"WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President."

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cradlecatholic5 said:
thanks, Big Ro. I appreciate that.

BTW, my Mom was Irish - Roseann (huge Notre Dame fan) 😃
my Dad was Italian - we always said “gaelic & garlic” went well together. They had a wonderful marriage. 🙂
Click to expand...
No problem. But so we’re clear. I wrote nothing uncharitable towards you or your post. I was potentially being uncharitable towards the people on this thread that believe that the President is ineligible to serve because of his place of birth, citizenship status or other problems surrounding his birth. I am well aware that there is a term for this group but it was pointed out to me that using that term in reference to someone that has not self-identified with that term is uncharitable and name calling. So, I have to use a more cumbersome descriptor. I’m cool wit it.
 
cradlecatholic5 said:
Mandrake = magic / magician

Hmmmm… interesting. :whacky:
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. It was suggested by Seekerz yesterday that it possible that Obama was never even really born. So, I suggested that his real name may very well be Mandrake Obama. This would account for his ability to create a massive illusion. It was further suggested that the advance in halographic technology may also be a potential way for the current President to perpetrate this massive fraud and conspiracy which lead to the potential name of Princess Lea Obama. I think once we are able to view a real and authentic BC this will be cleared up. 😃
 
kimmielittle said:
Well.l.l. the misleading misinformation …::D:D

The short of the matter:
Did the Long Form exist ?
Does the Long Form have more information on it than the Short Form?
Does Hawaiian law allow him to a copy of it?

Is that the story the public has been told for 2-3 years?
Click to expand...
There is lots of documentation about him that has existed, do you want all of it? Most of “the public” likely had more pressing matters to focus on over the last 2-3 years since he had already met the requirements for eligibility way and proven his citizenship. Just because some people wanted more than what was required didn’t oblige him to present it. There is lots more I wouldn’t mind knowing about Obama on a personal level but it’s really none of my business or anyone else’s.
 
Wow! Very cool. I was also a fan of the Phantom. So, if Obama was born in 1934 how does he manage to stay so youthful. The Event!!!
 
here is something that most folks outside Hawaii won’t know-it says he was born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in 1961. However, there was no such place in 1961-at the time it was called Kaukeolani Children Hospital. Not until 1978, it was merged with Kapiolani Maternity Home to become Kapiolani Hospital. So what’s wrong with this picture? You can verify the name change on hospital’s website. So in my opinion(and other people who know about this info)something aren’t right
 
Double down? fox news correspondent questions legitimacy of released document.

mediaite.com/tv/who-said-its-over-foxs-eric-bolling-questions-authenticity-of-birth-certificate/

Pamela Geller was a guest and is saying that in order to prove the documents authenticity it must be subjected to some sort of laser testing. So, as Seekerz has been consistently pointing out the unneccessary release of the document only leads to a moving of the goal post. Now, he must prove the document is real and authentic.
 
Well of course, he has to keep that in the closet. It would be too much in a first term. Presidents tend to take more chances in Second terms.
 
Big_Ro said:
Yes exactly. It was suggested by Seekerz yesterday that it possible that Obama was never even really born. So, I suggested that his real name may very well be Mandrake Obama. This would account for his ability to create a massive illusion. It was further suggested that the advance in halographic technology may also be a potential way for the current President to perpetrate this massive fraud and conspiracy which lead to the potential name of Princess Lea Obama. I think once we are able to view a real and authentic BC this will be cleared up. 😃
Click to expand...
it is my contention that every future presidential candidate needs to prove:
  1. that they are the rightful owners of all birth certificates presented (birth fingerprints or footprints must be available for comparison)
  2. that their mothers are/were really their mothers (this include ultrasound, DNA and amniocentesis information); candidates born before amnios were widely available will be automatically disqualified
  3. that their fathers are indeed their fathers (biological evidence will need to be submitted)
  4. that they were in fact born into this world: for this purpose only time-stamped videotapes of their birth will suffice (same conditions as amnios apply)
  5. that their birth announcements did not coincide with any reported UFO sightings anywhere in the world…
  6. that no one associated with their conception, birth or upbringing has any association with the Alaskan facility known in The Event as Inostranka, and that all persons are documented to have aged appropriately
…feel free to contribute your personal requirements, everyone 😃
 
seekerz said:
it is my contention that every future presidential candidate needs to prove:
  1. that they are the rightful owners of all birth certificates presented (birth fingerprints or footprints must be available for comparison)
  2. that their mothers are/were really their mothers (this include ultrasound, DNA and amniocentesis information); candidates born before amnios were widely available will be automatically disqualified
  3. that their fathers are indeed their fathers (biological evidence will need to be submitted)
  4. that they were in fact born into this world: for this purpose only time-stamped videotapes of their birth will suffice (same conditions as amnios apply)
  5. that their birth announcements did not coincide with any reported UFO sightings anywhere in the world…
  6. that no one associated with their conception, birth or upbringing has any association with the Alaskan facility known in The Event as Inostranka, and that all persons are documented to have aged appropriately
…feel free to contribute your personal requirements, everyone 😃
Click to expand...
Disclosure of any past or present status as a superhero and of course if in fact they are a magician or halographic image.
 
seekerz said:
…If the short form was not acceptable then it stands to reason that the authorities would not have accepted it - unless they were -]under Obama’s hypnotic spell/-] -]in Obama’s pocket/-] totally incompetent. Is this an assertion being made here?
Click to expand...
You missed my point. The question (as expressed in the title of the thread) is not what the “authorities” were provided (which you can be sure, if Obama went through any sort of FBI screening at all when he became senator, was far more than the short form birth certificate), nor what the the “authorities” accepted (presumably to be a candidate?). It is what do people mean when they hear the term “birth certificate”? And what they mean, and what O. provided are clearly two different things. And no, the media have not been helpful in addressing this point. Media people are a mile-wide and an inch-deep, and the typical line has been “he provided his birth certificate in 2008” - which was not strictly accurate. That you won’t cede this minor point is what earns you a label.
 
Bev17243 said:
here is something that most folks outside Hawaii won’t know-it says he was born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in 1961. However, there was no such place in 1961-at the time it was called Kaukeolani Children Hospital. Not until 1978, it was merged with Kapiolani Maternity Home to become Kapiolani Hospital. So what’s wrong with this picture? You can verify the name change on hospital’s website. So in my opinion(and other people who know about this info)something aren’t right
Click to expand...
That has already been discussed in this thread beginning with post #681 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7809197&postcount=681, but below is the most relevant post regarding the issue.
SwizzleStick said:
Okay, this clarifies the hospital name issue.

“The website for the hospital states merely that the Kapiolani Maternity Home was founded in 1890 and merged in 1978 with another hospital. However, according to the 1962 “American Directory of Obstetricians & Gynecologists” (pages 105, 132, and 202), the Kapiolani Maternity Home was renamed the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. That name change is also cited in a book published three years before the President’s birth: “Social Service in Hawaii” by Margaret Mary Louise Catton (Pacific Book Publishers, 1959), In it the hospital’s name change from Kapiolani Maternity Home to Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital is cited on page 103. Two other books, “Social Process in Hawaii: Volume 32″ (University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1989) and “The Health of Native Hawaiians” by Eldon L. Wegner (University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1989), both state that in the hospital’s “charter was amended to change the organization’s name to Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.” This name change took place prior to 1950, according to the “Hawaii Medical Journal,” Volume 10 (published 1950), which calls the hospital the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on pages 53, 129, and 453.”
Click to expand...
 
JHow said:
You missed my point. The question (as expressed in the title of the thread) is not what the “authorities” were provided (which you can be sure, if Obama went through any sort of FBI screening at all when he became senator, was far more than the short form birth certificate), nor what the the “authorities” accepted (presumably to be a candidate?). It is what do people mean when they hear the term “birth certificate”? And what they mean, and what O. provided are clearly two different things. And no, the media have not been helpful in addressing this point. Media people are a mile-wide and an inch-deep, and the typical line has been “he provided his birth certificate in 2008” - which was not strictly accurate. That you won’t cede this minor point is what earns you a label.
Click to expand...
Cede which point? That you think of long form and I think of any form that is acceptable to relevant authorities? That you can’t cede that eligibility cannot depend on “what people think, when they hear birth certificate” makes you what? I wonder what would happen if homeland security was to function on the basis of “what people think when they hear”…It wouldn’t be pretty I think.
 
JHow said:
You missed my point. The question (as expressed in the title of the thread) is not what the “authorities” were provided (which you can be sure, if Obama went through any sort of FBI screening at all when he became senator, was far more than the short form birth certificate), nor what the the “authorities” accepted (presumably to be a candidate?). It is what do people mean when they hear the term “birth certificate”? And what they mean, and what O. provided are clearly two different things. And no, the media have not been helpful in addressing this point. Media people are a mile-wide and an inch-deep, and the typical line has been “he provided his birth certificate in 2008” - which was not strictly accurate. That you won’t cede this minor point is what earns you a label.
Click to expand...
What makes you think Senators are subjected to an FBI background search? And, once again, candidates filing for office are not required to submit a Birth Certificate. And, it has been shown over and over again that the so called short form is an accepted legal document for the purposes of obtaining a drivers license and a passport. But, regardless of anyone’s willingness to concede a point in a debate does not give you the right to “label” them which is just another form of name calling which is uncharitable.
 
I agree. How about this? : There must be no resemblance whatosever to any computer game character and no candidate will be accepted who have ever played RPG’s (computers of candidates and all their associates will be thoroughly scanned for incriminating evidence). If however the candidate is addicted to war-based computer games, these restrictions will be waived.
 
seekerz said:
Cede which point? …
Click to expand...
That what Obama provided in 2008 (while legal, valid, proof of bith, etc., etc.) was not a birth certificate?

And yes, in interpreting language, it is pertainent to consider what people commonly
mean by term.

And no, this doesn’t take away from your point that people should have known or accepted the 2008 documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top