Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I don't know what would be worse, Obama remaining president or Pelosi becoming vice-president. It's a toss-up. Lose/lose situation.

We can only hope that if he is lying about his birth, then he'll be lying about "spreading the wealth".

I don't have any desire to support lazy, uneducated people.




posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit


Apparantly the fat lady has not yet sung.

Potential for Consititutional Crisis Still Exists.

Can this discussion occur without the polarization of politically extreme emotionalism??

It is not settled, and as such, we in this country of still free speech should be able to discuss without ad hominem attacks. Enter only if you can keep it positive.

news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Edited for spelling to avoid further attackteds


[edit on 2-12-2008 by Tinkabit]


lol at the bold, you say it like you actually think its possible

no, to answer ur question, if this goes down it will not be orderly or calm, if the drive-bys couldn't resist the Hillary/Palin feast, how can they resist chomping on some constitutional crisis!!!

you do realize that a lot of americans love obama

they gush over him

they faint at his rallies

girls I know have let me in on the secret, they find him to be verrry appealing...

so good luck taking obama from a bunch of liberal, emotional, women.

they will bite your head off.


[edit on 2-12-2008 by ConservativeJack]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
www.renewamerica.us...

Why is the media silent on the Obama birth certificate question?

By Michael Bresciani

Why has every major news source in the United States almost totally blacked out all reference to the Hawaiian Obama birth certificate controversy?

In layman's terms the mainstream media may be afraid of showing up with egg on its face. Yet, the question about the allegedly fraudulent COLB (certificate of live birth) doesn't want to go away. It is more than simple curiosity that is driving the quest; it is a strong desire for the truth and the hope of avoiding a constitutional crisis that would be unparalleled in our entire history as a nation.

The media recently reported Barack Obama's choice of a corned beef sandwich for his lunch. The question about his Blackberry phone has gotten more media attention than the birth certificate question. The politicos and media that follow the President Elect are looking more like the paparazzi than a group of professional journalists. What's wrong with this picture; here are a few possibilities.

here for rest of story:

www.renewamerica.us...

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Tinkabit]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
TAken from : www.renewamerica.us...


Seven reasons why Barack Obama should make the birth certificate controversy go away:

Here are the important reasons President Elect Obama should cooperate and put the whole matter to bed as quickly as possible.


Because he can. With a simple request to the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics he can quash all doubt and get on with his administration.


He will remove the suspicions of millions of Americans, republicans, democrats and independents alike.


If ignored it could cause a constitutional crises unlike anything ever seen in this country. It would make questions of chads and incomplete voting cards look like a kindergarten problem by contrast.


It will indicate that Obama means business when he takes the oath of office and declares that he will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.


It will give confidence to many of his opponents who may not agree with all his policies, but want to know that he is a completely honest man with the country's best interest in mind.


It would put to rest the assertion that he is an elitist. All Americans must submit proper documentation of birth to get Social Security cards, driver's license, security clearance and passports. He should be willing to carry out the first and the least of all his campaign promises contained in the slogan 'Yes, we can.' In America we can and according to law 'we must.'


We will all sleep better at night!



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Not that it matters, but here is why even if BC is not legit, it will go thru anyway:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit

TAken from : www.renewamerica.us...


Seven reasons why Barack Obama should make the birth certificate controversy go away:

Here are the important reasons President Elect Obama should cooperate and put the whole matter to bed as quickly as possible.


Because he can. With a simple request to the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics he can quash all doubt and get on with his administration.

He will remove the suspicions of millions of Americans, republicans, democrats and independents alike.


If ignored it could cause a constitutional crises unlike anything ever seen in this country. It would make questions of chads and incomplete voting cards look like a kindergarten problem by contrast.


It will indicate that Obama means business when he takes the oath of office and declares that he will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.


It will give confidence to many of his opponents who may not agree with all his policies, but want to know that he is a completely honest man with the country's best interest in mind.


It would put to rest the assertion that he is an elitist. All Americans must submit proper documentation of birth to get Social Security cards, driver's license, security clearance and passports. He should be willing to carry out the first and the least of all his campaign promises contained in the slogan 'Yes, we can.' In America we can and according to law 'we must.'


We will all sleep better at night!



@ the bold?

millions?

lollllllllllllllllllllllllllll

try maybe 50,000 to 200,000 people believe that BC garbage.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
No one, with any legal authority, has asked President-elect Obama to present his Birth Certificate to assert his eligibility.

I'm sure that when someone does, he will present the evidence the Courts require.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


My 2 cents worth is that you don't even live in the United States, and didn't even know enough about our laws to know that the POTUS is the only one that is affected by this, so I suggest you probably should stay out of this discussion.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I just have a question. If Obama had the power and help to hide that he was born in Kenya, wouldn’t he also have the power and help to get a fake US birth cert?

So why, if you don’t believe he was born in the US would you want to see his birth cert, couldn’t that be fake too?

Just accept that he WAS born in the USA, in the state of Hawaii. Simple as that.

Mikey



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I do not have an "Original Birth Certificate." Am I no longer a US Citizen? I was born in 1973 in Ohio. About ten years ago the only copy of my birth certificate that I had was destroyed. The new copy that I received was created in 1982. It looked complete different from my original copy. The state of Ohio no longer has my original copy. Those records were destroyed when they updated to the new format. If I wanted to find a copy of my "original" birth certificate I would not be able to.

I am not seeing what the big deal is. He has a copy - its just that some people don't want to accept that fact or refuse to believe that it is legit. Par for the course being a conspiracy site and all but it just seems like most of this controversy is based on sore losers and people with political axes to grind.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Man you aint kidding.

I don't think this turd is ever going to flush anytime soon, and probably never will.

Just like the "Bush Knew" conspriracy will probably never die.

Supreme Court to Review Obama Birth Certificate


World Net Daily is reporting that the Supreme Court will be holding a conference on December 5, 1008 on challenges that President-elect Barack Obama's citizenship is ambiguous at best.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.





posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


This coming from Mr. "Now frankly, I just want to get as many Dem Senators eleted as possible."



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kords21
My whole argument on the issue is that as a voter I have to prove that I'm eligible to vote beforehand. Why can't I demand the same from people that are on the ballot?


I agree with you, but as a voter you are not required to show your "long form", as a voter you don't have internet "experts" claiming your birth certificate is false even though the state you were born in says that it is correct. As a voter, you aren't even required to show your birth certificate. You check a box that says "I am a US citizen" and they take your word for it..and then check Social Security info or Drivers license info to be sure.

I know there are many people who want to believe Obama is a fraud. Until someone can give me plausible proof that he was not born in the US, I assume that the State of Hawaii isn't lying. Call me a sheeple..call me what you want. But I think Berg is a hack and a piss poor lawyer. The SCOTUS will dismiss this one as well simply because his case is based on hearsay and rumor. Read it for yourself on obamacrimes.com. It is truely sad.



[edit on 2-12-2008 by its bologna]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit
President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg's petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office.


It'd be great if people knew what the hell they were talking about...

I know this is a conspiracy forum, I love a hearing about a good conspiracy myself, but c'mon, at least inform yourself.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.


Neither Obama nor the DNC have let slip anything, much less a petition for writ of certiorari, as those are filed with the Supreme Court by the losing party. It is the Supreme Court that has to respond, not Obama or the DNC.



Attorney Philip J. Berg


Really? Have you even read Berg's arguments? Let's look at some of them then.

On page 7 of the PDF, for example, one of his arguments is as follows:

26. In or about 1967, when Obama was approximately six (6) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and moved to Indonesia with Obama. At this time, if Obama was Registered as a “natural born” citizen, which he did not qualify to be registered as, he would have lost his U.S. Citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and took up residency in Indonesia. The first requirement is that naturalization must be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurs, for example, when a person acquires a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b).


Berg claims that Obama lost his US citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro. And he even cites which Section of the Nationality Act he is basing this argument on.

Let's look at Section 317(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 then (PDF here - it's on page 7-8):

From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage,shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922


Apparently Mr. Berg doesn't even know how to read. The law he cites to help prove his argument actually disproves him as it applies to people who married prior to September 22, 1922, so it doesn't apply to Obama's mother.

Additionally, looking at Section 401 (page 1-2) we find this:

A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States


The Nationality Act of 1940 explicitly says that minors cannot lose their nationality because of their parent's naturalization!

Are you kidding me? And this guy is allowed to practice? No wonder the Courts have been rejecting this sort of lawsuits...



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 


Ya. THOSE dumb LAWYERS. What do they know?



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit
Ya. THOSE dumb LAWYERS. What do they know?


I don't understand what you're trying to convey...

I've just shown you, using Berg's own claims, with links to the actual laws, that his arguments are incorrect.

If you'd like to explain me on why my analysis is incorrect, I'm sure you will back your arguments with passages from the law, and I'll gladly concede that you are right.

I await your reply



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 


Sorry, far too happy to engage....plus, House is on.

Be back in full form tomorrow.....



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Ok Ok

Between commercials I came up with this:

Philip J. Berg, the lifelong Pennsylvanian democrat who is suing Barack H. Obama for lacking qualifications to serve as President, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC has effectively admitted, due to failure to respond in time to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit.

The stunning claim means that Obama's legal team, by failing to respond as required by federal rules within 30 days, has effectively admitted that he is not qualified to be President and thus the DNC must immediately withdraw his candidacy and substitute a qualified candidate.

Although the Federal Circuit Court judge, R. Barclay Surrick, has yet to rule on Berg's claim, federal rules of procedure would appear to support his contention, since they specify that any objection or refutation had to be served within thirty days. The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order, but there has yet to be a ruling on this, perhaps to the surprise and chagrin of Obama and the DNC. Obama's lawyers in these motions, argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” The source of that embarrassment was not specified.


full here
israelinsider.ning.com...:BlogPost:10858

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Tinkabit]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit

Berg: By not responding in time, Obama admits he's unqualified to be POTUS


I know that's a quote from that article, but I'm guessing since you're using it as an argument to reply to my post, that you agree with it.

I guess if you don't respond to everything someone accuses you of, you are guilty?

Not to mention that all these lawsuits have been denied. Maybe it's because all of them are as flawed as Mr. Berg's? Have you thought about that?

Anyway, if a Court agrees to a lawsuit and requests Barack Obama to present any evidence, I'm sure he will. How about we wait until that happens?

I'll leave you with a quote from Leo Donofrio's (who also has a lawsuit regarding this matter) Application to the Supreme Court:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 


Acoridng to this logic, no citizen of the US has any ability to defend the US consititution. No one is eligible to demand its requirements be met. We must trust the vettors of the DNC. We will just take their word and assume they followed the letter of the law...

Have YOU thought of THAT?





top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join