Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Butterbean on August 23, 2008, 12:05:07 PM
-
I've heard for months now that Obama's citizenship is in question but I guess I kind of dismissed the claims as internet rumor. Someone emailed me pics of what were supposed to be his (Forged?) certificate of live birth awhile back...I will look for them.
Apparently last night on some radio program an attorney was on saying he was suing Obama re: the citizenship deal...not because he doesn't support the Dem. party, but because he thinks the Repubs are sitting on this until it will be too late and he wants to bring it to light now.
Anyone heard these things?
-
Yeah, I actually ran into a US atty, and he said this exact same thing
I brushed it off, as nothing, and still do - why would the Republican party even let him run during the primaries?
Post the email, when you get a chance.
-
Yeah, FOX news would have run this shit long ago if it was credible.
If they did pull it last minute, they'd just put hilary on the ticket. she'd probably do better, to be honest lol
-
Lawsuit Challenges Barack Obama Citizenship
by BMCWrites | August 23, 2008 at 12:10 pm | 187 views | 1 comment
by BMCWritesProminent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter Phillip Berg has filed a lawsuit contesting Barack Obama’s citizenship qualifications to seek the presidency.
Upon learning of the lawsuit, I couldn’t help but conclude that Berg must have read one of these Bob McCarty Writes posts about the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee:
Barack Obama Birth Certificate Dubbed a Fake (July 21, 2008)
Update Offered on Bogus Obama Birth Certificate (Aug. 4, 2008)
Blogger Demands FEC Verify Obama’s Eligibility (Aug. 7, 2008)
Below are the key points of the lawsuit which, if successful, could turn the 2008 presidential election process upside down:
1. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, the Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is he must be a “natural born” citizen. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a minor and in the custody of his mother. Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen (18) years to regain his United States Citizenship status.
2. The Democratic National Committee is for Plaintiff and “We the People” who believe in the Democratic Vision. The Democratic National Party is supposed to represent the Democratic Americans in seeking honest leadership, Open Government, Real Security, Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity, Educational Excellence, a Healthcare System that works for Everyone and Retirement Security. The Democratic Party is supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. Of which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision and who is qualified and eligible to run for Office of the President under the qualifications of the United States Constitution.
3. The actions of Obama, a U.S. Senator, in running for President of the United States, knowing he is not eligible, have been taken entirely without authorization under the United States Constitution, completely ignoring the qualification and procedures created by the United States Constitution he is purporting to enforce.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/lawsuit-challenges-barack-obama-citizenship
-
this would be huge.
i'll put about as much credibility into it as i did the 'whitey tape' that everyone swore by ;)
mccain was born overseas as well.
-
this would be huge.
i'll put about as much credibility into it as i did the 'whitey tape' that everyone swore by ;)
mccain was born overseas as well.
Actually your missing the point.
Obama has denied several of these things, just as with his associate Ayers. Later on, he breaks and admits it to them...
This being out in the open, hurts Obama, because it is now in people's minds.
Is he a citizen?
Hve you read the thesis, yet? Or you were just saying you would read t?
-
Oh for fuck sake ::)
-
mccain was born overseas as well.
Dude, why do you say shit like this? There isn't even a comparison.
Wiki: "John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).
-
Post the email, when you get a chance.
Here is the link that was in his email that allegedly has a copy of the certif.
I don't think I've seen any updates from him on this specific link.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
-
Yeah, and a DOD adjudicator called into the Rush Limbaugh program and said Obama doesn't even have good qualifications for a security clearance.
-
Ok, now you guys cut this kind of crap out. THIS IS NOT the way elections should be won, I'm dusgusted at seeing this stuff
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
Close up images and examination:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
-
Ok, now you guys cut this kind of crap out. THIS IS NOT the way elections should be won, I'm dusgusted at seeing this stuff
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
Close up images and examination:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Mccain hired the guy who floated that he had an illegit african american baby in 2000.
-
Mccain hired the guy who floated that he had an illegit african american baby in 2000.
Who cares.. Two members of Obamas campaign staff resigned after they were accused of having ties to Al-Queda. We could play this game all day.
-
Mccain hired the guy who floated that he had an illegit african american baby in 2000.
Don't you mean Rove hired? I've heard it on good authority that Mccain doesn't represent his campaign. ;)
-
"it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago."
Why would his real birth certificate be anywhere but in his possesion?
-
"it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago."
Why would his real birth certificate be anywhere but in his possesion?
Maybe because with all the nitwit propagandists claiming it is not, ...he has to show it off regularly.
Good thing I'm not running for Prez, ...I don't reveal my age to no one! >:(
-
"it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago."
Why would his real birth certificate be anywhere but in his possesion?
ahahahahahahahaha... Are you serious...
-
Next week it will be Obama's parking tickets followed by his youtube caught littering. Last week it was Barack's alleged sneezing ::)
-
ahahahahahahahaha... Are you serious...
let me guess it's in a safe, that is in a vault, and the only people that can attest to it's authenticity have to stay behind the velvet rope, haha.
-
let me guess it's in a safe, that is in a vault, and the only people that can attest to it's authenticity have to stay behind the velvet rope, haha.
You're such a jackass... The state usually keeps the original. Did you even fucking bother to click the link I posted above and read it or are you just that stubborn ::)
"The actual certificate is usually stored with some government office, although the parents of the child and later the child itself are authorized to obtain certified copies "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate
-
This is so funny, we get shit all the time for the slightest conspiracy theory and look who finds the tin foil hats fashionable come election time...
-
Whew, thank goodness for that. For a minute I was thinking that you could not fake a notary public raised seal, or a signature stamp.
In that case I'm sure the original is in a safe, in a vault, that is hidden in a DNC office, behind a velvet rope, being guarded by a Nation of Islam member.
Good thing we got the issue of it being a fake, cleared up because some person took photos of it and "brought them home."
-
Whew, thank goodness for that. For a minute I was thinking that you could not fake a notary public raised seal, or a signature stamp.
In that case I'm sure the original is in a safe, in a vault, that is hidden in a DNC office, behind a velvet rope, being guarded by a Nation of Islam member.
Good thing we got the issue of it being a fake, cleared up because some person took photos of it and "brought them home."
Did you read anything? Or are you just skipping over posts and making shit up? Because that's exactly what it looks like.
-
This is so funny, we get shit all the time for the slightest conspiracy theory and look who finds the tin foil hats fashionable come election time...
A difference exists between a lie, and a consipracy theory.
Such as my grandfather freed prisoners at an Aushwitz camp. - Lie.
-
Did you read anything?
Yeah, I read it was fake.
Guess we will see, when the case goes to court.
-
This is so funny, we get shit all the time for the slightest conspiracy theory and look who finds the tin foil hats fashionable come election time...
LOL... remember joelocal and the 'clinton body count'?
he was accusing a leader of a terrible crime without any evidence, only coincidences and his supposition.
It'll be funny to see which libs suddenly hate CTers, and which neocons become CTers, if obama wins.
-
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
-
Yeah, I read it was fake.
Guess we will see, when the case goes to court.
you're hands down the biggest fucking douche on this board and dumb as fuck. You didn't even know the state maintains the original. You won't even call it after I provide a link in which the state confirms the certificate is authentic and when examined by an independent source, it had all the things you fucking clowns said it didn't. But oh well huh... You do what you've always done best on this board, bullshit and lie. Their case will not make it to court, it'll get tossed, but they propably knew that. People like you are pure fucking scum and what you do with this shit is FUCKING EVIL. You're a fucking maggot.
-
wow that is super weird, the security guard let the reporter in the vault, gave access to the safe, let him pass the velvet rope, and take the birth certificate scan it, and send it over email, into cyberspace?
total lack of security protocol.
I'm glad the reciever was able to verify the "raised seal" from looking at a picture.
-
wow that is super weird, the security guard let the reporter in the vault, gave access to the safe, let him pass the velvet rope, and take the birth certificate scan it, and send it over email, into cyberspace?
total lack of security protocol.
I'm glad the reciever was able to verify the "raised seal" from looking at a picture.
LOL @ Cters.
maybe the security guard did 911, dude?
-
wow that is super weird, the security guard let the reporter in the vault, gave access to the safe, let him pass the velvet rope, and take the birth certificate scan it, and send it over email, into cyberspace?
total lack of security protocol.
I'm glad the reciever was able to verify the "raised seal" from looking at a picture.
keep it up, you just sound more stupid, since what you just said isn't remotely close to anything anyone has said but you.
-
maybe the security guard did 911, dude?
Not sure, can you send me his birth certificate via email, I can check it out.
hmmm.
After, closa inspection, no he had no involvement. But he was a member of the Trinity Church and agreed with Rev. Wright that the "roosters have come home to roost"
-
after reading this crackhead's bullshit, I need a drink :D
-
keep it up, you just sound more stupid, since what you just said isn't remotely close to anything anyone has said but you.
Haha you sure about that?
Cause you said....
Did you read anything? Or are you just skipping over posts and making shit up? Because that's exactly what it looks like.
And at the start of this thread I said...
I brushed it off, as nothing, and still do - why would the Republican party even let him run during the primaries?
::)
-
Haha you sure about that?
Cause you said....
And at the start of this thread I said...
::)
Hey, you're the one that jumped in challenging the origin of the certificate. With each successive post you appeared to be playing off the fake aspect more with your bullshit. If you baited it, that's your fault, not mine. To me, it just looked like you changed your view starting with an oh yea, why wouldn't he have the original.
-
Are you admitting Corsi is full of shit?
-
After, closa inspection, no he had no involvement. But he was a member of the Trinity Church and agreed with Rev. Wright that the "roosters have come home to roost"
Didn't the CIA talk about blowback as the exact same thing?
Rev Wright is a crybaby whiner who thinks the world owes him, sure.
But didn't the CIA say the same thing, that 911 was a result of our overseas involvement, and had nothing to do with 'they hate our freedoms'?
-
They hate us for our freedoms lol... classic ;D
-
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
As of 1 AM EST today, October 2nd, 2008, the Court has not ruled on the Motion for Dismissal in Berg v. Obama.
-
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
As of 1 AM EST today, October 2nd, 2008, the Court has not ruled on the Motion for Dismissal in Berg v. Obama.
did you read anything in this thread before posting this? ::) Do you even care that this has been checked in detail and disproven by both politifact and factcheck?
-
They hate us for our freedoms lol... classic ;D
Yes, that one kills me, still stuns rational people could even think such a thing. Next thing you know, adults will be writing letters to Santa ::)
It is pretty scary when the electorate still falls for these things.
Economy is failing, US is world largest debtor and tax money is pouring offshore to cover just the interests, almost 1 million job losses this year alone, people are losing homes, US dollar is beign dumped like fire worldwide, tons of dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan, the list is endless.....
And people actually care about a birth certificate.
And worse still think CIA, CNN, Fox, Mccain et al somehow let this slip by, but some tweeb found out and emailed it :-\
-
Yes, that one kills me, still stuns rational people could even think such a thing. Next thing you know, adults will be writing letters to Santa ::)
It is pretty scary when the electorate still falls for these things.
Economy is failing, US is world largest debtor and tax money is pouring offshore to cover just the interests, almost 1 million job losses this year alone, people are losing homes, US dollar is beign dumped like fire worldwide, tons of dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan, the list is endless.....
And people actually care about a birth certificate.
And worse still think CIA, CNN, Fox, Mccain et al somehow let this slip by, but some tweeb found out and emailed it :-\
Ya mean Santa isn't real? ....damn! :'(
-
I actually do believe the original scan is of his true short form COLB. If you look at the one that supposedly does not have the State seal, in the area where the seal should be you can (barely) make out where the seal is - the dots are distorted in a manner consistent with a seal being there.
However, in the lawsuit there are many questions that SHOULD be answered. Just because he was born on U.S. soil, due to his mother's actions, he may not be eligible to become president.
His mother could also have had his birth registered in the U.S. and still have been born elsewhere. And, his paternal grandmother claims she was at his birth in Kenya.
Then there's his Indonesian citizenship obtained through his step-father. Is there an Indonesian passport that he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981?
Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro needs to address these issues.
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
It's pretty ugly out there.
-
Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit
Friday, October 24, 2008 4:16 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally-mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.
The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.
The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.
By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.
Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.
Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.
“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”
“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”
The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
“It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.
“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”
In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax.
“The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance,” a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax.
“Lawyers frequently do not return telephone calls or meet discovery deadlines because of sheer inadvertence. Therefore, we do not consider a failure to respond as a ‘violation,’” he said.
Allegations surrounding Obama’s place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth — Click Here.]
Respected conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called the Berg lawsuit a “conspiracy theory” that had been put to rest by the Obama campaign over the summer but ”has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere.”
However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.
In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.”
The Web site “snarkbites.com” has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.]
In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign.
Berg has been a perennial political candidate in Pennsylvania, having run in Democrat primaries for attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, and other offices without success. He served as deputy attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania from 1972-1980.
His credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left “9/11 for the Truth” campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by “controlled demolition” ordered by the president of the United States.
Nevertheless, in recent weeks, lawsuits have been filed in seven additional states demanding that Barack Obama produce an original vault copy of his birth certificate, to dispel the rumors that he is not a natural-born United States citizen.
The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records.
Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states’ secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency.
Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 his memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote.
Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.
In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed a copy of his birth certificate.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/24/143882.html
-
nice bump douchbag, it's only been posted half a dozen times already ::)
buttcrimp Coatch much?
-
nice bump douchbag, it's only been posted half a dozen times already ::)
buttcrimp Coatch much?
lol. What did I miss? Who posted this 24 Oct. story a half dozen times?
I'm actually planning the next anti-Obama conspiracy with Coach.
-
lol. What did I miss? Who posted this 24 Oct. story a half dozen times?
I'm actually planning the next anti-Obama conspiracy with Coach.
yea, it's been posted half a dozen different ways... I give a shit not that some douche regurgitated the same fucking story today... it's been posted over and over..
-
yea, it's been posted half a dozen different ways... I give a shit not that some douche regurgitated the same fucking story today... it's been posted over and over..
Hey Einstein, I posted an update on the lawsuit.
-
Hey Einstein, I posted an update on the lawsuit.
yea, it's been fucking posted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
yea, it's been fucking posted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where has the story I just posted talking about Obama failing to respond to the lawsuit been posted!!!!!!!!!!!!
[The exclamation marks are not serious. Just making fun of a needless meltdown.]
-
Yeah, FOX news would have run this shit long ago if it was credible.
If they did pull it last minute, they'd just put hilary on the ticket. she'd probably do better, to be honest lol
Read his site: www.obamacrimes.com
The man suing Obama is a democrat and ex- state attorney general.
This case is going forward in Federal Court and ZERO still has not produced a valid birth certificate.
ZERO is hoping to run out the clock and deal with this afterwards.
-
Here is the link that was in his email that allegedly has a copy of the certif.
I don't think I've seen any updates from him on this specific link.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
The thing put up on Obama's site is a forgery and his attorneys have not produced it in cvourt as proof because they know it is a fake.
Go to michaelsavage.com and there is a long interview with the attorney bringing the case and he addresses all these issues.
-
Dude, why do you say shit like this? There isn't even a comparison.
Wiki: "John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).
240 doesn't think that newborn of soldiers that live on far base deserve citizenship :-X
-
It has also been raised that Obama would likely fail to qualify for a security clearance.
-
It has also been raised that Obama would likely fail to qualify for a security clearance.
Usage of hard drugs, connection to terrorists, criminals and communist revolutionists does that to you.
^^ those will be Cocaine,Ayers,Rezco and that Kenyan dude I forgot his name..got more to name if you guys like :-*
-
Dude, why do you say shit like this? There isn't even a comparison.
Wiki: "John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).
Coco Solo Hospital was built 5 years after McCain was born... he was born off base.
Nice try...
-
Explanatory note for the cognitively challenged: this is another update on the lawsuit. :)
Pa. Judge Throws Out Obama Citizenship Suit
Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:33 AM
A federal judge has tossed out a complaint that Barack Obama's name should be taken off the ballot because he is ineligible to be president because he is a citizen of Indonesia rather than the United States.
Former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg claimed in a complaint filed in federal district court that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, rather than Hawaii, according to the Philadelphia Daily News. The complaing demanded that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.
On Friday night, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick sided with the Democratic National Committee, which had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint.
Surrick issued a 34-page memorandum and opinion that said the claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false." He also said Berg's effort to pursue his claim regarding Obama's citizenship were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
Allegations surrounding Obama’s place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth — Click Here.]
However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.
In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.”
The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.]
In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/25/144048.html
-
Such as my grandfather freed prisoners at an Aushwitz camp. - Lie.
You dumb fuck....
-
Coco Solo Hospital was built 5 years after McCain was born... he was born off base.
Nice try...
It's from wiki, don't shoot the messenger.
And you don't have to born on a DOD installation to be a citizen. Your parents just have to be stationed overseas when you are born.
-
It's from wiki, don't shoot the messenger.
And you don't have to born on a DOD installation to be a citizen. Your parents just have to be stationed overseas when you are born.
With his hate to the troops don't be surprise if Hussein will try to change that if he gets elected.
Democrats seem to hate the military that defend them.... :-\
-
With his hate to the troops don't be surprise if Hussein will try to change that if he gets elected.
Democrats seem to hate the military that defend them.... :-\
Barney Fag already said he is going to push to cut the military by 25%.
-
Obama Must Stand Up Now or Sit Down
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
NewsWithViews.com
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).
Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.
To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?
These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,
f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).
In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”
Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve” and “sign,” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
-
Updated at 12:49 p.m., Friday, October 31, 2008
Hawaii officials declare Obama birth certificate genuine
Associated Press
HONOLULU -- State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the U.S.
Earlier today, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064
-
Updated at 12:49 p.m., Friday, October 31, 2008
Hawaii officials declare Obama birth certificate genuine
Associated Press
HONOLULU -- State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the U.S.
Earlier today, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064
The state of hawaii must be in on this grand conspiracy.
maybe all the states are in on it.
This one might go all the way up to the highest office in the land - the VP.