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

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Thanks so much Anonymous.

This post is turning out to be just as flawed as all the others overloading ATS with this issue. I would have expected more from Jim Marrs although I honestly can’t say why. At least now I know to never purchase something that involves him again. Anyone who makes a post with phony quotes, bloggers opinions, and WorldNetDaily as a vital source and fuels propaganda, especially while they’re addressing such a serious issue, isn’t someone I want to associate my money with.

Originally posted by sos37
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.

Of course Biden was a direct pick by Obama, the process does go like that, remember? The nominee chooses his running mate. Please stop making up fantasy scenarios!

And where in those Constitutional Amendments that you’ve just quoted is there anything mentioned regarding the “campaign being rendered null”? Nothing is rendered null.

What happens if Obama was found to be ineligible is quite explicit in those Amendments you quoted.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by sos37
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.

Of course Biden was a direct pick by Obama, the process does go like that, remember? The nominee chooses his running mate. Please stop making up fantasy scenarios!

And where in those Constitutional Amendments that you’ve just quoted is there anything mentioned regarding the “campaign being rendered null”? Nothing is rendered null.

What happens if Obama was found to be ineligible is quite explicit in those Amendments you quoted.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by danx]

Are you kidding??? If Obama was found not to be a U.S. citizen then that means he never should have run for President in the first place. That means every vote cast for him AND his running mate would be rendered null and void. The two are inseparable because the vote is cast for a ticket, not an individual in the case of POTUS.

I think there is a very good chance that Congress would null and void his entire campaign and the Constitution is quite clear in Amendment 20 about what it says - it says that by law Congress has the power to declare both the president and vice president ineligible. That's not a fantasy scenario, sir, it's there in black and white. You cannot say with 100% certainty that Biden would be appointed president.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by sos37]

Originally posted by sos37
Are you kidding??? If Obama was found not to be a U.S. citizen then that means he never should have run for President in the first place.

No. It means he doesn’t qualify for Office.

There is no law preventing a non-“natural born” citizen of running for President, he just can’t hold Office (because he doesn’t qualify).

That means every vote cast for him AND his running mate would be rendered null and void. The two are inseparable because the vote is cast for a ticket, not an individual in the case of POTUS.

Please provide the legal basis for this claim.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

 

Thanks so much Anonymous.

This post is turning out to be just as flawed as all the others overloading ATS with this issue. I would have expected more from Jim Marrs although I honestly can’t say why. At least now I know to never purchase something that involves him again. Anyone who makes a post with phony quotes, bloggers opinions, and WorldNetDaily as a vital source and fuels propaganda, especially while they’re addressing such a serious issue, isn’t someone I want to associate my money with.

Actually, it just shows that you aren't willing to open your mind to some things and this subject appears to be one of those things. You appear to lack the ability to think objectively. You see what you want to see and you ignore what you want to ignore.

Keep your money, I'd say. Marrs doesn't need money from the likes of closed-minded people like yourself, anyway. There are those of us who are able to appreciate the work he's done.

reply to post by sos37


I’m pointing out the obvious, in case you didn’t notice. I’m not discussing my opinions in that post I’m discussing mainly facts. Fact is Marrs didn’t do his research well at all; he purported propaganda instead of bothering to list the true information. That not only stinks of bias but his inability to live up to whatever he is meant to be. Now I’m not open minded for pointing out obvious points that were well outlined? That’s fine with me, if that’s what you consider narrow mindedness. Just kind of amuses me that this is coming from the least open minded person in this thread who is willing to believe a pixilated random person on the internet over actual documents.

Originally posted by Maxmars
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,

Max...I respect most of your posts though mostly disagree..this though?

The law is the law..agreed. Failure to rebuff a case might be considered a Defacto admission..but there was no case to rebuff. The SCOTUS DISMISSED IT. Ditto with all the other cases...Pending to be heard or they have been dismissed.

The Obama campaign is not required to respond to every case that someone TRIES to get heard. The Obama campaign will respond when a court of law asks them to respond...but he is not obligated to respond to Berg et al...

and failure to give Berg the time of day is NOT an admission of guilt.
The law is clear about this. This is desperate Propaganda by these folks.

If you know something I don't please direct me.

As far as the "Standing" issue overturned...I haven't seen that, but would be interested if you have a link.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by sos37
Are you kidding??? If Obama was found not to be a U.S. citizen then that means he never should have run for President in the first place.

No. It means he doesn’t qualify for Office.

There is no law preventing a non-“natural born” citizen of running for President, he just can’t hold Office (because he doesn’t qualify).

Yes there is. If you intend to run for president then you intend to raise money for the cause of doing so. Therefore, if you know you are ineligible and you raise funds for that cause you are committing FRAUD.

That means every vote cast for him AND his running mate would be rendered null and void. The two are inseparable because the vote is cast for a ticket, not an individual in the case of POTUS.

Please provide the legal basis for this claim.

Article II, Clause V of the U.S. Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. "

It sets the eligibility requirements to be President. And you know there is no legal precedent because nothing like this has ever happened before, so if Obama was found to be ineligible, a Supreme Court case would set the legal precedent.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by sos37]

Originally posted by Maxmars

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.

Max...I think your confusion is likely due to the intentional mistating of law and facts by the blogs etc propigating this nonsense.

Lets say someone wants to sue you.
They file a case... The court thinks it is worthy of being heard or it dismissed the writ requesting it to be heard.

IF the court thinks it is worthy of being heard...then they request a response from the defendant...and under certain circumstances if the defendant does not respond the court views it as an admission of guilt.

BUT in all of these cases ....No court has deemed any as of yet as worthy of being heard...they are pending or have been dismissed...thus Obama is under no obligation to respond to these cases as the courts thus far has agreed with Obama that the cases are not worthy to be considered..Either on standing or strength they have all failed or are pending to be "heard"

Understand?

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by sos37

 

I’m pointing out the obvious, in case you didn’t notice. I’m not discussing my opinions in that post I’m discussing mainly facts. Fact is Marrs didn’t do his research well at all; he purported propaganda instead of bothering to list the true information. That not only stinks of bias but his inability to live up to whatever he is meant to be. Now I’m not open minded for pointing out obvious points that were well outlined? That’s fine with me, if that’s what you consider narrow mindedness. Just kind of amuses me that this is coming from the least open minded person in this thread who is willing to believe a pixilated random person on the internet over actual documents.

Least open minded. Did I actually say I believed Ron Polarik's analysis to be accurate? I said I gave it more credibility because of the number of oddities in this case. There are two more oddities to add to this issue - Obama's sister says he was born at Kapi’ olani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama says he was born at The Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu. So which is it?

This Site says that none of the hospitals in Hawaii have Obama or his mother on record as having ever being admitted.

So fine, call me the least open minded person on this thread. I'm the one examining evidence - you are the one ridiculing people for posting theories.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37


Hey Sos. What specific concerns you have or evidence you find credible seems to change rapidly...hopping (or hopeing?) from one foot to the other depending on which thread debunks what.

Like above when the blurry faced image analyst claim the COB was a fake is thoroughly trumped by an award winning PHD graphic specialist who ISNT afraid to use his real name...you respond with the bit about Obama's sister allegedly miss-stating what hospital he was born in...

What evidence do you think remains credible?

Or is your position premised on a preponderance of un-credible/debunked evidence?

I'd be interested in what specifically you are basing your position on.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

For a good lesson on what the bc stuff is all about, and why we and the courts cannot accept what was given to obfuscate, go to foolocracy.com... and go down to edeldoug said in Dec 3rd, about 2/3rd way down. Live and learn. ...

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Gregarious]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Gregarious]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Gregarious]

Originally posted by sos37
It sets the eligibility requirements to be President.

Yeah, to be President, it says nothing of running for Office.

Róger Calero was born in Nicaragua, ran for President and apparently received 10.000+ votes. Is he being prosecuted for fraud?

And you know there is no legal precedent because nothing like this has ever happened before,

There is no precedent, but that doesn’t mean the Constitution doesn’t contemplate the possibility.

And in this case, the 20th Amendment does, but you refuse to accept that a President elect not being eligible doesn’t equate to not qualifying, and instead make up these scenarios of void campaigns and elections with no basis on anything but your own imagination.

Originally posted by sos37
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:

I've read it. I'd rather trust what the governor HERSELF says.

Governor Lingle: Story about sealing Obama records is FALSE!

Aloha,

Thank you for emailing Governor Linda Lingle's office. A recent article in WorldNetDaily.com (October 26, 2008) claiming that Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle sealed Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate is false.
...
Mahalo,

Office of Governor Lingle

Source

Read THAT, sos.

If Jim Marrs is using WND as a source, then that explains a lot about his doubts. I would rather use credible sources, but to each his own.

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

He used WND. It's a total piece of CRAP website. And anyone who depends on their articles is going to be grossly misinformed, I don't care WHO they are. Just like the governor thing. I cant tell you how many times I've disproved what they've reported. :shk:

reply to post by sos37

I said I gave it more credibility because of the number of oddities in this case.

It doesn’t add any credibility if it is not proven, if it is not true. You only believe it adds credibility because you’re on one feet-bolted-to-the-ground side of this argument. Please prove that it adds credibility because it is factual and then I’ll believe you. By the way, criticizing me by saying I’m narrow minded while claiming I’m only putting people down is this thread while you’re just focusing on the evidence is contradictory and idiot, I’m going to ignore any further “baiting” from you, don’t take it personal- I just don’t have time for it.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by Gregarious
For a good lesson on what the bc stuff is all about, and why we and the courts cannot accept what was given to obfuscate, go to foolocracy.com... and go down to edeldoug said in Dec 3rd, about 2/3rd way down. Live and learn.

Per the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, “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.” (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html).

I believe you are talking about this comment in particular, right?

Well, amendments to birth certificates are usually done in cases of adoption, and the information that can be amended changes from state to state. Some states will allow you to change the city of birth place for instance, while others won’t.

On this website there’s a list of States that allow the most information to be amended. Hawaii is not even listed, so I suspect it’s not one of the most flexible states when it comes to amendments.

Also, you can’t just have something amended to your birth certificate without having to provide some reason and or evidence for doing so.

Amending a birth record may not be easy because you must prove that the change you want to make is accurate and justified. (source)

Additionally, even if you amend something on your birth certificate, the original records are not lost.

This new birth certificate is placed in the public records in place of the child's original birth certificate. The original birth certificate is then stored in a separate secure location that is not accessible to the public, and may be viewed only by court order. (source)

I went and look at Hawaii’s rules and found this:

If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health. (...)

If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy.

edit: forgot to add this part:

From Hawaii’s Department of Health page on Amendments:

An amendment may be made upon application, but only with the submission of required documentary evidence in support of the amendment. The evidentiary requirements can differ, depending on whether the amendment is court-ordered or, if requested by an individual, whether it materially affects the validity and integrity of the record. (...)

When information originally entered on a certificate is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the certificate, and 3) the notation "altered" is written or stamped on the certificate.

This idea that anyone can get a birth certificate in Hawaii and get whatever information they want on it, is ridiculous. And as we can see, this can’t be done with amendments either.

Having said that, I’m sure the people who already decided that there’s no way Obama was born in Hawaii will disregard the actual policies of the State of Hawaii regarding birth records, certificates and amendments, and continue to believe a blog post.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by danx]

A Question: Barack Obama Is Qualified To Be President... Isn't He?
My answer: No.
My reason(s): I have my doubts about his background (i.e. his birth certificate and denial of religious preference), how he got that Senate seat in the first place and why he appeared to be almost unanimously 'voted' as president-elect of the United States.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
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:

I've read it. I'd rather trust what the governor HERSELF says.

Governor Lingle: Story about sealing Obama records is FALSE!

Aloha,

Thank you for emailing Governor Linda Lingle's office. A recent article in WorldNetDaily.com (October 26, 2008) claiming that Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle sealed Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate is false.
...
Mahalo,

Office of Governor Lingle

Source

Read THAT, sos.

If Jim Marrs is using WND as a source, then that explains a lot about his doubts. I would rather use credible sources, but to each his own.

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

He used WND. It's a total piece of CRAP website. And anyone who depends on their articles is going to be grossly misinformed, I don't care WHO they are. Just like the governor thing. I cant tell you how many times I've disproved what they've reported. :shk:

What you've disproved? You still haven't disproved anything in this case - how do you know this "supposed" email from the Hawaii governor is actually from the governor's office and not made up by someone on the other side of this agenda?

Originally posted by danx
This idea that anyone can get a birth certificate in Hawaii and get whatever information they want on it, is ridiculous.

I've posted your exact source requiring documentary information before. And still... the disinformation persists.

Originally posted by sos37
how do you know this "supposed" email from the Hawaii governor is actually from the governor's office and not made up by someone on the other side of this agenda?

In my experience, What Really Happened is FAR more credible than WND.

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by sos37

 

Hey Sos. What specific concerns you have or evidence you find credible seems to change rapidly...hopping (or hopeing?) from one foot to the other depending on which thread debunks what.

Like above when the blurry faced image analyst claim the COB was a fake is thoroughly trumped by an award winning PHD graphic specialist who ISNT afraid to use his real name...you respond with the bit about Obama's sister allegedly miss-stating what hospital he was born in...

What evidence do you think remains credible?

Or is your position premised on a preponderance of un-credible/debunked evidence?

I'd be interested in what specifically you are basing your position on.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-12-2008 by maybereal11]

Changing? That's incorrect - nothing has changed at all about my beliefs. I've simply added to the list of oddities that are piling up in this whole thing with the addition of those two other things. I still don't know whether or not the forensic "expert" is credible or not, but there are other questions that still have not been answered yet.

* The governor (corrected from earlier) of Hawaii specifically gave instructions for the media not to be able to get ahold of the birth certificate; (possibly answered by BH, though proof that the email was actually sent from the governor's office denying the claim of sealing the records)

* Men from the Sheriff's office were posted to hospitals to presumably guard and brush off questions about the birth certificate (posted in Marrs' story above).

* Compare Obama's COLB (www.factcheck.org...) with the one BH posted on Page 19 and notice that something is missing - the name of the hospital is missing from Obama's COLB, yet it is clearly an item on the COLB on page 19 (though the name of the hospital is whited out, you can see the category).

* Obama's sister says he was born at Kapi’ olani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama says he was born at The Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu. Which one is correct? The COLB which supposedly has all the same information from the vaulted Birth Certificate, but the COLB does not contain this information!

* This site says that no Hawaii hospital records ever show that Obama or Stanley Ann Dunham were ever admitted

* ---Despite the number of suits filed on this issue, Obama has yet to make one public comment or respond in any of the suits, including the one in California where a judge has found that the plaintiffs have standing to sue --- (Answered by BH in a previous thread)

* Berg claims to have a recording of Obama's grandmother saying that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya and that she was in the hospital when it happened;

* Jerome Corsi's papers were mysteriously misplaced by Kenyan officials who then detained him without access to any communications devices for hours; he was then ushered out of the country.

* Ron Polarik, who claims to be a Forensics document expert, says he has analyzed JPG images of the COLB provided and found it to be a fraud (His integrity has not been proven or disproven).




[edit on 11-12-2008 by sos37]