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

Originally posted by Anjin

Originally posted by Electro38
What if this goes to court and it's determined not to be a real doc?

What will you all do then?

Will you keep looking for something else? Or will you just not accept the courts decision?

Your question is an interesting one since (unless i'm mistaken) most of the posters that I believe you are referring to have only questioned the document as well while trying to find the truth.

So to answer your question; of course i'll accept the courts ruling if it is determined to be a fake document. I don't believe this is a witch hunt like the left believes, people just want to know the truth.

I understand what you're saying and I do believe there are poeple who really just want to know the truth about this. I'm not accusing everyone in this thread or in this movement of being racist.

I'm just expressing my opinion that I believe there is a big racist component to this and many people are using the constitution as a guise.

I'm going to wait and see what happens after this document poops out, whether in court or whatever.

I'll wait and see if some new movement gets started up. I suspect one will.

Does it not seem more than a little strange that the document is released as a badly angled photograph though. With this the smoking gun would you not take a really professional photograph and perhaps acompany it with a 3600dpi scan. It just seems a little convenient that like most smoking guns its sort of fake looking and the original is nowhere to be found.

It also begs the question, does it even matter if its real? The very definition of birth certificate is a certifiation of brith origin, so therefor the fact that Hawaii provided him with a new one when he was an infant makes this something of a grey area. To say, well you're not a natural born citizen, BUT, here's a certified document of US birth anyway seems a bit of a conundrum.

I understand though that is based on the assumption hes got a US birth certificate which I'm pretty sure he has; think about this for a minute. I have to show my birth certificate when I open a bank account, join the military, buy a house, and half a dosen other things I've done in my life, and none of them were running for president so isn't it more likely than not at some point during his application for president someone verified right to run.

Again this is an assumption on my part but more often than not, common sense explains away most mysteries.

Originally posted by Electro38

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
I thought you were done with this thread? Should we start a pool on when you will apologize for the 4th time? You've probably already got the single-thread record.

How about dealing with the actual topic of the thread - A DOCUMENT - remember?

IF the document is legit, should Obama be removed from office since he would not be eligible to serve?

I decided to continue to participate, what are we 12 years old?

And if I feel like apologizing whenever I feel I have used to wrong words, what's wrong with that?

You're laboring under the notion that I've been apologizing for my opinions, no, that's not the case.

(I got 1000 points last night for apologizing! That was nice. What do you do with those points?) Seriously though, I was sincere in my apologies. I felt I had used the wrong words a few times and got too personal. That's not good.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Electro38]

You have been all over the map. You say this is about "racism" and "hypocricy". Then you say that you aren't accusing anyone on this thread of racism or hypocricy. So what's the point, then?

Then you apologize. Then you post some more. Then you apologize again. Post some more. Apologize. Post. Leave. Come back.

You have flip flopped so many times, I can't figure out what your point is.

I DO KNOW that you have refused to address this question - IF the document is legit and Obama is not qualified to serve as President, should we uphold the Constitution and remove him from office?

I have to catch up with the threat, as it seems some of my research work has been challenged (always up for that) gimme time to respond

In the mean time watch this:

Fox News' O'reilly: cloudfront.mediamatters.org...

Damn, I hate it when he's right...

Originally posted by Electro38
I'm just expressing my opinion that I believe there is a big racist component to this and many people are using the constitution as a guise.

IT.

DOESN'T.

MATTER.

What matters is whether Obama is eligible to serve. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

You are using this argument as a guise to avoid the question of what to do IF the document is legit.

Originally posted by serial
Does it not seem more than a little strange that the document is released as a badly angled photograph though. With this the smoking gun would you not take a really professional photograph and perhaps acompany it with a 3600dpi scan. It just seems a little convenient that like most smoking guns its sort of fake looking and the original is nowhere to be found.

It also begs the question, does it even matter if its real? The very definition of birth certificate is a certifiation of brith origin, so therefor the fact that Hawaii provided him with a new one when he was an infant makes this something of a grey area. To say, well you're not a natural born citizen, BUT, here's a certified document of US birth anyway seems a bit of a conundrum.

I understand though that is based on the assumption hes got a US birth certificate which I'm pretty sure he has; think about this for a minute. I have to show my birth certificate when I open a bank account, join the military, buy a house, and half a dosen other things I've done in my life, and none of them were running for president so isn't it more likely than not at some point during his application for president someone verified right to run.

Again this is an assumption on my part but more often than not, common sense explains away most mysteries.

This is one of the most rational posts in this whole thread. Excellent points.

If there was any hint that Obama's country of birth was a question it would have been brought to light a long time ago.

The points that you raised here made me think that perhaps this is a case where someone is trying to draw attention to themselves (Keyes, Taitz), or that it is designed to distract, or cause social tension.

Originally posted by XyZeR
I have to catch up with the threat, as it seems some of my research work has been challenged (always up for that) gimme time to respond

In the mean time watch this:

Fox News' O'reilly: cloudfront.mediamatters.org...

Damn, I hate it when he's right...

Some of YOUR research work?

So are YOU the one who originated the list of debunked problems with the BO BC on DemocraticUnderground? Or did you just copy and past the list from there or elsewhere, post it here without having a clue if any of it was true, and call it "research"?

Originally posted by Maxmars
Also, the prospect of an automatic 'instant win' for the republican dolts is not possible. If anyone stands to gain from this nonsense it's Pelosi. She is next in the chain of command should the presidential elections be nullified.

We didn't just vote for Obama, the election is to pick a vice president too. So the one with the most to gain would be Joe Biden. They don't just automatically throw out the whole election if they find wrong doing on the part of the president.

reply to post by FlyersFan


1961 and the Birth Certificate does not have a British seal?

Kenya become independent of Great Britain in 1963. The Crown would be present still on a Kenyan birth certificate.

A very inaccurate historical fake

Originally posted by serial
Does it not seem more than a little strange that the document is released as a badly angled photograph though. With this the smoking gun would you not take a really professional photograph and perhaps acompany it with a 3600dpi scan. It just seems a little convenient that like most smoking guns its sort of fake looking and the original is nowhere to be found.

The fact that the doc was photographed at such an angle is very telling. How many people here would photograph a document in that way?

Most people would make sure they're focusing directly on the face of the doc, especially if they really thought they had such an important doc.

How many people here would photograph the doc like that?

I would assume no one would unless they were trying to perpetrate a hoax.

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
I DO KNOW that you have refused to address this question - IF the document is legit and Obama is not qualified to serve as President, should we uphold the Constitution and remove him from office?

Yeah, of course. He should be removed from office if that was the case.

Although in my opinion that would be a very bad thing to happen to America, extremely bad.

The constitution should be upheld, otherwise we might as well through it away.

I believe some politicians and the cia have thrown out the constitution a long time ago. They don't care about the constitution.

I think they just use it when it benefits their agenda, and to keep citizens pacified.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by thegear

 

No one is denying that Obama is a citizen. My son was born here in Germany and he's an American citizen.

The issue is where Obama was born. If Obama was born outside the United States, he couldn't be a natural born citizen, which would make him ineligible to be president.

I just saw a video that said that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still wouldn't be natural born since we wasn't born to two American citizens. His dad was subject to the British crown.

Where does it define "natural born citizen" in the constitution?

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

“ No Person except a, 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


Some history:
Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[30] This was never demonstrated by his political opponents, although they raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur's birth,[31] his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he may have also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis.[32] Arthur's natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.
Source Wikki:

So all this drame comes down to the LEGAL defintion of the term Natural Born Citizen is.

reply to post by GLDNGUN


Do you really think this document we've been looking at in this forum is a real document?

Are there any other photos of it? Or rather than a photo is there at least a scan of it?

Originally posted by maria_stardust
There doesn't seem to be a signature for either the father or the registrar on this document. The only signature present is that of the deputy registrar.

Am I wrong in presuming that the need for multiple signatures signifies witnesses and acts as a sort of validation of the document?

Just for fun, let's see what the Constituton really says in article 2 section 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..."

If you take the Constitution to be true, every single word of it, it states "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.........that was in 1788. That narrows down just who can be President. No one except born in one of the 13 colonies. And not only that, you can't be President unless you were alive in 1788. Not Obama, Clinton, Regan, Bush, ........noe of them are elegible according to the constitution.

reply to post by infinite


This issue has already been addressed ad nauseum in the thread and found that indeed this is possible..


please please please please read through the thread and research put forth by the people posting before doing so yourself.....it saves a great deal of reposts of the same worn out explanations.

Whats missing here is a sense of perspective.

So lets try and introduce one.

Firstly, people can bitch and moan about names all they like. BOTH sides of this particular argument are as guilty as the other of name calling. Its just a red-herring designed to try and rile people. As such name calling is meaningless.

