Sunday, March 14, 2010

SMRSTRAUSS: The Total Reveal & Their Tangled Web | by EricaThunderpaws

On February 11, 2010, I published Exposé: Obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!  My article revealed the prolific commenting activities of an obot who was (and still is) papering virtually every conservative blog with repetitive disinformation.  He is on a mission to defend Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States against those who argue that Obama isn't qualified because of his dual citizenship with Britain and/or due to unanswered questions about Obama's place of birth.

A simple Google search for comments made by, to, and about smrstrauss today returns around 20,000 hits.  In my first exposé, I did not reveal the full identity of smrstrauss, even though I knew who he was after extensive research.  However, since publishing that exposé, smrstrauss has visited my blog again with more “cognitive infiltration,” likely following the suggestions of Cass Sunstein, who now head's Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  smrstrauss was warned that another post would force my hand, and that warning was ignored on March 12, 2010.  So, are you ready for the reveal?

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Paul R. Strauss and his wife, Ann Fenlon Strauss, who work as a team of obots with a mission to defend Obama's eligibility to serve as President.  Mr. and Mrs. Strauss live in Arlington, MA.   Disclaimer:  Although the names are similar, Paul R. Strauss is NOT Paul Strauss, the Shadow Senator representing Washington, D.C.

Paul R. Strauss (now 68) married Ann Fenlon Santomasso on June 16, 1984 in the bridegroom’s Manhattan apartment.  At that time Ann was a senior research biologist at the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, and Paul was a financial editor of Data Communications.  They were married by Rev. Louis Giola.  Paul received his master’s degree in communications from American University, and Ann received her degree from the College of New Rochelle. Today the Strauss’s live in a 5,329 sq ft. home in Arlington, MA, presently valued at $496,400.

More recently, Paul appears to be retired, although in 2004 he worked for IDC Inc. as a Research Analyst.  In 2004, Ann stated her place of employment as Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Click the symbol MLNM for the company's market performance).  Considering Obama’s private deal with big pharma, Ann’s connection to a biopharmaceutical company says all that needs to be said about her motives for becoming an obot for Obama.

On January 25, 2010, smrstrauss (Paul R. Strauss) said on my blog, “ I am not Paul Strauss of Washington DC. I am Samuel Strauss of Cleveland, Ohio. And I have not been paid by the government. Just the reverse, I was a contributor to Obama's campaign.

No records were found in Ohio to confirm his comment.  However, from the very beginning I assumed that some portion of the moniker "smrstrauss" reflected the person’s real name, so I checked several campaign donor lists.  I already knew from various ip addresses that smrstrauss lived somewhere in Arlington, MA.  Thus I began my search using Strauss and the city and state as keywords, and voila!  I found Paul R. Strauss, plus I found his wife, Ann, on the same page.  As the contribution list below reveals, between 2004 and 2008 this couple donated $13,500 to Democratic candidates, so they are seriously involved in Democratic politics. Since Paul now says he is retired, he probably has a lot of time on his hands to take on the role of an obot.

Paul R. and Ann Strauss Political Contributions on Open Secrets

The most interesting donation, from my perspective, is also the largest:  $2,300 to Barack Obama on October 5, 2008.  It was around the time of this donation that the moniker smrstrauss began infiltrating virtually every conservative blog that had the temerity to question Obama’s eligibility to serve as President.  In fact, there were so many comments on conservative blogs that it seemed unlikely only one person was posting all of them.

Fortunately for Obama, and unfortunately for those who continue to challenge Obama's eligibillity, smrstrauss and company have succeeded in marginalizing their opponents by calling them "birthers" as a derogatory term. Their intent is to make it seem that all eligibility challengers are chasing the ephemeral birth certificate, when in fact a large number of people believe the constitutional definition of the term "natural born Citizen" takes precedence over place of birth, even though both are important.  Challengers to Obama argue from a historical perspective that the designation of "natural born Citizen" is reserved for citizens born on American soil to parents who are both American citizens, whether those parents are naturalized or natural born.  Barack Obama has dual citizenship with Britain through his father, who was a subject of the U.K.  Also see "Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible for POTUS."

Thanks to bloggers who responded to my call for help, I have collected a long list of ip addresses, all of which were linked to people using the moniker smrstrauss.  It wasn't until February 2010 that I knew for certain that smrstrauss was, at the very least, working as a team with his wife.  Ann Strauss used multiple monikers and email addresses, such as:  ann1, annone, ann2, ann3,, and  If you search the Huffington Post, you will find that ann1 has made a large number of comments since she joined in February 2008.  If you want to become one of her "fans", you'll first have to register.

On March 11, 2010, Paul and Ann began using completely new monikers and email addresses.  Furthermore, they have recently started using an anonymous ip server.  At this writing, they are using Ohio (clearly this state has special meaning to the Strauss's) as a moniker and two new emails: and  As you review the table below, notice the start date of his/their activity, and how the ip addresses and locations changed over time.  While it's possible Paul and Ann have traveled a lot since Sept/Oct 2008, it is also possible they have been working with a group of individuals, all using the same moniker.  This table, by the way, doesn't represent even the tip of the smrstrauss iceberg.  My table simply lists information I gathered from a few contributors, and from my own blog. Search the internet for smrstrauss, and you'll see what I mean.

Database of Ip Addresses for Smrstrauss

If you clicked the ip addresses on that table, you will have noticed that city names and latitude/longitude coordinates are shown.  However, don't assume those readings reflect the pinpoint location of someone's computer, or even that the information will be the same every time you click the ip address link.  Let me demonstrate. 

To test what I'm about to say, first go to  When the window opens, you will see your own ip address.  Write it down.  Now go to and enter your ip address.  Zoom in on the map and you will most likely discover that the location marker is miles away from the location of your computer.  Also write down your lat/long coordinates shown on InfoSniper, then go to Google map and enter the coordinates like this without the brackets (42.4247, -71.1112) in the search box.  You'll probably find the marker is miles away from your computer location.  Repeat this process a month from now, and you'll probably discover that the marker has moved to a new location several miles in a different direction, maybe even to a nearby town.  The reasons why this happen are complex, but it's important you understand that it does happen, and always remember that a marker will only give you a rough approximation of a computer's location at that moment in time.  Depending solely on this kind of information will lead you astray.

If, as I believe, the Strauss's are not working alone, then who might they be working with in Massachusetts since those ip addresses are dotted all over the state?  Well, some interesting coincidences may reveal the rest of the story.

First, Organizing for America has a Headquarters based in Boston.  Their address is 56 Roland Street, Suite 203, Boston, MA  02129.  What began as "Obama for America" during the election campaign then morphed into Organizing for America, which is also known as

As we all too painfully know, the Obama administration is hell-bent on forcing universal health care on the American people even though we don't subscribe to his statist vision.  If you followed the links above, you will realize just how intensely the Obama machine is focused on this agenda.  If you register for a group in your area, you will receive invitations to participate in training seminars.  Recently, blogger Carol Greenberg went undercover into one of the OFA training seminars, and came away with screen shots of their behind-the-scenes computer databases.  Carol's article reveals that the Obama machine has a highly sophisticated system in place for training people how to manipulate and influence the public to the statist's way of thinking, and to call people into action.  The Obama machine is unlike anything we've seen before, except perhaps the propagandists plying their trade during WWII.

Other examples of the OFA's handiwork include as well as their National Intern Organizer Weekly Curriculum for high school students (i.e., creating Obama brownshirts--parents beware!).  So it is reasonable to assume that an arm of the Obama network may have initiated one or more seminars to teach obots how to counter challenges to Obama's eligibility.  In other words, how to cognitively infiltrate "conspiracy blogs".  I suspect OFA supplied the talking points, just as they are now doing with health care and their attempts to disrupt talk radio.

One of the big players in OFA is Joan Axelrod Lehrich, the sister of David Axelrod.  She is a self-employed learning disabilities consultant.  Joan is also a Group Administrator on, specifically representing her local neighborhood in, ta da!, Arlington, MA!  (You'll have to register in order to view that link.) Joan is active in the Arlington Democratic Town Committee.  Her only campaign contribution on record for 2008 is found on the Huffington Post in the amount of $356 to support Obama.  The Strauss's have been far more generous with their money! 

What's really interesting to me from viewing property records is that Joan Axelrod Lehrich and Paul and Ann Strauss live only 2.4 miles apart!  Do they know each other?  My instincts say it's very likely that they do.  Coincidentally(?), if you register, and then visit the Arlington, MA Neighborhood that Joan moderates on, you'll discover someone called "Paul" in Arlington who lists Joan Lehrich as a "Friend." There is a picture of Paul, but I can't say with certainty that this is our Paul R. Strauss. 

Oh, what a tangled web this is!


  1. T-Paws:

    Superb, simply superb!!! Wonderful "tracking" work and (as Prof. 'enry 'iggins might say) - "By George, I believe you've got it!!!".

    I especially like your "cognitive infiltration" comment as well as the truly chilling OFA expose'. Joseph Goebbels would be proud; speaking of whom note that "good old Joe" also said some things that Paul and Ann no doubt ingest with the morning paper:

    “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” and:

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” as well as:

    “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”.

    Oops, NO ... strike that last one although it certainly applies - that was Plato, not Joe.

    At any rate a great bit of work for which the Strauss disinfo (is that lying???) team was amply warned about yet chose to continue to pursue the propaganda efforts. They surely deserve the "outing". So as you note they will now merely change nics and try to be even more devious (though hardly possible) in the future. People like this are why we HAVE (presumably) a judicial system ... and we'll soon be checking the efficacy of that with the Kerchner et al case currently in Federal Appeals Court.

    Good stuff, Erica!! Kudos and Huzzah!!

  2. Erica-very interesting and informative article as usual. Thanks to all for all their hard work. I'm a registered Dem who did not vote for Obama, most of us are horrified by this person. A couple of things that bother me. The American people have to believe that curiosity has been suspended by the press and the people-I doubt that. Locking up all the records should give someone a clue-if I had the same problem as potus but it was true that I was an NBC, I would not employ an army to attempt to change public opinion, which public opinion is not what determines NBC anyway-you are NBC or you are not. All the lies in the world cannot change that. Like Nixon-the lies and the cover ups. Will they ever learn?

