Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's to Blame for the Birther Movement
FOX News ^ | 7/29/2009 | Tommy De Seno

Posted on 08/22/2010 6:12:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters

Obama can end the "birthers" controversy in one single day by releasing the original documents, but for some inexplicable reason he refuses, and the love-struck media never ask him why...

Trust but verify.

-- Ronald Reagan

It's good practice to take a person at his word until someone shows you proof he is lying.

Barack Obama says he was born in Hawaii, and since no one has shown any proof he was born in Kenya or elsewhere, it's OK to conclude he was born in Hawaii.

Sure his grammar school records show that he was enrolled as an Indonesian Muslim, but some people will say anything to get their kid in the right school. It doesn't really answer the question.

It's OK though for others not to use my deferential standard and continue to question whether Obama was born in Hawaii. We aren't talking about a 12-year-old qualifying to play Little League here. There is a Constitutional mandate that the President be a natural-born citizen, and if Obama is not one, he certainly will have committed the biggest fraud since the White Sox threw the World Series.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; coulterislosingit; hamask; hamosque; kooks; maskofzer0; mosqueofzer0; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamask; obamosque; pigbloodinconcrete; pigbloodinmosque; truthers; vips; zer0cajones
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 next last
To: RobinMasters

The point is - regardless of the issue that conspiracy theorists and others latch on too - it is pretty much always rooted in something suspicious.

That being said - I don’t consider the “birthers” to be conspiracy theorists - thought they are treated as such.

What I don’t understand - name one president that has not released their REAL birth certificate (since such was available)?

Obama posted what was clearly and easily proven to be a fake on his campaign web site (isn’t that fraud and forgery of government documents - both crimes, by the way). He keeps his attack dogs going after the “birthers” who are simply trying to get answers.

IF Obama and the left want to shut up the birther movement completely - then just release the REAL Birth Certificate. That’s all it takes. If Obama is a real US Citizen from birth (natural born), then what in the world would he lose by releasing the truth?

Which brings us right back to the core - there is a reason he is blocking said release - and it has everything to do with his REAL background.

The problems he is hiding COULD be that he really is constitutional ineligible to be POTUS.

But it could be something as simple as it would reveal that Obama Sr. was not his daddy.

Or maybe that it specifically lists the faith as Muslim?

Or maybe .....?????

But again - if there is no fire here, then why so much smoke (and mirrors)?


51 posted on 08/22/2010 8:41:35 PM PDT by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cousin Eddie

Used to be, anyone who wasn’t 100% sure he was born in Hawaii was a birther.

I hate it when people keep changing definitions.


52 posted on 08/22/2010 8:55:30 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

If Obama were found to be ineligible, the validity of all of his “decisions and acts” would be the object of intense scrutiny through the eyes of hundreds of millions of American citizens.

I don’t think any “doctrine” could hold up to that kind of scrutiny.


53 posted on 08/22/2010 8:56:22 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
I don’t think any “doctrine” could hold up to that kind of scrutiny.

Yes, you may very well be right. I am afraid I am not at all versed in the law. What I read seemed to suggest to me that the de fact officer doctrine is reasonably established precedent which had been tested. But, maybe it wouldn't hold up, as you say. As I am sure you would agree, when it comes to courts anything is possible these days. However, practically speaking, I don't think it is going to matter. Nobody with standing is going to ever bring a case, and no court or any other body will ever act on it. I am completely sympathetic to the argument that Obama is hiding something (though I am still angrier about the school records than the BC) but I really do fear it is all for nothing. It just won't go anywhere, valid or not.

54 posted on 08/22/2010 9:06:19 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeParty

.obamamorgan


55 posted on 08/22/2010 9:10:59 PM PDT by FrankR (It doesn't matter what they call us, only what we answer to....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

You misunderstood my point, because I admittedly didn’t develop it the right way. My premise is that any individual aspect of the total Obama ‘mystery’ could , and is probably designed to be, a red herring that could lead people to harp on one , in particular the BC “magic bullet” of proving he’s not eligible,to the exclusion of all others.
THey’re all interlocked, and all the pieces of the “Who is Obama” puzzle could contain small or large proofs of his identity and maybe his constitutional ineligibility.
One large part of both Obama’s and his Democratic Party’s
desperation in cramming their agenda down our throats is because they many KNOW that they’re in a race against the clock, and that inevitably so much ill-will and loathing will come to them and their man, that the MAIN thing they can’t afford to have revealed is that he’s a total charlatan, a literally counterfeit entity who went right ahead and allowed himself to be ‘elected’ President when he shouldn’t even have been a candidate.


56 posted on 08/22/2010 9:20:37 PM PDT by supremedoctrine ("Every election is like an advance auction sale of stolen goods"--H.L.Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine
You misunderstood my point,

No, no I didn't...and you didn't develope anything because you have nothing to say.

The Constitution states that no one who is not a Natural Born Citizen can be POTUS.

His "BC" is no more a distraction than his health care plan, his take over of GM, the banks and financial institutions....it's all unconstitutional, what do you suggest is the "winning issue"?

57 posted on 08/22/2010 9:36:48 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (People I know have papers for their mongrels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Well-reasoned article here.


58 posted on 08/22/2010 9:38:19 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("I can't possibly get into trouble letting my monkey carry grenades." --Gen. Karl Tagon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cousin Eddie
Birthers are seen as crackpots to 90% of the population

That's pure conjecture on your part, friend. Post a poll that backs up that statement, if you can find one that is representative of the whole population.

From everything I've read on the matter, a sizable portion of the public at least has doubts about Obama's NBC status.

59 posted on 08/22/2010 9:40:35 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
IF Obama and the left want to shut up the birther movement completely - then just release the REAL Birth Certificate. That’s all it takes. If Obama is a real US Citizen from birth (natural born), then what in the world would he lose by releasing the truth?

That is the precise point at which all arguments against the birthers grind to a halt.

Obama could end all speculation about his constitutional eligibility by showing the nation his original long-form birth certificate. A person has to abandon all logic and reason to put forth any theory as to why he won't.

If he is everything he and his supporters claim he is, then he has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by releasing his records.

Release of his bc would actually decrease the level of suspicion about him, and would increase public confidence in him. It's a win-win situation that no President would fail to capitalize on, IF he really had the documentation to prove it.

I, for one, cannot escape the logic and reasoning in this issue. Obama will not release his bc, or any of his personal paper trail because it clearly shows that he is not qualified to hold the office of President.

There is NO other reason to allow this controversy to continue.

60 posted on 08/22/2010 10:00:36 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows; RobinMasters; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

0bama's to Blame for the Birther Movement

. . . . Click on the Fox News link and read the article.

[Thanks, Slings and Arrows.]

61 posted on 08/22/2010 10:00:44 PM PDT by LucyT (~We lived in the best place, in the best of times, in all of human history. - LucyT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself a natural-born citizen.

The quotation is from the 1866 address to the House of Representatives by Congressman John Bingam, principal author of the 14th Amendment, judge, abolitionist, as well as the adjutant general who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins..

Ignore the propagandists, the journolistas, the trolls. Obama’s father, and Obama the son, had allegiance to England, by law. Obama confirmed that on his web site. He also counted on ignorance in the public of this obscure provision in our Constitution, and cleverly cornered the Republicans by helping McCain, both to get nominated, and then through Senate Actions which perport to make him eligible - "S.2768 110th Congress" To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President." and S.Res 511 in which Patrick Leahy states “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.” What do you think all this was about - two Senate judiary actions about McCain in two months during an election year? McCain always was, and remains ineligible, or Obama election committee members, McCaskill, wouldn't have had any reason to try to pass a law.

Hidden documents are all intended distraction. Read our founders and framers, and read Patrick Leahy and Clair McCaskill, whose fake bills and resolutions were co-sponsored by Obama, Clinton, Webb, and others (fake because they know only an emendment can modify the Consitution). Obama was their ShamWow guy. He has real talent as a con man. They found a way to obscure his Constitutional ineligibility in a fashion remarkably similar to Chester Arthur, who hid and then burned his private documents before he died.

62 posted on 08/22/2010 10:04:20 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

There is the real possibility that releasing all his history could lead to criminal charges. But of course he’s supposedly half black and a Democrat, so being held to the law isn’t really likely, is it!


63 posted on 08/22/2010 10:09:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dem voters, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
TANKS,Lu,,,

All it takes is $12.50 to prove who/what he is,,,

But Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

He has to spend millions to hide the facts,,,

There facts should be proof enough that he is hiding

his LIES!!!...

64 posted on 08/22/2010 10:14:36 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Slings and Arrows; RobinMasters; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; ...

The longer this drags out, the more and more people will question just what it is he’s hiding.

A long-form BC would have been brandished and waved around long ago. So, that’s not it.

I am strongly inclined to believe he’s not a natural born citizen (born in the U.S. of two American parents) because that would have been revealed a long time ago also. It would have been revealed even if his birth had been under less than honorable circumstances (e.g. he was the product of a prostitute and her client, or he was a bastard, etc.).

No, this is something more serious.


65 posted on 08/22/2010 10:16:15 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
There is the real possibility that releasing all his history could lead to criminal charges.

Yeah, like impeachment, criminal prosecution and prison!

Of course, there are even worse things than Obama winding up in the slammer. The tentacles of corruption emanating from his office could (and probably would) reach far and wide. Possibly hundreds of co-conspirators would fall with him, and lots of those would be higher-ups in the Democrat party and the progressive machine. It could lead to a wholesale destruction of everything left-of-center in this country.

66 posted on 08/22/2010 10:28:59 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Your posting to God’s eyes ... Lord, please make it so!


67 posted on 08/22/2010 10:37:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dem voters, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Always a pleasure.


68 posted on 08/22/2010 10:59:47 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("I can't possibly get into trouble letting my monkey carry grenades." --Gen. Karl Tagon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Popcorn.


69 posted on 08/22/2010 11:00:50 PM PDT by bitt (John Bolton/LizCheney for 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I know you’ve followed this situation closely. Has anyone checked into the this court? http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/informational/about.htm#JURISDICTION

“This legislation will offer the international trade community, as well as domestic interests, consumer groups, labor organizations, and other concerned citizens, a vastly improved forum for judicial review of administrative actions of government agencies dealing with importations.

It would seem that once Obama signed anything regarding international trade, the game could be on? I’m even thinking some of the tariffs could apply and China does not have to be the plaintiff? An amicus brief?

Grabbing at straws, I know, but the idea intrigues me...


70 posted on 08/23/2010 12:12:26 AM PDT by FreeStateYank (I want my country and constitution back, now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; marron

Thank you very much for filling me in.


71 posted on 08/23/2010 3:37:54 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

My friend, I was referring to the saying “at the end of the day” which is widely used by Brits when summing up a position. My highlighting the Brits had nothing to do with Obama, our constitution, etc. My point is Obama’a birth date and place, plus his religion which I believe he is IMHO a devout and practicing Muslim wil;l have little to do with this upcoming election. For goodness sakes these item, while important & crucial compare zilch to his killing our economy and millions of Americans being unemployed with no hope of gettiing a job. I repeat, Obama hates American and all Ameericans and wants to destroy our economy and country!!! So.....I for one, will keep posting my little tidbits on the upcoming Election Day because this may be our only chance to save our country for our children, grandchildren and children to come!!!


72 posted on 08/23/2010 4:40:27 AM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX

.......I believe he is IMHO a devout and practicing Muslim .....

My thought is that Obama is a typical liberal radical that has no religion at all. The point of being liberal is to cast off the moral and ethical shackles and bonds of religion, be it Christian or Islam or Hindu. One cannot be truly liberal and religious.

I wonder though, what court worthy evidence do you have to indicate he is a presently practicing Muslim ?


73 posted on 08/23/2010 5:29:40 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Greetings Jacques. The revolution is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: thecodont; LucyT; Slings and Arrows; RobinMasters; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; ...
No, this is something more serious.

The "more serious" part is that elected officials of the democrat Party, AND the then President, GWB, did not defend the Constitution when BHO, Jr. announced his candidacy. 50 State Governments allowed him on their ballot. The then VP, led The Electoral College in voting for him. The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS swore him in.

And O, just BTW, of course he is not a "Natural Born Citizen." Yet, he will be our POTUS until 2012. This is driving everyone crazy, He is, but he should not be. Cognitive Dissonance.

74 posted on 08/23/2010 5:35:51 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (The Republican Party was founded to Save the Union. Can it now Save the Republic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: FreeStateYank

I’m not sure whether a law Obama signed would work, just because it would become law even without a President’s signature, as it’s been explained to me. It would have to be something that depended on the POTUS.

That’s why Lt Col Lakin’s case is so powerful - because it brings up the issue of what the military can do without a Commander-in-Chief. Most things they can do, but something strategic like the surge depends on orders from either the CIC or the Sec Def, who can only be appointed or retained by a valid POTUS.

I’ve always thought that if somebody requested records about Obama and was denied them because of Obama’s presidential order immediately after the inauguration, they would have standing to sue because that order was not given by Joe Biden, the only person the Constitution authorizes to give presidential orders.

Anybody who was replaced by an Obama appointee - such as a US attorney who served under Bush but who Obama supposedly replaced - would have standing to sue.

If Obama would veto something, Congress would have standing to sue, or anybody who would have benefitted from the vetoed bill.

The states challenging the healthcare bill or Arizona in court over their enforcement law would have standing to sue for the removal of Sotomayor and Kagan from the SCOTUS bench because they were not nominated by Joe Biden.

Anybody whose case makes it to SCOTUS could probably do the same (although there may be a question of whether the Sotomayor and Kagan votes would obviously turn the decision against the person filing suit).

I’m sure that with enough brainstorming, there’s probably even a Freeper who would in some way have standing. I’m not a lawyer and don’t know much about the ins and outs of everyday practice, but if people start thinking about the possibilities, I think the issue of standing will be overcome.


75 posted on 08/23/2010 5:43:30 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; Windflier

Linguistostrangulationists


76 posted on 08/23/2010 5:47:07 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: palmer

You are a cunning linguist...


77 posted on 08/23/2010 6:51:41 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 575 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX

I understand that the economy is a pressing, urgent priority of the moment. Our current Congressional leadership has shown that they would only drive this country farther over the cliff. They must be replaced in November.

However, the American people have, historically, had an uncanny ability to ‘walk and chew gum at the same time.’ We’ve had the ability, historically, to handle war on two fronts, and other critical issues simultaneously.

The USA in the 30’s survived the Great Depression. It could, tho no one would invite it, survive another Great Depression. We would certainly see what Americans of the new millennium are made of, compared to their parents/grand- or great grandparents.

What we cannot survive is the destruction of our Constitution. IF we have elected a man who is not qualified under the Constitution to hold the position of POTUS, a man in particular who down to his core despises all that this country has stood for historically, that is, in the bigger picture, far more important than the present economy.

We handle short-term priorities, like the upcoming election, in the short term. Somewhat longer-term is turning around the economy that can only be done by taking care of that short-term priority.

But in the long-term, in perpetuity, we cannot overlook what has gotten us to where we were as recently as a few short years ago, and that is the U.S. Constitution. We let that go, and nothing else much matters.


78 posted on 08/23/2010 7:42:07 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
If he really wants the Birthers to shut up,

What makes you think he wants them to shut up? I suspect it's quite the opposite.

he has the power to do it by releasing the original documents.

LOL. The idiot who wrote this article really is naive. To anyone who thinks releasing any document at all will shut the birthers up, I can get them a really nice deal on a bridge in New York city.

79 posted on 08/23/2010 9:12:11 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
What I don’t understand - name one president that has not released their REAL birth certificate (since such was available)?

Name one who did, before he left office.

80 posted on 08/23/2010 9:22:33 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Linguistostrangulationists

Well done! We have a new term to describe eggheaded liberal journOlistas who fail in their attempts at linguistic coinage.

81 posted on 08/23/2010 9:28:11 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: thecodont; STARWISE
Here is something which may or may not be of interest.

In my whole records SNAFU back in 2008, I came to learn something about the Hawaiian DOH. They do not keep records requests with the record being requested. It is filed under the name of the person who is requesting the record. Take that for what it's worth. And it may be worth nothing. But, has anyone made a request regarding other family members of ohloyo? Find out who's records they have requested in the past? Interesting question no?
82 posted on 08/23/2010 9:51:25 AM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“Obama could end all speculation about his constitutional eligibility by showing the nation his original long-form birth certificate. A person has to abandon all logic and reason to put forth any theory as to why he won’t.”

____

The simple answer is: He CAN’T.

Now, the real question is apparent. WHY CAN’T HE??

Potential reasons:
1) because the original long form document is from a Nation other than the United States.
2) the original long form states he is of parentage other than what his CURRENT short form says.
3) I leave this one to others to fill in the blanks on.

The real question is “Why can’t the President of the United States Release his Long Form Birth Certificate for public inspection?”

The answer to this very simple question may well get the cretin thrown out of the White House, and get a few people indited. In particular those who deliberately did not certify that the man was a Natural Born Citizen.


83 posted on 08/23/2010 9:57:27 AM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Now, the real question is apparent. WHY CAN’T HE??

Potential reasons:
1) because the original long form document is from a Nation other than the United States.

2) the original long form states he is of parentage other than what his CURRENT short form says.

Whatever it is, it's obviously a deal-breaker for either cultural, or legal reasons. My guess is that he lied about his provenance in interviews, which forced his campaign staff to manufacture a forged COLB that matched his statements. Of course the original says different.

He's already not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, per a strict reading of the NBC clause in the Constitution, but the fact that his (alleged) father was a Kenyan is public knowledge.

He's obviously not trying to hide that, so what else might he be trying to hide?

I would vote for place of birth being Kenya, and not Hawaii, but that's just my personal speculation. Who knows what he's hiding?

84 posted on 08/23/2010 10:10:09 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

My guess is he is using it as a smoke screen. Hiding the whole issue behind something he and Dims can mock... ie: birthers. What it’s hiding is in plain view. He was British at Birth. You cannot hold two citizenships and be a Natural Born Citizen at birth. In fact, because of his heritage, Obama could never have been a Natural Born Citizen even if he was born in the Oval Office.

That is what its hiding in my opinion. He was listed as British under his fathers name, under his fathers heritage.


85 posted on 08/23/2010 10:15:18 AM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Your account of the snafu on a recent thread is very interesting. You’re getting warm......


86 posted on 08/23/2010 10:18:25 AM PDT by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark

What makes you say so?

I know what it means. I know what it could potentially mean if followed up on. Do you have some specific reason to suspect this is the correct (or best) course of action?


87 posted on 08/23/2010 10:28:20 AM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Danae
My guess is he is using it as a smoke screen. Hiding the whole issue behind something he and Dims can mock... ie: birthers.

Well, if that's his brilliant scheme, then when's he going to come out and mock us? He's going on two years in office, and he's done nothing but evade this issue completely.

I remember this theory from early on in the controversy, and it made sense at the time, but it's now two years on, and he's remained silent. If he was going to spring a trap on the birthers, he would have done so by now.

That is what its hiding in my opinion. He was listed as British under his fathers name, under his fathers heritage.

But that's common knowledge, and has never been denied by Obama or his camp. It's in his book, and is a central plank of his personal narrative. He can't be "hiding" that information on an unreleased birth certificate.

No, he's hiding something else. Something that he'd rather die than admit to. Something that will destroy him, both politically, and personally.

Knowing Obama to be the serial liar that he is, it's probably a whole combination of lies, which the bc would expose. This is why he's locked down every public record that he has. His lies run to every sector of his past, and he cannot allow anyone to see what an abject liar he really is.

88 posted on 08/23/2010 10:31:08 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Danae
The real question is “Why can’t the President of the United States Release his Long Form Birth Certificate for public inspection?”

Considering that Obama was elected President and none of his predecessors had this requirement thrust upon him, the question isn't "why can't he," rather "why should he?"

89 posted on 08/23/2010 10:40:05 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
However, just as the police officer generally has to accept the license as proof that the birth certificate was already seen and accepted, the electorate has to accept that, once sworn in, the relevant bona fides were seen and accepted by whatever authority is responsible.

I do not think the electorate has to accept anyone's misfeasance or nonfeasance as prima facie evidence that they did their job. Even the wording of the oath they took was changed to eliminate the part about having seen proof.

It was incumbent on the media to ask tough questions of the candidates, and to demand, on the behalf of the voters, an accounting of the past records relevant to a candidates ability to carry out the duties of his office.

When the media are promoting the candidate, they cannot be relied upon to vett the candidate.

Any 'negligence' on their part was willful. That leaves the People of the United States to do the job. In attempting to do the job the media would not do, the media have been obstacles in the court of public opinion to every effort to get to the bottom of what is being actively hidden (the records were sealed by executive order).

It would be ridiculous to assume anything other than their complicity, in that their own attack on those trying to get the information indicates that they are in on the entire affair, and the Journo-list of hundreds of media personages colluding to elect Barack Obama to the office of POTUS indicates there is no claim of neutrality to be made: they are co-conspirators in any fraud that has taken place with their assistance, and accessories at the least.

If there is in fact wrongdoing present and this were prosecuted to the fullest legal extent, the list of accessories before and after the fact, of those conspiring to overthrow the Constitutional Government of the United States would be extensive indeed.

Any usurpation of power conducted through fraud is nothing less than a Coup.

90 posted on 08/23/2010 10:58:50 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

In nearly all cases it isn’t necessary. Go back the last 50 years. How many times has it come up? Once with Obama, and once with McCain - about whom I have my doubts.

In fact it has happened several times, but in the overall scheme of things, it doesn’t come up that often. Most people running for POTUS have solid American roots which don’t require proof of citizenship. George W Bush for example. George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter. Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, JFK, Lindon Johnson, Eisenhower, Hoover.... In fact you have to go back quite a ways to find an unconstitutional President based solely upon the Dual citizenship issue. That person was Chester Arthur who became POTUS because of Assassination. His father did not become a Naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur was born, also making Arthur ineligible because of Dual Citizenship. The difference is.... NO ONE KNEW ABOUT THAT until 2009. In Obama’s case, we know about it NOW.

The only difference is this, No one knew that Chester’s Dad wasn’t a Naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. He did become one, and at the time Arthur was elected VP, he was of course a citizen. But not when his son was born. So Chester had dual Citizenship. Obama’s dad never becane any sort of citizen of the United States, he died Britisn and kenyan. Obama’s son was born , British, Kenyan and American. His Kenyan citizenship expired in the 80’s

The whole house of Obama cards lay on a foundation which states, “it doesn’t matter who your parents are or what their citizenship is, if you were born in the USA, then you are an NBC.” This is patently false. It is nothing short of a lie, and Obama and many others are relying on enough people believing this lie through continued IGNORANCE. Ignorance to what a Natural Born Citizen is and isn’t. Natural Born Citizenship is RESERVED for those who are born to parents who themselves are citizens, and born upon the soil of that Nation. If any of these details is not exactly that, then the child is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Obama is a Cretin and an Usurper. Whats more, he KNOWS it, and is counting on the ignorance of the American public in order to keep power.

Take that ignorance our from under Obama’s foundation, and his whole house of cards comes tumbling down.


91 posted on 08/23/2010 11:01:53 AM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Yeah, and in his book he also said that he was taught to always smile at white people and be very polite to them, so he wouldn’t “scare” them. LOL.


92 posted on 08/23/2010 11:17:13 AM PDT by TheConservativeParty ( I am woman, hear me roar. NOVEMBER! FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeParty

THAT bit made me laugh. He is not an imposing person. Only his policies are frightening.


93 posted on 08/23/2010 11:23:37 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I find it very suspicious that one of his gramas expired so quickly in Hawaii, days before the election. I think he ransacked her apartment looking for damaging documents.

First they said the grama had some kind of surgery, hip replacement or something, and the next thing you know she was said to have cancer and was suddenly dead.

Hussein raced to the scene, and the old bird was cremated and thrown in the ocean in no time.

There was a picture of MO and BO looking positively gleeful at the oceanside place where they disposed of the ashes.

I think he offed his grammy. She not only had papers, she had knowledge, and as long as she could speak, Hussein was in danger of being outed on goodness knows how many issues.

There is still an Odinga ordered gag rule on all the Kenyans who know stuff, as far as I know.

And of course George still resides in a hut and poops in a hole in the ground.


94 posted on 08/23/2010 11:38:27 AM PDT by TheConservativeParty ( I am woman, hear me roar. NOVEMBER! FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Danae; onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; ...

