The money angle is important. That’s very sleezy. If you look up BVM on google you can get some data about the website. It seems to be linked to a group called Oath Keepers although I’m not completely clear on that.

FFLEO,

I think the refutations of Vince and Mike A. are important also.

More people want to know the truth and are seeking it out. Keep refuting! I beg you.

I disagree. If Professor Turley is content to allow BVM’s repetitive spam posts of the same tired material across multiple topic threads within his blawg, we need people—especially attorneys—to continue refuting BVM’s gibberish.

The upside is we gain valuable legalese along the way.

Get it?

It is all about money.

I think you’ve both done a very good job at exposing BVM. It’s my opinion that he is here as a distraction from other posts and it might be best to ignore him from now on, with the occasional refutation after a period of time has passed. But most everyone who reads this site has most likely gotten a clear picture of BVM by now.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99549

You can get a lot of funny poll results, depending on how you word the questions and weight the sample.

Ever heard of “push polling”?

WND/WENZEL POLL
Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions Despite near media blackout on coverage, 49.3% ‘troubled,’ think he should release birth certificate

Posted: June 16, 2009 9:16 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Editor’s note: This is the second of a series of monthly “Freedom Index” polls conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.

WASHINGTON – It may be the issue few in the media dare address, but a new scientific public opinion survey of a cross-section of Americans shows they are not only aware of questions about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office, but almost half are either “troubled” by the questions or believe he should release all relevant documents including his long-form birth certificate.

Asked if they are aware of the questions raised about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office, 51.3 percent answered affirmatively, while only 18.7 percent said no. Another 30 percent said they were unsure.

“Our polling shows that the questions surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president clearly strike a nerve across America, probably because it is a problem that everybody understands,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel. “Every American citizen has a birth certificate, and once in a while we all have to produce them to get a drivers license or gain entrance to school. Everyone understands the simple rules – if you don’t produce it, you don’t get in. And while Obama did get in to the White House, nearly half the country’s adults – 49 percent – are troubled by this issue and still want him to produce his official long-form birth certificate.”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=2290

To all readers who come here by search, be advised that bvm’s accusations are false and malicious.

Do not give them any credence because they were posted here. This is an open site.

Then make a judgment on her credibility.

The short answer to the question “Where’s the birth certificate?’ is that Obama has produced it, that it is on the web for all to view, that it is valid and legal and not forged, and that the birthers are too blind or willfully resistant to looking at it. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

The Obama birth certificate flap is an urban legend, a fairy tale, a false story that has been exposed repeatedly by snopes.com and others:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Politifact.com, examined and verified the Certification: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
A news article quoted Dr Fukino, and the official statement can be read here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

I said above that they have admitted that no birth certificate or evidence will ever satisfy them. Here is the source:

“Nonetheless, there is little doubt that President Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii. …

“In 1961, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a birth certificate to Barack Obama unless the State believed he was born in Hawaii. Barack Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate undoubtedly says he was born in Hawaii.

“But questions still remain. When Barack Obama was born, was his birth attended by a doctor or midwife? If not, who testified regarding his birth? His mother? His grandmother? Were any of these people interviewed? Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate’s probative value? Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama’s birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier? “ Source: http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref20

There you have it: there is little doubt that President Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.

So, even if the original were released to a press conference attended by Berg, Andy Martin, Orly, Leo Donofrio, Cort, Allan Keyes, swift-boater Corsi, and Elvis, with reporters from the Globe, Enquirer and the entire supermarket press corps, guess what? The have admitted that they would still not accept it. They will challenge it under a whole new set of theories. They will all move to Kenya.

This issue grew so big, that even the leftist fringe media like Rachel Maddow from MSNBC and Joan Walsh from Salon.com have to say something about the issue to their viewers and readers. The problem is, that the leftist communist nutjobs don’t do their homework, they don’t read legal pleadings submitted to courts and they sound like clowns.

Orly
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1

Let the fools here try to cover that up.

Research for yourself …. find out the truth. Don’t believe Obama’s propaganda. The birthers are gaining by quantum leaps!

Check out;

http://www.wnd.com

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1

http://www.repubx.com

Poor bvm cannot even read English. Prima facie is Latin for “on its first face.” Prima facie evidence is evidence which, on its face, is proof of a fact, unless refuted or contradicted by other evidence. It makes the case for the party with the burden of proof, until the opposing party introduces credible evidence to counter it. By its own terms, it is evidence of birth unless countered.

It is good in any court proceeding in Hawaii, and good in any U.S. court of law. It is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. It is the foundation of the case that he is therefore a natural born citizen.

Now, the birthers first said it was a forgery. But that was not credible because the responsible state officials have said that the certification issued to Obama was authentic and correctly recorded the evidence in state records.

Then they said it was valid, but not accepted by the State of Hawaii. But it was only the certificate not used or needed for Hawaiian Home Lands applications. But the Home Lands office needs more than the fact of birth, since applicants must be 50% native Hawaiian.

Now the driver’s license is argued. Hawaii does not require an applicant for a driver’s license to be born in Hawaii, to be a resident of Hawaii, or to even be a US citizen. The DVM is not a court of law. Obama did not apply for a Hawaii driver’s license.

In every court of law that has heard these contentions so far, the cases have been dismissed, or are pending dismissal.

His birth was announced in two Honolulu newspapers in 1961. Those papers got their information from the city hospitals.

The birthers have admitted that the state records will show Obama was born there. They have admitted that they hope they can find something else to challenge in those records amidst the information that would include hospital, doctors, and witnesses.

They have admitted that they will challenge Obama’s right to be President even if they finally admit that he was born in the United States.

They are the type of people that deny that men walked on the Moon and assert that Elvis lives.

Ask yourself … why won’t Obama produce his birth certificate and other records?

BVM is the kind of guy who constantly denies that the Eiffel Tower stands in Paris. Even in the face of photographic, official, and anecdotal evidence spanning time, this doubting Thomas must see to believe. And even at that moment of truth, he will still deny his own senses in a pathetic effort to placate his obsessive belief in his own correctness. Sad, but all too common.

Obama should not have been on the presidential ballot. He was and is a War Criminal. He voted in the Senate at least 11 times to fund the Wars of Aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan which is conspiracy and waging illegal wars. Obama was committing War Crimes as early as 2003 in “selling the illegal Iraq War”, conspiring and waging War of Aggression with Howard Dean in this video:

“Barack Obama – Mass Murderer”

By Dan Spielberg

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names” ~ Chinese Proverb

“The Chinese proverb that opens this piece is true in all times and places, so let’s call Mr. Obama by his real names: Wall Street Stooge, Zionist lickspittle, National Socialist, liar and above all, mass murderer.”

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22607.htm

This is just another incoherent posting by bvm, who has hijacked a thread on a Supreme Court nominee with repeated hate-filled, unsupported charges and allegations. That kind of stuff does not go unchallenged at the Turley site. In the meantime, interested readers can see that yet another independent source, Politifact.com, examined and verified the Certification: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Lindylou posted a news article quoting Dr Fukino, and the official statement can be read here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

People should look at the statement printed at the bottom of the Certification: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” These are the facts. The Certification is true copy, and it is valid legal evidence of birth. The charges by von Bruun and all of the other birthers that its was forged are false. On its face, it would be evidence of the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 in any court proceeding. It correctly describes what is in the official state records. The fact that the Home Lands office requires more evidence is based on the need to show 50% Hawaiian ancestry. It is no wonder that all the court challenges thus far have been dismissed, or are pending dismissal.

The hatred of the birthers is so deep seated that they have admitted that no proof of birth will ever satisfy them. Even if it were proven to their satisfaction that Obama was born in the United States, they have admitted that they would still challenge his right to serve.

Rachel, do your research.

Obama, where’s the birth certificate?

You are truly a stand up guy.

And Ricky Ricardo would say, “Obama! You got some ’splainin’ to do!”

I am neither a civil libertarian nor a Democrat. However, if I fell within either or both of those groups, I would be extremely outraged with Mr. Obama. As a conservative Republican, I cannot understand why his most ardent supports are not incensed over the man’s lies and broken promises. I voted for the man because I saw the need—mostly—to do what he was espousing. Sure, I dreaded the thought of some of the democratic/socialistic changes for which he championed; however, he is forsaking the very people who secured the presidency for him, including Republicans like me who took a chance on him.

When Mr. Obama selected Republicans for his cabinet and other positions, I thought that he was making an emphatically clear statement that no Democrat was capable of fulfilling—or qualified for—those positions. What a fine statement of the Democratic Party officials who helped elect you and whose trust you have tarnished.

Obama has also carried President Abraham Lincoln’s emulation excessively far and without justification. How exceptionally presumptuous of Mr. Obama to denigrate Lincoln’s honorable legacy by professing to being anywhere near equal to Lincoln’s his fine character and abilities.

Mr. Obama, I have read extensively of Mr. Lincoln, and you are *no* Lincoln!

I admire you for saying Obama should fulfill pledges that he made with which you disagree. I think Obama has no intention of making good changes in this nation and here’s part of my reasoning. Obama has surrounded himself with people who literally committed war and financial crimes. These are his top level advisors, on the war, on terrorism, on the economy etc. Now I could understand that a person might make one or two mistakes in their choices but if they were really mistakes and one wanted to do the right thing, one would fire these people and indict them. At a minimum, one would fire them–there’s no political downside to that action.

But Obama has placed criminals in one position of power in his adminstration after another. That’s not a mistake, that’s a pattern. Some people want to claim Obama is simply following the bad advice of the people he surrounded himself with. We don’t believe this regarding other people. We all listen to the advice of others, but the final decisions remain our own. Further, if we consistently surround ourselves with people who have committed crimes, we would generally call this a criminal enterprise, not just a hapless mistake. For example, it wasn’t a mistake that Dick Cheney went to the lawyers he went to for certification that torture is legal. He knew it was illegal and he hand picked toddies that would “make it so”. Cheney’s actions were not the result of a hapless man being given bad advice. The were the actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing and wanted cover for illegal actions–it was a criminal enterprise.

Just so, I believe Obama is engaged in his own version of the criminal enterprise. He is no hapless victim of mendacious advisors. He knows what he wants and he’s going to the people who will be most likely to aid his desires.

Thank you for the video link. I also read Greenwald’s comments earlier, with which I agree.

I am against some of the pledges Mr. Obama made, including parts of “gay” issue. However—and most importantly—he made those pledges and he should do all in his power to carry them out regardless of the people, including me, whom he might upset. He must help the many who voted for the ‘Change’ he pledged, repeatedly and ad nauseam.

Obviously, we need marked Change because every sector of our American way of life is suffering from the wrongs and excesses of the past and we cannot continue along the same flawed and corrupt legal, economic, and societal paths.

(below from Glenn Greenwald)
“Tuesday June 16, 2009 05:17 EDT
Here is secrecy creep in action

On May 13, when Obama announced he would attempt to suppress prisoner abuse photos on the ground that their release would inflame anti-American sentiment, I wrote:

Think about what Obama’s rationale would justify. Obama’s claim . . . means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done — as the Bush administration did — because release of such evidence would “would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn’t it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?”

This is *not* another case of, well he has only been in office for a few months so we must give him time to do the right things. The evidence is mounting that Mr. Obama is not who he claimed to be. I guess it is up to each citizen to determine if you want to call him a liar or just a pledge breaker or…
_________________________

{Quote: Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

Taking Bush’s position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. End Quote}

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/
______________________

I disagree – the text of the controlling Constitutional clause reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Emphasis mine.

The DOMA does so, and SCOTUS’s long-standing standpoint of the public policy exception reinforces it. Absent any judgement to the contrary, it’s going to stand, unfortunately; I don’t particularly like the idea, either, but if wishes were wings, pigs would fly.

As to the portion of the DOMA which states that same-sex marriages cannot be recognised, you’ll have to talk to Congress about that one; while Loving, for example, recognises a fundamental right to marry, that same right is also broadly recognised as being at the State level only. While I think that this portion is probably arguable in terms of Equal Protection, I don’t think that it’s currently as clearly viable as we might wish.

Regarding your claim of betrayal, there’s a good analysis of the issue here; also, I think that I commented earlier that DADT is based on a legislative provision, which is not something the President can undo on his own. He might decline to enforce the law, but that would make him as bad as Bush, in that case, wouldn’t it?

It isn’t obvious that DOMA is constitutional. The statute consists of more than protecting states from having to recognize marriages recognized elsewhere. It also states that the federal government cannot treat same-sex relationships as marriage for any purpose. This goes behind full-faith-and-credit issues and could very well be unconstitutional.

By backing down on DADT and DOMA, Obama has betrayed one of his most loyal constituencies.

my list is growing and approval rating for the president falling

That is what I am afraid of, he is working on the next 4 and keeping his score low. Bush got it by starting the war and keeping us in constant hysteria and fear to control while chipping away at our rights.

So Tried to call E and no answer. Oh well.

See Jose Padillia on this thing today.

With McCain, you’d get the same things with an added spice the Alaskan Trash.

As I have stated before, Nader may be old but a lot of his ideals are sound and he usually does not rely on popularity to do what is right.

As it stands, arguing against DOMA on constitutional grounds is not set to be a winnner, especially given the current make up of SCOTUS.