Birth Certificate
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    Thoughts on the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate?

    I ask for the reason depicted in the graph linked below:
    Link
  • mungomungo September 2009
    I was skeptical at first (months and months ago), but decided that if this were true it would have been uncovered and revealed as an absolute.
  • TheDeamonTheDeamon September 2009
    QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 10 2009, 09:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Thoughts on the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate?

    I ask for the reason depicted in the graph linked below:
    Link


    Considering his Mother is an American, I find the whole thing silly. Regardless of where he was born, that alone would have no doubt have been basis for him being considered a natural born citizen of the country -- if it had been done through proper channels. If it couldn't have had that result, then some laws need to be changed, badly.
  • EvestayEvestay September 2009
    I think his mother was 17 at the time of birth, does that affect anything?
  • EvestayEvestay September 2009
    Actually, I want to add something. Most of the cases filed against Obama to figure out the birth certificate legitimacy have been dismissed for lack of standing. The people who filed had a generalized grievance (they have the same interest as the entire population in finding out the truth to uphold the Constitution) and so it was not a sufficient enough "case or controversy" (with a personal grievance to be solved) for the reviewing court to get involved in such a political question.

    There is a new case that has a much better chance of getting reviewing. It is a member of the military who has refused to go serve in Afghan/Iraq (not sure which) under an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief. This is a more personalized grievance where the military member will have to serve if Obama is qualified to be President (and going into a war zone is a pretty big deal). It still involves a political question so the court could still throw it out, but this case has the best chance yet to get somewhere. The case goes into oral argument on Oct. 5 for the judge to decide on the motion to dismiss and if it survives the motion it will go to trial January 26, 2010. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242 ("The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama's eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.")
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    Comparing their birthdays on wiki:
    11/29/42
    and
    8/4/61

    she was almost 19.
  • EvestayEvestay September 2009
    ok ok thanks for doing the work for me :x
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    QUOTE (Evestay @ Sep 10 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    ok ok thanks for doing the work for me :x


    Bonus advice:
    World Nut Daily might be the trashiest "political" blog on the internet. It's definitely in the running with Democratic Underground and Newsmax.

    WND will not receive any clicks from me.
  • EvestayEvestay September 2009
    I only linked it to show the dates. If you want me to go to the court docket website I can..
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    QUOTE (Evestay @ Sep 10 2009, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I only linked it to show the dates. If you want me to go to the court docket website I can..

    I wasn't saying that for *my* benefit.

    Here's an article about it that doesn't drip with "concern"
    Google search for: Obama Birth Certificate Hearing January 26 - skipping WND, Freerepublic, and blogspot/wordpress sites.

    Curiously it says this:
    "Judge Carter did not comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions about Obama's eligibility, that they would need to be addressed and resolved."

    Who to believe?


  • BillBill September 2009
    I can't believe this is even in contention anymore... I can't believe this was EVER in contention.
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    QUOTE (Bill @ Sep 11 2009, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I can't believe this is even in contention anymore... I can't believe this was EVER in contention.


    Once it isn't anymore... which may never happen... they'll move on to his occidental college records, his mother's birth certificate, his thesis, whatever they can. It's not about *honestly* believing the man is ineligible to be president it's about desperately wanting him to be ineligible. Think of the vindication that would bring!

    Sort of like if Bush and Cheney were charged with war crimes, which will also never happen.
  • BillBill September 2009
    People rarely die because of college records and parents birth certificates. I fail to understand how this, and bald faced lying that leads to a war, can even be related.
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    QUOTE (Bill @ Sep 11 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    People rarely die because of college records and parents birth certificates. I fail to understand how this, and bald faced lying that leads to a war, can even be related.


    DUDE! OBAMBI is PAYING his LAWYERS MILLIONS of dolalrs to handle this COVER-UP! He's got something he doesn't want getting out. And a president who isn't willing to stay straight with the American People (yes that's caps) is dangerous. This is why he's so much WORSE than BUSH! Bush kept America SAFE for eight seven and a half years, and already OBUMMER is doing everything in his power to get us attacked again. God Damn America!? You better believe he believes it. And now he's the President!? And the worst part? He stole it from Palin with union thuggery and his strong arm voter-fraud czars at ACORN (watch the money folks!)

    We're through the rabbit hole people!

    image

    /washes hands
    //washes hands again.
  • ScabdatesScabdates September 2009
    QUOTE (mungo @ Sep 10 2009, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I was skeptical at first (months and months ago), but decided that if this were true it would have been uncovered and revealed as an absolute.

    Why were you skeptical and how is that the best reason you could come up with to no longer be skeptical?


  • mungomungo September 2009
    QUOTE (Scabdates @ Sep 11 2009, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Why were you skeptical and how is that the best reason you could come up with to no longer be skeptical?


    I was skeptical because I found it a little disturbing how many different answers I could come up with via web-related research.

    I decided that I didn't have enough free time to continue with my research . I also knew that more determined people looking for any reason to rid America of his candidacy would be able to unearth some irrefutable evidence if it was there.

    To me, it was the same as knowing that if you lift weights you'll get stronger without necessarily understanding how the process works. It isn't the most educated form of knowledge, and can be wrong more often than not. But this meant absolutely nothing to me (and yes, I'm a Republican). I had other reasons not to vote for him.
  • NunesNunes September 2009
    QUOTE (mungo @ Sep 11 2009, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I was skeptical because I found it a little disturbing how many different answers I could come up with via web-related research.


    Have you done a web search of Glenn Beck & 1990? The results are ... disturbing!

    /worst logic I've seen today.
    //The rest of your post was reasoned and explained your apathy, though.
  • mungomungo September 2009
    QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 11 2009, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    /worst logic I've seen today.


    Bleh, I know. I even admitted to it. image/blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blink:" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

    But the one thing I remember was that most of the sources were somewhat reputable news organizations.
  • ScabdatesScabdates September 2009
    QUOTE (mungo @ Sep 11 2009, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Bleh, I know. I even admitted to it. image/blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blink:" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

    But the one thing I remember was that most of the sources were somewhat reputable news organizations.

    Gonna have to say that I'm not entirely believing this one.


  • TheDeamonTheDeamon September 2009
    QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 11 2009, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Curiously it says this:
    "Judge Carter did not comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions about Obama's eligibility, that they would need to be addressed and resolved."


    I think it's more of a, "If they invalidate Obama's eligibility to be president what happens next?"

    Biden becomes president, and common practice has been for the ranking member in the House of the same party to then become the VP, which would be Pelosi.

    ....I'll pass.
  • GovernorGovernor September 2009
    QUOTE (TheDeamon @ Sep 12 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I think it's more of a, "If they invalidate Obama's eligibility to be president what happens next?"

    Biden becomes president, and common practice has been for the ranking member in the House of the same party to then become the VP, which would be Pelosi.

    ....I'll pass.


    While that sounds pretty awful to me, if Obama did not fit the qualifications to be president, then I would throw myself behind the effort to remove him.

    He is, however, qualified to be president in every regard. This has been proven over and over again with regard to his place of birth both by third parties and the state of Hawaii. It does not get any more certain than that.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership