Obama's Birth Certificate

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Why so much FEAR about Obama?

Does cocern for the constitution require fear. If there is fraud, don't people have the right to know and Obama be removed in respect to the constitution. If not then get rid of the constitution.

This is the same mindset I came up against when defending the necessity to admit the Armenian genocide to be a genocide even though people denied it. If "never again" means anything we cannot adopt selective morality for political purposes. We've learned that "never again" means nothing anymore and is just words to be manipulated.

Must it be the same with the constitution? Do we not verify questionable credentials to become president because it questions this new savior? If so, the constitution loses its potency from lack of respect. This is not a fear of Obama but a fear of losing something of great value for cheap political gain.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dream

Tao, you're not from the USA. It is clear that Obama secretly hired people to accuse him falsely knowing full well they'd be soundly rebutted. I think its a sign of how evil he is. He shouldn't be manipulating us like that.

I'm not from the USA. I can see the forest not the trees? Obama is not, in my opinion, a natural democrat in heart and soul. He is a stooge of the same industrialist cartel that currently holds the reigns. How do you guarantee to hold power? Field both candidates But maybe I'm just a paranoid Scotsman whos had one tipple to many?


tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Does cocern for the constitution require fear.

So what protest or action did you do to try and prevent W's many railroadings of the American Constitution?


tao

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So what protest or action did you do to try and prevent W's many railroadings of the American Constitution?


tao

People are arguing details all the time. This is why constitutional lawyers make so much money. I don't know of anything W has done that blatantly denies the constitution but I am not a constitutional lawyer.

However constitutional requirements to seek the presidency are basic beginning with being a naturalized citizen. Again, this is BASIC. If he cannot provide the requested documents, he is not qualified. One doesn't need all these expensive lawyers listed by Obama to release the documents. These lawyers are only necessary to attempt to avoid release and abuse the constitution. This is a horrible lack of character.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

That is a different issue. I am concerned that he was such a part of ACORN that is now heavily being investigated for voter fraud as well as his well known ties to thise like the delightful Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. In short, I don't know Obama. However this deliberate stonewaling as to his qualifications for the presidency is an obvious black mark against his charcter so for me there is a lot to be concerned with this man.

None of this has anything to do with the essence of this thread which is if he was actually born in America and a naturalized citizen.

Do you watch a bunch of Fox News in general and Sean Hannity in particular? Me, I'm a Keith Oberman fan. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Do you watch a bunch of Fox News in general and Sean Hannity in particular? Me, I'm a Keith Oberman fan. earl

I watch these shows but not on a steady basis. When I saw Rev. Wright in action and his God Damn America it was distressing but at least he was being honest. To watch Obama say that he never knew he was like this just means that he thinks I'm a royal A-hole to swallow this denial whole. Of course he knew Whright just like he knew Ayres.

I've worked many political parties as a musician and when on a break we often hang out in the same house the politicians stay. You'd be surprised at the attitude some of these delights have towards the people which is exactly opposite of what they say in public. But when they have had too much wine the truth comes out.

I've been around the block with these characters and believe I know where Obama is coming from. I may be wrong but if I'm right, he is not the second coming of Jesus Christ. This I can assure you. He includes all the attractions and dangers of communism which I know all to well from the horrors of my family history.

Christianity rather than Christendom is the natural opposite of communism. Actually Judas was the first documented "liberal" I know of. My interest in Christianity allows me to understand this natural division and why communism supports the end justifies the means mindset. But people think Christianity and Christendom are the same so consequently the natural division is never really understood and people cannot understand what is lost when the constitution is devalued and acceptable as such as with this issue of presidential credentials.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I watch these shows but not on a steady basis. When I saw Rev. Wright in action and his God Damn America it was distressing but at least he was being honest. To watch Obama say that he never knew he was like this just means that he thinks I'm a royal A-hole to swallow this denial whole. Of course he knew Whright just like he knew Ayres.

I've worked many political parties as a musician and when on a break we often hang out in the same house the politicians stay. You'd be surprised at the attitude some of these delights have towards the people which is exactly opposite of what they say in public. But when they have had too much wine the truth comes out.

I've been around the block with these characters and believe I know where Obama is coming from. I may be wrong but if I'm right, he is not the second coming of Jesus Christ. This I can assure you. He includes all the attractions and dangers of communism which I know all to well from the horrors of my family history.

Christianity rather than Christendom is the natural opposite of communism. Actually Judas was the first documented "liberal" I know of. My interest in Christianity allows me to understand this natural division and why communism supports the end justifies the means mindset. But people think Christianity and Christendom are the same so consequently the natural division is never really understood and people cannot understand what is lost when the constitution is devalued and acceptable as such as with this issue of presidential credentials.

Somewhere a "right turn" without a turn signal occurred in this post that took you from Obama to communism. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Somewhere a "right turn" without a turn signal occurred in this post that took you from Obama to communism. earl

Not at all. the attractions of communism are strong. Even Simone became a communist. But Simone is Simone and her spiritual depth allowed her to see its flaw and abandon it. You can doubt its appeal and even Obama's attraction to Frank Marshall Davis. I know its appeal as extreme socialism yet I know its eventual collective result.

We need some tenors for the Interfaith choir that will follow the children and sing for Obama. I expect you to sign up, hold those notes and glorify the perceived new savior.

But again this is all speculation. The one thing that can be proven is if Obama is a citizen. If he is and were proud of it, he would gladly produce the requested documents. Yet if you look at the attorneys fighting to keep the requested documents secret, there is no pride of citizenship being expressed.

[Netti-Netti]

Nick wrote:

The requirements to become president are an essential part of the constitution. We have an obligation to authenticate them.

Nick, I'd be very interested if you'd apply your principled concern for the constitution to John McCaine.

McCaine is known to have been was born in a foreign country. Yet you refuse to recognize the need for inquiry into McCaine's status, and day after day go after Obama by means of unsourced rumour and a selective reading of the facts.

It seems your agenda is actually political, not constitutional. In particular, it seems you don't like the idea of Obama being President, which would explain why your now resort to things like suggesting he is a communist. I must say this is unusual. I had not seen such blatant propaganda on this forum before.

Needless to say, it's hard for you to avoid the impression of advancing a partisan slant when you are obviously in favor of a differential application of constitutional principles. If you accept the challenge, you will give equal time to expessing your principled concern for the constitution by applying the citizenship issues to McCaine.

The citizenship question is less ambiguous for McCain than it is for Obama if you frame it strictly as a birth certificate issue, as you have been doing for Obama.

Btw when are you going to apologize for using this forum to promote false rumour?

[Netti-Netti]

sorry, it's spelled McCain.

[Nick_A]

Netti, It would be hard to question McCain's citizenship but feel free to do so:

McCain: Citizenship issue put to rest long ago - John McCain News - MSNBC.com

If you want to discuss it or claim he is concealing documents by all means do so. It seems clear cut to me. His parents were citizens and he was born on an American military base. I don't see the problem.

The fact that Obama scares me has nothing to do with the constitutional question. McCain has not refused to release any documents.

If Obama is not a communist he sure is associated with them. It is clear he had an association with William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn. with friends like that, who needs enemies. Even if half these allegations are true, anyone in favor of a free country must be wary of Obama:

Obama and Communism: Ayers, Dohrn and FARC

A lawsuit is not a false rumour. Obama hiring lawyers is not a false rumour. People are entitled to know the facts of this case if they value the constitution. I will not apologize for providing links to the question of Obama's citizenship.

You find it offensive because the question threatens your savior. Hopefully at least some have not become so indoctrinated and close minded.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Bob



The requirements to become president are an essential part of the constitution. We have an obligation to authenticate them. It has nothing to do with religion or race. To suggest it does and to try to make a racial issue out of a constitutional question just means you don't value the constitution which is based on equality

Do you even know the meaning of the word "equality"? If you were concerned with "equality", you would treat That One the exact same way as every other candidate. Can you think of one candidate, in the history of the US, who has faced a demand to produce the hospital records of his delivery? The state gave Obama, as a matter of routine, and Obama published, without any quarrel at all, the exact same document that everybody else uses when questioned about place and date of birth. From any other person except Obama, you would accept that.

This is not like being asked for your driver's license. This is like being asked for the written driver's test that you took, and for the examiner's notes from the driving portion of the test. Well, if you really wanted that, you would have to ask the Department of Motor Vehicles: they don't give that to you when they issue the driver's license. And you would have to give the DMV some better grounds for asking them to dredge that up than just, "Automobiles are dangerous, and it is important to make sure everyone who has a driver's license is really entitled to it."

The plain fact is, Berg has no interest whatsoever in seeing the original hospital records, or else he would be asking the Bureau of Vital Statistics: not harrassing a judge in Pennsylvania, who has nothing to do with record-keeping in Hawaii; nor harrassing Obama, who of course does not possess those hospital records. Do YOU have the obstetrician's report about your birth? Is that sitting in the glove-box of your car?

Now, if he actually bothered to apply to the Bureau of Vital Statistics, maybe they would come back with, "We only release such records if the party consents", and THEN he could ask, "Obama, will you give your consent?" But far more likely is that they would come back with, "We only release such records on the showing of some need for them." And this is why Berg doesn't go there. What is his reason for asking?
"Some guy on the Internet claims that Obama's family said he was born in Kenya." -- well that's a lie, nobody from Obama's family said that.
"His birth certificate looks like a forgery." -- that's a lie, it's the same as every other birth certificate from Hawaii.
"Obama was granted citizenship by Indonesia." -- appears to be a lie also; I'm not expert in Indonesian law, but the Indonesian law he cites does not support what he claims, quite the opposite.
"If Obama was granted citizenship by Indonesia, he would have to reacquire American citizenship." -- now that most definitely is a lie; I do know the American law (and if Berg is a lawyer, as he claims, he should too), and a unilateral grant of dual citizenship by some other country, even if that were the case here (which hasn't been shown), doesn't affect American citizenship without some actual renunciation by the person himself (which isn't even ALLEGED here, although I suppose that will be invented next).

The reason I can't take Berg seriously is that everything he says turns out not to be true. I don't take YOU seriously, either, because you started right out with this falsehood that the judge ruled in Berg's favor (for which you have yet to apologize). The people you are relying on have a consistent track record of never ever saying anything true (further examples: it is a lie that Obama campaigned for Odinga against Kibaki, in fact he never said anything about the Kenyan elections until afterward, when he issued a call to both sides for a halt to the violence, just like statements issued by many others; it is also a lie that the violence was exclusively, or even mostly, by Odinga supporters against Kibaki supporters, rather it was mostly the reverse; it is a lie that the conflict was between Muslims and Christians, as both religions are represented on both sides), and you yourself display an absolute, utter disregard for the difference between true and falsehood.

[wil]

Originally Posted by bob x

Can you think of one candidate, in the history of the US, who has faced a demand to produce the hospital records of his delivery?

Can you think of a candidate where there was a question? That had so much ambiguity?

Why are you so willing to toss these regulations in the garbage and open the door for Arnold or whoever?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by wil

Can you think of a candidate where there was a question?

There isn't a question. There are baseless rumors without a source, which until you produce some evidence are of the same standing as the rumors that McCain is an alien lizard. I don't see you demanding McCain's DNA.

Originally Posted by wil

That had so much ambiguity?

There's no ambiguity. People asked where and when he was born: fine, nobody had ever questioned any other candidate about that, but he presented his birth certificate, which is the normal procedure for documenting your place and time of birth. When I applied for my passport, I was asked when and where I was born: I produced my birth certificate; isn't that what everybody does?

Now there is this unique demand for the original hospital records: except that this demand is not being made to the people who actually keep such records. And why is this being asked in the first place? Because a liar told a false story on the Internet. Now, I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that this rumor-monger made a psychically inspired guess about Obama being born in Kenya; but the part about how this story came from the grandmother was a lie, and that doesn't lend much probability to any of it being true. However, if you won't rest without seeing the original records of his birth, I repeat again, you have to talk to the record-keepers in Hawaii. Those records are not in Obama's glove-box, and it is not the job of a judge in Pennsylvania to dig them up, either.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Netti, It would be hard to question McCain's citizenship but feel free to do so:

McCain: Citizenship issue put to rest long ago - John McCain News - MSNBC.com

From that link:
"McCain himself insists the issue was put to rest when fellow Arizonan, Barry Goldwater, ran for president in 1964.
"Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory, Arizona was a territory, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court," McCain told reporters Thursday on his campaign plane. "And there's no doubt about that. And it was researched again in 2000."
The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born on Aug. 29, 1936."

The difference is that the Zone was NOT a "territory." It was a "leasehold"; the US had the right to renew the lease as long as it wanted to, but it was always recognized as sovereign territory of Panama. Panamanians who worked in the Zone did not become citizens, nor did their children. Eventually Congress passed a statute clarifying the status of people in the Zone: quite reasonably enough, a child like McCain born of two American parents was recognized as a citizen without any need for any oath-taking or whatever. The technical problem is: this statute was not enacted until after McCain's birth.

This is, to be sure, a very feeble argument: here is a thread on another board that I took part in, discussing this. Just about everyone who's looked at this agrees there is no good purpose in penalizing servicemen, by imposing legal disability on their children, for being overseas in the service of, and by direct orders of, the US government.

It is not as feeble as the arguments on this thread, however.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

If Obama is not a communist he sure is associated with them. It is clear he had an association with William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn.

No more so than the Annenberg family, the conservative Republicans who founded the foundation on which both Ayers and Obama were invited to serve: the Annenbergs are McCain fund-raisers, by the way; McCain is nearly as close to Ayers as Obama is. Ayers was a very different person 40 years ago than what he has become; back then, Obama was just a child; and McCain, of course, was dropping plenty of bombs, killing women and children in a way that many people of the time considered just plain murder. Dredging up the emotions from that time is of no use now.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

A lawsuit is not a false rumour.

It is not evidence, either. Any damned fool can file a lawsuit, claiming any absurd thing whatsoever. But, it will get dismissed if there is no evidence to back up any of the assertions.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You find it offensive because the question threatens your savior.

No, I find this offensive because it is based on nothing but lies and prejudice.