Obama Fraud- Chief Elections Clerk confirms Obama not born in Hawaii

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Twice in this one I think, and about 10 in other threads.

take it worth a grain of salt but it is interesting.

www.wnd.com...

Who CARES?

I can't believe I am even posting on this ridiculous thread.

SO WHAT???

He will end up being the one everybody talks about. You all will be praising him one day. Practice your bows now.

He is biding his time, and soon he will out all of the lying, lame, idiot, corporate loving, evil blood suckers in Washington.

reply to post by dragnet53


Wwell not a credible source, but at least it is something. Less the 2 million most have been spouting though. One poster even said it was hundreds of millions.

Originally posted by dragnet53
take it worth a grain of salt but it is interesting.

www.wnd.com...

That article is the same source as the Adams story. Sadeyedlady has already given a link to a disclaimer by Tim Adams about the original WND article here,

www.therightsideoflife.com...
So credit to sadeye' for the link.

What is also interesting, is that John McCain's eligiblity never ended up being tested since he was born in Panama, and of which there is no doubt. But, even if it had been, and he was found eligible, it would still have been an unsatisfactory outcome, as per the "Natural born citizen" phrase which is pretty indefineable, the least in legal terms, since the courts can play with it a little. That is the trouble with constitutions, written or unwritten, there is always a stumbling block. It is obvious that America's bit of paper is in need of overhaul and antiquated...it was written some time ago, and with good principles among it. Likewise, Britains unwritten constitution has to be redefined, especially in the same area as the first minister. There are religious barriers to become Prime Minister...so far they have not been tested.

www.nytimes.com...



[edit on 11-6-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by smurfy


it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ny times article you cited, so maybe it happened after that date, but the question of john mccain's eligibility was brought up in congress and they voted that he was eligible. i believe obama was there at the time. it is odd that they didn't do a similar discussion of obama's situation followed by a vote. that would have at least resolved the birth certificate issue.

maybe not so odd in hindsight. this president has done everthing possible to factionalize this country. from partisanship to race, he and his contingent does everything to divide and inflame. there was nothing wrong with raising the question of eligibility when it was originally raised: before obama was the party candidate. the press should have but didn't. but now the very question--and remember that issue involves far more than his place of birth--has been reduced to a single word expressing contempt: birther. once that word is uttered, no part of the issue is worth discussion. great way to silence those with inquiring minds

Well, when are (some) you Americans going to stop slapping this President? Think he don't care? Or isit 'cause he's black? Forget about where the Man's born. Supreme Court of America already ruled -- yes.

Frankly, stay away from voting for anything Yale, Princeton or harvard. 'Cause I'm beginning to believe that's where fed resertve, trilateral commission and the American part of Bilderbergs BEGIN.

Decoy

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by smurfy

 

it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ny times article you cited, so maybe it happened after that date, but the question of john mccain's eligibility was brought up in congress and they voted that he was eligible. i believe obama was there at the time. it is odd that they didn't do a similar discussion of obama's situation followed by a vote. that would have at least resolved the birth certificate issue.

maybe not so odd in hindsight. this president has done everthing possible to factionalize this country. from partisanship to race, he and his contingent does everything to divide and inflame. there was nothing wrong with raising the question of eligibility when it was originally raised: before obama was the party candidate. the press should have but didn't. but now the very question--and remember that issue involves far more than his place of birth--has been reduced to a single word expressing contempt: birther. once that word is uttered, no part of the issue is worth discussion. great way to silence those with inquiring minds

What I said was that John McCain's eligibilty was never tested..as in legally. In other words taken to the courts. That is what the NYT article is about. The article also touches on the difficulty of anyone trying to bring such a case to court, because of the "natural born citizen" wording, which is ambiguous and vague. Also, in my post I am only referring to the vunerablity of constitutions, and not making opinions about either Obama or John McCain. You, on the other hand, have used my post to comment on the your opinions of Obama, sadly your comments were allowed to stand by ATS as a by-the-way.
edit to add, You don't say if Obama's birth certificate was in question at congress at the time of the John McCain congress vote.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by smurfy

edit to add, You don't say if Obama's birth certificate was in question at congress at the time of the John McCain congress vote.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by smurfy]

it wasn't brought up, therefore not discussed. interesting, don't you think? why wouldn't they have wanted to discuss obama's birth certificate?

And the band played on...

Ball of confusion,
That's what the world is today.
Hey, hey.

No less true today than it was 40 years ago.

reply to post by earlywatcher


What evidence do you have that his eligibility was not questioned when he was a candidate? There is actually a process in place for that so you are going to have to prove that did not take place.

If you are upset that people think you are some nutjob fringe mental defective for asking the same stupid question years after it was answered, that is kind of not anyone else's fault but yours.

Originally posted by earlywatcher

Originally posted by smurfy

edit to add, You don't say if Obama's birth certificate was in question at congress at the time of the John McCain congress vote.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by smurfy]

it wasn't brought up, therefore not discussed. interesting, don't you think? why wouldn't they have wanted to discuss obama's birth certificate?

What would they discuss about it?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


simply do as they did regarding McCain's eligibiilty: look at the facts surrounding his birth and vote on whether or not they considered him "natural born" and therefore eligible to be president.

the question was raised during the campaign by members of the public, which is why the document was posted on the "fightthesmears" website. the fact that many people did not consider this adequate because it did not provide the usual details was dismissed as crazy. that was very effective. still is!

the point i was trying to make, a few posts back, was that eligibility is not something concocted to get obama out of office.



[edit on 12-6-2010 by earlywatcher]

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

simply do as they did regarding McCain's eligibiilty: look at the facts surrounding his birth and vote on whether or not they considered him "natural born" and therefore eligible to be president.

You specifically said they should discuss his birth certificate. I do not understand what they would discuss about his birth certificate. You are comparing apples to oranges while shifting the goal post. You want out government wasting time and money doing that as well?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


you are correct in the sense that that resolution in congress was not the same as the court deciding on mccain's eligibility. it does seem odd though that they didn't address obama's issues at the same time, particularly since the resolution was led by democrats in congress.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

you are correct in the sense that that resolution in congress was not the same as the court deciding on mccain's eligibility. it does seem odd though that they didn't address obama's issues at the same time, particularly since the resolution was led by democrats in congress.

Again, I have to ask what issue you expected them to address. You said his birth certificate. No matter what Orly Taitz or anyone on ATS says, that is a legal, state verified document. Is that what you wanted them to sit around and discuss or do you have something specific? So far, all I can get out of you is that you are bummed they did not waste time talking about all the false rumors that have come and gone since. You said they should have discussed his BC before he was even elected. Please give specifics of what you feel they needed to look into.

reply to post by earlywatcher


Wouldn't have mattered anyway, birthers won't accept anything but Obama's removal from office. None of this matters. Birthers don't want proof, they want the big bad socialist out of office.

First a disclaimer: If this has already been talked about, sorry for mentioning it again.

This story has a couple problems in it. The biggest one to me is this quote by the boss of Tim Adams: When his boss was asked by the press if they could check birth records, his boss said

"We don't have access to that kind of records. [There's] no access to birth records."

Source

Mr Adams does make some excuse that he was high enough of that his bosses statement didn't apply to him, but that sounds a bit too convenient for him.

Originally posted by CmdrZero

Adams, who was in a position to know, emphatically states in the brief interview that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

If he was born at all. Perhaps even the Kenyan story is the back-up cover in case Hawaii was rumbled. Perhaps he's the first non-earthling president !

Just speculation for fun, really. But you never know

Originally posted by jtma508The Constitution and the puiblic has been run over roughshod for decades. It's time to put an end to it before it's too late.

Decades? How about since Hamilton. Whiskey Rebellion ring a bell? Hamilton, at the time, said the whiskey tax was less about raising revenue than it was about social change.

Yes, it's been going on that long. Things really started cooking, though, when the Federalists were infiltrated by the Keynesians.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by kreinhard]