Update! Officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

 

Why because I asked for proof from the Birther movement that Obama was not born in the US or that I smell a touch of racism from some of the birther movement.

I smell a guilty conscience on your part.

If you find "Get over it" offensive then I apologize but really I stand by my words. He's President, until the Birther movement can prove otherwise he will remain in office.

That would require Obama disproving it by presenting actual proof that he was born in Hawaii. McCain produced a birth certificate and he wasn't even born in the 50 states.

Q: Why would the GOP let this slide?

A: Because he was born in the state of Hawaii as proven by the neccessary Vetting required before even being allowed to run for office.

Damn it, there's that logic again.

Deez

What are these "vetting requirements?"


[edit on 5-9-2010 by vcwxvwligen]

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

LOL I had to laugh at that, because the idea of Pelosi vetting ANYONE is one of the scariest and entertaining thoughts ive had since Obama took office.....

The truth is the truth. People ask who vetted Obama and that is who vetted Obama. He just didn't magically show up on the ballot in all 50 states, he was vetted by the DNC and Nancy Pelosi was the chairperson at the time.

Birthers also conveniently ignore the fact that if Obama was ineligible that Hillary Clinton would have crushed him in the primaries. Hillary is a notorious egomaniac and megalomaniac and would have NEVER have let something like an ineligible candidate stand in her way.

Not to mention that John McCain also would have never let it slide.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
What are these "vetting requirements?"

Member whatukno posted about it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Emilymary

Where ever Obama was born he was born a dual citizen. The state department now acknowledges this apparently. So not 'natural born. A citizen - yes, but not natural born. It seems some rather ignorant people can't get their heads around this significant difference under their own constitution.

Shock horror! British Colonial and Kenyan law considers children born overseas to citizen parents as provisional citizens. No one has ever, least of all President Obama, denied that he was a dual citizen at birth.

Notice how that provision is from British (or Kenyan) law. Since when has British or Kenyan law had anything to do with determining eligiblity for the office of the President of the United States? What others countries' laws should we look to for guidance about who we should allow to be president? I heard that North Korea made everyone in the United States a citizen of the PRK at their birth, and Serbia just did the same thing. How, pray tell, are we ever going to have a legitimate president again?

It is also true that Dwight David Eisenhower was a dual citizen at birth. Is this a problem for you? How about Chester A. Arthur? Or any of several others that I can't think of at the moment.

It seems some rather ignorant people can't get their heads around this significant difference under their own constitution.

Yes it does. Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that 'dual citizenship means not natural born', or more importantly, where does it say that British Colonial law trumps the American Constitution?

We know he became an Indonesian citizen and took the name Barry Soetoro.

Actually, we know exactly the opposite. He could not become an Indonesian citizen, Indonesian law forbids it.

We know he became a muslim and attended a moslem school.

We know that he attended a moslem school. Guess what, Jews attend Christian schools all the time and don't become Christian.

We know that no evidence has ever been discovered that Barry Soetoro became Barak Obama in any legal sense.

That is because no evidence has ever been discovered that Barak Obama became Barry Soetoro in any legal sense.

That alone has to raise the question that a man known to be legally Barry Soetoro has been elected to office under a false name. Interestingly he took the oath of office in secret and on what book?.

Your question is moot, since he was never legally Barry Soetoro. He did not take the oath in secret, it was very public, and he did it twice. I understand that both times he used the same Bible, but what does it matter? There is no requirement to use any kind of holy book for an oath, least of all for a Government office. It seems some rather ignorant people can't get their heads around this significant difference under their own constitution.

www.infowars.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Lakin is making a claim. The burden of proof is on HIM to provide evidence that he's RIGHT.

Incorrect. Lakin is charged with disobeying an order. The prosecution is required to prove Lakin's guilt.

Lakin has a right to a defense. As you say, that defense has to be relevant to the charge. As also pointed out, I think by you, nothing to do with Obama's eligibility can possibly be construed as relevant to the charge.

If somehow LTC Lakin did have evidence that Obama was ineligible, his own Court Martial is not the venue to present it, it is simply irrelevant to the charge. The correct venue would be to his Congressman or Senator and Public Opinion.

reply to post by JohnInFL

Order it? Anyone can do that. I have my original, don't you?

No you don't. The original is still in the state archives in the state where you were born.

You have a copy, perhaps. Unless it is certified, it is useless for anything other than a souvenir. By the way, if it has you footprints on it, then that is exactly what it is intended as: a souvenir.

reply to post by soleprobe

Trial is not about impeachment it’s about a military trial to determine his eligibility as commander and chief.

NO.

Trial is a military trial to determine if LTC Lakin disobeyed an order. Since he admits it, the trial is about getting the maximum benefit from his enforced vacation in Kansas.

reply to post by Emilymary

Produce the legal documentation showing Barry Soetoro -and he even had a passport in the name - show me where he has changed it to Barack Obama.

Um, your link is evidence of exactly what exactly?

Yes we know his family and friends knew him as Barry.
Yes we know he attended school in Indonesia and his step-dad wrote down Soetoro on the school registration form (if, for nothing else, to simplify the admissions process).

Where does this say anything about a legal change of name? Or anything else for that matter.

And where is the evidence of a passport under the name Barry Soetoro?

reply to post by Emilymary

Try googling Barry Soetoro. At my last count there were some 161,000 entries.

Santa Claus: 10,800,000 hits
Rumplestiltskin: 4,180,000
LTC Lakin: 337,000
EmilyMary: 179,000
rnaa: 253,000



[edit on 5/9/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The requirement is having the Speaker of the House sign two pieces of paper?

Originally posted by rnaa

Lakin is making a claim. The burden of proof is on HIM to provide evidence that he's RIGHT.

Incorrect. Lakin is charged with disobeying an order. The prosecution is required to prove Lakin's guilt.

The context of my quote was if Lakin sued Obama in another case. I said, "It would not aid in his defense, though. He still broke the law. If he had appeared as ordered and then created his own court case, he would have been allowed to BRING evidence..."

I was speculating about a case that Lakin could bring, similar to the Donofrio and Orly Taitz cases.

If somehow LTC Lakin did have evidence that Obama was ineligible, his own Court Martial is not the venue to present it, it is simply irrelevant to the charge.

Understood and agreed.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen

The requirement is having the Speaker of the House sign two pieces of paper?

You can't be that ignorant, you really really can't.

Holy hell!

Nancy Pelosi was the Chairperson of the Democratic National Convention. She was the one responsible for vetting Obama as the Democratic Candidate.

After vetting (That means she saw his paperwork proving he was constitutionally eligible for the office of the President of the United States) she sent out those forms to the secretary of state in each state of the union.

That's how Obama was put on the ballot.

reply to post by rnaa


BTW

whatukno: About 76,700,000

Yea that's right. 76 million hits BOO YAH!

[edit on 9/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


No, the DNC Chairman signed and had notarized a piece of paper that says that the candidate for president is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution.

------------------------------

BTW, "Benevolent Heretic is a Goddess" 42,700 hits!



[edit on 9/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Emilymary

If there is expectation based on the fact that Soetoro is a known Indonesian citizen

The only fact about Obama and Indonesian citizenship is that he could not, by Indonesian law, be an Indonesian citizen, nor could he have ever been an Indonesian citizen, under any circumstances what-so-ever.

That is dead certain FACT.

And it is even on the internet so you know its true! The Indonesian Citizenship Myth

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Yes, I learned my mistake during my research for this thread, but couldn't edit my posts. You're right.

I corrected myself here.

It's cool. I've finally caught up with my self in this thread!

reply to post by whatukno

The truth is the truth. People ask who vetted Obama and that is who vetted Obama.

Actually, I think you will find that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State (or equivalent office) in each state to ensure that candidates that appear on the ballot are eligible.

To the extent that they treat this as formality or nuisance or serious task is between them and the voters of their respective states.

If the documents provided by the Convention Committees are considered legal affidavits, then when Pelosi signs off that Obama is eligible she is doing so under oath and threat of perjury.

If the voters think this isn't good enough, then they are free to demand that candidates show their birth certificate. I believe the Great State of Arizona (Ditat Deus) is one of several that have such a law under proposal.

No problem. In 2011, Obama will present each State that requires it with a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawai't that will look exactly like the one he has published on the internet and all will be satisfied.

The State SoS's must accept that document, by the way.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen

The requirement is having the Speaker of the House sign two pieces of paper?

She didn't sign in her capacity as Speaker of the House. She signed in her capacity as Chair of the Democratic National Convention.

It is a legal affidavit, and is made under penalty of perjury.

reply to post by rnaa


And we all know since Pelosi is gonna run the most honest ship ever to sail in D.C., you know, like she said, that she would never lie......gimme a break, Pelosi does what she's told, lies when she's told to and I can't wait for her traitorous self to be gone.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Still, as rnaa correctly pointed out, the Secretary of state in each state had to accept the affidavit from the DNC.

So, I guess that quashes your Pelosi bashing bull crap.



[edit on 9/5/2010 by whatukno]