Sitting president's eligibility questioned by member of congress

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by OldDragger
Ain't it interesting that these so called "eligibility" threads inevitably turn into arguments over Obamas policies? And that the "birthers" always despise him personally and hate his policy?
Coincidence?

Which issue are you arguing here guys?

Don't you find it odd that the standard used to determine obamas eligibility is LOWER than the eligibility standard to become a police officer in California?

People who only present a "certification of live birth" will not be hired.. just as a "certification of license to drive" wont substitute as an actual "drivers license". ONLY a verifiable long form "Certificate of Live Birth" is acceptable to be a cop, but a president gets away with a certification? and that's ok?

Shouldn't the guy who has his finger on "the button" at least be able to rise to standards demanded of lowly Calif street cops?

I'll just assume your are confused....seriously...

Law requires that each state recognize certified, validated (registrars seal) "Certificate of Live Births" or "Birth Certificates" from other states.

whether the document is a "Birth certificate" or Certificate of Live birth" will depend on what state issued it.

It's local and federal law. It's part of that whole..."union" thing with states.

So the idea that the state of California will not recognize a COLB from Hawaii with a registrars seal...that doesn't sound likely unless California has seceeded from the union.

I also assume from what you contend that someone born in Canada couldn't be a CA cop either?...

The logic fails on so many fronts...

But I'll be interested to see what you come up with to back up this BS....what I expect to see is ...nothing...just the sound of crickets...or more accurately BS and cowardice.



[edit on 8-1-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by maybereal11]

Please cite your sources just as you ask others to cite theirs.
Ditto.

from a canadians point of view, we sorta kinda wanna see that B.C too!cause , when the # hits the fan, we get splattered on up here.

Good evening, sorry I am late had a busy day, thanks again for stopping by,

Little update,

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

page 19... .....Given the latitude allowed under these territorial statutes a health official years later could say that they had seen a document that verified that the defendant Soetoro aka Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact such was not the case....

HI Territorial Law 57 (foreign born & HI B.C.'s) - Joint Motion Filled in HOLLISTER v SOETORO

I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE EFFORT TO THIS POINT

The appellant John D. Hemenway previously asked the Court to take judicial notice of certain matters of public and official record, including a statute of the state of Hawaii that was enacted in 1982, § 338-17.8 of the revised laws of Hawaii of that year, and which was entitled” “Certificates for children born out of state.”
...
We thus asked to the Court to take judicial notice of the fact the laws of Hawaii, as late as 1982, and continuing into the present day, allowed then and do allow to this day for a child born out of state to receive something called a “birth certificate,” even though the child was not in fact born in Hawaii but was born outside Hawaii. Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a “birth certificate” that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that assertion doesn’t prove that a child was born in Hawaii.
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not respond to our motion (It originally was filed by the undersigned on behalf of both himself and appellant Hollister) within the time allowed by the Rules of the Court for responding to a motion. On October 20, 2009, the Court, through the Clerk, issued a Show of Cause to the appellees Soetoro a/k/a /Obama and Biden because of their failure to oppose our first Motion for Judicial Notice with the time allotted by the Rules for a response, saying that the appellees were required to file and show by October 30, 2009
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not comply with the October 20, 2009 Order of the Court by showing why they had ignored the Court’s Rules and failed to respond to the initial motion for judicial notice in a timely fashion. They offered no reason for why they had ignored the Rules. Instead they filed a document which badly misrepresented both the law and facts of the historically verifiable meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and attacked the submissions that we put forward as not being eligible for judicial notice, with the single exception of the statute quoted above. As to that one request, our asking that the Court take judicial notice of the 1982 statute, they did not attack that statute and thereby admitted that it was deserving of judicial notice or at the least waived any right to object to it.
...
In that first motion for judicial notice when we pointed to the above-quoted law of Hawaii of 1982, which is now unopposed and thus acknowledged as appropriate for judicial notice by the appellees, we stated that it was the same as the laws of Hawaii in effect at the time of the birth of the appellee Soetoro/ a/k/a Obama. At that time we were unable to locate, either on the website of the state of Hawaii or in the law libraries of the local law schools a copy of the territorial laws as they were in effect at the time of Soetoro a/ k/a Obama’s birth before the major revision of the state of Hawaii’s laws in 1982. Since that time the undersigned’s support staff has been able to locate a set of those territorial laws of Hawaii as they were published with the authority of the Territory of Hawaii in the years before the birth of the defendant Soetoro a/,k/a Obama and as they continued in effect up through the year that he was born.

