Birthers: We Were Right. The BC is a FRAUD!!! Obama Lovers: Debunk THIS!

page: 52
141
<< 49  50  51    53 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
o.k., I big time mistake.
Its the state of Hawaii district court.
Dept of Health is subpoened to produce the BC and other documents by 6/29/2011.
Here's a copy of the subpoena.

www.orlytaitzesq.com...




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Personally, I believe the document may be a fake. That's not to say I don't believe he was born here, simply that for whatever reason, the true document could not be shown.

Let's say, hypothetically, Obama's birth certificate is proven false and he faces criminal charges. I would be seriously doubtful that even if a judge announced today they would take on the case that it would be resolved before the 2012 election. Even if it were, would President Biden be any different?

"Birthers" feel wronged, lied, and cheated, yes. But isn't the ultimate goal to rid ourselves of Obama and his people? At this point, I'd say the best course of action would be to simply start getting behind another candidate now. Put forth the rational evidence of Obama's policies to people you know and try to get them to vote for someone else on election day.

Before someone calls me a "sheeple," yes, I know if the TPTB want Obama to stay president, he will. But, if they want him to be president, he'll never be impeached, either.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dephyle
Personally, I believe the document may be a fake. That's not to say I don't believe he was born here, simply that for whatever reason, the true document could not be shown.



It is a fake, in the same vein that a photocopy is a fake.

Just like you cannot present a photocopy of your birth certificate to obtain a passport, likewise you couldn't present a PDF, so in that, sure it IS a fake.

However, the information ON that fake is accurate.
edit on 28-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
its not going to matter anymore, before you know it we will have "The Governator" being president and all of you that think this wont happen are just sitting back watching the bill of rights being torn up infront of them



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
o.k. gang, here is pretty much the entire issue involved here.
This includes both sides of the eligibility issue.
And why the actual definition of same is not actually totally resolved yet.

www.thepostemail.com...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadtoad
o.k. gang, here is pretty much the entire issue involved here.
This includes both sides of the eligibility issue.
And why the actual definition of same is not actually totally resolved yet.

www.thepostemail.com...


This is great information. It is interesting that the 2nd CRS memo has not been released for the public. Why?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I'll care about his when they arrest & prosecute George Huge Berserker Bush for Iran /Contra and GWB jr for outing a CIA agent.
According to the right conception begins at birth so Obama was born in America. Period, who cares in comparison?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by roadtoad
 


It's ironic that you use a report that condems a memo released (2X) because it was based on information from the internet, and yet the report you cite is also strictly internet based.

We see some variation of this argument come up yearly - "What WE believe the Founding Fathers meant...", and gets shot down each year like clockwork. Face it guys - US Code and SCOTUS decisions don't support you.

Current legal scholars credit Blackstone - not Vattel as being the most influential on our Founding Fathers. How can Title 8 section 1401-a of US Code exist if Vattel was right? How can the decisions of Wong Van Ark, Perkins V Elg, and Schneider V Rusk *all* exist if Vattel was correct?

John Jay neither authored nor did he sign the Declaration Of Independence nor The Constitution. As for Jay's "vital input" to Geo Washington, you'll notice that his recommendation was read and ignored as no such qualification or specification was incorporated into the Constitution.

The quote on the Rusk case implies only two kinds of citizenship: "Naturalized" and "Native-Born" and states the only difference between them is that "Naturalized" cannot be President. This argument really hurts the Post & Mail's argument and it was not wise for them to bring it up.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 

He must come up with a birth certificate because of new laws passed he will not be able to get his name on the ballot in several states in 2012 without it.
So just curious. Do you find this illogical or nonsensical?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Puck 22
 


Wherever you are getting your info from is dead wrong as the INCUMBENT CANDIDATE MUST BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT AND TO DENY THAT PERSON THIS RIGHT!

No State has the legal authourity to deny the incumbent this right!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Puck 22
He must come up with a birth certificate because of new laws passed he will not be able to get his name on the ballot in several states in 2012 without it.
So just curious. Do you find this illogical or nonsensical?


What laws?

You mean the laws that never passed or the laws that accepted the original short form from 2008 that none of you realized was perfectly legal already? Maybe quote a few of these new laws.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
To userid1
As usual, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You're assigning me a position, and then arguing against it.
I said , 'the issue', which includes your position.
It seems that the issue will probably come down to: whether 'native born' of the `14th admendment equals 'natural born' if the constitution.
What is so ironic, or paradoxical, if you will, that I, as a native indian, realize that the 14th admendment made all 'native born' americans to be american citizens, except the native american, or native indian, if you will, who became a ward of the state (and all indian religions against the federal law) for 63 years, and then, de facto against the law for another 40 years.
My father did not have human being rights until he was 22 years old.
If you throw in public law 280 (you'll have to google it.) on top of that, maybe you can see why we had a 50% death rate amongst reservation boys all through the '50s, before age 18.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
This seems to be a statement by some guy asserting he knows more than the Department of Health about their policies concerning birth certificates, and rehashing the same opinions and interpretations about the PDF file already expressed here by birthers ad nauseam.

Am I missing something? What exactly was proven? Can you tell us specifically what this man has been able to prove?


