Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by its bologna

Originally posted by thejink


c) if the election IS found to be fraudulent, biden can not take office, will bush be held over untill a new election, conventions, primaries and all can be re-run? don't know about you, but i don't want that.




Actually, the constitution is quite clear on this issue. If Barack Obama is found to not be a natural born US citizen and thus ineligible for the office of President (which I doubt will happen), Joe Biden would become the president. Not John McCain..not anyone else.

Please see Amendement 20, Section 3 of the US Constituion
[edit on 29-11-2008 by its bologna]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by its bologna]


You need to read it again. It's quite clear what would happen and it's unlikely that Joe Biden would stay president:


if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.


In this situation, it's evident to me what would happen is, if Obama's citizenship was proven to be forged and he was ineligible to be president, Congress would declare his entire campaign null and void, including his pick for VP. That only leaves the door open for one or more of three possibilities:

1. Congress hands over the President spot to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
2. Hillary Clinton petitions Congress for the right to be elected president as the front runner and second runner up as nominee and would call for another election to happen with her name on the POTUS ballot
3. Congress hands the POTUS spot to McCain/Palin

Personally I think #1 and 2 would happen. Nancy Pelosi would serve as interim president while Hilary campaigned in a re-election bid against McCain/Palin and the nation would be again voting for POTUS within 6 months to a year, after Clinton has had enough time to campaign.




posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you think lawyers have the power to keep a judge from issuing a court order??? ...they don't have the power to make sure no court order is issued...

That's the whole point of 'lawyering'. Lawyers argue the law back and forth - in front of a judge and/or jury - and then the judge makes the ruling as to which one has interpreted the law correctly.

A request for the documents has been issued. The judge could say 'yes'. Obama's lawyers countered with a motion to dismiss.

So yes, the lawyers have the power to keep a judge from issuing a court order. It happens all the time.


Originally posted by Irish M1ck
you are willing to accept the authenticity of two blog sites and a youtube video over accredited sites like www.factcheck.org?

For the third time -

As previously cited on Annenbergs factcheck.com -

Factcheck donates to the left

Word Press Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation - which runs Factcheck.org.

Annenberg Factcheck - Walter Annenberg, founder of the $500 million gift that funded the Annenberg Challenge, of which Obama was the Chairman of the Board.

Obama/Annenberg Earmarks - In 2005 Obama requested $3.5 Million For The USC Annenberg Research Network.

So considering that Obama got multi-millions in earmarks for Annenberg and Annenberg runs Factcheck.org, not to mention Obama was chairman of the board for the Annenberg Challenge ..... hmmmmm

National Review has more on the Annenberg Challenge.

Annenberg originally ran to the right. (Reagan time frame)
But few years back, his site took a hard left.
Obama has too many irons in that fire for it to be an unbiased source.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok, now we are getting nowhere fast. I see evidence he was born in HI and it is shot down. I see more evidence he is born in HI and it is shot down.

What I have not seen is evidence he was born elsewhere to even be shot down. I am so glad that denying ignorance now means believing the story with the least proof to back it up. That makes sense. Unless you have some evidence that you and others refuse to share so far?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Iblis Smiley
 


huh?
What are you talking about?
Sorry - but your post didn't make any sense.
And you were replying to me?? About what??




posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The saddest part of this whole argument is that the kool-aide drinking crowd is saying "proof" has been given..... no it has not!

Proof = birth certificate

circumstantial evidence = newspaper clippings
hearsay evidence = a Hawaii official "says" they saw it
non-evidence evidence = a certificate of live birth (meaningless)

so, please, stop embarrassing yourself by saying "proof" has been shown until the actual original birth certificate has been presented and verified.

When the BC gets shown, then you can stick your tongue out at all the "right wingers", until then, stick to the facts.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
A request for the documents has been issued. The judge could say 'yes'. Obama's lawyers countered with a motion to dismiss.

So yes, the lawyers have the power to keep a judge from issuing a court order.


Lawyers have the power to MOVE to dismiss (ASK for a dismissal). They don't have power over what the judge decides to do. You're wordsmithing and not doing a very good job of it. You're trying to blame the lawyers for what the judges in these cases have decided. Sorry, only someone extremely ignorant of the law would buy what you're trying to sell.

I must say, I'm looking forward to the Dec 5 conference. If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case, they only have 10 days between the Conference and the Electoral vote. It should be interesting. If they conference and decide to throw it out, some anti-Obama folks are going to spin out. Especially considering the latest in the Donofrio case:

According to this person, who seems to know a lot about the case, Judicial Misconduct may be filed because of Obstruction of Justice charges against the judge...



Today, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case.
...
Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division. The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008" before all nine Supreme Court Justices.

I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file - not including all relevant documents - will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.


So, if I'm reading this correctly, Donofrio is concerned that on December 5, IF the Supreme Court wants to see the documents for this case, they might be sent an "uncorrected" incomplete set of documents from a fraudulent case (?), which would jeopardize this case...

It almost sounds like Donofrio is TRYING to make an excuse for the case being thrown out. Like if the SC throws it out (decides not to hear it), Donofrio is ready with his Judicial Misconduct case against the original judge...

This could be drawn out further... Yippee! We're in for a ride!


Hopefully, the SC will ask Obama for his BC and he will provide it and it will all be over.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Lawyers have the power to MOVE to dismiss (ASK for a dismissal). They don't have power over what the judge decides to do.

Right. That's pretty much what I was trying to say. The lawyers are doing their 'lawyering'. They are trying to block the judge from saying that the BC should be released and they do this through filing their motions and arguing in favor of their position etc etc. This constitutes a team of lawyers working for Obama to make sure the courts don't release the BC.


You're wordsmithing and not doing a very good job of it.

I'm not 'wordsmithing' - I'm trying to explain something.
And I'm either not doing a good job of it - or you aren't listening - or both.


Sorry, only someone extremely ignorant of the law would buy what you're trying to sell.

I'm not 'trying to sell' anything.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Iblis Smiley
 


huh?
What are you talking about?
Sorry - but your post didn't make any sense.
And you were replying to me?? About what??



I am asking where the evidence that he was born anywhere but HI is. Since you seem to believe in this nonsense, then I have to assume a smart guy like you is going on evidence greater than that which shows he was born in the U.S. Am I wrong? Do you not have any evidence he was born outside of the United States?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I think I understand now what you're saying. The lawyers are TRYING to block and TRYING to stop the judges from demanding to see the Birth Certificate. They can postpone it, using legal means, but they cannot stop a judge from demanding it, if he so chooses.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
On a conspiracy site - those inclined to disbelieve politicians and lawyers (Obama is both) wonder WHY he hasn't, and the 'for privacy sake' doesn't fly.


Why doesn't "for privacy sake" fly? We have the right to keep our confidential records (school, medical, personal records) private from the public. ALL OF US. A president does not give up that right. We, the people, have NO RIGHT to see Obama's confidential records. He may be ordered to show it to the Court, but don't count on seeing it yourself.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The lawyers are TRYING to block and TRYING to stop the judges from demanding to see the Birth Certificate. They can postpone it, using legal means, but they cannot stop a judge from demanding it, if he so chooses.

Yes. Exactly. They are trying to block - by using their 'lawyering' skills.


Why doesn't "for privacy sake" fly?

The position of POTUS has certain requirements. The American people have a right to know that the requirements have been met. Considering how the gov't has screwed us and lied to us - especially for the past 40 years or so, by both dems and republicans - the American people have a right to see for themselves the document (official birth certificate) that makes Obama eligible to be their POTUS.

There is doubt. Put it to rest.

Heck. There was a huge outcry that George Bush 43 had gone AWOL while in the National Guard. He came up with some old medical (or dental) forms that showed he was actually on base getting work done during the time that people claimed he was AWOL.

Proving he wasn't AWOL was important - even after he won the election.
Obama's Birth Certificate is even much more important.


Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
I am asking where the evidence that he was born anywhere but HI is.

There is no public authentic legal evidence that he was born in Hawaii or Kenya or on an airplane or ________ (fill in the blank). That's what many of the American people want to see. Authentic legal evidence of place of birth.


a smart guy like you

I'm a girl.


MY OPINION - which shouldn't matter - I have no idea where he was born. My guess is Hawaii. My guess is that there is something on the birth certificate that he doesn't want the American people to see. BCs of that time contain many things - including religion and occupation of parents, etc. Who knows - that could be why he's putting all the stall tactics in play. Or there could be something else - like the doctor who delivered that is listed on the Birth Certificate could be wrong ... WHO KKNOWS?! Only Obama.

IMHO - If he'd just release the Birth Certificate all this could go away.
I know others say differently. But if an authentic legal copy were to be released a HUGE chunk of the chatter on this would go away.


edited immediately to fix quote

[edit on 11/30/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


So that is the third person on this thread railing about how they need to see proof of him being born in Hawaii and yet your best guess is that is where he was born? I am so lost now. Why do all of you who think he was born in the U.S. also want proof of it so badly?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Why do all of you who think he was born in the U.S. also want proof of it so badly?


I think he PROBABLY was. I have no proof. I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong and he was born elsewhere. He's a politiician and a lawyer. They all lie.

Point is - WE DO NOT KNOW - and it is very important that the POTUS be eligible for the job.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The American people have a right to know that the requirements have been met. ... the American people have a right to see for themselves the document (official birth certificate) that makes Obama eligible to be their POTUS.


I would argue that we don't have that right by law (to see the document). We certainly have a right to know that he meets the requirements, but we must take the word of the people whose job it is to verify. And, unfortunately, that's the government. If the SC comes back and says that Obama meets the Constitutional requirements, we're going to have to accept that. And by that, I mean we have no further legal recourse to demand that he show his papers to the people of the US.



There is doubt. Put it to rest.


I think he will. But on his own time schedule.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
There is no public authentic legal evidence that he was born in Hawaii


His CoLB is evidence of that. There are those who say it's fake, but they have not legally proven that. Not by a long shot. My posts here and here poke all kinds of holes into these theories that the CoLB is fake.


But if an authentic legal copy were to be released a HUGE chunk of the chatter on this would go away.


I agree. But it's possible Obama doesn't really care about this chatter. He's got a couple other things on his mind right now...
There's a lot we don't know. And I'm betting that there's a plan to release whatever proof people need to be satisfied... But probably not until AFTER the 5th.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Why do all of you who think he was born in the U.S. also want proof of it so badly?


I think he PROBABLY was. I have no proof. I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong and he was born elsewhere. He's a politiician and a lawyer. They all lie.

Point is - WE DO NOT KNOW - and it is very important that the POTUS be eligible for the job.


Did you have the same doubts about McCain, Bush, Clinton?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

I mostly agree. Except for the Certificate of Live Birth thing ... but whatever. That's for a different thread.

quick immediate edit



[edit on 11/30/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Did you have the same doubts about McCain, Bush, Clinton?

Different doubts.
Their places of birth, and citizenships, were well established.

Short list of doubts on those you mentioned -

McCain's stability. His physical health as well.

Bush's stability and just about everything he has done lately.
Also - his drinking while on the job. (I think he fell off the wagon)

Clinton - that looooooooong list of Clinton dead.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Silenceisall
 


One thing that you omit is that the International banks and governments had their hand in this mess as well. It is not just our government that is at fault. It is a combined effort of many countries and wealth including our own that has been occuring for many generations. The Bilderberg Group for instance, has had a say of who will govern our nation since their conception. And as for birth certificates. Anyone with money and resources can have any document made as to be real. So who is to say what is what with the degree of forgery in this world? What people really need to start doing is researching these alleged facts. Instead of blindly believing everything they hear or read, look into it themselves and find out what is or is not being said. Then decide for themselves what they choose to believe in.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Did you have the same doubts about McCain, Bush, Clinton?

Different doubts.
Their places of birth, and citizenships, were well established.


According to whom and when? When did you even think to check and see how well established they were and when did you decide to check on Obama. You do know there is quite a great deal of controversy over the circumstances under which John McCaine was born in Panama don't you? There is more chance that he is technically not a natural born citizen than there is for Obama. So how is that well established?

I think you are just following your right wing masters. You only question Obama's birth because someone has told you that you should. What proof do you need to relax? Seeing his Birth Certificate? That will settly it? So then you have seen the other candidates and past presidents birth certificates as well or are you holding Obama to a higher standard based on the empty statement about "well established."

If "well established" confuses you, see John McCain again.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Did you have the same doubts about McCain, Bush, Clinton?

Different doubts.
Their places of birth, and citizenships, were well established.


According to whom and when? When did you even think to check and see how well established they were and when did you decide to check on Obama. You do know there is quite a great deal of controversy over the circumstances under which John McCaine was born in Panama don't you? There is more chance that he is technically not a natural born citizen than there is for Obama. So how is that well established?

I think you are just following your right wing masters. You only question Obama's birth because someone has told you that you should. What proof do you need to relax? Seeing his Birth Certificate? That will settly it? So then you have seen the other candidates and past presidents birth certificates as well or are you holding Obama to a higher standard based on the empty statement about "well established."

If "well established" confuses you, see John McCain again.


Wow buddy, back off the guy.

He is allowed to question people it's his right as an American.

You are the one that needs to relax.

Look, some people like to believe things to make them feel better. The guys who pretend Obama isn't America do that to make themselves feel better. Not everyone's perfect.

I personally accept Obama as an American because I am more secure with myself and my people. Not everyone is as "Culturally Competent" as you and I.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Win1892
The saddest part of this whole argument is that the kool-aide drinking crowd is saying "proof" has been given..... no it has not!

Proof = birth certificate

circumstantial evidence = newspaper clippings
hearsay evidence = a Hawaii official "says" they saw it
non-evidence evidence = a certificate of live birth (meaningless)

so, please, stop embarrassing yourself by saying "proof" has been shown until the actual original birth certificate has been presented and verified.

When the BC gets shown, then you can stick your tongue out at all the "right wingers", until then, stick to the facts.


It actually has hon. What about the other side of the argument?





top topics
 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join