Interesting .. I’d let some of the attorneys
and other folks pursuing this issue know that.

~~~~~~~~~

Confirmed: Stanley Ann Dunham began studies in September 1961, not August

REGISTRAR’S OFFICE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CONFIRMS START DATE WAS IN SEPTEMBER 1961

by Sharon Rondeau

###

Excerpt:

Stanley Ann Dunham’s 1960 high school graduation photograph

(Aug. 22, 2010) — The Post & Email can confirm that the alleged mother of Barack Hussein Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, began her course of study at the University of Washington in September 1961, not August 19, 1961, as has been widely reported.

One source of information whose work is widely disseminated on the internet does not mention her attendance at the University of Washington at all. A Facebook page created for her the day after the 2008 presidential election also fails to include that detail of her life.

Following up on a tip received recently from a private researcher, The Post & Email obtained confirmation from the registrar’s office at the University of Washington that Dunham’s classes began in September 1961.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/22/confirmed-stanley-ann-dunham-began-studies-in-september-1961-not-august/
___________________________________________________

Results of Investigation made possible by donors to The Post & Email Legal Fund

WAS OBAMA GIVEN A CERTIFICATE NUMBER WHICH HAD BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE?
by Sharon Rondeau

###

Excerpt:

The Dunhams were found in the Polk’s Directory as residing in Honolulu from sometime in 1960 forward

(Aug. 21, 2010) — In June, The Post & Email solicited funds for its Legal Defense Fund for a specific research project focusing on details and discrepancies surrounding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. Many of our readers were very generous with their donations, including one who put forth a “matching grant” challenge which was met and even surpassed.

With the help of a private donor, The Post & Email was able to fund an investigative journey to Hawaii for an experienced researcher. The results of the investigation follow in the researcher’s own words.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long were you in Hawaii doing this investigation?

RESEARCHER: I was in Honolulu for approximately three days. I arrived in the middle of the day on a Tuesday. My first stop was the State Library to review the Oahu Polk’s Directories to confirm the address history of Stanley, Madelyn and Stanley Ann Dunham and some other persons of interest.

I also verified that Barack Obama Sr. appeared in the Polk’s Directory. I looked for the name “Lolo Soetoro,” but I never did find a record of him in the directories I looked at. However, from the passport information that was recently released as a result of the Chris Strunk FOIA request, it appears that Lolo was in Honolulu as early as 1962.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/21/results-of-investigation-made-possible-by-donors-to-the-post-email-legal-fund/


95 posted on 08/23/2010 12:07:30 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: All

Berg says it’s “no surprise” Obama wants the Mosque near Ground Zero as Obama is a Muslim!

Excerpt:

“Berg commented further regarding Obama by saying, “I believe Obama probably prays to his Muslim religion with others that he invites into the White House, and that is his right and privilege.

Obama’s twenty [20] years with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago was questionable as to the sermons given and what Obama took from them. It is unbelievable that Obama did not know the Reverend Wright as others did. Also, according to sources, the Trinity United Church had many members who were and are Muslims.”

Berg continued, “The pressure is building to force Obama/Soetoro to admit that he is an Imposter, a Fraud, a Phony and his tale is the largest ‘Hoax’ in the history of the United States, over 234 years.

Actually, the pressure is building because the overwhelming evidence is that Obama/Soetoro was born in Africa and more important is the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s ‘legal’ name became ‘Barry Soetoro’ and there is no evidence that he has legally changed his name and therefore, every time he uses the name of ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ he has and is committing fraud.”

Berg concluded,

“I am in the final days of planning for the largest March/Rally in Washington, DC in October 2010 to force Obama/Soetoro to step down from the Office of President, a position he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President as he is an ‘Usurper’ and he has led our country into a Constitutional crisis.

When Obama/Soetoro steps down, all of the laws, appointments and programs including ObamaCare will end because all of them are ‘voidable’.”

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=1094


96 posted on 08/23/2010 12:12:16 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Let me see if I understand this. You were born in Hawaii. You have a COLB dated 2007. You called the Hawaii DOH and questioned when it was sent and they said your mother requested a copy in 2000 and you requested a copy in 2007. They sent you copies of the original receipts that accompanied both COLBs.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood.


97 posted on 08/23/2010 12:14:16 PM PDT by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Danae
The whole house of Obama cards lay on a foundation which states, “it doesn’t matter who your parents are or what their citizenship is, if you were born in the USA, then you are an NBC.” This is patently false.

It's only false in the fantasy world birthers have created since Obama was elected. This is why no court is going to accept this argument.

98 posted on 08/23/2010 12:41:16 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark

Close. At the time I had forgotten I had requested on in 07. I had had knee surgery and was on a LOT of pain meds right then, and I did it all online. I remembered it once I saw the two receipts. More accurately I remember needing to get my COLB so I could get my passport. I don’t remember ordering it. But the rest is correct. My moms request for my COLB (which I needed when I had my wallet stolen in 2000 and lost all my ID) in 2000 was listed under her name. My request in 07 was listed under my own name.

It did not occur to me that HDOH would file the request under the name of the person requesting the record, rather than with the record itself. That isn’t the case. The request is only filed under the record name if that is the person who requested it. If if was Mom, or grandma, or grandpa or Dad, the request will be filed under that persons name, not with the record itself. This is why, when I asked if there was any other requests, and the person in HDOH was looking at my Mom’s requests, could only see the one she made for me. Because she was in my Mom’s file, she could not see what requests I had made under my own name, and did not discover it until later when she specifically looked there.


99 posted on 08/23/2010 12:42:16 PM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Pfffft.

and monkeys might fly out of your butt.

In the world of LAW, semantics matters. Dismiss it if you like, but the facts remain.


100 posted on 08/23/2010 12:44:33 PM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson