It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's missing papers

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70
•Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery


I do not understand a great deal of this list. It claims to be a list of missing things but this is just a claim. What exactly is being asked for? What is supposedly missing? I am afraid that you may have been suckered into a rather factless smear campaign and little else. Instead of actually listing real things that are missing, it is just a list of random thoughts.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Well, Obama released his certificate, I guess we'll have to dig up some more stuff from his past that he hasn't released...

Exactly what would revealing any of this personal information achieve? What is left to question about Obama that is so necessary it involves invading every aspect of his private life? He's obviously a citizen, and he's the president. That's about the long and short of it.

So why do we need to see anything else?

Also, I can say with absolute certainty that there are indeed alleys in New York City. I've seen literally hundreds with my own eyes, and even walked down a good deal of them.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
hi Runaway

Please help me in uploading a .jpg to my ATS---it took me forever to get a fairy castle there and now I don't know how to get rid of it and how to up load another.

At the same time, I Googled a map at the angle I recall from the mention of alleys (or lack thereof) in New York and will upload that for you. (I, too, wondered how there could be a street with no alleys, but let's pass this back and forth for now until we get it right. I "could be mistaken, thinking that I would never have to remember that little titbit", but I am not wrong in that the book said he slept curled up in a cold alley and the person critiquing said there were no alleys in that area. What if I have the area wrong! I can look again for it! Do you know NY?


In 1966 or 1967 Ann Dunham married Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo (1936-1987),..... Soetoro then adopted Obama, whose name was changed to Barry Soetoro...... which made Obama an Indonesian citizen, according to Indonesian law. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen, in or about 1967. At that point Obama also ceased to be a Kenyan citizen, according to both Indonesian and Kenyan law.

Indonesia’s policy of not allowing dual citizenship must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930. Further, Obama, as a child, was not required to personally renounce his U.S. citizenship – that would have been an automatic result of his adoption by Lolo Soetoro.


From here www.therightsideoflife.com...
and the scroll button is only ½" down the page

It's 3:42 AM here, PST. I won't be all that perky for quite a few hours after some sleep, but will be back.

cs72
(where is the Yawn?)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


From what I am gleaning there is fraud and possibly murder involved.

I must get to bed!

later tomorrow.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70

Run you better Run

Where did you read that these records have a different standard for the president of the United States? I would like to read that too.


Oh I am back! I thought this was another person.. I said that just out of my "wizened little brain" because exceptions can be made regarding adoptions----I know a case and he was nothing special at all--just turned on a little charm with a school teacher and found out his birth mother's married name and location---was all uphill from there! She was in the phone book about 80 miles from me!

n
i
g
h
t
y but none tonighty

edit on 14-5-2011 by canadiansenior70 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Excellent thread! Amazing the amount of work you obviously put into it. I am always astounded by people who seem to think that we deserve to know nothing about the man elected President of the USA. Especially since he promised to have the most transparent administration in history. We know thousands of things about each of the former President's and next to nothing about the current one except his fondness for lying, breaking promises and twisting the truth behind a bag of euphemisms. It also never seems to bother some folks, that he has expended a great deal of time, money and effort in attempting to keep his past and true identity secret. There's a difference between "private" and "secret" I might add.

Thank you for creating a very thought provoking thread.

P.S. - For those who think Obama doesn't lie, please feel free to check this out - obamalies.net...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Surely this was not planned it just happened and no one was behind these obama's missing papers to keep this misinformation from the public. There is no conspiracy, that the wealthy people running the show behind the machine did these manuvers intentionally it just happened out of thin air. It is impossible that candidate obama was groomed for the presidency many years ago by the NWO or was it it possible, oh surely not. ^Y^



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


When someone runs for office their information needs to be verified and therefore it comes into the public record now looking at all this info it doesn't seem thay anybody verified anything which is crazy maybe in 2012 we will have an illegal mexican get put into office and you guys will say thay he doesn't need a green card ad even if he had one it would be private info



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
BOMBSHELL...CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE...


Offer Upgrade
User ID: 1383147
United States
5/14/2011 11:52 AM
Edit Your Post
Add to Favorites
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
BOMBSHELL...Conclusive Proof Obama NOT ELIGIBLE
Suggest Pin Quote [+]

Northern Michigan Truth Out is a website ran by my friend with myself helping. My friend, Brandon, has done EXTENSIVE research and put out an article showing THAT NO MATTER WHAT Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE to be president of the United States. This is a MUST READ!



Introduction:

Obama Nation is an investigation relating to the constitutional requirements for the presidency of the United States Republic. This report will show substantial evidence supporting the claims that President Barack Hussein Obama is currently serving office unconstitutionally. This report will show why Congress should start impeachment trails against Obama for his acts of treason against this country.
Constitutional Requirements for President:

Section I of Article II of the United States Constitution: 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 with the United States.

This investigation will show three different independent case scenarios ranging from all three different sides of constitutional eligibility arguments. These three scenarios will show that President Barack Hussein Obama isn’t legally able to obtain the office of presidency. This news article posted by the N.M.T.O. staff will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in all three cases of constitutional interpretation, Mr. Obama should be removed immediately from office due to his unconstitutional status he holds.
CHAPTER ONE: (Section I of Article II Requires Only an Individual to be Birthed on U.S. Soil?)

CASE SCENARIO NUMBER 1:

In order for anyone individual to run for the oval-office, he/she must be the minimum age of 35 and have been a resident for at least 14 years of the United States, while being born on United States soil? This argument is heavily supported by the ongoing BIRTHER MOVEMENT. This movement is desperately trying to prove that President Obama is not “Truly” born in his birth place of Hawaii as he claims. Nationwide birther individuals claim he was born in his father’s country of Kenya. These individuals support the belief that Section I of Article II requires a person to be born within the confinements of the States and/or at least U.S. territory minimum (Example: Japanese U.S. Base and etc.). If Obama was however truly born in Kenya as the ‘birthers’ claim, then Mr. Obama knowingly has committed treason against our constitutional republic.

The problem however with the BIRTHER MOVEMENT, is that they and society at large, hasn’t looked into the legal definition relating to “NATURAL” status. This article will now brake down the official definition of “NATURAL” and what is required for a citizen to be eligible for presidency. 1. Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 2. Those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. 3. The country of the father is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens. 4. In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only that place of his birth, and not his country. We must now also look up the definition of the word “NATIVE”: The word native is described as – geographical. A primary example of this is Indians. When our founders of this country moved here, American Indians already had birth rights over our territory (land). That is why our society categorizes Indians under the phrase “American Indians”. Their native land (geographical) is the U.S. shores. Thus the American people need to come to the realization that any individual born on United States soil is a “native” automatically by legal definition. We need to also understand that this doesn’t give the same emphasis to being a “NATURAL citizen”. A natural born citizen child is one who is born of parents that are citizens of America. Those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their inheritance (rights). These are the terms of being an automatic natural citizen. The A Voice in the Wilderness has a good article explaining further in depth this argument. Link: [link to a-voice.org] This V.W. article also touches on the issues relating to biblical terms for Christian citizenship in Gods Kingdom (Heaven). The article goes on to tell us that a person’s father gives him his natural birthright citizenship under the “Law of Nations”.

According to the Law of Nations which is predated to the founding legal principles of our constitutional society, the founders of this republic, made it unmistakably clear, that the father granted rights to his children within our territory. The founding fathers made this a key principle for one main rational reason. They understood the threat of monarchy power and how a monarch could potentially over-throw the Constitutional American government. Without this added protection of Section I of Article II pertaining to our U.S. Constitution, the sovereignty of the United States could be at risk. The founders feared the possible threat that a monarch royalty could bare a child with a female U.S. citizen, who then, as the child came of age, could someday help grow his fathers kingdom (empire). This threat is a highly probable possibility considering that this nations fathers lived under the British tyrannical crown of England. Historically former kings would have their children reproduced their offspring’s to other nations. This international entanglement (allegiances) would help grow empires and inter-twine their headship over the general common folks of societies.

Now since we have looked into this side of interpretation to this constitutional crisis, this would then disqualify President Barack Hussein Obama from the oval-office. Barack’s father the 1st, was not a natural born citizen, but was a native citizen of Kenya. At the time of Barack’s birth, Kenya was under the legal ownership of the British parliament. This pickle Obama has put this nation under is indeed the biggest constitutional disaster this country has ever had. Could you imagine the nationwide epidemic of a national cry of racism this would bring upon our central government if Congress would start an impeachment trail on our first dark skin American president? I firmly believe this backlash would most likely result in a civil war regardless of the true nature of the constitutional interpretation of our supreme law (The United States Constitution). But to get back to this point of this news article, about those definitions relating to “NATURAL & NATIVE” terms, we should have then come to the logical conclusion that one’s birth is inherited by his/her’s father. We then understand that Obama is not able to legally be our president. This would even conclude the fact that it wouldn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii or on the planet of Mars. The problem with the birther movement is it is asking the wrong question. Although an important question. (Where’s the birth certificate?), birthers should be asking what is the legal definition to be a “natural” citizen?

