Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

reply to post by octotom


Of course it matters. For the reasons you stated above: Loyalty. Its not their just to be there...

You admitted it yourself. We all know the loyalty concern is why the "natural born clause" is in the constitution. So, why do we concentrate on something where we know loyalties are not the problem?

So, once again, it comes down to those of us who wish to be on the side of those who divide because they might have a reason (in their own mind), rather than coming together and focusing that attention on matters that are far more unconstitutional and need addressing immediately.

I know why this is done. For those who carry religious beliefs concerning their political affiliation. Not for the bettrment of the country as a whole or any individuals of the United States. Solely to provide less unity and more divide... hence gaining favor for their party and less for the one in power.

It becomes sickening after a while... Its all politics...

reply to post by AshleyD


Amen Ashley

I rank this up as being a fake, released by Orly Taitz as a publicity stunt. She wants her birther movement to grow, no matter how much she has to lie. I watched her on the daily show, she argued that even if he was born in hawaii, he wasn't a natural born citizen because it requires two citizen parents...

The 14th Amendment makes him a Citizen, though it never mentions "natural born citizenship".

The constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

The argument that two citizen parents are required to be considered natural born is NOT US law and appears no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was spread by men like Christian Wolff and Emerich de Vattel. Try googling "The Law of Nations." These men lived and died before the signing of the declaration of Independence and there is absolutely no evidence that the founding fathers supported this particular idea. It's all conjecture. I'm sure they most likely DID read his work, as De Vattel is considered by some to be a founder of modern International Law. I read a book on Ted Bundy, does that mean I supported his ideas? I read a lot of books on mythology, does that mean I believe in the existence of Ra, Zeus, or Odin?

I would argue that the intended usage was that Naturalized Citizens aren't eligible, but people born on US soil and given the status of Citizen at birth are eligible. This is the generally accepted meaning behind it in the government, and has been for a while.

reply to post by dubiousone


You must not have paid attention to any of the Bush threads I participated in. I never was a supporter of Bush and Co. My participation in this thread does not mean that I somehow was or that I am only concerned now that Bush is out of office.

Originally posted by tonygal
I figured she had something. On Friday Orly posted all kinds of stuff on her blog asking about authenticating circa 1961 Kenyan birth records

Very important. i need verification that E. F. Lavender was British colonial registrar in Mombasa, Kenya in 1961.

July 31st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Very important
July 31st, 2009
1. I need experts who can authenticate documents from Kenya.
2. I need to find people who were born in Kenya in 1961 and have their birth certificate. I need to see it, I need to see how it looks like.
3. I need to know who was the British registrar in Mombasa in 1961.
If you have info, call me 949-XXX-XXXX. No crank calls please, and be short, please. I really don’t have any time for stories

Source:

www.orlytaitzesq.com...

If Orly was fishing for information on the 31st July, and then filed the papers on the 1st August, is it possible that someone came forward with something that in some way validated this certificate?

It just seems to me that without some solid evidence she'd really be laying her self on the line.

Actually McCain's eligibility to run for prez was brought up, they had a whole senate hearing on it and the whole 9. In fact even Obama was apart of it he as one of the ones that started the whole fiasco.

Obama is not a stranger to digging up little obscure things that would get people disqualified when running against him.

So now Obama can dish it, but can't take it. Isn't that interesting.

I still don't know what to think about this document, but if anybody lives in Hawaii you should be able to go down to the court house and look up the divorce records of Obama's mother and father. All the info will be in there.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by GLDNGUN

 

Unfortunately race IS an issue. Where was the concern about John McCain's Panamanian birth? Even if there had been a row and ruction about it, I imagine the critics would have swiftly shut up when presented with the fact that according to the State Department, American citizen parent = American citizen child.

For some reason, Obama's getting this special attention, the people pushing it cannot accept simple facts about how US citizenship work, and they're bending over backwards to tuck their heads into their own colon. Can't claim it's partisan - No other Democratic candidate had to put up with this crap.

So, what could it be?

He's a brown man who's name isn't anglo-saxon. Now I know most Republicans like to pretend otherwise, but race does usually factor into their smear campaigns. remember John McCain's "illegitimate black baby" (that is, his adopted daughter) that the Bush campaign used to try to smear him with? The Tennesee race where the GOP ran ads of a white woman flirting towards the black candidate? Many other examples. Even if the rank and file Republican supporters aren't themselves racist, they readily latch onto campaigns and tactics that are.

This birth certificate is an outgrowth of the attempt to paint Barack Obama as "not one of us" because of his color, because of his name, because of his upbringing. It's no different than "HE'S A MUSLIM!" that was the big thing around here not too long ago.

Not sure where you were, but there WAS a lot of concern, even lawsuits filed, because of McCain's birth in Panama. Do you know why it went away? First of all, McCain produced his actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE for inspection. Secondly, the courts ruled in his favor. Third, it became obvious that McCain WAS qualified to serve as President, due both of his parents being American citizens and his father stationed overseas in the military at the time of birth.

WHY WON'T OBAMA DO THE SAME AS MCCAIN AND RELEASE HIS FULL BIRTH CERTIFICATE???

Are there racists out there? Sure are. Does that mean THIS is because of race? NO. Conservatives would be opposed to Obama regardless of his name, race, or religion because of his politics. OTOH, conservatives will openly embrace and support women and minorities IF they are conservative.

Again, I don't see a "black" man when I see Obama. Maybe you and/or others do. Whatever.

reply to post by open_eyeballs


I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. Or maybe I didn't write it correctly. Let's try this again.

Yes, the founding fathers were concerned about one's loyalty to the US. So, they made it a law that one had to be born in the United States to be president. [Remember too that people typically didn't move back in forth between countries back then like today.] The idea with that is that if you were born here, you'd grow up here, which would make you loyal to the United States and not what to reunite with the crown, which I think was their chief concern.

Fast forward nearly 300 years to 2008. The Constitution still says that the POTUS has to be born on United States soil. There are allegations that the current president wasn't born on American soil, but rather Kenyan. That would make him ineligible to be the POTUS if found to be true. This is regardless of where his loyalties lie. The same would be true of anyone who was born in another country, yet is an American citizen, even if they were just born in that country and stayed there one hour, and were in America for the rest of their life.

As it stand, to be the President of the United States, you have to be born in America. It's not about his loyalties today, but simply, where he was born.

reply to post by Argyll

It just seems to me that without some solid evidence she'd really be laying her self on the line.

This women has really put her self in danger, she is either crazy or incredibly brave.

Originally posted by jimmyx
so let me get this striaght...when the republicans challanged obamas bid for the senate in 2004...this document didn't come up...and when obama started off on his bid for the presidency in 2007, all through the 2008 election year, the republicans didn't bring this up...but ...AFTER HE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT...""NOW"" republicans bring it up!!!....yeah...right, makes perfect sense to me.

Let me let you in on a little secret. There are NO opposing political parties in the US! It's a big fraud to keep the dullards running in circles barking at each other. Got it?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


That's the point I'm trying to make.

If the BC is false, she only leaves herself open to ridicule........if it's genuine, well, she's leaving herself open to a whole lot more than ridicule!

Some guy posted this stuff about the authenticity..I have no clue if any of this is true. I just find this stuff interesting. Can anyone clear this up?
-Father's age is wrong

-Name of the village is misspelled

-Republic of Kenya did not exist until December 12, 1963



But my personal fav is:

-Certificate number is 47O44...

47 - Obama's age when elected

O(bama)

44 - 44th President of the United States
Thanks

LOL Obama!

[color=#E00C0C]Ron Paul For [color=#00BFFF]The WIN!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01b9a49a5c0c.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
reply to post by Truth4hire

 

It's already been established beyond any doubt that Kenya was not a republic until Dec. 12 1964. The document was allegedly signed on Feb 17. 1964 when Kenya was not a republic. This was established pages ago. You've been on this thread for awhile now, what's the matter? This is a faked document.

