Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: A Forgery is Unacceptable!
09-06-08 | STE=Q

Posted on 09/06/2008 4:38:21 PM PDT by STE=Q

The day before McCain surprised the nation with his pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate, I had a ‘discussion’ with a woman I have known for many years.

Although well into the “gifted” range (so called “genius“ ) she has a penchant for choosing political losers!

She is a walking talking example that IQ and common sense do not necessarily follow the same ark.

I had once argued, that if I were President, I would put her on my staff as a reverse barometer; I would do the opposite of whatever course of action she would suggest I take -- in regards to my Presidential duties.

She is also a lefty!

I mean, FAR left.

She is so FAR left that, compared to her, Hillary Clinton is conservative!

Of course, she considers herself a “progressive”.

Who’d have guessed?

So it should be no surprise to you, my readers, that she thinks Obama is the greatest thing since hot-popped corn!

As an old-time liberal acquaintance of mine used to say of her -- and he considered himself pretty liberal in his day -- “she is WAY-OUT in LEFT field” (he was also a big baseball fan!)

SO HERE’S THE STORY:

I had sent her some links regarding the charge by one or more forensic experts that Obama’s certificate of live birth -- displayed on his “fight the smears” website (fightthesmears.com) -- is a poorly done forgery!

Sometime later we had a discussion on the phone about the implications of Obama not coming forth with his actual birth certificate or an authentic original copy.

“Why the fake certificate of live birth?” I asked her.

“I don’t think it’s a big deal,” she told me.

“What do you mean no big deal,” I said.

“Here’s what I think,” she said, “ Obama was born out of wedlock!”

“You mean he’s a bastard?” I said

“Yes,” she said.

Playing devils advocate, I argued … “who would care?”

“After all it wouldn’t be his fault if his mother was unwed when he was born,” I said.

“In this day and age what would be the big deal?” I continued.

“It would be a big deal,” she retorted.

“You mean he is ashamed?” I said.

“Yes,” she said.

“He would publish a poor forgery and hide his real birth certificate to cover it up?” I continued.

“Yes,” she said.

“A very poor forgery that could easily be discovered?” I said.

“He probably doesn’t even know,” she said.

“How could he not know?” I said.

“He might not,” she said.

Plausible deniability? I thought.

I let it go.

Then the discussion turned toward “other things” … and I had to hear the inevitable “hate Bush” tirade… words that spew forth from the mouth’s of lefties, like the turbulent waters that broke through the Levies in New Orleans propelled terribly, if irrationally, by hurricane Katrina.

After hanging up the phone the discussion I had with her, about the possibility of Obama being born out of wedlock, was pushed to the back of my mind where it was filed under:

Obama / birth / birth-certificate / cover-up / fake certificate of live birth / possible motives / illegitimate.

A couple of days passed and then came the announcement that John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin for his running mate, and I was energized by the prospect of an intelligent, well grounded, conservative woman -- a very beautiful woman -- as Vice President of the United states.

Then the story broke about her daughter Bristol being pregnant and not married.

And, of course, the mainstream media wolves -- ever hungry for red-meat -- were licking their chops!

Then Obama made the well known statement that children and family should be “out of bounds” and that, after all, “his own mother was only eighteen when she had him”.

When he said “ families are out of bounds” I got the impression that he was attempting to preclude any snooping into his own family background.

I smelled subterfuge.

He was using something straightforward and plausible to obfuscate.

But what was in his family background that he would be anxious to hide?

Being the dullard I am I didn’t immediately connect the dots.

Then it hit me:

That discussion I had with my “progressive” acquaintance about the possibility that Obama was born out of wedlock.

It was an “a-ha” moment!

Now I want everyone to know that I don’t think that if Obama were born ‘illegitimate’ that it should -- because of any perceived impropriety of his mother and father -- have any bearing on his qualifications (or lack thereof) to be President of the United States.

Apparently, one of America’s most famous leaders was born out of wedlock.

“By his own account, Hamilton was born in Charlestown, the capital of Nevis in the British West Indies, out of wedlock, to Rachel Faucett Lavien” (wikipedia)

So the question is:

Would an illegitimate birth generate enough shame within Obama, that in order to avoid such a stigma, he would cover it up by publishing a fake certificate of live birth, in lieu of a birth certificate or an original copy of one?

Does his authentic birth certificate actually say “father unknown” on it?

Or, perhaps, there is an authentic certificate of live birth with “father unknown” … written on it because his mother could not produce a marriage license, at the time of Obama’s birth.

However, as I suggested, such a revelation would not necessarily hurt him politically.

Let me tell you why.

I think if he were picked-on over this issue it would actually gain him sympathy with the public.

According to the leftwing, radical icon, Saul Alinsky:

“Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.” ( Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals)

Picking on Obama for “the sins” of his parents would garner sympathy from the public.

His parents being unmarried at his birth would be beyond his control.

Such an “attack” would be perceived as intrinsically unfair.

To judge him for this would be as bad as condemning him for the color of his skin.

Despite the propaganda that came out of Obama’s “former” mentor, reverend Wright:

It’s not the America most of us live in know.

OK… everybody … put on your tinfoil hats!

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Got them on?

Is it possible that Obama WANT’S his illegitimacy to be discovered -- preferably by conservatives -- in order to garner public sympathy?

Look, no one opposes an Obama Presidency more than I, however, if he were beat-up solely on the basis of a perceived stigma of being born “illegitimate” even I would sympathize with him!

OK, you can take the tinfoil hats off now!

However, it is undeniable that the COVER-UP of such an event as his illegitimate birth would be within his control and, therefore, the public would be justified in debating the pros and cons of such a cover-up by Obama’s campaign:

He DID publish a fraudulent certificate of live birth.

There are also questions about whether his Mother’s being unmarried at the time of his birth would have on the well known “natural born citizen” requirement to become President, under The Constitution Of The United States.

So why the cover up?

The forged certificate of live birth?

Was Obama born to unwed parents?

Would shame of his “illegitimate” birth be enough of a motive for Obama’s campaign to publish a very poor forgery of a certificate of live birth… a forgery that they must have known had a good chance of being discovered as such?

Or is the Obama campaign hiding something that could be far more damaging?

A few years back I sent away for an original copy of my birth certificate.

I had lost mine.

The original copy paper says (not on the copy-image itself but on the copy paper to the left of the copy-image) “must be validated on back” … and there is a date and signature etc.

On the back is an embossed stamp together with more dates and signatures etc.

It cost me about ten dollars (in those days) for an official original copy of my birth certificate, on file at my state capital.

I got it in about ten days.

I was young and had moved to another state.

Having lost my birth certificate, I needed an original copy in order to get a driver license, a bank account, and ultimately… a job.

Employers -- especially companies that must report taxis and pay into workers compensation and other programs -- expect to see some sort of identification from a potential employee.

They like to know who they are hiring.

They also like to know that the employee is honest and trustworthy.

The American people may be “hiring” Barack Obama as the next President of The United States.

As a potential employee we (the People of the United States) would like Obama to submit legitimate identification, namely:

A birth certificate or an official original copy of his birth certificate.

I don’t think that’s asking too much from a potential employee.

By the way, Mr. Obama…

… A forgery is unacceptable!


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: 2008; antiamerican; bamboozle; barackhusseinobama; barackobama; bastard; birthcertificate; certifigate; colb; coverup; crime; drivebymedia; election; electionpresident; elections; forgery; illegitimate; obama; obamafamily; president; unwed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: sonofagun; STE=Q

Worse scandals than not being Eligible??? lmao
Yeah, who cares if he’s NOT AMERICAN when we know a friend of his did something bad 30 years ago.

Damn, now I’ve heard it all!!
“Pay not attention to that man behind the curtain”.

Unfortunately, there are far too many with “ostrich syndrome” who would rather bash McCain over immigration.
It seems the politics of character assassination is preferable to disqualifying him forever.

STE=Q-The long anecdote doesn’t help but this is a matter concerning the future of our nation.
Many claim to care about American Tradition and Values. Holding people accountable has become an after thought in this party, especially the opposition

IF McCain/Palin lose it will be due to the (R)’s inability to enforce the laws of this country in regards to elections.


41 posted on 09/06/2008 6:13:12 PM PDT by JerseyDvl (What do Obama and Osama have in common?-They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon! - Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

“If you cannot back up some supposed statement of fact you ought not to make it.”

Do you know what the word ‘supposed’ means?

Its a synonym for ‘alleged.’

Please look them up it may clear your misunderstanding about me having to back something up.

For update on Obama’s {ALLEGED} fake ‘certificate of live birth’ hit the link below:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

If you have any questions you can contact the forensic expert that made the finding.

