Flashback: Obama cuts 2008 Selective Service stamp in half...

7/18/15 | me

[spacejunkie2001]

...and inverted the '08 portion to read '80, then stamped the bottom of a fake selective service form as if he really filled it out. Sheriff Joe's Posse proved that all forms had the entire year in the stamp....but not odumbo's.

When, pray tell, will ANY of the media do their job and search out obamas's fake documents and confront him with it????

[CpnHook]

How is "Lolo" supposed to know where and when Obama was born? Was "Lolo" somehow involved in it? Like as not, he just parroted what he had been told.

And who would have told him other than Stanley Ann? And who better than Stanley Ann to know when and where Obama was born?

Seriously, this shouldn't be that hard for you.

[Godebert]

Your wasting your time with those two obots.

[Godebert]

“You’re”

[CpnHook]

And you can't appreciate the distinction between publications that circulate nationwide versus a little agency blurb intended for a smattering of publishers?

Oh, right, the agency bio comes in PICTURE form, and you think that makes your argument stronger . . .

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, DumbDumb, perhaps you can point me to the provision in the Constitution where it mentions the necessary elements of a birth certificate.

Certainly Lying childish idiot, right after you point out where the Constitution mentions "guns."

Oh, and the necessary elements of "bullets."

:)

[CpnHook]

Your opinion really is not worth the trouble to read.

And yet you keep reading them, even all the ones posted to another person.

I can always tells the ones that present you with questions and points that are difficult for you: they're the ones you read and reply to say you're not replying. It's been your M.O. for 2 years now.

[DiogenesLamp]

original record in our files.

Exactly what I said you F***** idiot. "IN OUR FILES."

Not "ORIGINAL RECORD IN OUR FILES." Just stuff that has been put "In Our files."

I know how this bullsh*t works. I'm adopted too. I have a bullsh*t birth certificate created by the State as well.

[Nero Germanicus]

All anyone would need to do is convince a prosecutor or a congressional committee to look in to whether that might have happened in the specific case of Barack Obama.

[CpnHook]

Certainly Lying childish idiot, right after you point out where the Constitution mentions "guns.

In 1787, the average person would have understood "arms" in the "the peoples' right to bear arms" to include guns, a thing then existing. Scalia makes this very point in the Heller case.

By contrast, no one in 1787 would have understood "no one except a natural born citizen" to mean "you have to proffer a birth certificate," a thing that didn't then exist.

One is an apple. One is an orange. Clearly, you are too dense to tell them apart.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, he then had Democratic majorities.

Idiot! I said "IDIOT!" The Majority on the Supreme court (The topic of discussion related to the "Obamacare" reference in the post to which you are responding) consists of "Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito". They are supposed to be the "Republican" Majority, not insane kook addlepated Democrats like you.

Roberts Rolled over for some bizarre reason and put forth that gibberish explaining why letting the National Socialists steal people's money is lawful.

*THAT* is the Obamacare Bullsh*t to which I was referring in response to your observation that Obama's intimidation factor must not be operating.

Of course you got it wrong, but what can I expect when I indulge a half wit in a conversation?

[CpnHook]

Not "ORIGINAL RECORD IN OUR FILES."

I'm not sure what you're negating here. The words I quoted referred to "the original record in our files." When what's being compared is an image of a birth certificate, how many "originals" do you think there are?

Just stuff that has been put "In Our files."

Well, yeah, that's where one puts original birth certificates -- in the records files. (Be sure not to face the wind as you keep p**sing indiscriminately here).

I'm adopted too. I have a bullsh*t birth certificate created by the State as well.

And you tried claiming to FW that I'm the one invested personally in these topics due to some supposed issue with some family member. The accusations you make against me again are shown to be pure projection.

[Nero Germanicus]

Corroboration Of Birth In Hawaii

1) Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth has been officially verified three times by the Hawaii state Registrar Alvin Onaka (twice for states’ Secretary of State and once for a federal judge)and three statements of authenticity have been issued in press releases by two Hawaii Directors of Health (Dr. Fukino and Loretta Fuddy).
2) Index Data from the “1960-1964 Hawaii Births” publication for the Obama Hawaii birth is published on the Hawaii Department of Health’s web site.
3) “Health Bureau Statistics” data for the birth published in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961
4) Listing of “Marriage Applications, Births and Deaths published in the August 14, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
5) Immigration and Naturalization Service Officer William Wood’s memo of Student Visa Extension interview with Barack Obama Senior conducted on August 31, 1961 documents the birth of a son to a U.S. citizen wife in Honolulu on 8/4/61.
6) September 14, 1967 Immigration and Naturalization Service Agent W.L. Mix documents that Lolo Soetoro has a U.S. citizen step son born in Honolulu on 8/4/61
7) January 1, 1968 application to attend Santo Franciskus Asissi Catholic School in Jakarta, Indonesia lists “Honolulu, Hawaii” as Barack Obama, II’s birthplace.
8) February 6, 1990 New York Times profile of Obama when he was elected President of Volume for the Harvard Law Review mentions Hawaii as his birthplace.
9) February 7, 1990 profile of Obama in the Chicago Tribune lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
10) February 8, 1990 profile of Obama in the Washington Post discusses his birth in Hawaii.
11) May 3, 1990 profile of Obama in the Chicago Daily Herald says that he was birn in Hawaii.
12) Columbia University magazine “Columbia Today” did an article on Barack Obama for its Fall, 1990 edition. The article states that he was born in Hawaii.
13) Chicago Magazine article in the January, 1993 edition says Obama was born in Hawaii.
14) Chicago Tribune article of February 10, 1993 “25 Chicagoans On The Road To Making A Difference” lists Barack Obama, born in Hawaii.”
15) August 7, 1995 Los Angeles Times review of “Dreams From My Father” says that Obama was born in Hawaii.
16) October 1, 1999 Obama’s Illinois state Senate page lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
17) January 22, 2003 Chicago Daily Herald on Obama’s Senate campaign states that Obama was born in Hawaii.
18) June 24, 2004 Time Magazine article on Obama running for the Senate says that he was born in Hawaii.
19) Obama’s U.S. Passport lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
20) U.S. House Resolution 593 (111th Congress) contains a whereas clause stating that “the 44th President of the United States was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” the resolution passed the House on a vote of 378-0.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are free to speculate . . . But speculation without evidence it is.

Oh, there's evidence. It just isn't sufficiently dispositive. Stanley Ann is demonstrably in Hawaii during the last Half of August, and it's very unlikely that an Airline would have allowed her to fly with an infant.

She just had a birth announcement listed in the Hawaii papers.

Generated automatically when the State Paperwork is filled out. Works just as well when Grandma fills out the paperwork in Honolulu while Stanley Ann is recuperating in the White Rock Unwed Mother's home.

[CpnHook]

*THAT* is the Obamacare Bullsh*t to which I was referring in response to your observation that Obama's intimidation factor must not be operating.

Well, gosh, since before then I had been talking about how Obama can't get a trade bill, budgets preferences, or judicial appointments past the Republicans, it should have been clear I was speaking about legislative votes. When you simply toss out "obamacare" without making one mention of the Court, you're being your often confusing self.

[DiogenesLamp]

People in 1787 didn't have birth certificates either.

Did you find that "Gun" entry yet?

That's probably over your head, so I'll explain it to you in child terms.

Certain aspects of constitutional law are implicit and axiomatic. The reference to the word "Arms" in the constitution implicitly means all normal forms of weapons then in existence at that time. It doesn't have to SPECIFY each and every sort of Weapon meant to be covered.

In the same manner, usage of the term "Natural Born Citizen" is not intended to be specific regarding the means used to determine this status, so long as they are demonstrably accurate. The only requirement is to be provably accurate.

The Normal method for doing this in 1787 would be reference to Baptism records and perhaps the testimony of relatives.

Given that there has been some evolution since then, Certified Original Birth Certificates have become the Normal Way of demonstrating that someone was indeed born in the United States to American Parents, and is therefore regarded as sufficient proof that someone is a "natural born citizen" under even the most stringent criteria.

So to simplify the concept for your kindergarten level mind, "Arms" are to "Guns" what "Natural Born Citizen" is to "Verifiable Original Birth Certificate proof."

Got it?

More like you will need to have this explained to you more times than I care to do so.

[DiogenesLamp]

Right. You'll just skip past it

Exactly. Best thing to do with your walls of text, and most of your points as well. They are simply not worth the trouble to entertain in a non damaged brain.

[DiogenesLamp]

You must be hearing that wind blowing through your head again . . .

If I had to read your dreck, I'd ventilate my head just to make it stop.

[Nero Germanicus]

It is you, not the Chief Election Officers in the states who is ignorant of the law.

There was not one Secretary of State or other state election official who didn’t follow the laws of their state to the absolute letter of the law. In many states, Chief Election Officers were sued and in every instance, the Secretary of State/Chief Election Officer was upheld.

What needs to change is THE LAW. In a majority of states THE LAW says that whoever a major party nominates MUST be placed on the ballot.
Of course that nominee can always be sued for ineligbility, but those “must” clauses give too much power to the Nancy Pelosis and Reince Priebuses of American politics.

[CpnHook]

and it's very unlikely that an Airline would have allowed her to fly with an infant.

If two weeks was the cut-off (which I'm not going to accept on your say-so, as so much of what you toss up proves incorrect), then you're cutting this down almost to the day. So Stanley Ann walks in with a swaddled bundle in her arms and claims he's 5 weeks old. Who at the airline would know differently?

And Toots sending S.A. off Canada to hide the pregnancy -- only to then as quickly fill out the paperwork which blows the desired secrecy -- makes little sense. Though nonsensical stuff is commonplace with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Presidential candidates can and have documented their eligibility under Article II, Section 1 by using their passports and their driver’s licenses.

Even if this is true, a Candidate that has gone through life leaving the impression that he is some Foreign Prince ought not receive this level of trust regarding his subsequent assertions.

Some states require a candidate to personally sign a notarized statement attesting to their qualification under Article II, Section 1.

I don't care if they find jumping up and down with feathers in your ears satisfactory proof, that doesn't make it so.

What is satisfactory proof is something that actually PROVES SOMETHING. If it has wiggle room, or a parachute clause, it isn't good enough. It has to be sufficient attested to that there is no possibility of being wrong or incorrect.

That statement can then be challenged in court.

In a rational system, the burden of proof is not on the People, but should be on the supplicant for their favor instead. The default position of All State Elections should be "exclude in absence of proof", not the other way around.