Confirmed: Obama's Birth Certificate Not Authentic 2012

page: 2
152
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
So almost every day now we are getting new threads about this old topic.

Every ask yourself why? Does anybody think that its a coincidence that this is an election year?
Does anybody think its a coincidence that these threads are coming in thick and fast as the popularity of GOP candidates is sinking?

Let me be clear about this. Some people who oppose Obama have so little confidence in a Republican candidate being able to beat him they want to remove Obama from the democratic process altogether. To them Iis less important whether the claims are true or not and it doesn't matter if democracy is undermined in the process.

Now, even if by some chance that his BC was not authentic, does anybody REALLY think the US political process would ban him from running? Not only would there be a political war in Washington, but the issue would set Americans against each other. Yeah, divide the nation even more.

Guys, not only is this not happening, but people smell this type of desperation. And when people smell desperation they usually cold shoulder the instigator. In this case I expect independents and swing voters to be even more turned off by the BC issue.

Ordinary people want to hear about how their jobs, they want to hear how the economy and business will grow, they are worried about crime and education standards... Instead we get this.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Whats so shocking about just one of the many many frauds people commit to get their hands on power?
The guy is a CIA clone in the frst place.........



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by freethinker123

Now, even if by some chance that his BC was not authentic, does anybody REALLY think the US political process would ban him from running?


Section 1 of Article Two 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 within the United States."


So your answer is Yes, unless the government wants to go to war with its citizens. To counter your other remarks, I think the american people would see their corrupt government a bigger problem than "making jobs". Fixing the integrity of the government would be the first priority, so this is hardly a trivial matter.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
This is so funny. If this is true then his ass isn't gonna be prez ne more. The people will be so happy. lol



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by freethinker123
Now, even if by some chance that his BC was not authentic, does anybody REALLY think the US political process would ban him from running?


I hope so.

Let me rephrase your statement without changing the meaning: "Now, even if by some chance that his BC was a fraud, does anybody REALLY think the US political process would ban him from running?"

Disseminating publicly "Not authentic" government documents to the public at large is called fraud. Fraud is illegal in the U.S. Do you really think that if it came out publicly (and publicly is important here) that this document was a forgery (which is the real term for computer generating a government document), that impeachment would not be on the docket?

Perhaps I'm being naive and thinking too highly of Congress at this point because it takes Congress to initiate impeachment hearings.

Has a sitting president, in the middle of impeachment proceedings ever been re-elected? I can't say for sure, but I don't think so.

If I were to generate a birth certificate saying I was born in the U.S. and then used that document to get benefits from the U.S., only later to be found out that it was a forgery, what would happen to me? The same process, regardless of who the person is, should be used for ALL - even the POTUS.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
How is this 'official'?

All that's new is that an un-named, volunteer associate of a local politician with whose integrity courts and others are less than impressed, has said that a document that person doesn't have access to is fake.

What skills or qualifications does that person have to make that judgment?

What skills or qualifications Sheriff Joe have to confirm the accuracy of what he has been told?

Where is the report of the professional tests he must, surely, have had conducted before Sheriff Joe announced his conclusion?

What jurisdiction does Sheriff Joe have to do anything about it in the Federal legal system? (I'd guess that the answer to that question is 'absolutely nothing').

How does Sheriff Joe being involved make any change or difference to anything?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The only reason I could imagine anyone backing an imposter is someone who would have something to gain by it!
Can you say, show me the money?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snippy23
How is this 'official'?

All that's new is that an un-named, volunteer associate of a local politician with whose integrity courts and others are less than impressed, has said that a document that person doesn't have access to is fake.

What skills or qualifications does that person have to make that judgment?

What skills or qualifications Sheriff Joe have to confirm the accuracy of what he has been told?

Where is the report of the professional tests he must, surely, have had conducted before Sheriff Joe announced his conclusion?

What jurisdiction does Sheriff Joe have to do anything about it in the Federal legal system? (I'd guess that the answer to that question is 'absolutely nothing').

How does Sheriff Joe being involved make any change or difference to anything?



All of those questions are for a court of law to hear and decide. I hope it goes to court, it should. If a person believes that fraud has been done on the American public and has enough evidence then they should charge whoever is behind these documents try them. The outcome should be for the legal system to determine. That is how it would work if it were you or me, that is how it should work if it's a POTUS.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I found this to be an interesting read.

hotair.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snippy23
How is this 'official'?