II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITY TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

We attach to this new motion for judicial notice a copy of Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics,” the law concerning these matters as it was in the Territorial laws in question. The statute of the Territory thus attached is from the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii 1955 in Three Volumes as published by the authority of the Territory of Hawaii by the Filmer Brothers Press, 330 Jackson Street, San Francisco, California. These three volumes comprise the statutes of the territory including the acts passed at the regular session of 1955 and the special session of 1956 as consolidated, revised and annotated. As can be seen, because we attach it also and request judicial notice thereof, these three volumes of the statutes of the Territory are certified by the chairman of the compilation commission of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 as appointed by the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii under Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953.
...

In our earlier motion we were wrong on one point, although the error is in the favor of appellants. The error that we made was due to our not at that time of the filing of the first motion being able to locate a copy of the territorial statutes as in effect before 1982. Upon locating and being able to review the applicable territorial statute we found that it was not exactly the same as the act set out in the major revision and codification of 1982, although similar. What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless. After an initial discussion of that authority we will then request additionally that the Court take judicial notice as a legislative fact of the Act which put into place the 1982 statute which is still in place and which replaced the territorial acts.
...

The specific Act of the state legislature which brought the attached territorial statute up to date and incorporated it into that Code was Act 182 H.B. No. 3016-82. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of that Act as thus passed in 1982 at this time. The actual Act 182 says, inter alia:

Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

In this way, to quote further from the Act, “state policies and procedures” of Hawaii accommodate even “children born out of State.”
...
V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE TO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGH NOT CERTIFIABLY BORN IN HAWAII

We believe that the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the attached territorial statute and, in doing so take judicial notice that there are ways that a “birth certificate” can have been obtained for a child under that statute that are allowed greater latitude for such a “birth certificate” to have been obtained that would be restricted under the present statute, so that the present statute allows for a child to have been born outside the state and still have been issued a Hawaiian “birth certificate,” but does so without the same breadth of possibilities for that having happened as was possible under the attached territorial statute.

For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created. Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus, although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for incomplete information.

This great latitude that allows for mistakes, misinformation, incomplete information and even abuse in turn extends into the requirements for what is put on the birth certificates, or required to be put on them, how they are to be kept and disclosed and all the other aspects of the system."

Complete motion, with HI Territorial Law 57 attachment, here:

www.scribd.com...

The finding of this law is important because it proves that there existed, at the time of Barry's (alleged, 1961) birth, a way for foreign born baby's to obtain a HI birth certificate.

Previously, only the more recent version (from 1982, found here) was widely know...and a 1911 (?) version I believe. This HI Territorial Law 57 was in effect during 1961. Now the proof has been found and added as part of the court record for the HOLLISTER v. SOETORO case.

So the next time someone tries to lie to you and say that no such law existed (allowing foreign born baby's to be able to obtain a HI b.c.) at the time of his birth...you now have the proof to refute them.

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

[edit on 113131p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]

Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one.

the outline:

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."



2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] 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." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.

C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.


1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."

3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."


3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.

A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:


1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;

2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);

3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.


B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?

C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.

www.americanthinker.com...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
no such law existed (allowing foreign born baby's to be able to obtain a HI b.c.) at the time of his birth...you now have the proof to refute them.

That only applies if BOTH parents showed proof that hawaii had been their legal residence for the year before the child had been born: ie they lived in Hawaii for a year, went to another country and had the baby

provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

Sitting president's eligibility questioned by member of congress

Deal Challenges Obama’s Eligibility
FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS

by P. Patriot

www.thepostemail.com...

This was the topic, the fact that this member of congress may have questioned Obama's eligibility,

I report, you decide.

[edit on 123131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by jibeho
Please cite your sources just as you ask others to cite theirs.
Ditto.

LOL

Here, since you are a "vet" of the birther debate, I will respond with my posting from the last page...

