Trump sends investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama !!

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Trump sends investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama !!

Sorry, can't resist:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3b11fd5a9cb.jpg[/atsimg]

the days of Obama and Soros are numbered!

This is pathetic. Have the Republicans actually stooped so low as to asinging a sold out, souless corporate mercenary to investigate Obama's origins? You guys, he's President. They sorta check these things out before they swear you in. Maybe the reason Obama hasn't thrown a bunch of legal papers in the naysayer's faces is because if you appease all the idiot naysayers, they'll find something worse to charge you with. Kind of like McCarthy. Only instead of Comunists, now they call them Muslims. Which shouldn't be an accusatory term anyway, but that's another story.

Trump? For serious? God help America...

reply to post by beijingyank


Apparently there's a specific legal definition of the phrase "private document". I didn't know that. But you still can't get the birth certificate of someone unless you have a direct and tangible interest in getting it. They are not public records in Hawaii. They are private. That's what I mean. Birth certificates are not available for anyone who wants to see them. You cannot get a copy of my birth certificate or Obama's without a court order. Because it's private (in the layman's sense of the word).

reply to post by DangerouslyInformed

They sorta check these things out before they swear you in.

You would think so, but that is a common misconception. Research it for yourself, because I would love to be proven wrong, but my own research has turned up that the democratic election process is its own vetting. There is no follow up to it. His Secret Service protectors have undergone almost a year's worth of background investigation, but Obama's background is only checked out by his competitors, and those competitors do not have permission to get his official documents without his consent, so he has not been checked out.

Everyone assumes someone is checking it out, it is the crowd mentality. Everyone assumes someone else has done it, or knows more than they know. The same thing happens when a large crowd witnesses a violent crime. If there is 1 witness it is very likely they will jump in to help, but if there is a large crowd of witnesses, it is very unlikely that anyone will help, because everyone assumes someone else has more info than themselves and nobody acts.

If nothing else comes from this controversy, hopefully at least it will spark a new procedure for background checks on elected officials. Someone needs to introduce a bill for that, possibly even a constitutional amendment for it.
v

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Obama's background is only checked out by his competitors, and those competitors do not have permission to get his official documents without his consent, so he has not been checked out.

I agree with everything you said, but I just want to point out the the above is a conclusion that we really can't make with the information we have. Obama MAY have the long form and MAY have shown it to someone along the way. There isn't a process that we know of, but that doesn't mean he has not been checked out. He may have given his consent.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


True.

As I mentioned in another thread, I would be completely satisfied if someone from Human Resources in the State Department stepped up and said, "President Obama has been properly verified and documented per our policies the same as any other Federal Employee with his clearances would have been. We cannot comment beyond that."

I'm sure that wouldn't satisfy everyone, but it would satisfly the majority of the intelligent critics that just want some assurance that a procedure exists.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
As I mentioned in another thread, I would be completely satisfied if someone from Human Resources in the State Department stepped up and said, "President Obama has been properly verified and documented per our policies the same as any other Federal Employee with his clearances would have been. We cannot comment beyond that."

That would be great! But you are a rational man. You are, I'm convinced, one of the minuscule minority who would be satisfied with that. At this point, I don't think anything the government or Obama could do would satisfy the vast majority of the movement. Anything would be seen as a fake, a paid announcement or otherwise not reliable. "Of course the State Dept would say that! Show ME the birth certificate"!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


HA!

Obama could host a book signing, like a new author! Sit outside the Library of Congress, give complimentary reproductions of the BC, and sign autographs. Maybe he should consider that for a fundraiser?

You are right, some people will want to see it for themselves, and even then they will call it a fake.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

There is NOTHING on his long form that is a secret.
All the details that could possibly be listed on it have already been stated by Obama..

THAT'S the only FACT that matters..
Disprove that and I'll continue to debate..
If you can't then it's game over...

I am not sure if this game still works with many of you in grade school but when it comes to an issue such as this, where you pretend to have the same concern and value of thought as a rational adult it is just schoolyard distractions.

You have repeatedly made this BS claim about HI birth certificates. I am asking you to either back it up or admit it was wrong. That is all I care about. You ask Obama to prove things Obama said. I am asking you to prove things you said.

You said anyone could have gotten a BC that said they were born in Hawaii no matter where they were born. The fact that you have spent more than 10 pages in two threads dodging that is quite telling. You prove my point. You do not really care. This is not serious to you. Spreading falsehoods to prove your point gets us where? Right here. Really moved forward with that tactic huh?

So, just back up the things you say or admit you are talking from another hole in your body. Why is this so hard for you?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by anon72

 

Well, you have one thing right...it will be on hell of an election season.

Good comedy, the repulican candidate field is like one big clown car...the clowns just keep on coming out. I would pay money to see a Palin vs Trump debate...I think they could put it on PPV as a comedy event.


As far as investigating Obama...you would think if Obama is really as bad of a President as all the republicans say he is...then they wouldn't even have to bother with silly "birther" issues. But it appears that is all they have...attempt to disqualify him or bring up fake impeachment charges.

I guess they are that scared of Obama.

Ah, now why would the republicans not once and for all find out? It is better to leave doubt amongst the voters then to find out you are wrong, and he is legitamently born in America.

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
"A private document is any instrument executed by a private citizen.
A public document is one that is or should legally be readily available for inspection by the public, as a document issued by Congress or a governmental department."

Barky did not execute his own birth certificate. It is not a private document according to West Encyclopedia of American Law. And here is one for you, how can you or Hawaii call the birth certificate a private document when it isn't executed by Barky?

You and whoever is carrying the water for Barky in Hawaii is wrong to call a birth certificate a "private document."
I give you permission to go away. Don't go away mad, just go away with your "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is,' is."

You really are stretching logic here in order to just make up random things. I have never generated one of my medical records. They are all generated by hospitals and doctors offices. According to you, that makes all my medical records public documents. Please feel free to explain to me how medical records in the US are public documents.

Jibeho says: Read more: Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace www.wnd.com...
ETA
This article of course assumes that Barack Sr. is in fact Obama's biological father. Perhaps, Obama's coolness on the issue can be explained by the existence of another US born father who wished to remain anonymous.
---------------
I've read through about 13 pages and can read no more. I was pleased to read your post, however, Jibeho! And a few others, as well. For others who support Obama: Why did Pelosi sign 2 different certifications of nomination for Obama? One omitted the US Constitution provision!
www.scribd.com...

There are many sites/articles online confirming what our forefathers, who actually drafted the Constitution, meant by the term 'natural born citizen'...and Obama is not eligible due to his father being Kenyan. Now as mentioned above, if the rumour about Obama's "real" father is true, then apparently Obama would be eligible if he was born in the States. If born outside of the US, he still would not be eligible...per what our forefathers meant...and that's what I want followed--the Constitution as enacted by our forefathers.

I have posted many links concerning the "natural born citizen" clause both here at ATS and other sites when this topic has reared its ugly head over and over. Here are a few:

This first one is interesting in that it proposes other problems/reasons as to why this issue isn't getting resolved:
www.sodahead.com... 2985/

This one is an excellent summation:
Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines “natural born Citizen” in 1789
www.thepostemail.com...

I don't trust Trump. He's supposed to be Republican now, but recently donated $50,000 to Rahm's campaign. He's donated to Reid and a few others, too.

reply to post by Habit4ming


Seeing as how so many of our early presidents fathers were born in a different country, your claim that they clearly meant to exclude people such as themselves from holding that office is specious at best.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
As I mentioned in another thread, I would be completely satisfied if someone from Human Resources in the State Department stepped up and said, "President Obama has been properly verified and documented per our policies the same as any other Federal Employee with his clearances would have been. We cannot comment beyond that."

I have searched but cannot find where they stated that for all previous Presidents. could you show us those links where that statement was made about all previous Presidents.

reply to post by Sinnthia


-----------------
Your comment just proves to me that you have not done one iota of research on this topic and it also appears that you've never read the Constitution, either.
The framers had to grandfather themselves!! Geesh!!

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "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 who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
www.freerepublic.com...

The framers didnt add the clause. It was added after the Civil War in an effort to deter newly freed blacks from voting. Fit of angry racisim, not a patriotic move.by the founding fathers.

reply to post by DangerouslyInformed

Not racism.
You have to understand, government by the people only works if people understand the consequences of their actions. Those that form a representative government are educated, and they felt that governing is a huge task, not to be taken lightly.
So, because women couldn't vote, they were sexist as well?

Look how we are governed now, with even the illegal...um, "undocumented" voting...

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by Habit4ming

 

Seeing as how so many of our early presidents fathers were born in a different country, your claim that they clearly meant to exclude people such as themselves from holding that office is specious at best.

For the love of Apple pie, Tater tots and all things holy. Way to disparage our history. Next you'll be saying our forefathers owned slaves and wore wigs and stockings.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb49b7ef0883.jpg[/atsimg]

Can't you just let us remember America the way we want it to be regardless of how it actually was? It seems all you left leaning, comfortable shoe wearing liberal hippie types just want to destroy the America we saw in Cowboy movies. By doing so you are sending a welcome vacancy sign to all those foreigners that want to come here and take the land we stole from the native Americans. I find it ironical that all you Ben & Jerry types actually believe that historical facts and accuracy are more important than defeating Socialism by the Anti Christ. Oh and what is so bad about the human species? I'm proud to be one and so was the Lone Ranger.

Originally posted by DangerouslyInformed
The framers didnt add the clause. It was added after the Civil War in an effort to deter newly freed blacks from voting. Fit of angry racisim, not a patriotic move.by the founding fathers.

---------------
I think you're probably talking about the 14th Amendment. I am talking about the original Constitution, Article 2, section 1: "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 who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The specific clause showing the grandfathering is: OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION...

Just wanted to add that I love kinda kurious' sense of humor...
Second line...