Posted on 12/15/2008 10:48:10 AM PST by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve president because of his citizenship.
The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.
Wrotnowski argued that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot meet the requirement for becoming president.
He wanted the high court to halt presidential electors from meeting to formally elect Obama as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Physical copies have been made available to some media outlets. Factcheck has photographs of the original. Factcheck may not be completely free of bias, but I seriously doubt the University of Pennsylvania would allow itself to be associated with overt fraud:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
which computer imaging specialists have analysed as fraudulent,
One internet blogger using a fake name and claiming a fake Ph.D. claims it's fake. I'm sorry, but that isn't particularly convincing.
neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether the real COLB (either long or short form) lists Honolulu as the place of birth.
I suppose neither you nor I would know for sure unless we held an offically certified physical copy of the thing in our hands. Of course, that would be an impossible standard of proof, as it would be absurd to provide every single voter a physical copy. That means that no matter what he does, no matter what proof he offers, you're going to have to trust someone who examined the physical document. I don't see any reason not to trust the University of Pennsylvania.
Then look at the evidence and ask yourself whether it is really plausible that a sitting Senator would risk impeachment and possible criminal charges and create a fraudulant copy of a birth certificate. Not a single person in a campaign staff of thousands leaked out any evidence of the fraud. Is that really plausible, given the ubiquity of leaks in modern politics? Next you have to believe an institute affiliated with an Ivy League university would abet that fraud, and finally, the Hawaii health department would further abet the fraud by falsely confirming obama's birth in Hawaii.
And yes, they did in fact confirm his Hawaiian birth. I know, I know, their original statement could be interpreted as merely confirming the existence of his vault copy, and not his Hawaiian birth, but they clarified it later:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
Sum up all the evidence, and you're really far into tinfoil hat terrirtory if you believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
Then just think of the sheer implausibility that a pregnant 18 year old student of the University of Hawaii, in 1961, would choose to fly halfway around the world, at a time when air travel was very expensive and difficult, to third world country without modern medical facilities, just to give birth to her child. Why?
Then you would have to believe her husband, who was concealing bigamy from her, would choose to take her to the village where his other wife and children were living, and to his parents who strongly disapproved of his marraige.
Oh, and then, just in case her son would later decide to run for president, she phoned in his birth announcement from Kenya to the local paper.
Doesn't that strike you as just a little absurd?
Yeah. I guess you're right. We can't trust the Hawaii health department. Let's revoke all passports issued anyone who used a Hawaiian birth certificate to prove citizenship. Let's remove anyone claiming Hawaiian birth from the voter registration rolls.
No, better yet, let's deport them all. After all, we can't be sure they're not illegal aliens! If we don't know where their from, we can just deport them to Tahiti. After all, that's where the Hawaiians originally came from.
I’m an old Penn man, and I know how politically correct that place is. People see what they want to see. I don’t think Annenberg Fact Check would knowingly be complicit in fraud. I am, however, certain they would not be diligent in uncovering a fraud when doing so would gut any of the left’s sacred cows.
Okay, so then you would agree that their photos are unlikely to be doctored. Did you look at them?
CO: as a man who fought for this country and was shot up, I am pissed to know I have fellow citizens who have no damn guts. I would rather be p’d off then p’d on. I feel Obama and his ilk have done the latter. I am wondering which SCOTUS will swear in this man, who has shunned every man and women in uniform?
You make no sense. Read the Hawaii requirements for a COLB. Hell a foreigner can obtain one.
Quit fighting those of us who want Obama to show his long form.
I agree with you Lumper. This entire thing is an absolute travesty. I am simply stunned by the apathy of the American citizens at large. Where are all the patriots? Just where are they?? America will be devestated by this complete and total FRAUD. I am also, stunned by the Supreme Court. Their one and only function is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The whole lot of them have failed the country miserably imo. CO
“This isn’t hard. The certification state, very clearly, that Obama was born in Hawaii.” And since persons not born in HI can and do have the same sort of COLB stating they were born in HI you want to trust this affirmative action poseur and his likely forged documentation. Okay, we get it. [Loosen those obamanoid worship kneepads, they’re cutting off the blood to your brain.]
You really liek this deceitful talking point! “True, but your point is irrelevant; a birth certificate indicates a US birth ...” So, again, you are asserting that you have seen the actual birth certificate not just the certification of live birth? Bwahahahahaha, you obamanoids are getting comical!
What IS absurd is that you use such a specious starwman assertion to try and ridicule the honest reasons for digging into the affirmative action fraud's History. You liberals can't post for long without revealing your twisted minds.
“Let’s revoke all passports issued anyone who used a Hawaiian birth certificate to prove citizenship. Let’s remove anyone claiming Hawaiian birth from the voter registration rolls.” More disgusting liberal troll technique! I think that one is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Is that correct, Kevmo?
No, it's called reductio ad absurdum, and it is a perfectly legitimate.
No. I am telling you that there is no substantive difference between the two. The COLB is just an officially certified reprint of the essential information on the original BC that resides in the state records. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing the date and location of birth, it is just as good as the original birth certificate.
That is simply not true.
My advice to you is stop relying on unsubstantiated internet rumors for your information.
“I am telling you that there is no substantive difference between the two.” You are a liar. Buh bye
Nothing and I mean nothing, brings out the obot bloggers faster than anything on that birth certificate.....to hurry and defend and try to dipute, posts, articles, you tube videos or whatever. That fact alone tells me that they are worried or paid BO bloggers. Just like Palin, mention Palin and they appear within seconds. Palin and the BC issue for some reason, really gets them riled up. WHY??? WHY BO defenders. TELL ME WHY? I think we know why.
Fallacy of the undistributed middle...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle
I just dunno. It doesn’t sound like it’s the same fallacy.
In the real case we have an actual situation spelled out in the constitution of the united states, a rather serious thingie. In the projected case, we have all kinds of ridiculous barely related situations, none of which are spelled out in the constitution so they’re obviously not nearly as important. The fallacy I would have chosen is reductio ad absurdum, but if you think this applies, the best thing to do is go with it and develop your reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdam
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to the absurd”), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
To: curiosity
“I am telling you that there is no substantive difference between the two.” You are a liar. Buh bye
and I’m telling you that is not the only issue. He had DUAL citizenship at birth, therefore he is not a natural born citizen. This is clearly backed up by several court cases. Do your research. The problem is, it’s hard for the SCOTUS to take these cases now becasue he isn’t president yet. Once he is, then the issue can be addressed. Sit back and watch. The lawsuits won’t stop and he will be asked to produce it. He’s probably going to Hawaii for Christmas to try to get that little detail taken care of. BUT, guess what? There is a team of private investigators that will be following his every move while he is there. Courtesy of the ones that have lawsuits filed. Merry Christmas BO. Sad he didn’t take his kids with him to see their grandmother for the last time, or his wife, instead he took attorneys. Weird...... hmmm
You are an idiot.
Buh bye
It's been very unpleasant chatting with you. I hope I don't have the misfortune of running into you again.
From this point on, I will ignore all of your posts.
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.