BREAKING! Obama Papers Leaking Out! Birth Papers-School Papers Exposed!

[Cruisingfool]

I fully believe you two have all the evidence to back your claims, so anyday you want to let the cat out of the bag..... Go for it!

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Cruisingfool

I fully believe you two have all the evidence to back your claims, so anyday you want to let the cat out of the bag..... Go for it!

Point of Clarity: Aside from saying I can't keep all the stories straight, I haven't made any claims.

From what I can gather from this thread -

A. Star is convinced Obama never attended Columbia.

B. You insist that Obama was born outside the United States but if our president had been born in the U.S., he'd be a citizen eligible to occupy the White House.

C. Twoller says whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, his offspring can't hold the presidency.

At this point, I'm going to drink a glass of milk, take two aspirin and hope my head isn't still spinning in the morning.

May the force be with all three of you.

[REWHBLCAIN]

Sunday, 14th February 2010
An interesting situation has developed over the last year or so regarding challenging the qualifications and eligibility of people to hold the offices they hold.

In one, Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State has been challenged on the basis that when she was a U.S. Senator, immediately prior to being appointed by President Obama as Secretary of State, the Senate increased the salary of that position three times. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

That language prohibits Mrs. Clinton from holding the office of Secretary of State, despite a “legislative fix” to roll back the compensation increase before she actually took office, according to a challenge by Judicial Watch, which disputed the appointment in the name of a State Department employee.

The details of the complaint are less important than the reason for it being dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court concluded the State Department employee lacked legal standing to bring suit.

Another similar case involves President Barack Obama, whose citizenship, and thus his eligibility to be President of the United States, has been called into question by some citizens. A number of suits have been filed, and most have been dismissed, some of them because, again, those filing the suits lack legal standing to sue a candidate or office holder.

Here is a definition of legal standing:

The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

If a senator or representative is prohibited by constitutional provision from holding an office for which the body he/she served in has voted a pay increase, exactly who has standing to challenge that individual’s eligibility? If the employees of the State Department – who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and are thus prohibited from acting on orders from a Secretary that is ineligible for the office – don’t have standing to challenge their boss’s eligibility, who does have standing?

The people who question Mr. Obama’s citizenship are held in contempt by his supporters, and others who believe that Mr. Obama is a citizen as required by the Constitution. But taking the personalities and party affiliations out of the question, the fundamental issue is an important one.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that someone who isn’t a naturalized citizen manages to get through the campaign and is nominated at his/her party, wins the election and is sworn in as President, and at no time along the way was he/she required to prove citizenship. This seems an absurdly unlikely possibility, but the fact is that a candidate’s citizenship is assumed, rather than ascertained. In such a case, how do the American people remove a President from office who isn’t a citizen if no U.S. citizen has standing in the courts to bring the action?

Put another way, what is the point of having laws and established procedures on the books if no one has the standing necessary to apply them by bringing a court action?

In a country where virtually anyone can file a suit against virtually anyone else for any reason (or no reason), citizens are prohibited from filing suit against an elected leader unless they have “standing,” which seems to be so tightly defined as to eliminate nearly everyone who might believe there’s a reason to sue a leader.

If a citizen had irrefutable proof that an elected or appointed official was for some reason ineligible to hold that office, the citizen would be unable to file suit to remove the ineligible official unless he/she met the very thin definition of standing; the citizen would have to show that his/her personal legal interest had been invaded by the illegal President or Secretary in order to remove him/her from office.

And if no one has standing to sue for dismissal, or if those with standing do not sue, the ineligible official would continue to hold office. That is fundamentally wrong in this country, which prides itself on freedom and the rule of law.

For judges to view standing so narrowly in cases of eligibility to hold office is judicial tyranny. It should not be difficult to hold officials accountable to the requirements of the offices they hold or seek.

[Cruisingfool]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Point of Clarity: Aside from saying I can't keep all the stories straight, I haven't made any claims.

From what I can gather from this thread -

A. Star is convinced Obama never attended Columbia.

B. You insist that Obama was born outside the United States but if our president had been born in the U.S., he'd be a citizen eligible to occupy the White House.

C. Twoller says whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, his offspring can't hold the presidency.

At this point, I'm going to drink a glass of milk, take two aspirin and hope my head isn't still spinning in the morning.

May the force be with all three of you.

Atleast you didn't call anybody any names, but rather then post the evidence you have, you do the usual spin as expected.

PachoPatroit says he has seen enough, he is convinced that obummer is a US Born Citizen. He hasn't posted any of the evidence he says he has, but does the usual spin job, and starts name calling.

Then RIMO rattles off with her one line rants (always in bold), but hasn't posted any evidence to the contrary ( which is fully expected).

[REWHBLCAIN]

Originally Posted by Cruisingfool

Atleast you didn't call anybody any names, but rather then post the evidence you have, you do the usual spin as expected.

PachoPatroit says he has seen enough, he is convinced that obummer is a US Born Citizen. He hasn't posted any of the evidence he says he has, but does the usual spin job, and starts name calling.

Then RIMO rattles off with her one line rants (always in bold), but hasn't posted any evidence to the contrary ( which is fully expected).

Don't let it bother you.

Wasn't the doubts of global warming once linked into folks who were called conspiracy nuts also? We all know how that is finally panning out.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by REWHBLCAIN

Don't let it bother you.

Wasn't the doubts of global warming once linked into folks who were called conspiracy nuts also? We all know how that is finally panning out.

Oh, rest assured that you'll pay for that blashphemy. I'm reporting you to Al Gore, Rob Reiner and Leonardo DiCaprio this very moment.

[REWHBLCAIN]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Oh, rest assured that you'll pay for that blashphemy. I'm reporting you to Al Gore, Rob Reiner and Leonardo DiCaprio this very moment.

Rob Reiner? The old meat head?

Have not heard his name in a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQygMz7sGoo

[Cruisingfool]

Link
Monday, February 15, 2010
"Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 15 Feb 2010 - pg 5



Another New AD - "Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 08 Feb 2015 Issue - pg 5:

Obama refuses to address the legal question about his Constitutional Eligibility to be sitting in the Oval Office. He has never conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to "constitutional standards" as is constitutionally required to be eligible for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2010...ayed-in-court/

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act,, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law"" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly led Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his constitutional eligibility and exact citizenship status policy is, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama's election fraud and cover up will be revealed. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ... help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

[PochoPatriot]

Creepingfool,

In the hopes that we can have clarity before consensus, let's be clear on what constitutes a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of current Constitutional law. It is irrelevant to me what you and other "birthers" think the law should be.

So what are the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the President? Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says the following:

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.

Let's deal with them on a point be point basis:

1. Natural born Citizen.
According to any history book you read, I presume that you read things other than World Nut Daily, Hawaii became a state on on Aug. 21, 1959. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Nearly two years after Hawaii became a state. So I don't see why this is an issue. Please illuminate me, in your own words, why this is a problem. As an aside, there was a group that attempted to do what you "birthers" are doing to Sen. Barry Goldwater. He was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, and not a State. It was also done to John McCain and Dick Cheney.

Further "natural born Citizen" is not really defined. In fact, this term was left to the States to define until the 14th Amendment.

2. A Citizen of the United States.
Please note that the Constitution uses the conjunction "or" indicating that the President can be either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States." So it seems to me that legal citizens can become President. Then again I am just a layman in regards to Constituional law, and would be open to an opinion form our resident attorney-at-law.

3. Must be 35 years old or older.
President Obama was born in 1961. He was elected in 2008. Simple math demonstrates that he is eligible on that front.

4. Fourteen years a resident of the United States.
This is were there is some ambiguity in the Constitution. Are the 14 years cumulative or consecutive. It's not really clear, but either way, President Obama meets this requirement.

On all four of these elements, I see no reason why President Obama is disqualified, but then again maybe I'm just to liberal to see the issues, right?

Now, regarding the U.S. law about birth parents. I don't see how it affects anything, since current U.S. states that any person born in the United States IS a citizen, period. Again, whether you or I think that "birth right citizenship" is good for this country or not is irrelevant. Current U.S. law says this is the way it is, and that is that.

Further, the citing of this law is silly. Why would a sitting U.S. Senator running for the Presidency, gathering millions of dollars do that if he, and his advisers knew that he might be ineligible due to some obscure law? Besides, if this was an issue, and, as your claimed, Bush and Cheney were in on it, it does not explain why talk radio did not jump all over this issue. But that's what makes conspiracy theories so fun. The more people that don't respond in the manner you want you can label as ignorant, stupid, or liberal. This is why I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories, because too many people in the know can and will talk.

Now on to the alleged forgery of President Obama's birth certificate. I see no reason to dismiss this as a forgery. Perhaps you can tell me why I should. Again use your own words, and nothing from World Nut Daily. Further, why would a major Presidential candidate risk his candidacy over a forged birth certificate. Further, the certificate is consistent with others issued in that era in Hawaii. Lastly, those who have touched and examined the certificate, have attested to its authenticity. Why would anyone lose professional credibility over a fraudulent birth certificate?

Then you have the birth announcements found in the major newspapers from Honolulu, which list a birth of a boy to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama." I guess you are going to tell me that these newspapers in some sort of premonition about this particular baby made it all up?

The Kenyan birth certificate forgery. Yes, this is a forgery, for a number of reasons, which I will list.

1. The document is dated Feb. 17, 1964 and bears a marking identifying it as from "The Republic of Kenya." Just one small problem. This name was not officially adopted until Dec. 12, 1964. In February of 1964 Kenya was known as The Dominion of Kenya. So what do you do with those extra 10 months? Are you going to tell me that somehow, someone in Kenya knew that the country was going to change its official name, and placed it on an official document some ten months before the fact?

2. Barack Obama's father's age is incorrect. He would have been 24 or 25, not the listed age of 26.

3. Barak Obama's birth place is listed as Mombasa, Kenya. Just one problem, Mombasa was not part of Kenya until Dec. 12, 1963. Prior to this date, Mombasa was part of a country called Zanzibar.

4. Mombasa was hundreds of miles away from Obama, Sr's. home town. Nairobi would have been much closer, not to mention in the actual country of Kenya.

5. This forgery was exposed as being a copy of an Australian. The forgery contains many of the same numerical markings as the original.

6. The Taitz document is also a forgery for the following reasons:
Citing Mombasa as the city of birth. The distance (over 1,000 miles) of Mombasa (eastern Kenya on the Indian Ocean) to Obama's home (southwestern Kenya) versus Nairobi's.

It based on these reasons that I dismiss the claims of "birthers" and place them JFK conspiracy nuts, 9/11 "truthers", Federal Reserve nuts, and other conspiracy nuts. Now if you want to convince me, you have to come at me with some hard facts. The burden of proof is on the "birthers". You are making the positive assertion. President Obama has no reason to respond to your nutty claims. The fact that he has, and the "birthers" dismiss it is not surprising. That is conspiracy theory 101: Deny the facts presented by those you oppose.

Now whether you agree with me or not is of no concern to me. I believe that hardcore "birthers" in this movement are detrimental to our credibility. Sadly, we have to deal with you. I would hope that we deal with you be keeping you far from the public as possible.

Edited to add: I call you a "conspiracy nut" not because I wish to dismiss your arguments, but because you have truly earned that moniker based on your posts here and on other boards.

[Rim05]

World Nut Daily

This is the best phrase in this entire thread.