They "believe" he was but they just aren't sure.
They submitted a series of computer forensics analyses to this online public square, arguing that the White House pdf had been fraudulently manipulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“They” includes Freeper Polarik and Freeper Research Specialist Fred Nerks, as well as others.
Their research has been bent yet again by Joel Gilberts recent movie, where he falsely claims that Obama’s real father is Frank Marshall Davis. This was done specifically to gain the public opinion that all of the initiatives to obtain Obama’s true background, including Sherrif Arapaio’s Cold Case Posse, are all “nutters.”
BTW, there is no evidence which would support the conclusion that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s father.We all know that Stanley Anne Dunham was not the mother of Obama, the time lines of where SAD was during critical points of time simply do not point to her being Obama’s biological mother. Then Anne Dunham, another woman, complicates matters of record by also having born Obama Sr. a child ( Obama Sr. had several so called wives.)
The fact is that we simply do not know who Obama is, the crucial records have been expunged.
We do know one thing though for sure. Obama is a usurper of Congressional convention and a destroyer of the Constitution. Obamas refusal to negotiate with Congress to pass compromise laws, even with a Democrat absolute majority for two years,and his substitution of executive orders for the Congressional process, has lead to a fiscal disaster, and a weakening of the entire nation, as Obama had planned ab initio.
Obama is a clear and present danger to the United States of America, and he should be treated accordingly by the electorate.
The People must enforce the constitution , the Courts will not, they have refused or failed to do so. They will attempt to do so by using the ballot box, and if they fail in that endeavour as they likely will, then other more rigorous and perhaps unfortunate methods will surely follow.But the People will remain free, at any cost. Obama is banking that Americans do not have the committment or fortitude to regain the freedom he has so strenuopusly and continuously usurped.Obama is very mistaken in his supposition, and he is as good as gone, but it may take another decade to be rid of Obama and all he has wrought.
Hopefully, in another five months it won’t matter a bit WHERE he’s from; he’ll be going back there and vanishing into the obscurity that his dishonesty and his utter lack of insight and talent warrant.
Who is he?
If America only knew....
The best Obama exposure site on the net:
(by our own FReeper, Beckwith)
The Obama File
The United States Library of Congress has selected
TheObamaFile.com for inclusion in its historic collection
of Internet materials
Just a few of the pages:
On one level, the answer is easy given the absence of verifiable bona fides attesting to Obamas life story, from every college record to every travel document, from every medical record to every legal writing to every law practice billing record to every record of his tenure as an Illinois state senator and more.
At the same time, however, there is, to date, zero verifiable evidence to be found of his Hawaiian birth; meanwhile there is circumstantial evidence of alternative nativities.
Other oddities include a missing week of immigration cards tracking American arrivals into Hawaii from abroad that should be in the national archives. Obamas birthday in August 1961 falls in this missing week. In light of unexplained facts such as these, in light of the Obama documents that remain sealed, its really not so hard to see where a foreign nativity story comes from
Literally everything about this person, is a fabrication, a lie, or incomplete in authenticity, and he likes it that way, or he would have done something about it. For a US political party, or any group to lend their support to such, is at best un-American, and at the worst treasonous. This does not begin to address individual voter support of the same.
Whatever he is, he’s a fake.
The Committee on Presidential Elections is chartered as an impartial, non-profit. They have organized our Presidential debates since 1988. Their own criteria requires each participating candidate to be natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution:
How do they establish NBC status? What’s their definition of NBC?
Why not pose to each candidate a simple “house cleaning” request:
Please explain for our audience how you qualify as a “natural born citizen” of the USA.
What does it mean for our country, today and for the future, if this question has become too controversial to ask of our candidates?
CDP’s email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Maybe because michelle said that kenya is obamas home country?
“Course, she probably dont know as much about him as the other leftwing lunatic weenies out there.
It shouldn't have even gotten close to a courtroom. It should have been stopped dead in its tracks from Congress and the GOP. We have a definition from Homeland Security and from Congress that 1) born in the US and 2) of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS in SR511 that they (Obama and Hillary signed it twice) vetted McCain on. Crickets on holding the same standard to the usurper. I blame Congress but I blame the Republicans more.
The Constitution doesnt define natural born, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). Minor spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case.
That argument is simply based on a technical misreading of the decision in Minor. The language where the Court itself characterizes its decision as a holding that a person born in the United States of two citizen parents is what technical lawyers call "obiter dicta"--it isn't part of the court's decision no matter what the author of the opinion said.
For these two reasons either of which is sufficient on its own.
The argument in Minor was by a lady who claimed to be a US Citizen. She was born in the United States and there is a legion of authority for the proposition that a person born in the United States is a citizen no matter what the circumstances of their birth. Thus addition of the proposition that both of her parents were citizens is simply surplus language--what lawyers call dicta.
You may not like that answer but there is no doubt or room for argument that is the correct answer as a matter of law--that's the reason all of the lawyers on our side who have made that argument to a court have been laughed out of the jurisdiction.
Further, the only issue before the Court in Minor was whether or not the plaintiff was a US Citizen at all--no argument about whether or not she would be treated as "natural born" under Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
In our law, the question of whether or not an individual is "natural born" is relevant only for purposes of resolving an argument over whether the individual is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. That was not the issue here. Thus addition of the term "natural born" in the Court's holding was again, surplus language not relevant to the decision and is thus dicta.
Given the state of the law on the subject, it is impossible to conceive of a set of facts on which a person would be held not to be Natural Born if they were born in the USA.
I understand that is not the popular view. Personally, in my view, that ought not be the law. But that is the way the Court will come down and failure to deal with a realistic understanding of the law on this topic is what precluded lawyers on our side from being able to disqualify zero from the Georgia ballot.
There are two points about the born in Kenya thesis.
If you could show that he was born in Kenya to Stanley and Obama Senior as parents, he was not born a citizen of the United States at all--applicable citizenship statutes are clear on that point. No possible way he would be held Natural Born.
Further, as the article points out, zero went around for years telling anyone who would listen (and authorizing biographies setting forth) that he was born in Kenya.
Under another fairly obscure legal doctrine in the law of evidence, such statements against interest are in most jurisdictions under most circumstances, evidence that is where he was born.
Since there is no other evidence of any nature where he was born, in the proper legal proceeding (which was in place before the ALJ in Georgia and muffed by our lawyers), a court should hold that zero was obligated to prove on the record where he was in fact born or be held to have been born in Kenya, whether he was in fact born there or not.
I believe he is a hologram.
Communist Party USA manufactured hologram using secret soviet stolen alien mind control technology.
Whats really frightening is that he has that weird Cheshire cat grin all the time.