  3. No, they will never learn.
    By the way, and maybe this just a wild coincidence, but somehow I doubt it, someone in Washington, D.C. just dropped by to read this article. You'll see it if you look at Feedjit in the sidebar.

  4. Thanks, jtx. I've been sitting on this information for some time now. And, yes, we'll need to watch for a change in nics. However, the content of their messages is unlikely to change, so it will be relatively easy to track them.

    If ANYONE finds new, suspicious nics, I hope they'll let me know. We'll just keep sniffing their tracks.

  5. Great Job! Now want some more fun? Try your skill on "alferd" I have dealt with him far longer than "smrstrauss" though they seem to have the same talking points. There seems to be an Army of Obots defending this leader of the Communist New World Order coup. I think we would all be surprised and troubled to know just how large this coup is.

  6. old1,
    As you suggested I did a quick search for "alferd" and found a lot of comments. This obot posted a great number of remarks on the Washington Independent site, which happens to be one of Paul Strauss's favorite stomping grounds. Strauss alone has made ~150 comments on that site. Alferd appears to be a cohort of Strauss, or an alter ego. I'll keep an eye on that one. Thanks.

  7. Excellent!! I have done battle w/ smrstrauss on many sites and always knew that he was a paid propagandist, and also called him on it. These people are Sociopaths, and have no trouble lying and spreading disinformation in support of dear leader. He always says basically the same thing about WKA and how he says the Framers relied on British Common Law. There are MANY like them, including on places like TOPIX where I have seen the same 10-15 nics on the Obama BC thread approaching 100K responses for 14 months. Obama was the first POTUS to use the internet as such a propaganda tool and his organization is extensive.

  8. Is Adam Werbach, who is now with Saatchi & Saatchi, behind GROUNDSWELL?

    Adam Werbach, former President of the Sierra Club, was one of the founders of The Apollo Alliance...

    The Apollo Alliance is a Communist organization...

    If Adam Werbach and Saatchi & Saatchi can be linked to Organizing for America through GROUNDSWELL, then the Apollo Alliance/Communists can be directly linked to Obama.

    “We need to be a groundswell” – Adam Werbach – SIERRA CLUB ARTICLE


    Welcome to Organizing for America’s Groundswell, a new tool to break down big projects into simple parts that volunteers [OBOTS] across the country can quickly complete together.

    He’s Young, He’s Hip, He’s Your President


    “If the primary purpose of the Sierra Club is to be concerned about the future, it seems natural that young people take responsibility for it,” saysAdam Werbach.


    “Ever since the Watt petition, I’ve been trying to figure out new ways to get young people involved in the environmental movement,” says Werbach.


    Werbach’s goal is to reach out to as-yet untapped allies.


    At the moment, he is focusing on helping mobilize the Club for the November elections.


    Simple stories resonate. “We need to be a groundswell,” Werbach adds.

    [APOLLO ALLIANCE] Code Blue for Conservation

    “The whole idea with Apollo is to achieve our global warming objective [SOCIALISM] without talking about global warming and instead talk about jobs,” said Shellenberger in an interview with Conservation In Practice (CIP).


    Even so, some of the people close to S&N seem a lot like old-style progressives. One is Adam Werbach, a former president of the Sierra Club, a cofounder of the Apollo Alliance, and now Executive Director of Common Assets, a group that aims to protect assets ranging from the environment to Internet access to democracy. Soon after S&N presented their paper, Werbach chimed in with a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco entitled “Is Environmentalism Dead?” His first line answered the question. “I am here to perform an autopsy,” he declared. In the movement he envisions, Werbach made clear that conservatives would not be welcome. “Are you a progressive or a conservative?” he asked the audience. “If you’re a conservative … but you still love nature, we wish you well, but we need you to leave this movement. We invite you to attack the conservatives, but don’t try to make us ignore the plight of immigrants, stay out of gay rights, or stay silent on the war.”

    The Apollo Alliance - Obama administration linking social justice to 'green job'

  9. I have not pursued this thread before, but will take a look. A quick search on the net turned up this link as a starting point:

  10. Hi EricaThunderpaws,

    HillBuzz was the first I had heard that there was a possible link between Adam Werbach of Saatchi & Saatchi and OFA.

    I searched Adam Werbach and found his comment that the Sierra Club needed to be a "groundswell".

    Somebody in marketing helped OFA name their disinformation campaign "GROUNDSWELL".

    In my opinion, Adam Werbach and Saatchi & Saatchi are behind GROUNDSWELL's disinformation marketing campaign...

