URGENT Report!!!! altered Obama news report of continent of his birth

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Does anyone else find it interesting that people are assuming this Modern Ghana whatever news source claims it's common knowledge in an entire continent where Obama was born?

Isn't that like saying everybody in Guatemala knew where Bill Clinton was born before he became president? A little far-fetched.

Not weird at all.
Barack Obama was born in Africa.

His son however was born in hawaii.

Apparently nobody on this site has ever heard of the term 'typo' and that doesn't really surprise me. Has anyone thought to contact this news website about the article and inquire about the change, or do you prefer shooting and asking questions later?

Hasn't Obama already showed his birth certificate? I thought there was proof that he is a citizen... His birth certificate was posted on fact check, and I've even seen the newspaper article which shows his name being listed. So far that amounts to more proof to me then some clowns online yelling wolf with no evidence. The last post regarding this issue i viewed ended up in a cluster of people trying to determine what a birth certificate looks like... many which did not know that different states have different designs for b.c.'s... which again doesn't surprise me in the least.

bye now

oh god, there is no credibility in any of these articles and obama is not going to be impeached over possibly not being born here.



f*^% the haters, I still back him all the way.

reply to post by lee anoma


You are the man lee!
Second line.

It does not really matter, the secretary of transportation testifies that Cheney had at least 6 minutes warning of the incoming Pentagon flight and nothing happened....truth does not matter any more.

Rich

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
OH jesus....


if God was real, I'd ask him to get rid of all these Obama's birth threads.

If you dont think God is real, why are you making excalmations to his Son?

Originally posted by Oouthere
It does not really matter, the secretary of transportation testifies that Cheney had at least 6 minutes warning of the incoming Pentagon flight and nothing happened....truth does not matter any more.

Rich

Since we are debating where Pres. Obama was born can someone tell me on what PLANET Cheney was born??

[edit on 7/17/2009 by gemstone]

Ok, time to kill this thread too.

Ready? Your not going to like this one bit, but believe me everything I am about to tell you is the absolute truth. Ill even throw you a bone and give you a nifty link so that you can do something about it.

Ready?

Ok

The SCOTUS will not do anything about any lawsuit that comes before them about Obama being illegitimate to be President. You can throw a million lawsuits at the court a day and nothing will ever EVER come of it.

It's because you didn't bother to read the US Constitution.

If you had bothered to stay awake in Government class in High School you would know that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to do anything at all about the president.

They don't. They can't and they won't. EVER!

I don't give a damn if you somehow went back in time, somehow found Obama's mother giving birth to Obama in Kenya. Took pictures and recorded the whole thing then brought it forward to now and used it in the SCOTUS. they still won't do anything about it and they can't!

Why?

Because YOU have no legal standing to do so. The SCOTUS doesn't either. The SCOTUS cannot remove Obama even if all of this bull dunk was true.

The only people that have any authority to yank Obama out of office is, are you ready for it? Get a pen and paper handy or copy and paste what I am about to say, it's very important.

The Legislative branch of the Government is the only branch capable of bringing charges and impeaching the president.

Don't believe me?

Wanna bet on it?

Cmon, ill take some bets here, Ill bet say, the National Debt I am right.

ONLY the House of Representatives can bring forth Articles of Impeachment. And ONLY the Senate can have a trial for Impeachment. In this case ONLY will the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over the impeachment proceedings.

Article I Section 2...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I Section 3...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article III Section 2...

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That's right folks, you have been barking up the wrong tree this entire time.



Edited to take out meanie word.

[edit on 7/17/2009 by whatukno]

Cradle To Grave

Originally posted by whatukno
Birthers your not going to like this one bit,
[...]
It's because you Birthers didn't bother to read the US Constitution.

This repeated use of epithets and mischaracterization of other members is inappropriate and must stop. If you are unable to make your case rationally, then don't.

You are welcome to argue your point in a relevant and civil manner, but further posts of this kind -- and in particular, those featuring name-calling, by anyone -- will be subject to removal.

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

reply to post by whatukno


thank you for pwning the biggest waste of my time. Maybe now we can get back to what matters, like the possible prosecution of all those involved in 9/11, or the disclosure of UFOs that we all want so badly

reply to post by Southern Guardian


southern guardian,you are the most uninformed person ,except for bill mahr,i have ever encountered.
your opinions have no base,and are simply made up by your obama lovin' self. please dont post until you can contribute.
do us all favor.
only delusional people ignore the facts to make their "opinion" right.
please obtain the facts first,and then back up your claim.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Spectre0o0]

Originally posted by whatukno
The SCOTUS cannot remove Obama even if all of this bull dunk was true.

Who ever said anything about the courts removing Obama?
If and when the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, the courts can rule that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President. That's it.

