Posted on 01/05/2010 1:52:27 PM PST by autumnraine
Hey, I own some property in Alaska, purportedly it’s mineral-rich, if I send you a copy of my title for it will you send a transfer from your Paypal account?
I have a official statement from the Alaskan Governor and Sec’y of State stating that the Alaskan land does exist and that there are titles to it!
Okay, let's play along with this little scenario of yours... :-)
You say that you have the title (obviously in your name). I don't know if that is really true or not (as you say) and I want to check it out.
I contact the head of some agency that is officially in charge of the issuing of those titles and he (or she) confirms that yes, indeed, on their records that they maintain, they do show you as the "honest-to-goodness" owner of that property, and have no leins on it, and that you are entitled to sell it if you wish...
From that agency and the head of that agency that issues such titles -- confirming that you are the legitimate owner -- then if I were interested in buying -- I would proceed with the necessary legal process, to buy it -- knowing that you are recorded, on state records, as the true and legitimate owner.
That would be a comparable... :-)
-— ;-D ——
LOL!
Not quite. So solly, challie.
What exactly DID ;=P the officials say about the COLB? Did they validate it, or validate something else? ;=> ;-D What in the COLB did they validate?
!!! <3 LOL !!!
As I said, they could have posted a shopping list and it wouldn’t change the fact that the State of Hawaii made an official pronouncement from the Department of Health, which maintains, manages and issues the birth certificates — that Obama was born in Hawaii...
Whatever was posted on any website, anywhere in the world makes absolutely no difference in that fact.
So, you’re spinning your wheels to pay any attention to anything other than official announcements from the agency that is tasked with providing the information in the first place... LOL...
And that’s precisely the problem that a certain number of these posters here have, ignoring the very agency that maintains, manages, and issues that very information that they are asking for — that Obama was born in Hawaii — and looking at information that has no bearing on the State of Hawaii’s information.
Look, they — the Hawaiian officals — didn’t really say anything more than that they have some sort of documents on Obama. And that one of them says he was born in Hawaii. However that document may only be an unverified statement from a relative.
They have not indicated what that document is.
But they also said something that is a lie in those official statements. It’s a special type of lie. What kind of lie is that?
A lie like that is one where someone makes claim to know as a fact something they can not know as a fact. It may be acceptable to state that same thing as an expert opinion, but it is a lie of that special sort to say it is a fact.
It is a form of perjury: if shown to be deliberate misdirection.
What claim of fact was that? I bet you do well know!
Look, they — the Hawaiian officals — didn’t really say anything more than that they have some sort of documents on Obama. And that one of them says he was born in Hawaii. However that document may only be an unverified statement from a relative.
What I do know is that the State of Hawaii is the place where one gets the information as to where Obama was born... and to say that the very agency which is tasked with producing a document that is certified by them to say that someone is born in that state -- does not even know how to do that -- is pretty laughable, and is a clear example of why some of these posters here are regarded as kooks and crazies... by a large number of conservatives and liberals alike.
Now, to go into what you said a bit further, I do know that my dad took me around Antlers, Oklahoma and showed me a house (or the remains of it) where he was born (out in the country).
However, I know he doesn't remember it (as we usually don't, ourselves) but he is accepting the unsubstantiated word of some relative to that fact. And apparently so is the State of Oklahoma accepting the unsubstantiated word of some person, too -- as that's what it says on his birth certificate.
As for me, all I can say is that some unsubstantiated statement from some person, that I have no idea who it was, put down on some piece of paper, that I was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma... LOL...
I guess I should be running down that person and getting a sworn statement from them, so I could be sure that the State of Oklahoma is not playing some kind of trick on me... you just never know... :-)
And my dad, should have also gotten some kind of sworn statement and oath from whomever gave that unsubtatiated information to the state. Come to think about it, we all better be getting those sworn statements from all those unsubstantiated statements that were made on some paperwork when we were born. I bet all our 50 states are playing tricks on us... doncha know... LOL...
If I went around telling people that I didn't really know where I was born, in sptie of what the State of Oklahoma say, because of some unsubstantiated word and/or paperwork that the state has, and I had to hunt down some people and get sworn statements from them, about me and my dad -- I think some people would start working on getting me some psychiatric treatment in the meantime... :-)
--- ... ~~~ ___ :+D ___ ... : : : ;-P
<3 is not H8!
Was your Dad a Kenyan?
LOL!
Was your Dad a Kenyan?
Apparently all it takes is some people "saying so" and then -- whatever information the State of Oklahoma has and attests to, in its records -- it no longer counts... :-)
So, once again, we have evidence of why some are considered kooks and crazies, on this particular issue...
#2 is worthless and no one should pay any attention to it...
#1 is the primary and valid source of information...
Was your Dad a Kenyan?
Was your Dad a Kenyan?
According to the logic I see posted here, it doesn't matter -- all it takes is some unsubstantiated allegations, regarding my dad's birthplace -- and that becomes the primary source of truth for the matter, regardless of what the State of Oklahoma says... doncha know... :-)
In fact, I may not even be qualified under the Constitution to be President of the United States, for all I know...
I mean, I know I'm older than 35, and I know I've been living here longer than 14 years (in the good ole U.S of A.) and I'm guessing I was really born in Oklahoma, but can't know that for sure (doncha know...) since these State records people don't really know what they're doing when it comes to certifying where someone was born... LOL...
I mean, if I had decided to run for President and someone didn't like me, then their unsubstantiated allegations that I was actually born in Kenya, would take precedence over any state records, for sure... :-)
Sun Yat Sen.
Tea Pot Dome.
Zimmerman Telegraph.
AIG Bailout.
The Dreyfus Affair
http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/157898808X/ref=pd_cp_b_1
AGW
Social Security
Ponzi
Any of these familiar to you?
All examples of fraud — government and bureaucratic fraud and fairly large conspiracies to maintain the fraud.
Excepting only the Zimmerman Telegraph as a special case. That may have been fraud. Never completely resolved. But it is interesting in light of the reasonable questions and accusations of fraud and cover up. The link you provided for it is ridiculously unhelpful, except that it shows how important parts of history get glossed over.
At the time the Zimmerman Telegraph was discovered THE MOST CRITICAL AND INFLAMMATORY QUESTION IN THE POPULAR DISCUSSION about it was whether it was a a fraud or not. Yet the link you provided failed — amazingly strangely — to mention that.
Like the Zimmerman Telegraph it may be impossible now to establish where and when Obama was actually born, as those who were witnesses to the event or the proximity of the event are all dead as far as we know. The documents that Hawaii has may be only the statement of one person, and that statement could be a fraud of deliberation or accident, or could be true.
Yet like the Zimmerman Telegraph is now considered not the event that pushed the US into WW I, that many other events and forces would have brought us into the war, so too are the Hawaiian records not necessary to show that Obama is ineligible. The only pertinent fact that is determinative is that Obama’s Dad was Kenyan, never a US citizen.
The 14th Amendment did not rewrite the Presidential requirement of ‘natural born citizen’ — an explicit legal clause can not be overridden by a later general one which is implicit. In other words the 14th would have had to explicitly refer to the Presidential requirements for office or use the exact wording “natural born citizen’ to be so considered as a modification to that clause. It does not.
Yet the link you provided failed — amazingly strangely — to mention that.
If I had gone for one link versus another (just the "luck of the draw" you might say)... it would have had that information in there... :-)
Here's another link that mentions what the public thought initially in the first day or two...
On March 1, the US Government gave the plaintext of the telegram to the press. Initially the American public believed the telegram to be a fraud designed to bring America into the war on the Allied side. This opinion was bolstered by German, Mexican and Japanese diplomats, and by the American pacifist and pro-German lobbies who all denounced the telegram as a forgery. However, in a startling move, Zimmermann confirmed its authenticity in public, two days after its publication.
From - Zimmermann Telegram
But, aside from that and just in general, everyone knows that there's always been some kind of fraud and some kind of crime which has been charged and prosecuted in regards to various people in government. That's nothing new and has happened continuously since the formation of our country, not to say anything else about all other countries in the world.
You're not saying anything new here that you've got people who commit some kind of fraud or crime in government.
However, you'll note that I said this in a post up above...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2421694/posts?page=272#272And that would be fine, if that's as far as it went -- for that argument. However, that's not as far as it goes. There's another factor in there -- that the general public (the wide body of the voting electorate) takes into account too.
That other factor is that this information has all been known (as you state, for the parents) for a long time and there's been ample opportunity for anyone (who is in a position to do so) to "make a case" and prevent someone like that from being in that position (to be elected).
But, we see that even with all that information fully known, every state accepted that sworn and signed statement from Obama that he was qualified, per the Constitution, according to the three criteria that it specifies. Every state accepted that and none of them objected. In addition, all the Electors accepted that and none of them objected.
In fact the Republican candidate accepted that and he did not object. In addition, the Republican Party, itself officially accepted that and no one objected to that. And we add the Republican President, George Bush, of the United States (at that time) accepted that and he did not object. The Vice President, Cheney, accepted that.
The Electors were given an opportunity after the election to object and withdraw their votes and none did, they all accepted that. Even the entire Congress of the United States, accepted that, with not even one Republican Congressman objecting during the Certification process. Even Vice President Cheney, who was also there and had the capability of objecting officially at that time -- did not and he accepted that.
SO..., when the greater voting electorate sees all that happen, and sees a candidate make it through all those "processes" and no one who has the ability at every step of the way -- to object -- does object, at all, including even all the Republicans in a position to say and do something about it -- that tells the voting electorate -- that there is something mighty wrong and fishy about that assessment that you're making of Obama's "qualifications" from the reasons you gave.... :-)
Oh..., and there's no need for Obama to "manufacture" a birth certificate. The State of Hawaii has already gone on record saying that they have the birth certificate on record and that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born citizen (they said all that on official State of Hawaii letterhead). So, when the greater voting electorate sees that kind of official statement from the State, itself, who says that they have it on record -- that pretty much cinches it for the greater majority of people.
The idea here is that on all sides, with all the parties that play into the process, including the voting electorate and the Electors themselves and our own President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- this has not been an issue that anyone has said is a problem.
The only pertinent fact that is determinative is that Obama’s Dad was Kenyan, never a US citizen.
There's wide disagreement within the ranks of those who think Obama is not qualified -- as to whether that's determinative.
Some of your own group, who maintains that Obama is not qualified per the Constitution, says that this is not the basis upon which he is not qualified.
And I can pretty well tell that in the broader voting electorate, this determination (as to how he's not qualified) is not "flying" with them. And I don't think it's going to fly with any court either.
As I was telling someone else about this, if it is ever decided (one way or the other way) -- it will most likely be done after Obama has left office. And my thinking is that this issue (as you just state it, regarding Obama's qualifications according to his father's citizenship) will never be decided at all, by any court. It will be left exactly the way it is now -- which is some people will agree and a whole lot of others will disagree that this is determinative.
[T]he Zimmerman Telegraph as [sic] a special case. That may have been fraud. Never completely resolved.
Per Barbara Tuchman (”The Zimmermann Telegram”), the German Foreign Minister admitted the authenticity of the telegram.
(A rather boneheaded move, wouldn’t you say?)
I have said it before and will say it again. It’s not where he was born, it’s who he was born to. Obama is British by birth and not a natural born citizen. It does not matter where he was born, Hawaii, the moon, Africa,or the steps of the Lincoln memorial. Who he is the son of determined BEFORE he was born that he could never be a natural born citizen.
He ‘hung a bell on it’!
Decades since I’ve read that book. What happened after he admitted, and how was that different than the political dynamic if he had left it unresolved or denied it?
Well, I do appreciate your willingness to “assume it” (for the sake of discussion here) — but — I do have to say that it’s gone way beyond the “assuming stage” when the State of Hawaii says it... LOL...
The state of Hawaii has never said that the COLB he posted online came from them. In fact, their early statements sounded to me like it didn’t. That is what got me interested and has kept me interested. I want it proven if the COLB posted online is a fake. I think it is. If so, a crime has been committed. I want it made public if a crime was committed and a conspiracy was used to keep it hidden.
He claims he is the son of a foreigner so as far as I am concerned, he is not a natural born citizen regardless of if he is native born.
Our founding fathers had far more brilliance and vision than any politician I’ve heard from in my lifetime. They didn’t use legalese of today’s crafty lawyers who make a living by being able to interpret the law anyway they please depending upon which client pays the most. They didn’t say native, they said natural. Now you can be a citizen lots of ways by amendments, naturalization, etc. but natural means by nature and you get that from your parents. Natural means not needing anything else such as amendments, naturalization, or 1/3 of the country’s citizens arguing about it. It is yours by nature when it is bestowed upon you by your parents. Nothing has to happen to make it so, it is your birthright.
Let’s just envision for a moment that Prince William came over here for a visit. He seduces a young woman. She conceives and bears a child. Prince William later becomes King William of Britain (remember the bloody war we fought against Britain to gain our independence) and provides the means to have his son installed as our President. That is exactly what our forefathers envisioned causing them to use the power of words to try and protect us.
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.