Obama Citizenship Case A Waste Of Time: Federal Judge

Originally posted by Primordial
What would stop a parent, who being a resident of Hawaii, and by chance being out of the state or country at the time of delivery, from registering the birth upon return and claiming a home birth.

On any state for that matter. That's why it is required to provide some evidence when filing a registration (typically proof of pregnancy, proof of birth and witnesses).

I don't dismiss the possibility, but you still have to present the evidence that would support that theory.

As for the Hawaiian homestead, again you missed my point. Maybe I wasn't clear on my reason. It's just to show that in some cases a 'certification' just isn't good enough because it doesn't supply all the information that the original does, and as shown above is subject to errors.

I beg to differ. The original birth certificate is asked for the Hawaiian Home Lands program because the certification doesn't show the parents' birth place or age.

Obviously knowing the parents' information would be relevant for the Home Lands program because they have to determine if people are native Hawaiians.

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

They say the original is a more complete record, not a more accurate.

I read the quote on the DHHL's website as they'd require additional verification, not because the information on the certification could be incorrect, but because it might not be enough information to determine if a person would qualify as a native Hawaiian.

Actually, I was wrong in that they never verified the 'certification of live birth' released on the internet. The statement released was...
So, that says 'A' birth certificate is on file for Obama. It does not verify anything else other than one exists. It could state something totally different from the internet document.

I'm aware of the Director's comments, but those come after the Department of Health's spokesman said Obama's certification was valid.

On June 13, 2008, ...

When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us. source

I just look at it like this. HE ran on issues like 'change' and 'transparency', criticizing the Bush administration for it's secrecy, lies and corruption. So what's the big secret here.

I understand where you're coming from, but there's a couple of things that should be considered:

Obama is not legally required to show his original birth certificate. Hawaii's statutes also declare that all certified copies have the same equal value as the original (§338-13(b)), so his certified copy has the same value as the original as to the information it contains.

For all purposes, his birth place is legally recognized as Honolulu, Hawaii.

It is illegal for anyone, without proper authorization, to inspect or disclose people's vital records (§338-18). Authorization can be granted, among other situations, by determination of a Court (§338-18(9)).

Unless there is strong evidence that points out to Obama not being born in Hawaii, I don't think a Court will grant such authorization.

I know some people are frustrated, or suspicious, why Obama simply doesn't disclose the records. Well, like I said and you acknowledged, we can only speculate on his reasons to not disclosing it, but we cannot ignore the fact that it is his right not to disclose it.

If people are claiming to want to know what's in Obama's birth certification because of legal reasons then it's extremely hypocritical to ignore his legal rights trying to get what they want.

Unfortunately for the people who might have legitimate motivations, I've yet to see a serious or compelling lawsuit asking a Court to grant authorization to inspect Obama's vital records.

The inclusion of conjectures, flawed image analysis, mistranslations of audio tapes, weak and irrelevant legal arguments (e.g. Berg) in these lawsuits do not help those causes.

Unless Obama decides to disclose the information, the only way it's going to happen is by a Court order.

And until people focus on the law, trying to understand exactly who has standing and what laws apply in suing the President to disclose this information, and have the evidence to back up the claims, all this noise, discussion and frivolous lawsuits will be nothing by exercises in futility.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Primordial
Is it too much to ask for this guy to just show the damn piece of paper?

For a moment there I thought you were channeling George W. Bush

Good one!

As of now no one has presented any evidence to indicate that Obama wasn't born in the United States, that would be admissible in Court.

Hey again there, Converge! I still owe you a reply about the legal "legs" of Hollister v. Soetoro. But not just yet. I am still befuddled by this mess, about which you apparently are like the Cheshire Cat. But on the current discussion, about which I agree with everyone on both sides who are sick of hearing about it, I just will mention four things that people seem not to have considered much, if at all (As I mentioned, people are getting pretty sick over this thing on both sides of the question - hey maybe getting sick constitutes being harmed in the legal sense)

Those being, 1.) There seems to be some kind of law(s) that allow(s) States to handle their vital records with varying degrees of procedural brew ha ha (Note: "Brew ha ha" is most likely not in your legal dictionary - I certainly hope it isn't

What I am trying to get at, in lay terms, is that the manner in which, say, New York handles it's vital records is not the same as Texas, etc. It is my understanding that most States require a person to present all pages related to the official record of their birth for all official purposes. Hawaii seems not be one of them, based on your legal references. But nobody ever required Obama to provide a "complete" record of his birth when they still had the chance.

