Army caught up in reservist’s Obama conspiracy theory

Looks to me like the fed/gov. knows everything there is to know about 0’b, they have the resources to find out. So, we are probably being mislead purposely. I don’t know if 0’b is legit, but there is certainly enough questions, for sworn officals to find out the whole truth.

I wonder if she would make the same statement under oath and subject herself to a potential charge of perjury?

In this case, since she’s representing the State of Hawaii, it’s the State swearing an oath.

And I think the general public considers that when something is on a State of Hawaii official website, it’s official information and they can be “held to it”...

And, at the same time, if a representative for the State of Hawaii is called upon to swear to it in court, they would do the same as what they put in writing for an official State of Hawaii document, given to the public.

"That would not be a good thing. We're at war right now."

And having a CinC of whose Constitutional authority is in question is better, because.....?

Good morning: It was quite an interesting discussion last night and in the morning hours!

After sleeping on this, it feels to me like we were talking about soldiers in the barracks that are isolated from the outside world with no clues of what is going on outside their world, is that correct?

We have just had the pleasure of having three different granddaughters visiting us for two weeks, 14, 15 and 19 years of age!

With their cell phones (Blackberry or what?) they would communicate with their friends and parents by calls and text messaging with "the speed of light." They would jump on our computers to check their e-mails, My Space, Face Book, Twitters, and what do I know!!

Now I would assume that our soldiers today have the same gadgets plus laptops with wireless connections and CNN/FOX in the recreation facilities and thereby being as well informed as the rest of us. Am I wrong??

Just a thought!!!

I agree with you!

This is not a question of race which is drummed up by the opponents. It's not even about a B.C - faked or not - it's about the Constitution that most of us and in particular our service personnel swore to defend and uphold!!

To following what I have swore to is not conspiracy from the kooks the way we are portrayed by the talking point attacks in the medias the last few days!!!

Who are giving the order of these talking points, that's a mystery to me???

We can’t take his word for anything. This man is a proven inveterate sociopathic liar. We must have documentation that legally establishes who the man’s bio dad is. He may have been trying to create a romantic myth of an African father that might be more compelling than say a Hawaiin Communist. `I am not accountable as to why he LIES SO DAMN MUCH!!!! He is accountable to show his qualifications for the presidency.

The man has REPEATEDLY lied about his genealogy.
He lied About how his parents met and conceived him, he lied about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz, he lied about his father being part of an airlift from Africa paid for by the Kennedys, he lied about his father’s religious upbringing, and he lied about how he met his wife.

Why does anyone think that he wouldn’t lie about something that might get him kicked out of the presidency?????

Also a NBC must be born on US soil. The original BC would show that or not.

We MUST not allow the moral onus of this debate to be inverted. A legitimate and moral president would be MORE than happy to allay his countrymen’s legitimate concerns about the legal basis for his governance and produce ordinary documentation to confirm that legal and constitutional basis, as did Barry Goldwater, George Romney Sr, and John S.McCain. It is he who has caused this crisis, and no amount of pettifogging obsfucation by his acolytes can change that.

But I am certain that Hussein ain’t legitimate. He is all likelihood a lying usurping BASTARD who, were these documents be revealed, expose him for the counterfeit POTUS that he is.

We are pursuing his lack of NBC qualifications because he ACTS like someone who has none. He cannot be qualified without revealing himself as the perverted sociopathic liar that he is, because he cannot be qualified without a US citizen father and Hussein had to be born on US soil. We need not fear exposing at LEAST that.

This man is the direst domestic threat to constitutional governance and liberty since the end of the cold war.

Cook’s legal ploy drew condemnation from Brandon Friedman, vice chairman of VoteVets.org, a political action committee seeking to elect veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to public office.

Um.. isn't this the group thats trying to get vets of these wars to run as DEMOCRATS???? If this is the same group I'm thinking of this isn't some non partisan group.

As is suggested by some in talking about 80K troops training in Georgia to act as peace keepers inside the country.

I think I heard of an incident in Samson, AL, where a unit interfered with police work in a murder case???

Obama should be tried for treason if he refuses to do his duty. He isn’t upholding the constitution. He is FLAUNTING it.

Can it be said more clearly???

But they will slap us because we use the T-word and say we are racists!

Our service people need to have a clear cut proof that they are obeying orders from a legit CiC, - not from a PINO - and act accordingly!!

I am sure that like we they are questioning the eligibility of their CiC, and by his army of lawyers he has not provided them and us with sufficient evidence that he is a Bona fide CiC. That needs to solved once and for all, and NOW!!!

When a president was not properly vetted as a candidate, then the political leadership which failed to vet him has proven its incompetence to what SHOULD be a fatal degree for that party’s survival.

