Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Ok. Then why do people say Rice, Rumsfield lied. Shouldn't we also take them at their word since they also work in government agencies. First of all, I don't think any politician or government should be taken at their word unless under oath. Call the IRS with a tax question on two different days and you will probably get two different answers. Now show me where I said this Fukino lied. I said it is real suspicious that throughout the campaign he/she kept saying they couldn't give out no information and then suddenly towards the end they give a statement. They left themselves open for criticism and conflict of interest. They should have given that statement the first time they were asked.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

Originally posted by Moonsouljah


OBAMA is really a KING. Obama hatched from an Egg in the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and he lived his early life in Atlantis preparing to become President!

So wait, Obama is Namor?

Originally posted by jam321
Just like people should have gotten over Bush beating Gore instead of the election was stolen.

Difference: The election was stolen in 2000 and 2004. A combination of (highly illegal) voter nullification through caging and intimidation, plus an un-Constitutional Supreme Court intervention in a State electoral matter, handed Bush the 2000 Presidency. Republican operatives have admitted this.

I have no beef with the BC. I do have a beef with people trying to chide other people for not seeing it their way. If people feel that Obama is a mojado and feel they can prove it then they have every right to do so. It is equivalent to people wanting to charge Bush with crimes.

Except Bush actually committed crimes--torture, extraordinary rendition, violation of Habeus Corpus, conducting an invasion/war of aggression against a nation that did not attack us first, outing an active, undercover CIA Agent during time of war.... The list goes on, but I'm sure you've heard, and dismissed, it all before. Evidence for these crimes exists. Evidence for Obama being a non-citizen does not. Big difference.

an prove it go for it. Stranger things have happened. From my standpoint neither side is going to change their opinion and this thread will join the 20 other BC thread in lenght.The easiest way to end all is for Obama to have a Rally in Hawaii live where he is asking, getting, and showing his birth certificate in person. It won't solve the problem 100% but 99% would put it to rest.

But the nay-sayers still wouldn't believe it. If they're willing to accuse Hawaiian state health officials of lying then there is no amount of evidence Obama can provide to satisfy them. Which, frankly, he has no need to do anyway--innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

And that's the problem, and the reason I deride these people--they are convinced Obama is committing a crime, or he is some kind of "NWO plant", or (pet theory here) and they have NO EVIDENCE to back up their claims. They demand Obama find some way to prove he ISN'T either of these things, which is, quite frankly, un-American. They will not believe any amount of evidence Obama can ever provide. Everything is suspect to these people. And that's why they deserve no respect in my opinion.

Originally posted by robotically
reply to post by The Nighthawk

 

Listen ConservativeFreak, I am a US Marine, don't talk to me about patriotism. I have show with blood sweat and tears that I love this country just as much as the next guy. You understand that you are basically condemning those who seek the truth. I just don't buy everything that is spoon fed to me, get it? Now, if you have something constructive to say then speak, otherwise can it!

Seems more like a condemnation of those who deny the truth when it's standing in front of them, waving its arms and screaming their names hysterically.

The simple facts are this:

* There is no creditable, court-admissable evidence to prove he wasn't born in Hawaii or later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia. I don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and neither does the law. It will not entertain right-wing blogs and fringe sites as creditable sources.
* The highest court of the nation has set a precedent of what they will do with these cases: they will not entertain them.
* The premise of this 'conspiracy' is ridiculous. It would involve so many people from different nations, levels of government, and political views over such a long period of time that the plausibility of it being real is zilch.

I'll say this again: all of the evidence is hearsay or circumstantial. Hearsay is not permissable in a court of law and for circumstantial evidence to be valid it must be from a creditable source (i.e. unambiguous and without an agenda or motive to discredit the defendant). Also, if circumstantial evidence does not clearly establish the situation, or it shows that more than one possibilities had an equal or greater chance of occuring, it is not considered legally admissable.

An unclear and confusing tape of Obama's grandmother is hearsay because her testimony is not taken during trial. It is also unreliable circumstantial evidence because it is ambiguous and the interviewer had an agenda.

A school form from Indonesia is unreliable circumstantial evidence because it does not clearly indicate that Barak gave up his citizenship in Indonesia.

The interview with the ambassador is hearsay because it was not made in court and was edited by the interviewers.

