Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Obama releases long form Birth Cert.; alrighty then.
Topic Started: Apr 27 2011, 08:08 AM (6,877 Views)
RighteousThug
Member Avatar

Mason
Apr 27 2011, 03:56 PM
Kethra
Apr 27 2011, 02:54 PM
To you folks who responded to me,

They are NOT negros, they are Africans.
.

I had no idear you done felt like that.


.

I wonder what they called Africans of English and Dutch descent back then?

Since many have African ancestors going back ~450 years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lodge Pro 345
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Apr 27 2011, 03:39 PM
Obama is "The One We Have Been Waiting For"...that's the political equivalent of "Sister Survivor." It's the mythology of his "great brilliance"..like her intrinsic virtue that must be protected at all cost.

Like Sister Survivor and say, the other Duke rape victim (the real one), the effrontery to ask of Obama what has been asked of other candidates and other Presidents, evokes fury, and ridicule and cries of racism. It's about fear. And loosing face. Their supporters were duped and they know it and they are angry. But they will be damned if they will admit it.

Maybe there needs to be a Justice4Obama site because he was asked to do what McCain was asked to do. (but took years in his arrogance to feel he must stoop to comply)

Oh, off to Oprah I go! I'm the One Oprah is Waiting For.

Obama is doing for this Nation what Mangum did for real Rape victims. The backlash of their supporters is from having to face what FRAUDS both of them are and what FOOLS those who sold the mythology now appear.

It's the queasy realization that every moment that Obama or Crystal are in the public eye...the Myth and the Metanarrative...becomes more exposed.
.
I predict they are trying to get Mobama to be able to cry on-demand before landing in Chicago.

If they go pull a nose hair or something, they'll go for emotion and victimhood. Otherwise, just Victimhood.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Please stop with the name calling Kethra, it is unbcomng of you and our of your character. I believe what I believe, because of all the times I needed to produce my birth certificate, and being adopted, I was locked away from my original BC for years. When adopted the state issued my parents a new BC with a new name for me and my adoptee parents as my parents, complete with signatures. I only knew I was adopted, because they told me I was. Yes, so I would think that if the POTUS wanted a BC with the proper names and titles the HDOH could do it. When Obama was adopted by Soetore, he would have had the BC changed just like I did, he could easily explain that away, that a person Soetoro Sr. was kind enough to take him in as his own son. When Obama was running for office, he knew he had been adopted, he could have explained that, but he chose not too. My question has always been Why? I have had my current name all my life with the exception of my first 5 months of life. What would happen, if I used my original name and BC to apply for something credit, job whatever, am a committing fraud, am I trying to hide something? I may need the lawyers help here, but I believe that if I wanted to legally change my name back to my original name, I would need to go to court, I don't believe I could just do that on my own, I'm just changing my name. The court would want to know if I was changing my name for criminal purposes, like fraud, to get away from debts or on a wanted list somewhere, before allowing me to change my name. My search for my birth mother, led me down many paths, finding she had 6 children and 4 husbands, I found it unreal that I was the only one born out of wedlock. God only knows what the press would do to me if I ever ran for POTUS as a conservative? They probably would want to know who my father was and I never found an answer. I have my theories about who my original was and you being a professional genealogist, I would be happy to discuss with you, through a PM and further through an email or phone call, but for now I will continue to be a woo woo moron, until I find out more about the circumstances of Obama's life, adoption and return to the United States and his name changes.

How can I use my original birth certificate to defraud America, now that the state that sealed it, says I am entitled to have it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RighteousThug
Member Avatar

Lodge Pro 345
Apr 27 2011, 04:04 PM
I predict they are trying to get Mobama to be able to cry on-demand before landing in Chicago.

Hey now! Keep that up and Mobama might decide that she's not proud of her country anymore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

One of the things Corsi states about his book "Where is the Birth Certificate" is that there may be information in there that Barack doesn't even know. IMO, that could be right, how much of anyone's young live 0 to 2 do people remember. Like I stated earlier I had no clue I was adopted, until I was told. I don't even remember when my sister was adopted, I was about 3 years old, but I do remember my brother being born to my adoptee parents. So will Zero come out with more papers? LIke an article I read, and posted, Nixon released some of the tapes, to quell the investigations, but it didn't help people wanted more. Like his adoption records, his passport records, was it issued by the US or Indonesia? Had it been issued by Indonesia, he was a citizen of Indonesia, not the US. Did he inherit his British citenship from his father? Perhaps the Queen of England, could declare that Obama is a citizen of England, won't happen, she doesn't like him. Finally we need a POTUS, that looks after the best interest of this country, not the best interest of Libya and the rest of the middle east.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

I repeat Obama could have ended this months ago with the release of this document. By the mere fact he did produce this document sort of throws out the smokescreen that has been the talking point on his side why he hasn't. He & his advisers mismanaged this. Leaders lead, Obama didn't and his hand was forced. That politics and it is no more rougher than it was two hundred years ago, actually it is more polite. Nothing is fair in Politics and never has been.

