Obama birth certificate issue gaining momentum - Youtube video has over 560,000 views

[qh4dotcom]

This video showing a woman in a townhall meeting holding her own birth certificate and asking why Obama hasn't released his own has been viewed over 560,000 times on Youtube.

YouTube - Mike Castle on PeeBo's Birthcertificate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc)

[Bruno]

Only 6500 a few days ago.

It's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya. :)

[brandon]

lol, wtf? Of course he is a citizen. That lady can't even get her arguments straight, yet she's so passionate about them that she is breaking into tears. Really don't understand some people.

[dannno]

lol, wtf? Of course he is a citizen.

Do you have proof?

[brandon]

Do you have proof?

His mom was a US citizen, so that makes him one unless he renounced it, which he didn't.

[qh4dotcom]

His mom was a US citizen, so that makes him one unless he renounced it, which he didn't.

And his father was NOT a US citizen, therefore he was born with dual citizenship....why do you think that NONE of the 43 presidents before him had dual citizenship?

[paulitics]

My conspiracy theory is that Obama's citizenship will be proven beyond a doubt, and this will be used as ammunition against anyone who has an alternative view or theory about anything the establishment tells us is fact. This will not go anywhere.

[jbrace]

Lets end this on-going argument right here in on this thread!

[Cowlesy]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Obama_1961_birth_announcement_from_Honolulu_Advert iser

That is a link that gives you a print of the Honolulu Advertiser that listed his birth. I talked to an IT guy I work with and he is 99% sure it is real.

[brandon]

And his father was NOT a US citizen, therefore he was born with dual citizenship....why do you think that NONE of the 43 presidents before him had dual citizenship?

That may well be the case, but that's not what the woman said.

If you are a dual citizen then, obviously, you are an american citizen.

[RideTheDirt]

His mother and father must BOTH be US citizens in order for him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as required by the Constitution. His father was NOT a US citizen therefore he is not eligible. I can't make it any more simple to understand.

[dannno]

I already posted my sisters birth certificate to prove that a birth certificate and certificate of live birth are the same thing.
http://i37.tinypic.com/jl12ww.jpg

Ok, now explain the difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth ;)


A "Certification of Live Birth" is a short form birth certificate. The information included in the document may differ from state to state. A "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii will include the name and sex of the person, date of birth, hour of birth, island of birth, county of birth, mother's maiden name, mother's race, father's name, father's race, date accepted by registrar, a certificate number and seal. The seal may be different depending on the year it was printed.

A Birth Certificate, or "Certificate of Live Birth," is the long form birth certificate and contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s), witnesses, vital statistics (length and weight), etc.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_certification_of_live_birth_the_same_thing_as _a_birth_certificate_in_Hawaii

[Zippyjuan]

His mother and father must BOTH be US citizens in order for him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as required by the Constitution. His father was NOT a US citizen therefore he is not eligible. I can't make it any more simple to understand.
Show me where in the Constitution it says that both parents must be US Citizens to be a natural born citizen. It isn't in there. Natural born is- but nothing in it defines natural born. Show me a US law which says to be natural born both parents have to be citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives a bit more info on citizen rights but again does not say much about who is actually a citizen, let alone a natural born one.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The ammendment was intended to bestow citizenship on slaves who were born in the US but deined citizenship by some of the states. This made it apply to all states and all people born in the United States.

He does fall into the "persons born in the United States" category (unless somebody can prove he was born somewhere else).

Title Eight of the US Code section 1401 helps codify who is a citizen:

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
It says nothing about both parents needing to be citizens if the child is born in one of the several states, of which Hawaii was one when he was born there.

Now even if it was shown (and nobody has really attempted to do so) that he was born outside the United States, then this section would apply, since his mother is from the American heartland of Iowa:

•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
One parent- not both- have to be citizens. And it does not matter if the one parent is the mother or the father.

[kahless]

We are on the road to taking Congress back with liberty candidates. Why waste time on this distraction when there are more important issues to fight against.

[qh4dotcom]

We are on the road to taking Congress back with liberty candidates. Why waste time on this distraction when there are more important issues to fight against.

Kahless, it's the only way to reverse all the damage Obama has signed into law...the only way to make the stimulus, future health care law, future cap n trade law, etc. invalid...yes, I know it will be a big mess to undo all the damage done by an unconstitutional president but it's better than letting the economy collapse.

[Objectivist]

Seems like most of the viewers on that YT page are LPDs.

[qh4dotcom]

Seems like most of the viewers on that YT page are LPDs.

What's an LPD?

[Zippyjuan]

London Police Department?

[Imperial]

His mother and father must BOTH be US citizens in order for him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as required by the Constitution. His father was NOT a US citizen therefore he is not eligible. I can't make it any more simple to understand.

Look at Ron Paul's stance on the issue. Natural-born citizen is very vaguely defined by both precedent and the US Constitution. You can provide enough reasonable argumentation to deny any type of injunctive relief against President Obama, and more than likely would be ruled against either way.

The Kenya argument is just plain idiotic.


We are on the road to taking Congress back with liberty candidates. Why waste time on this distraction when there are more important issues to fight against.

This

[lynnf]

Look at Ron Paul's stance on the issue. Natural-born citizen is very vaguely defined by both precedent and the US Constitution. You can provide enough reasonable argumentation to deny any type of injunctive relief against President Obama, and more than likely would be ruled against either way.

The Kenya argument is just plain idiotic.



This



"The Kenya argument is just plain idiotic."

not according to Obama's own grandmother


I'd give a link, but it seems that Phil Berg's www.obamacrimes.com is not up right now (think the Obot shills zapped it?)

lynn

[Reason]

This is a non issue.

[lynnf]

This is a non issue.

at least 560,000 think you're wrong.

lynn

[Njon]

Of course he is a citizen.

He may be a citizen, but he's not a natural born citizen. There's a difference.

The likely intended construction of the natural born citizen clause comes from Vattel, who states that a person cannot be natural born if his/her parents are not citizens. Read pages 8-10 (the top page numbering, not the bottom page numbering) at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

Vattel also seems to place special emphasis on the father's citizenship. Obama's father was never an American citizen. Even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not and cannot ever be natural born.

[Njon]

What?! Being born in the United States is what makes you a natural citizen, its called Jus soli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

False. If you are a Constitutionalist, then you must adhere to the intended construction of the Constitution. Vattel's Law of Nations clearly shows that if someone's father is not a citizen, the child is not natural born. Vattel held large prominence in early American thought --- see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624086/Emmerich-de-Vattel --- and his definition has even been cited by the courts in the past (see the cases referenced in the document link I provided).

[Number19]

Show me where in the Constitution it says that both parents must be US Citizens to be a natural born citizen. It isn't in there. Natural born is- but nothing in it defines natural born. Show me a US law which says to be natural born both parents have to be citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives a bit more info on citizen rights but again does not say much about who is actually a citizen, let alone a natural born one.

The ammendment was intended to bestow citizenship on slaves who were born in the US but deined citizenship by some of the states. This made it apply to all states and all people born in the United States.

He does fall into the "persons born in the United States" category (unless somebody can prove he was born somewhere else).

Title Eight of the US Code section 1401 helps codify who is a citizen:

It says nothing about both parents needing to be citizens if the child is born in one of the several states, of which Hawaii was one when he was born there.

Now even if it was shown (and nobody has really attempted to do so) that he was born outside the United States, then this section would apply, since his mother is from the American heartland of Iowa:

One parent- not both- have to be citizens. And it does not matter if the one parent is the mother or the father.The details of the law defining citizenship and naturalization is determined by legislation, and one must research the law applicable during the time period of the birth under question.

In 1961, the law was codified under The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952.

Title III - Nationality and Naturalization ; Chapter 1 - Nationality At Birth and By Collective Naturalization ; Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth ; Sect 391 ; Paragraph (7) : 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Title3-Chapter1

OBAMA'S MOM DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT REFERRING TO THE AGE OF 14 YEARS.

Two other points :

3) It seems as if Certification of Live Births, in Hawaii, are officially issued to foreign births, provided the parents had resided in Hawaii for at least one year prior to the birth.

4) It seems that the records of medical facilities in Honolulu County have been checked for the year 1961 and there is no record of admittance for the Obama's and no record of baby Barack having been born in such a facility.

A possible scenario is :

The Obama's traveled to Kenya to be with family during the birth. Returning to Hawaii, they then obtained the legal Certification of Live Birth and at which point the newspapers published the birth announcement.

[Zippyjuan]

A French jurists opinion does not take precidence over US written laws.


Title III - Nationality and Naturalization ; Chapter 1 - Nationality At Birth and By Collective Naturalization ; Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth ; Sect 391 ; Paragraph (7) : 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/19...itle3-Chapter1

OBAMA'S MOM DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT REFERRING TO THE AGE OF 14 YEARS.

Two other points :

3) It seems as if Certification of Live Births, in Hawaii, are officially issued to foreign births, provided the parents had resided in Hawaii for at least one year prior to the birth.


A couple of problems here. First, the article you cite refers to persons born outside the United States. In 1961, Hawaii was a state and thus part of the United States. But I give you credit for trying to look it up. I listed the other criteria for citizenship listed in the paper you link to and you even quoted it- although not the exact same source, the information is the same. Persons born in the US are citizens. Period. Read the first line. Section 301 in your link- part (a)(i).

Second, the point you raise about Hawii issuing certificates of live births to those not born in the state was not legal until 1983- he was born in 1961 so you failled to follow your own suggestion of using laws in effect at the time of his birth.

[Sandra]

A French jurists opinion does not take precidence over US written laws.



A couple of problems here. First, the article you cite refers to persons born outside the United States. In 1961, Hawaii was a state and thus part of the United States. But I give you credit for trying to look it up.

Second, the point you raise about Hawii issuing certificates of live births to those not born in the state was not legal until 1983- he was born in 1961 so you failled to follow your own suggestion of using laws in effect at the time of his birth.

Vatel wasn't even published in anglais until a decade after the Constitution was written.

[Zippyjuan]

French is considered the "official language" in much international law so it is certainly possible that the founders were aware of and had read it. Pretty sure Jefferson knew French and was very well read. I don't discount it due to its not being translated into English. It is just more important what our own laws say about citizenship than what he said. Vattel (as I have since learned I made an eroneous assumption about his being French- he was actually Swiss) copied his ideas (and added to them) from the works of others- as may have done.

[fedup100]

His mom was a US citizen, so that makes him one unless he renounced it, which he didn't.

This is real simple, but the slice and dice crew are at it as usual.

His MOTHER was NOT and american citizen at the time of his purported birth. She had lived outside the country for way to long to be deemed a citizen.

His father is listed as an arab and muslim and was not an american citizen.

The BC he has posted is not an original and has been proven to be forged over his sisters BC!

He has spent well over $1 million fuckin dollars to make sure he never has to produce something he does not have. Would you flush a mil $ if you had an original?

A cock roach can get a certificate of live birth in Hawaii, no one that claims to be a citizen of Hawaii should EVER be allowed to run for office in this country.

Hell, Osama and his mama can go there today and become american citizens over night. I am sure this bunch that have slipped the Kenyan into high office right under your noses are laughing their asses off behind closed doors at all the stupid bastards that are buying this crap.

His realatives in Kenya have spoken often of being at his birth in KENYA!

The famous 2 "hospital letter" fiasco proves zero is hiding something.

By the way, where are any of his medical record?

Some of his college records have been released and show him as a FOREIGN student.

For those of you with your head up your ass, this IS a matter of national security. Meaning, security for the safety of your ass.

[Bman]

You know this topic may get attention, and all of the attention it gets is going to be used to make the lot of you look like nut cases. I'm not saying people don't have a valid point, and there's nothing wrong with demanding proof if you feel you haven't been given any, but there are two tricks to this that must be realized.

1. His mother is a natural born American Citizen. Which makes it terribly hard to say her child is not.

2. You have to know when you've lost. In other words you have to know what proof you are looking for, and to shut up and sit down if you recieve it.

[Njon]

A French jurists opinion does not take precidence over US written laws.

You also need to remember that U.S. statutes do not outrank the original intent of the Constitution. If the original intent of the Constitution's natural born citizen clause is the definition of Vattel --- and it likely is --- then that definition trumps any statutes to the contrary.

[Number19]

...Second, the point you raise about Hawii issuing certificates of live births to those not born in the state was not legal until 1983- he was born in 1961 so you failled to follow your own suggestion of using laws in effect at the time of his birth.No...this is simply a piece of information I did not have, if it is accurate. My research on this topic was done in 2008, and I'm a bit fuzzy on it, but I seem to recall ( and I could be wrong ) that the 1983 statute was an update/amendment to earlier legislation, which was very similar. If I ever return to this topic in seriousness, your point will be taken into consideration and my position adjusted accordingly.

I just did a very quick search and found this :

...The following Hawaii state law (Hawaii Revised Statutes S. 338-17.8) allows children who are born outside Hawaii to obtain valid Hawaiian birth certificates...

http://24ahead.com/hawaiian-state-law-allows-children-born-outside-hawaii-get-v

So 1983 is a "revised" statute, as I remembered. I tried to find, I'm remembering, the prior legislation, and was unable to do so.

[Zippyjuan]

How much BS can you fit into one post?
(Fedup100 - a couple other posts showed up by the time I posted this reply)
How long can you leave the country for and lose your citizenship? Is there any such limit? How long was she outside the country for? His father is merely listed as "African" not muslim or or arab. See for yourself. You can click on it and see it nice and big if you are having troubles reading it. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

There is no claim that his father was a US citizen- his mother was.

Please provide a link to the "proof" that it was a forgery over his sister's certificate. This one shows no sign of having anything printed underneath any of the writing. There are several more photos of different details of it you can find in the box on the left side of this link. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

The question about a foreigner able to get a birth certificate in Hawaii has already been discussed.

His grandmother was misquoted as saying he was born in Kenya. During his visit to Kenya as President, his uncle said that was the first time Obama had been to Kenya.


Number19- thank you for looking that up.

[Number19]

...1. His mother is a natural born American Citizen. Which makes it terribly hard to say her child is not...Why? I stated my argument/proof in post #28. Why is this line of questioning so hard to follow or believe. It's not a question of what the law is today, but rather what it was in 1961, and I provided that information.

[Bman]

Why? I stated my argument/proof in post #28. Why is this line of questioning so hard to follow or believe. It's not a question of what the law is today, but rather what it was in 1961, and I provided that information.

So you are saying that. Obama's mother never lived in the U.S. for ten years, and more importantly that she didn't live her for 5 years prior to turning 14?

Where is this evidence at.

[ghengis86]

The details of the law defining citizenship and naturalization is determined by legislation, and one must research the law applicable during the time period of the birth under question.

In 1961, the law was codified under The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952.

Title III - Nationality and Naturalization ; Chapter 1 - Nationality At Birth and By Collective Naturalization ; Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth ; Sect 391 ; Paragraph (7) : 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Title3-Chapter1

OBAMA'S MOM DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT REFERRING TO THE AGE OF 14 YEARS.

Two other points :

3) It seems as if Certification of Live Births, in Hawaii, are officially issued to foreign births, provided the parents had resided in Hawaii for at least one year prior to the birth.

4) It seems that the records of medical facilities in Honolulu County have been checked for the year 1961 and there is no record of admittance for the Obama's and no record of baby Barack having been born in such a facility.

A possible scenario is :

The Obama's traveled to Kenya to be with family during the birth. Returning to Hawaii, they then obtained the legal Certification of Live Birth and at which point the newspapers published the birth announcement.

i think the 'five years after 14' is the important part here

[ghengis86]

So you are saying that. Obama's mother never lived in the U.S. for ten years, and more importantly that she didn't live her for 5 years prior to turning 14?

Where is this evidence at.

after 14

[Bman]

after 14

Thanks got it backwards.

[Bman]

Ok so then where is the proof that Obama was not born in the U.S.A. Considering she had Obama at 18 which would make her having a child out of the U.S. with a foreigner not a natural born American.

[ghengis86]

barry's mom was born November 29, 1942; barry was born (wherever) August 4, 1961. she was 18, not meeting the '5 years after 14' requirement

[Njon]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Obama_1961_birth_announcement_from_Honolulu_Advert iser

That is a link that gives you a print of the Honolulu Advertiser that listed his birth. I talked to an IT guy I work with and he is 99% sure it is real.

Here's a new report from WorldNetDaily on the newspaper matter in general: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104678

[Number19]

Obama's mother was born on November 29, 1942. Obama's stated birth was on August 4, 1961. Ann Dunham Obama would not have fulfilled this legal requirement until her 1961 birthday in November.

[ghengis86]

Ok so then where is the proof that Obama was not born in the U.S.A. Considering she had Obama at 18 which would make her having a child out of the U.S. with a foreigner not a natural born American.

and now we return to the call for the original birth certificate (not certificate of live birth or some official saying there is a BC on record, though not from where) to prove that he was born in the U.S. kinda circular; that is until barry releases his BC and either embrasses the GOP/birthers or takes himself out of office

[Bman]

and now we return to the call for the original birth certificate (not certificate of live birth or some official saying there is a BC on record, though not from where) to prove that he was born in the U.S. kinda circular; that is until barry releases his BC and either embrasses the GOP/birthers or takes himself out of office

Ok lets say the claim has been made that it was lost, or his mother never gave it to him. Where else can the record/document you are looking for be found.

[Number19]

What makes this so infuriating is that this entire question would be resolved if the man would simply release his "real" birth certificate. It is his right to request an actual reproduction of the documents produced at the time of his birth, so why doesn't he put this matter to rest by doing so?

This has ALL the earmarks of a man with something to hide.

[ghengis86]

Ok lets say the claim has been made that it was lost, or his mother never gave it to him. Where else can the record/document you are looking for be found.

the attending physician perhaps? or witness? or hospital records, admittance papters, discharge papers, etc.? i don't know if anything would have survived this long. interviews with anybody who was working at the hospital at the time? if it was lost or destroyed, then i guess it's a moot point. but remember, the hawaii official said there was a true BC (not COLB) and he verified its existence.

[ghengis86]

What makes this so infuriating is that this entire question would be resolved if the man would simply release his "real" birth certificate. It is his right to request an actual reproduction of the documents produced at the time of his birth, so why doesn't he put this matter to rest by doing so?

This has ALL the earmarks of a man with something to hide.

i have to show my BC to get a driver's license in my state. wtf...

[Bman]

What makes this so infuriating is that this entire question would be resolved if the man would simply release his "real" birth certificate. It is his right to request an actual reproduction of the documents produced at the time of his birth, so why doesn't he put this matter to rest by doing so?

This has ALL the earmarks of a man with something to hide.

Ok so lets say in the future he produces these documents. Are people here going to shout and scream conspiracy with the reasoning well if it were legit he wouldn't have taken so long to produce them?

I really don't see how this situation wins. In other words even if you are right on a topic like this unless you can find a smoking gun you will come out looking pretty bad.

Ask questions, inquire but for goodness sake lets not get as fanatic as that lady on the video. Otherwise your just a target for slaughter.

[Number19]

Ok lets say the claim has been made that it was lost, or his mother never gave it to him. Where else can the record/document you are looking for be found.This would take openness/transparency on the part of the State of Hawaii. When a child was born in a Hawaiian hospital in 1961, what type of documentation was produced. That paperwork is on file. If this truly does not exist, one should broaden the research to Kenya. They would cooperate if requested by Obama.

[idirtify]

It appears that obtaining a passport requires proof of citizenship. Of course the main document of proof is the original official (long-form) BC. This site details all the other ways one can prove citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

I’m not all that educated on this issue, but I don’t believe Obama has provided any of them. BTW, how does the man legally fly abroad?

Maybe the government website should amend its instructions to include “or if you have no proof of citizenship, try running for POTUS”. :)

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[Sandra]

Jon Stewart explains the logistics.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

[lynnf]

It appears that obtaining a passport requires proof of citizenship. Of course the main document of proof is the original official (long-form) BC. This site details all the other ways one can prove citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

I’m not all that educated on this issue, but I don’t believe Obama has provided any of them. BTW, how does the man legally fly abroad?

Maybe the government website should amend its instructions to include “or if you have no proof of citizenship, try running for POTUS”. :)

do they even check the documents of "vips"? doubt it

lynn

[lynnf]

They frisked the fmr. Indian President yesterday, so I'm going to say yes.


not "vip" enough anymore ? - and I was talking about in foreign countries. would expect the foreign countries to do it for some countries visitors and not others according to how "friendly" they (the countries) are. I still say no.

lynn

[idirtify]

Jon Stewart explains the logistics.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

I don’t watch Jon Stewart or Kitty Pilgrim much but they sound like Obama-defending Democrats. So this “original birth certificate” that has supposedly (according to Pilgrim) been viewed in Chicago and is supposedly at the Hawaii Dept of Health: Is it true? Is it truly the original one? Can anyone go see it? If so, why has it not been “published” to quell the suspicions? Is Obama claiming some sort of privacy right?

Are there any members here form HI? Good grief just go to your Dept of Health and demand to see it!

[Sandra]

I don’t watch Jon Stewart or Kitty Pilgrim much but they sound like Obama-defending Democrats. So this “original birth certificate” that has supposedly (according to Pilgrim) been viewed in Chicago and is supposedly at the Hawaii Dept of Health: Is it true? Is it truly the original one? Can anyone go see it? If so, why has it not been “published” to quell the suspicions? Is Obama claiming some sort of privacy right?

Are there any members here form HI? Good grief just go to your Dept of Health and demand to see it!


So, you won't watch it? Because of principle? What you are saying is it doesn't matter what proof is set before you because your eyes are shut and your fingers are jammed in your ears.

Obama shares the same privacy right you do. I can't go to your state's Dept. of Records and demand to see your BC like you're suggesting.

World Net Daily has already confirmed it's validity. I will keep reminding you of that.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Maybe you should email WND and ask for an explanation.

[almantimes2]

Jon Stewart explains the logistics.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_most_trusted_newsman_in_America_debunks_the_bi rthers

Front page on digg right now.

Comments make me rage.

[Dianne]

Where's the beef....I read his college papers for free college monies.. said he was Indonesian born.

Like I said earlier... if there is nothing to hide no worries... give the same docs I have to give to apply for a passport... a signed and sealed birth certificate. If you cannot provide docs to get a passport... then you damn should NOT be President of the USA.... no thank you !!!

[Dianne]

An announcement doesn't do shit... If I go to kindergarten, I have to provide an original..... stamped and sealed certificate which tells the doctor, date of birth, time of birth, etc.

[RevolutionSD]

This video showing a woman in a townhall meeting holding her own birth certificate and asking why Obama hasn't released his own has been viewed over 560,000 times on Youtube.

YouTube - Mike Castle on PeeBo's Birthcertificate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc)

The birth certificate issue is a total distraction.

So what if they impeach Obama over this? Then we get Joe Biden. Perhaps even a worse man than Obama. NOTHING would change. And if this hurts the democrats, we'll get Jeb Bush in 2012. Or Sarah Palin. Who the fuck cares?

I don't need a president. Do you? Do you want to force one on me?

[fedup100]

the birth certificate issue is a total distraction.

So what if they impeach obama over this? Then we get joe biden. Perhaps even a worse man than obama. Nothing would change. And if this hurts the democrats, we'll get jeb bush in 2012. Or sarah palin. Who the fuck cares?

I don't need a president. Do you? Do you want to force one on me?


Because we are a nation of LAWS!

[Zippyjuan]

John Stewart did a good job pointing out how silly the whole thing is. He runs through all the evidence (or plays a CNN clip which does).
And as has been point out at this point there is nothing Obama could do which would satisfy those who do not beleive he was born in Hawaii. If they pull up and release the full version, they will claim that it is a fake- they have had over a year to work on it. The pope could sign it in blood and people would still not believe it. A DNA test would not suffice. Get over it. He is a US Citizen and was elected president. If you do not belive he was born in Hawaii, the only way you can win is to prove he was born somewhere else. So start looking or shut up. Saying the burden is on him no longer applies- that is a copout. He showed you. You chose not to believe. Now prove him wrong. Bring the Kenya or Indonesia birth certificate and apply the same standards to it that you would like him to provide. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

So next time you say "where is the birth certificate", make sure you bring one with you that shows where he was actually born.

Arguing here is going to do nothing.

[Sandra]

Maybe because AIPAC Orly believes if she can make an appeal to neocons because she perceives she can diffuse the difference between Libertarian and Neoconsevative/liberal ideals.

Today she's complaining that Obama is no friend to Israel, and she wants to contact an alleged disgruntled secret service agent that might help Taitz "get" Obama. Now this kinda thing will get her a visit.

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

[Imperial]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/23/757068/-Liddy-Lied:-There-is-no-Deposition-from-Obamas-step-grandmother

A good article from someone on DKos about the Berg phonecall saying Obama's grandmother claimed Obama was born in Kenya.

