Posted on 03/12/2009 7:47:44 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
There are at least five ways that Barack Obama can be declared ineligible for the presidency. Here is a list:
1. Obama was not born in the United States. The Certification of Live Birth that he posts on his web site proves nothing. Only the original paper certificate can address this issue, Obama refuses to release it.
2. Dual Citizenship issue: Obama could have British and American citizenship due to his father being a British subject at the time of his birth.
3. Dual Citizenship issue: Obama could have dual citizenship with Indonesia if he was adopted. His school records from Inonesia indicate he was Indonesian. He also traveled to Pakistan, but under what passport?
4. Mother's age at birth. Hawaiian laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19. Stanley Ann Dunham was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth.
5. Failure to formally renounce dual citizenship described above and reestablish American citizenship at some point and show proof of same.
Obama supporters have unrealistically simplified this issue down to the COLB. There are possibly more issues out there still to be investigated, perhaps willful misconduct on the potential forging of the COLB, etc.
I think that those who are bringing this issue to the attention of the courts need to step back and address the big picture first and then fill in the details.
Are there other potentially disqualifying factors missing from this list?
Where is your evidence that anyone associated with the Obama did this?
And the guy whose company did the break in ends up in Obama circle of trusted advisers...
Do you think the CEO of a company has personal knowledge of the actions of every single one of his employees?
Is there any evidence that they acted on his orders?
Great morph post! Resemblance is uncanny!
Not true. Yet another brither factoid someone just made up that gets quoted as gospel truth, when it is in fact false.
Where is your evidence that anyone associated with the Obama did this?
CNN
: curiously as soon as it was revealed who they worked for and their boss's affiliation with Obama. the whole story sort of disappeared off the media's radar as if it was a nonissue.
Funny how that works isn't it?
Had I done it to expose Obama's past I am sure I would be looking at jail time on a host of charges, what were they charged with and when did they go to trial?
I'm not worried about anything. I'd love to see him step down.
Legal hassles, however, are not and should not be part of the hassles of the presidency.
Even if legitimate? Is your name Robert Gibbs?
Not really. I've read several autobiographies that don't detail every vacation the subject took.
The first time Barry deemed to mention his trip to Pakistan was AFTER the passport breach.
If he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, why would someone breaching his US passport records motivate him to tell about his trip to Pakistan?
Who breached his passport - 3 times?
Good question. Another question is why the names of the employees who breached the files (and were fired for it) as well as the names of the outside contractors who employed them weren't released by the State Dept, despite Democratic leaders demanding those names and a full investigation of the matter. Mukasey and the Justice Dept offered to look into it as well and Condi Rice said "No thanks, we'll handle it." That was after she personally called Obama, Hillary and McCain to apologize for all their records being breached.
Now you're being foolish.
I had to produce my original birth certificate when I joined the Army. 0bama should produce THE ORIGINAL to become President.
You said, "He just doesn't want the hassle of having to defend against twenty different simultaneous lawsuits at once."
But he is doing just that - paying his lawyers to answer several lawsuits. If he doesn't want the hassle, do like I (and millions of other Americans) and produce THE ORIGINAL.
Sure I do, but bless your heart, for being concerned about my comprehension.
Actually, the state department disagrees with you.
One more time....
The DOS states:
QUOTE: “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.” ENDQUOTE
Obama’s COLB IS a short-form (abstract) version of his birth certificate.
BTW - did you know that Hawaii doesn’t even agree with you?
Please read from http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl:
QUOTE: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” ENDQUOTE
And one more time for the tone deaf:
The computer-generated CertifiCATION requires additional verification by DHHL.
Oh, DHHL is Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
A single document from a private school lists his citizenship as Indoensian. Assuming the document is authentic (and there's a good possibility it is not), then it is in error for the reason stated above.
People do, you know, make mistakes when filling out documents.
It's amusing the contortions you went through to answer the above evidenced question.
He also traveled to Pakistan, but under what passport?
There is no reason to believe he traveled on any passport other than a US passport.
When there is evidence you explain it away, but when there is none you try to validate your position with the lack of. Do you see why you confuse people?
Let me ask you a serious question, please:
Do you think that the office of the President of the United States is a typical office or is it extraordinary in any way?
And only ‘after’ the passport breach did Obama admit to ever having traveled to Pakistan.
Except for his time in Indonesia, it was his first trip out of the country.
Do you really think he just forgot to mention it???
“Ah, so this approach of denigrating the arguments as merely fantasy fishing expeditions IS the latest Axelrod talking point! Glad we got that clarified so early this evening.”
Nothing denigrating. Merely an observation that one of “the arguments” seems about as good, as the next.
Or if I am wrong about that observation, then which of the five is the strongest, and why?
Sorry, I hit post too quickly.
“Good question. Another question is why the names of the employees who breached the files (and were fired for it) as well as the names of the outside contractors who employed them weren’t released by the State Dept, despite Democratic leaders demanding those names and a full investigation of the matter. Mukasey and the Justice Dept offered to look into it as well and Condi Rice said “No thanks, we’ll handle it.” That was after she personally called Obama, Hillary and McCain to apologize for all their records being breached.”
Curious, isn’t it?
Is it so important to win an argument that the facts just get trampled in the process?
There's really not much point to continuing this discussion.
I dunno. I was going to ask you that very question.
All I did was quote verbatim from the Department of State website which differentiates a birth certificate from a short-form abstract - aka COLB.
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.