reply to post by oneclickaway
I am not bored with this subject, I am just the opposition. To tell me that if I don't like a subject, to go away and post somewhere else is quite
fascist of you.
My stance is this, it's quite simple, no where in the US constitution does it specifically state what form of identification is Prima facie evidence
to prove the Jus Soli of Obama.
So the Long Form BC is not needed because a perfectly adequate and verified COLB has been released to the public. Whether you believe that evidence is
not my problem, it's not the court's problem, and it's not Nancy Pelosi's problem.
The only reason that people are insistent on the Long Form Birth Certificate is specifically to harass the doctor that helped birth Obama. They want
the doctors name so they can endlessly annoy and harass that man into trying to "admit" he did not bring Obama into this world. If the man is dead,
it would be further proof of a cover up.
Want to look at this progressively throughout the timeline and see that I am telling you the truth?
During the campaign, questions about both Obama and McCain's eligibility came up. McCain was born in Panama, and Obama was born to a Kenyan and an
American in Hawaii.
So both McCain and Obama showed their representative RNC/DNC chairpersons a copy of their birth certificate. All is well and good. McCain, being born
on a US military base to two Americans quelled anyone's questions whether or not he was eligible for the position. It would have been the same for
Obama, except, well it wasn't.
So Obama releases a scanned copy of this birth certificate online. This only fuels the conspiracy because 1. it had no folds
2. it was not
signed, and 3. it did not have the raised seal.
went and examined the BC itself. Took pictures of it, and
made that public. Still not good enough.
investigated, and so did
, all three came to the
conclusion that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and is perfectly eligible for the office of the POTUS.
Furthermore, Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health verified that the state of Hawaii has Obama’s Original birth
certificate on file. Even released a statement to that effect. hawaii.gov...
But despite all of that evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii. Still there are a select few individuals that persist on needing more proof.
They will latch onto anything that supports their side of the argument, no matter how erroneous, no mater how fictitious, and no matter how asinine
and we the people on the other side are supposed to believe you when you say that the release of the long form birth certificate will settle this
Then to have the audacity to tell me to piss off and go find somewhere else to post because I don't agree with you?
Doesn't sound to me like your on the right side of the argument. How is it that the side that does not agree with you can bring much more certified
evidence than supposition and deflection? How is it that we on the side that does not believe this horse manure can keep to a story all this time?
In an investigation, one that is guilty cannot keep to a story. The people that believe this nonsense can't keep their story. They can't bring forth
evidence that proves their side of the argument. Each time they bring something it's brought down as erroneous and flawed. If the Birthers were truly
correct, why isn't it that they can't bring forth any real evidence that can support their case? They want the side that believes that Obama is
eligible for his job to provide you with evidence.
The side that believes this horse manure hasn't believed all the real evidence that has been presented thus far, why should this man provide you with
further evidence that you will just ignore anyway?
Why should he put the doctor that birthed him in the middle of this molestation of Obama's character?
Frankly why should anyone believe your side?
When your side insists that it's wrong for a person to defend themselves against attacks on their eligibility to be where they are. How is it not an
attack against the 6th Amendment to the Constitution? How is it that when your side feels that they have the right to this mans personal papers, it's
not an attack against the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?
How can you say that you support the constitution when in fact your trying to destroy two of the most important bill of rights amendments to that
constitution just to get at one man that will probably be out in another 3 years?
Especially when that same constitution your destroying in your vain attempt at upholding does not specify what paper a man must have or show to prove
his eligibility for office?
If your willing to destroy the constitution just to go after someone you have political differences with, you do not support the constitution. In fact
you are an enemy of that constitution and someone that should not be respected. People have died in order to protect and defend that constitution.
It's the all important document of our free society. To throw some of it away in a vengeful effort to remove someone from an office is to advocate a
police state where no one has rights and protections under the very document you wish to try and uphold.