[fedup100]

John Stewart did a good job pointing out how silly the whole thing is. He runs through all the evidence (or plays a CNN clip which does).
And as has been point out at this point there is nothing Obama could do which would satisfy those who do not beleive he was born in Hawaii. If they pull up and release the full version, they will claim that it is a fake- they have had over a year to work on it. The pope could sign it in blood and people would still not believe it. A DNA test would not suffice. Get over it. He is a US Citizen and was elected president. If you do not belive he was born in Hawaii, the only way you can win is to prove he was born somewhere else. So start looking or shut up. Saying the burden is on him no longer applies- that is a copout. He showed you. You chose not to believe. Now prove him wrong. Bring the Kenya or Indonesia birth certificate and apply the same standards to it that you would like him to provide. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

So next time you say "where is the birth certificate", make sure you bring one with you that shows where he was actually born.

Arguing here is going to do nothing.

Oh no you don't. My child had the burden of proof on him and had to produce and original BC to enter school, you name it, we all had to.

So does this bastard. SHOW the damn thing or resign! I said....


Show The Damned Thing Or Resign!

[Sandra]

Oh no you don't. My child had the burden of proof on him and had to produce and original BC to enter school, you name it, we all had to.

So does this bastard. SHOW the damn thing or resign! I said....


Show The Damned Thing Or Resign!

But you're the accuser. Provide proof his mom didn't show his BC for school registration.

[Brian Defferding]

John Stewart did a good job pointing out how silly the whole thing is. He runs through all the evidence (or plays a CNN clip which does).
And as has been point out at this point there is nothing Obama could do which would satisfy those who do not beleive he was born in Hawaii. If they pull up and release the full version, they will claim that it is a fake- they have had over a year to work on it. The pope could sign it in blood and people would still not believe it. A DNA test would not suffice. Get over it. He is a US Citizen and was elected president. If you do not belive he was born in Hawaii, the only way you can win is to prove he was born somewhere else. So start looking or shut up. Saying the burden is on him no longer applies- that is a copout. He showed you. You chose not to believe. Now prove him wrong. Bring the Kenya or Indonesia birth certificate and apply the same standards to it that you would like him to provide. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

So next time you say "where is the birth certificate", make sure you bring one with you that shows where he was actually born.

Arguing here is going to do nothing.

Wow, thank you for posting that, the sums up everything I wanted to say on the issue. This birth certifigate crap is utterly embarrassing and I don't want Ron Paul supporters anywhere near it. Time to drop this stupid shit and move on to exponentially more pressing issues, like our ridiculously large deficit, the Federal Reserve, and Obamacare.

[dantheman]

How does more views on youtube mean this thing is picking up steam? We have videos on the internet about cats in hamster wheels and that has millions of views. What do we really gain if we prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Biden being President? There are far more important things to focus our time on.

[RevolutionSD]

Because we are a nation of LAWS!

Is this sarcastic? I hope so. :confused:

[idirtify]

So, you won't watch it? Because of principle? What you are saying is it doesn't matter what proof is set before you because your eyes are shut and your fingers are jammed in your ears.

Obama shares the same privacy right you do. I can't go to your state's Dept. of Records and demand to see your BC like you're suggesting.

World Net Daily has already confirmed it's validity. I will keep reminding you of that.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Maybe you should email WND and ask for an explanation.

Sandra,

No and no and no… (spare me your negative strawman speculations.)

I don’t get time to watch them often (I’m on here too much).

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter what is set before me if it does not consist of proof of Obama’s qualifications for holding the office.

Obama shares no more of the same privacy rights with me than an applicant for any job who agrees to the qualifications set forth for holding the job. Since when can the applicant invoke privacy rights as a basis for refusing to produce proof of his qualifications? His boss would immediately laugh him to the street.

Get these two things straight: 1) Political leaders do not have “rights”. They have “powers”. 2) “Rights” do not pertain to voluntary contractual agreements between parties. Obama surrendered his right to privacy regarding his BC when he agreed to the terms of the job.

World Net Daily has not, as far as I have seen, provided the main document needed to prove the qualification. Instead of you telling me to email them for the proof, why don’t I tell you to point it out to me in your link? It is your claim, right? So specify it by pasting it here.

[idirtify]

John Stewart did a good job pointing out how silly the whole thing is. He runs through all the evidence (or plays a CNN clip which does).
And as has been point out at this point there is nothing Obama could do which would satisfy those who do not beleive he was born in Hawaii. If they pull up and release the full version, they will claim that it is a fake- they have had over a year to work on it. The pope could sign it in blood and people would still not believe it. A DNA test would not suffice. Get over it. He is a US Citizen and was elected president. If you do not belive he was born in Hawaii, the only way you can win is to prove he was born somewhere else. So start looking or shut up. Saying the burden is on him no longer applies- that is a copout. He showed you. You chose not to believe. Now prove him wrong. Bring the Kenya or Indonesia birth certificate and apply the same standards to it that you would like him to provide. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

So next time you say "where is the birth certificate", make sure you bring one with you that shows where he was actually born.

Arguing here is going to do nothing.

Zippyjuan,

Your claim that a real birth certificate exists is just speculation. Your claim that birthers would claim that a real one is fake is also just speculation. The rest of your claims about the pope and dna only delve deeper into the realm of speculation.

Your claim that birthers need to prove Obama is not a resident is not reasonable, especially for a Liberty Forester who should automatically question all authority. It is certainly not the burden of the people to produce the documents that qualify a politician for high office; nor do they need to prove the non-existence of the documents. If the owner doesn’t produce the documents, he doesn’t qualify. If an applicant for a position agrees to a qualification set forth in the application, he can not apply and then refuse to provide proof of qualification and claim that it’s the boss’s responsibility to prove that he does not qualify – and still get the job and/or remain credible. So what is the difference here, besides the fact that our leaders should be held to a HIGHER STANDARD?

What amazes me about this topic is the number of members here who are demonstrating such a strong amount of trust in authority.

[idirtify]

But you're the accuser. Provide proof his mom didn't show his BC for school registration.

Sandra,

By applying for the job, the applicant not only swore that he qualified but swore that he could provide the document that proved it. Since we are his bosses, it is not our job to disprove his qualification or the existence of the proof. If he does not provide the required proof, he does not qualify. It is as simple as that; as in any contractual agreement between employee & employer. While “civil rights” do not apply to many areas for political leaders, they certainly do not apply to many areas for taking a job. If you claim otherwise, you are only “Pulling a Palin” (see her many misstatements about the right to free speech).

[Peace&Freedom]

Wow, thank you for posting that, the sums up everything I wanted to say on the issue. This birth certifigate crap is utterly embarrassing and I don't want Ron Paul supporters anywhere near it. Time to drop this stupid shit and move on to exponentially more pressing issues, like our ridiculously large deficit, the Federal Reserve, and Obamacare.

The tiny problem is, 1) Obama DIDN'T show us that data (just substitutes, carefully worded evasions and speculations), as has been discussed at length in these threads, and 2) the real problem is there is nothing the truth side could do which would satisfy those who DO beleive he was born in Hawaii.

The deniers on this matter simply will not take any data to the contrary seriously, whether it's public officials in Kenya saying he was born there, blood relatives on tape saying the same, his father's British citizen status etc. So our side might as well say, face it, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and his certification as President is illegitimate. Time to drop the stupid denials, and understand if our supposedly 'pro-constitution' movement backs off this basic constitutional issue, we will not be able to successfully engage the other issues either. If they can shame you away on the birth issue, they can and will find a way to put you on the defensive on every other big issue.

[anaconda]

His mom was a US citizen, so that makes him one unless he renounced it, which he didn't.

Not true. His situation is more complicated because she had a child with a foreign national before she was 21, per Hawaii law. There is simply no way that Obama is a natural born citizen. Period. A "citizen" and a "natural born citizen" are NOT the same thing. There is NO scenario where Obama could have been a natural born citizen.

[Sandra]

Get these two things straight: 1) Political leaders do not have “rights”. They have “powers”. 2) “Rights” do not pertain to voluntary contractual agreements between parties. Obama surrendered his right to privacy regarding his BC when he agreed to the terms of the job.

World Net Daily has not, as far as I have seen, provided the main document needed to prove the qualification. Instead of you telling me to email them for the proof, why don’t I tell you to point it out to me in your link? It is your claim, right? So specify it by pasting it here.

Idirtify,

So you still won't click the WND link, huh? Something tells me if you don't read it on the WND website, you won't accept it as genuine. Your answers to all of these posts prove you refuse to look at proof thus setting yourself up for ignorance and denial .

Just click to go to the WND site..... it's easy,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

[qh4dotcom]

Wow, thank you for posting that, the sums up everything I wanted to say on the issue. This birth certifigate crap is utterly embarrassing and I don't want Ron Paul supporters anywhere near it. Time to drop this stupid shit and move on to exponentially more pressing issues, like our ridiculously large deficit, the Federal Reserve, and Obamacare.

Brian, you don't get it do you? The Obama eligibility issue is the ONLY way to reverse all the damage Obama has signed into law...when it is proven that he is an unconstitutional president, all the laws he has signed become invalid...do you want the stimulus to go away? any future health care or cap and trade law to go away? Yes I know it will be a big mess to undo all the damage but it's better than letting the economy collapse and the nation to go bankrupt.

[Sandra]

Brian, you don't get it do you? The Obama eligibility issue is the ONLY way to reverse all the damage Obama has signed into law...when it is proven that he is an unconstitutional president, all the laws he has signed become invalid...do you want the stimulus to go away? any future health care or cap and trade law to go away? Yes I know it will be a big mess to undo all the damage but it's better than letting the economy collapse and the nation to go bankrupt.

Sorry but it was mostly signed into law by BUSH. You remember Bush? The most destructive presidency in history? This is just a continuance of Bush policies. So do ya think we can get a redo if we nullify the Bush administration?

[qh4dotcom]

Sorry but it was mostly signed into law by BUSH. You remember Bush? The most destructive presidency in history? This is just a continuance of Bush policies. So do ya think we can get a redo if we nullify the Bush administration?

I'm talking about the laws Obama has signed...the February 2009 stimulus wasn't signed by Bush...Bush had nothing to do with health care or cap & trade (assuming it will get passed).

[Dianne]

It is up to us to prove Obama is not a US citizen? Next time I apply for a passport and I am FORCED to mail in a certified, government stamped birth certificate; I will tell the passport office I refuse as they have the burden to prove I am or am not a US citizen. I wonder how well that will go over.

[Pete]

Sorry but it was mostly signed into law by BUSH. You remember Bush? The most destructive presidency in history? This is just a continuance of Bush policies. So do ya think we can get a redo if we nullify the Bush administration?

Third or fourth most destructive presidency in history, IMO. Don't forget Honest Abe for his consolidation of federal power and 600,000 civil war deaths. That was military only; I wonder how many civilians died, especially in Sherman's march? Then we had Woody Wilson acting as the original NWO buttboy; we can thank him for the Fed and the income tax that put Fedgov on steroids and set the stage for WWII. I don't think even FDR was as big of a traitor as these two, but he likely edged out the Shrub.

Obama has a good shot at winning the cakewalk if national health care goes through and he unleashes his Brownshirts. If he goes so far as to begin re-education efforts, then the prize unquestionably belongs to him.

[Chirac's Poodle]

I think of Bush as another Von Hindenburg. As horrible as the Reichstag Fire Decree was, it wasn't Hindenburg who used it for horrific purposes. I'm not sure he was capable of using it that way. I seriously wonder if Germans in 1935 were still grumbling about how bad Hindenburg was . Terrible president. Worst ever. Can't get any worse. Good thing he's gone.

[paulitics]

Third or fourth most destructive presidency in history, IMO. Don't forget Honest Abe for his consolidation of federal power and 600,000 civil war deaths. That was military only; I wonder how many civilians died, especially in Sherman's march? Then we had Woody Wilson acting as the original NWO buttboy; we can thank him for the Fed and the income tax that put Fedgov on steroids and set the stage for WWII. I don't think even FDR was as big of a traitor as these two, but he likely edged out the Shrub.

Obama has a good shot at winning the cakewalk if national health care goes through and he unleashes his Brownshirts. If he goes so far as to begin re-education efforts, then the prize unquestionably belongs to him.

Bush's damage is not fully comprehended yet. Pre-emptive war, homeland security, wiretapping, spying, torture, is now a matter of US policy. The power of the executive has no bounds, and Obama can only be dangerous because of the rapid shift towards fascism brought by the Bush administrated.

Bush has made possible Cap and Trade, Univ Healthcare, the takeover of private industry, by greatly expanding the scope and power of the government.

Do you ever get the feeling the government no longer fears the citizens, that they will steamroll a pile of shit through congress even if 70% of America is vehemently opposed? Well, you have the patriot act, fisa, homeland security, etc to thank for this. This is why they don't listen. They have congress and the citizenry by the balls.

[Pete]

Bush's damage is not fully comprehended yet. Pre-emptive war, homeland security, wiretapping, spying, torture, is now a matter of US policy. The power of the executive has no bounds, and Obama can only be dangerous because of the rapid shift towards fascism brought by the Bush administrated.

Bush has made possible Cap and Trade, Univ Healthcare, the takeover of private industry, by greatly expanding the scope and power of the government.

Do you ever get the feeling the government no longer fears the citizens, that they will steamroll a pile of shit through congress even if 70% of America is vehemently opposed? Well, you have the patriot act, fisa, homeland security, etc to thank for this. This is why they don't listen. They have congress and the citizenry by the balls.

You're right, he was a gem!

http://scari.org/images/postcard.jpg

[idirtify]

Idirtify,

So you still won't click the WND link, huh? Something tells me if you don't read it on the WND website, you won't accept it as genuine. Your answers to all of these posts prove you refuse to look at proof thus setting yourself up for ignorance and denial .

Just click to go to the WND site..... it's easy,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Sandra,

When I stated “World Net Daily has not as far as I have seen provided the main document needed to prove the qualification”, I was not only indicating that I had read your link but also that what you had claimed it provided was untrue. As far as who has the better question about who read what: Did you read MY statement?

Now what you need to, if you want to submit a legitimate disagreement, is show how my statement about the lack of the proving document is false. IMO you would do that by doing what I asked you to do in my last post: “Instead of you telling me to contact WND for the proof, why don’t I tell you to point it out to me in your link? It is your claim, right? So specify it by pasting it here.” IOW it is your burden to show specifically how your link supports your position, beyond merely re-referring to it in general, especially after someone like me has challenged it/you.

It is curious that you are so distrusting of me for not providing better proof that I read your link, yet you are so trusting of Obama even though he has not even tried AFAIK to prove his main qualification for the job.

BTW, what about all my points about rights and job qualifications? You have so far neglected to address them.

[Sandra]

Sandra,

When I stated “World Net Daily has not as far as I have seen provided the main document needed to prove the qualification”, I was not only indicating that I had read your link but also that what you had claimed it provided was untrue. As far as who has the better question about who read what: Did you read MY statement?

Now what you need to, if you want to submit a legitimate disagreement, is show how my statement about the lack of the proving document is false. IMO you would do that by doing what I asked you to do in my last post: “Instead of you telling me to contact WND for the proof, why don’t I tell you to point it out to me in your link? It is your claim, right? So specify it by pasting it here.” IOW it is your burden to show specifically how your link supports your position, beyond merely re-referring to it in general, especially after someone like me has challenged it/you.

It is curious that you are so distrusting of me for not providing better proof that I read your link, yet you are so trusting of Obama even though he has not even tried AFAIK to prove his main qualification for the job.

BTW, what about all my points about rights and job qualifications? You have so far neglected to address them.

Typical denialist setup.... "tell me how I am wrong". Holy crap! The whole article is about how World Net Daily validated the documents with their own experts. THE WHOLE ARTICLE... Not even a year ago. So what I'm saying is your precious websit flip flopped when the eligibility issue was presented by Taitz (Republican) rather thean Berg (Democrat).

[heavenlyboy34]

Bush's damage is not fully comprehended yet. Pre-emptive war, homeland security, wiretapping, spying, torture, is now a matter of US policy. The power of the executive has no bounds, and Obama can only be dangerous because of the rapid shift towards fascism brought by the Bush administrated.

Bush has made possible Cap and Trade, Univ Healthcare, the takeover of private industry, by greatly expanding the scope and power of the government.

Do you ever get the feeling the government no longer fears the citizens, that they will steamroll a pile of shit through congress even if 70% of America is vehemently opposed? Well, you have the patriot act, fisa, homeland security, etc to thank for this. This is why they don't listen. They have congress and the citizenry by the balls.

I agree, sir! :cool:

[klamath]

Bush's damage is not fully comprehended yet. Pre-emptive war, homeland security, wiretapping, spying, torture, is now a matter of US policy. The power of the executive has no bounds, and Obama can only be dangerous because of the rapid shift towards fascism brought by the Bush administrated.

Bush has made possible Cap and Trade, Univ Healthcare, the takeover of private industry, by greatly expanding the scope and power of the government.

Do you ever get the feeling the government no longer fears the citizens, that they will steamroll a pile of shit through congress even if 70% of America is vehemently opposed? Well, you have the patriot act, fisa, homeland security, etc to thank for this. This is why they don't listen. They have congress and the citizenry by the balls.

Get real. Read a little history. Did Bush lock up 200,000 Japanese and German Americans like FDR did? How is that for executive abuse of power? My mother tells a story about a Japanese American she went to school with. His family owned a nursery and when FDR ordered him and his family into a consentration camp she walked through the nursery and was sickened to see the thousands of hours of work on plants dead. These people weren't compensated until most were dead in the 1980s. How is that for civil rights? Tell me when you get out of the concentration camp.
Gitmo? They didn't even bat an eye at harsh treatment of POWs in past wars. News reporters didn't give a sh*t about POWs in those days.

I used to have a school songbook from the Wilson WWI era. Every German song was cut from the book. How is that for censorship?
I had an Aunt that spoke out against WWII and she was investigated and had a file on her at the FBI. That file was still there 40 years later when her nephew tried to get a passport to go to the middle east.
Pre-emptive war? What do you think US joining WWI was. The war to end all wars? A few more than 4000 americans died in that war.
The govenment told you what you could buy and how much during WWII. How is that for civil rights and the power of the government?
FDR ordered all gold mines closed during WWII. Most never recovered afterwards nor were they compensated. How is that for executive power?
FDR confuscated all privately owned gold and was paid with dollars. How is that for freedom of ownership? Go back a read what kind of civil rights were violated in past American wars. It used to be an acceptable way of runing things during wars.
Bush was a lousy President but was nowhere near the worst.

[idirtify]

Typical denialist setup.... "tell me how I am wrong". Holy crap! The whole article is about how World Net Daily validated the documents with their own experts. THE WHOLE ARTICLE... Not even a year ago. So what I'm saying is your precious websit flip flopped when the eligibility issue was presented by Taitz (Republican) rather thean Berg (Democrat).

Me asking you to support your disagreement is a “typical denialist setup”?? Since when? Not that I’m sure about the meaning of your term, but I think explaining how your opponent is wrong is only the most basic fundamental of intellectual debate.

When you imply that the “WHOLE ARTICLE” shows that I am wrong, you are not being honest. You claim the proof of Obama’s citizenship is contained in your linked article from WND; but since it does not contain the proving document (the original BC), or any photocopies of it, you are incorrect. The only thing that allows you to semi-credibly claim that it’s “proof” is your lower standard of proof. Why are you lowering the typical standard of proof for qualifying for the position of POTUS? Upon what do you base your greater trust in the claims of authority? Do you understand that one of the main themes of this forum is distrust of authority? Don’t you think the POTUS should be held to a HIGHER STANDARD?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Does anyone here think the Birther thing is a bit gay?

[Sandra]

Me asking you to support your disagreement is a “typical denialist setup”?? Since when? Not that I’m sure about the meaning of your term, but I think explaining how your opponent is wrong is only the most basic fundamental of intellectual debate.

When you imply that the “WHOLE ARTICLE” shows that I am wrong, you are not being honest. You claim the proof of Obama’s citizenship is contained in your linked article from WND; but since it does not contain the proving document (the original BC), or any photocopies of it, you are incorrect. The only thing that allows you to semi-credibly claim that it’s “proof” is your lower standard of proof. Why are you lowering the typical standard of proof for qualifying for the position of POTUS? Upon what do you base your greater trust in the claims of authority? Do you understand that one of the main themes of this forum is distrust of authority? Don’t you think the POTUS should be held to a HIGHER STANDARD?


Hello newbie! Thanks for sloppily exposing what you do in forums. Are you the genius on Orly Taitz legal team?

[Galileo Galilei]

French is considered the "official language" in much international law so it is certainly possible that the founders were aware of and had read it. Pretty sure Jefferson knew French and was very well read. I don't discount it due to its not being translated into English. It is just more important what our own laws say about citizenship than what he said. Vattel (as I have since learned I made an eroneous assumption about his being French- he was actually Swiss) copied his ideas (and added to them) from the works of others- as may have done.

James Madison could read French, ancient Greek, Latin, Spanish, and Italian.

I'm not sure that Jefferson could read French.

When Madison was secretary of State, he often had to re-translate dispatched from France that were poorly translated, which prevented misunderstandings.

[lynnf]

Does anyone here think the Birther thing is a bit gay?


well, since Obama is at least a bit gay, it just fits right in!


see Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies and Murder?


http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/

[Wildlander]

So, let me see if I got this right. All of you supporting Obama for what is technically a Birth Announcement (without a verifiable physicians signature or name of a hospital) are happy that Obama got elected instead of Ron Paul.

Why are you such people even on this forum other than to serve as trolls on issues like this?

It is a Constitutional issue folks. It is clearly stated that the President must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama has a responsibility to prove his citizenship with a verifiable document - not a birth announcement.

For those of you who want the real story instead of someone else's trolling here:

YouTube - Dobbs Tells Roland Martin To Pipe Down During Obama Birth Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvYcFgXCJrE)

Wildlander

[Zippyjuan]

James Madison could read French, ancient Greek, Latin, Spanish, and Italian.

I'm not sure that Jefferson could read French.

When Madison was secretary of State, he often had to re-translate dispatched from France that were poorly translated, which prevented misunderstandings.
Thank you for the information. I knew that France was one of our allies during the Revolution so the founders were most likely aware of what a lot of thinkers at the time had to say about governemnt. Ben Franklin was sent as a representative to France so it is certainly possible and even probable that they knew of and read Vittel. But again, what US law says about who is a citizen is more important than what he has to say about the issue.

Wow. Page ten on an issue which is not going to do anything. Obama releases a legal document which shows that he was born in Hawaii and Hawiian officials verify it. Some then claim that this document is not enough. Show us the long form (which would say the same thing but have more details such as the name of the doctor but would not say anything different about where he was actually born). The form shown is acceptable as a legal document proving birth and citizenship. It is probably what he presented to enroll in school or to apply for his US passport. It is a verified legal document.

"Release the full document" some people cry. "That wil end all of the questions right there." But would it? Then the questioners will claim it to be a fake document. Asking for the long form instead of the sort form is only trying to keep the issue alive for some folks. For the majority, the question has been answered. As was pointed out in the Lou Dobbs video above, some 13% still believe he is a Muslim which has been repeatedly deined. Releasing any more documents will not change any minds but would just add more fuel to the issue. It will not lead to forcing the President to resign. It will not lead to a new election where people see the light and elect Ron Paul as president. It will not lead to any appointments or laws being tossed out. It will change nothing.

Lou Dobbs agrees that Obama is president and a US citizen- as he admits in his video. Why does he continue to talk about the issue then? Because stupid and controversial issues will make people watch his show. More viewers equals more advertising revenue which in turn means more money for Lou. He is not trying to get Obama thrown out. He is trying to sell Advil or whoever his sponsors are. He will bring in controversial people to talk about it again because it will hopefully draw in more viewers. It is not about "getting to the truth of the matter". Pick an issue, bring in people on both sides and try to get them to go after each other about it.

As I have already said a few times, the only way you can get any change out of this issue is to find and present verifyable proof that he was born elsewhere and I have seen absolutely none of that anywhere.

[paulitics]

Get real. Read a little history. Did Bush lock up 200,000 Japanese and German Americans like FDR did? How is that for executive abuse of power? My mother tells a story about a Japanese American she went to school with. His family owned a nursery and when FDR ordered him and his family into a consentration camp she walked through the nursery and was sickened to see the thousands of hours of work on plants dead. These people weren't compensated until most were dead in the 1980s. How is that for civil rights? Tell me when you get out of the concentration camp.
Gitmo? They didn't even bat an eye at harsh treatment of POWs in past wars. News reporters didn't give a sh*t about POWs in those days.

I used to have a school songbook from the Wilson WWI era. Every German song was cut from the book. How is that for censorship?
I had an Aunt that spoke out against WWII and she was investigated and had a file on her at the FBI. That file was still there 40 years later when her nephew tried to get a passport to go to the middle east.
Pre-emptive war? What do you think US joining WWI was. The war to end all wars? A few more than 4000 americans died in that war.
The govenment told you what you could buy and how much during WWII. How is that for civil rights and the power of the government?
FDR ordered all gold mines closed during WWII. Most never recovered afterwards nor were they compensated. How is that for executive power?
FDR confuscated all privately owned gold and was paid with dollars. How is that for freedom of ownership? Go back a read what kind of civil rights were violated in past American wars. It used to be an acceptable way of runing things during wars.
Bush was a lousy President but was nowhere near the worst.

I agree that if we were in a World War, the atrocities would be worse. That is what is so scary, is that all of these civil rights liberties violations were done outside a major war, unless you consider the War on Terror to be completely legit.

Also, everything that Bush has done, is not out yet, as the stench under the floor is just creeping out, but the door has not been opened up yet. Sometimes, it takes years for the full truth to come out.

How many Muslims disappeared after 911? There were some articles that I have read that said thousands were kidnapped in NYC, and never to be heard from again. Nobody knows how many people have been kidnapped and thrown into secret prisons since 911, but the number is likely staggering. Gitmo, is just a red herring compared to extraordinary rendition.

Also, there is reputable sources that say we tortured and raped children in front of their parents. This satanic deed that was likely authorized from high up may be a new low for us. I believe the reports, because it is always much worst than originally thought, and this is coming from the same guy who originally broke the Abu Graib story.

How many people are surveilled now and have files on them? Probably every single one of us judging by the criteria on the MIAC reports. We know our emails are read, our websurfing tracked, etc. Look at how many are on the no fly list? We now have troops on the street, in violation of Posse Commatatus. Antiwar groups, and other peacful groups are routinely surveiled and infiltrated, etc. I can go on, and on.

Was Bush the worst ever? I guess we'll know at some point, but I do agree with you that Wilson and FDR were tyrants, and may be worse depending on what all come out. What happened to the Japanese was beyond atrocious, but this took a while to come out too, and the gvt took forever to own up to it.

By the way, I never said Bush was the worst, just that he gave Obma a huge assist if he gets out of control with his new found executive power. I am quite well read on history, and was aware of the civil rights violations you wrote about it including the gold confiscation. I still have grandparents alive.

Also, Gitmo prisoners are not PWOs, they are enemy combatitants and are not even afforded basic rights that a PWO is supposed to have. Most were drug out in the middle of the night from their homes.

[Sandra]

The birthers are taking online "classes" to make the BC issue overtake forums and commentary on blogs. Check out the new posters.

Is there any way to move this from General Politics?

[klamath]

I agree that if we were in a World War, the atrocities would be worse. That is what is so scary, is that all of these civil rights liberties violations were done outside a major war, unless you consider the War on Terror to be completely legit.

Also, everything that Bush has done, is not out yet, as the stench under the floor is just creeping out, but the door has not been opened up yet. Sometimes, it takes years for the full truth to come out.

How many Muslims disappeared after 911? There were some articles that I have read that said thousands were kidnapped in NYC, and never to be heard from again. Nobody knows how many people have been kidnapped and thrown into secret prisons since 911, but the number is likely staggering. Gitmo, is just a red herring compared to extraordinary rendition.

Also, there is reputable sources that say we tortured and raped children in front of their parents. This satanic deed that was likely authorized from high up may be a new low for us. I believe the reports, because it is always much worst than originally thought, and this is coming from the same guy who originally broke the Abu Graib story.

How many people are surveilled now and have files on them? Probably every single one of us judging by the criteria on the MIAC reports. We know our emails are read, our websurfing tracked, etc. Look at how many are on the no fly list? We now have troops on the street, in violation of Posse Commatatus. Antiwar groups, and other peacful groups are routinely surveiled and infiltrated, etc. I can go on, and on.

Was Bush the worst ever? I guess we'll know at some point, but I do agree with you that Wilson and FDR were tyrants, and may be worse depending on what all come out. What happened to the Japanese was beyond atrocious, but this took a while to come out too, and the gvt took forever to own up to it.

By the way, I never said Bush was the worst, just that he gave Obma a huge assist if he gets out of control with his new found executive power. I am quite well read on history, and was aware of the civil rights violations you wrote about it including the gold confiscation. I still have grandparents alive.

Also, Gitmo prisoners are not PWOs, they are enemy combatitants and are not even afforded basic rights that a PWO is supposed to have. Most were drug out in the middle of the night from their homes.
I guess in the context of the other posts I thought you were were arguing with the guy that stated Bush was third or fourth. I am no Bush fan and agree he gave Obama a big boost up and Obama is taking full advantage or it.

[paulitics]

I guess in the context of the other posts I thought you were were arguing with the guy that stated Bush was third or fourth. I am no Bush fan and agree he gave Obama a big boost up and Obama is taking full advantage or it.

Nah, the point I was making was that we don't know yet how bad Bush was. If Obama rounds people up, it was only because it already happened to the Muslims as a trial run, plus the patriot act, fisa, homeland security, torture, military commissions act, etc. All of the hardwork was done by Bush, all we need is the right crisis. The framework is there and took 8 years of hard work by Shrub. I would say he has shifted US policy into a new era, much like Woodrow and FDR did before.

[Zippyjuan]

The birthers are taking online "classes" to make the BC issue overtake forums and commentary on blogs. Check out the new posters.

Is there any way to move this from General Politics?

Just a couple of newbies in the thread- most others seem to have been around a while.

[malkusm]

I haven't read this entire thread, because I don't care...and I won't read it again after posting this:

Whether or not Barack Obama is a legal U.S. citizen is about as relevant as whether or not '9/11 was an inside job.' If true, neither will be proven until about 50 years after the big government wave crashes over the shore; and not only will they not be proven, but most people will not be convinced of them until they are. See: JFK assassination, non-ratification of 16th amendment, etc....

My point is - and it's a point I've made before here - there are more important things to worry about. Things that will be more productive than beating your head against the conspiratorial wall. Educating people about basic government activities, for example, might bear more results than, say, trying to convince them that everything they've ever accepted as true is a lie.

[fedup100]

How much BS can you fit into one post?
(Fedup100 - a couple other posts showed up by the time I posted this reply)
How long can you leave the country for and lose your citizenship? Is there any such limit? How long was she outside the country for? His father is merely listed as "African" not muslim or or arab. See for yourself. You can click on it and see it nice and big if you are having troubles reading it. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

I believe she had been out of the country for 10 years, regardless of whether my recollection is correct, Phillip Berg does have the answer to all your questions on his site. It is correct that she had been gone from this country too long to an american citizen.

There is no claim that his father was a US citizen- his mother was.

Don Nickeloff a private investigator has volumes of info on him and his family which were ALL CIA. He does have birth documents that say the father is Arabic and is listed as Muslim.

Please provide a link to the "proof" that it was a forgery over his sister's certificate. This one shows no sign of having anything printed underneath any of the writing. There are several more photos of different details of it you can find in the box on the left side of this link. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Go to Berg's site, it is all there.

The question about a foreigner able to get a birth certificate in Hawaii has already been discussed.

His grandmother was misquoted as saying he was born in Kenya. During his visit to Kenya as President, his uncle said that was the first time Obama had been to Kenya.

Yeah, right.


Number19- thank you for looking that up.

:confused:

[fedup100]

But you're the accuser. Provide proof his mom didn't show his BC for school registration.

The burden of proof is on him, PERIOD! I am ashamed to see someone with your stances on this forum.

Do your loins quiver for the zero, they must because you have an effin hard on defending this imposter. The likes of you will go down in history as the culprits that slit the throat of the greatest nation on earth. Too bad you would be proud of the fete.

You better hope to hell you never find yourself in my fox hole when the shtf.

[fedup100]

So, you won't watch it? Because of principle? What you are saying is it doesn't matter what proof is set before you because your eyes are shut and your fingers are jammed in your ears.

Obama shares the same privacy right you do. I can't go to your state's Dept. of Records and demand to see your BC like you're suggesting.

World Net Daily has already confirmed it's validity. I will keep reminding you of that.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Maybe you should email WND and ask for an explanation.

The way you defend this national security risk makes me wonder where you have your fingers jammed. :rolleyes:

[mediahasyou]

The birther argument is weak. You are wasting your time attacking his qualifications when you could be attacking the massive thievery he is bringing upon us.

[fedup100]

I'm talking about the laws Obama has signed...the February 2009 stimulus wasn't signed by Bush...Bush had nothing to do with health care or cap & trade (assuming it will get passed).

She knows what you are talking about, she is in love with anything her savior does, that is the lot of a "bamer". There is no way a thread on this forum can exist with this topic that she wont be there spewing the "bamer' line. She is the stink that accompanies shit.

[fedup100]

Typical denialist setup.... "tell me how I am wrong". Holy crap! The whole article is about how World Net Daily validated the documents with their own experts. THE WHOLE ARTICLE... Not even a year ago. So what I'm saying is your precious websit flip flopped when the eligibility issue was presented by Taitz (Republican) rather thean Berg (Democrat).

So let me get this strait. Joseph Farah's site a year age PROVED that zero was a citizen? Wonder why they have had that billboard project going for the last 6 months nationwide seeking the BC?

Are you on crack or longing for a crack?

[HOLLYWOOD]

I enjoyed the video... Roland martin acted like an ass.

Here's the deal, If you want a Top Secret Security Clearance within entities of the US government you must provide the original Birth Certificate. Even a raised seal gold stamped birth certificate sold by the hospital or Certificate of Life Birth DO NOT qualify for proof.

BTW, Obama's clearance work is stamped 'NOFORN' that is all I am stating and I cannot provide physical proof on the NOFORN stamped paperwork.

Somebody with connections needs to investigate "other" routes if they deem necessary to resolve.


So, let me see if I got this right. All of you supporting Obama for what is technically a Birth Announcement (without a verifiable physicians signature or name of a hospital) are happy that Obama got elected instead of Ron Paul.

Why are you such people even on this forum other than to serve as trolls on issues like this?

It is a Constitutional issue folks. It is clearly stated that the President must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama has a responsibility to prove his citizenship with a verifiable document - not a birth announcement.

For those of you who want the real story instead of someone else's trolling here:

YouTube - Dobbs Tells Roland Martin To Pipe Down During Obama Birth Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvYcFgXCJrE)

Wildlander

[idirtify]

Hello newbie! Thanks for sloppily exposing what you do in forums. Are you the genius on Orly Taitz legal team?

I’m a long way from sure what you are talking about (other than trying to insult my person), but I’m pretty sure it has little to do with addressing any of my previous points. Why are you trying to distract attention away from the issue by criticizing my person? Here, let me try to refocus your direction: Why are you placing an unnecessary amount of trust in those whose proof of qualifications should be held to a HIGHER standard? Since when do Liberty Foresters vigorously defend the authority figure who says “trust me”?

[idirtify]

The birther argument is weak. You are wasting your time attacking his qualifications when you could be attacking the massive thievery he is bringing upon us.

How is it weak to anyone other than Partisan (one of the great religions) Believers?

It’s no waste of time. One of the few ways to beat the government in court is to attack the qualifications of government witnesses. Many of them are complete hacks with great gaps in their qualifications. Point it out and everything the witness had to say goes away. Contrary to what you say, disqualifying the gang leader is a much more efficient way to fight the gang.

[muh_roads]

I'll state that Kenyans sure believe he was born in Kenya. Why not just fly there and hunt around for it?

[Sandra]

So let me get this strait. Joseph Farah's site a year age PROVED that zero was a citizen? Wonder why they have had that billboard project going for the last 6 months nationwide seeking the BC?

Are you on crack or longing for a crack?


Why are you accusing me of using crack? Your WND messiah was the one that published it. :eek:

To answer your question, Farah was trying to frame it as a Democratic effort to question ineligibility (Berg) so he attacked it. When Taitz (Republican) made the same moves as Berg he did a complete flip.

Farah is a donation whore. He has done or said anything that will get him money. Some of those who donated want to know where the money went. Because there are only a few of them on private property.

Have you noticed that Farah hasn't mentioned Taitz for a while? But he was so gung ho about her , why?

[kahless]

Why not do some investigative reporting to address the issues the birthers have once and for all. No we are CNN I think we will call it dead.

Jon Klein on Birthers: "It Seems This Story is Dead"
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_ 122546.asp#more



----- Original Message -----
From: Klein, Jon (CNN)
Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009
Subject: Important re birth certificate

I asked the political researchers to dig into the question "why couldn't Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?"

This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead - because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef.

Thx

*****************

*In 2001 - the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded*The official record of Obama's birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, "At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.


---------------------
Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight - 07.23.09

DOBBS: ....And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can't release a paper copy of the president's original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago.

That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critics. Joining me now, Roland Martin. He's CNN contributor, syndicated columnist. And joining us as well, Congressman Ted Poe.

[Sandra]

An investigation was made into Farah's sudden flip flop. Gat ready to cry WND fans.

http://www.newsnidea.com/7921/world-net-daily-obama-birth-certificate-evasive-answers-to-simple-questions-with-video-terry-krepel/

[Number19]

Why not do some investigative reporting to address the issues the birthers have once and for all. No we are CNN I think we will call it dead.

Jon Klein on Birthers: "It Seems This Story is Dead"
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_ 122546.asp#moreThis is new to me and I thank you for posting.

I'm not sure how to accept this.

I have my own, original, certificate of birth - given me by my mother. When I renewed my passport a few years back, I wasn't about to turn over this 60 year old document, so I obtained a legal copy from the state - a certification of vital record. It is a long form.

I am also into family genealogy.

From a personal perspective, from a perspective of historical record, I would not at all be pleased with a "short form" of this vital information.

I also find it a little curious that Hawaii would go totally electronic and totally destroy the paper form of historical documents. I had an aunt who was doing something similar and they had a primary concern on the vulnerability, and the constantly changing technology, of the electronic format. They ultimately decided to backup the original documents in microfilm format. So they ended up with the original documents which they did not discard, microfilm and electronic copy.

I am not certain I accept a statement that these, original, vital records were destroyed. I also do not believe that the State of Hawaii would be so irresponsible and negligent as to require only such minimal information on these vital records. It just doesn't compute in my brain.

[fedup100]

Why not do some investigative reporting to address the issues the birthers have once and for all. No we are CNN I think we will call it dead.

Jon Klein on Birthers: "It Seems This Story is Dead"
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_ 122546.asp#more

Well all I can say to that is too damned bad for anyone that wants to run for President of the USA if they are from the state Hawaii.

Look folks, they know they cannot forge this thing and get by with it so wallla, the electronic story is suppose to lull you back to sleep.

AGAIN, show the original and if you cannot do that for ANY reason, then there is reasonable doubt you are not a citizen, STEP DOWN NOW!

[fedup100]

Why are you accusing me of using crack? Your WND messiah was the one that published it. :eek:

To answer your question, Farah was trying to frame it as a Democratic effort to question ineligibility (Berg) so he attacked it. When Taitz (Republican) made the same moves as Berg he did a complete flip.

Farah is a donation whore. He has done or said anything that will get him money. Some of those who donated want to know where the money went. Because there are only a few of them on private property.

Have you noticed that Farah hasn't mentioned Taitz for a while? But he was so gung ho about her , why?

Because you are "hair on fire" rabid zero supporter and it looks like a crack whore searching for a fix.

I cannot stand Joseph Farah. Mr. Farah is a zionist and supports the non semetic take over of Israel. I must give him credit though for this fight for it is a worthy fight.

Sandra, why are you on this a liberty forum? You are not for liberty of any kind unless it is the the liberal kind. You have taken over every thread in your quest to cram that lying sack of shit zero down our throats.

You were also at Sheriff Macks throat and you and Rael were successful in hijacking that thread and spreading just enough doubt to sabatoge any efforts to get his book out.

Between you and Farah, I see only one whore and that's you. Tell me Sandra, do they pay you or are you just insane?

[Number19]

I am always looking for more information in areas of dispute, such as this over Obama's documentation of birth. Above at post #116, kahless, provided something new for me to consider.

This question is mostly directed toward those who support the MSM/Obama position on the issue that the matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

Has it ever been explained, why, for the period in time - the early 60's - under discussion, some Hawaiian births had a "long form" certificate of live birth filed with the state; and other births, notably Obama's, only had a "short form" certification of live birth filed with the state?

Let's assume everything is legitimate and proper, why this difference in the vital record required by the State of Hawaii?

[fedup100]

I am always looking for more information in areas of dispute, such as this over Obama's documentation of birth. Above at post #116, kahless, provided something new for me to consider.

This question is mostly directed toward those who support the MSM/Obama position on the issue that the matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

Has it ever been explained, why, for the period in time - the early 60's - under discussion, some Hawaiian births had a "long form" certificate of live birth filed with the state; and other births, notably Obama's, only had a "short form" certification of live birth filed with the state?

Let's assume everything is legitimate and proper, why this difference in the vital record required by the State of Hawaii?

Oh no, I guess it was racism, because everyone but the savior got a long form, oh boo hoo.

My family as all families keep those documents for obvious reasons. The savior's family knew he was the messiah, you know they have every piece of paper that ever existed that has anything to do with him.

How sad that ALL records of this creature from the heavens have all been scrubbed, deleted (oops ), sealed or hidden.:(

[fedup100]

PRESIDENTIAL BIRTH PLACES



Jimmy Carter, Wise Hospital, Plains, GA (The first president born in a hospital)

George H. W. Bush: 173 Adams Street, Milton Hill, MA

Bill Clinton: Julia Chester Hospital, Hope, AR

George W. Bush: Grace-New Haven Community Hospital, New Haven, CT


Barrack Hussein Obama: STATE SECRET

[Sandra]

Because you are "hair on fire" rabid zero supporter and it looks like a crack whore searching for a fix.

I cannot stand Joseph Farah. Mr. Farah is a zionist and supports the non semetic take over of Israel. I must give him credit though for this fight for it is a worthy fight.

Sandra, why are you on this a liberty forum? You are not for liberty of any kind unless it is the the liberal kind. You have taken over every thread in your quest to cram that lying sack of shit zero down our throats.

You were also at Sheriff Macks throat and you and Rael were successful in hijacking that thread and spreading just enough doubt to sabatoge any efforts to get his book out.

Between you and Farah, I see only one whore and that's you. Tell me Sandra, do they pay you or are you just insane?

Well, I don't know where the crack whore comment comes from and I was NEVER at Sherriff Mack's throat. I politely asked a question of Sheriff Mack and he answered it like the gentleman he is. You, however, make unsubstantiated statements and lose it if you're even questioned. ..Just like now.

[kahless]

There are really two issues here which was the point of posting the internal CNN memo.

For one I think from the evidence in all likely hood he was born in Kenya. If he was not the White House would have already dispelled all the theories to put this to rest once for all. Bottomline here is even if it can be proved that he was born outside the country the next debate will be whether that even matters and whether the country really cares since the fact is he was born from an American mother. So in that respect how far is the debate going to get us.

The second issue is the media not doing their job and going out of their way to keep this covered up as demonstrated by the CNN memo.

[Sandra]

Common sense says that if Republicans thought the BC was an issue, they would have used it early in the race , not after he was sworn into office.

[pcosmar]

Common sense says that if Republicans thought the BC was an issue, they would have used it early in the race , not after he was sworn into office.

WTF does common sense have to do with the Republican Party.
They were on a mission to LOSE.
They pushed Rudy
They pushed Romney
They nominated McCain

They tried to say that they were conservatives.
I find their thoughts as "Not in Evidence".

[Bruno]

There are really two issues here which was the point of posting the internal CNN memo.

For one I think from the evidence in all likely hood he was born in Kenya. If he was not the White House would have already dispelled all the theories to put this to rest once for all. Bottomline here is even if it can be proved that he was born outside the country the next debate will be whether that even matters and whether the country really cares since the fact is he was born from an American mother. So in that respect how far is the debate going to get us.

The second issue is the media not doing their job and going out of their way to keep this covered up as demonstrated by the CNN memo.

That still wouldn't make him a natural born citizen.

And if the country didn't care if he was a citizen or not, then Arnold or any other foreign-born person could have run for president as well.

[Bruno]

Common sense says that if Republicans thought the BC was an issue, they would have used it early in the race , not after he was sworn into office.

I don't think so - too much of a hot topic, since as you can see, it has been hard to disprove that he was born in the United States.

[fedup100]

Here is all we know about the man that holds the fate of the country and our lives in his hands...........

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

[Zippyjuan]

Is that where you get your "info" from? There are some truths there and a lot of outright lies couched in "probable" or "possible". If that is all you know about him it is no wonder you think he was born in Kenya or someplace else. There is a lot more information out there.
If anybody wishes to prove he was born someplace else. show the birth certificate. It is that easy.

[wd4freedom]

All I know is that I can't even register my kids in the local Little League without an "Official Birth Certificate". This Roland guy is a nutjob.

[fedup100]

Is that where you get your "info" from? There are some truths there and a lot of outright lies couched in "probable" or "possible". If that is all you know about him it is no wonder you think he was born in Kenya or someplace else. There is a lot more information out there.
If anybody wishes to prove he was born someplace else. show the birth certificate. It is that easy.

You marxist ass.......................


Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:

Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesian issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth," just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.
– Leo C. Donofrio


There is a long list of vulnerability points for leaks, and there is a story behind every one of them:

– Soetoro adoption records
– Punahou (Indonesia) School records
– Passports records
– Any INS (Immigration & Naturalization Services) or port of entry documentation which may have been generated in his infancy or childhood
– Selective Service Registration (Released, but is possibly an altered document)
– Harvard Law Review articles (None, maybe 1, not signed)
– University of Chicago scholarly articles (None)
– Law practice client list
– Illinois State Senate records (locked up to prohibit public view)
– Illinois State Senate schedule (Lost. All other Illinois State Senators' records are intact)
– Baptism certificate
– Medical records

International columnist Mark S. McGrew sums it up succinctly:

With all of Obama's different names, with his documented long-term relations to convicted criminals, with his active efforts to prohibit us from knowing where he was born, with his active efforts to keep us from seeing his credentials, with his documented registration to practice law, professing to have only one name, with his being an ex-attorney not authorized to practice law, but representing himself as such, with his non-existent "Office of The President Elect," with the dozen or so lawsuits against him to determine his citizenship status, with the various promises he made to voters and on which he has since reneged, with his documented lack of respect to America, with his refusal to salute the American flag with others on stage or even to stand at attention, and his other disrespectful actions, with his many millions of dollars in campaign funds suspected to be from foreign sources, with campaign donations accepted from possible terrorists groups . . . Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can not in any way, shape or form be trusted.

I would ask the reader to accept the premise that there are many potential leaks from those things that are being kept hidden by a man who promised transparency in government. But there are other problems from sources that are not hidden.

AKA OBAMA himself has made it known that his father was from Kenya.

We know that records indicate that AKA OBAMA's biological father was Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan native, and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s offspring. We know that the geographical location of AKA OBAMA's birth is not considered by British law. Who the father was determines citizenship, not where you are born. Had AKA OBAMA been born in Tokyo or Texas he would still be a citizen of the United Kingdom under The British Nationality Act. A similar practice governs who is considered a citizen in several countries. Judaism is matrilineal, meaning that your mother's lineage determines whether you are a Jew. That is why Jews from all over the world can claim Israeli citizenship.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, AKA OBAMA might have been a U.S. citizen (by virtue of his allegedly being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963 . . .

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), becomes a citizen of Kenya on the 12th of December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.

So we know for sure that, if OBAMA Sr. is in fact his legal father, then AKA OBAMA was a citizen of the United Kingdom and then Kenya. Given all the efforts to keep his birth certificate hidden, it is reasonable to assume that he is not a citizen of the United States, but even if he were born in downtown Denver he would still have triple citizenship, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President.

There is a similar problem with AKA OBAMA's possible Indonesian citizenship. School records have surfaced that clearly indicate AKA OBAMA was listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.

So AKA OBAMA has been a citizen of the UK, Kenya, and there are inconclusive documents indicating that he was also a citizen of Indonesia. The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship. (AKA OBAMA has spent Six Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($688,000.00) on legal fees defending against lawsuits claiming that he is not eligible. Why would AKA OBAMA spend that much money to hide a $10 Birth Certificate?)


http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/the-obama-birth-certificate/

[Zippyjuan]

This is new to me and I thank you for posting.

I'm not sure how to accept this.

I have my own, original, certificate of birth - given me by my mother. When I renewed my passport a few years back, I wasn't about to turn over this 60 year old document, so I obtained a legal copy from the state - a certification of vital record. It is a long form.

I am also into family genealogy.

From a personal perspective, from a perspective of historical record, I would not at all be pleased with a "short form" of this vital information.

I also find it a little curious that Hawaii would go totally electronic and totally destroy the paper form of historical documents. I had an aunt who was doing something similar and they had a primary concern on the vulnerability, and the constantly changing technology, of the electronic format. They ultimately decided to backup the original documents in microfilm format. So they ended up with the original documents which they did not discard, microfilm and electronic copy.

I am not certain I accept a statement that these, original, vital records were destroyed. I also do not believe that the State of Hawaii would be so irresponsible and negligent as to require only such minimal information on these vital records. It just doesn't compute in my brain.

There is a long original form. It has the same information as the shorter form but additional information such as the doctor name and hospital information. How they would choose to handle their document storage I cannot comment on since I don't know. An individual can request and receive the long form but they will not release it to anybody else. Hawaiian officials verified that they have the original the short form was taken from. The fact that it was not shown to the public does not mean it does not exist.

[Zippyjuan]

Ooh. Marxist. I was not aware I have shared any of my personal economic or political leanings.

If he were to release the long form, would you accept it and say he was indeed President?

[fedup100]

Ooh. Marxist. I was not aware I have shared any of my personal economic or political leanings.

If he were to release the long form, would you accept it and say he was indeed President?

After the experts had examined it to make sure it is not a forgery, yes.

[kahless]

That still wouldn't make him a natural born citizen.

And if the country didn't care if he was a citizen or not, then Arnold or any other foreign-born person could have run for president as well.

When Arnold was running for governor I thought for sure it would be a path to the President and congress would quickly change the law against the will of 55% of the people (made up poll, but that is what they will do).

Eventually I think they will change the law whether we like it or not and may even happen before the issue with Obama comes to a head. Once that happens the debate will not matter.

[Pete]

Ooh. Marxist. I was not aware I have shared any of my personal economic or political leanings.

If he were to release the long form, would you accept it and say he was indeed President?

Not me.

Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen. Law of Nations, 1758:


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

Go suck on that instead of O for awhile. :)

[Zippyjuan]

After the experts had examined it to make sure it is not a forgery, yes.
Experts have examined the short form and declared it not a forgery. The long form includes the same place of birth and dates and such. That is not changed from the short form to the long one. Just more information added.

[Number19]

...If he were to release the long form, would you accept it and say he was indeed President?This is not directed at me, but to clarify to readers, I, unhappily, accept that Obama is POTUS. Practically, this is simply not an issue - if the document in question is never released.

I simply believe that it should be mandatory that this document should be released to the public before anyone is sworn in, although I don't think I would require this simply to run as a candidate for the office. I would support legislation for this requirement applying to all future elections.

I also believe there is a high probability that there is information, or possibly a lack of information, on the document that Obama does not want to be made public. I know of no reason why he would otherwise object to its release.

If he were to release the document and it was in agreement with the previously released short form, and provided the additional details relating to his birth, then yes, it would satisfy my doubt.

[pcosmar]

I would like to see the issue laid to rest, but it is not my biggest concern.
His complete lack of accomplishments, and non-existent qualifications concern me most.
This guy was artificially promoted to prominence.
I am more concerned with who is working the puppets strings.

[Number19]

I would like to see the issue laid to rest, but it is not my biggest concern.
His complete lack of accomplishments, and non-existent qualifications concern me most.
This guy was artificially promoted to prominence.
I am more concerned with who is working the puppets strings.+1

[Zippyjuan]

Not me.

Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen. Law of Nations, 1758:



http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

Go suck on that instead of O for awhile. :)

Thank you for the link. Somebody spent a lot of time compiling that.
In the "The Chart" section it attempts to show that there is a distinction the courts have made between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. It cites two fairly well-known cases, US vs. Wong Kim Ark, where a man born in San Francisco in one of the several states of California and whose parents were Chinese sought to be declared a citizen. By 6-2 the court ruled that the law did indeed say that because he was born in the US (and not subject to certain conditions which could disqualify that), that he was indeed a US citizen.

In the second case, Perkins v. Elg, miss Elg was born in Brooklyn New York to emigrants from Sweden. Her parents later moved back to Sweden but at 21 miss Elg wanted to come back to the United States. She inquired at a US consulate which suggested she apply for a US passport for her trip back to the United States. She was admitted on that passport and resided in the US ever since. Several years later, the State Department said she was in the country illegally and would have to leave. She sued and the court suported her citizenship. While her parents wanted to stay in Sweden, she wanted to exercise her US citizenship once she became old enough to make such decisions for herself.

Some points. First, in both cases, the court ruled that despite having both parents being foreign born, the people were still citizens because they were born in the US. Obama was born in the US. Second, both had foreign born parents- but Obama's mother was a US citizen. Third (unless I missed it- please point me towards a source if you can), in neither case does the court say anything about the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. All three gained their citizenship by virtue of being born in the US. Obama has the added support of having a US citizen for his mother.

[dave68]

I am also worried about the puppet strings. Ron Paul`s book eluded to both parties being one, and the same. Senator Grassley saying he believes health care reform will be passed by the end of the year worries me. In what form??
Obama was promoted out of nowhere with no documentation, or accomplishments. I believe he is hiding something in his past. Anybody who doesn`t believe that isn`t facing reality. I would love to get the truth, but I highly doubt we will. My congressman saw his birth certificate on the internet, therefore it must be true. I have hammered this nit wit ever since.
Don`t worry about the media thinking RP`s supporters are nuts, THEY DO ALREADY. More, and more people agree with us that something is seriously wrong, and politicians of both parties are screwing us with some rare exceptions.
The Obama administrations wheels are starting to fall off. Keep on all their asses! Maybe we will get some real RP candidates starting in 2010.

[dave68]

Another thought occured to me. If I was to run for town councilman more info would be known about me than our current president!?? The man has no details from his past. Nobody remembers him.

[pcosmar]

Another thought occured to me. If I was to run for town councilman more info would be known about me than our current president!?? The man has no details from his past. Nobody remembers him.

Hehe.


You will dress only in attire specially sanctioned by M.I.B. special services. You'll conform to the identity we give you. Eat where we tell you. Live where we tell you. From now on, you'll have no identifying marks of any kind. You will not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting memory with anyone you encounter. You are a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu, and dismissed just as quickly. You don't exist. You were never even born. Anonymity is your name, silence is your native tongue. You are no longer part of the system. You are above the system, over it, beyond it. We're "them." We're "they."

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/72/039_26265~Tommy-Lee-Jones-Will-Smith-in-Men-in-Black-Posters.jpg

[dave68]

Lol!

[idirtify]

Is that where you get your "info" from? There are some truths there and a lot of outright lies couched in "probable" or "possible". If that is all you know about him it is no wonder you think he was born in Kenya or someplace else. There is a lot more information out there.
If anybody wishes to prove he was born someplace else. show the birth certificate. It is that easy.

Zippy,

Your statement is doubly remarkable. First, it puts the onus of proof on the wrong party. Second, it falsely claims that it’s easy to obtain the original BC of someone who does not grant permission.

[Sandra]

Another thought occured to me. If I was to run for town councilman more info would be known about me than our current president!?? The man has no details from his past. Nobody remembers him.

Not if someone claimed your documents were falsified, doctored, etc. and then asked you to prove they weren't. How do you prove it?

[idirtify]

Experts have examined the short form and declared it not a forgery. The long form includes the same place of birth and dates and such. That is not changed from the short form to the long one. Just more information added.

Zippy,

You cite “Hawaiian officials” and “experts” as if you trust that their word is a substitute for the long/original BC. That kind of trust in authority is bad enough, but then you imply that WE should also trust in their authority. How in the world do you expect to post that kind of content in a forum such as this and receive any credibility?

[Sandra]

Zippy,

You cite “Hawaiian officials” and “experts” as if you trust that their word is a substitute for the long/original BC. That kind of trust in authority is bad enough, but then you imply that WE should also trust in their authority. How in the world do you expect to post that kind of content in a forum such as this and receive any credibility?


But the birther movement began with World Net Daily. Now World Net Daily as another source. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

[idirtify]

Not if someone claimed your documents were falsified, doctored, etc. and then asked you to prove they weren't. How do you prove it?

Sandra,

Why are you posing such an irrelevant scenario? Since the document at the heart of this issue is missing, no one is claiming that it’s falsified or doctored or asking anyone to prove that it isn’t.

[Sandra]

Sandra,

Why are you posing such an irrelevant scenario? Since the document at the heart of this issue is missing, no one is claiming that it’s falsified or doctored or asking anyone to prove that it isn’t.

Link? Birthers claimed the BC was photoshopped. That is what Taitz and Farah are claiming. If your claim is it's "missing", even WND claims that's a total falsehood.

[idirtify]

But the birther movement began with World Net Daily. Now World Net Daily as another source. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Sandra,

Your point escapes me, and your second sentence eludes me. Please write better. It’s bad enough that you are performing great contortions of coherence in order to draw attention away from the missing document; at least use legible English in the process.

[idirtify]

Link? Birthers claimed the BC was photoshopped. That is what Taitz and Farah are claiming. If your claim is it's "missing", even WND claims that's a total falsehood.

Sandra,

It should be obvious to you by now that many of us here do not care who all has claimed to have seen the long-form original BC. We do not trust their claims. Apparently our standard of proof is much greater than yours, since you apparently trust the word of others much more readily. For all practical purposes (the purpose of qualifying to be eligible as POTUS), the document is missing. Oh…unless you have found it. How about THAT link?

[fedup100]

Show the original or step down now!

[Number19]

But the birther movement began with World Net Daily. Now World Net Daily as another source. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214Could you supply a link, or maybe a remembered date, for the earliest reports by WND.

I have source from July 08 - Atlas Shrugs - which presented an analysis of the short form, with the conclusion it is a fraud.

The earliest WND source material I have is from August 2008.

Are there reports/claims by WND that pre-dates July?

[Pete]

Thank you for the link. Somebody spent a lot of time compiling that.
In the "The Chart" section it attempts to show that there is a distinction the courts have made between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. It cites two fairly well-known cases, US vs. Wong Kim Ark, where a man born in San Francisco in one of the several states of California and whose parents were Chinese sought to be declared a citizen. By 6-2 the court ruled that the law did indeed say that because he was born in the US (and not subject to certain conditions which could disqualify that), that he was indeed a US citizen.

In the second case, Perkins v. Elg, miss Elg was born in Brooklyn New York to emigrants from Sweden. Her parents later moved back to Sweden but at 21 miss Elg wanted to come back to the United States. She inquired at a US consulate which suggested she apply for a US passport for her trip back to the United States. She was admitted on that passport and resided in the US ever since. Several years later, the State Department said she was in the country illegally and would have to leave. She sued and the court suported her citizenship. While her parents wanted to stay in Sweden, she wanted to exercise her US citizenship once she became old enough to make such decisions for herself.

Some points. First, in both cases, the court ruled that despite having both parents being foreign born, the people were still citizens because they were born in the US. Obama was born in the US. Second, both had foreign born parents- but Obama's mother was a US citizen. Third (unless I missed it- please point me towards a source if you can), in neither case does the court say anything about the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. All three gained their citizenship by virtue of being born in the US. Obama has the added support of having a US citizen for his mother.

Thanks for reading that! It's pretty obvious that the term 'natural born' has special meaning, because important documents like the Constitution don't have extra words thrown into them simply because they sound good. I guess it boils down to whether Obama's mother's citizenship satisfies the requirement, or whether both parents must be citizens. It's a legitimate question, I think.

I think that the long form/short form argument also has merit, btw. Here's what the Hawaii official had to say: "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,"

Original Kenyan birth certificate? Original short form birth certificate? Her language is equivocal; why did she not simply say that he was born in Hawaii? Really, short forms are unreliable because they are often issued for HHS-type reasons.

All this being said, I am not in favor of the nation going down the bunny hole pursuing this issue at this late date, or of Obama being deposed because of it. The appointment of Biden as President would be a non-victory and, more importantly, I'd hate to see the resulting bitterness culminate in a Constitutional Convention because that 'mean old Constitution' deprived us of JFKII. The system is too corrupt and the public is too dumb for a Con Con.

I join in these arguments on the forum mainly because of the Obama shilling and disregard for facts and reason. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[anaconda]

Citizen and Natural Born citizen are not the same thing. Arnold is a citizen. Henry Kissinger is a citizen. Neither can be President. A dissenting opinion written in the 1800's states that it is up to the states to decide if one of their residents is a natural born citizen. The law in Hawaii was unambiguous. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen, they must have been so for ten years, 5 of which were incurred from age 16 on. In other words Obama's mother needed to be 21 when he was born. she was only 18. Case closed.

[Pete]

^^^^slam dunk

[idirtify]

All this being said, I am not in favor of the nation going down the bunny hole pursuing this issue at this late date, or of Obama being deposed because of it. The appointment of Biden as President would be a non-victory and, more importantly, I'd hate to see the resulting bitterness culminate in a Constitutional Convention because that 'mean old Constitution' deprived us of JFKII. The system is too corrupt and the public is too dumb for a Con Con.


Then you advocate tossing the Constitution. How about you instead advocate tossing the BUM out? Look…it doesn’t matter who replaces him; it’s always good that the people enforce the few powers we have over authority. It sends the message that “we ain’t gonna take it!” and subsequent leaders will not be so likely to violate the Constitutional and be so cocky about it. But if you let them get away with it once, it’s just one more constitutional item you have permanently given away (once you give one away, you NEVER get it back). Therefore, I hope you can see how a lover of individual freedom really has no choice but to throw the bum out.

[qh4dotcom]

All this being said, I am not in favor of the nation going down the bunny hole pursuing this issue at this late date, or of Obama being deposed because of it. The appointment of Biden as President would be a non-victory

Pete, you don't get it do you? Don't you think reversing all the damage Obama has signed into law is a victory? The Obama eligibility issue is the ONLY way to do that...when it is proven that he is an unconstitutional president, all the laws he has signed become invalid...do you want the stimulus to go away? any future health care or cap and trade law to go away? All his big spending, anti-constitutional and socialistic crap to go away? Wouldn't that be a victory? Yes I know it will be a big mess to undo all the damage he has done and who knows maybe Biden will continue Obama's legacy but it's better than letting the economy collapse and the nation to go bankrupt.

[klamath]

Actually pushing this issue may get you all Arnold the Terminator for president. The supreme court will redifne what natural born is to keep the nations cities from being burned in riots

[idirtify]

Pete, you don't get it do you...Don't you think reversing all the damage Obama has signed into law is a victory? The Obama eligibility issue is the ONLY way to do that...when it is proven that he is an unconstitutional president, all the laws he has signed become invalid...do you want the stimulus to go away? any future health care or cap and trade law to go away? All his big spending, anti-constitutional and socialistic crap to go away? Wouldn't that be a victory? Yes I know it will be a big mess to undo all the damage he has done and who knows maybe Biden will continue Obama's legacy but it's better than letting the economy collapse and the nation to go bankrupt.

qh4dotcom, great points!

Also Pete,
Booting Obama out would do a great deal of damage to the two-party system – which is just what the LP needs. (Even though RP is officially a Republican, everyone knows he is also a Libertarian.) The public needs to see the futility of big government and the Two parties. Eight years of the best of Republicans only got them a gang of war criminals and yielded a bankrupt nation. So they then try voting in a Democrat and look what they get - disaster. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with promoting individual freedom.

[speciallyblend]

this issue is gonna hit the gop like a pie in the face!

[kahless]

Actually pushing this issue may get you all Arnold the Terminator for president. The supreme court will redifne what natural born is to keep the nations cities from being burned in riots

Exactly, that is what I said a few pages back but Idirtify and Specialtyblend brings up a good point about the damage it would do the Republicans. So all might not be lost and provide the Libertarians a shot as the alternative party due to the huge backlash in booting Obama.

Depending on the level of dissatisfaction with Democrats you may end up with a result being no better than half the country voting Democrat and the other half split between multiple parties. The Republican party is already very fragile which is the reason why cowards like Lindsey Graham are cowering in fear supporting the Sotomayer nomination.

[Pete]

Idirtify and gh4dotcom--

Gh4dotcom's argument makes sense, certainly, and to be honest I am pleased by the attention the BC issue is getting, waking people up to the crookedness of the system. But I am also wary of the BC issue being a potential trap, following the Fabian principle of creating order from chaos. Remember that Philip Berg is a Democrat close to Hillary Clinton. Also, Orly Taitz has a peculiar background and I think she could be a false shepherd.

Smart conservatives like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Pat Buchanan aren't touching the subject of Obama's citizenship at this time. We probably ought to keep the issues on a higher plane as well, IMO, because 'throwing the bum out' would just continue to feed the partisan frenzy, at best. Again, this is my opinion. I'm looking for better leadership on the matter.

[idirtify]

What unfortunate rationale we are seeing here. Pete thinks we should not hold politicians to a higher standard of accountability and throw them out of office when we get the chance because “the system is too corrupt and the public is too dumb” and it would “be a non-victory…culminate in a Constitutional Convention…just continue to feed the partisan frenzy”. Klamath thinks it would “get you all Arnold the Terminator for president” because “the supreme court will redifne what natural born is to keep the nations cities from being burned in riots”. I SMELL SOMETHING ROTTEN. These kinds of false fears are part of the most favorite tactic used by big governments to violate rights and constitutions. Authority loves to embellish an unreasonable fear and scare the people into submission and/or apathy. Look…I’m all for trying to plan ahead, but this rationale is as old as the hills. There are always a trainload of potential bad short-term outcomes from any single action, but that is not the point of doing the right thing. If it was, all “right things” would become “wrong things” and all incentives for doing them would disappear. IOW under this kind of thinking, we might as well tear up the Constitution, forget about the Golden Rule, and dissolve the Liberty/RP movement.

Dear Lovers of Individual Freedom: always be suspicious of people who will go to great lengths of sophistry to predict all manner of doom and gloom if you do this one good thing; “It’s a good thing, but you should not do it because a whole lot of bad things will probably result”. Whether there is a hidden agenda behind it (usually is) or whether it’s just good old-fashioned fear and ignorance, it doesn’t matter; the effect is the same.

[Pete]

^^^attempted smear :rolleyes:

[fedup100]

^^^attempted smear :rolleyes:

No Pete, you shit your on pants they just pointed it out. :cool:

[Sandra]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

[fedup100]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

Idirtify seems to have a good ration of common sense. Someone sure needed to define the forum, glad they did it and it shows they have clear judgment.

Sandra, please go home to your suckoffzero site and leave those who are trying to save the republic get on with their business.

[idirtify]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

Good grief Sandra, there are several points that are relevant to this topic waiting for your reply, but instead you say that I have no right to try “to DEFINE the forum”. If you disagree with my description, then rebut it properly by providing your own; but please don’t issue such a ridiculous idea of a “right”, or your posting credibility will continue to fall. (Shall I again point out the theme of this forum, but this time as it pertains to “rights”?)

Come-on and get back on topic. Start by specifying HOW you think my judgment is not clear – REGARDING THIS TOPIC.

[idirtify]

^^^attempted smear :rolleyes:

please elaborate.

[Sandra]

Good grief Sandra, there are several points that are relevant to this topic waiting for your reply, but instead you say that I have no right to try “to DEFINE the forum”. If you disagree with my description, then rebut it properly by providing your own; but please don’t issue such a ridiculous idea of a “right”, or your posting credibility will continue to fall. (Shall I again point out the theme of this forum, but this time as it pertains to “rights”?)

Come-on and get back on topic. Start by specifying HOW you think my judgment is not clear – REGARDING THIS TOPIC.


No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

[Pete]

please elaborate.

Well, your previous post reframed my argument in a way that I do not agree with, and you insinuated that I might be a shill. I'm not arguing with you any more.

[Zippyjuan]

This is like the 9/11 threads. It gets to where you have to realize that nobody is going to change their mind and going on is pointless. Unless you enjoy the banter.
Obama is president. The only way to change that is to get him impeached or prove (by providing a genuine birth certificate from another country) he isn't or voting him out. You get another chance at that in 2012.

[mediahasyou]

Say it was actually true that Obama was not born in the U.S...

Why would the government use the constitution to impeach Obama when the constitution is not even being used?

Say Obama actually got impeached...

Would Joe Biden be any better than Obama?

You are wasting your time.

[tpreitzel]

Obama needs to stop the obfuscation and just present the facts certifying his birth with the long form record of it. Just like 9-11, this issue needs to be pursued until he does as both of these issues affect the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, one indirectly and the other directly. These issues NEVER need to go away until the facts are uncovered and justice executed. Maybe, priorities need to be periodically reevaluated, but the issues themselves demand pursuing until justice is served. The issue isn't who is better if justice is served. The issue IS the US Constitution itself.

[idirtify]

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

Sandra,

Before I reply to your continued diversion away from the topic and on to my person, I’d like to say that your tactic is typical for those who can not support their arguments. IOW, what about the topic, Sandra?

Regarding you calling me a “Troll”, you might have some credibility if this were a Democrat forum. But the last time I checked, it’s about as far from that as you can get. So in that context, I’m afraid the more trollish posting pattern would be one that continually defended a DEMOCRAT. (Oh wait…you didn’t want me to “define” this forum. Well darnit, there I go again – violating your “right”. ;))

Now let my try to TROLL you back into attempting to support your claims. I must assume you are objecting to this “definition” of the forum I posted earlier:
“one of the main themes of this forum is distrust of authority”
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, how and why? Let’s not worry about how many OTHERS agree or disagree with it, and let’s ignore your ridiculous strawman version of it. I want to hear YOUR actual disagreement.

[fedup100]

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

I agree with his definition. I also know YOU are the shill. We know why we are here on this forum. You know you are here to try your very best to divide and generally make sure nothing is done to save the republic.

Doubt, that is your job, to spread doubt. Your job is to protect your zero and make sure the sheeple see the doubt.

If only you could go back in time and become O's mother, you and she were cut from the same gib.

[idirtify]

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

Sandra,

Before I reply to your continued diversion away from the topic and on to my person, I’d like to say that your tactic is typical for those who can not support their arguments. IOW, what about the topic, Sandra?

Regarding you calling me a “Troll”, you might have some credibility if this were a Democrat forum. But the last time I checked, it’s about as far from that as you can get. So in that context, I’m afraid the more trollish posting pattern would be one that continually defended a DEMOCRAT. (Oh wait…you didn’t want me to “define” this forum. Well darnit, there I go again – violating your “right”.)

Now let my try to TROLL you back into attempting to support your claims. I must assume you are objecting to this “definition” of the forum I posted earlier:
“one of the main themes of this forum is distrust of authority?”
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, how and why? Let’s not worry about how many OTHERS agree or disagree with my “definition”, and let’s ignore your ridiculous strawman version of it. I want to hear YOUR actual disagreement.

[idirtify]

Well, your previous post reframed my argument in a way that I do not agree with, and you insinuated that I might be a shill. I'm not arguing with you any more.

Thanks for elaborating, but you are incorrect. I only insinuated that you might have a pro-Obama or pro-Democrat agenda. You certainly don’t need to be a shill for that. Now if you want to argue that you do NOT have such an agenda, then it behooves you to explain the real reason(s) why you would not hold a corrupt big-government politician (the biggest one in the land) to a higher standard of accountability and throw him out of office while we have the chance AND why you would allow said biggest politician to get away with holding the office without proper qualification. The reason you need to give your real reason(s) is because your previous reasons are not only lame but antithetical to everything about the theme of this forum.

Or if you would rather argue precisely how my previous post reframed your argument, please do; because you could accomplish the same task within that frame.

[amy31416]

Please Jesus, tell me that we aren't part of the "birther" movement and that we criticize Obama on policy, not conspiracy.

Amen.

[V-rod]

Obama's real birth certificate was lost when Bush blew up World Trade Center Building 7.

[idirtify]

Ahh, now we have three more to join Pete and Klamath, who create fanciful reasons why we should not do the right thing and uphold the constitution.

Zippyjuan claims we should not uphold the Constitution because “nobody is going to change their mind”… “going on is pointless”… and … “the only way…is to get him impeached (only by “providing a genuine birth certificate from another country”) or “vote him out…in 2012”.

Mediahasyou claims we should not uphold the Constitution because “the constitution is not even being used”… “would Joe Biden be any better”…”you are wasting your time”.

amy31416 claims we should not uphold the Constitution because it’s the “birther movement…conspiracy” and it doesn’t “criticize Obama on policy”.

I’m sorry, but maybe Sandra is right and I AM in the wrong place. I’m being called a “troll” because of my pro-Constitution position. I thought the Constitution was an important thing around here. I’m pretty sure I hear RP mention it a lot, or maybe I’m delusional.

[anaconda]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

I don't think we should have a caste system based on seniority here. The Ron Paul Revolution and forum are way too young to be hazing newcomers.

[anaconda]

Please Jesus, tell me that we aren't part of the "birther" movement and that we criticize Obama on policy, not conspiracy.

Amen.

The Constitution is policy.

[Lord Xar]

Yeah, sandra is a shill, and this forum has a BOATLOAD of them.. they are easy to spot, but boy o' boy, they do cause alot of distraction.

[idirtify]

Yeah, sandra is a shill, and this forum has a BOATLOAD of them.. they are easy to spot, but boy o' boy, they do cause alot of distraction.

No doubt! But hey, what would any large political forum be without them? They test us. And after all, they are a boatload of fun to discredit; because of how quickly they get upset and resort to flaming.

[Sandra]

Idirtify, one has to wonder why you make an appearance all of a sudden and post the hell out of this issue.

[Peace&Freedom]

Please Jesus, tell me that we aren't part of the "birther" movement and that we criticize Obama on policy, not conspiracy.

Amen.

JESUS: Your movement is part of the "birthers" if you claim to be pro-Constitution. You criticize Obama on policy, and the plainly orchestrated hiding of his vital records.

Amen.