Originally posted by maybereal11
...a favorite tactic of the "regulars" in the birther movement is to abandon threads where the BS has been disproven...give it time and then repeat in another thread or OP...

..at worst you waste the time and energy of those annoying folks that give a rats ass about facts and make them repeat themselves and find the links all over again....

at best you convince some new posters of your BS...Win/Win...ugly, but true.

This was covered in one of the judges decisions dismissing one of the fringe lawsuits claiming that the POTUS had not proven citizenship.

You can find it yourself or search threads here...I am not interested in wasting time repeating myself for the amusement of liars.

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by OldDragger
Ain't it interesting that these so called "eligibility" threads inevitably turn into arguments over Obamas policies? And that the "birthers" always despise him personally and hate his policy?
Coincidence?

Which issue are you arguing here guys?

Don't you find it odd that the standard used to determine obamas eligibility is LOWER than the eligibility standard to become a police officer in California?

People who only present a "certification of live birth" will not be hired.. just as a "certification of license to drive" wont substitute as an actual "drivers license". ONLY a verifiable long form "Certificate of Live Birth" is acceptable to be a cop, but a president gets away with a certification? and that's ok?

Shouldn't the guy who has his finger on "the button" at least be able to rise to standards demanded of lowly Calif street cops?

I'll just assume your are confused....seriously...

Law requires that each state recognize certified, validated (registrars seal) "Certificate of Live Births" or "Birth Certificates" from other states.

whether the document is a "Birth certificate" or Certificate of Live birth" will depend on what state issued it.

It's local and federal law. It's part of that whole..."union" thing with states.

So the idea that the state of California will not recognize a COLB from Hawaii with a registrars seal...that doesn't sound likely unless California has seceeded from the union.

I also assume from what you contend that someone born in Canada couldn't be a CA cop either?...

The logic fails on so many fronts...

But I'll be interested to see what you come up with to back up this BS....what I expect to see is ...nothing...just the sound of crickets...or more accurately BS and cowardice.



[edit on 8-1-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by maybereal11]

Please cite your sources just as you ask others to cite theirs.
Ditto.

Okay...I will be merciful and tell you where to look...

United States Constitution (Article IV, Section I) generally known as the full faith and credit clause.)

....

Hawaii, like many states, now prints birth certificates upon request from computerized state records.

State records like COLBs are granted "full faith and credit" by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1. They are valid both with the US Gov. as a whole as well as recognized as wholey valid by every other state...under the US Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu on 04 August 1961, as demonstrated by the validated state issued COLB.

* No Links...You can look it up yourself...Given your postings, I suspect you could use the practice actually researching and discussing factual data and law....give a try and tell me if I am BSing...

reply to post by Stormdancer777


If it were possible to prove Obama ineligible, the Clintons would have done it.

Obama will not respond to the issue until he believes it is the perfect time to destroy what is left of the credibility of his critics. He loves this issue. It is a great distraction from the damage his policies are doing to this country.

reply to post by dereks
So you can understand it, I will try to type reaaal sloooow...
Baraq Hussein Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, produced a document from the state of Hawaii that certifies that he was BORN, not hatched. ANYONE could have gotten that, if they were out of the country, out of the state, out of their minds, if they wanted it. It is a SHORT form Birth cert. The LONG form is only given to those born IN HAWAII. Baraq, having nothing to hide, has currently spent about a million dollars to NOT produce it, to conceal his records, to conceal his criminally applying for aid to foreigners if he was in fact a US citizen. His own GRANDMOTHER is on tape stating she witnessed his birth while his mother was visiting in Kenya. He then went on to attend school in Indonesia, a Muslim ONLY school. But we all know he was a member of an anti-white, anti-American church in Chicago, while he was involved in gangsterland politics. So perhaps he CONVERTED from Islam to just hating white Americans. It certainly is not Christian. I don't care who those foreigners like him hate, so long as they they don't do it here. Expose him, send him to GUANTANAMO for his own safety, then deport him. He is currently engaged in enemy actions, attempting to destroy America. Once his 'moon god' tires of this game, he will pull the rug out and let him squirm. THEN I will feel sorry for him. I do NOT want him killed, I want him exposed and humiliated for the Kenyan/Muslim/Communist he is.

reply to post by maybereal11
You are bs ing. In your snide, condescending, arrogant, and idiotic way. And you are 100% wrong! IF he were an American citizen, he would gladly have produced his long form BC, not spent a million to not release it. And the elite could not have done this on their own, either. His forefather, Lucifer, had to be involved to pull off such a magnificent scam. I have to give it to him, this fraud is unparalleled in history. Truly wonderous. A new form of jive...

