Lawyer Who Beat the NSA Files Obama 'Deportation Petition'

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Without addressing the lack of decorum in that post, the fact that you cannot provide a source to prove your claim cannot be discarded with a simple "It was probably the Chicago Tribune".

As far as accepting anything that is offered up by a source - one could equally say the same for your arguments. The fact that not a single Republican of note has used this supposed "truth" to get the current POTUS out of office should be something of a clue as to the veracity of these claims.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
His grandmother DID say she witnessed his birth in Kenya,

No she did not - why didn't you follow the link I gave, which shows exactly what is said? Afraid you will learn the truth?

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

Or you can listen to it yourself....
www.obamaconspiracy.org...
But somehow I doubt you will!

And the BC WAS forged.

Your evidence for that silly claim is what exactly? Are you a document expert who has examined it? Remember, no expert has ever examined it and declared it a forgery, and it has been shown to be not a fake by the Hawaiian Dept of Health.

You really have to get a grip on your anger issues and reality for that matter.

My anger issues? I am not the one angry about Obama being the legal POTUS...

as to reality, you should have a look at reality sometime.

In the real world birthers are considered a joke for believing all the birther nonsense about Obama, in the real world every single birther court case has failed, as all birthers have are lies and silly made up stories, and remember, in the real world Obama was legally elected as POTUS, twice.

Whether Obama is, or is not, a 'Naturalized' U.S. Citizen or a Natural Citizen or any other form of U.S. CItizen, what is very clear is that Obama's allegiance is not with the U.S. Allegiance was very important to our founding fathers and was the reason for the strict citizen requirements to be eligible to be elected for the Presidency position. They wanted to be sure the person in this position had no nation, other than the United States to be loyal to. Dual citizen would not work, only a 100% United States citizen with full interest in this country is fit for the role of United States President. This was to protect the United States and her citizens against any other foreign interest being placed before it.

Since Obama's actions clearly prove that his allegiance is not solely with the United States, does it really what his reincarnated birth certificate says?

Edit to add this: However, getting to the root of the birth certificate issue may help to determine just where his allegiance is and may provide clues to the endgame that seems to be unfolding in front of us. Something is afloat and it is clearly not in the best interest of the United States . So, who's interest is being filled?

Obama is a Muslimer through and through which is why he will be deported or hung for his treason in Benghazi . But it will also happen because he ain't a citizen and that is treason to under the constitutions.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
Whether Obama is, or is not, a 'Naturalized' U.S. Citizen or a Natural Citizen or any other form of U.S. CItizen, what is very clear is that Obama's allegiance is not with the U.S. Allegiance was very important to our founding fathers and was the reason for the strict citizen requirements to be eligible to be elected for the Presidency position. They wanted to be sure the person in this position had no nation, other than the United States to be loyal to. Dual citizen would not work, only a 100% United States citizen with full interest in this country is fit for the role of United States President. This was to protect the United States and her citizens against any other foreign interest being placed before it.

Since Obama's actions clearly prove that his allegiance is not solely with the United States, does it really what his reincarnated birth certificate says?

Edit to add this: However, getting to the root of the birth certificate issue may help to determine just where his allegiance is and may provide clues to the endgame that seems to be unfolding in front of us. Something is afloat and it is clearly not in the best interest of the United States . So, who's interest is being filled?

It's clear he ain't American, and it's more clear he is with the Islam and Muslimers that he grew up with. They say he is part black, but he looks an awful lot like the terrorists that only a fool cant see.

I would think that after 60 attempts of proving he is not American they could win but I heard Obama has a whole lot more than 60 judges in his pockets. All we need is an honest judge who will do whats right and deport him back.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
Dual citizen would not work, only a 100% United States citizen with full interest in this country is fit for the role of United States President.

You obviously have not read the constitution, it says nothing about the President not being able to be a dual citizen....

However, getting to the root of the birth certificate issue may help to determine just where his allegiance is

We have gotten to the root of his BC - it was issued by the state of Hawaii and shows Obama is a natural born US citizen, as US courts have also declared....

So, who's interest is being filled?

Silly birthers who write books and the gullible who buy books.

originally posted by: haviahabia
I would think that after 60 attempts of proving he is not American they could win

Care to show us these 60 attempts to prove he was not Anerican?

and deport him back.

So you want him deported back to the USA....

a reply to: hellobruce

I read the transcript and I listened to the tape. The tape is worthless jibberish. The transcript is decidedly in a liberal tone. Refer to the statement on page 8, first paragraph, "After eight years of almost unrelenting dark days and horrors of the Bush era, there was a ray of possibility for a better day in America, maybe even a better world." That is in no way shape or form objective reporting. The tone and objective of the piece is established.

From page 7, excerpt of transcript:
Ron McRae: Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
Translator: Yes. She says, "Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born."