Which party are you referring to???

Cheney confirmed the electoral votes to put this impostor in office!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Every time I see this smirking smile and him walking out to the kool-aid drinker’s cheering, my stomach cringes!!!

If not signed under penalty of perjury, she can’t be prosecuted for lying. Someone needs to ask her to do that and see what she has to say.

"Star Traveler is an avowed anti-birther."

Somebody used a more fitting term: "After-birther"!!!

I would say that with the general public, their understanding is that if the State of Hawaii speaks in an official document, that what they *say* in that official document *is* exactly what the truth of the matter is.

In fact FReepers here, use that *all the time* to prove what they are saying about other matters. They will say something like “In this state they do such-and-such”... and then post a link to an official website of that state which *proves it* — merely by reading it on their website...

It’s a common thing done here on Free Republic.

And in addition to that, the State of Hawaii is not operating in a “vacuum” not knowing what the issue is — in regards to Obama and him being born there.

They don’t release an official statement like that, with the State of Hawaii seal on it, the governor’s name on the letterhead and say that Obama was born in the Hawaii and that he is a natural-born American citizen without having their lawyers go over the files that they have, examining them, and making sure that the State of Hawaii is making an accurate and factual statement. They’re not about to “fiddle” with an issue that is a “hot-potato” subject and that involves the President of the United States... :-)

Since you give a reasoned response, I thought it good to present to others... :-)

From FReeper "nathanbedford"...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2304411/posts?page=49#49

Yesterday, I posted the following reply which I make bold to post again because it expands on the author's conclusion that Obama was in all likelihood born in Hawaii. More importantly, it justifies the entire inquiry into the birth certificate not just because of the collateral information obtained, but on the merits of the controversy itself as they were then known. It is the new information rather than the absence of any grounds for the original investigation which lead one now to conclude that likelihood is that Obama was born in Hawaii. The investigation was it remains justified in not "nutty." Finally, in anticipation of the author's defense of his investigation on the grounds that it exposes Obama's lies, I suggested at the foot of the reply that the investigation ought to be continued, under a different rationale, because it stands as a metaphor for the chicanery and radicalism of the individual.

The idea expressed by the author that the birthers are irrational is ignorant. Invariably these charges are accompanied by a declaration that Barack Obama has already produced his birth certificate and it shows that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This, as we all know, is what Obama has not produced. He has produced not a Birth Certificate but a Certification of Live Birth. The essence of the birthers position is that under Hawaii law a Certification of Live Birth could have been issued for Barack Obama even though his Kenyan birth certificate showed the location of his birth to be Kenya, so long as his mother averred that she was a resident of Hawaii for one year preceding the birth.

On October 31st 2008 Doctor Fukino issued the following press release:

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

At the very minimum, the competent state official in Hawaii confirms that the original birth certificate is on record as at October 31, 2008. Yet many objected that the official did not explicitly state that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, the statement only avers that the underlying birth certificate is in accordance with "state policies and procedures." Those policies and procedures say the birthers would be to accept the Kenyan birth certificate and issue a certificate of live birth showing birth in Hawaii. Now Doctor Fukino explicitly states that Obama was born in Hawaii and that fact is recorded in the "vital records":

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Now many complain that Doctor Fukino does not recite that she examined the underlying birth certificate but only some "vital records" which could mean something apart from the original long form birth certificate. Unfortunately for this quibble, Doctor Fukino explicitly refers back to her October 2008 statement. That is significant because that statement says explicitly that the original Birth Certificate is on record. Therefore, no reasonable reader can conclude otherwise than that the competent state official of Hawaii is affirming that the original birth certificate, which is in the file and which she has personally examined in the presence of another official, says that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Either you must believe she is lying, or that she is so stupid she cannot recognize a document common to her job description, or she saw an original birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii.

There was evidence on the Internet in the form of the YouTube audio of a telephone conversation through a translator with Barack Obama's grandmother in Kenya in which it was said in the audio presented that Barack was born in Kenya and that she was present at the birth. The audio presentation terminated abruptly at this point. Very recently another audio presentation appeared on YouTube which extended that conversation and it was made perfectly clear that the grandmother was confused and recanted, saying that Barack Obama was not in fact born in Kenya but born in Hawaii.

In the absence of such evidence of foreign birth, we are left to spin a series of scenarios because we believe the underlying birth certificate does not show that he was born in Hawaii. But now that thin reed has been dealt a heavy blow by the state of Hawaii. We actually have no reason whatsoever to believe that he was born in Kenya. We actually have no reason to disbelieve that he was born in Hawaii, except the inexplicable fact that he will not give up his birth certificate. Against that we have a certain amount of evidence both documentary and confirmatory that he was indeed born in Hawaii.

