Barack Obama Is Qualified To Be President... Isn't He? (by Jim Marrs)

Originally posted by Kenan
There are only three kinds of people questioning Obama's BC:

1. Sore losers who can't deal with the election results
2. Racists who can't deal with an african-american president
3. Loonies and conspiracy nuts

I predict you, and many of your ilk, will be dampening hankies with your tears of regret in the coming months.

Obama is a creation.
He was promoted in an MSM barrage by CIA Mockingbird agents.
And he's reinstating the corrupt Clinton Administration in his pick of advisers.

BTW...is there any witnesses to Obama's birth?
There isn't any listed on the fraudulent BC and no one has yet come forward.

reply to post by Kenan

There are only three kinds of people questioning Obama's BC:

1. Sore losers who can't deal with the election results
2. Racists who can't deal with an african-american president
3. Loonies and conspiracy nuts

Three type of people defending Obama

1)Those who want to ignore the Constitution and don't care if he isn't a Natural born citizen

2) Those who honestly feel he has shown his BC like Danx, maybereal11, and BH and back it up with evidence.

3) Those that consider anybody racist if they say anything negative about Obama. Takes one to know one, doesn't it?


I forgot to add you maybe, sorry.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by jam321]

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


Good Job, as usual Jim but what you don't seem to realize is that most of this generation aren't Americans, they are just some kind of Immigrant Consumers. As the generation that fought in WWII die off all grips on what being an American was suppose to mean will be lost and don't talk to me about the Vet Nam Group, they are who let this happen and in some cases, are who helped it happen.

Cripes, there is much I can not say because the Hall Monitors/Moderators will censor it, which in part is why I withdrew from exposed membership.

Whatever the case, this generation isn't going to do squat. They don't know right from wrong and are so spoiled, self serving and self important that they won't believe they are being led to slaughter until just before they are whacked in the head with a rifle butt or bully-club by one of their peers whose sold his soul for safety in numbers by joining the so called law enforcement. The real Americans and Patriot are going to be killed off pretty quick. particularly now that you have to be a saint to own a decent rifle and buy ammunition; ever read the laws about gun ownership..we are all felons if the truth were known.

As far as Obama and our G.D. Supreme Court, that scum doesn't even have the decency to clear the matter up once and for all...not that it matters; what the man wants is not the American Way and sure as hell isn't want I want.

The offenses and abuses are so many now that I am so disgusted that I would move to Russia or some 3rd World Country if it weren't for my children and family...many of whom are Texans and embraced that SOB Bush and deserve to suffer.

Obama is just another Clinton and if he goes astray, he has the Clintons close by to guide him.

I agree with everything you say Jim but this site is like talking to your kid's pet rabbit, it/they ain't going to do nothing but hope they don't lose internet access and 3 squares. I am sure Home Land Security, the FBI and CIA get a kick out of ATS and all the TALK.

Originally posted by sos37


I'm sure if a court called on this expert to testify, he would do so.

Can you prove that this guy is a forensic expert? It may just be me, but i take the credibility of somebody who went to harvard, has been a senator and was elected president over some shmuck who posted a youtube video with his face pixelated. But that's just me, i understand having common sense can be considered ignorant.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by WinoBot]

**** Reminder ****

Please keep this thread on topic. Not who is or isn't in the Obama "camp" and why or why not.

Thank You.

Hey Jam....I like your list better than his Good post. There are honest folk on both sides of the equation...they just get drowned out by sensationalistic personal attacks and political baiting.

I didn't see me listed among the legit defenders That's okay..admittedly I get drawn into the irrational back and forth too often.

Mod..sorry if this is off topic, but thought it worth while to acknowledge Jams courtessy with regards to this debate.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

So then, you must be a U.S. citizen to work at McDonald's....but not to be president? I would like to know who is backing Obama and pulling ALL the strings? This comes down to the "who's, who"......with the power to run the planet.

So bottom line, January 20th, 2009 will be political masturbation. Why does Obama bother? It's over. The first fraudulently elected African American.

Originally posted by Archaeus
I predict you, and many of your ilk, will be dampening hankies with your tears of regret in the coming months.

Obama is a creation.
He was promoted in an MSM barrage by CIA Mockingbird agents.
And he's reinstating the corrupt Clinton Administration in his pick of advisers.

BTW...is there any witnesses to Obama's birth?
There isn't any listed on the fraudulent BC and no one has yet come forward.

Um ... witnesses, - to a birth?
You have to be joking.
Either that or you're getting births and weddings confused.

Weddings tend to be big noisy affairs, involving guests and alcohol and lots of kissing. Usually some signing by witnesses in involved.

Birthings tend to be small quiet affairs, involving just a few support people and anaesthetics and lots of cussing. The only person to sign the original birth certificate is the attending doctor, (except in countries like England where no "original" is made these days, it is merely filed on the computer.)

When a doctor does sign, he does not sign as a witness to the birth, as is proved by the fact that he will sign it even if you gave birth an hour before he arrived. He signs as legally responsible individual to confirm the birth took place.

When you request a copy of your birth certificate in Hawaii, you do not have the option to request a copy of the original certificate. The only birth certificate supplied in Hawaii is the one Obama has made available on the internet.




I'm interested that you say Obama is a creation.
I always wanted a Data for myself, (remember Star Trek?) and Obama is even cuter.
So how much would an Obama be, and where do I place the order?

As I'm a English lad, I wonder what would happen if the British public demanded that our government asked for proof of Obama's BC before we (our government) would recognise him as POTUS, and our government actually did ask ????

I'm intrigued to what would happen even though I'm sure the "old boys club" would soon put our minds at rest at tell us all was well.

Wolfie

reply to post by maybereal11


Noted and corrected.

My only hope is that this gets settled and resolve so it doesn't repeat itself in future elections.

Let me correct a few items of fact in the article (trying to avoid getting political and avoiding errors which are irrelevant) .

1. Sarah Obama is not the Barack Obama's grandmother, but rather his step grandmother. Barack Obama Sr.'s mother is Habiba Akumu Obama.

2. According to McRae affidavit of of the "grandmother tape" that Philip J. Berg filed in his lawsuit against Obama, there was nothing about "Mombasa" in it (or hospitals or waiting rooms as the story grew on the Internet). In fact, in context, the last person mentioned in the conversation was "my son" before Sarah said she was present when "he" was born. The next sentence saying she was present when "Obama" was born could apply to any Obama, and specifically to her step-son, Barack Obama Sr. I don't think any reasonable reading of the transcript could conclude with even minimal certainty that Sarah Obama said Barack Obama II was born in her presence, but you do have to look at what is actually said, not what you are told that it says.

3. An interesting article on Salon.com talks about the question of why Obama doesn't just release a second birth certificate to quiet all the questions. The obvious answer is that the last time he released a birth certificate it just fanned the flames of the conspiracy and gave rise to a string of fake document examiners and amateur Hawaiian legal experts. www.salon.com...

4. Polarik said "my findings are conclusive and irrefutable" but they were promptly refuted by a PhD who used his real name. hackerfactor.com.../archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

5. "Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania: a Center run by Obama supporters and funders". Directors and key personnel are listed on the FactCheck.org web site. I checked the Federal Election Commission web site and found that the people who run the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania are not Obama or Democratic contributors.

6. The statement "However, anyone may place a [birth] notice in the newspaper" is offered without evidence.

7. "Publisher Koret wrote, "...No birth was registered in the name of Obama in Honolulu in August 1961..." There is no evidence whatever to support such a statement, and a legal document from the State contradicting it.

8. "He [McCain] also made public his birth documents." While birth Certificates are floating around for McCain from the Republic of Pamama, I have not found that McCain is the source for them.

9. "Following the dismissal of Berg's suit, the attorney proclaimed that by failing to respond to his suit demanding proof of citizenship, Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations," Utterly absurd.

10. Berg said: ""This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of the individual to be president of the United States – the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?"" How bout Congress, the Federal Election Commission, State Attorneys General...I can think of quite a few. Berg is playing to the mob here; as a lawyer he above all should understand the concept of "standing" in a federal court.

I give the article praise for NOT repeating that Internet canard that someone in Hawaii can register a foreign-born child in Hawaii and get a birth certificate saying the child was born in Hawaii.

Maybe I got a little political or irrelevant. But the bottom line is, Obama got a real birth certificate, and there's no evidence that there is the smallest thing wrong with it. But conspiracy theories never go away that easily.

Originally posted by Hal9000
So has anyone actually gone to FactCheck.org to see what they say about Obama's COLB?

Gee boss, isn't factcheck.org run by one of the very ardent pro-obama groups? you think maybe their results might be a bit slanted, tainted or otherwise all for proving its real vs finding the truth?

but hey, im sure if you sip the kool-aid, all you want to see are other kool-aid sippers

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Noted and corrected.

My only hope is that this gets settled and resolve so it doesn't repeat itself in future elections.

I agree. The time to formalize the vetting protocol for candidates is now...between election cycles.

While you know it is my opinion that Obama has offered proof of his citizenship status far in excess of any other presidential candidate in history and fully met the requirements neccessary....

The laws are unneccesarily vague with regards to defining "Natural Born Citizen" and the vetting protocol for candidates does not seem to be centralized or formal.

Though the "Natural Born Status" vetting process has gone unchallenged for the past couple of hundred years...if in the next election or any to follow this concern will rear it's ugly head again...then now would be the time to straighten it out to the publics satisfaction.

I have no problem with congress further clarifying the defintion of "Natural Born Status"....Or even the SCOTUS though I prefer laws made by congress as opposed to case law.

