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

Originally posted by skeetontheconspiracy
Perhaps the truth might be coming out sooner htan we hoped.

but even if hes found to be ineligible to be president the scenarios don't play out too well..
1 Obama gets impeached, goes through processes and trial of impeachment which takes 2 years. So he would stil be pres up until around 2012.

I think it will happen in 2011

reply to post by Mak Manto


A natural born citizen is one born in the United States who isn't a black slave or the descendant of a black slave.

But they couldn't really put that into the new constitution, could they ? Because it would make a mockery of US independence and the supposed freedoms & liberties upon which the new nation was founded.

Hence the poorly defined "natural born citizen".

And to cover their own rear the first seven or eight Presidents, born British subjects in what was then the British US colonies, legislated themselves as natural born citizens in order to qualify for that high office, despite having parents & siblings born British & died British.

The Founding Fathers were as crooked & self serving as the mob you have now.

In any event, some argue that no-one alive today can be President. Only those natural born citizens or citizens of the USA at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can be President (and the Constitution was adopted in 1789). So Obama's a fraud. As is just about every President from the mid 19th C onwards.

It is an article.

Besides, I read both the Constitution and the Law of Nations.

The Law of Nations has no legal effect on the United States. President Obama, as such, as is not affected by it.

While many of the Founding Fathers followed Vattel's works, it doesn't go by US law.

For example, did you know that if two illegal immigrants have a baby here, the baby is an American?

So, if a husband and a wife from Mexico came into the United States and then had their child, the child is a natural-born citizen.

Vattel's writings do not apply here.

Obama is our President.

reply to post by Ulala


You have issues, don't you...?

reply to post by Ulala


Also, your whole rant on how the Founding Fathers were as crooked as our Presidents are today.

You're not one of those British citizens who are still angry that American won the Revolutionary War and claimed our Independence, are you?

reply to post by Mak Manto


Issues ? No, hope not.

But if you try to imagine this newly created United States where black slavery was commonplace, the Founding Fathers needed some mechanism by which to prevent blacks from becoming President. So it's not beyond the wit of man for this "natural born citizen" condition to have been their own carefully crafted yet poorly defined attempt to deny blacks the highest office.

I make no comment on today. I'm merely talking about "1789 and all that".

reply to post by Ulala


Except 1789 has no point here.

You see, Ulala, in the United States, we can change our Constitution. It has been changed many times.

So, your whole little post of "Well, the Founding Fathers didn't want blacks in office" has no merit.

African-Americans are allowed to become presidents.

reply to post by Mak Manto


Contrary to popular belief I wasn't alive in 1776 and am no more likely to get ANGRY about US independence than I am about King Alfred burning the cakes.

My location is United Kingdom ; that doesn't make me British.

Originally posted by Mak Manto

African-Americans are allowed to become presidents.

I beleive all Ulala was getting is that there is a difference between "are" and "were." Maybe I read it wrong.

reply to post by Ulala


Well, the Founding Fathers weren't crooked.

Is anybody perfect? No, but to say that all of the Presidents are not natural-born citizens is a bit silly.

Yes, I see where you're coming from in your post, but a natural-born citizen is not defined in our country.

As such, it could mean anything.

reply to post by Mak Manto


But if natural born isn't defined, can mean anything, is founded on shifting sands ...

How can any President satisfy its requirements ? Or has this just never been an issue before ?

Is this one of those occasions when the Supreme Court, if asked, would make its best guess based on its understanding of the law and in recognition of the public mood at the time ? Because if that's the case I'd warrant the Supreme Court of 1791/2 wouldn't recognise Mr Obama as being President even had Hawaii been part of the USA at the time.

They wouldn't have recognised him simply because he's black. And blacks then were regarded by some as little more than chattels, certainly not thought of in Presidential terms.

I've never quite understood why the Founding Fathers are almost beyond criticism. In 1775 they could be observed on bended knee ... even in wartime ... sending the most pitiful, grovelling petitions to King George III and Parliament. Yet only a year later here they are reluctantly declaring their new republic.

And the Declaration itself, well, that's a peculiar read too. All these lofty ideals ... quickly followed by a litany of grievances against the poor King whose hands were as tied by Parliament as was the fate of British America. It reads almost as if these new US citizens had to be reminded as to why they'd just declared independence, or that its draughtsmen were so unsure of the validity of their case that they thought they'd better remind themselves while they were at it.

Very interesting stuff but for a different thread, unfortunately.

The Supreme Court has given the definition of a natural-born citizen in many cases, but for most of the cases, the definition is not the same.

I think what the Founding Fathers meant on a natural-born citizen is that you have to be born in America, or at least, in American territory.

Now, some say that both parents have to be citizens.

Some say they don't.

Some say that one parent has to be a citizen.

Some say both parents have to be NATURAL-BORN citizens.

Do you see how confusing it can get?

It's dumb to say, though. To think that a man who wasn't born in this country is not allowed to be president just because his father was not an American.

Whoops, I mean, it's silly to think that a man who was born in this country is having to argue that he can be president just because his father was not an American.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

NEW IMAGE SURFACES

The hoaxer has come clean with a series of new images, including this one:

For some reason I decided to check out Orly Taitz's new site (and she claims this one won't infect your PC but I still used noscript add-on with firefox when visiting it just to be sure)

I was surprised to see she claims to have debunked the debunking of the Kenyan Birth certificate:

www.orlytaitzesq.com...

Scroll about halfway down the page and you'll see her images making her case about the "you've been punk'd" document.

I suspected the Kenyan birth certificate was a fake and still do, but apparently she doesn't, she won't let go of this. I think her arguments are interesting but I'm not sure they really prove anything.

A small excerpt of her arguments on discrepancies with the Punk'd document.

The age’s don’t match on Obama’s dad.

In this image, it’s a little tough to discern. Does that say 25 and 26? So I took a closer look.
Yep! Debunked!

So maybe the age does say 25, but what I don't understand about her argument is if they can make one that says 25 can't they just as easily make one that says 26? So they made 2 documents instead of one? What's so hard to believe about that? Does that debunk the debunking? Unless I'm missing something, I don't think so.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No offense, but I'm not visiting any site that could attack my computer, no mater what this nutcase of a woman says.

As for her not quitting, she won't. This is all she is now. She was nothing before, but now that she has the birthers behind her, she has to make all she can of it.

If people stop thinking that Obama is not from this country, she'll lose all the "recognition" she had.

What a screwed-up person...

reply to post by Mak Manto

No offense, but I'm not visiting any site that could attack my computer, no mater what this nutcase of a woman says.

As for her not quitting, she won't. This is all she is now. She was nothing before, but now that she has the birthers behind her, she has to make all she can of it.

If people stop thinking that Obama is not from this country, she'll lose all the "recognition" she had.

What a screwed-up person...

Is that so? She is one brave person. Her site is not a danger but then the brainwashed would not know that. If she is screwed up I would rather have her on my side....a woman who has the strength of her convictions.
The truth will out and then there will be a lot of very quiet people around here...lol

Originally posted by oneclickaway
The truth will out and then there will be a lot of very quiet people around here.

Caution, that sword cuts both ways. The truth I seek will silence the birthers once and for all.

I've always felt the truth can withstand great scrutiny and will usually prevail. So patience and due diligence will yield an equally divisive outcome. Sought by all, but embraced by only half of this battle's participants.

Ms. Taitz has long since passed any chance of beginner's luck. Try as she might to make ANYTHING stick, she appears incapable of mustering true resovle. I feel if nothing else, she's consistent. But in a failing way. If her track record is any indication, success will be sweet for those who feel President Obama was born in Hawaii.

I presume we'll "divide the spoil" as victors often do upon defeating their adversaries.

I welcome the truth for one, for all.

Let's do this thing.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

No offense, but I'm not visiting any site that could attack my computer, no mater what this nutcase of a woman says.

Is that so? She is one brave person. Her site is not a danger but then the brainwashed would not know that. If she is screwed up I would rather have her on my side....a woman who has the strength of her convictions.
The truth will out and then there will be a lot of very quiet people around here...lol

Actually when she said:

NOTE: this post is upddated because the defendourfreedoms.us and defendourfreedoms.org were hijacked. More info on this matter is on the new site that should be more secure.
www.orlytaitzesq.com...

drorly.blogspot.com...

She admits her other site got hacked, and I must say the wording that the "new site that SHOULD be more secure" isn't exactly an iron-clad guarantee it won't get hacked either, but these blogs just don't have the technology investment that banks do to keep their sites from getting hacked.

You should be surfing with the firefox noscript add-on anyway and as long as you do that, it's pretty safe to visit her site even if it gets hacked. If you aren't using that, even if her site doesn't infect you, somebody else's site could easily infect your PC if you do much internet surfing. Cybercriminals have now designed malware payloads now that your antivirus won't stop, so don't think your antivirus is keeping you safe. But _javascript blockers like noscript can stop this.

One familiar with the JavaScript language may notice that the functions and parameter names are random. This type of attack easily bypasses signature-based solutions, which are simply not capable of handing the infinite number of possibilities in trying to detect obfuscated code.

Word to the wise, use the noscript addon (but you can add ATS to the whitelist to comply with the ATS T&C, I think ATS is safe).

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
She admits her other site got hacked.

You don't actually believe that do you? I don't believe she is "admitting" anything.
It's just another phony ploy to distract from the fact that her kenya BC is a fake.
A convenient excuse.

That site is hilarious BTW. Plus you aren't supposed to be linking to it without a copyright notice. Just sayin'. It's a freakin' joke.




[edit on 20-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
She admits her other site got hacked.

You don't actually believe that do you?

We may be referring to 2 different issues here.

Some people said something about documents getting changed on her site, I have no idea if that's true or not.

The other issue is that a hacker got into her old website and planted a virus there to attack the PCs of people that visited her site. I don't just believe that to be true, I KNOW a virus warning popped up when I visited her old site and I don't think she put it there, so I find it highly credible that it was done by a hacker.