What makes you think that the courts would remove him?
The courts only have to rule that Obama did not meet the requirements, then Congress can do their thing. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Just think for yourself a little instead of spewing some talking points you read somewhere on the internet and perhaps you might actually start to make some sense. I guess for those like you, ignorance is bliss.

reply to post by WhatTheory

Who ever said anything about the courts removing Obama?
If and when the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, the courts can rule that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President. That's it.

It's too late at this point. He has been confirmed as POTUS by Congress and Sworn in by the SCOTUS. The courts can do absolutely NOTHING to Obama at this point.

What makes you think that the courts would remove him?
The courts only have to rule that Obama did not meet the requirements, then Congress can do their thing. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Read what I wrote again. Read it CAREFULLY this time. The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the POTUS. NONE! They can't bring any evidence, they can't hear any evidence they can't do SQUAT!

Just think for yourself a little instead of spewing some talking points you read somewhere on the internet and perhaps you might actually start to make some sense. I guess for those like you, ignorance is bliss.

Read the Constitution of the United States. Read it CAREFULLY. I know, it's hard to do. But when you read something carefully you get understanding. The "talking points" you are referring to come straight from the United States Constitution.

I know, as a conservative I am sure that it bothers you that people have rights under the Constitution. I know it must bug the hell out of you that we are innocent until proven guilty. I know it's hard to understand that we live in a society of laws and live under the Constitution of the United States that protects and defends us from unreasonable searches and seizures of our personal papers and effects.

It's hard to be a jack booted Nazi in a society of freedom. But unfortunately for you we live in a society where such rights are protected.

And yes strange as it is for you, there are procedures to follow. And a constitution to uphold.

That means that no matter what bull dunk the internet reports. And no matter what horse manure charlatan lawyers might throw at the SCOTUS. Your not going to have Obama removed unless he is Impeached under articles of Impeachment that originate from the House of Representatives.

I know, you live in a fantasy world where the SCOTUS will someday rid you of this man from the White House. But they won't cause they can't. They don't have any legal standing to do so.



Mod note: Warning issued. Read this and stop mischaracterizing and insulting other members for having different points of view. -- Majic

[edit on 7/18/2009 by Majic]

Originally posted by whatukno
It's too late at this point.

No it's not. That is your lame and wrong opinion.

The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the POTUS. NONE! They can't bring any evidence, they can't hear any evidence they can't do SQUAT!

Again, this is your wrong interpretation. Please stop acting like what you are saying is fact. It's only your lame, wrong interpretation.

Even though the courts cannot remove Obama, they can hear evidence regarding his eligibility.

Read the Constitution of the United States. Read it CAREFULLY. I know, it's hard to do.

Oh, I have but it's apparent you should read it again.

Perhaps you have reading comprehension skill problems because you are mixing facts with your own opinion and spewing forth nonesense. Garbage in = garbage out.

reply to post by WhatTheory


Prove me wrong then, present the argument against what I have said.

please, show proof that I am wrong. Cite laws, cite the constitution. Please, be my guest.

Prove me wrong. Just don't say I am wrong, prove it.

Originally posted by whatukno
Prove me wrong then, present the argument against what I have said.

Already have. You just choose to ignore it.

Prove me wrong. Just don't say I am wrong, prove it.

You have done that by yourself. Anyone who can read the Constitution understands. It does not need to be further explained. Its plain and simple. Your lame point is moot.

Nobody is saying that the courts are going to remove the President. You keep repeating that the courts cannot remove the President. Ok, we know this already and this is not the point. Move from this point and then perhaps you will understand.

However, the courts can still rule that Obama does not meet the requirements to be President if evidence is brought to light which proves this. Once this happens, Congress can procede with impeachment hearing. Please tell me how this is incorrect.

reply to post by WhatTheory


The courts cannot state that Obama does not meet the requirements for the job at this point.

He has already been sworn in.

It's too late.

Get it through your thick skull

Bring evidence or not, it's up to you.



Mod note: Warning issued. Further rudeness toward other members may result in suspension of your posting privileges. I strongly recommend adopting a more courteous approach to the discussion. -- Majic

[edit on 7/18/2009 by Majic]

Originally posted by whatukno
The courts cannot state that Obama does not meet the requirements for the job at this point.

He has already been sworn in.

It's too late.

Umm....yes they can.
You are just plain wrong. Just because you THINK it's true, does not make it a fact.

Get it through your thick skull

Oh, that's nice. The first sign of a losing argument.
Sorry, but at least I have a skull to hold a brain which clearly you don't have.

reply to post by WhatTheory


Read article III of the constitution then get back to me.

Originally posted by whatukno
Read article III of the constitution then get back to me.

How many times do I have to tell you that your point of the courts not being able to remove the President is NOT in question. Good grief! You do have some sort of problem.

Instead of reading it, you need to comprehend it.