Aside from that issue we live in difficult times. Unemployment is high, the future is dire for many, especially the youth coming out of college with huge debts. Black unemployment is at historic heights. Heath-care continues to be a major problem for many of us. Our homes have dropped in value and much of our savings were depleted. Gasoline prices are rising. The dollar is sinking and the debt tsunami is still coming.

It is what it is and Obama is President. That's what you sign up for. It's called produce or get booted out.

Worse we are very divided as a country.

Buckle up the seat-belts it going to be a wild election campaign season and it just started in full force storm warnings.
Edited by Baldo, Apr 27 2011, 04:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agatha

Kethra
Apr 27 2011, 02:54 PM


The form he released for those of you who are apparently CLUELESS about long form certificates, are folded because uh well they are long (mutters stupid morons under my breath). AFRICAN was used as a descriptor from the early 1700's until the 1980's as a descriptor of someone from, well, Africa. They are NOT negros, they are Africans. Go ask them what they call themselves. His father, since he was not a Negro (american black at the time), he was um well, African. Wow, logic shattering right?

re: "They are NOT negros, they are Africans. "
Wanna make a bet?

Ne·gro
Pronounced:
/ˈni:groʊ/
Function:
noun
Inflected forms:
plural Ne·groes
Meaning:
[count] old-fashioned + sometimes offensive : a person who has dark skin and who belongs to a race of people who are originally from Africa—Negro adjective sometimes offensive

("sometimes offensive"--now the dictionary is pc?)
-------------------------
In 1960 the census enumeration form has these options in the Color/Race Column

White
Negro
American Indian
Japanese
Chinese
Fillipino
Other


The enumeration instructions :
(P5) Is this person - White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo, (etc.)?
____________________

There is no African.

source: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/tEnumForm.shtml
=============
Did someone take it upon themselves to hide the color of BO Sr? It was 1961 after all. It sounds silly in 2011, but it was another ballgame in 1961--even in Hawaii.
=============
I have not seen any census form with the option "African" through 1930.
============
I use Virginian as a descriptive because I am originally from Virginia. That is not my race. (mutters stupid moron under my breath. Your words not mine)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Baldo
Apr 27 2011, 04:55 PM


Aside from that issue we live in difficult times. Unemployment is high, the future is dire for many, especially the youth coming out of college with huge debts. Black unemployment is at historic heights. Heath-care continues to be a major problem for many of us. Our homes have dropped in value and much of our savings were depleted. Gasoline prices are rising. The dollar is sinking and the debt tsunami is still coming.

...and like Mason said, Obama is off to take care of more serious business, Oprah, in Chicago then onto NY for 3 fundraisers.

All the things you mention Baldo will take care of themselves
:SarC:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORN IN THE USA?

Authors: Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama eligible
President still has major legal issues following release of 'birth certificate'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 27, 2011
12:12 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily


President Obama (White House photo)

Although President Obama released a purported long-form birth certificate today indicating he was born in Hawaii, he still might not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, according to a recent bestselling book.

An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.

With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," was written by WABC Radio host and WND senior reporter Aaron Klein with researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

While the book was released last May, the work takes on renewed relevance today with Obama's release of his purported long-form birth certificate. In a chapter investigating eligibility issues, the book concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The authors recommend further legislative and judicial debate.

"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."

(Story continues below)




Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural-born citizen".

A citizen is defined as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.

There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.

'Natural born' defined

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: " find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."



Read more: Authors: Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama eligible http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292205#ixzz1KlXBMpgY
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Kethra argues, though with more invective than I’d prefer, that we all tend to credit beliefs, even highly dubious ones, that support earlier held beliefs built on other foundations. This tendency has been rightly and roundly criticized in many threads at Liestoppers where posters have excoriated the “metanarrative” of those in the Duke faculty or the Duke administration who jumped to conclusions that favored Nifong and the “something happened” crowd. The most effective refutation of the case against the boys consisted in painstakingly showing its inconsistencies and improbabilities. Many posters at Liestoppers deserve great credit for bringing diligence, tenacity, and outright intelligence to that task.

But where the underlying metanarrative is one we ourselves credit—in this instance, Obama is a liar, a bandit, and a traitor on his best days—then we are very much less demanding of ourselves in assessing the evidence advanced for what in many cases turn out to be far-fetched notions of his provenance, upbringing, and schooling. In saying this, I am not denying that Obama and his handlers have made it easy for many critics to lower their standards in how they evaluate that evidence. Nor am I saying that the media have played it down the middle; here, Joan and others have hit the gong in their criticisms.

The larger problem inheres in the difficulties of taking seriously conspiracies that require a conjunction of highly improbable events or human actions. David Hume, for me and others the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment, went to the heart of the problem in his discussion of miracles:

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chapter X

In other words, as unlikely (i.e., “miraculous”) as Obama’s faking his place of birth would be, it seems even more unlikely that the “testimony” posited by the birthers to support such a “miracle,” testimony that amounts to positing connivance and almost unimaginable foresight on the part of many persons over many years, could withstand scrutiny. The more elaborate the posited conspiracy, the more unlikely the coming together, and staying together, of its many necessary components. Perhaps an even better example of a “miraculous” conspiracy is the one that brings comfort to those who believe the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration. Both conspiracies are freighted with improbabilities that rival those of my never again entertaining lascivious thoughts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Duke parent 2004
Apr 27 2011, 06:20 PM
Kethra argues, though with more invective than I’d prefer, that we all tend to credit beliefs, even highly dubious ones, that support earlier held beliefs built on other foundations. This tendency has been rightly and roundly criticized in many threads at Liestoppers where posters have excoriated the “metanarrative” of those in the Duke faculty or the Duke administration who jumped to conclusions that favored Nifong and the “something happened” crowd. The most effective refutation of the case against the boys consisted in painstakingly showing its inconsistencies and improbabilities. Many posters at Liestoppers deserve great credit for bringing diligence, tenacity, and outright intelligence to that task.

But where the underlying metanarrative is one we ourselves credit—in this instance, Obama is a liar, a bandit, and a traitor on his best days—then we are very much less demanding of ourselves in assessing the evidence advanced for what in many cases turn out to be far-fetched notions of his provenance, upbringing, and schooling. In saying this, I am not denying that Obama and his handlers have made it easy for many critics to lower their standards in how they evaluate that evidence. Nor am I saying that the media have played it down the middle; here, Joan and others have hit the gong in their criticisms.

The larger problem inheres in the difficulties of taking seriously conspiracies that require a conjunction of highly improbable events or human actions. David Hume, for me and others the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment, went to the heart of the problem in his discussion of miracles:

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chapter X

In other words, as unlikely (i.e., “miraculous”) as Obama’s faking his place of birth would be, it seems even more unlikely that the “testimony” posited by the birthers to support such a “miracle,” testimony that amounts to positing connivance and almost unimaginable foresight on the part of many persons over many years, could withstand scrutiny. The more elaborate the posited conspiracy, the more unlikely the coming together, and staying together, of its many necessary components. Perhaps an even better example of a “miraculous” conspiracy is the one that brings comfort to those who believe the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration. Both conspiracies are freighted with improbabilities that rival those of my never again entertaining lascivious thoughts.
So that's why Dan Rather & Co. manufactured a fake document in the fall of 2004 and broadcast it nationwide? Because they they believed, no they absolutely knew that George Bush's daddy pulled strings when he was in the Air National Guard, no matter that tens of thousands of man-hours of investigation by the State-Run Media couldn't turn up any evidence?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
I think there were some promises in regard to transparency.

Among others.

The problem Obama has said one thing and done another. What do you call that?

Did he lie?

Public Financing of Elections
Transparency
Lobbyists
Able to keep whatever Health Care insurance you have today
Health Care - great Cost savings.
He's not using the $500 Million twice (Medicare)
He was against Signing Statements
GITMO
Citizens would be able to read and assess legislation prior to Passing
The Debt Ceiling
Wealth Redistribution
Congressional Approval of War Acts
Taxes


.
Edited by Mason, Apr 27 2011, 06:48 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.

I'm a smart ass, but there are good people here that were attacked unfairly, IMO.

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Can I be against Obama's spending?

Or what does that make me?

Someone that cares about his kids, grandkids and their future?

I believe, and have repeatedly said, that I he think that's the only way he knows - send in the Dollar Bills.

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

I still think there is a lot more to the story, that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama's father had a UK/Kenyan citenship, his stepfather adopted him, where is the name change? He goes to Indonesia and his mother and step father say he is a citizen of Indonesia, because his stepfather is a citizen of that country. He comes back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents as Barry, but decides in his college years, perhaps even in HS, his real name is Barack. Where is all that documentation? Did Barack get a foreign student scholarship from the Rockafellar Foundation? If so he could not have been a US citizen, it was reserved for foreign students? I only want to know where his loyalties lie and it doesn't seem to be the United States of America. If Obama gets another 4 years as POTUS, we may not even have a vote in 2016, and if that's the case perhaps my heart failure problem will take me out of here. I just worry about my clueless daughter, who doesn't care and she won't wake up until she loses her freedoms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply