Skip to comments.The Audacity of Fraud: Why Does Obama Conceal his Birth Records?
Posted on 01/04/2009 9:55:01 AM PST by MelSmith
Information on Obama's ongoing efforts to prevent the public from seeing his birth documentation: Obama The Fraud. The links on that page are updated as they become available. Check back regularly for new links.
America's DNC-owned news media wants this story to go away or, like the Republicans, they are too cowardly to confront the issue. It's up to us to tell others about this.
I never said you were stupid. I merely believed you to be uneducated based on your post. Since I was apparently wrong, you already have my apology.
I do believe your use of “obverse” to be incorrect. Neat word though.
This thread needs an enema.......
“Whatever, I was pissed off and typing fast. Anyone with half a brain knows I ment observe. “
I looked it up and the term coould almost be used. In the first useage it was ok, I think. It was the second use that I could fault. Maybe. 8^}
I’m telling everyone that I can!
Constituting the obverse of something : opposite
Like Obama went to elite Punahou School.
Like Obama had a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth.
Sun Yat Sen was born in China, yet his Hawaiian Birth Certificate was real, legit.
Why? It was gotten by lying about the facts of Sun Yat Sen's birth.
The facts about Obama are hidden, unlike you and I is he immune to having to prove them? Is he a god?
And will you give me the cite wherein the supremes define that term? And what ‘deception are we floating? I just want to see his f’in BC, not a COLB. Then if there are still questions, let the supremes sort it out. Or are you blessed with universal knowledge? You sure act it.
How do you know that Obama was born in the United States?
I can' speak for Old Sarge but I long ago came to the oonclusion that you all are going to believe what you want to believe and post what you want to post, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, and no matter what voice of reason chimes in.
Oh I doubt that. Hawaii may be exotic but even Columbia would be aware that it and California are part of the U.S.
stop reading them
Right...and that brings him sooo much political benefit. A better reason can be found here:
He’s doing what he’s doing because it’s his best political choice under the circumstances.
He did WHAT while at Columbia?? What proof have you found that he was ever verifiably AT Columbia, let alone that he “wore as a badge of honor” his alleged U.S. birth while supposedly there?
Seriously—if you have any source of information about B.O.’s activity at Columbia, many of us would LOVE to see it!
The man lies like a rug; anyone who would take his word for ANYTHING needs to have their head examined, not eligibility doubters! Being cynical about B.O. is actually evidence of sound mental health!
Why would he? If this is a bunch of leftists gaming the system...which is far more likely than Obambi being born in Kenya, not a natural-born citizen, etc...it’d be in their best interests to keep the game rolling as long as possible.
"Obama, you went to Pakistan while a college student. Could you please talk about the trip, and could you tell us if you used a United States passport to enter and leave Pakistan at that time."
I'l start over. The fact that the speicif definition of natural born citizewn is not in the Constitution is why SCOTUS needs to get involved. The fact that the Constitution does not contain a definition of that term requires us to look at the context of the times in which the framers wrote that requirement. I can show you lots of quotes from the framers which will give the context and sense of that term, but those quotes will point to there being a form of citizenship which the framers intended which is not naturalized citizen and not merely just 'born in the country' of any parents from anywhere in the world.
Posters like Non-Sequitur (and reading your obfuscation which I referred to, apparently you too) love to obfuscate the reality by asserting in passive aggressive fashion that there are only two types of citizenship. Which conveniently cancels the intentions of the framers in favor of granting anchor babies an eligibility that defies, that is the obverse, of what the Constitution has stated.
I'm curious: what would you interpret to be the reason if the SCOTUS refuses to address the issue directly (as in remanding to a lower court with stipulation that Berg has standing now that Obama is president -elect) or if the SCOTUS decides to ignore it completely (as in refuses to address the 'natural born citizen' ambiguity and merely does not grant certiori)?
So we draw them out, and then... what?
Your emotional state is irrelevant to us or this argument. Are you a college sophomore, by any chance?
The fact that the speicif definition of natural born citizewn is not in the Constitution is why SCOTUS needs to get involved.
***We have the 2nd amendment right to keep & bear arms, but the word “arms” is never defined. Each of these terms has their very simple, straightforward usage from that time. In the case of arms it was obviously rifles, fireARMS. In the case of Natural Born, that is simple as well in terms of parentage and birth place. The reason why the SCOTUS needs to get involved is because the president elect is failing to qualify, per the 20th amendment.
He could be born in the Oval Office and his father’s citizenship stops him from being natural born according tot he way the founders used the term.
“He could be born in the Oval Office and his fathers citizenship stops him from being natural born according tot he way the founders used the term.”
How do you explain the “anchor baby” so readily accepted by courts?
Are you purposely conflating mere citizenship with natural born citizen, or do you really not get the difference? Do you really think an anchor baby would pass eligibility as required by the Constitution?
This website needs to ditch the July 20 report from Atlas Shruggs as it was written by the discredited Techdude, if it wants to establish credibility.
This argument is childish. Like asking “why” until the point is moot.
Look, anyone can go on and on and on about proof. All arguments can lead to the chicken or the egg. If all of you were handed the original birth certificate, you’d doubt its origin. If the origins were certified, you’d doubt the certification. If the certification were deemed as valid by a professional, you’d doubt that professional. If the professional’s credentials were proven to be valid from an outside source, you’d doubt the outside source....ad nauseum.
Based on the arguments I’m seeing here, NO ONE can prove who they are because we all rely on things like drivers licenses which require birth certificates, credit cards which require a SSN, SSN’s which require a birth certificate, and utility bills, which require a residence. Residences which require proof...and on and on...all leading back to your birth certificate.
Imagine if someone were to doubt your records over & over again...what FURTHER proof would you have as evidence that you all are U.S. citizens? At some point, the energy expended for proof outweighs the point itself - POTUS or otherwise.
I personally think there’s nothing that can be done to offer further proof. Especially considering the credibility of those who doubt it versus the credibility of those who have provided every facet of proof required BY LAW.
Let’s focus on something with teeth, for this seems a slippery slope and bordering on trivial, all things considered thus far...
That's simple enough. Anything and everything else is just obfuscation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.