The experts that debunked his COLB were not experts, and their testimony is once again hearsay because it was not made under oath. If they were reliable, Berg or Donofrio would have used them in the earlier cases under oath, or they would have asked the ruling to be appealled in the face of new evidence.

What is the evidence he is a natural born citizen?

He has provided a COLB, which shows more than enough information to prove he was born in Hawaii. A COLB is considered reliable evidence in a court of law because it is a government document.

The same school form from Indonesia shows he was from Hawaii, which is circumstanstial; however, it is unlikely that his step-father would lie to Indonesia about him being born in the states - he had no motive to lie about Barak's birthplace. If anything, he would have put his birthplace as Indonesia.

Hawaii has verified they have his original BC. Hawaii does not have the right or the ability to confiscate foreign birth certificates from individuals in the name of the department of health; therefore the only BC they can have is his original VBC.

There are two birth announcements in Hawaiin newspapers for Barak's birth. Yes, this evidence is circumstantial; however it is admissable because the parents lacked a motive to lie about their child's birth. Even if he was born in Kenya, he would still be a US citizen, and it's ridiculous to think his mother gave birth to him, flew him across the world, and then lied to the media just in case Obama ran for President one day.

Obama may be a Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, bla bla whatever, but when officials from the local to Federal level do not dispute his natural born status, when every branch of the government does not dispute his natural born status, when the media does not dispute his status, when his rival party does not dispute his status, then perhaps his status is valid.

That is the long and short of it using simple, legal terms.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by The Nighthawk

 

it is real suspicious that throughout the campaign he/she kept saying they couldn't give out no information and then suddenly towards the end they give a statement. They left themselves open for criticism and conflict of interest. They should have given that statement the first time they were asked.

Jam...this is a great example of the "never good enough" argument people rightly make concerning this issue. The folks questioning his citizenship carried on for months about how the woman from the Hawaii Dept. of Health wasn't clear enough in her validation of Obama's COB...and when someone with more authority there indulges this nonsense and elaborates and indisputably validates the COB and his citizenship...the TIMING is suspect?? Really?, C'mon.

All proof provided is not sufficient.
All evidence to the contrary is ignored.
Embrace ignorance and untruths when it favors your position.
Ignore facts and evidence if they invalidate your claims.

reply to post by The Nighthawk

Which, frankly, he has no need to do anyway

Here is where you hit on the nail. This is what I want cleared up for future elections. Let's leave Obama out of this one. Like I said before I have no beef with Obama BC. However, I do have a problem that there is no one entity responsible for verifying which candidate is elegible to run for President as stated in the Constitution. No candidate is required to provide any documents to anybody if they don't want to. And the majority of these documents, like BC, are not available to the average person. A candidate putting a piece of paper on the internet is not sufficient because that leaves the door open to fraud. I would like to see a single agency that verifies under oath that said candidate is elegible to run for the Presidency. I see it as upholding our constitution as we should. There are many other areas were our constitution is being abused and we need Congress and the Court to start addressing these issues.

reply to post by maybereal11


yes, the timing is suspect. At first, they tell everybody that no information can be giving out. Then they give a big statement. If this had been somebody from the Bush administration doing this, would the other side not have screamed that it was awkward timing. Believe what you like, I make arguments for nobody. I call it like it is and this was awkward timing considering no info was given out previously.

Originally posted by jam321
Ok. Then why do people say Rice, Rumsfield lied.

Because they did lie. Remember Colin Powell going to the UN to show off the doctored "weapons labs" photos? That was all a lie. They told us we went to Iraq for WMDs (not enough of a reason to invade a sovereign nation even if it were true) and that obviously wasn't true. They told us we had to invade because Saddam wouldn't play ball on inspections--so he did play ball, and they came up with more reasons to invade anyway (he was involved in 9/11, he tried to get yellowcake from Nigeria, etc.)--NONE of which were true. Read up. Bush and Co. lied through their damn teeth, AND they've gone to great lengths to cover it up (such as deleting official emails, another violation of Federal law).

Shouldn't we also take them at their word since they also work in government agencies. First of all, I don't think any politician or government should be taken at their word unless under oath.

Then you get the Government you deserve, which frankly sucks.

Call the IRS with a tax question on two different days and you will probably get two different answers.

With a tax system so filled with loopholes and complications designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer I'm not surprised.

Now show me where I said this Fukino lied.

You didn't say it, you asserted it. As below:

I said it is real suspicious that throughout the campaign he/she kept saying they couldn't give out no information and then suddenly towards the end they give a statement.

That's generally how government works when this kind of thing pops up. Dr. Fukino probably A) thought it was frivolous and not worthy of comment and B) was likely limited in what statements they could make because of the nature of the situation, and the fact state law prohibits releasing certain kinds of info. It may have taken this long just for the state's legal counsel and the Governor to give Dr. Fukino the go-ahead yo make a statement.

They left themselves open for criticism and conflict of interest. They should have given that statement the first time they were asked.

And if they couldn't because they were bound by procedure?

Government ain't like you see on TV where everyone just says and does what they damn well please and pick up the pieces later--especially in high-level State offices.

Originally posted by jam321
Here is where you hit on the nail. This is what I want cleared up for future elections. Let's leave Obama out of this one. Like I said before I have no beef with Obama BC. However, I do have a problem that there is no one entity responsible for verifying which candidate is elegible to run for President as stated in the Constitution. No candidate is required to provide any documents to anybody if they don't want to. And the majority of these documents, like BC, are not available to the average person. A candidate putting a piece of paper on the internet is not sufficient because that leaves the door open to fraud. I would like to see a single agency that verifies under oath that said candidate is elegible to run for the Presidency. I see it as upholding our constitution as we should. There are many other areas were our constitution is being abused and we need Congress and the Court to start addressing these issues.

On a philosophical level I might agree with this; however, the creation of such an agency is in itself un-Constitutional. Fact is, there is already a mechanism in place to do this. You may not agree with how it conducts its business, but the SCOTUS and the Senate are responsible for verifying all of this information and verifying the Electoral Vote.

reply to post by The Nighthawk

Because they did lie. Remember Colin Powell going to the UN to show off the doctored "weapons labs" photos? That was all a lie.

Just like you want those who say Obama BC is fake, people would want you to provide proof of this also. Everything about this BC is proof. Like I said before, if somebody has proof that Obama's BC is fake then they have every right to challenge him in court whether people like it or not.

A) thought it was frivolous and not worthy of comment and B) was likely limited in what statements they could make because of the nature of the situation, and the fact state law prohibits releasing certain kinds of info. It may have taken this long just for the state's legal counsel and the Governor to give Dr. Fukino the go-ahead yo make a statement.

Guess now your making up options for them.

“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.

source

Ignore the BS site. I just wanted the quote from Fukino. From this portion, it seems Fukino took it upon himself because this BC was handled differently from all others. Even you can't refute that.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Can you shoe me where it says who verifies that the President is elegible?

Maybe I have been overlooking it. Obviously the SCOTUS isn't or they would have verified past candidates and Presidents as well. I know my state isn't cause they just accept the paperwork. You may have a point on the Senate but I have yet to come across it.

Well NightHawk, I've enjoyed the debate. Like I said Obama is President. I just want clarity on who verifies the candidate. See ya around.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by jam321]

Originally posted by jam321

I have no beef with the BC. I do have a beef with people trying to chide other people for not seeing it their way. If people feel that Obama is a mojado and feel they can prove it then they have every right to do so.

Agreed. I have no issue with people having OPINIONS that Obama isn't a citizen. But if they are going to claim it as fact and present false evidence in an effort to convince others...Then they should be prepared for responses from people concerned with the truth.

"Don't we have a right to ask?" That is the argument I see from the Obama is not a citizen camp so often. YES, you have a right to ask..Absolutely. Bravo...and we have a right to answer and support our answers with clear facts, laws and evidence...

Don't ask for the truth if you don't want it.
"You can't handle the truth!" ...sorry great Jack line.
Don't post disproven nonsense and claim it as truth and then play the victim when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Facts and evidence are good...whomever's opinion they support. I just don't see any facts from the non-citizen contingent here. Just recycled, disproven propaganda.

Reality isn't left wing biased in Obama's favor. It is just reality.

Asking questions is easy...Honestly and objectively seeing the answers to those questions doesn't seem possible for some folks intent on clinging to emotionally driven positions.

Thus the often unfair claim of "racism"...people just don't know how else to explain the complete disregard for facts and evidence in favor of claims that have been repeatedly proven to be propaganda.

reply to post by maybereal11


you've made your point. You also have the right to prove otherwise. Obama is President until somebody proves otherwise in a court of law. IMO, the chances of that is slim to none. Starred.

Keith Olbermann is going to discuss this tonight.

Excellent post, Gekko!

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
An unclear and confusing tape of Obama's grandmother is hearsay because her testimony is not taken during trial. It is also unreliable circumstantial evidence because it is ambiguous and the interviewer had an agenda.

Actually, we're not even sure it's his grandmother. The tape could have been entirely manufactured in someone's basement. This so-called "evidence" is NOT.

A school form from Indonesia is unreliable circumstantial evidence because it does not clearly indicate that Barak gave up his citizenship in Indonesia.

Real evidence would be:
Indonesian citizenship records.
US Consulate records from when Obama supposedly gave up his US citizenship.
A legal statement from the Kenyan Ambassador.
A Kenyan Birth Certificate.

If they were reliable, Berg or Donofrio would have used them in the earlier cases under oath, or they would have asked the ruling to be appealled in the face of new evidence.

Exactly!

Originally posted by jam321
Just like you want those who say Obama BC is fake, people would want you to provide proof of this also.

Oh God, this has been gone over so many GD times I've lost count... It's there, it's been proven again and again, I'm not going to bother. Frivolous attempt to derail on your part.

Everything about this BC is proof. Like I said before, if somebody has proof that Obama's BC is fake then they have every right to challenge him in court whether people like it or not.

But they have no proof whatsoever. Just hearsay and circumstantial evidence, which is inadmissible without creditable sources, as noted above.

Guess now your making up options for them.

No, I'm speculating on the logical, reasonable, possible reasons for what you personally deemed "suspicious" timing of Dr. Fukino's statements.

Ignore the BS site. I just wanted the quote from Fukino. From this portion, it seems Fukino took it upon himself because this BC was handled differently from all others. Even you can't refute that.

Yes, I can refute it. He says specifically it was NOT handled differently from others. Read the quote again. It says exactly the OPPOSITE of your assertion.

"No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii," Fukino said.

Where are you getting this crap? Seriously.

reply to post by ConservativeJack

Thats a joke right?
No really its a joke right?
..........HA ya got me i almost went on a rant good 1 lol you got me good.

reply to post by maybereal11


Honestly, I do not support either of the boneheads that ran for president (Go Ron Paul!) But to be frank I have seen just as much disinformation and propaganda on BOTH sides of the debate. It is exceptionally difficult to remain unbiased when researching for evidence. The natural tendency is to disregard evidence that does not support one's perspective and use only that which supports their own belief. I am not making excuses for either side, mainly because I am not for either side. But that is what I have seen on the gazillion threads on this subject here.

If in fact the BC is not legitimate, the DNC should be the ones that everyone looks to prosecute, as it is their responsibility to ensure their candidate meets the eligibility requirements.

I am going to take this one step further, if the powers that be wanted to bring in their police state and marshal law, this would be the perfect opportunity. All they had to do was have the Supreme Court hear the case and declare Obama ineligible, this would effectively start a cival war and allow them to easily impose marshal law and incorporate a police state.

How can you deny that his BC wasn't handled differently?

Can you please name any other time that the Hawaii Department of Health has made a statement that somebody's BC was verified by those working by the agency?

If that isn't handling a BC different from all others than I don't know what is.

But they have no proof whatsoever. Just hearsay and circumstantial evidence, which is inadmissible without creditable sources, as noted above.

And you may very correct in what you say in this statement. However, it is up to the court to decide this and so far they have come to this conclusion. That doesn't mean people have to quit trying just because other cases have been thrown out.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


This can only mean one thing:

You haven't heard the last yet, this will probably go on for the next
8 years. In and out of court so many times, they'll probably assign
him his own turnstile at the door.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by grover

 

FOR CHRISTS SAKE GET A FRICKIN LIFE!!! GET OVER IT EVEN, YOUR SIDE LOST

Just like people should have gotten over Bush beating Gore instead of the election was stolen.

The big difference is that the supreme court meddled in the election of 2000 and appointed the winner.

If bush minor had won outright without the courts interference there would not have been such bad feelings about it.

I repeat... it would be a disaster for our country for the court to build on that precedent and start involving itself in settling elections.