    In my search I also found the following, which I posted in a comment at HillBuzz:

    Saatchi & Saatchi Sustainability [Adam Werbach - Act Now]

    Act Now is a pioneering sustainability consultancy led by Adam Werbach, one of the leaders in environmentalism [COMMUNISM/MARXISM/SOCIALISM] and sustainability in the United States…

    Effective immediately, Act Now will be part of the new Saatchi & Saatchi S network, a revolutionary market offering designed to activate corporate and consumer action on a mass scale to address environmental and economic sustainability. Act Now, working alongside the global 650-person shopper and retail marketing leader Saatchi & Saatchi X, will be uniquely positioned to catalyze change in the arena where most purchasing decisions are made – in the store. Adam Werbach has been appointed CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi S and will report to Andy Murray, Global CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi X.

    Saatchi & Saatchi S combines Act Now’s personalized sustainability solutions with Saatchi & Saatchi’s global communications expertise in order to inspire consumers toward [SOCIALISM] making better choices. The new consultancy will integrate with core Saatchi & Saatchi services including brand navigation, planning, creative, media and brand philosophy. Saatchi & Saatchi S will offer sustainability services including analysis and strategic advisory, employee engagement, product and brand innovation, and consumer retail communication. Saatchi & Saatchi S currently has offices in San Francisco and Boulder (Colorado) and plans to open in New York, Chicago, Fayetteville (Arkansas), [HOME OF WAL-MART] London and Beijing in early 2008.

    Saatchi & Saatchi Sustainability [ GLOBAL WARMING/SOCIALISM - Sierra Club Pet Project]

    “Our motivation in acquiring Act Now [Adam Werbach] – which will take the name of Saatchi & Saatchi S – is not only to better help our clients communicate about the important issue of sustainability. Companies everywhere have a critical role to play in reducing CO2 emissions, in protecting the environment, and in taking corporate social responsibility seriously. The expertise of Saatchi & Saatchi S will allow them to understand these issues in a strategic way and help them find real solutions adapted to their needs, while communicating [GROUNDSWELL OFA ???] in an efficient and effective way. I am very proud that Publicis Groupe has once more shown an ability to innovate by bringing these kinds of new services to our clients.”



  11. Benaiah,

    Looks like you've already done yeoman's work sniffing out Werbach. I will attempt to add to your findings, but because I'm patient and very methodical, I may seem slow. I won't publish anything until I'm satisfied that I've learned all that I can about him. If and when I do publish something, you will get the attribution you deserve for bringing this to my attention.

    If you sign up as a follower at the bottom of this web page, you will receive notices when new articles are published. That way you can avoid missing the article if I publish one.

  12. EricaThuderpaws,

    If you are able to connect the dots, please give the attribution to HillBuzz and their commenters...

    As Phil at TRSOL says, it's a group effort.

    Thank you for your perseverance and for taking a stand for truth.


  13. I have known this smstrauss from other sites as well. I do not live far from W. Brookfeild one of the sites in fact I used to live one town over but spent my time there. I am not far from Worcester either. These people are a danger to free speech. They are lying and cheatful people willing to sacrifice us for Obama's Bull Sh... I think also that he has or uses another screen name called doppleganger@aol and claims to be from Maine. Please if you investgate anymore let me know. These people need to be stopped.

  14. Rick,
    With freedom of speech comes the freedom to lie. I defend their right to practice freedom of speech. Furthermore, these people are not a danger in any real sense. However, now that we recognize their tactics, we will be more alert and practice our right to free speech by "calling them out", as our new President is often heard to say.

  15. I wonder if perhaps the "smrstrauss" flacks and groupies are surprised that the Internet is not so "anonymous" allowing one to lie continually and grossly and be "found out" as Erica has done.

    Must be very humbling for an Obot to be brought up so short when he only thought he could hide "... behind that tree ..." as the saying goes. Seems like a few of the Flying Monkeys have had at least a few feathers clipped.

  16. It's all very interesting, but honestly, they're not doing a very good job.
    Obama's numbers are in the toilet, and no one wants health care "reform".

  17. Erica - I beg to differ on your pronouncement "Barack Obama has dual citizenship with Britain through his father, who was a subject of the U.K. Also see "Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible for POTUS."

    President Obama's mother, Ann Stanley Dunham, forfeited any citizenship Obama had as a little boy, when she signed over parental rights to Lolo Soetoro. You see, before the age of five if a child from anywhere moved to Indonesia they automatically became a citizen of Indonesia. If the child came to the country after the age of five they had to be adopted by an Indonesian citizen to receive any type of state benefit like an education.

    Therefore, Pres. Obama may not even be a dual citizen. He is most likely, as many have suggested, an illegal alien. Why? It is doubtful that when he returned to the US, that is, if he returned, but when he returned, he and gramps and grandma did not have him go through the naturalization process. Even if he did, he would never meet the eligibility requirements assigned under Article II.

    Now, that said, jbjd, as you well know, has developed a Memorandum of Complaint to state AG's detailing election fraud by Sec'y of States who placed an ineligible candidate on our state ballot. Trust there is movement here. Just visit her site and you'll see what she is doing and TX and soon I hope VA.

    The man in no possible way is eligible. The scavenger hunt Berg, Taitz, Creep and others have sent well intentioned citizens on is bogus. They have effectively taken our attention off of Indonesian law. You see, Indonesian law lacks reciprocity. Meaning, when you move to and live in Indonesia as a citizen from anywhere, you become a sole citizen of Indonesia. The country does not and hasn't in the last quarter century ever recognized dual citizenshp.

    Where Mr. Obama was born matters not one iota. It's his adoption that does, which is why it is not released b/c it was sealed when his mother signed over parental rights to his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.

    Great post, btw. You're on the scent and it is fascinating to watch you go after these really smart people, NOT, and out them. You are serving one helluva a public service by being relentless and dogged. I thank you.

  18. I seem to have more to say.

    For all of you folks who want justice by removing the fraud peacefully who pretends to be our POTUS, stop the fox hunt. The scent you have been sent on has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with where in the hell he was born. For all I care, he could have been born in Alaska or Tennessee or Kentucky. I do not care.

    What has ALWAYS mattered is his adoption. When one is adopted their original birth certificate is sealed. Just ask any adoptee and they will confirm this for you.

    When Stanley Ann signed parental rights of Obama over to Lolo Soetoro, Barry became and Indonesian citizen. Get it? This simple act relinquished, erased, snuffed out, obliterated any and all connection to the US, Period!

    Thus, when he returned to the US as we've been told but have never been able to verify, but, based on what we've been told, he returned to Hawaii and attended Panahou School. Great! Good for him!

    However, many speculate whether his grandparents had him naturalized. This means, if they did then at best he is a 14th amd citizen and at worst he's an illegal alien = no citizenship status.

    jbjd figured all of this out over a year ago, but people went chasing after the birth certificate and where in the hell he was born! Well, wake up, you've been duped. Silly you. Get over it and start paying attention to jbjd's work. Why?

    Because, she took the evidence presented by Obama to justify his supposed "citizenship" to get on our state ballots. Our Sec'y of States took the DNC nomination forms and their Convention leaders at their word. Why? B/c they are not necessarily required to check the candidate's eligibility. I think it is NJ's SoS that is required by law to verify eligibility but don't quote me on that.

    So, our state ballots and election, one that was paid for by all of us taxpayers, had an ineligible candidate on our state ballot. B/c the DNC and RNC are trusted entities no one bothered to test for eligibility. Why would they. I mean Pelosi signed the Cert of Nom forms, right, so why would the SoS EVER doubt her? This is what the DNC was counting on. Who would ever question the honesty or integrity of the Speaker of the House of Delegates? the answer, jbjd.

    but Taitz, Creep, Berg and et al have taken your good intentions, twisted them, and re focused you in a direction that will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER produce results b/c Obama's birth certificate is SEALED!!! due to his adoption by a citizen of Indonesia!

    Please, stop the birth certificate distraction. jbjd is the real mccoy and has done tremendous work to get you to take action in your state to right this egrigious wrong!

  19. roop, egregious NOT egrigious

  20. Dr. cathy,

    I am certainly aware that the Indonesian connection represents yet another argument for Obama's ineligibility. This is an area that I have not personally studied, so I can't refute or agree with your thesis. Undoubtedly there are more reasons to believe Obama is ineligible than to believe that he is, aided in large part by Obama's desperate need to keep his personal history under wraps. Anyone who hires a battery of attorneys to keep this information under wraps has something to hide. Are there any journalists out there who haven't drunk Obama's lobotomizing Kool-Aid?

    Like you, I am not chasing the birth certificate. Unlike you, I have focused on the definition of NBC as it relates to Obama rather than his adoption by Soetoro. Frankly, I don't care which argument wins the day. What matters is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama should never have had his name placed on the ballot. To that end, I am one of many people who have filed complaints of election fraud with state AGs using jbjd's model form. If you missed it, read "Shalifa Williamson: Witness to Election Fraud in the 2008 General Election",

  21. Jacksparrow--interesting moniker. Have you been watching those pirate movies?

    I think we have a language gap. It's a little difficult to follow your train of thought. You say you are a former Indonesian. Are you in the States now, and why are you interested in this topic?

  22. Some have argued that we had TWO ineligible candidates on the ballot, one of whom was/is an American hero who endured unspeakable horrors at the hands of the Viet Cong. How could we possibly deny him his chance at becoming President? Some say McCain was born in a Colon hospital which was NOT on the American military base in the Panama Canal. If true, this would mean McCain, also, is not a natural born Citizen, according to the intent of our founders. If this is true, it's ironic that these two candidates would be running against each other in the same presidential election. McCain had the legal right to challenge Obama's eligibility during the election, but he didn't raise a finger. Why?

    After you read this, you might have a clue:

  23. Presidential eligibility 101 A simple citizen can not be President. A naturalized citizen can not be President. A native born citizen can not be President. A person born a British Subject can never ever be President even if they were also born an American citizen. A United States President must be a Natural Born American Citizen. That is born of BLOOD & SOIL. The Blood of both parents being American Citizens at the time of ones birth and that birth on American Soil. So we know that for a fact BHO was born a British Subject because his father was NEVER an American citizen and was a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948 that says any child born of his British father no matter where that birth takes place will be born a British Subject. So! Being born a British Subject and having only 1 American parent makes 2 reasons why he can never be President. Add to that the fact he has never proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was born in Hawaii and the fact his baby mother was under age at the time of his birth to transfer American Citizenship to her newborn son we have 2 positive reason to prove he is not eligible and 2 more possible situations that also show he is ineligible. Now if he actually became a citizen of Indonesia as his school records show then that is reason #5 why he is ineligible. That's 5 against his eligibility and not 1 reason supporting he is eligible. Not one hospital in Hawaii has records of his birth. Old Microfiche proves nothing they can be faked easily and the Nordak twins are missing from the plate Obama appears on. That could have been faked. N comes right before O in the alphabet take out the Nordak twins add Obama and you have the fix in. Everything screams something is wrong and nothing says he is a Natural Born American Citizen. There is a slim chance he could be a simple citizen but a simple citizen can never become President. Test tomorrow at 10am. Study well class your future depends on you passing this test! So does ours!

  24. You're wrong. The issue is dual citizenship at birth. Perkins v. Elg (1939) established that the actions of a minor's parents do not effect the Natural Born Citizen status of the minor.

  25. I do not think you have the right to scream fire in theater. I think with free speach comes a responsibility to tell the truth about things. We have laws of disclosure ie; bank disclosure etc. Why not a content disclosure? I dont know I'm frustrated with these people and this is just talk. I wish they wouldn't have to lie. I am not "supportive" of anyone speaking lies and trash like these people. I wouldn't lay my life on the line for them as I did once before.

  26. Dualer,
    This case has been addressed at length by Attorney Mario Apuzzo. If you want to read the rest of his comments, follow the link. You might also use Apuzzo's search box (midway down the sidebar) to find further commentary on the same case.

    " While me may disagree as to the consequences to one who would aspire to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military, I am happy to see that you agree with me that Obama is still a British citizen today.

    Perkins v. Elg dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. The Court starts by emphasizing that Elg is a born citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment a' la Wong Kim Ark.

    On the question of dual nationality, the Court only said that a U.S born citizen who later in life acquires another nationality through the parents (making that person a dual national) does not lose his/her U.S. citizenship by that act alone.

    I am not contending that Obama lost his U.S. citizenshp at any time (assuming he was born in the U.S.) because of his dual nationality. Hence, the Elg decision is not applicable. The Elg decision has absolutely nothing to do with what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is and whether dual nationality at birth and at present disqualifies such a person from being President because as such that person cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." This latter issue has nothing to do with losing born U.S. citizenship but rather with whether one has the necessary type of citizenship to be eligible under Article II to be President.

    Also, both the Elg and Steinkauler children were born in the U.S. to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of birth. That made those children Article II "natural born Citizens" and eligible to be President. The Court simply said that those children do not lose their U.S. birthright citizenship simply because their parents in later years and when the children are minors cause them to acquire some other nationality. What was the central point is that those children were born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents and by election did not retain any foreign citizensip upon reaching their years of majority. The same result obtained for the other children commented on by the Court who were born in the U.S. to foreign parents, except these children were declared "native citizens" or just "citizens" under the 14th Amendment with no comment that they were eligible to be President.

    The Elg Court acted to protect a U.S. born child's right of election as to what nationality he or she wants to be, a right that it said belongs to the child upon reaching the age of majority.

    It is interesting to note that Obama, upon reaching the age of majority at no time renounced his British Citizenship and therefore continues to have that citizenship while occupying the office of President."

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    April 8, 2009 7:33 PM

  27. you're a reprehensible coward.....very, very'll get yours if you keep threatening your tiny person..........sad, desperate, alone in your basement.....I hope whomever this is whom you're threatening by revealing personal information says hi to you in person....we'll see you threatening you are then fucknut.

  28. Since birthers post on Obot sites, do you suppose that the Obots will start unmasking the birthers who post?

    Are you saying that you don't want Obots to post on your site? If so, why not say so, then we all would know that you only want to give one side of the question.

    So far as I can see, the fact that smrstrauss has supported Democrats and Obama has no effect on the facts of this matter. If a birther were to be monetary supporter of conservative candidates, that would not affect the facts either. And the fact that someone, if you have the right one, worked for IDC, doesn't affect the facts either.

    So, this discussion of smrstrauss distracts from the issues. As you say, there are two issues, whether Obama was born in Hawaii (which is proven by his birth certificate, which was confirmed by the officials) and whether he would still not be a Natural Born Citizen despite being born in Hawaii due to his father not being a citizen.

    Since Obama was confirmed by the US Congress unanimously and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, it is likely that most legal scholars believe that being born in the USA is sufficient to make one a Natural Born Citizen.

  29. Esquire1,

    I challenge you to name a single obot site that genuinely welcomes people who disagree with you about Obama’s eligiblity. To the best of my knowledge, no such site exists on the planet! Certainly not at the Daily Kos,, the Huffington Post, Organizing for America, Politijab, and a host of other left-wing sites. No, those sites are riddled with foul language, ridicule, and arrogance bordering on narcisism. So how dare you lecture me about openness? Why should ANYONE who thinks Obama is ineligible welcome YOUR thoughts and YOUR ideas in this forum when you don’t welcome ours in your fora?

    If I want to limit discussion in any way on this blog, that is my free choice, just as you and your ilk have practiced with great glee on your obot sites. I will make my decision on a case-by-case basis.

    As for political contributions, they are not a distraction as you suggest. They reveal the motives for becoming a willful tool of the Obama administration. Employer connections also reveal motives and a possible means of support of one kind or another.

    As to your first remark, let’s just say that your side was the first to unmask your opponents, so don't get sanctimonious on me. Are you suggesting the rest of us shouldn’t follow YOUR lead in that regard?

    Finally, your closing remarks sound eerily like those used by the Strauss’s. Furthermore, those remarks have been rebutted ad infinitum elsewhere, so I won’t waste my time responding to them here.

    Rest assured I will be watching your submissions closely, and if I feel so inclined, you will also get banned. It's up to you.

  30. What you said was: "So far as I can see, the fact that smrstrauss has supported Democrats and Obama has no effect on the facts of this matter."

    True, but it shows their motives. On second thought, however, their motives also have no effect on the facts. If there is a birth certificate and its facts were confirmed, then there was a birth certificate and its facts were confirmed. The same holds for the law on Natural Born Citizen. If all US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens, then the motives of whomever says it are irrelevant.

    Have you shown that Obama has a birth certificate and that it was confirmed? Have you shown that all US-born citizens are Natural Born?

  31. FYI. For inexplicable reasons, some comments are failing to show up on this thread, even though I know for a fact that they were automatically approved by Disqus. I keep refreshing the page, but the comments still don't show. There may be a temporary glitch when Disqus synchronizes with Blogspot. I'll keep rechecking this page to see if they appear. If they don't, I'll contact Disqus.

  32. "I challenge you to name a single obot site that genuinely welcomes people who disagree with you about Obama’s eligiblity."

    Politijab has to my knowledge never banned a birther. The admins of the site have posted over and over again that they welcome the arguments of any birther who wishes to participate.


  33. You get around the blogosphere quite a bit, qwertyman, at both liberal blogs as well as the blogs of conservatives and Constitutionalists. Other than your posted comment here, I know for sure that you've left many comments in defense of Obamao at the Right Side of Life blog. It seems that I've seen your handle at other blogs representing this side of the aisle but at which ones I'm not sure at the moment. Perhaps at American Thinker?

    Other than Politijab, which appears to be in need of life support, what other liberal sites that you visit welcome comments from so-called birthers? I mean, come on. We know that at least two from the right side allow you to comment. Can't you come up with a second one from your side of the aisle that would allow birthers to comment?

  34. Qwertyman,

    You're certainly right that Politijab doesn't ban people. However, as I said previously, ridicule is the name of the game in that forum. Any conservative who attempts to post there will be verbally abused, whether the topic is eligiblity, healthcare, Sarah Palin, tea party protests, or virtually any topic. Conservatives would have to be masochists to hang around there for long.

  35. Ridicule? If that's your standard, then even some place like here is completely unwelcoming. When I posted on RSoL (before Phil made it pretty clear we were unwelcome) I was told I should kill myself, that I was going to hell, threatened physically, accused of hating the Constitution, of not being a Christian, of being a Marxist, a paid blogger, a Maoist and a traitor to the U.S. all for saying that there is not a single current legal scholar that agrees with the birthers' interpretations of the natural born citizen clause. You threatened to ban a guy for basically saying just that. Wouldn't any o-bot be a fool to stick around here?

    As for AuntieMadder, what a typical birther tactic: make a categorical statement (there are no anti-birther sites that welcome birthers), get called out and shown that the statement is a blatant falsehood, and then shift the goalposts without admitting error.

    "Can't you come up with a second one from your side of the aisle that would allow birthers to comment?"

    Sure, ObamaConspiracy.

    However, since you are a birther I will expect you to ignore this factual statement and pretend to continue to believe that there are no anti-birther sites that allow birther comments.

  36. Qwertyman,

    There are some conservative sites that I spend little or no time viewing because, like you, I don't appreciate the hyperbole, just as I don’t appreciate it on the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, et al.

    You call me a “birther,” but that is really a misnomer. I do not support the tactics of Taitz or Berg or Keyes. They have destroyed the credibility of those of us who are focused on the constitutional definition of the term "natural born Citizen” as it applies to dual citizenship. Their foolish antics have destroyed the credibility of everyone who questions Obama's eligibility.

    In my view, it’s a mistake to lump those who focus on the birth certificate with those who focus on constitutional definitions, but then that is EXACTLY what Obama wants to happen. The worst thing that could happen to Obama is for the media to actually report that there is more than one reason to challenge Obama’s eligibility. Of course, they’re not going to do that, because contemporary journalists are missionaries for Obama; they are not journalists in the true sense of the word.

    You are correct that Dr. Conspiracy allows opponents, including attorney Mario Apuzzo, to post on his site. However, there will never be a meeting of the minds. In spite of this, Dr. C's site does not appeal to me because he uses the word "conspiracy" in the site title as well as his own moniker. That tells me all I need to know. One doesn't have to believe in a conspiracy to think that Obama's dual citizenship disqualifies him to serve as President. That is a question of LAW, which can only be answered by the court, not by hounding the Hawaii Department of Health.

    FYI, I believe I know Dr. C's identity, but I don't feel the need to out him for three reasons. First, because of his advanced age (that's not a recent picture of him). Second, because of the service he has given to his community, even if it is a profoundly left-wing community. Third, because he isn't blanketing the internet with a team of obots who repeat Obama's talking points, and in many cases stating outright lies. He’s an old man with left-wing views, and he’s entitled to them, even if I profoundly disagree.

    It’s okay to disagree, but it’s not okay to callously lie.

    P.S. I have a life outside of this blog, so I may seem slow in responding to your comments.

  37. "In my view, it’s a mistake to lump those who focus on the birth certificate with those who focus on constitutional definitions"

    I don't think it is a mistake. In my experience, there is an almost 1:1 ratio of people who have doubted the truth of the birth certificate posted online and those who want to define natural born citizen in such a way that Obama is excluded. If you are an exception and have consistently stated that Obama was born in Hawaii and that you have no doubts about that, then you are by far the exceptional case when it comes to somebody believing that Obama is constitutionally ineligible for office.

    "You are correct that Dr. Conspiracy allows opponents, including attorney Mario Apuzzo, to post on his site. However, there will never be a meeting of the minds."

    Again you shift goalposts. So now you do admit that there are multiple websites that allow birthers or other persons who doubt President Obama's eligibility for office, but instead you now argue that your point stands because "there's no meeting of the minds." That's an extremely vague phrase that can be defined any way you want it to. It's a meaningless phrase that only seems to mean that you don't count it because you don't like the tone of the sitemaster. Of course, I sincerely doubt that there's any website opposed to birther arguments that you would like the tone of. At its base, you are advocating a legal interpretation of natural born citizen that does not enjoy the support of a single judge, member of Congress, current law professor or constitutional scholar. You should expect some measure of disagreement when you advance arguments that have been rebutted many, many times with specific citations to multiple Supreme Court and other federal courts.

    You should perhaps just admit that you were wrong when you said that there are no sites opposed to birthers that allow birthers to post freely.

    "FYI, I believe I know Dr. C's identity"

    Good for you. It's nice to know that you are taking the high road and refraining from possibly taking an old man and exposing him to public ridicule from members of a movement that regularly call for the execution of their opponents, encourage military coup d'etats against a democratically elected government, and regularly issue death threats against the President.

  38. Qwertyman,

    You said: "It's nice to know that you are taking the high road and refraining from possibly taking an old man and exposing him to public ridicule from members of a movement that regularly call for the execution of their opponents, encourage military coup d'etats against a democratically elected government, and regularly issue death threats against the President."

    There is no doubt that there are people on the right who subscribe to extreme rhetoric, but exactly the same can be said of the left. Never let it be said that the left is peopled by angels. Far from it.

    Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat

    There's plenty of evil behavior to go around on both sides of the aisle.

    So, after this recognition of weaknesses on both sides, the more important questions is, where do we go from here?

  39. This is an amazing piece of journalism--I never work this hard on my blog :-)

    I've been getting a lot of comments from "TellerIP" but there's no way to get the IP address (that I know of) since it just clicks over to a Blogger profile with no information. Last year it was smrstrauss, then ohio, now I wonder if this is still Paul (or maybe Ann)? They're as annoying as knats at a picnic.

  40. Good stuff. I did my own research on this issue on my blog last year. I came to the conclusion that it was the shadow senator but you seem to have dug even further.

  41. Private...Private...Private...Private...Private...Private...

    I use the 'private' as I have in the past with Leo Donofrio when disusing strategies and applications of Law.

    You may remember me, SLCraig, as the person who pursued a case through the Courts seeking the definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

    Although the case naturally failed on the issue of standing it provided me experience in the 'due process system' as used by the courts and has put a number of Judges on record with outrageous 'dicta'.

    But while that was going on I pursued an 'administrative' avenue where I could find 'standing' . I did. I have refiled, having exhausted ALL administrative means of achieving a remedy.

    I am most interested in having you review the filing and critique and opine as so few people understand that in the 1st instance, it is a 'citizenship question'.

    Below is the 'scribed' link, but I would happily send it to you in any formate that would be useful to you. Also below is a link to a small forum I keep open and my email address.

    I am contemplating a filing 'Motion Leave to File 'Notice of Adjudicative Facts' in the effort to keep the Court constrained to the pertinent period of time and Documents to search. That is not published yet and I am hoping it would be something you would look at also. ... -10-1345-c


  42. EXCELLENT! I am glad that you gave this information out. The SOB threatened me because he didn't like my views on Obama and I refused to stop questioning the eleigability issue. The only way I could get him to stop harassing me was to threaten him with arrest.