In the meantime I would like to see an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate.

Thanks for your post.

STE=Q


42 posted on 09/06/2008 6:13:38 PM PDT by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Worry not Chicken Little. The sky won’t fall on McCain/Palin since the lawsuit Obama was served is brought forth by a Dem.
A Hillary supporting Dem. who is bitter and carrying the water.
Let’s wait and see.


43 posted on 09/06/2008 6:19:00 PM PDT by JerseyDvl (What do Obama and Osama have in common?-They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon! - Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: null and void
...He was not born in the United States, and is therefore constitutionally unqualified for the job. This is a show stopper. There is no way to "fix" this or inoculate himself against this, or win over voters on this issue. It is the premier campaign killer issue...

My interpretation of the term "naturally born" is that he was either born in our country or one of his parents is an American citizen. We know his mother is an American, therefore, it does not matter where in the world he was born. Someone please tell me where I am wrong.

44 posted on 09/06/2008 6:20:24 PM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
There is an “oddness” about Obama’s origin.
I don't buy the argument that he is ashamed of his illegitimate birth and that explains his reticence & the forged COLB. He wrote about his illegitimacy in his biography. (Anyway Democrats could snap back, ‘Alexander Hamilton was illegitimate!)
There is something wrong !
45 posted on 09/06/2008 6:20:55 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg
I was born our of wedlock, but I am not a Dem.

Nor would I ever consider being one because I live in the People's Republic of Maryland. I am a contrarian by nature.

46 posted on 09/06/2008 6:23:13 PM PDT by quikdrw (Life is tough....it's even tougher if you are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyDvl

“Holding people accountable has become an after thought in this party, especially the opposition”

What gets me is the attitude people have about our leaders.

THEY ARE OUR SERVANTS; NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

In fact, McCain called himself a ‘servant’ in his speech the other day!

Thanks for your post!

STE=Q


47 posted on 09/06/2008 6:25:32 PM PDT by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JerseyDvl

“Worry not Chicken Little. The sky won’t fall on McCain/Palin since the lawsuit Obama was served is brought forth by a Dem.”

That doesn’t mean the left won’t point to the ‘mean-spirited’ posts on FR & trash us, regardless of who brought the suit. If it’s a Dem bringing the suit, let’s let them run with it & take up the issue when we have proof.

‘Chicken Little’? No, merely prudent. :-)


48 posted on 09/06/2008 6:27:42 PM PDT by Twotone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: quikdrw

“I was born our of wedlock, but I am not a Dem.”

then you get no extra points from dems. That’s all I was suggesting.


49 posted on 09/06/2008 6:31:14 PM PDT by Canedawg (Sarah Palin Rocks! McCain-Palin '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg

You are probably right. On the other hand, I never really wanted points from the Dems.


50 posted on 09/06/2008 6:36:49 PM PDT by quikdrw (Life is tough....it's even tougher if you are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DJ Taylor

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about “social change” through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation - the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul ‘The Red’
Alinsky.

You got it!

It’s just a lot for the average American to absorb.

He(she)has to get it in bits and peaces.

Obama and his’ buddies have big plans for America.

God help us if he is elected!

Thanks for the post!

STE=Q


51 posted on 09/06/2008 6:42:11 PM PDT by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VigilantAmerican

Interesting article here, and some interesting responses. Thought you might want to ponder them all...


52 posted on 09/06/2008 6:44:51 PM PDT by jacquej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Obama's supporters went after both candidates in his state senator race and had each of them (one an incumbent) disqualified on technicalities. They did not have enough valid signatures on their petitions to get on the ballot. One had 1850 but after the challenges had less than the 750 requirement. Some of their petitioners printed their names rather than signed (as legally required). Obama's lawyers (with his permission), had them disqualified.

Wouldn't it be poetic justice if Obama himself was disqualified on a technicality (not a natural born citizen)!

53 posted on 09/06/2008 6:48:59 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiki

“Yeah, as a pro, pro, pro death person he would be ashamed that his mother didn’t abort him.”

Well, that would be ‘different’ because it was HIS life!

Good one!

Thanks for the post!

STE=Q


54 posted on 09/06/2008 6:50:25 PM PDT by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
OK I searched my archive of the long thread and couldn't find the particular post I was referring to.

Frankly it's more effort than it's worth given that I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't actually remember being born, let alone in which building.

In other news:

In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?

BTW, are you still insisting that 16 is a binary number?

55 posted on 09/06/2008 6:57:27 PM PDT by null and void (Sarah Palin might be more conservative than even John McCain ~ Megyn Kelly, Fox News 9/2/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

“Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if Obama himself was disqualified on a technicality”

It sure would!

STE=Q


56 posted on 09/06/2008 7:15:25 PM PDT by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: chopperman
Article 2

Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

“Clause 5: Qualifications for office

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.”

Natural born means born on US soil... whether here or overseas... it must be US territory. Since osama was not alive and a US citizen at the time that this Constitution was "adopted", if he was not born in the USA, then he is not eligible to run for the office of President. This is not New Jersey and this document means exactly what it says.

This is from wiki:

"It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who had been born in New York City) to George Washington (who had been born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "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."

"There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention. (43 of the 55 delegates had been born in the Thirteen Colonies, and the others had been born on British-occupied soil: Ireland, England, Scotland, and the British West Indies."

LLS

57 posted on 09/06/2008 7:23:22 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (GOD, Country, Family... except for dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Since my post, I decided to also look in Wikipedia and you may be right. What I found, though, was this:

“Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth.”

Maybe he really was born in Kenya.

If he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, he should be able to provide the hospital’s birth certificate, i.e. the one with the footprints.


58 posted on 09/06/2008 7:39:45 PM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: chopperman; David; Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
My interpretation of the term "naturally born" is that he was either born in our country or one of his parents is an American citizen. We know his mother is an American, therefore, it does not matter where in the world he was born. Someone please tell me where I am wrong.

You are fully entitled to your interpretation.

You might even be right on parts of it. The big underlying issue is that the term 'natural born citizen' does not have an actual current legal definition.

US law provides citizenship under a wide range of conditions, some of which have changed over time. But it is mute on 'natural born' citizenship.

The closest Congress ever came to defining it was in 1790 when children born overseas to TWO American citizens counted as 'natural born citizens'.

This law was surpassed by a 1795 law that dropped any reference to 'natural born citizen'. More recently children born of one US citizen overseas have been specifically denyed even citizenship, let alone being regarded as a 'natural born citizen'.

When Obama was born, the rule was having a foreign parent and being born in that parents country made you a citizen of that country, unless you made a positive effort to assert your US citizenship upon achieving majority.

So if he was born in Kenya, and Stanley Ann was married to Barrak, Sr., he's a Kenyan.

To the best of my knowledge, no record of his mother being married exists, except Obama saying they were married on Maui (Which BTW would be invalid because Barrak, Sr. was already married to another woman back in Kenya)

The same law says that if he was born in Kenyan, and Stanley Ann wasn't married, he's an American.

Except, due to her age, Stanley Ann could not possibly meet the residency requirements, so Barrack would have the citizenship of wherever he was born.

Except the law has since been changed, and under the new law, he could be an American bastard.

Except it isn't at all clear that the new law is retroactive.

In any event merely being a citizen doesn't suffice as a qualification to be President.

You have to be a 'natural born citizen'.

No legal definition of that term has existed since 1790.

There is a lively debate going on right now about the exact definition of 'natural born citizen'. The two schools of thought are jus sanguinus and jus soli, the rule of blood, and the rule of soil respectively.

Under jus sanguinus any child of Americans (or some say an American) regardless of the location of birth is a 'natural born citizen'.

Under jus soli any child born on US soil is a 'natural born citizen'.

My belief is that the Founding Fathers intended that no one would hold that office that might have a hint of divided loyalties. For me, having a single American parent is too low a bar. Being an anchor baby is too low a bar.

I favor a rule that says to qualify for holding the office of the president one must have TWO American citizen parents AND be born in the United States or the District of Columbia. (If I though I could get away with it I'd also require spending at least half the time between age 6 and 21 be spent being raised in the good old USofA)

But that's just me. Until Congress and the Courts agree on a legal definition, what you and I say is meaningless.

59 posted on 09/06/2008 7:40:40 PM PDT by null and void (Sarah Palin might be more conservative than even John McCain ~ Megyn Kelly, Fox News 9/2/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

I saw a blog today that said Obama and the DNC were served, on the lawsuit regarding birth certificate on 9/5/08. However it has never been on the network news that I know of...??


60 posted on 09/06/2008 7:49:42 PM PDT by Kackikat ( Without National Security all other issues are mute points; chaos ensues.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson