Obama's Birth Certificate thing...
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
heehee
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
makes some rather interesting points of observation on the forgery issue...Hmmmm...
In any event...Happy December 1st deadline!
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
makes some rather interesting points of observation on the forgery issue...Hmmmm...
In any event...Happy December 1st deadline!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
IF it turns out to be somewhat true a gauranteed uprising is forthcoming. Therefore it isn't going anywhere.
A
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I will admit an Obama presidency doesn't look too promising...but jesus, he's not even president yet. should give him a chance at least.
Anyway, I thought this was interesting as well:
"However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.
In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.”
The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.]
In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign."
Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.
In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed a copy of his birth certificate.
Indeed why haven't they?
Also, don't fool yourself people, this isn't some conspiracy theory. The allegations might very well be false but that doesn't change the fact that Obama and his lawyer's haven't done anything and this case isn't a figment of someone's imagination, it's a real case.
naděje umírá poslední
where's this man from? is he one of us? can we be more cryptic?
it's all real, inside my head/heart
TIN FOIL for-evah
Me? I'm not reaching. How could I be, unless I'm the one in the video talking about the inconsistencies.
I just find it funny.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The sound of Obama and his legal team when asked about Obama's birth certificate... a bee buzzing along, while they all stare at their feet, ashamed of their incompetence.
I like it. Obama's legal team sucks, Obama as well considering that he's a jurist. One simple action months ago could have made all of this disappear. Instead, they chose not to answer and thereby feeding the suspicion and controversy.
You can call people nutjobs, conspiracy nuts, mention tin foil hats... just remember that Obama had the power to stop all of these rumours, slander... a long time ago. It's Obama who failed to release his birth certificate.
McCain faced the same allegations and his legal team sorted it out immediately. Obama surely knows there's a group of people who don't trust him because his colour, name, because they believe ridiculous rumours about his religion... yet he chose to give them ammo and strengthen their distrust by failing to do a very simple thing.
Laugh at the 'nuts' all you want, Obama seems to be the idiot here.
naděje umírá poslední
STILL don't understand why Obama's team would not respond to a SUPREME COURT DEADLINE.
Just outright bizzare.
???
Justice Thomas distributes Obama case for conference
By Linda Bentley | November 21, 2008
Foreign national certified as presidential candidate
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, Nov. 19, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas distributed Leo C. Denofrio’s renewed application for a stay of the election for conference on Dec. 5.
If four of the nine justices favor review, a hearing will be scheduled.
His first application was denied by Justice David Souter on Nov. 6. However, rules of the court allow for the renewed submission to a justice of choice.
Beginning in October, Denofrio made his way up through the ranks of the courts until his constitutional question as to the meaning of “natural born citizen” reached the Supreme Court.
He submitted an application for an emergency stay to prohibit the use of what he called “defective ballots” in the state of New Jersey because they contained ineligible candidates for the office of President of the United States, and asked that the court order New Jersey Secretary of State (SOS) Nina Mitchell Wells to remove the names of Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero from New Jersey ballots.
According to Denofrio, the three candidates are not “natural born citizens,” as required by the Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.
Denofrio contends Obama, even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, because his father was born in Kenya, having been born with split and competing loyalties, is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.”
Denofrio contacted the New Jersey SOS Elections Division on Oct. 22 to determine what steps the SOS had taken to determine whether any of the presidential candidates listed on the New Jersey ballots were eligible for the office.
He was informed by Elections Manager Donna Barber the SOS took no steps to determine eligibility and assumed eligibility based only upon the fact they had been nominated.
However, New Jersey statute requires Wells to make a “statement” wherein she certifies, under her hand and official seal of office, the names … “of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”
On Oct. 23, Denofrio spoke to Barber, who again informed him she had no reason to object to such party nominations and the statutory deadline for objections had passed. Barber specifically stated the Elections Division would not change ballots at such a late date.
Denofrio says New Jersey voters must rely upon the SOS to safeguard the integrity of their electoral process, especially during presidential cycles “when she must be most vigilant of her oath of office.”
If the SOS doesn’t protect the citizens of New Jersey, Denofrio states it is then up to the citizens to command Wells to do so.
As a result of Wells’ “misfeasance,” Denofrio says the state’s ballots contain the names of three presidential candidates who are not, “by law entitled,” to hold the office of President of the United States.
Denofrio states McCain was born in Panama, Calero was born in Nicaragua and Obama’s birthplace has not been verified.
He asks, “If the SOS’s role is clerical, then who is responsible for Roger Calero appearing on the ballots?”
Calero, born in Nicaragua, not only is not a “natural born citizen,” he isn’t even a citizen. He’s a resident alien who also appeared on numerous state ballots during the 2004 presidential election.
While the Socialist Workers Party was somehow qualified to place its candidate on the ballot in 10 states, five of those states refused to list Caldero on their ballots because he is not constitutionally qualified and substituted candidate James Harris, a “surrogate nominee.”
Denofrio states, “… had the U.S. legislature intended to grant ‘natural born citizen’ status to all who were born on U.S. soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words ‘natural born citizen,’ but it doesn’t … McCain was born in Panama. Panama is not considered U.S. soil, nor has it ever been considered as such.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated, “… the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens ...”
However, Denofrio points out the Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically repealed the 1790 act and replaced it with the same clause except with the words “natural born” deleted.
Denofrio also quotes a section from the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which states, “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
Denofrio says McCain was neither born on U.S. soil, nor was he naturalized and is a citizen at birth by statute, which is also addressed in the Foreign Affairs Manual.
McCain is neither “natural born” nor naturalized, says Denofrio. Instead, he may claim citizenship from 8 USC 1402(a): “Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after Feb. 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”
In other words, Denofrio states, “McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth, but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute.”