I am unaware of any affirmative evidence that Obama was born anywhere except Hawaii. I am not so solilsciptic to believe that if I don't know if it does not exist, therefore, I invite anyone with affirmative evidence of foreign birth for Barack Obama to state it now. In the absence of such a forthcoming, we are reduced to drawing inferences from his refusal to release his birth certificate. But those inferences have been substantially weakened by the statement of the officials of the state of Hawaii. In any case, there are other inferences which could be as readily drawn from Obama's refusal to release the document besides a motive to cover up a foreign birth. (The author recounts is impossible reasons apart from foreign birth in his article.)

We are left with drawing a damning inference, no more warranted than many others, from a document we haven't seen, which officials declare says the opposite of what we contend, which Obama has not released but which he is under no obligation to release. This soup is too thin and it verges on tinfoil hat territory.

In the absence of any affirmative evidence of foreign birth, and in view of the status of the officials of the state of Hawaii that they have examined the underlying birth certificate and it shows a birth in Hawaii, I think the air has gone out of the birthers' balloon.

But that is a very different thing from saying, as many do, that the birthers investigation was always nutty. It was not. Before the second revelation by the officials of the state of Hawaii cleared up the contents of the actual birth certificate, one was free to infer that Barack Obama's birth certificate would show a foreign birth. Likewise, so long as the YouTube version of grandma's statement had her saying that he was born in Kenya, there was proof, albeit questionable, of foreign birth. That proof has also been swept away. No one can say that while these two misapprehensions existed, the birther movement was "nutty."

What to do now in view of changed circumstances?

The momentum should not be lost but the thrust now should be to portray Barack Obama not as a counterfeit Natural Born Citizen but as a mountebank with a shadowy history which he refuses to illuminate by releasing records of his birth, his passports, his transcripts, his employment and practice. This should be tied in with showing that Obama is a radical socialist, a man with deep and intimate associations with Communists and a paper trail, as much as can be discovered, revealing a man who himself is a Manchurian Marxist. The unaccountable secrecy about his birth is symbolic of his secrecy about his radical associations. Any criticism of the investigation into the birth of Barack Obama should properly be blamed on the paranoia of the man himself who has unaccountably shrouded himself in secrecy. If he is not hiding his place of birth what is he hiding?

Now I would assume that our soldiers today have the same gadgets plus laptops with wireless connections and CNN/FOX in the recreation facilities and thereby being as well informed as the rest of us. Am I wrong??

You are dead-on. These young soldiers are very technically proficient. They are not in a bubble and they know darn well what's going on.

The birth announcement was my big hang-up as well. I've seen two possible explanations. 1) The health department received the birth information and automatically sent it to the newspapers. 2) Someone tampered with the microfisch, removing the announcement of a set of twins and inserting Obama.

For me, the issue has very little to do with his birth. I'm about 99% certain that he was born in Hawaii, but I don't think that this is the point. If he traveled abroad on a Indonesian passport, if he applied for scholarships as a foreign student, if he were legally adopted by his step-father, he may be a *naturalized* citizen, but not considered natural-born.

I think that we're at the point where we know that we're on to *something* that Obama wants to keep hidden, but we don't know for sure what it is. That's why this thing won't go away. The more the administration keeps silent, the more I want to see his "papers". Something is not adding up about this guy's past, but we don't know what yet. I would think that it might not have anything to do with his birth, but if that's the case, why won't he just release the long-form BC and be done with it? He's hiding something and he's willing to pay a million dollars to keep it secret.

It could be something as simple as fraud. Let's say he was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen. No problem. Let's say that he used his Indonesian paperwork to say that he was an Indonesian citizen to get scholarships for college. Let's say that he kept up the "I'm an Indonesian" thing for the entire 8 years, then dropped it when he graduated and he wanted to get into politics.

Now I don't know if *any* of that would be enough to get him impeached, but it would've been a bomb-shell scandal before the election. It would be a bomb-shell if he wanted to run for a second term.

Purely speculation, but it explains why he's so interested in being less than transparent.

Something is up and we have to keep the pressure on.

frog in a pot said: "Was very surprised at how much of the writing was so liberal."

I don't remember all the details now, but around 1970 when I was in the Army, the Stars and Stripes published an article with a picture in it. I think the picture may have been of a general and the picture was unflattering. To satisfy SOMEBODY, staffers literally cut out the picture from the paper and then permitted the paper to be distributed with such a mechanical edit to it.

Very quickly there was an unfavorable response to such nonsense. But it revealed quite clearly that "freedom of the press" is not involved in the publication of Stars and Stripes.