2.) What has been produced on the Internet for Obama's birth certificate is a diversion, I believe, intended to skirt the issue and make people sick of hearing about it. Ergo, if this hypothesis about that is true, then the, so called, Dr Polarik has been quite successful at getting people to beat this 'dead horse' into a bloody pulp. And it is little wonder people have become sick over it (I believe in animal rights actually).

3.) Barrack "Barry" Hussein Dunham-Obama del Soetoro Jr - (scratch that), Barry Soetoro, (scratch that), Barrack Hussein Obama II could have three or more pages of fully legal documents which comprise the full record of of his birth under the requirements of the "law" as it applies to the State of Hawaii Department of Health's Vital Records

As far as the US Department of State is concerned, for the typical US citizen to get a US Passport, one must submit all of the pages of their "birth record", or one does not get a passport. So, being Secretary of State, Hillary could look at all the pages if she had, I suppose, a "valid" reason. Would her need to know whether her President was giving her lawful orders comprise a "valid" reason? I have no idea what goes on in that woman's head. It defies my ability to understand (Hey maybe I actually agree with Bill Clinton on one thing)

With our court system's hands tied until somebody can prove they have "standing" that they have been personally harmed (past tense) before they can even get a judge to listen to a complaint, therein would seem to lie the rub. Maybe the family of the first soldier to die in Afghanistan under Obama's orders will be able to show cause to the court? IMO, there -is- something wrong with a Judiciary system that allows red-tape to cause this kind of situation.

It is my understanding that, in most States, only immediate family relatives of living people, or their survivors, can order the vital records of a person. And even then, it still might take a court order. Ann Dunham, for example, might have done it before her death (although I don't know why she would since she knew all of the facts first hand). And, in matters of probate, interested parties would probably be granted access by a court of the appropriate jurisdiction.

4.) In the matter of proving that Obama is a natural born citizen to the satisfaction of the citizens he serves, there remains questionable legal recourse.

The same US Constitution which requires that he be a natural born citizen to hold the office of President does not seem to provide a way in which anyone can verify him to be qualified after he was sworn in. The DNC had a chance to require it of him before selecting him as their candidate. Any member of the US Congress could have raised the question before they counted the Electoral College ballots. But -none- of them did, including the Republican Senators and Vice President Cheney. So, if it -is- a conspiracy, both Parties are complicit.



[edit on 3/10/0909 by BFO]

reply to post by xyankee

If you cannot understand why we have the constitution and the reason for keeping the leaders in check then go live in some other country where you can be a YES MAN!

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the President being required to release private medical records, as far as I'm aware.

The Constitution does say he has to be US born.

And there is no legal case I am aware of where a COLB has been ruled inadequate for proving birth in the US. Legally, a COLB is a valid birth certificate. Thus, he's met the Constitution's legal requirements.

As far as why he's not ordering it's release, well there is no law that says he has to, and certainly nothing in the Constitution.

Also, why should he?

When the COLB was released, the fanatics driving this phony "controversy" immediately said it was fake, without any evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the long form was released, the same people would again claim it's a forgery. And I'm sure the President realizes that as well.

Why should the President of the United States knuckle under, just to appease a fringe FUD campaign that has already proven their willingness to just plain make stuff up anyway?

And if my statement about overturning the election doesn't apply to you, my apologies, I was not referring to you individually (I don't know anything about you) but to the groups pushing this non-issue for purely political reasons.

Originally posted by BFO
Those being, 1.) There seems to be some kind of law(s) that allow(s) States to handle their vital records with varying degrees of procedural...
What I am trying to get at, in lay terms, is that the manner in which, say, New York handles it's vital records is not the same as Texas, etc.

I understand what you're saying, and yes that is true. From my understanding I would say, with confidence, that in all states it is unlawful to disclose or inspect vital records without authorization; what varies are the situations and people contemplated in each states' laws that are allowed to inspect or handle vital records.

