Obama's Birth Certificate

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust. Who does not accept God? This country has both medics and engineers in 'harm's way' in Afghanistan where Bin Laden actually is &, as for ANZUS, that's yesterday's news Quahom. I was among those protesting about ANZUS and celebrating when we banned your nuke ships.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Heiferdust. Who does not accept God? This country has both medics and engineers in 'harm's way' in Afghanistan where Bin Laden actually is &, as for ANZUS, that's yesterday's news Quahom. I was among those protesting about ANZUS and celebrating when we banned your nuke ships.

yeah, your people are safely tucked away in bases far from trouble, while my sons and nephews step on mines...and survive...

Oh and your nuke fear...well that is simply the fear of the mis-informed. I suppose the US should step away from the middle east, yeah? Then what? Middle East take care of itself? Last time I checked, you still need oil to heat your homes and keep your autos running (farms producing). You can't go totally green yet, and not for another 20 years my friend. And your's is a small island...

Do you really think Mr. Obama is going to change all of this?

It's not a bet I'd take...

oh, BTW... the term is Bull S hit

[kiwimac]

I prefer Heiferdust. As for the rest, do I smell sour grapes?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

I prefer Heiferdust. As for the rest, do I smell sour grapes?

Actually, as an aussi lady of mine once said "meh"...

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

You are wrong to insist on a greater standard of proof for one person as against another. To say that x is acceptable in all circumstances unless you have a certain kind of name or ethnic background is simply to indulge in prejudice. So sorry if you do not like to hear that. Moreover, given that if the US sneezes NZ develops pneumonia, I actually do have a dog in this show.

Borrowing from Jeff Schreiber today:

As an aside, 217 years ago today, three-quarters of the states ratified the first ten amendments to our Constitution. Let's say a few prayers today that, not limited simply to the Bill of Rights, the ideas and ideals of our nation's founders can be understood and upheld.

The questions into Obama's eligibility has never been about Obama or ideology or any sort of conspiracy to me; it has always come down to the Constitution. While not in the Bill of Rights, the intent of our founders is inherent in Article II, Section 1 -- and regardless of the political candidate in question, we should be assured that the guidelines set forth by the framers are being honored and given the respect they deserve.

As I've written before, it's been a certain segment of the population which has unnecessarily expanded--and in the process diluted--this particular issue. It's not about Obama. It's not even about the media. It's simply about the Constitution, and a question which should be answered.

You are caught up with race while those like Jeff and me are concerned for the constitution. Your concerns are so strong that you can't see this.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I've posted excerpts and videos explaining inconsistncies.

Making the argument that no paper document actually exists, that the birth certificate posting on the website is a Photoshop-- but, that argument was exploded ages ago. Fox News, worldnetdaily, and Berg's spokesman have all handled the birth certificate and pronounced it "the real McCoy", in the words of Berg's spokesman on a website that YOU gave us the link to but obviously didn't read, or didn't understand.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The point is tht if there is doubt, Obama has the obligation to erase such doubt in respect to the constitution.

There is no reasonable doubt, and you yourself are the proof that Obama has no possible way of "erasing" the nonsense doubt in your head. No matter how many piece-of-rubbish arguments are shot down, you will just come up with more.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

who knows what may force release of the document.

I have told you dozens of times: if you want to force Hawaiian officials to release original records stored in Hawaii, you need to file a lawsuit in a court in Hawaii, accusing the officials who issued the birth certificate of perjury and giving your evidence for that chare.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

All Obama has to do is go for the fifteen dollars to release the Long form to prove his eligability.

What you get for $15 is a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which Obama has already done, and that would be considered sufficient proof, for any person in the world except Obama. To persuade archivists to take originals out of the vault, you need to show a strong reason.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

However the Obama case is unique in that it effects the highest position in America.

What's "unique" about that? There have been candidates running for President every four years for a couple centuries. None of them have offered any more proof of where they were born than Obama has. I keep asking you why you have not demanded original hospital records of McCain's birth? Why is his case any less "unique" than Obama's?

[Nick_A]

Regardles what Bob and the rest of the choir say, this is still unclear. Now there is this testimony before the court.

Investigator casts doubt on Obama's birth residence

A private investigator has released to WND an affidavit that casts doubt on whether Barack Obama's family lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961.
Jorge Baro was hired by WND to investigate issues related to Obama's birth amid allegations the [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]Democrat[/color][/color] does not meet the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."

At some point this whole mess may stink so much that the choir will have to hold their noses while singing. I believe that somehow the truth will come out. If it turns out that Obama was born in Hawaii and is just acting this way for spite then that's how he is. If on the other hand more and more contradictions emerge, something's gotta give.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Regardles what Bob and the rest of the choir say, this is still unclear. Now there is this testimony before the court.

Investigator casts doubt on Obama's birth residence

Which court is that, Nick?

And what makes you think someone would trot out an investigator who has had administrative action taken against him, raising the possibility of the license being suspended on account of noncompliance with applicable statutory provisions/guidelines for licensed persons in the state of Florida?

Have a look:
Division of Licensing - Agency Search

Note that Jorge Baro has had two other license applications denied.

At some point this whole mess may stink so much that the choir will have to hold their noses while singing.

Are you referring to the credibility of your sources here?

If on the other hand more and more contradictions emerge, something's gotta give.

I appreciate your good-natured efforts to build excitement and make it a little more theatrical just to keep our interest. However, I think we can realistically expect the RW propaganda machine to trudge along pretty much along these lines and provide you with more of the same for you to copy and paste into this forum: unsubstantiated rumour, fictitious lawsuits that are never seen by a court, lawsuits filed by people who have no standing, phony investigations by "Elite" investigators, etc., etc., etc.

Totally ridiculous.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Which court is that, Nick?

And what makes you think someone would trot out an investigator who has had administrative action taken against him, raising the possibility of the license being suspended on account of noncompliance with applicable statutory provisions/guidelines for licensed persons in the state of Florida?

Have a look:
Division of Licensing - Agency Search

Note that Jorge Baro has had two other license applications denied.

Are you referring to the credibility of your sources here?

I appreciate your good-natured efforts to build excitement and make it a little more theatrical just to keep our interest. However, I think we can realistically expect the RW propaganda machine to trudge along pretty much along these lines and provide you with more of the same for you to copy and paste into this forum: unsubstantiated rumour, fictitious lawsuits that are never seen by a court, lawsuits filed by people who have no standing, phony investigations by "Elite" investigators, etc., etc., etc.

Totally ridiculous.

Here is the affidavit identifying the court:

http://wnd.com/files/baro.pdf

Ridiculous, we shall see. You are a believer while I know politicians.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Here is the affidavit identifying the court

Southern District of Mississippi?????
How many times do I have to point out to you that if you are going to accuse Hawaiian officials of perjury, you have to do that in Hawaii? Officials in Mississippi, or any other state, are obligated (under the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, in the Constitution which you despise although you pretend to support it) to accept at face value the Certificate sworn to by officials of Hawaii (or any other state).

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Ridiculous, we shall see.

Ridiculous, we already do see.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bob x

Southern District of Mississippi?????
How many times do I have to point out to you that if you are going to accuse Hawaiian officials of perjury, you have to do that in Hawaii? Officials in Mississippi, or any other state, are obligated (under the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, in the Constitution which you despise although you pretend to support it) to accept at face value the Certificate sworn to by officials of Hawaii (or any other state).

Ridiculous, we already do see.

The point is that what exists in Hawaii may be legal but meaningless and actually prove Obama not qualified. There is this question of who has the right to ask for release of this long form. It seems logical that another court could compell Hawaii to release the long form without breaking its own laws.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Here is the affidavit identifying the court:

http://wnd.com/files/baro.pdf

So you link us to an undated affidavit with no civil action number associated with it.

Seriously, stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

So you link us to an undated affidavit with no civil action number associated with it.

Seriously, stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

One thing at a time. Let's see how it develops. More and more of such revelations will appear and something will have to give.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

More and more of such revelations will appear and something will have to give.

Nick, what is the legal significance of a nonfinding?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Nick, what is the legal significance of a nonfinding?

I never claimed to be a lawyer. I'll have to ask Jeff Schreiber I do know that a person is in the process of submitting an affidavit. What happens to it is another matter. the point is that he was hired to do research and came up with some interesting findings. Evidently there are also some delegates that are open to ask for proof before voting so I imagine it will all come together in a suit. Like Jeff, I don't think it will get anywhere.

America's Right

Philip Berg's case against Barack Obama and the DNC, the first such lawsuit and the one broken here at America's Right, will be discussed by the Supreme Court Justices at conference on Friday, January 9. This is the same type of conference seen in Wrotnowski and Donofrio, only Berg has filed a petition for writ of certiorari and not merely an application for emergency stay.

For all intents and purposes, this is a distinction with no discernable difference when it comes to the eventual outcome -- I still feel that the odds of any of these cases being heard on their merits are slim to none to completely insurmountable.

Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I cannot discuss this any more today. A few days ago, I discussed a realistic approach to where Berg's case goes from here -- please take a look.

In the meantime, it's back to work for me.

The important thing is that as more revelations appear, even more people loyal to the constitution will demand proof of his qualifications to be president. There will be too much money for the people able to reveal the Long Form. Consequently if the deception I suspect is reality, there will be a constitutional crisis and whatever damage occurs as a result will be the responsibility of all parties stonewalling. No amount of PC bull will nullify it. If Obama takes the oath of office knowing full well what he is hiding, it is a crime.