Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

World Net Daily ^ | April 01, 2010 | Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

[Seizethecarp]

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

[El Sordo]

“The date on the COLB, “Date filed”, is not put on by the hospital. It’s put on by the state at the same time the number is given. “

I am skeptical as to how we know that this, for a fact, was true in 1961.

“The CDC Vital Stats Report for 1961 notes that certificate numbers were given in ascending order. That’s the standard they expect; they considered their 50% sampling accurate because of that.

It may have been the standard they expected, but it doesn't follow that this is what was actually done at the local level. Perhaps all the CDC wanted was roughly sequential numbering and not block assignments that would lead to gross differences in number assignments.

“I just don’t think “Sh!t happens” is the best way of explaining data that doesn’t fit the protocols. If scientists did that with data we’d never learn anything.”

I am at no point making the argument that “Sh!t happens”. I am saying that whatever system that was followed in 1961 may not have lead to BC numbers exactly matching chronological birth dates.

If you want to talk about the scientific method, you should be far more concerned about trying to draw sweeping conclusions from very small amounts of data. Especially when the only argument for why none of those conclusions have any other factual support is because that support is being suppressed.

Consider two arguments:

1) BHO’s BC is forged. This is evidenced by his BC number being higher than the Nordyke’s BC’s despite his earlier birth.

2) Hawaii didn't necessarily number BC’s in chronological order of birth. This is evidenced by his BC number being higher than the Nordyke’s BC’s despite his earlier birth.

Which is correct? You need more data to draw a supportable conclusion.

It's Easter, so let's leave any more talk of this until Monday.

[STARWISE]

Excellent! I’ve said it before, the undeniable
‘Blue Dress’ revelation of this matter is out there.
How, when, where, if .. it’s revealed remains to be
seen.

PS .. Thank God for Linda Tripp!

BillyJeff would’ve lied interminably, to the
bitter end. It cost him, it cost him dearly
and history will ever resound with his shame,
whereby his legacy restoration penance consumes
his daily life.

[danamco]

Thank you BP2 for putting the deck boy on his right place. He and his other paid s.c. “friends” (aka enablers) here on F.R. are nothing to the United States of America but what Quisling was to Norway 1940-1945. They are all here traitors by keeping rooting for Barry Soetoro like Quisling was in Scandinavia!!!

[BP2]

> You and Orly Taitz can continue “fight the good fight”.

>> Why you After-Birthers are INFATUATED with Orly, I'll
>> never know ... maybe you should ask her out on a date.
>> LOL. you probably are hard up.

OldPeckerInHand ... sorry, after checking, Orly seems to be too busy for an internet hook-up with you. Something about getting ready for appeals and filing papers or something like that.

But, don't lose HOPE. I think I can fix you up this Saturday night!

Judging by your handle, I'm guessing you pretend to be an old sailor and might even be into that whole body-tattoo thing ...

So, after checking the personal ads for you on whitehouse.com
(not to be confused with the site at .gov), I think I found the
PERFECT match for an Obama-lover like yourself:

[mojitojoe]

OldPeckerInHand

_________________
LOL LOL LOL!!!!!

[butterdezillion]

I’m waiting for cinnamon rolls to come out of the oven for the youth group’s Easter breakfast and won’t have any discretionary time on Monday so I’ll respond while I can.

The two scenarios’ wording fails to reflect what Okubo said. The date of BIRTH is totally irrelevant to this discussion; that’s a mistaken construct of Obama’s attempted forgery. What matters is the date of FILING - which is the date the certificate had a number stamped on it at the state registrar’s office. Obama’s was STAMPED WITH A NUMBER 3 days before the Nordyke twins’ were STAMPED WITH A NUMBER.

Why would anybody with a stamper (most likely the kind where you just increase the last digit each time you stamp) skip around with the numbers? What scenario would cause an office worker to say, “Oops. We forgot to use this number 3 days ago; let’s use it now”?

I have never once seen a birth certificate that has a “Date received” stamp that gives either the date or the hour of receipt in the state registrar’s office, which is what is required for your standard of proof. IOW, you have chosen a standard of proof which can never be satisfied - which is typically what I find in conversations I’ve had with atheists; the epistemology is different for something a person is simply not willing to believe.

The closest we have to a time stamp showing the order that certificates were accepted/approved at the state registrar’s office, according to Okubo, IS the certificate number.

And we do see that the Nordyke BC’s are consecutive, and that all the BC’s posted online fit the pattern of ascending numbers. We see that the Kapiolani BC’s were all signed by the local registrar and filed by the state registrar (given a number, according to Okubo) on the same date (always a Friday, except where national holidays interfere).

Obama’s BC number has two problems with the “Date received”: 1) It’s not on a Friday and should have been received the same Friday as the Nordykes’ were if he was born at Kapiolani; and 2) the certificate number doesn’t match the “Date filed” because the person whose certificate number they used was probably actually born at Kapiolani and had their BC filed and numbered right after the Nordykes. It was probably the person whose BC was either 2 above or below the Nordykes’ in the Kapiolani pile when it was delivered to the registrar’s office on Aug 11, 1961.

What’s funny is that Obama wouldn’t have been caught at this if he had simply used that person’s BC for the forgery and left the dates intact rather than trying to make the dates APPEAR to line up at a superficial glance. (Birth one day earlier than Nordykes when Nordykes were born during a weekend, “Date filed” 3 days earlier than Nordykes; birth announcements 3 days earlier than Nordykes)

Everything this guy has done was meant to allow people to take a superficial glance and be satisfied. It’s only when people start digging into the realities that they find the proof that it’s all manufactured. Obama was counting on people looking at the issue only superficially and then ridiculing anybody who dug deeper. He played this media and society like a fiddle. Whether he ultimately succeeds depends on the integrity of the American people, to pursue the truth even when they get ridiculed for it.

Obama’s hastiness to make the information look superficially correct has actually been the tip-off for me to find other things he’s manufactured. Obama is transparent - transparent in the way he manufactures “documentation”. Once you know the pattern you know what to look for and it leads to the anomalies that prove the fraud.

You haven’t heard the end of the story yet.

[bgill]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Ann didn't know how to change a poopy diaper but that she just didn't want to be bothered with it right then. Remember, they were teenagers and most likely Ann just handed the stinky kid over to Susan because Susan had changed dozens of her brothers' stinky diapers. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107889

[bgill]

Susan Blake states in the video that Ann had just finished “nursing” him. If she’d said “fed” him, that could have meant any method but “nursing” would mean breastfed.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107889

[bgill]

Be skeptical all you want but I will tell you that decades ago that when BCs came through our office, not one was stamped by some nurse at a hospital. Official state stamps are not given out willy nilly. Filing dates are at the time the document is filed at the state.

[bgill]

Someone here (name starts with a p) had a link a while back that showed how many births there were in Hawaii for that week. Seems something like 146 or maybe 461 (? ok there was a 4 and 6 and a 1 in it IIRC - it’s been a while) so lets just say hundreds of babies born. With that many certificates, it’s even harder to believe they went, “oopsie!” with the numbering on just his. Just how many times does the Oopsie Fairy have to visit his records before people realize the BS Ogre should be called in.

[edge919]

According to Blake, she told SAD that she would have to LEARN how to change the diapers eventually.

[little jeremiah]

Ah, thank you! It is impossible to nurse (which I think always has mean breastfeed) an adopted baby.

[bgill]

Susan Blake says, “So, I changed Barry’s diaper, lol. And showed her how to do it and said ‘get used to it, lol, they do this alot, these new babies do’.”

Susan didn’t say Ann had never changed a diaper or didn’t have a clue how to change one. I think she was just giving Ann a word from the wise. Supposedly Hussein was brand spanking new and Ann was a brand spanking new mama. Remember, Ann never had babysat like other girls did back in high school. This was all new to her but that doesn’t mean that someone had dropped him off at her doorstep that morning and she was at a total loss. These things take time. I’m not going to fault a teen for handing a poopy kid off to someone else. How many new dads, or even old dads, run for the hills when confronted with a poopy diaper.

[edge919]

The part about ‘get used to it’ indicates to me that SAD was clueless. Real mothers are motherly and don’t hand off their babies at a whim, especially to make someone else do their dirty work. Doing that means SAD either had no confidence or no clue on how to handle the baby’s diapers. There’s no need to invent excuses.

[bgill]

One word - teenager.

[little jeremiah]

There have been teenaged mothers throughout the ages. It’s less common now but that’s merely a cultural anomaly.

It looks to me - reading through the lines - that there was probably an attachment problem, as well as whatever else was weird in the timeline department.

[little jeremiah]

Butterdezillion hits another one out of the park.

[edge919]

Doesn’t change anything (pardon the pun). At the point SAD handed off the baby to her friend, she should have had a good three weeks of experience handling the baby already. Babies usually need to be changed six to 10 times a day. Easily, SAD should have already changed that baby more than 100 times. Unless stinky little Barry was constipated for a couple of weeks, she should have already had changed a poopy diaper at least 15 times or so.

Also, we’ve been told that SAD wasn’t the typical teenager. She was more worldly and confident. Handing off a baby to change a stinky diaper doesn’t fit the profile.

[aruanan]

Also, we’ve been told that SAD wasn’t the typical teenager. She was more worldly and confident. Handing off a baby to change a stinky diaper doesn’t fit the profile.

For someone more "worldly and confident" (aka a self-centered hedonist), handing off a baby to change a stinky diaper exactly fits the profile.

[edge919]

I have to say I’m very surprised at all the SAD defenders on this. You think this is more indicative of a person who’s handled the baby for three weeks, but is worldly and confident, than of a person who has only handled the baby for a few days??