Originally posted by Gregarious
Barack Obama, produced a document from the state of Hawaii that certifies that he was BORN

anybody born in Hawaii that is

ANYONE could have gotten that,

if they were born in Hawaii

Baraq, having nothing to hide, has currently spent about a million dollars

another birther lie, please show a valid source for him spending that much

His own GRANDMOTHER is on tape stating she witnessed his birth while his mother was visiting in Kenya.

yet another birther lie, she did not say that at all

He then went on to attend school in Indonesia, a Muslim ONLY school

still more birther lies, it was not a muslim only school...

The birthers are pathetic, so far every court case they have tried to bring has been thrown out, they have to resort to lies and the whole reason is a black man is the proper POTUS!

reply to post by joey_hv

No one seems to acknowledge the fact that Obamas birth location is in doubt in addition to the fact that he is not black! I don't know what the pc word is for mullatto. Hmm.

Originally posted by dereks
The birthers are pathetic, so far every court case they have tried to bring has been thrown out, they have to resort to lies and the whole reason is a black man is the proper POTUS!

54 and counting.

Daaaang who resurrected this old thread,

anywho I have wonderful news, today Bill O'Reilly proved with out a shadow of his doubt Obama was born in Hawaii,

His proof,

the fact that he had birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers, I have totally lost faith in investigating journalism.

case closed, ain't that a kick in the head?

[edit on 102828p://bWednesday2010 by Stormdancer777]

www.thepostemail.com...

HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth
WON’T DEFEND FUKINO’S STATEMENT THAT HE IS “NATURAL-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN”

by John Charlton

Mark J. Bennett, HI Attorney General

(Feb. 2, 2010) — While political momentum is building within the Democratic Party from coast to coast to make the issue of Obama’s claims to be born in Hawaii a litmus test for its political opponents in the 2010 general elections for Congress, a key component in such a strategy has been undermined by the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office.

In correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office will not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.”

The stunning admission was made in an email sent to the Editor of this paper yesterday evening.

The implications of this denial are catastrophic for the Democratic strategy.

HOW A CRUDE FORGERY WAS PASSED OFF AS AUTHENTIC TO GET AN UNKNOWN ELECTED AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA

www.thepostemail.com...

Originally posted by Mountainmeg
You know, all the stuff we knew about every other candidate or previous sitting president?

So how about you show us every previous President's going back to say Nixon their:
true long form birth certificate
passport
school records

If you are unable to show us those you were just lying!

reply to post by dereks


Instead of being churlish, why not regard all this as the seed from which a might oak will grow

because from here on in, the legitimacy of presidential candidates will be under the microscope WELL before the 'winner' steps up to grab the Presidential Gold Medal in the hotly contested United States Political Sports Olympics

Never mind about the dead and officially ga-ga presidents: they're gone

It's future presidents who matter

and also the current president

If Obama were leaving the White House tomorrow, it wouldn't be an issue

But, he plans to remain there for a few more years

and judging by the damage able to be inflicted on a long suffering world in such a short time as has passed since he gained office, it's reasonable that people would be concerned about the damage he could do in the time he has remaining

So --- they want to know who he is

They want to know where he sprang from

They want to know the history of this person who has the power to destroy their lives and the lives of their children

They want to know about his current loyalties, based on his past loyalties


And so far --- thanks to Obama's sealing his records as fast as he could -- people know next to nothing about the guy

So they've asked him, time and time again, to prove he is who he claims to be

And he's refused




It doesn't look good, does it ?

I mean, no matter how it's spun, it doesn't look good at all

Originally posted by Dock9
So they've asked him, time and time again, to prove he is who he claims to be

And he's refused

Oh dear, another birther who ignores his birth certificate!

It doesn't look good, does it ?
I mean, no matter how it's spun, it doesn't look good at all

No, it does not look good for birthers, they just keep ignoring the facts!