If that is the case then this is one lazy fake. Why would a credible lawyer chance destroying her career by supporting a document that could be proven fake in 4 pages on ATS.

Are they purposely releasing bad fakes to discredit a movement and if so why bother if it isn't true. Is it a case of muddying the waters? If its real its massive news if its fake its massive news.

If this is real, its a bad thing for America.

If Obama is removed we will not only have to worry about race riots here in the States, but when we put McCain in charge we will see the entire Muslim world react. Our reputation around the world will be affected.

When McCain starts trying to institute his policies we'll see Congress lock up (more than it already is) and nothing will happen. The economy will falter and things will really go south.

For the sake of America I hope this is fake, because America will never return from this.

Looks like its time to get The Republic of Texas back up and running.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by XTexan]

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
reply to post by Truth4hire

 

It's already been established beyond any doubt that Kenya was not a republic until Dec. 12 1964. The document was allegedly signed on Feb 17. 1964 when Kenya was not a republic. This was established pages ago. You've been on this thread for awhile now, what's the matter? This is a faked document.

FAIL.

The Republic of Kenya declared it’s independence in 1963 and acted independantly from that point on.

reply to post by dubiousone


True enough, but if you look further at the posting of the court filing you find this section:
"The purpose of Rule 27, even though designed for pre-filing discovery, is fulfilled and relevant here, in that some (above-noted) hearsay evidence exists that an individual involved in the examination of passport files at the United States Department of State relating to and involving certain 2008 Presidential candidates may have been killed in relation to such inquiry. Last year it was announced by former secretary of State Candoleeza Rice that there was tampering with the passport records of three major presidential candidates and it was investigated by the inspector general. Lt. Querl Harris was one of the suspects in passport tampering scandal. Washington post has announced that he was cooperating with the FBI and shortly thereafter he was found dead, shot in the head, sitting in his parked car. This case remains open and unresolved. Under such circumstances, “perpetuation of evidence” becomes a more and more significant and time-sensitive issue."

I would propose that if people, looking into this matter, are being "bumped-off", then maybe there is something important enough behind such criminal deeds. Maybe...just maybe we should watch this case closely and see what it turns up.

Dr. Orly Taitz case filed

Originally posted by antmax21
Some guy posted this stuff about the authenticity..I have no clue if any of this is true. I just find this stuff interesting. Can anyone clear this up?
-Father's age is wrong

-Name of the village is misspelled

-Republic of Kenya did not exist until December 12, 1963



But my personal fav is:

-Certificate number is 47O44...

47 - Obama's age when elected

O(bama)

44 - 44th President of the United States
Thanks

Republic of Kenya means that if you look at the date and info ... this is a copy of the form on file ... the copy pulled soon after his birth in 1964... perhaps for his grandmother or other family member...

So, it's a copy pulled AFTER the RoK was established.

Father's age ? Perhaps they had even worse record keeping in 40's???

Originally posted by XTexan
If this is real, its a bad thing for America.

If Obama is removed we will not only have to worry about race riots here in the States, but when we put McCain in charge we will see the entire Muslim world react. Our reputation around the world will be affected.

When McCain starts trying to institute his policies we'll see Congress lock up (more than it already is) and nothing will happen. The economy will falter and things will really go south.

For the sake of America I hope this is fake, because America will never return from this.

1. It could very well be BIDEN that takes over, not McCain.

2. Abiding by our Constitution is more important than our "reputation around the world".

3. Having Congress "lock up" and having "nothing happen" would be a blessing from heaven compared to what they've been doing. Unless you like to see TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars thrown away and given as political payoffs. The US economy will have a much better chance of revival on its own the more the government stays out of the way.

reply to post by octotom

"Or at least the Obama part of it, which would make his presidential electoral count zero, and would make McCain the POTUS."

The Constitution states that in a case like this the Vice President would serve until a special election designated a new President.