All that's new is that an un-named, volunteer associate of a local politician with whose integrity courts and others are less than impressed, has said that a document that person doesn't have access to is fake.

What skills or qualifications does that person have to make that judgment?

What skills or qualifications Sheriff Joe have to confirm the accuracy of what he has been told?

Where is the report of the professional tests he must, surely, have had conducted before Sheriff Joe announced his conclusion?

What jurisdiction does Sheriff Joe have to do anything about it in the Federal legal system? (I'd guess that the answer to that question is 'absolutely nothing').

How does Sheriff Joe being involved make any change or difference to anything?



If you are an American it should mean something to you or not ?? I think that every American has a right to have a legitimate president or not ??

If 313,115,000 Americans disagree and stands up than somebody has to answer for the crime or not ???



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
What I can take from this with a twinkle in my eye and a smirk on my face is,a relative nobody in a very real high profile way injected a huge dose of doubt in the coming elections for a phony!



Oooooooooooo... and TPTB spent so much money on him!
edit on 4-3-2012 by ajay59 because: to add



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by caturday
 


In reply to that article............"I did not have sexual relations with that women"

Not the first time our government has been involved in a cover up..........



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordDrakula

If you are an American it should mean something to you or not ??

I think that every American has a right to have a legitimate president or not ??

If 313,115,000 Americans disagree and stands up than somebody has to answer for the crime or not ???




Um.... or not?




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
This story just won't go away.


It leads me to ask, just what is he hiding????

And why???



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by LordDrakula

If you are an American it should mean something to you or not ??

I think that every American has a right to have a legitimate president or not ??

If 313,115,000 Americans disagree and stands up than somebody has to answer for the crime or not ???




Um.... or not?



....probably not ....



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The rhetoric is starting to heat up now. Just had someone on my facebook post a half hour clip on how "Obama hates Jews". Then this person said that he/she thought he was the anti-christ.

The GOP hasn't had a good go of it lately, with all the woman bashing. They are hurting in the polls and it's becoming more apparent each day that Obama may get re-elected..so now it's time to pull out all the stops.

edit on 4-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by freethinker123

Now, even if by some chance that his BC was not authentic, does anybody REALLY think the US political process would ban him from running?


Section 1 of Article Two 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 within the United States."


So your answer is Yes, unless the government wants to go to war with its citizens. To counter your other remarks, I think the american people would see their corrupt government a bigger problem than "making jobs". Fixing the integrity of the government would be the first priority, so this is hardly a trivial matter.



Well good luck with that. Nothing is going to happen and like I said the end result will be less votes for Obama's opponents.

I'm pretty sure that as long as the BC keeps being raised the Obama campaign team must be happy about having not to talk about issues they have failed on.

And btw the possible exposure of a false birth certificate will do NOTHING to fix the itegrity of government. Nothing would have changed and the corruption will continue.
edit on 4-3-2012 by freethinker123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The scandal just continues.
Kudos to the volunteers that have all that time researching and investigating this birth cert, the good thing is it costs us nothing.
That person of interest will soon be dead, like Brietbart.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
The scandal just continues.
Kudos to the volunteers that have all that time researching and investigating this birth cert, the good thing is it costs us nothing.
That person of interest will soon be dead, like Brietbart.


Well, good luck on knocking off everyone else who knows Photoshop.
Would put a major dent in the market for Apple though.

I despise both parties equally, I have no partisan interest in whether his CLB is fake or not.
As a citizen I have a right to know if he is a legitimate candidate for the highest office in the land.
If the Supreme Court decides to run interference again our rights won't matter.
They've fumbled this ball before.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by caturday
I found this to be an interesting read.

hotair.com...



Great, more evidence that government officials are willing to commit perjury.
"you can't prove fakery from a copy"
- unless someone *cough* is able to produce an original _/b] nobody can prove that's a fake either.
So, the argument here is that if a criminal gives evidence that shows fraud it's inconclusive for showing guilt or at a minimum criminal intent.
Do I have that right?

Famous last words:


I an NOT a crook!







 
152
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join