reply to post by spoor
Okay, point #1. I have a thread linked in my signature. It applies VERY well to some people. Very well indeed. You might want to go check it and see
how closely it may just apply in your case. I'll leave that, right there......
As to your argument being absurd. THAT, sir, is a matter of my personal opinion. I have a right to mine as you have a right to yours. The
fact you respect no one else's right to have one...without proof made 6 different ways while YOU offer nothing in return but this Spanish Inquisition
act to anyone who *DARE* disagree with you is, in itself ABSURD. That, too, is my opinion. I have a right to it. This is still, for now, a free
As a matter of fact, no I DO NOT have the same rights to close my records as the President. If you knew anything about how records systems
and databases of personal and private information operate in the United States, you'd be aware of the fact that there are different classes of
protections. Police, for example can have *EVERYTHING* about them protected and blocked in some circumstances and in some states. Intelligence
Officers essentially vanish from many databases entirely.
The President....ANY PRESIDENT...has enough flags placed on their data to light up Secret Service boards like a Christmas Tree gone haywire if some
idiot starts running their name in a place that isn't openly accessible to the general public. A Private Investigators License is like a ticket to
view the world.......and almost EVERYTHING about private citizens. Right up to a certain point. Have you read the agreements to services like Merlin
or IRB? I have. They specify this things right out the gate and up front in plain language no one can miss. However, you think how you'd like on
this. I wasn't one, my late father was and aside from making some extra money doing computer background invetigations for him from time to time, I
just got done closing out his Estate as executor and dealing with those services. I DO know what I am talking about on this and in absolute terms.
Care to dispute? put up more than your opinions and challenges. Show something yourself for a change and back a challenge with proof there is actually
a challenge to make at all.
Next, I have no idea if Obama has shown it for a Drivers license. I'd presume he did just as I'd presume he'd had a B/C all this time.
That proved to be correct...after one hell of a LOOOOONG public set of games and evasions before Arizona finally pinned it down and answered what HE
could have answered in 2008. Clean and easy back then... but no, it was too profitable to play politics on and divide a nation. He's a weasel for
that, by itself.
Next,. The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 states as follows:
"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, the document doesn't say he has to produce a Birth Certificate. Although Obama is the *FIRST* one to outright refuse. Humphrey produced one as a
Candidate and Eisenhower produced one on request as well. It's NOT unheard of or unprecedented. It's actually THE ONLY WAY to establish the
fulfillment of the above stated requirements when they have been questioned. It took Obama to make a federal case out of a simple piece of paper
everyone in this nation has. In context to this, by the way, the Constitution ALSO fails to say I have the Miranda warning as a right which MUST be
read to me. It doesn't say I can own a machine gun, although with $200 and the time of getting the right permits, I certainly can. There are many
things that document doesn't spell out and doesn't HAVE to.
Lastly, your opinion of the B/C is your opinion and frankly, I have no respect for it after hearing it. I'm in my second college course on
Photoshop and being trained professionally how to use the program as part of my undergraduate degree program. *I* can see PERSONALLY how badly handled
the editing of that document was. I'm no expert YET and the experts who did testify under oath and in a federal court in Georgia DID examine the
document. As attested to. If they lied... Good... Go see them prosecuted. By simply saying it, they committed a felony in a Federal Court. Have at it.
Now, our chat is over from my end until a reply has more than bumper sticker slogan, party talking points and opinions with absolutely nothing but
your own personal thoughts as support to their accuracy or foundation. THIS reply was out of principle and the desire to set the record straight on a
few plain points of law and fact.