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

Originally posted by kinda kurious
As this relates to OP and subject of President Obama's ethnicity / heritage / birth origin. There is another poster suggesting that President Obama is not even African-American.
(snip)
"Obama IS NOT "...the first African-American President." Obama's only claim to black (African) blood is a great grandmother on his father's side. In fact Obama is half white (mother), 7/16ths arab and 1/16th black (father). A person has to be at least 1/8th of the ethnicity claimed to be designated as such.

This is an interesting point.
One of the theories I read on why Obama won't release his long form is because the ethnicity marked on the form may show "white". I have no idea if that theory may be true but it would seem to hold more water than him being born outside the country as a possible reason for keeping it secret.

I guess the thought is that some voters who thought they were electing the first black president could feel betrayed if the birth certificate said he was white, but I don't agree with this because Obama didn't check his own ethnicity box, that was done for him. And he is whatever racial mix he is regardless of what box is checked, so I don't see the big deal if that were the case. But I guess some people think it could be "embarrassing".

It looks like we may never see the document so we may never know exactly what it is he's hiding.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It looks like we may never see the document so we may never know exactly what it is he's hiding.

Sorry but I consider that statement "presupposition." An informal fallacy.

Its is the same as asking "Do you still beat your wife?"

You presume that he IS "hiding" something. However, to date, he has met all legal, ethical and reasonable proof of eligibility as required by law to serve as POTUS. He is under no obligation to satisfy requests from a lunatic fringe to provide anything further.

He has no further requisite to respond to groundless allegations from an ignoble mob.

Of course you may speculate as you please. That is why we're here. I am usually more of a CT'er than skeptic.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It looks like we may never see the document so we may never know exactly what it is he's hiding.

Sorry but I consider that statement "presupposition." An informal fallacy.

I agree it's a fallacy and he may be hiding nothing. However it does seem odd that he'd rather spend a million dollars on lawyer fees than send a letter with a 44 cent stamp. So he's got other reasons besides economics to do what he's doing. Privacy? maybe. But you make a valid point and I agree with you.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
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.

Uh, the Law of Nations most certainly does have an affect on US law.

Exactly what part of....Congress shall have the power to punish Offenses against the Law of Nations ....... do you not understand?

As for a husband and wife from Mexico coming into the United States and having their child born here, that does not make the child a natural born citizen....nor is that at all what is stated in the Law of Nations. Perhaps you should read it again.

The child born here may be considered a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. It is merely a anchor baby.

To be a natural born citizen one must be born of two US Citizens. The parents do not have to be natural born citizens, but merely US citizens at the time their child is born.

So in the case of husband and wife coming from Mexico....IF they become US citizens through immigration and THEN AFTER they become US citizens and then their child is born in the US....then in that case the child would be a natural born citizen.

Also, in Obama's case he was born a British subject. This is even by Obama's own admission. So since he was born a citizen of a foreign country REGARDLESS of where he was born, since he his citizenship is governed by his fathers citizenship, then at best he was born having dual citizenship ASSUMING he was actually born in HI. So how is it possibly for one to be a natural born citizen of one country while being born with dual citizenship at birth??? Impossible!

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It looks like we may never see the document so we may never know exactly what it is he's hiding.

Sorry but I consider that statement "presupposition." An informal fallacy.

Its is the same as asking "Do you still beat your wife?"

You presume that he IS "hiding" something. However, to date, he has met all legal, ethical and reasonable proof of eligibility as required by law to serve as POTUS. He is under no obligation to satisfy requests from a lunatic fringe to provide anything further.

He has no further requisite to respond to groundless allegations from an ignoble mob.

Of course you may speculate as you please. That is why we're here. I am usually more of a CT'er than skeptic.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Nope! It has not met anything by law that proves anything that he is a natural born citizen nor has he even met proof he was born in HI.

All he has done is post a copy of a BC on the internet. A copy that has been proven as fraudulent.

The State of HI refuses to validate if the actual copy posted on the internet is authentic.

Obama has never been vetted.

No one from the DNC or from our government has ever come forward to officially claim they have verified his BC is in fact real.

And IF that BC posted is in fact real, it still proves nothing other than he has obtained a HI BC which could have been from one of five different methods which only one of the five would prove if he was actually born in HI. That would be having an original BC that is signed by the doctor that delivered him and naming the hospital he was born in. None of which has been released nor confirmed by any government official.

Are you saying you can post a copy of your short form BC on the internet and use that as your only proof to prove you are who you say you are and where you were born by being able to obtain a drivers license with that??? LOL

You couldn't get a drivers license with that, yet you expect people to accept that as prove enough for someome to hold the highest office in the country? Well have I got a nice bridge to sell to you! LOL

Here is a good article that explains Obama's dual citizenship and how it still aplies today. This was written by an attorney


DUAL CITIZENSHIP

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
All he has done is post a copy of a BC on the internet. A copy that has been proven as fraudulent.

When was it proven fraudulent? I think you are telling outright lies.

The State of HI refuses to validate if the actual copy posted on the internet is authentic.

Yep

Hawaiian officials again validate Obama's birth certificate

source

Obama has never been vetted.

So he made it through high school, college (harvard law school) without ever having to prove who he was? Have you ever gone to school? or are you claiming they have all been in on it?



[edit on 8/21/09 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by FollowTheConstitution


This lawyer?

lawyers.justia.com...

Car accidents and injury law?

Nice ... slightly more qualified than Taitz on constitutional law ... slightly.

Yikes, this just gets better and better.

[edit on 21 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
Exactly what part of....Congress shall have the power to punish Offenses against the Law of Nations ....... do you not understand?

I don't understand why you think the writers of the Constitution were referring to a book written by a foreigner... Law of Nations is a LAW, not a book.

The term excludes wholly domestic conduct that does not have a direct effect on foreign nations or nationals. Because the law of nations is rooted in natural law, its substantive content was understood by the Framers as being immutable. While modern-day treaties and evolving international norms are important parts of international law, they cannot expand the scope of the law of nations.

The law of nations and the offenses clause in the Constitution

Further:

During the Revolutionary War, Congress took cognizance of all matters arising under the law of nations and professed obedience to that law.1474 Under the Articles of Confederation, it was given exclusive power to appoint courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, but no provision was made for dealing with offenses against the law of nations.1475 The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress “to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations.”1476

In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.1477

US Supreme Court Center

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It looks like we may never see the document so we may never know exactly what it is he's hiding.

Sorry but I consider that statement "presupposition." An informal fallacy.

I agree it's a fallacy and he may be hiding nothing. However it does seem odd that he'd rather spend a million dollars on lawyer fees than send a letter with a 44 cent stamp. So he's got other reasons besides economics to do what he's doing. Privacy? maybe. But you make a valid point and I agree with you.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

He's hiding something alright, it seems to be a fact, he recieve a grant for college as a Non-Citizen of the US.

They ask and were given 173 days to anwser this, and that time will be up soon, but can always ask for extension.

If he does not hide things, why does he hide to smoke his cigarettes??

Like some say his secrecy could just be to miss direct everyones attention, as he twist the knife plunged into the back of America.

Originally posted by googolplex
He's hiding something alright, it seems to be a fact, he recieve a grant for college as a Non-Citizen of the US.

Seems to be a fact, huh? Could you provide what seems to be proof of that statement?

Originally posted by evil incarnate

When was it proven fraudulent? I think you are telling outright lies.

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is 100% authentic? No? Okay, then it's a stalemate. Which is where we are going to be for a long time.

Until you can, saying Obama is legitimate is a lie as well.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by KnoxMSP]

Originally posted by KnoxMSP
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is 100% authentic? No? Okay, then it's a stalemate. Which is where we are going to be for a long time.