I believe SCOTUS did not hear the LEO case because it was arguing that Obama failed the current definition of "Natural Born Status" and that this case was not well founded...ironically in part because "Natural Born Citizen" isn't currently (by legal standards) defined to exclude those born with dual citizenship.

Congress should take some time and CLEARLY and UNAMBIGOUSLY define "Natural Born Citizen" and maybe there should be a very small bipartisan committee responsible for validating the eligibility of any candidates running for nomination as per the constitutional requirements. They can validate birth place/age etc... Whatever the constitution and "Natural Born Citizen" definition requires.

At present I think they take a given state governments word for the candidates citizenship status? Which I would have thought would appeal to republicans, being for states rights and all, but if there needs to be a congressional validation committee then I am OK with that too.

Do I think that Obama has met and clearly demonstrated those constitutional requirements? YES, but I also believe the above is a good idea to prevent controversies in the future.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


If it was pro-Obama it wouldn't call him out on anything he has said during the election over the past two years that was misleading or false, but it does.

I guess you've never actually visited the website.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

4. Polarik said "my findings are conclusive and irrefutable" but they were promptly refuted by a PhD who used his real name. hackerfactor.com.../archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

Wow...I am not accustomed to Anonymous posters genuinely contributing and in such a complete and informative fashion!

Typically they bark some useless comment and that's it.

I particullary like the refutation above by the "hackerfactor"...a must read for anyone that still buys into Obama's COB being fake. If you click on it, scroll down the page for the post.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

Our Anonymous poster above is well spoken and quite factual. I had heard of the 'grandmother' story being misunderstood (or misrepresented) before and wondered why Mr. Marrs missed that.

However on items 9 and 10 I think he or she is a bit too hasty.

The law is the law, you may not like it, and it may seem contrary to your sensibilities, but precedent demands acceptance that when responding to a suit, be it accusatory or otherwise, failure to rebuff the case is considered to be a defacto admission, due to the failure to counter it. Such is the nature of the process, and Mr. Obama's lawyers (or the campaigns lawyers) should have known this to be the case. While it is a technicality, it is not invalid to state that by default his response accepted the assertion that he was not natural born since he did not refute or address the statement in the motion to dismiss.

Also, the standing questions was overturned. Unless I was lied to, the superior court found it improper to rule that only 'other' elected and politically appointed officials have 'standing' to challenge the citizenship status of a potential running candidate.

But all of this is a detraction. Essentially this matter should have and could have been dealt with many years ago. Why it has been left to fester this long is curious to say the least.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
* A judge in Hawaii specifically gave instructions for the media not to be able to get ahold of the birth certificate;

WHAT? What are you talking about? This is the first I've heard of this. Source, please.

Sorry, it wasn't a judge, it was the Hawaii governor, Linda Lingle, and this was taken right out of Jim Marrs' article above. Please read it, BH:

Linda Lingle placed the Obama birth certificate under seal and instructed the Department of Health "to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances."

* Men from the Sheriff's office were posted to presumably guard and brush off questions about the birth certificate;

Same thing. First I've heard of it. Source?

You didn't read Marrs' article at all did you, BH?

WorldNet Daily reported that a veteran private investigator with FBI training was hired in Hawaii to check into the question of Obama's birth certificate. However, after visiting both the Queens Medical Center and the Kaliolani Medical Center, the investigator reported that sheriff's deputies were posted at both hospitals to brush off inquiries into Obama's birth certificate.

Originally posted by Gregarious
I understand that only New York and San Diego have more corrupt government than Chicago. Well, in the U.S. anyways. I bet the next president will be from San Diego!

Entirely untrue, look up the list of corrupted areas, San Diego doesn't even exist in the top five corrupted states. Those are states like Louisiana and Kentucky. Chicago is in Illinois, the sixth most corrupt state. However Obama has been noticeably separate from old Chicago politics, even his critics will give him that.

NO he has NOT shown his BC

He has showed everything he is required to show, that is something NO ONE has debunked. Nor have they debunked the sufficient documents he's shown.

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by sos37
The real conundrum - if Obama was found ineligible, and McCain was found ineligible, then we would be in a real spot wouldn't we? It would be Hilary in a runoff election versus ... hmmm ... I dunno, possibly Huckabee. At that point my head would be swimming.

No according to the 20th Amendment, if the president elect were declared ineligible or died before taking office, Biden would be sworn in as POTUS.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Linky

Actually you don't know if Biden would be sworn in president because of this line:

and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified

So IF Obama's eligibility were rendered null, and his campaign were rendred null, then Biden would most likely be rendered null because he was a direct pick by Obama. The line I just referenced says Congress can declare who will act as president or can decide "the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected". That means Congress can choose to hold a runoff election.

Now if Congress decides not to declare Biden null, then Biden could be appointed POTUS, I seriously doubt it would be permanent for the reason again stated in Amendment 20:

or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified