Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

Originally posted by FlyersFan
... (I'm still on vacation and am not on my home computer) ....

Bon voyage. We'll expect postcards.

Hope you'll find time to relax and take some nice long walks.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/395480ad92aa.jpg[/atsimg]

Regards. . . KK

[edit on 11-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

How did Obama gain entry to Pakistan? Netanyahu Backs Birthers

www.youtube.com...



I too found it interesting that Orly droped this bomb they went to Israel>
Yup

exposingtheleft.blogspot.com...

[edit on 113131p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Netanyahu Backs Birthers

And when Madsen is asked WHY Netanyahu backs the birthers, his response is: Because Netanyahu is upset that Obama insists on a free zones settlement and he won't take military action against Iran. NOT because Netanyahu REALLY thinks Obama was born elsewhere, but because of political reasons. He's trying to put political pressure on Obama and knock down his ratings. In other words, forget the facts, Obama Must Fail. It's a rallying cry.

Madsen also claims that in 1981, Obama was LIVING with his mother and step father in Indonesia... How reliable can he be if he doesn't even have the facts straight?

IF this is true about Netanyahu, then he's just jumping on the Republican bandwagon which has, emblazoned across its side, Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail, and he's using the ignorance of the other riders to push his own agenda.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Yes indeed. If the Constitution requires citizenship then it must be shown if brought into question and not to a few unelected officials only but to the entire nation. What kind of country has this become when even the president thinks he doesn't have to answer publicly to the satisfaction of the people on this issue and the people are required to take the word of a bureaucrat?

Like goingt to war? Cutting huge amounts of Tax revenue out of the country by giving it back to richest 1 percent? Bailing out huge corporations and BANKS for losing all of our money? This entire forum is far too short to begin listing all the things that presidents do without our approval that directly effect most of us more than they ever would him. Unfortunately, that list is pretty much all made up of presidents past. Where are your cries over injustices to humanity? The world? The environment? Our education system? etc.

Suddenly you want to be indignant constitutionalists over a birth certificate that you have never been told you were allowed or even deserved to see?

And then the argument against is based on personal privacy? The average american is asked to testify against himself to the IRS every year but the "king" doesn't have to show evidence to a constitutional requirement when required?

The president also has to testify against himself to the IRS every year. I like your logic though - my boss can go out for a cigarette whenever he feels like it. I am the labor keeping him rich so I should get to shoot heroine at my desk. Apples and oranges, sorry.

They want permits with photo and background check, which are not even stipulated in the original document, to exercise your 2nd amendment rights but the president gets a pass on a constitutional stipulation? Hes an impostor for no other reason at this point.

Do you even see what you are writing? You are again on apples and oranges. What you need to do in order to excersise your 2nd amendment right and what the president needed to do to become president should be the exact same???????

This issue is pivoting on the word of a bureaucrat? In a constitutional republic? Just imagine what thy will do to your old and sick when the crats get a hold of the health system!!!!!!!

What is it you think they will be doing with them? Killing them off? Tossing them in the streets to die? How does whether or not Obama has shown YOU his birth certificate even apply to what may or may not happen to old and sick people? This thread is not about the health care plan or your misconceptions about it. This thread is about the photo of a fake Kenyan birth certificate that served as a wonderful reminder that people who feel as you do, will latch on to any evidence supporting your emotional feeling and spend pages trying to refute, confuse, or distract from the evidence that actually shows you to be wrong.

The birth certificate from Kenya is fake. Find another thread to threaten old people with your Fox news reading of the health care reform proposals.

This thread is still going...?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

NOT because Netanyahu REALLY thinks Obama was born elsewhere, but because of political reasons. He's trying to put political pressure on Obama and knock down his ratings. In other words, forget the facts, Obama Must Fail. It's a rallying cry.

Yes I realize that BH, I didn't know much about Orly until this thread, and again it is interesting.

oops

edit



[edit on 013131p://bWednesday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Obama's trip to Pakistan is a little discussed topic. Pakistan was certainly no place for American tourists in 1981. Which begs the question of what passport was used by him to gain access.

-The State Dept. had issued a travel advisory not a restriction
-Pakistan was under Martial Law from 1977 to 1988
-Americans were not exactly welcome visitors in 1981 Pakistan
-Pakistan had roughly 2 million Afghan refugees within its borders
-Afghan/Soviet war was in full swing
-President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was executed in 1979 following the 1977 coup


Great place for a radically minded college student to study and observe Jihad...

He allegedly traveled with a new roommate from Columbia where Obama had just enrolled. This roommate has refused to make any statements about this trip.

Obama never mentioned the trip in either of his books bet let it slip out during his campaign. Hmm... Innocent trip uh??

reply to post by jibeho


This is off topic as well as not factually correct.

But the Pakistan theory is just as false. The truth, easily proven, is that American citizens traveled freely to Pakistan in 1981.

source

Perhaps you misread the travel advisory -

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 per visa. 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

Source - warning THIS A LINK TO A PDF FILE, NOT A WEB PAGE. BE ADVISED, THIS COULD MEAN LOTS OF READING WITHOUT THE AID OF BULLET POINTS.

But this is for another thread. I am glad to see this one is still growing and going though. Each new page of empty repetition of talking points from Fox News and Rush simply demonstrates what most people are afraid to admit. They do not want him to be American because they do not want him to be president. I will not go ahead and call it rascism or anything else. We can stick to what it really truly and obviously is - a bunch of sore losers do not like how democracy really works so they tell lies to uninformed people to dupe them into going out and publicly whining about it.





[edit on 8/12/09 by evil incarnate]

Okay ... I'm back at home now.
But the computer is all screwed up. (ugh)

I'm not fully up on what transpired with this forgery, but I'm of the opinion that any forger should be prosecuted. It's not a joke and it's not funny. this is very serious.

Oh ... and here's my 'post card' ... www.thespaldinginn.com...

AWESOME!!

I never said that travel was restricted. I mentioned a travel advisory regarding Americans traveling to Pakistan. I also mentioned that the welcome mat was not openly displayed for Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. That is a known fact. Why travel to Pakistan and stay with a roommate's family. A roommate whom he had recently met at Columbia.

Obama claimed to not have a penny to his name back in those days. 3weeks half way around the world can get a little spendy for a poor college kid.

Originally posted by jibeho
I never said that travel was restricted. I mentioned a travel advisory regarding Americans traveling to Pakistan.

Uh huh. You sure did. Somehow though, you took 'advisory' to mean that it somehow then means that we should really really question him actually going. What did the advisory actually say? What is it actually advising?

I also mentioned that the welcome mat was not openly displayed for Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. That is a known fact.

Is it? So I should just take it from you then that he must have gone for some nefarious reason because you say the welcome matt is not exactly on display? Canada does not have any welcome matts out either and I have been there over 500 times in the last two decades. Does that mean anything? How about some facts that actually back up the idea that it would be difficult and unwise for him to have gone in 1981.

Why travel to Pakistan and stay with a roommate's family. A roommate whom he had recently met at Columbia.

You did not go to college did you? There is no shortage of students who go home with friends for various reasons. My friend brought his roomate from Germany home to NY for thanksgiving twice. I wonder when he is going to begin to become the first black president of Germany. Any clues?

Obama claimed to not have a penny to his name back in those days. 3weeks half way around the world can get a little spendy for a poor college kid.

Sure could. I guess it is lucky him then that New York and Hawaii are so close together huh?

Look, you read or heard you little conspiracy fact and repeated it dutifully. You offered nothing to back it, no links to look into, no factual anything to be checked. I went and got a couple for you. Your response is just more of what you think????

Who cares what you think about how easy it would have been for him to travel to pakistan. Geographically, it was just as far away as home and the advisory that you bring up to make it sound like Americans were having a hard time getting in simply tells you about keeping your papers up to date. When you come back with something that actually backs up your claim at all even just a teeny little bit, I certainly hope to schooled then.

reply to post by evil incarnate


You have really said a lot of nothing while going around the issue.

reply to post by FlyersFan



Welcome back.

OK, so FF if you can read this, did you not get any responses to your numerous pleas
from your 'source' of the photo?

Numerous posts of yours claimed you were attempting to contact your source and that you would share any info with the forum. Unfortunately, that NEVER occured.

Since you never did share with us (perhaps too busy packing for your holiday), does it mean you never received any replies or guidance from your source after it was initially provided?

Just curious. Thanks.





[edit on 12-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

You have really said a lot of nothing while going around the issue.

My sincerest appologies. Just exactly which issue is it you would like me to address for you. I feel I have been pretty on the point - right or wrong - but if I have just said things and missed something, please tell me. I appreciate that you care enough about what I have to say to point that out and give me the opportunity to extend this invitation to you. Which issue did I not address? The one where the 'advisory' was as tame as an advisory to pack extra shorts? The part where I point out how nothing else that is supposed to prove some point about that trip is little more than conjecture perilously perched atop the lie that there was some grave warnings to Americans to keep out. Seems to me that if the advisory is advice to American Tourists then they knew someone was going there and back. Was it the part about how I pointed out that Hawaii is half way around the world from Columbia as well as Pakistan? Please, oh please catch me up.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Well for one, you apparently believe that if some disregard the constitution its ok for others to do the same? Not that Obamas violation had been establish as of yet, but even if it had been you would believe this were not a problem. Mad slippery slope logic.

The good man stealing from the thief becouse the thief is a thief.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Well for one, you apparently believe that if some disregard the constitution its ok for others to do the same? Not that Obamas violation had been establish as of yet, but even if it had been you would believe this were not a problem. Mad slippery slope logic.

The good man stealing from the thief becouse the thief is a thief.

Quotes man, provide some quotes. I am now and always have been of the opinion that he did NOT violate the constitution. How could I possible say it is ok for him to do something I never once believed he did? When did I say it was ok to violate the constitution?

Please please show me my slippery slope or acknowledge that you are barking up the wrong tree here.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I see many mentions of a Natural Born Citizen must have both parents as US Citizens...simply not true. A Natural Born Citizen is anyone born on US soil and does not renounce his/her US Citizenship.

For example, all those "anchor babies" are all Natural born Citizens eventhough one or both parents may have come here illegally. And despite their family background, they are all eligible to become POTUS.

In the instance of John McCain, both military bases and embassies are considered US Soil. With that in mind, an attack or either should have the same weight as a direct assault on say Wichita, Kansas. However some law professors are not as knowledgeable as others while holding the office of POTUS.

You are simply WRONG! What you are claiming to be as Natural Born is nothing but merely NATIVE born! There is a big difference between being a native born, or considered to be a citizen simply because you were born here, but it has nothing to do with being a "Natural Born Citizen" under the constitution to be eligible to serve as POTUS.

The constitution does in fact define what a Natural Born Citizen is!

THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!!

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
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;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

www.constitution.org...

US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment.

Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis.

Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship.

“In God We Trust” (and ONLY God!)

Constitution for the United States of America

Article. I.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Law of Nations

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 211. What is our country.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (parentS as Plural meaning TWO Citizen ParentS) who are citizens. (citizenS as in Plural again, meaning TWO citizen parents) As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

§ 218. Settlement.
Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.

The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.

§ 219. Vagrants.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.

Constitution for the United States of America

Article. II.

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.

====================================================

This means only one of two things: Obama can only be a citizen at best, IF he was in fact born in the US….OR…..Obama is nothing but a VAGRANT!!!!

But regardless of where Obama was born, even if in the Whitehouse in front of Congress, he is NOT in any way shape or form a NATURAL Born Citizen as defined in the Constitution and is not eligible to be POTUS. In fact, this without question makes him guilty of TREASON!

reply to post by FollowTheConstitution


Uh, Constitution, you know the link you provided went to a .org site, not to a .gov site. You're link is not to a true source. It's an article that was written by someone who interprets the definition of what being a natural-born citizen means.

I'm sorry, you've been had.

The true definition of what a natural-born citizen has never been fully defined. I don't think the Founding Fathers ever believed this would occur.

To think that we would be arguing whether or not a man who was born in Hawaii is not a natural-born citzen because his father is not a US citizen is silly.

But, there is no true definition of what a natural-born citizen is.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution

 

Uh, Constitution, you know the link you provided went to a .org site, not to a .gov site. You're link is not to a true source. It's an article that was written by someone who interprets the definition of what being a natural-born citizen means.

I'm sorry, you've been had.

The true definition of what a natural-born citizen has never been fully defined. I don't think the Founding Fathers ever believed this would occur.

To think that we would be arguing whether or not a man who was born in Hawaii is not a natural-born citzen because his father is not a US citizen is silly.

But, there is no true definition of what a natural-born citizen is.

No, that isn't an article. That is a posting straight from the Law of Nations citing specific laws.

The Constitution clearly states the Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

The Law of Nations clearly define natural born citizen.

So if someone usurps the Presidency if they are not eligible this is clearly an offense of the Law of Nations which gives Congress the power to punish them for their crime. Which in this case would be treason!

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of natural born citizen, but is clearly defined in the Law of Nations, which the Constitution clearly states Congress has the power to punish anyone who commits any offense against the Law of Nations! HELLO!