One More BC Thread, This Is Bizarre.

I will state what I have said before -What can we do if we prove his status to be not legitimate?-
He's the POTUS -- what arer we ? armchair researchers or protesters (at best).
The majority of American people vote him to be the POTUS - TPTB pick him to be their chess piece.
For UFO scenario - "It's not what you can say, it is what you can prove"-
For this particular case - "It's not what you can prove, it is what you can do"-

Hehe!

You've got to laugh at the shills who made up the title "Birthers" for the express purpose of trying to vainly bury this topic via disassociation, employing well documented psychological processes common to the majority (psychological sciences - gotta love 'em).

PsyOps abound!
A clear sign this is worth looking deeply into, thank you.

Cheers! to the shills in particular, for alerting me to this issue by way of a clear and oh-so common psychological tactic - ridiculing those daring to question their 'peers' (in this instance, by way of introduction of implied disparaging terminology to a growing group of people not willing to accept everything they are told - a clear danger to any [corrupt] establishment seeking full control over the majority of their citizens).

Thankfully, there's only a finite amount of psychological tactics available to all, else those of us cataloguing their use by establishments against perceived threats to their desired power structures, would be screwed wouldn't we!


"Birthers" ...LOL!! Good, but not good enough, boys.

reply to post by the_0bserver85



I just got banned from CNN comment boards on the News. I was simply suggesting for people to go and research this issue more, what I got was "racist" , "moron","stupid", "birther", "racist", "racist", "idiot", "republican" from the majority of the posters. The board moderator banned me, and I couldn't post any longer.

You have to realize that these people will be 'voting' or at least showing support for Obama in the next election. I guess if the White House post a pdf of my birth certificate saying that I had Shrek and Fiona or Donkey and the Pink Dragon for my parents, they will have to take it at the face value.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

It does list Honolulu, BUT WITH THE CRITICAL FOOTNOTE NUMBER 1. The 1 references the footnote at bottom, which then states the birthplace as Kenya, per granny.

Last week you guys were claiming Kenya wasn't even a country in 1961.

They can simply put this to bed by simply producing the original of this photo copy. So where is it? Where is the original of this photocopy?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


an anonymous source can neither be credible nor incredible.

but lets be honest, youll only accept it if its from the whitehouse.

never mind the document itself, source is the sole dictator of truth.

Out of curiosity, since I never really understood the whole birther issue, if Obama was born in Kenya wouldn't the concern be that he'd provide subsidies for their country? If this was the actual concern, then why not just approach the department of the treasury and look over the accounting?

Or is the reason for all the complaining and shouting purely because people are upset over a technicality? If it's the latter isn't that a rather superfluous complaint? It would be like me complaining that Bush was put in to office by the electoral college when Gore won the popular vote. At a certain point we need a President. I just don't understand the sheer degree of paranoia.

Originally posted by EternalThought
I guess if the White House post a pdf of my birth certificate saying that I had Shrek and Fiona or Donkey and the Pink Dragon for my parents, they will have to take it at the face value.

But you will believe the aloha reporter? Why do you believe them but not the White House? Is it possible your mind is simply made up and that no amount of evidence will ever satisfy your skepticism the man was born here?

reply to post by LosLobos

But you will believe the aloha reporter? Why do you believe them but not the White House? Is it possible your mind is simply made up and that no amount of evidence will ever satisfy your skepticism the man was born here?

I was actually irritated with Trump, and got excited when they posted the Long Form online. When I opened the file, and examined it, I made up my mind that Trump had a point.
There was also something that I posted a reply to one of these BC threads about Obama's birth announcement in the Advertiser and the other Honolulu Newspaper. The guy did a lot of research, he even went as far as to find the scans of the papers in the D.C. library. He did notice that the one in D.C. didn't match one on file in Honolulu..

So I guess I will have to say that you must believe a 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, but not the the Aloha Reporter?

Originally posted by EternalThought
reply to post by the_0bserver85

 

I just got banned from CNN comment boards on the News. I was simply suggesting for people to go and research this issue more, what I got was "racist" , "moron","stupid", "birther", "racist", "racist", "idiot", "republican" from the majority of the posters. The board moderator banned me, and I couldn't post any longer.

You have to realize that these people will be 'voting' or at least showing support for Obama in the next election. I guess if the White House post a pdf of my birth certificate saying that I had Shrek and Fiona or Donkey and the Pink Dragon for my parents, they will have to take it at the face value.

wow...they should not be allowed to bann you just for telling them to check the evidence out.

reply to post by Signals


He was registered four days after his birth, so? I was registered twelve years after my birth.

That's right for the first decade of my life I was not registered , technically illegal but born in Canada. The 911 and homeland security would make big deals would people with a bc, so my dad got me one.

See not every legal citizen has a birth cerificate

reply to post by kinda kurious


..annnd FAIL.

Even if Obama was born in Hawaii (which I believe he was and Thank you to the board for changing my mind) His Father was a British Citizen(Kenya was a British colony in 1961) so it makes no difference if he was born in Hawaii or not. The 14nth amendment clearly states that Obama is a "Citizen of the United States" However, The Constitution also states that to be eligible to be President you have to be a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States". Lets go ahead and assume that Obama was born in Hawaii for the sake of argument.


The 14nth amendment of the Constitution states this:


"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

en.wikipedia.org...

Clause 5: Qualifications for office
“ 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.


Now from what I have read from History Books the reason why the founders put that clause a Citizen of the United states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was because they of course were all born from Non-US Citizens because of course the United States had not been formed yet. This Clause's purpose what to "Grandfather" the founding fathers in so they all could run for President.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

The court ruled:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.


So the real debate here is this:

Has the Supreme Court ever defined what a "Natural Born citizen" is? Or do we accept a 300 year old English common law's definition?

Is Obama a "Citizen of the United States" or a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States"?

reply to post by Signals


Sorry but I think this is a hoax just based on the handwriting. It looks to be from the same person attempting to disguise each signature as different. And their written dates also appear to be the same person's writing, with a disguised difference. Basically, the strokes are identical, as well as relative size of the lettering and spacing. This makes it most definitely a hoax. Sorry.

Originally posted by EL1A5
Personally, all this BC nonsense is getting old.

If you don't like the guy then don't vote for him if he runs again, it's that easy..

People didn't vote for Bush the second time, he was appointed by the courts, If you own the REAL votes, the electorial votes that can do it too, one electorial voter actually voted different then his state majority for Bush.
Our law actually allows this.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Out of curiosity, since I never really understood the whole birther issue, if Obama was born in Kenya wouldn't the concern be that he'd provide subsidies for their country? If this was the actual concern, then why not just approach the department of the treasury and look over the accounting?

Or is the reason for all the complaining and shouting purely because people are upset over a technicality? If it's the latter isn't that a rather superfluous complaint? It would be like me complaining that Bush was put in to office by the electoral college when Gore won the popular vote. At a certain point we need a President. I just don't understand the sheer degree of paranoia.

I suppose that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger would not find it superfluous as he wanted to run for pres and legally could not.

reply to post by darrylss


Hows obama doin a good job sittin on his butt taking vacations and have a FEW speeches...or was u being sarcastic

reply to post by EternalThought


You, sir, have jusr proved my point ...... you and I can proud about ourselves for not being like the majority.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

People didn't vote for Bush the second time, he was appointed by the courts, If you own the REAL votes, the electorial votes that can do it too, one electorial voter actually voted different then his state majority for Bush.
Our law actually allows this.

Which is why I'd like to see 538 other BC's. If these folks are electing Presidents then they too must be America Citizens. How many of those folks are Manchurian Candidates?

reply to post by Char-Lee

But that gets to the heart of my question. Would anyone be upset if he actually became President?