Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

5 Commandments of Obama's Innocence
ireport.com ^

Posted on 12/11/2008 8:46:17 AM PST by ckilmer

Last updated: 11 hours ago

I've postured via fact the simple ways the "5 Commandments of Obama's Innocence" are easily dismantled. Each one contains a half-truth, but none encompass the enterprise and objective closure that is required. That is undeniable, irrefutable, objective fact...with no "theories", conspiratory or otherwise, attached to it. Watching the media, and many of you, fight so fiercely to refute that - only lends further credence to it's realtiy. If you're so sure, why bother? These Commandments include:

1). He posted his birth certificate on his website. That proves everything.

2). The state of Hawaii verfied he was born there.

3). Factcheck.org proved it!

4). There was a notice in a Hawaiian newspaper in 1961.

5). Judges meritoriously threw the case out as frivolous.

Simply, in order, the holes within those Commandments beget the responses....

1). Kind of, he did. Absolutely, no it doesn't.

2). No they didn't.

3). This non-governing and unaccountable website has long since debunked itself as both partisan and non-credible.

4). So?

5). No they didn't.

One need not articulate even one conspiracy theory when dismantling the media-approved "5 Holy Commandments of Obama's Innocence". For my part, I used only fact and logic. In "Small Price to Pay for Unity" and "An Exercise in Patience & Logic: The Obama Citizenship Question", simple facts and logic landed most proponents of the outstanding citizenship question pleased...while leaving those mortified many who dispute the fact-based reality that any question exists, enraged.

My goal, however entangled it may get in partisanship from both sides - was only to demonstrate that an outstanding question does exist (specifically in "Patience & Logic"). I don't propose to know the answer. It's suspect that we even have room to subjectively debate this objective matter, when Mr. Obama could so easily quell it with a few pieces of documentation that the rest of us must show several times throughout the course of our lives. However, in trying to decipher how he could leave this matter so incredibly wide-open and exposed - I even suggested, albeit out of desperation to afford him even a trace of credibility, that it's possible he doesn't know there's actually validity to the existing question despite his having posted his Certification of Live Birth - and he possibly thinks it really is just the first of many empty attacks on his character.

None of it takes. Fact, logic....it's all just too much for most people, who accept only what they concoct in their own minds - or struggle to read and retain anything past a headline.

The media is mostly to blame. What most people concoct in their own minds, is a result of what they are fed by way of media suckling. Had the media even scratched the surface of having done their jobs of reporting matters of public interest - long before November 4th, Mr. Obama would have been forced to release his college records and disclose his Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the Certification, which in Hawaii, believe it or not, with tucked away legalities, proves nothing as it relates to births that are "natural born" or even on Hawaiian soil - regardless of what an even authentic Certification says), or...he would have been exposed and long since stepped down, paving the way for an imminent, media-driven Democrat victory that, at a minimum, didn't come complete with prospective fraud and/or Constitutional crises. But they didn't. And while I've postured that it's possible Mr. Obama really doesn't know that within all the debate, there is a very grounded and already accepted set of legalities and facts that leave the proof he's provided entirely moot as it relates to the question at hand...there is no chance the media has overlooked that. There is simply no excuse for the control of information this generation of spoiled and partisan journalists have embraced.

In the wake of the Blago scandal, which the media now happily absolves Mr. Obama from based on his simple statement that he hasn't spoken to Governor Blagojevich, despite very clear and (then) innocent statements-to-the-contrary made by Obama's top advisor, David Axelrod, only a few short weeks ago....I am no longer prepared to play nice or lead by example. I don't know who reads these. I don't care. Writing is one of many ways I carve out individual thought, and in doing so - hone written and oral ability that serves me exponentially well in other areas of my life. A few peers along the way suggested I make what I write more public, and having witnessed the incredible and irresponsible media bias that diseases our discourse....I decided to go ahead and parse out truth where I find it, and opinion where I feel it. Here's a little of both....