Until you can, saying Obama is legitimate is a lie as well.

I am afraid you know not of what you speak. The "burden of proof" is incumbent upon the accuser, in this case the Birthers.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

Definition


Sorry but you are GUILTY of ignorance, lucky for you that is not a punishable crime.

Checkmate mate!

[edit on 22-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

and she is no longer allowed to practice law because she did not do it correctly.

And you also said that she is no longer allowed to practise law. Not many correct assertions here really are there?

...and I said her case was thrown out for being improperly filed but yet you nor your friends have challenged that have you? If she was any kind of lawyer, she would at least be able to file this correctly. She would also have a better excuse than to claim that hackers are the reason that the document she is touting as real turned out to be so fake. But you are not going to challenge any of that huh.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think you will have to admit you are wrong twice here. All the proof some people need has been produced. not all the proof "anyone" needs.

No, I do not think I will. I will wait until I am actually wrong twice before admitting it twice. I understand that the only way for birthers to be right is for the rest of us to just admit to being wrong even when we are not, but that will not be happening anytime soon.

Actually what Orly Taitz was seeking is evidence, just one little document. If the evidence is produced it will prove whatever it proves.

Then she is an even worse lawyer than previously thought. Does your ambulance chasing lawyer also go out in seach of evidenc that proves a premise they themselves have not thought of or considered?

On what planet does that even make sense? Taits was seeking validation to the case she has already drawn up.

So as for your statements of "Prove this, prove that", that's what I would also like to see done, provide proof, and proof is generally based on evidence blah blah blah blah....

If you were paying attention instead of just ranting, you would notice a certain trend in that I only demanded proof from people already demanding it from me. Do not harp on me about showing up with proof when that was never my victory cry. Now that I have been told over and over that I need to prove he was born in Hawaii, I decided we can all play that way.

reply to post by evil incarnate

...and I said her case was thrown out for being improperly filed but yet you nor your friends have challenged that have you? If she was any kind of lawyer, she would at least be able to file this correctly. She would also have a better excuse than to claim that hackers are the reason that the document she is touting as real turned out to be so fake. But you are not going to challenge any of that huh.

I am not sure who 'my friends' are....You appear to be in some battle, rather than on a search for truth.
Actually, if you just spin back a couple of posts, my response was to your assertion that she had been disbarred and not allowed to practice any more...assertions that were false...which you accepted was the case. I am not sure why you are dredging that up again, maybe you feel the need to argue.
Now, to address your new point...did I ever say that she was a brilliant lawyer? I object to people accusing her of being a complete nutcase, when in fact regardless of motive etc she is incredibly brave doing what she believes is right whilst having to deal with death threats and constant accusations of insanity. I doubt many could withstand that without crumpling into a heap.
I don't believe she has used any excuse of hacking for anything, except her site having a google warning of unsafeness, which she has attributed to google messing around as the Soros son is apparently on the board.
I don't believe she has said that the certificate she has on her site is a fake either.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


"In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.1477"

EXACTLY! So what is your point??? Congress was authorized to define as well as punish offenses against the law of nations!

What exactly is it that you are not understanding here?

reply to post by evil incarnate


"Hawaiian officials again validate Obama's birth certificate"

They verified they have his vault BC on file. They never verified the short form BC posted on the internet as being authentic. In fact they flat out refused to do so!

There is no doubt HI has his original on file....the mistery is what type of BC is on file? Again, there is 5 ways Obama could have obtained an original BC that would be on file with HI. Only one proves he was born there. The other 4 ways anyone born anywhere could obtain one from HI. So which one is it? HI refuses to answer. Obama refuses to release it!

Even Obama's sister who was born in Indonesia has a COLB from HI that looks exactly like the one Obama posted on the internet!

Ever hear of making a copy and just adding her name to it?

It's easy to take the original, which is real, and make a fake of it.