Posted on 07/22/2010 1:55:05 PM PDT by rxsid
"Globe Magazine: Obama African Birth Certificate! Barack Obama's presidency is illegal!
Not sure why Globe is just now running this story. The Obama Kenyan Registration of Birth that is now running on the front page of Globe appears to be the one Attorney Orly Taitz released last year. It is important to note that when Atty Taitz first posted that online the Obot's quickly photoshopped one of their own with false info to put disinformation out that it was fake. It must also be noted that no Court or any Legal Body deemed that document or the Lucas Smith document real or fake.
Posted below the Globe snippet is the purported 'Coast Province Certified Copy of Registration of Birth' for Barack Obama which was obtained by Attorney Taitz. Below that is the purported Kenyan Certificate of Birth obtained by Lucas Smith.
Via the Globe; - Obama African Birth Certificate! -
Barack Obama's presidency is illegal! That's what political insiders are saying after a shocking birth certificate from a hospital in Kenya reveals America's Commander-in-Chief was born in Africa! GLOBE has all the explosive details you can't afford to miss! Source; http://www.globemagazine.com/story/529
From http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/globe-magazine-obama-african-birth.html
I get where you are coming from and I am obliquely aware of the argument regarding Ron’s creds. I believe there were two other fellows who were in competition with him last year.
Where are they?
They dropped out about the same time Ron did. Why?
These stories hit him in a bad place. The demographic passing through a grocery check out, (not the Whole Foods or Wegmans types) that watches people paying with welfare cards, has got to be thinking hmmm.
I really don’t care—”disproved” and “Polarik” just jumped out at me.
And the Ankenny clown suit pops up once more .. ;)
I posted 62. You beat me to it and said it better.
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Obama 1964 Divorce Papers - 13 Pages - Missing Pg 11
24 Why isn't Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn't Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
What would you prefer, the NYT and WaPo?
Come one. The MSM are prostitutes for the adminstration.
What’s left?
/rhetorical question.
This story - the scandal of the century - may now be on its way to critical mass.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark,
Based on the language?? What's that? LoL! Indiana just couldn't get more specific. Their BS flies like a pig.
From Indiana's opinion footnote 14:
"We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language..."
Oh gee, why didn't they? Because Wong Ark was not an natural born citizen.
Indiana's own footnote 14 butts their whole silly opinion into the circular bucket although you keep on citing it.
Right on cue.
Okay, you are trying to make a point that is lost on me. Maybe I misunderstood your first post.
What is your question?
However none of 71 local, state and federal courts including 8 attempts at the US Supreme Court have agreed with you. And the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled just the opposite with the Republican Governor and Attorney General of Indiana defending Obama: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009 This decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court but they rejected it and the ruling has not been appealed to the federal courts or the Supreme Court.
--------------------------------------------
That is complete nonsense dude. Were the cases even heard on the merits? No. They made no decision of his eligibility. Save for your precious state ruling in Indiana.
Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.Do tell, WTF does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling. Yeah, sure it's immaterial.
So, this brilliant "defining" decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they someone find Barry NBC?
It's worthless. It's OBVIOUSLY flawed. Period. Forget the fact that it is a state of Indiana decision and not from a federal court nor SCOTUS.
Name a national paper that is more legit than the Globe.
(yes, I requested the impossible)
Indeed.
Ask one of the JournOlists. They know. /complete sarcasm
Shall we toss to the trash bin all documentation showing Obama is not a natural born citizen. The definition in the 1928 Law Dictionary shows Obama is not qualified to be president.
It does not matter where Obama was born.
You attacked me twice in this thread with no valid reason. Next time please take a moment and gather your thoughts before doing this in the future.
The Congress doesn’t give a damn,The Supreme Court doesn’t give a damn so what are the American People going to do when the checks and balances don’t do Either?
The only way to get Obama Out of the White House is through the 2012 Election or a violent revolution to overthow him.
What else can be done?
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.