The Foreign Affairs Manual also addresses the issue of eligibility for president as such: “It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”
As far as the issues surrounding Obama’s birth certificate are concerned, Denofrio states Obama has not been presented with a legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore has no legal responsibility to produce one.
However, Denofrio says he believes if “Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put the issue behind him forever.
“That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of president since he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the Constitution.”
In conclusion Denofrio states had the legislature intended to grant “natural born citizen” status to all who were born on U.S. soil, the 14th Amendment would contain the words “natural born citizen.”
He said, “And so this proposition leads to the logical conclusion that a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents, neither of which is an alien. Having an alien parent would tie such person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws. And such a person, even if he is as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.”
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Oh that's easy...McCain never said the word change every 5 seconds.
Change is the magic word that gets people chewing and mooing...(and yawning...and snoring)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Say wha??
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Now i'm a bit miffed.
Was looking for ANYTHING on the SCOTUS site ...
found this docket
which lists:
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Which made me wonder, what the fuck does that even mean?
So i google it,
and get this
which says,
So now i am REALLY confused.
Is the DoJ filing in place of Obama, who is now simply "The Government"?
Hmm.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Perhaps they didn't respond because it was a laughable case and they figured it would be tossed out without them having to bother fighting it. And maybe it's a matter of principle... them just being offended that this is even being requested... for the first time in American history and not wanting to even give such an attention-grabbing jackass the satisfaction of acknowledging him.
*cough...cough...wheeze* I can't see clearly though all this smoke... (picks up bong
What a bizarre case.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The Hawaiian government has verified that the released document is legit and that they have the long form on file. Why don't these conspiracy theorists believe them?
I mean, really....... why?
At any rate, Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen, which by modern standards means that he is a natural born U.S. citizen. No court in all the land will declare him ineligible to serve because of some technicality of Hawaiian law from the 1960s.
But, let's all play along here for a second. Let's say Obama was born in Kenya. And let's say that the courts discover this and use the 1960s law as reason to disqualify him. "Natural Born" is not defined in the U.S. Constitution. Wouldn't Congress simply have to pass a law defining it retroactively? Maybe they can't - but I can't see why they couldn't. And, if they could, does anyone think they wouldn't?
Let's say it's that other angle. Let's say that because of his father, the British government recognizes Obama as a British citizen. Dual citizenship? Maybe as far as the U.K. is concerned - but we don't recognize that.
Now, let's go the logical route here. Let's say - and I know this is a stretch - but let's say Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, and that he's not really hiding anything. Why not simply release the long form birth certificate? Aside from the fact that it would be kind of insulting that - for some reason - Obama is required to go further to prove his natural born status than any other candidates, of course. Personally, I think it makes his critics look foolish, and maybe him and his staff think so as well. So why not keep it out there? Draw attention to that something....
that reason...
that for some reason people are loathe to accept the legitimate election of Barack Obama. I don't know. It's gotta be ..... something
yep we are all racists here.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I've always wondered myself who this guy is and where he came from. He talks a great game and seems extremely intelligent. Interesting. Replace super dumb guy with super smart guy, say change a zillion times, everyone feels vindicated, then reappoint all the same shitty people all over again, but people agree because the smart guy is in charge now.
Kind of surreal in a sense.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What else is different?
I think the problem with how the far left is going to feel in the coming four years is that they voted for a moderate Democrat who is close to the American center on foreign policy matters, and will govern accordingly. No policy positions Obama stated throughout the general election campaign could have made anyone think that in terms of policy he was different than the extreme progressives who typically support candidates such as Nader. No nationalized health care, no immediate withdrawl of Iraq, etc. The majority of people who voted for Obama (considering the majority of the American populations) are moderate. They wanted bipartisan support between Republicans and Democrats. You may believe that such "moderate" governance is bad, and 'more of the same', but it's what people voted for him for. He didn't campaign as a far-left liberal, so why would he govern like one? To do so would be disingenuous.
As for these people having been in Washington longer, that's a fairer criticism, although I think in part unfounded, but it's a far better argument than Obama not being a 'change' agent because he's not governing from the far left, and not appointing people accordingly. Maybe someone can answer this for me; what exactly during the general election campaign made you think Obama would govern from the far left, and has therefore left you subsequently disappointed with his choices thus far? Maybe I missed something. I thought we were electing a centrist Democrat who was working to improve bipartisanship between the left and right.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So what's the deal with all the change rhetoric?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Change means bipartisanship. Change means bridging the gap.
I'm asking; show me what policy or speech during the general election campaign signaled that Obama would govern as a far-left politician, and appoint people accordingly?
Ohh...that's what change means....there seems to be a lot of confusion going around.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'd just love to see those policies. The majority of those who voted for Obama are moderate. He campaigned as a moderate. Thus far, his choices in terms of policies relatively in the American 'moderate', whether slightly to the right or left. Do you disagree with any of this, or do you have some evidence to back up this notion that Obama has gone back from his far-left stances displayed during the campaign season?
And granted he isn't even president yet, but some of the advisers he's chosen are putting a bad taste in my mouth. We can go by his rhetoric on foreign policy (claiming "all options are on the table" concerning Iran) and his economic team he's assembled. Neither lead me to believe any real change is coming.
Fox news called him the most liberal Senator in the Senate...that made me laugh. He is far from radical. More of a centrist. But I voted for him (instead of Nader this time) because, again, he claimed he would bring fundamental change to Washington. Nothing he's done since he's been elected leads me to believe he going to come through on that promise.
He's catering to corporate interests so far, catering to foreign policy hawks in regards to Israel and terrorism and Iran, and has assembled an economic team whos members should be subpeoned, not given positions in government.
That's why I am a little bit bitter at this point. he's not president yet, I still have some hope, but its not looking good.