It is my understanding that most States require a person to present all pages related to the official record of their birth for all official purposes. Hawaii may even be one of them.

From analyzing Hawaii's statutes Hawaii considers a certified copy (like the one Obama's campaign has provided) for all purposes the same as the original (§338-13(b)).

But nobody ever required Obama to provide an "official" record of his birth when they still had the chance.

This is where we run into some problems.

There is no federal law that require people running in an election to prove they are natural born citizens.

How do we know Obama hasn't provided the evidence to certain people? How do we know exactly what evidence would that be? And to whom it would be shown?

I've read a story that in a particular state, Roger Calero's name (a naturalized US citizen born in Nicaragua) was rejected from entering the ballot by the state's Secretary of State.

But Roger Calero's name still showed up on 5 state's ballots and he received several thousand votes as noted by his wikipedia page.

Leo Donofrio also sued New Jersey's Secretary of State in his lawsuit, so I think it is assumed such competence to determine a candidate's qualifications would fall under the Secretary of State (at that stage in the election).

But Roger Calero is proof that there is no nation-wide regulation on this, and that apparently some states don't even care that an obviously non-natural born citizen is running.

This might spring from the interpretation that the Constitution says only a natural born citizen can hold Office, but it doesn't exclude a non-natural born citizen from running for Office. So perhaps since they knew Roger Calero didn't have a chance in hell of winning the election they didn't even cared he was running.

2.) What has been produced on the Internet for Obama's birth certificate is a diversion ...

I completely agree with you on this.

As far as the US Department of State is concerned, for the typical US citizen to get a US Passport, one must submit all of the pages of their "birth record", or one does not get a passport.

When applying for a U.S. passport in person, acceptable identification must be presented at the time of application.

Primary Identification (One of the following):

* Previously issued, undamaged U.S. passport
* Naturalization Certificate
* Valid Driver's License
* Current Government ID (city, state or federal)
* Current Military ID (military and dependents)

source

So, being Secretary of State, Hillary could look at all the pages if she had, I suppose, a "valid" reason.

I think the people who are pursuing these theories about Obama should focus their efforts on the State Department (not necessarily because of Clinton ).

If Obama was born somewhere else, the State Department must have information on a VISA issued for Obama to enter the country on August 1961.

Even if the State Department would refuse to release information about the President because of some bogus national security reason (in this case), they couldn't deny to release his mother's VISA/travel information because she is deceased.

With our court system's hands tied until somebody can prove they have "standing" that they have been personally harmed (past tense) before they can even get a judge to listen to a complaint, therein would seem to lie the rub.

I know for sure of at least two people who had standing to sue Obama: Clinton after losing to Obama to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and McCain after losing to Obama.

IMO, there -is- something wrong with a Judiciary system that allows red-tape to cause this kind of situation.

Well you have to understand that the system is set up in abstract terms.

Sometimes these little procedures seem absurd but they exist for a reason, and while most of the time it's not apparent for what reason exactly, it's usually a good one.

The same US Constitution which requires that he be a natural born citizen to hold the office of President does not seem to provide a way in which anyone can verify him to be qualified after he was sworn in. The DNC had a chance to require it of him before selecting him as their candidate. Any member of the US Congress could have raised the question before they counted the Electoral College ballots. But -none- of them did, including the Republican Senators and Vice President Cheney.

You are completely correct on that analysis. You pinpointed the situations where his qualifications or objections to his qualifications could've been raised, but they weren't.

You're however incorrect in saying that the DNC didn't check it.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution source

What they asked for, or what they examined exactly we don't know but Pelosi swore that Obama and Biden were qualified under the provisions of the Constitution.

I can see the validity of arguments on both sides but there is one thing I have to comment on.

I've seen it said over and over that there is no legal requirement for Obama to present his long form BC. There is no law to enforce it's release. With this I disagree. The constitution sets as a requirement that the president be 'natural born'. This is the law. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't provide specific instructions on how to enforce this. Common sense would say that whatever proof is necessary to fill this requirement should be provided. Because of questions regarding the COLB, then adequate proof should be presented. In this case, the original long form BC.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the constitution people throw common sense out and 'interpret' it to fit whatever agenda they support rather than just read what it says and apply it.

reply to post by xmotex


Just to back up my statement of how I just want the truth, If you look at all the other threads bashing Obama, you will see I have not made a single comment.

I have been called a right wing nut and everything else, I just don't like the feeling I get about this, and I don't like being lied to. I want only the facts to be presented that is all. apology accepted. Thank You

Originally posted by Primordial
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't provide specific instructions on how to enforce this. Common sense would say that whatever proof is necessary to fill this requirement should be provided. Because of questions regarding the COLB, then adequate proof should be presented. In this case, the original long form BC.

That's the problem though, since there is no uniform legislation in place for this, what you consider adequate proof is up to interpretation.

If you argue from a strictly legal point of view, then for all effects Obama's certification is a legal document that for all purposes (Hawaii's statutes language) has the same value as the original.

And let's be honest, if it was someone else, someone with a let's say different background, most of the people protesting now would have accepted the certification of live birth as adequate proof.

But let's not forget that while there is no uniform legislation on this, there are provisions, in both US Code and the Constitution, that contemplate objections to be raised and could have been raised because of this eligibility issue. But no objections were ever raised when they could have been, as BFO pointed out.

All this fuss, and this could have all beenended a long time ago by simply providing a birth certifercate, and nothing but a birth certifercate.
Thanks Obama. See what you are doing to the people? You are driving us crazy over this stupid nonsense. Just provide the damn thing so we can all move on.

reply to post by BFO


Still on the topic of requirements and who checks what, I have looked at Hawaii's statutes and here are the ones for Presidential ballots in Hawaii.

§11-113 Presidential ballots. ...

(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

(d) Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.

source

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Primordial
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't provide specific instructions on how to enforce this. Common sense would say that whatever proof is necessary to fill this requirement should be provided. Because of questions regarding the COLB, then adequate proof should be presented. In this case, the original long form BC.

That's the problem though, since there is no uniform legislation in place for this, what you consider adequate proof is up to interpretation.

If you argue from a strictly legal point of view, then for all effects Obama's certification is a legal document that for all purposes (Hawaii's statutes language) has the same value as the original.

And let's be honest, if it was someone else, someone with a let's say different background, most of the people protesting now would have accepted the certification of live birth as adequate proof.

But let's not forget that while there is no uniform legislation on this, there are provisions, in both US Code and the Constitution, that contemplate objections to be raised and could have been raised because of this eligibility issue. But no objections were ever raised when they could have been, as BFO pointed out.

Of course if it was someone of a different background it might be different, it's his background that is in question. And, considering the questions surrounding the COLB, it really isn't adequate. Those who support him will accept it without question, those who oppose will never accept it. By releasing the original BC to the supreme court for examination, it could legally be put to rest and we could move on.

Originally posted by Primordial
Of course if it was someone of a different background it might be different, it's his background that is in question. And, considering the questions surrounding the COLB, it really isn't adequate.

The time where people's 'differences' had a different legal weight is long past. And besides, I don't think being uncomfortable with someone's background is an admissible reason to request the inspection of someone's vital records to a Court.

By releasing the original BC to the supreme court for examination, it could legally be put to rest and we could move on.

The Supreme Court isn't a federal investigation body. Only way the original birth certificate would be released to the Supreme Court for examination is if there was a lawsuit, with standing and merit, that reached it.

Originally posted by Common Good
All this fuss, and this could have all beenended a long time ago by simply providing a birth certifercate, and nothing but a birth certifercate.

The "fuss" is the lack understanding of the constitution by those pushing this conspiracy, the rights of Obama himself and the differences and similarities legally between the long form and the short form.

Your making a "fuss" by not listening to the other side and understanding why the argument from the rightwing fringe stands nowhere, legally and logically.

So why dont you quit making a "fuss".

The time where people's 'differences' had a different legal weight is long past.

In theory yes, in practice, not really.

And besides, I don't think being uncomfortable with someone's background is an admissible reason to request the inspection of someone's vital records to a Court.

So now it's just people feeling uncomfortable? There are inconsistencies in statements made by his own family, his travel to Pakistan when supposedly US citizens could not, raising questions of what nation did he use a passport from to travel there, his childhood in Indonesia and if he is or was a citizen of the US or Indonesia at that time, the possibility of him actually being a British citizen due to his fathers status, etc... Couple that with him refusing to release the BC, sealing records, etc.. and even a supporter, though maybe not publicly, would question what's going on.