I was just going to say what you said above....you did it for me thanks. Anyway...really people get over it....President Obama's birth certificate is real...think about it.....he would not be President if it wasn't.....ever since he has been in politics and probably even before...he has been throughly checked out. He is an American with a BC.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadtoad
I said , 'the issue', which includes your position.
It seems that the issue will probably come down to: whether 'native born' of the `14th admendment equals 'natural born' if the constitution.
This notion that there’s a difference between a “14th Amendment citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen” is completely without merit. It’s just another non-issue the birthers cling to because they don’t understand US jurisprudence and really really want Obama to not be eligible.

The 14th Amendment is declaratory of what was already the law before there was a 14th Amendment. Read the debates of the Amendment.


Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.


What is so ironic, or paradoxical, if you will, that I, as a native indian, realize that the 14th admendment made all 'native born' americans to be american citizens, except the native american, or native indian, if you will, who became a ward of the state (and all indian religions against the federal law) for 63 years, and then, de facto against the law for another 40 years.
There is no irony or paradox. Indians weren’t US citizens because they were not in the jurisdiction of the United States. They were considered sovereign tribes, they weren’t subject to the laws of the United States.

Again, from the 14th Amendment debates—

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment—I presume he will have no objection to it—by inserting after the word “thereof” the words “excluding Indians not taxed.” The amendment would then read:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Firstly I watched the video and it is clear this guy has no idea what he is talking about as he ignored the letters on the page which curve correctly and secondly who cares! Let me be clear, the only people that care about this are a few of the people that didn't vote for Obama, the people that did vote don't care where he was born. Your trying to remove a President that had the majority of the votes based on a technicality. I think anyone that try to subvert the democratic process to be very UN-American. If your not happy either try and create change for the FUTURE elections or move to another country. Either way chillaxe guys.

I can not find any birther that fought against Bush stealing his first presidential election or Bush going to war on the WMD lie so I think I am safe in saying this is not a just a bunch of patriotic Americans strict on right and wrong in politics. It is in fact just a partisan tool for people unhappy with the way America voted and wan't to cheat America out of its democratic vote
edit on 31/5/2011 by BungleX because: To write 2nd paragraph



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BungleX
 


I can not find any birther that fought against Bush stealing his first presidential election or Bush going to war on the WMD lie so I think I am safe in saying this is not a just a bunch of patriotic Americans strict on right and wrong in politics. It is in fact just a partisan tool for people unhappy with the way America voted and wan't to cheat America out of its democratic vote


Well if by birther, you mean someone that is not totally convinced that the one he released is valid, well then you just found one. I bashed and protested against bush way more than I have against obama, but that is only because he had more time in office so far. obama is taking the country, in the same direction bush did, and clinton before him. Down the goddamned toilet. I spit on them all!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


I'm astounded that I and other sane, logical, educated, well-spoken and literate people are drawn to the same website as this poster. I probably should have just ignored it, but the quality of the post just compelled me to reply. And not even with the choice adjectives that were immediately brought to mind. Why oh Why am I even typing?
just
hit
reply



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I can't see how you can say that the plight of the native indian was not ironic, nor paradoxical, when, after we were made american citizens in 1923, hence human beings, with, supposedly more rights than a german shepard, we were still denied 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', as well as every one of the bill of rights, that we were still considered heathens, our religions still illegal, all marched to christain church as a part of our american public education, for another 40 years. That, if you refused to go to christain church, that you would be expelled from school.
That, especially those of us under public law 280, making law against the law on the reservation, still had a death rate amongst reservation boys of 50% before age 18, all through the '50s', all due to murder and suicide, not a one of those murders ever solved.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   


I'm astounded that I and other sane, logical, educated, well-spoken and literate people are drawn to the same website as this poster. I probably should have just ignored it, but the quality of the post just compelled me to reply. And not even with the choice adjectives that were immediately brought to mind. Why oh Why am I even typing?
just
hit
reply
reply to post by kkrattiger
 


Are you saying that I am not sane, logical, well-spoken, or educated? Or are you stating you are in a agreement with my post? Because I have to tell you, anyone with the attributes which you have stated, should be just as disgusted and fed-up as I am. It does not take a great deal of intelligence to figure out when you have been had. Although many people choose to stick there heads in the sand and make a million excuses as to why the situation does not warrant investigation. My post is out of frustration for the fact that there is an insurmountable amount of conflicting information about his background, yet no one, including him, will explain it. I know, and I am sure most of you do as well, that the man is hiding the truth. God dammit it is time we get some answers!!!!
People need to be held accountable and punished.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadtoad
To userid1
As usual, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You're assigning me a position, and then arguing against it.
I said , 'the issue', which includes your position.
It seems that the issue will probably come down to: whether 'native born' of the `14th admendment equals 'natural born' if the constitution.
What is so ironic, or paradoxical, if you will, that I, as a native indian, realize that the 14th admendment made all 'native born' americans to be american citizens, except the native american, or native indian, if you will, who became a ward of the state (and all indian religions against the federal law) for 63 years, and then, de facto against the law for another 40 years.
My father did not have human being rights until he was 22 years old.
If you throw in public law 280 (you'll have to google it.) on top of that, maybe you can see why we had a 50% death rate amongst reservation boys all through the '50s, before age 18.


As usual, another load of crap. This argument about Vattel was debunked 2 or more years ago - so for you to say it's 'valid" now is pure BS. Yet you brought it up and tried to distance yourself it while using it to support your point. SORRY - that dog won't hunt!!!!!!

As for your your status as an American citizen - who cares....It has NOTHING to do with the thread...





new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 49  50  51    53 >>

log in

join