Second, the race issue. The guy is of mixed descent. Some people are ok with that, some are not. All I that can be said to that is boo-hoo and cry me a river if you don't like it. The guy isn't going to change his skin colour any time soon and being bigoted about it makes no difference to the core issue of his eligibility to serve as POTUS

Third. NO ONE - and I typed that in capitals for good reason because its particularly relevant and INCLUDES the woman who introduced this document seems to have any proof of its legitimacy. Re-listen to the radio interview. She has not had it examined properly. She wants the court to do that.

Fourth - and likewise NO ONE (again, in caps for emphasis) has explained - to my knowledge - how "someone" came to be in possession of a document from 1964 which may or may not be a copy of a birth certificate. Explanations need to be forthcoming on that, because lets face it, no one at the time thought "this three year old kid might be president one day, I better keep a hold of that".

Fifth - anyone with a computer and time can use an image editing program. There are people posting in thread who think absolutely nothing at all of belittling pictures of UFO's as fakes because they've supposedly been 'shopped and yet they are willing to back this as genuine. Heads up, hoaxes happen. This may be one. Think about that long and hard before you down the kool aid and back it to the hilt with pseudo patriotic rants.

Sixth - are you prepared to be wrong? Are you going to be man/woman enough to admit it - from either side of the argument - if you are? If not then think carefully about what you are saying incase you make a full on fool of yourself.

Seventh - its possible, for a small fee, to check this properly with the records office in Kenya. Has anyone done that?

Isn't it about time the rhetoric was canned, and this was looked at carefully, taking the best parts of both sides of the argument and measuring them up against each other with a cold and detached eye. Partisan bickering is pointless.

The whole crux is this - is the man legit.

If the answer is yes, then life goes on, and the people who perpetuated this whole thing need to be taken to task for their motives, and exposed as the charlatans that they have turned out to be.

If the answer is no, then the whole consequences need mapping out in detail, because civil wars have been fought for less, and its obvious from the passions seen so far in thread that neither side is prepared to let this go quietly into the night.

Back in the day there used to be this thing called investigative journalism and by god, is it needed right now, because bickering isn't going to solve this one at all.

reply to post by infinite




it does have the British seal , its at the top

reply to post by Electro38


Electro, I was wondering if you read my two cents worth in the jumble of posts on this thread. I was told that I ruined it for everyone because I was honest. I think you might want to check out what I wrote and then make your racism case. You might not like what I wrote but it fits with your logic. I seem to be the only idiot to be able to state why he thinks Obama is worthless and not get booted for my opinions. You're sooooo going to hate me but you might end up being a respected foe? Who knows? You at least know what side I'm on. There are a lot of people that are too scared to say what I've said and that is a shame. I'm just proving that freedom of speech no matter how skewed anyone thinks your views are is live and well for now. Not for long though.

One post was actually removed for being off topic. I kinda thought that would happen. Probably will happen to the rest as well. There goes that freedom of spech? lol

Originally posted by serial

Originally posted by Maxmars
Also, the prospect of an automatic 'instant win' for the republican dolts is not possible. If anyone stands to gain from this nonsense it's Pelosi. She is next in the chain of command should the presidential elections be nullified.

We didn't just vote for Obama, the election is to pick a vice president too. So the one with the most to gain would be Joe Biden. They don't just automatically throw out the whole election if they find wrong doing on the part of the president.

I understand your point, and perhaps you are correct. But I am not certain that a tainted election will stand at all. Regardless of Obama's choice of running mate, it was HIS choice. So I suspect that the more rabid republicans would be flailing about and frothing over Biden's vice presidency. And, I think this is the way it should be; I mean, theoretically speaking, The Party itself would have some big-time 'splaining to do if they hinged their entire constituents political will on an inadequately vetted candidate - that kind of blunder reflects poorly on all the party's choices, again, in theory.

I may be incorrect, as I have been many times in my life, but I think the 'constitutional' solution is for the Speaker of the House to assume the responsibility as Chief Executive until the SCOTUS rules on the validity of the election as a whole. That won't exactly provide us with a non-partisan solution, but it should stand if it is done properly.

I should add, it appears to me that the fault in all this matter belongs with the democratic party. They could have, and should have definitively resolved this matter in an apolitical manner. Launching a presidential campaign is not perceived by the people as a simple popularity contest (just ask Al Gore).

Either way, I think it is important that we focus on the root cause of the problem. It was easier to deflect this issue as political..., even though it is a civic matter, and has to do with due process. They should have assigned a task force to resolve it; especially once the social-engineering began.

I must admit, sometimes I wonder if this nagging doubt serves any useful political purpose other than to give the party members more reason to oppose each other on principle.., because in the final analysis, both the democratic party and the republican party share the same agenda, generally speaking - which is to say they are evidently owned by the same interests.