Posted on 07/26/2009 6:30:14 PM PDT by AdamBomb
[snip] "Now, how can the DOH in Hawaii say she personally saw and handled Obama’s original birth certificate IF IT WAS DESTROYED IN 2001?! Why in the hell do you destroy original birth certificates anyways? This suggests corruption at the highest levels of our Federal and State governments. It means that Hawaii flat-out LIED about the original birth certificate being in Hawaii. Wonder who gave the order? Even if birth certificates are computerized, the originals still normally exist in archives.[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at notanotherconspiracy.com ...
Again you sound like an idiot.
Plan on doing what Star Idiot?
Well... at the rate that you’re going... that’s my prediction... LOL...
No, we’re still on your lying and trying to cover your lies with more deceit, as the link proves, unequivocally.
I don’t give a rat’s rear end about how things are done —— I’ve written my fair share of legislation and seen my words enacted into law, so I’m fully aware of how “it’s done.”
I asked you if his secrecy doesn’t give you pause, among other things. Why do you choose to by pass those type questions?
Sorry but the Constitution requires that a person be a ‘natural born citizen’ in order to be eigible to be President. That has been the same for ALL past candidates.
It is NOT the new set of criteria that you think that you are proving here.
Same criteria, same procedures... nothing has been different... for any of the candidates.
—
But, if you do want something different, like the birth certificate, then you’re going to have to get a state law enacted which requires the candidate to produce the birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot for that state.
Otherwise, if you don’t want the birth certificate — you can continue to use the same criteria, same procedures and nothing has to be any different...
It gave me enough pause to holler it loudly prior to the election and get voters to not vote for him. But, that didn’t work. So now I’ve worked in my own state in regards to that state legislation to get the requirement set in law here. It failed this session but there’s next session. And there’s Arizona and Missouri, but those citizens will have to tell you about that legislation.
As it stands right now, Obama and any of the other candidates, past or present, are not legally required to produce their birth certificate. A state law is the only way that’s going to get done before the next election.
Sorry but Obama is NOT a ‘natural born citizen’ regardless of his birth certificate.
But all you are doing on that issue is taking the position of the judges who claim that no one hs sanding to challenge his bc. You are then taking a tyrannical stance whereas we are NOT a government of the People but are ruled.
But again Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Obama’s father was NOT a American citizen.
I guess with you it has come down to a “you say/he says”... good luck on getting anywhere with that one...
No with me it comes down to the rule of law and in having the words of the Constitution mean something. I am caling for discovery on this issue and a Court ruling.
For you it comes down to pure idiotic spin in claiming that no other candidate has had to do more to prove his eligibility so in your idiotic mind that means that no one has standing to ask for further discovery on the issue or to have it heard before the Courts.
The qualifications required in the Constitution do mean something and Obama agrees with them. He’s sworn an oath that he complies with them. So there’s no disregard for the qualifications required by the Constitution.
If you think they have not been complied with, then why wait all this time to do something about it?
What's 2001 got to do with anything. Did I say the "reworked" image file would have needed to be slipped in in 2001?
But, hey... you must be looking at movies like the Bourne Identity, or taking in the series “24” with Jack Bauer...
Heard of 'em, never seen 'em. Well, might have seen the Bourne Identity, but I had to ask my wife if we'd seen it, since I don't recall it right off the top of my head.
However, as far as such "thriller" plots go, we have had an unauthorized access of Obama's passport files, by employees of one of his friends. Part of that deal has involved the death of a witness, well more like coconspirator, to a related affair. Found shot to death outside a church in DC.
So, maybe you're on the right track, this thing is reading like a Tom Clancy novel...those I've read and remember reading. Found very little in them to be laughing matters though.
There are many cases before the Courtthat claim that Obama has NOT complied with the qulifications.
You are an idiot for continually claiming that he has complied with them when there has been no Court ruling that he has.
Your entire point is that there should be no Court ruling because you want to take Obama’s word for it.
What 2001 has to do with it, is that the system was changed at that time and that’s when the paper was discarded. After that time, you’ve got protections on the system and changes would be detected plus backups and off-site storage of media. If something was to be done, the time to have done it was before or by 2001...
But, that’s what good movies are made of... :-)
You know I have read many of your posts on this issue in the past and I had some respect for your point of view but tonight you are really sounding like an idiot.
You keep on claiming that Obama is a natural born citizen simply because some forms were filled out where he swore he was.
You are becoming a sad joke on this issue.
It's really about proof he is a natural born citizen. That at least requires the information on the birth certificate, but the same information acquired from other sources, such as a passport file, would suffice as proof as well.
There are only three things that the candidates must comply with, in terms of the Constitution and qualifications...
(1) natural born citizen
(2) 35 or older
(3) resident for 14 years or more
All the candidates have sworn an oath that they comply with those requirements of the Constitution, and there’s nothing else needed for qualifications...
If someone has information that a candidate is swearing falsely, all they have to do is present the evidence and get the case prosecuted...
And if that is true with Obama, I don’t know why the person who has this proof is waiting so long to do something about it... :-)
I would like proof and that’s why I said that it would require a state law to require a birth certificate to be produced in order to be on the ballot. But, thus far, only a signed sworn statement has been done by the candidates...
I think people should have done something about this — if they were concerned about it, a long time ago, instead of waiting until now, after they’ve let all those prior candidates do it over and over again in all those prior elections.
But, there’s still time for a state law...
You say that there is nothing else required other then them swearing that they are?
Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where is the Court ruling claiming so?
You are a real fool. You are only trying to make an argument that sides with the position that no one has any standing in upholding the Constitution. The People have no right in your mind to question what a candidate swears that they are.
I am losing all respect for you.
You are trying to promote tyranny.
It comes right down to the fact that this is precisely what people have allowed all this time. If you didn’t like that process, why did you wait for several decades before saying something about it? And why wait until after the election of Obama to do something about it?
I would say that you waited a bit too long to do something about a process that you say you don’t like at this moment...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.