Huge News! Obama Must Prove Eligibility in Court Now as Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So, does that get any of you Obamites nervous? Think that BC is going to hold up in court? What do you think they'll find in his college records?

I CAN'T WAIT!!!

Nervous? Hardly. The only thing that makes me nervous is this will make the GOP as a whole look even more ridiculous and vicariously hurt Dr. Paul's chances. This BC nonsense is a proven hoax. PROVEN. He has provided everything the racist hillbillies have been asking for. It's only making themselves look like racists. There are no other grounds on which to accuse him of non-citizenship other than his ethnicity. I would almost guess that this is a ploy by Obama to make the msm-right look even more cartoonish than they already do.

I'm sorry... where is this proof???

The BC is forgery. The COLB is a forgery. The SS# was found to have belonged to someone from nearly 100 years ago AND come from a state where Obama has never resided. His Selective Service ID was demonstrated to be bogus. But you have PROOF!? Show us so we can finally be done with this!

The burden of proof is on the birthers. So far, the only side to provide any proof is the Obama administration. Then the birthers say "I know we said that's all we wanted but, since you provided it, we want more".

And what proof have the birthers provided? SCANNED images of documents!

To get into the White House, you are under the highest scrutiny by all of our intelligence agencies. Do you actually believe they were all "in on it"?

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by DrMattMaddix

 

I honestly dont understand why people defend Obama. As if he has done the world a lot of good.

True that, everything they hated about Bush Obama has followed suit.

Let's assume the following is true:

1. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii
2. His mother was a U.S. Citizen
3. His father was not a U.S. Citizen

Then it comes down to the definition of natural-born citizen. This term was left undefined by the framers of the constitution and there seems to be conflicting legal opinion on this matter by courts at many levels and respected legal scholars.

To me, this is the real question that needs to be addressed, both for this president and future ones.

There may be other interesting issues such as the SSN number he is using and whether he attended schools in the U.S. as a foreigner. But those issues are likely rabbit holes fraught with the potential for forged documents. The Supreme Court REALLY needs to answer the first question one way or the other.

Ill start by saying im Canadian. I thaught it was cool you guys had a black president, im in no way racist at all. And i found it racist that people would even hound obama about his birth certificate. But the more i think about it, the more obvious something seems fishy, and thats where the main problem lies, should you really consider voteing for a president who has this much trouble finding his Birth certificate? I mean it sounds like a pretty obvious reason for uneligability? I personally wouldnt take the chance, he had his shot, he failed miserably and he cant even prove he is American...

Like i said im Canadian, i dont care if your president is black, blue or purple. But he should at the very least be undeniably 100% American.

To me the ONLY obvious choice is Ron Paul.

23 cents short of a quarter............

the right never gives up its quest to destroy america!

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


According to our Constitution and our citizenship laws, there are only 2 different kinds of US citizens. Those Born and those Naturalized.

Further:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
...
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
...
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Source

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by defythetyrants

ah, Obama's Iron Curtain as it were... the "I'm black so, you are a racist hillbilly if you disagree with me"

if the governator made a run for office i would dismiss him as well. cuz he is Austrian of course.

*sigh*

But Obama isn't an Austrian. He isn't anything but an American. A black American. To you, that's the same as being a known immigrant. How is that not racist?

Yeah but his father was a foreigner, and he was raised in Jakarta. If he was the son of an American couple, this would be a non-topic.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

 

According to our Constitution and our citizenship laws, there are only 2 different kinds of US citizens. Those Born and those Naturalized.

Further:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
...
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
...
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Source

Agreed. This is one opinion. There are those that maintain that that being a "citizen of the United States at birth" is different than a "natural-born citizen". The SCOTUS needs to define these terms possibly determining that they are indeed equivalent. Until that happens, we will remain in this quagmire.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Maxatoria

 

on that picture of those letters that prove its a phoney i cant see that theres 4 different fonts, all i can see is the same font with different angles on some characters but still the same font, i've spent years messing around with impact printers for a living and i know from having to spend ages pratting around with them thats its virtually impossible to print the same thing twice and have it look identical especially when under the microscope

Let me help you out here:

www.wnd.com...

For those of you who see four distinct fonts, there's a woman on the "Aliens and UFOs" board who would really appreciate your help confirming all the teeny tiny Martian cities she's found on a picture of a rock.

No you adding the link so everyone can see for themselves is just fine.
Now if people download the original document and blow it up and print it the can use a protractor and ruler and measure for themselves.

for the blind look at the E's that two typewriters. do we need to go on?

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Am I a Natural-born citizen? I was born here and both of my parents were born here.

If "natural born" is not defined, how do I know that I am one?

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by defythetyrants

ah, Obama's Iron Curtain as it were... the "I'm black so, you are a racist hillbilly if you disagree with me"

if the governator made a run for office i would dismiss him as well. cuz he is Austrian of course.

*sigh*

But Obama isn't an Austrian. He isn't anything but an American. A black American. To you, that's the same as being a known immigrant. How is that not racist?

Yeah but his father was a foreigner, and he was raised in Jakarta. If he was the son of an American couple, this would be a non-topic.

I'm tired of listing all of our past presidents who had foreign parents so you can just look at my previous posts on this thread. It was a non-topic for all of those presidents.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

 

Am I a Natural-born citizen? I was born here and both of my parents were born here.

If "natural born" is not defined, how do I know that I am one?

Thank you! That's my point. It needs to be defined. It could be defined by law (congress) or SCOTUS.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Maxatoria

 

on that picture of those letters that prove its a phoney i cant see that theres 4 different fonts, all i can see is the same font with different angles on some characters but still the same font, i've spent years messing around with impact printers for a living and i know from having to spend ages pratting around with them thats its virtually impossible to print the same thing twice and have it look identical especially when under the microscope

Let me help you out here:

www.wnd.com...

For those of you who see four distinct fonts, there's a woman on the "Aliens and UFOs" board who would really appreciate your help confirming all the teeny tiny Martian cities she's found on a picture of a rock.

No you adding the link so everyone can see for themselves is just fine.
Now if people download the original document and blow it up and print it the can use a protractor and ruler and measure for themselves.

for the blind look at the E's that two typewriters. do we need to go on?

reply to post by Shadowalker


TPTB made sure he was elected, the question still remains why?

And if re-elected they will let him loose, I can only imagine what he will unleash, if his first years are any indication. He has been restrained so he will be electable, during his last four year reign, watch for year seven, he will be more dangerous with nothing left to lose.

I mentioned on the forum several time to watch year three, and I have not been disappointed.


And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

I think Obama is American enough to be president, he's just not doing a very good job imo.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Wanted to bump your last post, since it addresses the issue everyone had with your OP. Regardless of the derailment to the same old tired arguments, the State of Georgia appears to be on track to decide Obama's eligibility to be placed on the 2012 ballot. By the way, for those who missed my earlier post, the hearings are scheduled for January 26 at 9 a.m.

For the life of me, I can not understand people who are willing to fight to the death, in opposition of the Constitution. It appears there are many who would accept a birth certificate written in crayon, on a Starbucks napkin.

Fortunately, Judge Malihi of the Administrative Court acknowledges a citizen's right to demand the Constitution is followed. That alone should be seen as a victory by all who love the Constitution.

reply to post by Shadowalker

Originally posted by Shadowalker
Now if people download the original document and blow it up and print it the can use a protractor and ruler and measure for themselves.

This picture was NOT taken from the "original document". This picture was taken from a computer generated FILE of ones and zeroes. What we have seen on the internet is a graphic representation of a computerized FILE, not an official document. The official document is in Obama's possession. Probably the one he showed to Nancy Pelosi to qualify.

And this is the BIGGEST problem with the birther hoax. EVERYONE who supposedly "analyzed" Obama's birth certificate and claimed it as a fake, analyzed a graphic representation of a computerized FILE... NOT the actual document.

So all of Polarik's findings are worthless and meaningless. As are the other amateur investigators' findings.

There is a HUGE difference between a dog and a graphical representation of a dog...

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So, does that get any of you Obamites nervous? Think that BC is going to hold up in court? What do you think they'll find in his college records?

I CAN'T WAIT!!!

Nervous? Hardly. The only thing that makes me nervous is this will make the GOP as a whole look even more ridiculous and vicariously hurt Dr. Paul's chances. This BC nonsense is a proven hoax. PROVEN. He has provided everything the racist hillbillies have been asking for. It's only making themselves look like racists. There are no other grounds on which to accuse him of non-citizenship other than his ethnicity. I would almost guess that this is a ploy by Obama to make the msm-right look even more cartoonish than they already do.

Proven? Where is this proof? Using all caps doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by cuervo
I'm tired of listing all of our past presidents who had foreign parents so you can just look at my previous posts on this thread. It was a non-topic for all of those presidents.

Actually, it was a big deal for Chester A Arthur.

en.citizendium.org...

Originally posted by DJW001
Let me help you out here:

www.wnd.com...

There are a few things on there that stand out. For the capital A's, the one on the right is obviously bigger than the other. There is obviously more space between the legs of the A and the center space of it.

Same goes for the K's. The K on the right uses slightly different angles for the lines, it seems and there is also more space and the letter seems bigger than the one on the left.

The capital R's are the same. One on the left is bigger (and taller) than the one on the right. It is more slender. The one on the left has a little "curl" on the right leg while the same leg on the right "R" is flattened out. The R on the right is more "boxy" than the one on the left. These two R's are obviously different fonts.

The two S's, again, are different sizes. The one on the right is smaller than the one on the left. The top curves on both S's are different. The one on the right is closed tighter while the left one uses a "longer" loop therefore making that S bigger than the other. The same goes for the bottom loop.

The U's are also different. One is taller than the other one. The little S's, the left one is flatter and wider than the one on the right. Almost all of those lowercase a's look different, the lowercase e's are obviously different as the middle line on the left one is obviously slanted while the "e" on the right has a straight line. Two different fonts. Even though there is ink missing from the two g's, the loop on the left seems different than the one on the right. The bottom loop is obviously different between the two. Again, one is flatter and wider than the other.

Different angle at the top of the lowercase i's. One is straight across and the other is slanted upwards and same goes for the lowercase L's after that.

The "n"s are obviously different. The arch on the right one is much more pronounced (and taller) than the one on the left and also much bigger. The one on the right has a nub at the top of the left stem while the other has a curved cursive like line instead.

The right "p" is bigger than the left and every one of those "t"'s look different on the bottom loop.

The lowercase "u"'s on the bottom row are different too. One is curved on the bottom and the other is flat. The curved one has a more pronounced nub at the bottom right corner than the one with the flat bottom. Two different fonts.

The "y"'s also seem different on the bottom loop. One is longer than the other one and the one on the right has a completely different "v" part than the one on the left. The one on the left has the right part of the "v" going straight up while the one on the right is more curved. The "l"'s next to it are also different. The top part has a longer "stem" than the other and the bottom is also longer across than the one on the right, making it bigger.

The 2's are also different. The top part is obviously different. The one on the left has a much wider and more opened top part while the one on the right is more closed (and taller and thinner) than the one on the left.

Seems like at least two different fonts were used?