Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

reply to post by Thermo Klein

you don't think an alleged keypunch error on a social security card is odd?

No, keypunch errors don't seem odd at all.

Seems they'd check those pretty well.

Sure, the computer would have looked at the zip code as it was entered on the Hollerith card and looked it up to see if it was a valid zip code. Since it is a valid zip code it would have passed. Have you never noticed that spell checkers only tell you when it finds that something you typed isn't in its dictionary? If you type "the error was theres" you don't get a spell check flag because you meant to type "theirs" not "theres". Its the same thing.

Plus, if I recall (from memory, without proof) that he got his SSN when he was 15 to get a job at Baskin Robbins. Not sure why you mentioned the dates, have those changed since his birthdate?

Yes, I understand he got his SSN at 15; that would be 1976. In 1976 his grandparents house at 1617 S Beretania Street was in zip code 96814. The keypunch error morphs that to 06814 which is a valid zip code in Connecticut.

At sometime after 1976, new zip codes were added to Honolulu, presumably to account for growth. The zip code for 1617 S Beretania Street is now 96826. The keypunch error in this zip morphs it to 06826 which is an invalid zip code.

When the keypunch error possibility was first shown, some folks pointed out that the zip code for the Beretania Street house is (currently) 96826 and an error mutating it to 06826 yields an invalid zip code. It is thus necessary to check what the zip code was in 1976 when the SSN application was made.

That was proved by the some of the results obtained by Strunk and his FOIA request for Obama's mother's passport records. On her 1976 passport renewal application she lists her father's house on Beretania and gives the zip as 96814.

Um, the GOVT website says this:

The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence.

I'm the same age as the POS. I was born in Connecticut. My SSN starts with 042 as well. Just a coincidence, right? The ONLY way he could have that as a SSN is if he was either born in CT or, possibly, his parents mailed in the application from CT somehow, even though they supposedly lived in Hawaii, and have never been even near CT.

Or, like some are proposing here, they mixed up the zip code between Hawaii and Hartford. Kind of a stretch, I'd say, since their whole objective at the time was to get that right.

reply to post by Mizzijr

If I recall correctly John McCain is one of those candidates.

You recall incorrectly. McCain did not publish his birth certificate, nor did he 'release' it in any form what-so-ever. One reporter claims that he was allowed to see it briefly. He was not allowed to photograph it or copy it. The McCain campaign pointedly refused to back his claim.

There was a forged certificate spread around the internet with the wrong hospital listed. It was disowned by the McCain campaign, but even that did not convince them to publish the real thing.

reply to post by CaptChaos

Or, like some are proposing here, they mixed up the zip code between Hawaii and Hartford. Kind of a stretch, I'd say, since their whole objective at the time was to get that right.

Wrong.

The whole objective at the time (related to the Zip code and the state prefix group) was to ensure that they did not issue the same number to more than one individual. It is entirely irrelevant that a keypunch error got him into the Connecticut group instead of the Hawai'i group as long as two people didn't get the same number.

The whole thing is a strawman anyway. The issue is eligibility. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the President's SSN having to be coded from any particular state or other. In fact, try as I might, I can't find anywhere where it says anything about SSN's at all, let alone having anything to do with eligibility.

Originally posted by TopherWayne
He has nearly completed a full term as POTUS & my fellow ignorant Americans still can't stomach the fact that we have a half black President. That's what it all boils down to & we're going to have to hear it for four more years when he wins reelection.

Keep perpetuating those angry black racist stereotypes moron. Sorry your world is so small and your perception so racist that it couldn't POSSIBLY be about anything other than Black vs White/whomever else.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I take faith in what Mara Zebest, the author of the Official Guidebook for PhotoShop

Come on. At most she co-wrote one book on Photoshop 6 eleven years ago. There was nothing "official" about it—it was NOT published by Adobe.

Just like the judge says in the findings, there was no attempt made to convince the court that these witnesses were "experts" on ANYTHING.

So sick of people saying this is all about race. Sure there are people out there who don't want a black president. Well, first off, he is only half black. Second, most people want to find ANY reason to get him out of office because of the damage he has done to this country (and stop blaming it on bush, I don't support bush, but seriously, it's been 3 years, and NO progress has been made, most stats you see are doctored, like the pic about who "really increased the debt most") The man is crazy with power. He executes anyone he wants, with no justification, has started more wars, will most likely bring us into another war or two, with Syria or Iran. He spends $1.5 trillion MORE than our country generates each year, and still wants to increase spending. Get him out. He is running us into the ground. He shouldn't be on the ballot based on these facts alone. NO man should get a second chance after doing damage like that.

Also, according to a supreme court ruling in 1875 in the case of Minor v. Happersett, it was deemed that the parents MUST BE US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH OF THE CHILD for the child to be a "NATURAL BORN" citizen. Doesn't mean he has to meet these to be a citizen, just "natural born" which is a requirement to be President. Based on that fact alone, whether the birth cert is real or not, is enough to say he is ineligible to be President.

No I am not a racist, far from it. But I am sick of people saying "he doesn't like that guy who happens to be black, he must be racist" but when anyone hates the majority of white people, no one says anything. Those who cry racism are truly ignorant. Most posts I have seen on this thread have nothing to do with facts, just calling people who don't support a President who is black, racist, just like saying you don't support Israel's (the country/government) policy, then you are an anti-Semite, But if you say the same things about Iran or Syria, then it's fine?

Originally posted by resist2012
Also, according to a supreme court ruling in 1875 in the case of Minor v. Happersett, it was deemed that the parents MUST BE US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH OF THE CHILD for the child to be a "NATURAL BORN" citizen.

That's not what Minor says at all!!!

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. There were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

So in Minor, the judge said "Some people find "natural born" to include people born here of non-citizen parents. People question that, but it is not the purpose of this case to resolve that particular issue.

Your claim that Minor said that the parents MUST be citizens is entirely and absolutely a lie.

The whole birther thing is nothing more but a few lame confidence-"men" playing off the ignorance, and xenophobia of people with similar political views. If Barrack Obama's name was William Berger, and his skin was lighter, none of this nonsense would of gotten anywhere. It's ingrained in us, the fear of those that are different. I'm not saying all of the birther camp are horrible racists, but they're allowing a deep subconscious fear to control their thinking and actions, and that fear is of people that sound/look different then themselves.

There is no difference between birthers and those with other irrational beliefs: They usually look at a certain "issue" with preferred outcome in mind: IE- They know Obama isn't a "real" American, so they solely look for proof to support their claim, and outright ignore any evidence to the contrary. Their minds are made up, and no amount of logic, nor reality itself will change that, hence why you see the same people, repeating the same lies, when those lies are addressed, they create new lies, or look for a new spot to spread their old lies.

They don't see what they're doing as wrong, because in their own mind, they're the ones fighting for "truth", and in the end, that's all that matters to them, so they will use known "lies" to get to their preferred outcome. Just like the no-plane 9/11 truthers, Young-earth Creationists, Moon-landing hoaxers, Holocaust Deniers, etc: You'll see a common theme in these "beliefs". No amount of evidence will change their "belief" because the only "evidence" they'll entertain is evidence that supports their outlook on things, everything else is a cover-up or outright "lie", and they know this because it doesn't support their outlook. It's rather circular in logic, but that's what happens when you go into some kind of argument with your mind already made up.

Sure, there have been people who get caught up in the controversy, usually those people can actually research the subject and see the truth for themselves. A simple google search of any of the commonly spouted lies exposes pages and pages of sources refuting the claim, but that's ignored by the "believer". When I was younger, I found myself in similar situations. I got heavy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I ate up all the articles that supported what I WANTED to believe, and ignored any evidence refuting my belief as "propaganda". Then one day, I decided to actually start looking into these things myself, rather then taking the word of a website/video I liked, and my eyes were opened to the "truth", so to say.

Those who approach a subject with no prior prejudices are more likely to uncover the truth then coming into a subject with their mind made up. But we separate ourselves into little groups, "us vs. them", and attack anyone with an actual open-minded outlook, as one of "them" when really, they're just trying to lead us to the truth. I used to involve myself in birther debates, but soon took my leave when I noticed those I was debating, when confronted with the truth, just made up a different lie without addressing their first lie, or went to a new thread to spread their old lies to new people. On birther threads made very recently, you'll see the spouting of lies that were debunked YEARS ago. A simple search on the internet exposes those lies, but the one telling the lies will ignore that, as it does not help their "position", which they view as "righteous", so they will use lies to attain their "goal". You can't debate with people like that, because they don't care about the truth, just their own outlook.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


my question and one many should be asking is who gets to judge the judge ? and their decision ?

Who gets to judge that person...and then that person...

We have essentially removed checks and balances from our country...

The only true power we ever really had.

Let me see if I have this straight.

I didn't question Obama's 'birth' until the White House released his "Bitch Certificate" online, which I downloaded.

And then saw multiple anomalies within the layering of the PDF document when I viewed it in Adobe.

Then I studied the matter for a good 4 days until I asked experts online, read articles, and confirmed what I initially noticed about the layering artifacts in his "Birth Certificate"

All the above makes me a racist and a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist?

Our society is in the toilet.

reply to post by rnaa


How come birthers didn't raise this big of astink about McCain being born in Panama? Please dont say race has nothing to do with this as your credibility drops to automatic hypocrisy.

Disclaimer: I do not support Obama, republicrats or any controlled opposition candidate in this fake choice people call "elections".

I hope we never have a black President again, there, I said it.

Not for reasons you think, but because I'm so tired of reverse racists claiming that disagreement with Obama on practically anything is 'because he's black'.

No more black Presidents, because stupid guilty white people make bad fans.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Why in the world would you make such a ridiculous assumption?

Why do birthers make the ridiculous assumption Obama was not born in the USA?
The ridiculous assumption that he is not a natural born citizen?
The ridiculous assumption his birth certificates (both certified by the state of Hawaii) are fake?
The ridiculous assumption his SSN is fake, or was issued to someone else?
The ridiculous assumption he is a muslim?
The ridiculous assumption etc etc etc.

Obama could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom of 1600 Penn. Ave and that assured him to ONLY be a US citizen, not a natural born citizen. BOTH parents (notice plural) MUST be US citizens at the time of the childs birth.

FACTS not party line assumptions.


Review these 3 cases after reading the constitutions original intent by the founding fathers here:



www.constitution.org...




Book 1 Chapter XIX

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
___________________________________________________________




law2.umkc.edu...



MINOR v. HAPPERSETT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162
OCTOBER, 1874, Term
[Unanimous decision of the Supreme Court holding that the Constitution of the United States
does not guarantee to women the right to vote in federal elections.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________



supreme.justia.com...



BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892)
Case Preview
Full Text of Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)
Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer
No. 1208
Argued December 8, 1891
Decided February 1, 1892
143 U.S. 135
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
__________________________________________________________________________________________



supreme.justia.com...



POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904)
Case Preview
Full Text of Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 (1904)
Pope v. Williams
No. 603
Argued March 8-9, 1904
Decided April 4, 1904
193 U.S. 621
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
reply to post by rnaa

 

How come birthers didn't raise this big of astink about McCain being born in Panama? Please dont say race has nothing to do with this as your credibility drops to automatic hypocrisy.

Disclaimer: I do not support Obama, republicrats or any controlled opposition candidate in this fake choice people call "elections".

Both parents were US citizens at the time of his birth AND he was born in American territory (military base)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Or maybe this judge realized the career ending implications and wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe the judge is a left wing hack. Who knows.

The evidence that was brought in showed he was not eligible, so this is something fixed by TPTB.

He should be removed from office. But, nearly everyone else should be too, they're all criminally insane and have no right to office. What they call laws are crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

this part is the best part of the Judges statement from your link

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and "none ... provided persuasive testimony," Malihi wrote.

now if they had a FBI or State record exp then maybe they could have been herd but then why no FBI or state because this is all "non Obama" smear.

edit on 4-2-2012 by bekod because: editting

That is the best part...in short...he called everyone involved in this case fools.

I would like to extend that classification to anyone that still believes in this non-sense.

WHAT A SURPRISE! who would'a thunk that the President of the United States would be eligible for candidacy?

I, for one, am shocked and appalled! And hungry, and a little sleepy... And I've got this terrible rash.