The author then goes on to say, "The full tape transcription makes clear that this phone conversation has not been represented accurately. There never was a statement by Sarah Obama at any point in this phone call saying or intending to say that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Kenya." See the same document, transcript excerpt on page 7. An obvious contradiction.

The author claims the statement was never made, then claims it was taken out of context, then claims it was probably the interpreters who said it, not Sarah Obama. In reality, if you read the entire transcript, Sarah and her interpreter are very accurate in assuring that Sarah was present when Obama jr. was born in Kenya - as the question was asked. Sarah did not say the words, "I was present when he was born in Kenya". But when asked, "Were you present when Obama jr. was born in Kenya?", she replied, "Yes."

What also becomes more clear as more people enter the conversation later on that the answers change. It is possible that this is when the interpreters took it upon themselves to answer for her.

As for the BC being fake. It was examined by many people, several of whom put tapes on youtube of the evidence they discovered. Regarding what you refer to as 'an expert', I have a feeling no matter what the persons experience or skill level, you will say they are not expert enough.

He was elected twice. That much is true. However, have you ever considered how many illegal aliens voted for him? Do those votes count the same as the votes of legitimate citizens? What about the thousands of dead people who register and vote the dnc party line every year? Are those votes valid? Can you answer these questions without spinning it about conservatives? If you remove the votes form illegal aliens, the votes from dead people, and the duplicate votes, it begs the question, did he really win anything? Or are you going to say no illegal aliens voted, no one voted more than once, and no dead people voted? If that is your argument, then I say prove it. I live in Chicago. We see it and hear about it every single time there is an election. We all watched the buses swarm the ghettos picking up people to take them to the polls, give them a free lunch and remind them to vote democrat or lose their government aid. Is that legal? Is it ok to bribe people to vote democrat with a free lunch and a free bus ride? Is it ok to scare people into thinking they will lose their benefits if republicans get elected?

You say all kinds of things about me because I don't blindly buy whatever the dnc says and you call me gullible, yet you buy every single thing the democrats tell you and fight for it tooth and nail like it was chiseled in stone and never consider there might be another side of the story. I looked at your evidence, I listened to it, and I found too many flaws to list here. I pointed out enough to make anyone of reasonable conscience think twice. Now lets see how you respond to it.

Oh, BTW, you seem to enjoy using terms like, right-wing birther sites, and such... I thought you would like to know that the original source of your transcript was www.lulu.com. A notorious self-publishing print-on-demand site often used to make personal opinions look like professional op-ed pieces. Its used to dupe those of little intellect into believing everything they read.

a reply to: Hefficide

I find it interesting that you choose to mention my lack of decorum but completely ignore it in the post I replied to...

As for my proof, it was roughly 8 years ago. Forgive me for not knowing I would need it 8 years later because some whiney liberal would demand I prove something he/she should investigate on their own. I should have kept it filed away in a zip lock bag for just such an occasion, but alas, one can only plan ahead for a limited number if ridiculous assertions. And it probably was the Tribune: On Dec. 1, 2008 an organization called "We the People Foundation" ran a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune entitled "An Open Letter to Barack Obama: Are You a Natural Citizen of the U.S.?"

A law suit was filed, full page ads were taken out in newspapers across the country, and it went to court. What exactly do you mean by 'republican of note'?, and, why does it have to be a republican?

a reply to: hellobruce

In regards to our statement about dual-citizenship and becoming president. You are wrong. The constitution is very clear on the terms for becoming president.

Title 8, Section 1401:
•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.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Not one thing about dual citizenship.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: hellobruce

In regards to our statement about dual-citizenship and becoming president. You are wrong. The constitution is very clear on the terms for becoming president.
Not one thing about dual citizenship.

Does it say anything about being able to speak and write English? Does it say anything about even being able to speak?

It says nothing about it, so therefore it does not matter. So I am not wrong at all. It lists the requirements to become President, it does not list what makes you ineligible....

a reply to: hellobruce

This is so stupid it barely deserves a reply. It defines what is required to be president. By default, anything that does not meet those requirements does not qualify. By clearly defining what is required it also clearly defines what disqualifies...

Let me put it in terms you may understand... You know that little sign that says, "You have to be 'this' tall to go on this ride..." Well, that line not only tells you how tall you have to be, it tells you what height disqualifies you. You liberals always fall back on the same lame argument...it/I/they/whoever didn't say "xxx" exact words...even though the meaning was perfectly clear. You throw stones at grammar and semantics all the while ignoring the context of the statement because the context invariably proves you to be wrong. So you do the next best thing, which in liberal terms is, dog and pony show - smoke and haze - lots of noise and shiny objects - run away when confronted by the truth. Hilary gets caught insider trading and the clintstones have a press conference to show off their new puppy. Bill gets caught having sex with an office intern and hillary announces she is adopting a baby from a third world country. Well, wheres the kid Hillary?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
It defines what is required to be president.

So if you meet all those requirements, like Obama did, you are eligible to become President.

By default, anything that does not meet those requirements does not qualify.

But a dual citizen can meet all those requirements....

By clearly defining what is required it also clearly defines what disqualifies...

Wrong again, all it does is define what you need to qualify. Anything else does not matter.... it is not hard to understand when you remove your blinkers!

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
As for the BC being fake. It was examined by many people,

No it was not actually - when and where did they "examine it"

several of whom put tapes on youtube

Oh dear, "I saw it on youtube so it must be true"!

. Regarding what you refer to as 'an expert',

Remember, no real expert would declare a document a forgery when they have never actually examined the document....

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In 1939 a case, Perkins v. Elg, came before them. The gist of the case was this: Two Swedish immigrants came to the US. They became naturalized. They had a daughter on US soil. Because of her parent's country of origin and her place of birth she was a dual-citizen. Fast forward a few years and they move back to Sweden. Fast forward a few years and the girl returns to the US as a US citizen. Her father eventually renounces his US citizenship. The Department of Labor attempts to detain her claiming she is no longer a citizen. She files a suit. After a number of cases it is brought before the Supreme Court. In the end they rule that not only is she a citizen but if she so wanted she could even run for President. So if a girl who was a dual citizen, spent most of her life in a foreign country, and had a father who renounced his US citizenship was eligible to become President why isn't Obama?

a reply to: hellobruce

This is the last time I will respond to you.

First, Obama couldn't meet all of those requirements, no one could. They are all different. Duh.
Second, none of those circumstances allows for dual citizenship. Each one of those defines a US citizen, NOT a dual citizen.

For God's sake...think for a minute...The US Constitution has nothing to do with who is a citizen of other countries. Of course it doesn't mention them. Just like the constitutions of other countries not mentioning what it takes to be a US citizen. Why would they? My God, are you a troll or what? Either way, don't bother responding to me, I wont read it or answer it.

You seem to think you know every single thing there is to know about that BC. How do you know that no one examined it? Prove it. Are you saying nothing on youtube is true? Prove it. How do you what an expert required in order to make a determination? Are you an expert? Prove it. No more BS. PROVE IT.

This is too stupid to continue. C'ya

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I just did some research on this. Very interesting reading. However, you are wrong. She was not a dual citizen. She was a US citizen, even though removed to Sweden, she was a minor at the time and therefore did not lose her citizenship. Due to her fathers expatriate position she was required to return to the US as an adult to maintain her citizenship, which she did. She was never anything but a US citizen, and therefore eligible to become president of the US if elected.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The US Constitution has nothing to do with who is a citizen of other countries.

True, you only have to be a natural born citizen, like Obama is. But according to you, if the front runner for President at the next election was given citizenship by say North Korea suddenly they are not eligible, as they are now a dual citizen...

Of course it doesn't mention them.

As they are not relevant to being eligible to become President....

are you a troll or what?

You are the one trolling here, claiming being a dual citizen makes you ineligible to become President!

How do you know that no one examined it? Prove it.

As I asked before, when and where was it examined by a document expert. A simple question, as you claim to have seen youtube videos of it!

How do you what an expert required in order to make a determination?

They would at least have to have held and examined it, but none of the so called youtube "experts" have done that.

Prove it. No more BS. PROVE IT.

You forget you are the one making the BS statements, it is up to you to prove those statements up, not others disprove them. Which you are unable to do....

This is too stupid to continue.

Well, that is a good description of birthers!

If you want to learn facts about Obama's BC, have a look at
www.obamaconspiracy.org...

An old interesting story about the "Short Form" certificate.....

Obama Revealed More Than His Birth Certificate Last Year

Hmmm.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I noted your lack of decorum as a favor to help keep this conversation going without a ton of posts disappearing from the midst of it. It was not a diversionary tactic.

As far as proving points go. The onus is upon you to prove that Barack Obama is an illegal alien, Muslim, etc. The cult of Orly Taitz has been disproven time and time again in court after court.

Of course this doesn't phase you. You simply then say that Obama owns the Judges.

If there were an ounce of truth in any of the accusations against the current POTUS do you not think that John Boehner would not have made sure that it was the ONLY story on every single network in the US? Do you not think that Rush and Glenn would be on the Whitehouse steps with copies of the evidence demanding "justice"? Do you not think that Donald Trump would have claimed victory?

Give me enough money and I can take out a full page ad saying anything I wish - it's called freedom of speech. Well actually it's rampant greed masquerading as freedom of speech but has the same end result.

The question I tend to ask "birthers" these days is: "You do realize Obama is a lame duck, right?"