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

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
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]

Nor does it take away creditibility because it is not disproven. You only believe it is not credible because you're on the Obama-can-do-no-wrong side of the argument. Please disprove that it detracts credibility because it is not factual and I'll believe you. The fact remains that the claim is out there. The only place that Ron Polarik should have to prove his claim, IMO, is in a court of law, and that's exactly where I'm hoping this case will end up, in front of a judge or judges who will take a look at the evidence presented and decide accordingly, not take a look at who the plaintiff is and tell them "you can't sue Obama because you aren't the right person to do it" and simply waive the case away.

Seriously, I really think some of you fear this case getting into the Supreme Court because you fear that Obama might actually be guilty of fraud, of not being an American citizen, and the law will have to be followed. You fear the outcome! Like I said in an earlier post - I really believe that some of you are willing to give this man a pass and let him go on to be POTUS, even if it was ruled by SCOTUS or proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not natural born!

[edit on 11-12-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37

Nor does it take away creditibility because it is not disproven.

You can’t disprove something that presents no evidence; the claims involve no legitimate evidence. Where is the legitimate evidence?

Originally posted by maybereal11

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?

I believe I understand. But I must ask you, the 'worthiness' of a case is at the judge's whim? I didn't think so and remain unconvinced this is so. The trick in the legal system is to make a case that meets the legally established criteria for adjudication. The judge is one case wrongly dismissed the case due to his 'understanding' (read pronouncement) that the person bringing the case lacked the legal right to do so. This is not a question that addresses the case, just the source. Such a judgment or ruling does not address 'merit' or 'jurisdiction' or any other matter specific to the points of the claim. I would like to say that this is a cheap way for a judge to say, "Not me, I'M not going to hear this case."

In either event, the case must obey the legally established forms, and several (if not most - but certainly not all) of these cases are simply poorly constructed, hastily submitted, and perhaps with malicious intent. I agree only to that extent.

However, it is after all, only a matter of technicality, just as the issue of whether the popular will of the national population have agreed to support this man and accept his offer of public service, or are we bound by a 230 year-old constitutional restriction that was likely a matter of survival for a fledgling republic, like the thirteen colonies at the time.

I find this issue troubling and somewhat tiresome because it is essentially a matter of what the people want. The Constitution is a living document, it can be amended by the will of the people. It is not that tremendously difficult for me to accept that there ARE indications worthy of inquiry regarding Mr. Obama's nationality. That does not mean the American people don't want him to take a shot at steering this enterprise we call America into the next four years.

But accepting that the matter is unresolved seems offensive to those contending that he has met the criteria. I simply disagree at that notion; and I am certain that I will be flamed for it endlessly, just like was for repeatedly pointing out that the face paint on the puppet in the presidents clothes doesn't really make any difference because they are one party, they do what they want, they don't listen to us, they don't seem genuinely motivated to 'do the right thing' no matter who they are; and frankly, they are embarrassing examples of decadence in the social class almost exclusively devoted to putting the 'public' in public service on the back burner, while they 'service' themselves and their ilk at our expense - Mr. Obama is hardly an 'exception.'

The magic that was used to convince everyone he was 'different' from, and preferable to, the rest of the 'gang' was the same magic that made me cry when E.T. came back to life.

at this point in the conversation, only this image can stop the Drama with the mighty Lulz.

Nice post, Max.

Originally posted by Maxmars
But accepting that the matter is unresolved seems offensive to those contending that he has met the criteria.

I just wanted to say that I am not offended. And I fully understand and respect that some feel and think that the matter is unresolved. And I actually agree. I have my opinion, based on what I've seen, but as I've said before, I could be wrong. None of us KNOWS that Obama is a natural-born citizen, either by birth or citizenship. It may be resolved in the courts, but they're not talking. I wish they would make a statement about why they turned down the case and so on. I wish there would be a public statement about it from the courts or Obama. If I had any influence with him, I'd encourage him to talk about it to us.

The magic that was used to convince everyone he was 'different' from, and preferable to, the rest of the 'gang' was the same magic that made me cry when E.T. came back to life.

You may be right, but I'm not willing to agree with that yet.

ET Phone Home!

reply to post by Leo Strauss


All critisism of Obama is now considered "racist". Haven't you heard?

reply to post by sos37

Originally posted by sos37

* 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]

Originally posted by sos37
The only place that Ron Polarik should have to prove his claim, IMO, is in a court of law, and that's exactly where I'm hoping this case will end up, in front of a judge or judges who will take a look at the evidence presented and decide accordingly,

Hey Sos. So much here…
Where to start?...hmmm, oh ya…You do know that “Ron Polarik” does not exist right? You keep talking about him as a “Forensics Expert” and testifying in court…”Ron Polarik” is a made up name because this guy didn’t give his real one. He also blurred his face and distorted his voice.

If you listen to the slurring distorted voice he claims to have a degree in “Instructional Media” which means even if he believed anything he was saying..he is an expert in Educational Materials? On and on it goes..This guy is likely living above his parents garage and has a PHD in cleaning his room and taking out the garbage.

You should take a read through Dr. Neal Krawetz analysis of the Polarik claims…Dr. Krawetz is a real life computer graphics guru with a real life PHD in Computer Science and Forensics..and he even uses his real name!

hackerfactor.com.../archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html#comments


[edit on 12-12-2008 by maybereal11]

Was Obama born in England? I heard somewhere he has an elderly Aunt in a housing association property in Reading.
BBC 'who do you think you are?' Ancestry programme. Give them a ring and i'm sure they will sort it out. Before any one has another go at me, seriously they will find it and put your minds at rest!
Give the poor sod a break! He's got to sort out all the crap Bush got you into. He deserves a medal already, just for thinking about it!

reply to post by happinness


barry can have a break when he quits Disrespecting 'We The People' of America and does the right thing. He could easily produce a BC but Nnooooo he spends a fortune doin' the cover up dance disrespecting us ALL! Wonder why?
sup barry barry bo barry banana fanna fo fairry fe fi mo mairy ~ baarry?

Originally posted by maybereal11

Hey Sos. So much here…
Where to start?...hmmm, oh ya…You do know that “Ron Polarik” does not exist right? You keep talking about him as a “Forensics Expert” and testifying in court…”Ron Polarik” is a made up name because this guy didn’t give his real one. He also blurred his face and distorted his voice.

Yes, I do know that. But "Ron Polarik" is the only name that we have to refer to him by. Would you rather I refer to him as the "alleged forensics expert in the Obama COLB examination"? "Ron Polarik" is a lot shorter and conveys the same information.

If you listen to the slurring distorted voice he claims to have a degree in “Instructional Media” which means even if he believed anything he was saying..he is an expert in Educational Materials?

As I've said before, I believe this was done intentionally as a security measure. The campaign taught us that anyone daring to so much as speak out against BHO is going to come under intense fire. The Democratic machine sought to ruin the life of "Joe the Plumber" simply because he posed a legitimate question. Maybe he wasn't a legitimate plumber, but the question he asked was still legitimate. If Ron Polarik's true identity was found out, I daresay the man would receive death threats and would be the target of partisan violence.

On and on it goes..This guy is likely living above his parents garage and has a PHD in cleaning his room and taking out the garbage.

This is strictly your opinion.

You should take a read through Dr. Neal Krawetz analysis of the Polarik claims…Dr. Krawetz is a real life computer graphics guru with a real life PHD in Computer Science and Forensics..and he even uses his real name!

hackerfactor.com.../archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html#comments

And the funny thing is - because he supports Obama you won't hear of any death threats against him. You won't hear of his life being ruined by a veangeful political machine. In fact, this is a nice move that will probably help his career a great deal. Could THAT in itself be a possible motive for his willingness to go against Ron Polarik's claims? Or is that not even an angle you would be willing to entertain?

But for argument's sake, let's assume that Krawertz's analysis is correct and the COLB is legit. There are still a list of other issues in this saga that have yet to be answered.

One of the biggies that I pointed out last night - why does the COLB lack the name of the hospital where Obama was born when the COLB that BH posted on page 19 contains that information?


[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by sos37

 

Nor does it take away creditibility because it is not disproven.

You can’t disprove something that presents no evidence; the claims involve no legitimate evidence. Where is the legitimate evidence?

Sorry, but in your opinion, the claims involve no legitimate evidence. Tha man doesn't reveal himself for security reasons (my opinion), so you are quick to dismiss his conclusions solely based on that. Have you even given thought to the actual claims he makes? Have you even listened to them? Or are you so quick as to judge the proverbial book by its cover?

Originally posted by Maxmars
I believe I understand. But I must ask you, the 'worthiness' of a case is at the judge's whim? I didn't think so and remain unconvinced this is so.

I am not sure it depends on a judges whim...well not one judge anyways. If a judge refuses to hear a case (finds it lacking) "lack of evidence" or "Lack of legal standing" or "lack of jurisdiction"...someone can appeal to a higher court...After all Berg and Leo both were appeals to the SCOTUS after lower courts refused to hear the cases.....not just one judges whim...several and in some case the entirety of the SCOTUS.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The trick in the legal system is to make a case that meets the legally established criteria for adjudication. The judge (in) one case wrongly dismissed the case due to his 'understanding' (read pronouncement) that the person bringing the case lacked the legal right to do so.

I am starting to see this "a Judge admitted he wrongly dismissed a case" or he wrongly dismissed based on "lack of standing" repeated. I don't want to comment on it until I am able to read up on it. Can someone direct me BH? Danx? Redhatty?

Originally posted by Maxmars
In either event, the case must obey the legally established forms, and several (if not most - but certainly not all) of these cases are simply poorly constructed, hastily submitted, and perhaps with malicious intent. I agree only to that extent.

Agreed. But I would go further having read the Leo case and Federalist documents in support of it (at Redhatty and Danx's wise suggestion). It differs greatly from Bergs arguments and it made some sense and indirectly asks some questions that I think DO need to be answered...namely a much more clear and unambigous defintion of "Natural Born Citizen".

But even to my laymen eyes...it was apparent that logic, reason and objectivity had been strained to make the case. I could see the bias and faults in the case. I have no doubt that a more astute legal mind than my own and certainly the SCOTUS would feel the same.

Originally posted by Maxmars
is not that tremendously difficult for me to accept that there ARE indications worthy of inquiry regarding Mr. Obama's nationality. That does not mean the American people don't want him to take a shot at steering this enterprise we call America into the next four years.

It is a valid OPINION to have. I would be in the wrong to claim otherwise.
It is not my opinion. I believe he has done everything neccessary and provided more proof of citizenship than any candidate in the prior 200 years. BUT please feel free to ask further questions in this regards. It's your right and the American way.

But the vast Majority of people pursuing this line of inquirey are fabricating propaganda and lie to support these questions and seem little concerned with the answers, but rather an agenda of deligitimization of our future president...a new tact at continuing to divide the public even post election.

Originally posted by Maxmars
But accepting that the matter is unresolved seems offensive to those contending that he has met the criteria. I simply disagree at that notion;

We have had this particular discussion before, but I will repeat my view.
Asking honest questions about his citizenship is great.

Ignoring honest answers in favor of driving an agenda of delegitimizing the Pres. Elect of the United states is not. (not you Max...but most)

There is nothing offensive about having the opinion that he should provide more information. Opinions are just that and we can respectfully disagree.

There is something deeply offensive about the mountains of contrived falsehoods, lies and propaganda that has been constructed and used in support of this view....and it is clearly in pursuit of an agenda of division and delegitimizing our President even before he takes office.

This is not opinion...at almost every turn the evidence supporting this garbage shows itself to be knowingly fabricated and constructed.

There is something frightening to me how this propaganda machine continues after the election is over...a post election propaganda machinery attempting to delegitimizing an American President simply because he was not their choice.

It is bothering me how long it is taking the divisive idealogical fever of the election cycle to break. I am losing patience for the those who propigate propaganda they know to be just that.

Max…I believe you to have honest questions absent agenda…Or at least I believe you to have a political view where you want to “take it” to our leaders at every opprtunity But you are no liar…it’s just unfortunate that many propigating this are.

Originally posted by sos37

But for argument's sake, let's assume that Krawertz's analysis is correct and the COLB is legit. There are still a list of other issues in this saga that have yet to be answered.

One of the biggies that I pointed out last night - why does the COLB lack the name of the hospital where Obama was born when the COLB that BH posted on page 19 contains that information?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

This is a Biggie?
I am not sure what your confusion is here. You have mentioned this twice now. Are you unaware that there is no single form nationally for a COB and that they are generated, validated, signed and sealed by each state?

BH obtained hers from Ohio if memory serves me and Obama obtained his from Hawaii. Each state determines what to title the document and what information it includes....

I will take it a step further...and BH if you want to play along? ...BH go to your registrars office and ask for a BC? They will issue a document similiar, but not the same as BH current certificate and it will lack the hospital.

Through my years of genealogical research I have probably close to 30 COBs and BC on file.

Lastly Sos...HOSPITAL RECORDS SUCK...and more so with time...I know this, most people know this, the Government certainly knows this and that is why most COBs do not list the Hospital...for ANY of us.

Was not the date, time, parents, County, city, island, state and country good enough for you? Absent the hospital...you scream fraud?




[edit on 12-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by maybereal11
I am starting to see this "a Judge admitted he wrongly dismissed a case" or he wrongly dismissed based on "lack of standing" repeated. I don't want to comment on it until I am able to read up on it. Can someone direct me BH? Danx? Redhatty?

I *think* that Maxmars is referring to the Berg case.

America's Right on 12/10 reported:

Berg v. Obama. Today was a busy day for Philip Berg's case against Barack Obama. First, Justice David Souter at the U.S. Supreme Court denied Berg's application for an emergency injunction pending the disposition of his petition for writ of certiorari and Judges Scirica and Ambro at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied his emergency motion for an immediate injunction pending the resolution of his appeal. Both were intended to stay the Electoral College vote scheduled for December 15, 2008 and the counting of said votes scheduled for January 8, 2009.

Also, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set the Briefing and Scheduling Order for Berg's appeal in that court. Of all days, Berg's brief is due before the Third Circuit on January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day. The appellees' briefs are due by February 19, and Berg's response is due on March 4.

"The timing is certainly interesting," Berg said. "Regardless, it is truly a disgrace that, here it is December, we're days away from the Electoral College vote, and we're still talking about whether or not Obama is qualified to be president. It's even worse that we could be talking about this in January, on Inauguration Day of all days."

In terms of his action before the U.S. Supreme Court, it is still active and pending. As with the others, and really with any one petition for certiorari filed with the Court, the likelihood that Philip Berg will see the inside of a courtroom in Washington is slim. Still, here are some possibilities of what could theoretically, and realistically, happen next:

* (1) Berg’s certiorari petition could be denied, without comment or dissent (a dissent by one or more Justices to a denial of a certiorari petition, while rare, is not unprecedented). This would end Berg’s case, but likely not jurisdictionally end the others;

* (2) Berg’s certiorari petition could be granted and the matter set for oral argument following the filing of additional briefs, with the Court directing (a) that the issues be confined to arguments on Berg’s standing, or (b) that the issues of standing and, assuming standing, the merits of the case be addressed. In either event, neither of these scenarios would take place before Dec. 15, so because the Court denied Berg's application for emergency stay of the Electoral College vote, the vote will likely go ahead as planned;

* (3) If option 2(a) occurs, at some future date, the Court could determine that Berg had standing in USDC and could vacate that decision--and naturally the Third Circuit decision as well--and remand to the U.S. District Court here in Philadelphia with instructions to proceed with “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” At that point, as extremely unlikely as it is, who knows what would happen?

* (4) If option 2(b) occurs, the Court could actually reach the merits of Berg's case and, sometime well after Dec. 15 of this year or Jan. 20 of the next, render a decision. Considering the nature of the Court, the most likely result under this scenario would likely be a 6-3 or, at best, a 5-4 decision against Berg holding that, because Berg failed to prove his case at the district court level, he loses. This would make the matter res judicata, at least with regard to Philip Berg and Barack Obama, and would for all practical purposes severely undermine if not foreclose all other pending and future challenges to Obama’s eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen clause. While I'm not certain that it would necessarily work, I would expect Obama's team of attorneys to argue that the stampede of other suits would be foreclosed under collateral estoppel theory.

* (5) While unlikely but certainly not unprecedented, the Court could simply wait until after Jan. 20, 2009 to do anything and then, after the inauguration, simply dismiss whatever action was then pending on the grounds of it being a "political question" and separation of powers, or on the grounds of mootness. The issue, of course, implicates neither of these excuses, but the Court could say so -- and, at that point, what other court would intercede?


Unfortunately, it is and has always been a long-shot, despite what is arguably a clear and important constitutional question. Keep in mind that, under the second, third and fourth scenarios, significant public exposure would be given to the case and to Berg's allegations. Regardless, it is a tough road down which to travel, nearly any way you look at it.

Berg, however, still remains positive.

"Am I optimistic? Absolutely," he said. "One way or the other, we're going to get to the bottom of this. One way or the other, the truth will come out, and he will not take office as president of the United States."

I wish I could tell you more but yesterday was a bit of a blurr (B-Day) for me and I took a day off from the controversies

If this is NOT what you, Maxmars, are referring to, please let me know and I'll see what I can dig up

Originally posted by sos37
One of the biggies that I pointed out last night - why does the COLB lack the name of the hospital where Obama was born when the COLB that BH posted on page 19 contains that information?


[edit on 12-12-2008 by sos37]

Lets try this ...I did a quick search for Birth certificate images ffrom Ohio on Google

Did you know there is another COB conspiracy theorey...concerning Lebron James

Either way see here...he was born in Ohio like BH...where is the hospital on this form? This is what BH would get if she requested one now.

www.bballcity.com...

Here is another from Ohio ...but from 1913
hartfamilywebsite.net...

Get it?

Originally posted by redhatty

"The timing is certainly interesting," Berg said. "Regardless, it is truly a disgrace that, here it is December, we're days away from the Electoral College vote, and we're still talking about whether or not Obama is qualified to be president. It's even worse that we could be talking about this in January, on Inauguration Day of all days."

This cracked me up. By "we" he means him and yes it is a disgrace.

Sorry ...couldn't resist. Back to reading it ..thanks for posting it for me Redhatty .

I checked with Florida and if I ordered a new copy of my BC from them via phone, mail or web, I would get a short form, like Obama's.

But, if I went to any office of Vital Records in FL, I can get a certified copy of the long form.

If I needed my FL BC for a passport, I would have to go in person and get the long form, as FL's short form is still not accepted by the US Dept of State for passport ID.

infact, it states on the Passport info site

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

So I believe that by going, in person, to the office in the applicable state to request a BC you can still get a long form. While this may vary state to state, there are many reasons why a long form would be the only valid form for whatever documentation you need.

Is Hawaii's Short form accepted for passports? IDK, does anyone else here?

Originally posted by sos37
One of the biggies that I pointed out last night - why does the COLB lack the name of the hospital where Obama was born when the COLB that BH posted on page 19 contains that information?

Oy! If you would just break down and read my thread on Birth Certificates (linked in my signature), you could: A. Educate yourself B. Deny Ignorance and C. Keep us from having to explain everything about them that you don't understand, that's already been stated and sourced in my thread!

If you just read 2 posts (and look at the sources), you'd get a LOT of answers:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The one I posted on page 19 is a direct copy of my ORIGINAL, long form birth certificate. It's what you want from Obama. It was issued in 1963, when it was common to make a PHOTO copy of the vault original. (Back in the old days).

TODAY, most states issue a Certification or short form, that only contains SOME information about the birth, but that information comes directly from the long form (that Hawaii has verified they have in their records).

An ATS member, hawaiigurl, posted hers on page 10 of this thread. It looks EXACTLY like Obama's. No hospital listed.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I will take it a step further...and BH if you want to play along? ...BH go to your registrars office and ask for a BC? They will issue a document similiar, but not the same as BH current certificate and it will lack the hospital.

I guarantee they would issue a short copy. But Ohio is 1500 miles away from me. And I'm not willing to pay for it just to convince sos of something.

Originally posted by redhatty

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

So I believe that by going, in person, to the office in the applicable state to request a BC you can still get a long form. While this may vary state to state, there are many reasons why a long form would be the only valid form for whatever documentation you need.

Is Hawaii's Short form accepted for passports? IDK, does anyone else here?

BH is the resident expert, but read what you posted carefully..."some" and abstract certificates. What passports require is the seal and signature, which Obama's COB has. From my genealogy research I have obtained literal abstracts before of birth records...without the seal.

Actually what you posted is very informative and telling because it distinguishes between an "Abstract" which they call a "short form" and a Birth Certificate/COB which Obama presented. Otherwise there has been a miss-association with the COB Obama presented as being a "Short-form" or abstract rather than a valid COB/BC ...a COB being what you would recieve from most states and valid for obtaining a passport.

Redhatty...can you call them back and ask if the document you would recieve via mail would contain the registrars seal? What it's official title/label would be and if it would be valid in obtaining a pasport?

Also clarify if what they would provide you in person would contain the name of the hospital you were born at? Edit to add: Also ask what the label at the top of that document would read?

I know your time is valuable..so it's up to you, but I'd be interested.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by maybereal11]