These are legitimate concerns, not just people feeling uncomfortable with him. Hell, I feel uncomfortable with just about every politician. IMO just about every one of them are crooks.

The Supreme Court isn't a federal investigation body. Only way the original birth certificate would be released to the Supreme Court for examination is if there was a lawsuit, with standing and merit, that reached it.

The Supreme court is the final decision maker. I feel by them refusing to hear the case with no comment just raises more questions. As for no standing, who gets to decide that..the SCOTUS themselves. So now where do we stand? Doesn't every american who will be affected by Obamas decisions have standing?

If Obama raises taxes on some americans, doesn't his decision directly impact them? By passing the stimulus bill with the various things contained therein, does this not impact us all in some way? Who has standing? He will be responsible for military and foreign policy decisions. Do the men who will put their life on the line based on his decisions have a right to ensure their leader is legitimate?

A ruling of no standing is just a cop out. Just move along folks, nothing to see here. Obama is not just some dude on the street who doesn't concern us. We ALL have standing as his decisions will impact us all in some way.

Originally posted by Primordial
There are inconsistencies in statements made by his own family

You mean Sarah Obama's infamous phone call conversation? Well, take a listen to the full version of the conversation (full transcript), at around 05:44 you can hear the following exchange:

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (to McRae): No! Obama was not born in Mombasa! He was born in America!

MCRAE: Wh-whereabouts, whereabouts was he born? I, I thought he was born in Kenya.

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: No he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: OK. Do you know whereabouts he was born?

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: (Pause.) Huh?

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was gonna go by and see where he was born.

BROTHER TOM (background): Hawaii, yeah?

VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN (background): Yeah.

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (background): Yes.

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (to McRae): Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii.

MCRAE: OK.

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yeah, in 1960 this was Hawaii, where his father, his father was also marrying there. This was Hawaii.

MCRAE: OK.

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yeah.

MCRAE: Was, was, was Mrs. Obama, was sh--was she present? Was, was Mrs. Obama, see I thought you said she was present. Was she, was, was she, was she able to see him being, being born in, in Hawaii?

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: (pause, silence) Hoh? (pause) Uh, yeah would you please pronounce?

MCRAE: OK I’m sorry. I, I thought she said she was present when he was born. I was—

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (sounding exasperated): No, no! The, the woman was not present. She was uh not, a what--you see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. That is, that’s obvious.

MCRAE: OK.

TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Because, because the grandmother was married here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America, oh yeah, so his son, the little Obama, was marrying, was marrying, in America, in United States.

MCRAE: Oh, OK, fine. I mean, I--I just, I misunderstood what she was saying. I thought you said she was present when he was born.

his travel to Pakistan when supposedly US citizens could not, raising questions of what nation did he use a passport from to travel there

That's another bogus claim. There was no ban of US citizens to Pakistan in 1981.

Here's a story on the New York Times about a trip to Pakistan

LAHORE, A SURVIVOR WITH A BITTERSWEET HISTORY

By BARBARA CROSSETTE; BARBARA CROSSETTE IS AN ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Published: June 14, 1981

Or how about this Travel Advisory from the State Department

AUGUST 17, 1981

TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN

BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS: 30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS FOR TOURISTS ONLY. AS THESE VISAS ARE RARELY EXTENDED BEYOND THE 30 DAY TIME PERIOD TOURISTS PLANNING TO STAY LONGER SHOULD SECURE VISAS BEFORE COMING TO PAKISTAN. ANY TRAVELER COMING INTO PAKISTAN OVERLAND FROM INDIA MUST REPEAT MUST HAVE A VALID VISA, AS 30 DAY VISAS ARE NOT REPEAT NOT ISSUED AT THE OVERLAND BORDER CROSSING POINT AT WAGHA.

ANY NON-OFFICIAL AMERICAN WHO IS IN PAKISTAN FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS MUST REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S FOREIGNER REGISTRATION OFFICE. EXIT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STAYED LONGER THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

his childhood in Indonesia and if he is or was a citizen of the US or Indonesia at that time, the possibility of him actually being a British citizen due to his fathers status, etc...

Inconsequential. See this post, I made an analysis of US and Indonesian law in place at the time.

Couple that with him refusing to release the BC, sealing records, etc

Records are sealed by law, not by someone's order (HRS §338-18(a)).

and even a supporter, though maybe not publicly, would question what's going on.

It doesn't matter whose supporters question what's going on, their requests still have to have a legal basis.

The Supreme court is the final decision maker. I feel by them refusing to hear the case with no comment just raises more questions.

It would be, if it was unprecedented. It's not uncommon to dismiss without comment cases which have no merit.

As for no standing, who gets to decide that..the SCOTUS themselves.

How is that surprising? That's how the Courts work.

So who do you think should get to decide that?

A ruling of no standing is just a cop out. Just move along folks, nothing to see here. Obama is not just some dude on the street who doesn't concern us. We ALL have standing as his decisions will impact us all in some way.

If you think you have a case why not present it? Go for it, since you're so sure about the law.

Yeah and the fools here saying this is a waste of time have not done their homework. Obama has spent millions suppressing evidence and records when all he needs to do is show one document to make it all go away. But he won't.

If you don't think that is evidence of his ineligibility then you are a morons and the reason this country is where it is today. That judge should be hung!

People need to look around them, what do you see? Bush Set the table now Obama is having a feast and our society is crumbling before our very eyes, and most fools think this will be over by next Thursday... Sigh

Prepare for hard times as the economically incompetent Obama and cronies destroy what's left of our economy and society.

reply to post by Angry Danish


Greeting Angry Danish......The reason why they don't produce a valid BC is because they do not have one....The reason why this country is in the condition it is.....is because of the american peoples acceptance and tolerence for lying ...by their elected leaders...IF WE DO NOT STAND UP AND DEMAND INTEGRITY WE DO NOT DESERVE TO BE FREE.....

reply to post by hawkiye


Hang in there hawkiye....I hear the rumbling....the eruption can not be to far behind....Those who want the government to provide for them will soon come to the realization that,the government has NO money...To quote Margeret Thatcher..." Socialism will work until it runs out of other peoples money"

Even if he is not really an American , you will never know. Even if you did , I doubt people would revolt. People are too acquiescent nowadays , they would rather say "who cares?" and go back to their best TV show or watch their football games , and just forget life.

Falsifying such documents is easier than you might think if you have the right connections.
A guy writes it , the other signs it , set a date , and voila , it's done.

Of course a mere mortal like you and me would never be able to do it , but someone put there by the PTB surely can!


Perhaps he just will not clear it up so that many of us just keep arguing about pointless things when the real game is going on elsewhere , because if he really wanted to clear that up , he could. Documents faked or not.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Obama has spent millions suppressing evidence and records when all he needs to do is show one document to make it all go away.

Substantiate.

If you don't think that is evidence of his ineligibility then you are a morons and the reason this country is where it is today.

What evidence? The so called evidence that has been systematically debunked?

The mistranslations of the Sarah Obama conversation?

The bogus claims of a ban on US citizens to travel to Pakistan?

The sloppy and disingenuous 'analysis' of the Obama COLB by so called experts who don't even show their faces or give their names?

The bogus claims that Obama lost his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia?

Prepare for hard times as the economically incompetent Obama and cronies destroy what's left of our economy and society.

Turn off FOX News.

Originally posted by smokingman2006

How the man leading the free world can produce a fake birth certificate is behond me......

[edit on 3/7/2009 by semperfortis]

Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro is not "the leader of the free world".

He is (currently) President of the United States Government.

There is a world outside of the United States and much of it is "free", some of it moreso than the U.S..

Additionally, just because a person has been given the opportunity to lead, does not automatically make said person a leader. Well, a good leader anyway.

The real "free world" does not need Obama or anyone else to "lead" it.

The title "leader of the free world" if at all applicable, applies mainly to the parts of the world which fall under one or more variations of the American brand of "democracy".

These days American politicians are not leaders at all. Dictators, maybe.

They might lead you.... lead you to poverty.

"Leader of the free world"

Why do all the other "free" countries need politicians and/or leaders if Obama is leading them?

Most importantly though, is WHERE he is leading them.