Since we have looked into this side of interpretation to this constitutional crisis, while understanding the Laws of Nations, showing that a child inherits its rights from his father, could the general PRO-Obama-Knights argue Barack’s constitutional eligibility since his mother was an American citizen by birth right herself?

The Answer is NO…But to help stop the feminist outcry of sexism pertaining to this news article, we should mention clearly that Obama’s mother, although 18 when she labored our president’s birth, could “NOT STATUTORILY CONFER NATURAL BORN” status LEGALLY, even though she could marry and enlist into our military. Why you might question (Huh). Simply because she could NOT VOTE at the time. In the 1960’s a person couldn’t vote until the minimum age of 21.

READ REMAINDER
[link to nmto.org]



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
We need to keep this thread going, there is a fraud in the white house and the MSM wont allow anyone to speak on it publicly. This is a wolf in wolfs clothes and his job is to do as he's told, I wonder who told him and why we had to go into libya??



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977
I thought you yanks were really big on your right to privacy. Then you list a bunch of private documents and complain you have not seen them? Some are even made up. Adoption papers not released? What adoption papers? I hear Obama has yet to release is Honorary Starfleet Academy records as well. You guys almost make me weep for your country. First I see a thread asking to bring back the Hoover black lists and communist hunts, now private papers including kindergarten records? must be demanded for the president of the United States? Did anyone ask for any of these things before the last election or is this all just really sore losing? I really almost do not recognize what used to be such an amazingly free and tolerant place.

When I envision the world John McCain would have presided over, I wake up in a cold sweat.



Well, when you say you are going to be transparnt to the people of US you better not be lieing. THatis what his whole thing was in my opion was he was going to be open and not have secrets. Why can't I read his thesis? yes, your right who cares about kindergarten records, but when there are things that you should have no problem realesing and just will not it makes the mind think and everything is then put into question. If Obama had not said he was going to be tranparent, then no one would have cared if he lied because it is expected for the president to lie.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Am I being PUNKED here?

Is this for real or just a confusing dream?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70

In 1966 or 1967 Ann Dunham married Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo (1936-1987),..... Soetoro then adopted Obama, whose name was changed to Barry Soetoro...... which made Obama an Indonesian citizen, according to Indonesian law. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen, in or about 1967. At that point Obama also ceased to be a Kenyan citizen, according to both Indonesian and Kenyan law.

Indonesia’s policy of not allowing dual citizenship must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930. Further, Obama, as a child, was not required to personally renounce his U.S. citizenship – that would have been an automatic result of his adoption by Lolo Soetoro.



Well, unfortunately eveything your source said was wrong and that's what you get for believing without fact checking. There is only ONE way to renounce US citizenship and it's clearly stated at the US State Dept web site - and it has NOTHING to do with the lies published by your source.
travel.state.gov...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NMTruthOut
BOMBSHELL...CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE...


Offer Upgrade
User ID: 1383147
United States
5/14/2011 11:52 AM
Edit Your Post
Add to Favorites
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
BOMBSHELL...Conclusive Proof Obama NOT ELIGIBLE
Suggest Pin Quote [+]

Northern Michigan Truth Out is a website ran by my friend with myself helping. My friend, Brandon, has done EXTENSIVE research and put out an article showing THAT NO MATTER WHAT Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE to be president of the United States. This is a MUST READ!



Introduction:

Obama Nation is an investigation relating to the constitutional requirements for the presidency of the United States Republic. This report will show substantial evidence supporting the claims that President Barack Hussein Obama is currently serving office unconstitutionally. This report will show why Congress should start impeachment trails against Obama for his acts of treason against this country.
Constitutional Requirements for President:

Section I of Article II of the United States Constitution: 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 with the United States.

This investigation will show three different independent case scenarios ranging from all three different sides of constitutional eligibility arguments. These three scenarios will show that President Barack Hussein Obama isn’t legally able to obtain the office of presidency. This news article posted by the N.M.T.O. staff will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in all three cases of constitutional interpretation, Mr. Obama should be removed immediately from office due to his unconstitutional status he holds.
CHAPTER ONE: (Section I of Article II Requires Only an Individual to be Birthed on U.S. Soil?)

CASE SCENARIO NUMBER 1:

In order for anyone individual to run for the oval-office, he/she must be the minimum age of 35 and have been a resident for at least 14 years of the United States, while being born on United States soil? This argument is heavily supported by the ongoing BIRTHER MOVEMENT. This movement is desperately trying to prove that President Obama is not “Truly” born in his birth place of Hawaii as he claims. Nationwide birther individuals claim he was born in his father’s country of Kenya. These individuals support the belief that Section I of Article II requires a person to be born within the confinements of the States and/or at least U.S. territory minimum (Example: Japanese U.S. Base and etc.). If Obama was however truly born in Kenya as the ‘birthers’ claim, then Mr. Obama knowingly has committed treason against our constitutional republic.

The problem however with the BIRTHER MOVEMENT, is that they and society at large, hasn’t looked into the legal definition relating to “NATURAL” status. This article will now brake down the official definition of “NATURAL” and what is required for a citizen to be eligible for presidency. 1. Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 2. Those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. 3. The country of the father is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens. 4. In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only that place of his birth, and not his country. We must now also look up the definition of the word “NATIVE”: The word native is described as – geographical. A primary example of this is Indians. When our founders of this country moved here, American Indians already had birth rights over our territory (land). That is why our society categorizes Indians under the phrase “American Indians”. Their native land (geographical) is the U.S. shores. Thus the American people need to come to the realization that any individual born on United States soil is a “native” automatically by legal definition. We need to also understand that this doesn’t give the same emphasis to being a “NATURAL citizen”. A natural born citizen child is one who is born of parents that are citizens of America. Those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their inheritance (rights). These are the terms of being an automatic natural citizen. The A Voice in the Wilderness has a good article explaining further in depth this argument. Link: [link to a-voice.org] This V.W. article also touches on the issues relating to biblical terms for Christian citizenship in Gods Kingdom (Heaven). The article goes on to tell us that a person’s father gives him his natural birthright citizenship under the “Law of Nations”.

According to the Law of Nations which is predated to the founding legal principles of our constitutional society, the founders of this republic, made it unmistakably clear, that the father granted rights to his children within our territory. The founding fathers made this a key principle for one main rational reason. They understood the threat of monarchy power and how a monarch could potentially over-throw the Constitutional American government. Without this added protection of Section I of Article II pertaining to our U.S. Constitution, the sovereignty of the United States could be at risk. The founders feared the possible threat that a monarch royalty could bare a child with a female U.S. citizen, who then, as the child came of age, could someday help grow his fathers kingdom (empire). This threat is a highly probable possibility considering that this nations fathers lived under the British tyrannical crown of England. Historically former kings would have their children reproduced their offspring’s to other nations. This international entanglement (allegiances) would help grow empires and inter-twine their headship over the general common folks of societies.

Now since we have looked into this side of interpretation to this constitutional crisis, this would then disqualify President Barack Hussein Obama from the oval-office. Barack’s father the 1st, was not a natural born citizen, but was a native citizen of Kenya. At the time of Barack’s birth, Kenya was under the legal ownership of the British parliament. This pickle Obama has put this nation under is indeed the biggest constitutional disaster this country has ever had. Could you imagine the nationwide epidemic of a national cry of racism this would bring upon our central government if Congress would start an impeachment trail on our first dark skin American president? I firmly believe this backlash would most likely result in a civil war regardless of the true nature of the constitutional interpretation of our supreme law (The United States Constitution). But to get back to this point of this news article, about those definitions relating to “NATURAL & NATIVE” terms, we should have then come to the logical conclusion that one’s birth is inherited by his/her’s father. We then understand that Obama is not able to legally be our president. This would even conclude the fact that it wouldn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii or on the planet of Mars. The problem with the birther movement is it is asking the wrong question. Although an important question. (Where’s the birth certificate?), birthers should be asking what is the legal definition to be a “natural” citizen?

Since we have looked into this side of interpretation to this constitutional crisis, while understanding the Laws of Nations, showing that a child inherits its rights from his father, could the general PRO-Obama-Knights argue Barack’s constitutional eligibility since his mother was an American citizen by birth right herself?

The Answer is NO…But to help stop the feminist outcry of sexism pertaining to this news article, we should mention clearly that Obama’s mother, although 18 when she labored our president’s birth, could “NOT STATUTORILY CONFER NATURAL BORN” status LEGALLY, even though she could marry and enlist into our military. Why you might question (Huh). Simply because she could NOT VOTE at the time. In the 1960’s a person couldn’t vote until the minimum age of 21.

READ REMAINDER
[link to nmto.org]


What a large load of bullcrap. Vattel was not the most influential Jurist on our Nation's founding fathers - it was the English Jurist Blackstone according to most modern legal scholars. Further, Blackstone believed in Jus Soli (right of soil) vice Vattel's Jus Sanguinis (right of blood). If you reread the 14rth amendment, and Title 8, section 1401-A of United States Code, you will clearly see that it was Blackstone's definition of citizenship that was adopted.
edit on 14-5-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
There is only one real issue here: as per the original intention of the founding fathers - does Obama have divided loyalties?

The answer is a resounding yes! - he is not fit to be president, fortunately he is also technicaly inelligable as well!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70


Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation


This data originally garnered from TheObamaFile.com.

Updated: 07/07/09

WorldNetDaily’s “Where have all his records gone?” posting further elaborates on the following:
•Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — $15. - JUST RELEASED SO SORRY

•Certification of Live Birth — Released – Counterfeit — Case and Affidavits - Is legal so don't try to go there.
•Admitted British citizenship at birth — Confirmed via FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com - DENIED VIA FIGHT THE SMEARS
•Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery - The local paper has it on microfilm.
•Hospital of birth — Kapi’olani Medical Center won’t confirm Obama’s birth assertion; sister claims a different hospital -
•Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released - NOT REQUIRED
•Obama/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
•Kindergarten records – Records lost (this is a big one — see here — read two frames) - CLASSIFIED AS APART OF YOUR JUVENILE FILE
•Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released - NOT REQUIRED
•Soetoro adoption records — Not released - DOES NOT EXIST!
•Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
•Punahou School records — Not released - NOT REQUIRED
•Soetoro/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
•Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit — Document Locator Number update — another FOIA request - DOES EXIST
•Occidental College records — Not released - NOT REQUIRED
•Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser
•Columbia College records — Not released - NOT REQUIRED
•Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” – Not released
•Harvard College records — Not released - NOT A REQUIREMENT
•Harvard Law Review articles — None - NOT A REQUIREMENT
•Illinois Bar Records — Not released. - NOT A REQUIREMENT
•Baptism certificate — None - SINCE WHEN WAS THIS REQUIRED?
•Medical records — Not released - NOT A REQUIREMENT
•Illinois State Senate records — None
•Illinois State Senate schedule — GO ON THE WEB
•Law practice client list — Not released - CLASSIFIED TO PROTECT ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY
•University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

www.therightsideoflife.com... URL for further links.


Answered in quote. Whose business is it of a Canadian's to try and school us here and please for future reference provide an original thought.

My, my, still trying to cite World News Daily as a respectful agency! BTW, horrible and epic fail trying to dominate the post with a quote.

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!
edit on 14-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by canadiansenior70
 


Don;t you just love when a Canadian tries to school us American's on our laws and requirements as Canada is not a truly free nation as y'all answer to the Crown!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
There is only one real issue here: as per the original intention of the founding fathers - does Obama have divided loyalties?

The answer is a resounding yes! - he is not fit to be president, fortunately he is also technicaly inelligable as well!


Why don't you tell us the real reason why you think he's got questionable allegiances and please try to form an original thought!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
More irrelevant and absurd demands by the birthers.

Are these documents in any way relevant to the conditions prescribed by the Constitution as the requirements for office? No? Then stop wasting our time with this crap.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Despite an occasional misspelling and perhaps some historical misperceptions, the posting by NMTruthOut hits the nail on the head. For the other posters that don't understand why many Americans are so interested in the "birth" issue, the "constitutional crisis" described by NMTruthOut should answer their question.

The reason the "birth" issue has to be resolved is this: If, in fact, Barack Obama was never eligible to be President of the United States, the fact that he was elected calls into question the legality (within the Constitution) of all of his actions since taking office.

If it is discovered that Barack Obama has obtained the office of The President under false pretenses, our country will be immediately plunged into the depths of a constitutional crises that will require an examination and reassessment of every Executive Order made, and document signed, by Barack Hussein Obama. Not to mention the actions of all the people he appointed to other government offices. Additionally, all the subsequent actions taken as a result of their actions will have to be reviewed and "walked back".

It makes no sense that there is so much material that would normally be easily found about any person in the US that seems not to exist, or is simply not available, for Barack Obama.

Does anyone else remember Barack Obama's family members in Kenya, shortly after his election, proudly proclaiming that they attended his birth in a Kenyan hospital? Don't hear much from them anymore.

There remain many legitimate questions concerning the past life of our sitting President.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join