Barack Obama is likely the greatest fraud to ever set foot in Washington. He is absolutely the most despicable person to ever be considered for the Presidency, let alone con our nation in to validating that pursuit. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Mike Signator ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14713.html ) sold him any of the number of drugs he's admitted to abusing in his life. Make no mistake about it, if you tested Barack Obama for cocaine today, you'd likely learn he used it yesterday. He smokes. Smokes! "Well a lot of people smoke, Hank. He's just like the rest of us." Yes, he is "just like the rest of us". Only worse, because he's a good enough liar to have convinced many of you otherwise. And I don't want a President who smokes. Or gets head from 19 year old portly girls in the Oval Office. And neither should you. Do you understand how much integrity it takes to hold that Office? I want a Boy (or Girl) Scout in there. Someone better than me; better than "the rest of us". Someone who at a minimum, hasn't surrounded himself with so much scandal that there's so much room for so much doubt. These are matters of soft integrity, though. Hard integrity, as it relates to the Office, would keel over from dehydration if forced to physically endure all the lies he's happily smiled through. What politician, ever, in the history of lying politicians, was able to say..."No I didn't", when "Yes you did" blanketed everything about his past...only to have the media say, "Well he just said, 'No I didn't', what more do you want?" Only one has pulled this off: Barack Obama. And when you ask the media about this....? "We need hard evidence Hank. We can't just go making unfounded accusations." Oh, I'm sorry...I thought you were the same industry who uniformly jumped all over the "Who is Trig's real mom" story, or spent the last part of the campaign harping on claims from unnamed sources about Sarah Palin, and of incredible consequence - her clothes. Which, by the way, were all returned after the election....unlike the sum 400% greater than Palin's wardrobe cost, which Barack Obama pissed away on disposable "sound, stage and lighting" for his speech in Germany, Ohio. "What? There is no Germany, Ohio? Germany, California, maybe? Not there either? Germany...the country Germany?! Noooo. Yes?!!? He spent almost $1,000,000.00 on a single speech in Germany??!! What the f&*%? Wait, I mean....'Wow he's so good for America's image'."

Newsflash: The rest of the world has always hated us. Remember? We're loud, rude and obnoxious. We're not good enough. The press has told us this for most of my 31 year old life. The press is a business. Drama and controversy are their product, and despite failing print media...sales are great with you goose-steppers lining up for more. "We need to fix America's image! Everyone hates us! Oh no! Oh no!" It's lonely at the top folks, and for now anyway....guess what, we're still there. But with people like Barack Obama pandering to the entitled and telling you, "It's not your fault you bought houses you knew you couldn't afford or racked up credit card debt you knew you couldn't pay".....we won't be at the top for long.

The closer I look, the harder right I lean. Personal responsibility has always been a core Republican value, and with Democrats in Congress failing to take even a shred of their own personal responsibility for literally and exclusively destroying our enterprise housing and lending markets and values.... while simultaneously mind you, telling America's entitled that the problems they face in their own lives and homes are not the result of their own miscalculated expectations, budgeting or work ethics....but rather the fault of George W. Bush....that personal responsibility value is increasingly attractive and exponentially meritorious. But it's going to escape most. Because Democrats are lining up to tell people, "It's not your fault. No, no. It's someone else's fault. And we, the Democrats, are going to fix it."

People like Barack Obama who pander to the poor and entitled, with empty promises to fix all of their problems, will likely get the power they pursue. But in an increasingly competitive global environment, they will only foster more of the complacency which best defines America's ultimate and increasing, enterprise failure.

Do not be fooled. The only 'change you can believe in', is change you are responsible for. Anyone who tells you otherwise, in a capitalist society, has just slapped you in the face.

So. Going forward, I'm shifting for now anyway, from all fact and no opinion, or most fact and some opinion...to lots of fact and plenty of opinion. Why not. Having said that, let me be clear: Barack Obama is a scumbag. If he defrauded his way in to power via false eligibiliy, he's a scumbag who should be in jail. If he didn't, he's a scumbag who won't be. I don't care what color half of him is, or how many statements he releases declaring "I am not a scumbag"...he is. The "Words don't matter" speech? Verbatim, from one of Axelrod's other scumbags. Words do matter, but actions matter more...and time and time again, where Barack Obama's more telling and credible actions net him trouble - his more deceitful and dangerous words get him out of it. Additionally, this generation of Democrats...Barack Obama's generation of Democrats...need you to stay poor, so they can stay in power. If you think your government owes you anything, beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you are mistaken. If you don't wake up to that individually, reset and reform your expectations and the role "personal responsibility" plays in your life...you will fail. If we don't wake up to that at the enterprise level?....America will.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; birthcertificate; blackhelicopters; conspiracykooks; obama; obamatruthfile; scotus; tinfoilhats
Here is Gov (commerce secretary elect)Bill Richardson saying in Spanish that Obama is an "immigrant." (So he understands understands "immigrant" issues.)The context suggests that by "immigrant" bill richardson means "illegal immigrant"



Here in plain English is the Kenyan Ambassador saying that Obama is born in Kenya.



............

from obama's own site factcheck.org by way of fightthesmears on his dual citizenship at birth

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

1 posted on 12/11/2008 8:46:18 AM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

4). There was a notice in a Hawaiian newspaper in 1961.

Any details on this?


2 posted on 12/11/2008 8:50:12 AM PST by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paisan
They admit it, say “So?” and then move on. The detail is that the birth notice in the Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 indicates that either Obama was born in Hawaii, or that someone in 1961 knew that Obama would WANT to be born in Hawaii circa 2008 and fraudulently entered a birth notice in a Hawaiian newspaper.

Sorry “birthers” Game-Set-Match. Obama was born in Hawaii is the most likely explanation according to all available data. It may not be what you want to believe, but it is most likely the truth.

3 posted on 12/11/2008 8:55:07 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Obama was born in Hawaii is the most likely explanation according to all available data.

"Most likely explanation" doesn't cut it. The egregious problem in all of this is that there is a Constitutional requirement laid out and absolutely no way to enforce it.

Regardless of Obama's natural-born citizenship (or lack thereof), the simple fact that there is no recourse to verify this most basic requirement for the Presidency is a scandal in and of itself.

4 posted on 12/11/2008 9:00:34 AM PST by kevkrom (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The detail is that the birth notice in the Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 indicates that either Obama was born in Hawaii, or that someone in 1961 knew that Obama would WANT to be born in Hawaii circa 2008 and fraudulently entered a birth notice in a Hawaiian newspaper.

Is it possible that the newspaper archives were "updated" sometime recently?

5 posted on 12/11/2008 9:02:12 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

With that I agree with you. The founders wrote the Presidential qualifications into the Constitution, but didn’t enact any measures to assure that only a qualified candidate would be elected by the Electoral College, or even any measures to check the qualifications of either a candidate or the electoral victor. We need to enact those measures so that no unqualified person ever runs or is elected going forward.


6 posted on 12/11/2008 9:03:52 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Sorry “birthers” Game-Set-Match. Obama was born in Hawaii is the most likely explanation according to all available data. It may not be what you want to believe, but it is most likely the truth.

That is not the disputed point! His father's citizenship and his mother's ability to transfer citizenship at his birth under then existing laws is the point. So far no evidence has been provided to answer these questions.

7 posted on 12/11/2008 9:04:23 AM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paisan
Typical newspaper birth announcement. I've seen a scan of it.

While some (Farah) seem to think the real story is something more sensational, I suspect it happened like this: His then-pregnant mother was visiting Kenya. She intended to fly back to Honolulu but she was so very pregnant that the airline wouldn't let her fly because they didn't want to deliver a baby in flight. She birthed our little nightmare in Kenya (as claimed by his own relatives, as claimed by the Kenyan ambassador, etc.), then shortly thereafter flew home to Honolulu and registered his foreign birth with the state of Hawaii. Probably sent the announcement info to the newspaper.

Although there are other very real problems with his citizenship (British citizenship, Indonesia, etc.), the most glaring one is the fact that for a foreign-born child to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, one of the parents must have been a U.S. citizen for at least five years past the age of sixteen. Omama, however, was only eighteen years old, rendering that condition impossible.

Bottom line: Liberals have been steadily effecting a coup over the past forty years. The capstone to their effort is what I call a coup d'bureaucracy. Everybody in the election process just assumed that it was someone else's job to verify the pesky little details like CITIZENSHIP. Since it was in nobody's job description, it just didn't get done. And here we are.

MM

8 posted on 12/11/2008 9:05:05 AM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer; All
There was a thread here yesterday, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2146115/posts where posters were saying that Obama was born Barry Soetero, the changed to Barak Obama, which is completely opposite to what I've read and understood to be the case.

Any comments?

9 posted on 12/11/2008 9:07:21 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Sho me da BC...mo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
I don't think the 1961 Hawaii newspapers are available anywhere except by microfiche (sp?) at the local library. Go check it out yourself. As far as I know the birth notice is uncontested, all the “birthers” who wrote this tripe could come up with in answer was “So?”.

So? they ask. OK. I will answer. So either someone knew Obama would want to be born in Hawaii back in 1961, or Obama was actually born in Hawaii in 1961. So far nobody has come up with a plausible reason for a very pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham to fly to Kenya to give birth. Or a plausible reason why there would be a birth notice for Obama in a 1961 Hawaii newspaper.

10 posted on 12/11/2008 9:08:38 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
or that someone in 1961 knew that Obama would WANT to be born in Hawaii circa 2008 and fraudulently entered a birth notice in a Hawaiian newspaper.

Well that explains why the BC is being reserved at enormous legal cost. Apparently a notice of birth in an Hawaiian newspaper is good enough.

I was born in England. However a notice of my birth was also put out in a paper in a foreign port by my proud sea-faring dad. Let's say that port was New York (it wasn't). Can I run for President?

According to you, I can.

11 posted on 12/11/2008 9:11:04 AM PST by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
If you had the contemporaneous birth announcement in the newspaper of the US city or state of your birth, a birth certificate that said you were born within the USA, and/or a US citizen parent that fulfilled the residency and age requirements, then yes.

According to the present circumstances, anybody can run for President and there is no mechanism to ensure qualification. That has to change.

12 posted on 12/11/2008 9:18:32 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

What, me worry?

13 posted on 12/11/2008 9:19:34 AM PST by newheart (The Truth? You can't handle the Truth. But He can handle you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
DSC_0067sm
14 posted on 12/11/2008 9:45:23 AM PST by Fred911 (YOU GET WHAT YOU ACCEPT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paisan

One just like the one I mailed to my home-town newspaper when my daughter was born in 1964.


15 posted on 12/11/2008 9:51:05 AM PST by jch10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

See #15. It was common practice at the time to announce the birth of a child in the newspaper....especially if the child was born in a different locale from the paper.


16 posted on 12/11/2008 9:56:24 AM PST by jch10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Why doesn’t he just instruct the State of Hawaii to release his birth certificate and get it over with?


17 posted on 12/11/2008 10:02:59 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I would suspect that the men who wrote our Constitution never dreamed that our government would be populated by so many treasonous bastards as we see there today.
18 posted on 12/11/2008 10:19:26 AM PST by ANGGAPO (Leyte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I’m the author of this piece. The reason I didn’t expound on the “So?”, is because I’ve already done it in several other places...and most of you intellectual stair-tumblers just refuse to accept it. No matter what is offered by way of fact or logic, you ignore it, and move on to something else completely debunkable...and when that’s debunked, you return to the beginning and start it all over again. It’s hilarious, at this point. Honestly, laughable. Excerpts, citing 2 separate but entirely possible, viable, simple, and non-conspiratory courses of action that may have occurred - resulting in the posting a birth announcement:

“Additionally, a birth announcement in a newspaper is certainly not indicative of legally binding precedent. It’s entirely likely that if a birth occurred in a foreign country, and his mother returned home and legally registered the foreign birth with the state of Hawaii, the the release to the paper would still exist.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-160646

“’Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack’s parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There’s a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud.’

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you’re bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

Now that we got that out of the way...what of the other 4 Commandments of Obama’s Innocence are you going to return to? Dizzying as it may be, now that I’m here, I might as well educate the sliver of your mind that might remain open, as it relates to Obama’s infalibility.


19 posted on 12/11/2008 2:56:41 PM PST by HankRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HankRand

So?


20 posted on 12/11/2008 3:02:28 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paisan

Paisan,

Excerps from previous articles, citing two separate but entirely viable ways a birth announcement might make it’s way to a newspaper, without their having to be anything conspiratory in that reality, activity or existence:

“’Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack’s parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There’s a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud.’

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you’re bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

“Additionally, a birth announcement in a newspaper is certainly not indicative of legally binding precedent. It’s entirely likely that if a birth occurred in a foreign country, and his mother returned home and legally registered the foreign birth with the state of Hawaii, the the release to the paper would still exist.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-160646

If you’re looking for more detail on the actual announcement...it was pretty simple: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6805 Kalanlanaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4”. No notation of hospital, or any other corroborating evidence to the place of birth....only that the birth occurred.


21 posted on 12/11/2008 3:03:42 PM PST by HankRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Sorry for the repost on the birth announcement piece, ckilmer. I didn’t realize responses went to the bottom of the page; I thought they’d be tucked away and embedded in the post they were responding to. Still learning this thread, though I won’t likely be back frequently enough to help you educate the naysayers. I do think it’s rather telling though, that they so fiercely fight the reality that an outstanding question exists.

Do you think if I were posting comments saying I was an alien, that they’d slow down to refute it? Or, if they were so sure it was untrue...do you think, instead, they’d walk away laughing, not wasting a minute on it, because they were certain any additional evidence that may surface as it relates to my claim, would only further discredit my claim? Do you think they’d be so concerned, that they’d begin creating lies to debunk me? (As we see so many do, when citing the state of Hawaii having verified he was “born there”, when in fact the statement said nothing of the sort.)

They’d likely walk away, if they knew it was baseless. But instead, go figure....HERE THEY ARE!!! Fighting for projection of Obama’s infalibility with everything they’ve got.

“Well Hank, people like you are DANGEROUS passing around so much misinformation.”

Really? What misinformation have I created or cited? Additionally, if this question is so baseless...and so easily disproved...why would you worry that interests in seeing it answered, like those I articulate, would ever net anything but further validation of your own (however uninformed) claims that it already has been, and affirmatively no less?

Jerkoffs. Can I say that here? Sorry...but it’s just funny at this point.


22 posted on 12/11/2008 3:21:21 PM PST by HankRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

That’s about right....

At least you’re able to laugh at yourself a little bit. That will never be a bad thing.


23 posted on 12/11/2008 3:21:26 PM PST by HankRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HankRand
LOL!

On a more serious note, don't the newspapers get birth notices straight from the hospitals? I didn't know one could, would, or would want to “file” a birth notice with a newspaper. I know my parents didn't, but I bet there is one nonetheless.

So why do you think Stanley Ann Dunham went to Kenya to give birth?

24 posted on 12/11/2008 3:27:55 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Again...it is completely viable that the virgin Mary....errrr....Stanley Ann Dunham, had a foreign birth, legally registered it in Hawaii, and then the STATE (who, you correctly cite as being more likely ‘other party’ than the parents - responsible for birth announcements), released that registration, along with many others, to the local print media.

Why did Stanley Ann go to Kenya to give birth? Speculation, and that’s all it is, and I respect and accept that...but speculation suggests she was there visiting, and was either too pregnant to endure travel or incurred labor sooner than expected, while still in Kenya. The last thing she probably ever thought about though, was that Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Dunham Soetoro Dunham Dunham Obama Soetoro Soetoro Soetoro Soetoro Dunham Soetoro Obama Obama Obama would ever seek the Presidency. And while that’s just speculation, per neatly tucked away Hawaiian legalities, the proof he’s offered to substantiate natural born citizenship simply isn’t complete or viable. And he could easily, easily provide it. Transparency? Unity? Where....? I don’t see it...and seeing so many debate this, you can’t claim to either. That’s not my doing. Or Berg’s, or Keyes’. That’s Barack Obama’s doing.

People treat this like a conspiracy HAD TO exist 47 years ago for this to be a viable question. It didn’t. And truthfully, I’m less concerned about the merit of the Constitution which made sense when it was carved out, but perhaps makes less sense now...but more concerned with a man who may have willfully and knowingly committed such a gross fraud in his unrelenting pursuit for power. I also believe Dr. Polarik’s research is very valid, however I don’t cling to it or cite it...because I am trying to stick only to fact that passed the litmus of public acceptance, long before this issue came up. And per those facts, the question is outstanding. It shouldn’t be. It doesn’t have to be. It is, though.

And I appreciate, providing I won’t post this only to find “You’re just racist, Hank! ‘Scoreboard! Scoreboard!’” posts with your name attached to them...the grounded inquiries you’re posturing. But, from experience, I am still certain...by the time we’re done, you’ll walk away saying, “No way. He’s eligible and proved it already. Of course he was properly vetted. Right...? Yeah. Of course he was. He must’ve been.” People are firm on this. But neither on either side of the debate, actually have room to be. It’s an objective question, with an objective answer, that many debate subjectively. That is the handy-work of a lack of transparency, on this objective matter, by the same person who claimed committment to uniting us.


25 posted on 12/11/2008 3:54:19 PM PST by HankRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HankRand
So Stanley Ann Dunham files for a Hawaii birth certificate, and then the birth notice gets sent to the paper, and the paper on that day says Barrack Hussein Obama was born the previous day, even though according to speculation it was actually in Kenya months previously?
26 posted on 12/11/2008 5:21:00 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The birth announcement was posted 10 days after the birth occurred.


27 posted on 12/11/2008 8:29:02 PM PST by HankRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: All

“each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to enforce this qualification.”

The clear intention behind the “natural born citizen” in the constitution is that there be no divided loyalties for the highest office in the nation. Obama himself has admitted that he is not a natural born citizen, and in fact, is at best (if we take him at his certification word), a native citizen, who had british citizenship at birth.

He does NOT qualify, he never did. He had to have known this, and yet ran for president in spite of the fact that it was illegal for him to do so. This also implies the secretary of state was remiss in their duties.

If you are to try and argue the intention behind the natural born citizen requirement, to somehow now force it to mean the same as native citizen (if in fact he actually is a native citizen, and not an illegal alien (this is almost comical at times)), despite the obvious and overwhelming historical meaning and legal precedent, saying that a dual citizenship is not natural born, you must do so via the courts. You cannot simply decide it so for yourself whenever it suits you, especially not with the office of the president of the United States. Obama knows this as well I’m sure, given his legal background.

So there you have it. Automatic disqualification insofar as I can see. And yet we have to file lawsuits in the supreme court to even get people to recognize these relatively simple matters.

No matter how much you love or hate the guy, or how great you might think he’d be at the job, it does not matter, he cannot be president.

In the interests of avoiding the ensuing chaos that will result from anyone being able to interpret the law in any way they see fit, the wholesale destruction of the constitution (all martial law at once, or slowly bit by bit), and any of the other nasty implications, perhaps it would be wise for Obama, McCain and whomever ever else isn’t qualified, to go on prime time tv, remove themselves from the presidential election, and make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they are solely responsible for the implications of their wholly irresponsible actions.


28 posted on 12/11/2008 8:31:22 PM PST by nominal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HankRand

It will probably be known eventually that his mother filed for a birth certificate to get him registered as a US citizen as soon as she and baby got off the plane.


29 posted on 12/11/2008 8:46:24 PM PST by Eye of Unk (Americans should lead America, its the right way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HankRand
10 days for the posting of the birth announcement as not at all unusual, most of the birth announcements published that day were from Aug 2 to Aug 7. It said the birth was ten days previous to Mr. and Mrs. Barrack Hussein Obama, on Aug 4th. Do you think nine days is sufficient time for Stanley Ann Dunham to fly back from Kenya after giving birth, registering her son for a Hawaii birth certificate, and then to have that announcement get sent to the paper?

Why is it that all the other birth announcements were showing the same range of birth dates? Did all those mothers have to fly in their babies from foreign shores and register them, thus explaining the same time gap for Obama as all the other babies born from Aug 2 to Aug 7 published that day?

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/koa_/File0008-2.jpg

30 posted on 12/12/2008 7:29:25 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Maybe his grandmother placed the announcement in the newspaper. Pardon me for a moment, I have to adjust my aluminium hat.


31 posted on 12/12/2008 10:40:48 AM PST by CaraMiaR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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