not Power

Nothing wrong with being critical of Obama and the government, but loopy conspiracy theories aren't a path to success.

The Birchers were hardcore conservatives, but their leader thought that Pres Eisenhower and his brother were closet communists -- a view that would have destroyed US conservatism in its infancy.  Luckily, we had people like Bill Buckley who made conservatism respectable and reality-based. 

Some of us favor smart conservatism based on real evidence and facts.  From the tone of your messages, you are not interested in such things.  


Anyone who would boycott WND can't handle the truth or the real news (for you dummies, this is reporting that is not the OPINION of the reporter). I challenge Mr. Henke to show just one piece of evidence that proves the "birthers" are wrong, and I don't mean the worthless COLB posted by Obama suckup, or the "golden" word of so-called reliable / honest people, including Obama himself. I also want to ask Mr. Henke why it is so hard to accept that some of us want real tangible proof on this important matter (other than Obama's sayso); and, if it is true that Obama is a constitutionally eligible citizen to hold the office of POTUS, why has he and his brainless supporters pushed back so hard on a simple request to prove or disprove the allegations?

To the contrary, the "birthers" are the intelligent ones while those instigating a boycott against a news website that is only asking for facts--instead of relying on what people who have no real proof other than sayso ignorantly insist, they are the ridiculous ignoramouses who should not have a platform to preach from, much less vote.

Your boycott, Mr. Henke, is doomed to fail because your argument is a proven straw man. Obama has proven nothing, and the question "Where's the Birth Certificate?" will not go away. Thank God that WND has the journalistic integrity  to keep this matter going. The way you are acting Mr. Henke, perhaps this site shoud be called "New LEFT". You are the epitome of why the Republican Party has self-destructed!

Here you go

Here is irrefutable proof that Obama was born in Hawaii:

Or perhaps I should say that a sane person would find you irrefutable. You, on the other hand, will be coming back with more ridiculous babble in 3....2...1.....


Sorry, but no cigar ...

Dear Mead50, Your generous offer of proof, however well intended, only reveals your lack of research and legal background.  First, as a rule, birth announcements carry no weight as legal proof of the truth they purport to assert.  They can properly be treated as a form of inadmissible hearsay in terms of the birth itself.  Second, in this particular case, they may actually have evidentiary value ... as an indication of fraud.  Please note that the address given is an address which, according to public tax records and personal eyewitnesses, was never occupied by Ann and Barak, Sr as a couple.  Each had their own separate addresses through this period.  Rather, the home was owned by Orland and Thelma Leforge, and appears to have been rented by Ann's parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham.  The address may therefore be authentic but a misstatement of residency, or it may have been provided by a well-meaning family member to the reporting hospital in a fraudulent attempt to represent Hawaii as the place of birth, with all the rights and benefits of US citizenship that would entail.  This is the same reason modern misrepresentation of birthplace occurs, so it is not at all unreasonable to be skeptical when such untenable discrepancies surface.

And that’s' the point.  Most so-called birthers are simply exercising their God-given right to consider all the facts, to question authority, to doubt, to wonder.  If that very advanced mental capacity is now forbidden in the Republican Party, it is no wonder they are bumping into closed doors and walking blindly over steep cliffs.  Thinking is being, and we have a right to it, with or without the approval of any political party.

Right on time

it is the Loon Express.

This is not a court of law.

As you well know, the newspapers printed the births and deaths as reported to them by the state of Hawaii.

No one in the Obama family had the means or motive to plant this announcement.


Since you're into the legal stuff...

With your talk of 'inadmissible hearsay' and 'evidentiary value', you must also be acquainted enough with the law to know that a plaintiff who files a lawsuit alleging certain facts bears the burden of providing evidence to support said facts.  Similarly, if the state files criminal charges, it is incumbent on the state to prove the charges, not on the defendant to refute the charges in the absence of evidence. 

Soooo ... since Pres. Obama has provided a copy of his birth certificate documenting his birth in Hawaii that is acceptable to the U.S. government for passport purposes, as well as statements from Hawaiian officials with access to official birth records verifying his birth there, in addition to the "inadmissible hearsay" of the newspaper announcements, the burden is on you to prove that he was born elsewhere.  Your proof, please? 

sorry HI not say bc obama provided authentic

sorry HI not say bc obama provided authentic- fact check. org. Hi refuses to do it.

Read this please

07-27 22:54 PDT Honolulu (AP) --

State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.



that is a statement-- that

that is a statement-- that vital records shows he was born in HI-- does not dismiss assumption grandma registered him or that he was adopted which would show him born HI and old records sealed.

but most important is does not say posted bc by obama is authentic

health official can not state with the force of law that anyone is naturalborn-- she refuses to define her guess as to what is naturalborn.(was purely a political statement)