Sheriff Joe's posse: 'Probable cause' Obama Birth Certificate a Fraud-now a Criminal Case!

Originally posted by stuncrazy
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

that's not true in even the slightest way. if you are born in mexico, it doesn't matter if you're parents are american citizens. you're citizenship is in mexico. it'll be easy to get dual citizenship, but you are first a mexican citizen.
source

That isn't true, as is in my brothers case he automatically did get Mexican citizenship but he was also born a legal U.S. citizen as well. Being born to American parents automatically does this for you.

Originally posted by Procession101

Originally posted by stuncrazy
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

that's not true in even the slightest way. if you are born in mexico, it doesn't matter if you're parents are american citizens. you're citizenship is in mexico. it'll be easy to get dual citizenship, but you are first a mexican citizen.
source

That isn't true, as is in my brothers case he automatically did get Mexican citizenship but he was also born a legal U.S. citizen as well. Being born to American parents automatically does this for you.

It gives you DUAL citizenship. See the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

No. Under the laws at that time birthright citizenship would be conferred on a child born abroad with one parent as an alien if the citizen parent had spent a total of five years in the US with two of these years being after the age of 14. Time spent living on US military bases abroad our in the home of a US government employee working abroad also counts. Ann Dunham had lived in the US for 18 years. Last time I checked 18 was greater than five and four of those ears were after the age of 14. So according to the law at the time Ann Dunham was capable of conferring birthright citizenship on Obama if he were born abroad.

Now this proviso did change in 1986. The law now states that the citizen parent must have spent a total of ten years living in the US with five of those years being after the age of 14. However, as this was not a retroactive amendment the original 1952 proviso would have applied to the birth of Barack Obama if he were born abroad..

edit on 3/2/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

This, only when she was employed by the gov. or in service, which she wasn't, simple language.
And you appeal to a lawyers reading for further interpretation? Really?
just read the simple language used yourself and your apparent confusion ends.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
The color of his skin has nothing to do with it. He's half-white too, remember? Yes, his financial means do play a role. His mother wasn't exactly a Kennedy or Bush with her pocket book.

Harvard has excellent financial aid packages. There's no mystery here. Most people who go to college pay an arm and a leg for it. I'm still paying off my loans and I've been out of school for 20 years. So what?

ETA: There's also affirmative action, which nobody likes to talk about anymore but which was very much a fact of life. A lot of black kids went to college that way.

As for him being half-white, the definition of black used to be that if you were even 1/8 black--that is, had a great-grandparent who was black, you were considered black, not white.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
What scholarships? Haven't heard he got any. He's SEALED everything!

Again, so what?

You can't prove a negative. Unless his college applications are released, we'll never know. By your analogy, saying "prove you're not a child molester" is just fine.

No, I'm saying it's up to you to prove that he DID commit a crime. The burden of proof is on you. And you're using a false analogy.

In Obama's own words, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." Yet, he hides his college records. Personal, what I SUSPECT is that he got scholarships by using his Indonesian passport, and claimed to be a foreign student.

Again, prove it. He's still a US citizen, so the passport he used is irrelevant. He was back in the US at the age of 10 anyway. And if you bothered to do some homework, you'd learn that he attended a private school on scholarship while living with his grandparents. He then went to Occidental College in Los Angeles before transferring to Harvard in 1981.

There is nothing insidious here.

The Sheriff lends credibility to what has been a circus.

Fraud and conspiracy are crimes that can be investigated independently of trying to kick him out of office or block him from a ballot.

I looked at the evidence and the BC looked fake to me, but I am no expert. Sheriff had experts look at it and they think it is fake. The Judge in Georgia did not say the BC was real, he just thought the experts they brought were not qualified to judge it fake or real. So maybe this is progress.

Simple enough for Obama to give them the paper and prove them wrong, unless they are right and he does not have it.

Reminds me of the way they got Al Capone. Could not get him on anything else so they got him on tax evasion.

Oh man, did I just think the name Al Capone in the same thought as our prez? Apologies to Al Capone...

I can't believe this is the best anyone can come up with against Obama. Really? A fake birth certificate. Time to get a life.

reply to post by HappyBunny


It's hard to get any evidence when everything is INTENTIONALLY SEALED! Get it? Look, we all knew Georg Bush was a bad student, snorted coke, etc. How? The records weren't sealed. I'm just wondering why he's had all his college records sealed. And, it does matter. If he committed fraud, we should know. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think he's any worse than Romney, Gengrich or Santorum. Seriously, I don't like any of them. All I care to see is this "transparency" that we were promised.

As far as bringing up charges on this illegal president i believe any County Sheriff has the Constitutional authority. He doesn't have to be charged in Washington, Arizona will do!

Originally posted by ILikeStars

Originally posted by anon72
Well, he better now. He could be an illegal alien... and Joe knows how to handle that.

illegal alien? But at least one of his parents was an American, correct?

illegal alien Undocumented worker.


I don't buy into this birther arguement, to be honest. Seems like they have been crying wolf for over 4 years now with no meat and potatoes so to speak. At worst the only thing they prove is we haven't had a president in nearly 4 years.

Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.
en.wikipedia.org...

Above is the reason for the "natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution" which is what the entire birther arguement is based upon.

Yet, with evidence that 42 of the 43 previous presidents were direct descendants of one King (John Lackland) (foreign aristocrats), and all were related to foreign royalty and nobility, where was the "birther" movement outcry then?


Ironic under current laws in a predominant Christian country Jesus could not legally be president.

edit on 1-3-2012 by ILikeStars because: without meat and potatoes.

what does Jesus have to do with this?Everybody knows where he was born. Plus i doubt Jesus would want to hold office, he answers to a higher court then we do. I would push this away too if I had been singing the praises of Obama the great only to find out he forged a legal document which would make him a criminal. no matter his reason for doing it even if hes legal its still a crime.Eat that! He lied to the public about giving his actual BC and had one made which he told everyone was authentic. Forge the title of your car then sell your car to someone and when the police show up on your door step say well i have the real one it doesn't matter

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by manna2

 

And I have now provided what that last section means twice now. I have even said you can search for that proviso on the internet and you will find lawyers explaining what it means in simple language. They agree with the way I have read it. All the sections left out allow for is the ability for children born to employees of an embassy or in the military to confer birthright citizenship upon their children even if they have never set foot in the United States.

This is why John McCain is a US citizen. He was born in Panama on a US Navy base while his father was stationed there. People tried to say that he's not a citizen either because he wasn't born on US soil. But he is.

edit on 3/2/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

U.S. military bases, like embassy's, are considered U.S. soil.

If a child is born in France to Americanparent's they can apply for citizenship, but it isn't automatic.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


We have already been through this.

The baby is only a Natural Born Citizen if BOTH parents are citizens of the United States and born in an US base / US Naval vessel. This also must be filed with the embassy or consulate within one year of the baby being born.

If the baby is born outside of the Military base , or to a foreign parent. The Baby has dual citizenship and is NOT a Natural citizen.

U.S Military bases are NOT considered U.S soil by the way.

-----

c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on
U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad
and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of
the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A
child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the
United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of
birth.

(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the
rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and
enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are
not part of the territory of the United States of America.
(See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec.
466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729
F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

----

If Both of his parents were not U.S citizens regardless if he was born on a U.S military base. He is not a U.S (Natural born) citizen.

Again , both parents must be U.S Citizens and he must be born on a U.S military base , embassy , consulate , or naval vessel.

The AIPAC wants to destroy Obama now because he does not give the green light for an attack on Iran. I am very curious if he survives or gets re-elected. He is actually the only President who opposed a war for Israel.

I posted this in the other shriff joe thread....


Im sitting staring at my laptop in utter shock. I dont get it... I dont know what to call it. Racism, is too broad of a word to just throw around... And honestly I dont even think thats what this is....

I just think republicans hate to lose. I think thats what it boils down to... When Clinton took office, it was meaningless sex scandals.. They impeached a president because he lied about sex. ( Lets not debate the "oh it was about lying under oath nonsense, at least HE TESTIFIED, Ill get to that point in a minute) Then when Gore ran against Bush, it was the recount fiasco.

Do the birthers, who are so amped about proper electing procedures, care that we perhaps didn't get the president we elected back in 2000? We let the supreme court pick our president in 2000. Where were they demanding democratic justice then?

Where were the birthers when our president lied to the nation about WMD's? How about investigations into that? Why not have Bush and Cheney go under oath to explain why thousands of our men and women had to die for a cause non of us really understood? Nope, crickets... How about 9/11, Im not a truther, but there sure is a whole hell of a lot more smoke when it comes to that story...Why did the majority of birthers sit back and say Bush and Cheney answering questions for the 9/11 commission behind closed doors not under oath was ok? How about asking why a company our VP ran got first dibs on oil contracts in Iraq??? Nope, silence...

But when another dem goes into office, what can they do? Well, hes half black, with kenyan descent.. lets try and say he wasnt born here. Yea, thatll distract the country enough. Hell, maybe it'll make enough of an impact that we can stop him from getting elected in 2012!! Its ridiculous... The woman in that video literally gasps, and is in shock over "sources" and "investigations". The whole thing looked like a ploy to get WND a little buzz. Lets not forget, and this is where the racist card comes in, this sheriff has a reputation for being racist.. I dont know the man, I have no idea, but is it a coincidence that someone with allegations of being racist is leading the birther charge against Obama? Maybe it is, who knows...

Point is, with the amount of investigations and possible impeachments called fro my republicans in the last 20 years, and then compare that to those brought on to bush 1 and 2, and its just so so so hypocritical.

reply to post by bknapple32


What? I guess you do not know National Government Law. The president is given Intel and he acts on it , if its wrong its wrong , he isn't running around in Iraq in a ninja uniform. He gets the report and has to make a decision.

Iraq was seeking WMDs since the war with Iran regardless. Chemical weapons (which he had) is even more deadly to a population , though less damaging to a populations infrastructure. Saddam had WMDs , he just didn't have a Nuke (that we could find).

I find it interesting that Iraq was so littered with Radiation that it would = 250 thousand bombs of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

---

We were also gathering intel that Iran was the main perpetrators through which 9/11 took place. They made Osama's plan possible. We were there because the guys that facilitated 9/11 were sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan bearing no consequence , possible Nuclear explosive devices , and several chemical and Biological warfare missiles confirmed.

We believed Saddam was the primary asset that helped Osama perpetuate the attacks on 9/11 , which he did , but in a much less significant form than was originally thought.

You think Nukes are deadly (to a population?) let a biological weapon be released in a populated area (New York , Los Angeles) a place like that. Hundreds of thousands could die in a matter of 2 or 3 days. This is why we now have Bio sensors all over the states to detect biological attacks.

---

Was Bush a perfect president? Nope. I personally think Bush did better than Obama did by a 100 fold so far.

reply to post by milkyway12


You can't go after alqueda by attacking two muslim nations and totally ignoring the religious bond of islamic extremism being born out of a military presence in that area. Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan were much more fertile grounds than iraq was.

And to be blunt saddam was the perfect insurance policy for the middle east. An ayatollah who fears a strong sunni leader has no time to make threats towards israel. Not that I care a whole lot about Israel because they have been digging their own grave for decades with lousy decisions and lack of determination towards a workable long term solution.

A few chemical storage depots bbbbbaaaaaarrrrrreeeeellllllyyyy counts as WMDs. Gadafhi was more of a threat than saddam and all he could do was bring down a pan american jumbo jet. People give too much credit to these low-life dictators.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

It's hard to get any evidence when everything is INTENTIONALLY SEALED! Get it? Look, we all knew Georg Bush was a bad student, snorted coke, etc. How? The records weren't sealed. I'm just wondering why he's had all his college records sealed. And, it does matter. If he committed fraud, we should know. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think he's any worse than Romney, Gengrich or Santorum. Seriously, I don't like any of them. All I care to see is this "transparency" that we were promised.

How about Nixon? Or Bush? Or Thomas Jefferson? Clinton? And especially JFK.

And here we thought it was about him not being a US citizen.

Look, Obama's birth was announced twice in the local Hawaiian papers when he was born. That alone ends the debate. Anything after that is just silly.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by manna2

 

And I have now provided what that last section means twice now. I have even said you can search for that proviso on the internet and you will find lawyers explaining what it means in simple language. They agree with the way I have read it. All the sections left out allow for is the ability for children born to employees of an embassy or in the military to confer birthright citizenship upon their children even if they have never set foot in the United States.

This is why John McCain is a US citizen. He was born in Panama on a US Navy base while his father was stationed there. People tried to say that he's not a citizen either because he wasn't born on US soil. But he is.

edit on 3/2/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

U.S. military bases, like embassy's, are considered U.S. soil.

If a child is born in France to Americanparent's they can apply for citizenship, but it isn't automatic.

Exactly my point.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


All it takes is one chemical depot to become a WMD. They still = WMDs regardless. Nukes were suspected because of the large amounts of radiation pouring out from missile store houses and we still don't know how they manged to get all this radiation around their military facilities unless they were conducting very crude experiments with Nuclear Material either to create dirty bombs or dirty missiles. We found no nukes , but they have enough radiation to = several Chernobyl's.

Some how scientist think that the US using Depleted Uranium Tank shells (which are RARELY used and are in supreme limited supply / cost / and NOT needed against T72s - Heat and SABOT "Tungsten Rounds") were what was mostly used caused all this radiation , blaming the US for using Depleted Uranium (Which is expensive and overkill). Depleted Uranium rounds would be used against the T95 , Challenger , Leopard Tanks - Modern tanks. Not against a T72. Depleted Uranium , though controversal , is safe to be around , you can touch it for hours and expect nothing to happen ..

By the way , we were already operating in several of the territories you mentioned with special forces and through local agencies. No need to start a large-scale invasion on those territories when they are already being effectively combated to keep them from mounting an effective attack on America.

Iraq and Afghanistan were the wild west and had a huge un-tamed radical population being converted to extremism. While in Afghanistan , some how , 3 scud missiles were launched at a military base and were intercepted by Patriot missiles and rendered ineffective. This isnt highly known simply because radicals had possession of the three vehicles (stolen supposedly) and were immediately struck by a retaliatory missile strike the moment missile defence systems picked up on the scuds. This was also low-key because the last thing Americans needed to know about was a terrorist with SCUD missiles until absolutely necessary.

Saddam finally fired 2 Scud Missiles at Outpost Virgina and New York in Kuwait during the build up (were intercepted by missile defences). We havent declared war yet and the war was still iffy. Saddam's instant change into financing radical groups after our attack in Afghanistan helped us make the decision to invade him.

There aren't just one or two reasons we went to war with Iraq. There are several that helped facilitate the war. 9/11 being fresh on everyone's mind didnt help his cause.

reply to post by milkyway12


Good answer although exaggerated somewhat.......

I hope you don't get the message I am another "america hater" because that is far from the truth. Russia and China are equally guilty of foul play in the middle east, but imo they are entitled to having an advantage to resources in that area given the closer proximity.

We have north and south america 'to hoarde' but its always been a right vs left ideological war. Capitalism versus communism, christians and jews versus muslims from the holy crusades. Europe depends on america and the middle east depends on russia and china.

It is a potential planned recipe for ww3 revolving around israel. Israel provides little and demands a lot. They seem too dependent on europe and america and to be frank we don't really need an alliance with them. I am not saying we should abandon them, but I am saying we should encourage them to make israel a secular state for people of all religious sects welcome. No two state solution either.

In any case we are going off-topic so I leave it here!

Hey birthers maybe you can all get together with Donald Trump and create a show where every season 16 competitors can get together and see who can make the United States look the most like a joke. That would be awesome then we can stop pretending our nation means jack #.

If you think you would be better off with John Mc Cain instead you are a moron. - true story.