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

[Big_Ro]

So, its true that at 1000 posts the thread gets shut down? Interesting.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So, its true that at 1000 posts the thread gets shut down? Interesting.

Usually goes a few posts over before the moderator will catch it.

 

[seekerz]

Twelve more posts and it’s over. Please, someone, make it quick and painless.

One wish doomed to go unfulfilled - the birth certificate is being studied, remember? Beside, another thread seems to have started in anticipation of the demise of this one.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Who knows if there with be a thread like Birth Certificate Proven False or Birth Certificate Proven Accurate…All this controversy might have been diffused had transparency been in effect from the start…Plus sealing records draws a lot of speculations…

 

[ManOnFire]

None of those consequences necessarily follow. I can preach the Gospel while living it, you know - like walking and chewing gum at the same time…

None of those consequences will necessarily follow? Are you joking? The unwed parent rate has gone from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. There are easy genetic tests that involve swabbing the inside of the cheek to obtain DNA for a paternity test. Otherwise taxpayers will be forced to pay for absent dads, which means some of us are raising our kids plus others’.

 

[seekerz]

Who knows if there with be a thread like Birth Certificate Proven False or Birth Certificate Proven Accurate…All this controversy might have been diffused had transparency been in effect from the start…Plus sealing records draws a lot of speculations…

Here’s an idea: let’s unseal them all and walk around wearing our personal lives on our sleeves…The man is president - not a mannequin to be dressed and undressed to suit customers’ whims and fancies.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Ok, when it gets to 999 posts, LEAVE THE THREAD.

Let’s tease the moderators!

 

[seekerz]

Ok, when it gets to 999 posts, LEAVE THE THREAD.

Let’s tease the moderators!

I’m with you - but wait - what if a new smudge is discovered on the ‘long form’? Think we’d have the self-control to not address it?

 

[seekerz]

None of those consequences will necessarily follow? Are you joking? The unwed parent rate has gone from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. There are easy genetic tests that involve swabbing the inside of the cheek to obtain DNA for a paternity test. Otherwise taxpayers will be forced to pay for absent dads, which means some of us are raising our kids plus others’.

As I previously said, I don’t mind giving back some of what I’ve been given (by/to God or others).

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I opened up the National Review’s pdf document in Illustrator (along with other software listed in my last post) and applied the same tests. I can honestly tell you, that the National Review’s example does not mimic what happens when you open the white house document.

The biggest difference is the layers of the NR’s document overlap, and you can see fragments of text on one layer repeated in layers beneath it. This does not happen int he White House document. Also, the background layers of the NR document we also picked up and fragmented along with the lettering and lines and also overlap. The WH document does not do this. Each layer is individual and in tact with no overlapping and no fragmentation of font or background.

I would say it actually proves the white house document was not put through an OCR scan.

The conversation listed below was in response to the National Review’s article:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7814010&postcount=929
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7814015&postcount=930

Thanks for that, Sonic.

Whatever the validity of the BC document is or not,

A) It is not OCR,

B) Somebody did a VERY insultingly incompetent job of editing this. Whether that “editing” was to “forge” this or simply was unintentional and due to it being some sort of “rush job” in transferring this I leave to others to decide.

Thanks again, though, for the great job you and your graphic artists forum buddies did in going through the evidence. Good show.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Or maybe she is just trying to prove herself to be a good American—period?

Yes, sure there may be massive partisan and ideological issues she may have with Obama------but could it also be there is alos a genuin e desire to make sure somebody who claims to be from this country really is?

 

[bbarrick8383]

1001

 

[Aramis]

You have just given the reasons for your doubts about Clinton, so no that is not racist. Don’t confuse the issues: demanding more proof of natural citizenship than any other president has had to give requires a basis for these demands other than who the president is.

That the issue never was brought up in the past doesn’t make it a new issue, otherwise the natural born citizen requirement wouldn’t have been in the constitution.

Demanding proof was never relevant in the past… no one was challenging the fitness of a candidate on those grounds.

Other grounds have been used… and as they come up, the system changes the level of proof.

There are several questionable issues with Barak Obama. They SHOULD have been dealt with during the campaign… but weren’t. Like post-age 21 use of a foreign passport (which would indicate potential forfeiture of citizenship in the US), like adoption by Sotero (again, it might result in forfeiture of citizenship).

It’s comparable the priesthood… if a man’s invalid matter, the ordination ceremony won’t make him so…

And an election of an non-citizen for president doesn’t make the non-citizen a citizen.

I’m reasonably certain he’s a US citizen… but I still have reasonable doubts. It should have gone to court and been resolved by the SCOTUS before he was ever sworn in… but that would have made too much sense.

 

[kimmielittle]

All this controversy might have been diffused had transparency been in effect from the start…Plus sealing records draws a lot of speculations…

Poor Mr Obama

Ran on a platform of transparency.
As President, ordered Transparency in government… but then backed off…shhh don’t tell anyone ]

We even have foreigners telling us its not fair. I wonder if they’ve been following the coverage of Ms Kate Meddleton

At 08:45, Kate Middleton and her family left their home in Bucklebury, Berkshire and headed for London, settling at the Goring Hotel, where they will stay until the wedding. ** (Take note of a zoomed in picture of a piece of paper in Kate’s car, fueling media speculation that Kate may have let slip her wedding vows.)** Kate was seen going to Clarence House, unpacking a box from the boot of her car and chatting with Palace staff.

You seek high profile - you get high profile

Poor Mr Obama

 

[Monte_RCMS]

President Obama called it “a distraction” and he is soooo right.

… well, it was stage magic: while you were distracted by the pretty birth certificate … here is what happened to you.

President Obama’s long-form birth certificate wasn’t the only thing released last Wednesday

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=612306

And you didn’t even know it!

excerpt:

A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case from Michigan produced five different opinions and no clear definition of which waterways were covered. This essentially left the government with a clean slate on which to write its own interpretation — just about everything.

House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., says the expanded EPA guidelines would let the government “regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch.” A bipartisan group of 170 congressmen wrote a letter to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers urging them not to issue the expanded guidelines.

The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement that the guidelines “take an overly broad view of ‘waters of the U.S.’ It would serve as a road map for EPA and the Corps to designate nearly all water bodies, and even some on dry land, as subject to federal regulations that dictate land-use decisions.”

Not just agriculture but energy production is affected. The EPA recently revoked the coal mining permit for Arch Coal’s Spruce Mine No. 1 in Logan County, W.Va. The permit was issued four years ago and since then Arch Coal, which provides 16% of America’s supply, has followed every jot and tittle of the rules it was told to operate under. It didn’t matter.

After an investment of $250 million in the mountain-top mining operation, which when fully operational would have employed 215 miners directly and 300 indirect jobs in support services, it was ordered to shut down. These were, no pun intended, “shovel-ready” jobs.

As we have warned, the EPA said it was acting under the authority of the Clean Water Act, saying the mine employed “destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend.”

The EPA is currently suspending 79 such surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. It says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant “enhanced” review. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she’s not against coal mining, but wants to see it “done in a way that minimizes impact to water quality.”

Obama’s Other Hand

Investor’s Business Daily, by Editorial

Original Article

investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/570654/201104291849/Obamas-Other-Hand.htm

Posted By:SoCalGal, 4/29/2011 9:39:26 PM

Regulation: While we were distracted by the president’s birth certificate show-and-tell, his EPA releases its guidelines for expanding federal power under the Clean Water Act. America’s economy and freedom are at stake. President Obama’s long-form birth certificate wasn’t the only thing released last Wednesday, but it was probably the least important. The Environmental Protection Agency also released its guidelines for expanding federal power over the nation’s waterways, ponds and puddles. (snip) The 1972 Clean Water Act was originally intended to protect the “navigable waters of the United States” — you know, the kind boats travel down.

Comments:
The Blob oozes into more and more of our life.

Reply 1 - 4/29/2011 10:06:10 PM
We must eliminate the EPA or it will kill our economy.

Reply 2 - 4/29/2011 10:11:15 PM
And where are our good friends - - the congressional Pubbies? Do they realize that they created this monster - - and that they’re the only ones who can kill it?

Someone please wade into the tall weeds - - the Pubbies are back there somewhere.

Reply 3 -
FTA: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she’s not against coal mining, but wants to see it “done in a way that minimizes impact to water quality.”

I.E., one drop of “contaminant” in one hundred thousand gallons is grounds for denial of permission!

Reply 4 -
This needs to be highlighted by the Republicans and Obama and his cohorts must pay the price at the ballot box.

Reply 5 -
No high speed rail if it affects a droplet of water?

Reply 6 -

Had enough with the control freaks?

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Reply 7 - )
Rep Fred Upton (R) and the other Republicans COULD STOP ALL EPA FUNDING FOR 2012. Period! So, Why aren’t the Republicans eliminating the EPA? Where is the Republican leadership? THEY HAVE NO COURAGE!! The EPA will destroy this nation’s economic capabilities. Dumb Republicans.

Reply 8 -
Just more of Obama’s backhand to the U.S.

 

[didymus]

I wonder how many presidents have not had birth certificates?

 

[kimmielittle]

President Obama called it “a distraction” and he is soooo right.

Seems, there are many ways to usurp our government / congress.

 

[seekerz]

That the issue never was brought up in the past doesn’t make it a new issue, otherwise the natural born citizen requirement wouldn’t have been in the constitution.

Demanding proof was never relevant in the past… no one was challenging the fitness of a candidate on those grounds.

Other grounds have been used… and as they come up, the system changes the level of proof.

There are several questionable issues with Barak Obama. They SHOULD have been dealt with during the campaign… but weren’t. Like post-age 21 use of a foreign passport (which would indicate potential forfeiture of citizenship in the US), like adoption by Sotero (again, it might result in forfeiture of citizenship).

It’s comparable the priesthood… if a man’s invalid matter, the ordination ceremony won’t make him so…

And an election of an non-citizen for president doesn’t make the non-citizen a citizen.

I’m reasonably certain he’s a US citizen… but I still have reasonable doubts. It should have gone to court and been resolved by the SCOTUS before he was ever sworn in… but that would have made too much sense.

What makes the demand for proof relevant now or is Hawaii a foreign country? Did he first claim Hawaii as his birthplace at election time?

As for the courts, it is my understanding they have given this issue the full non-attention they seemed to think it deserved.

 

[seekerz]

Seems, there are many ways to usurp our government / congress.

Yeah, like demanding things which are not required by the Constitution.

 

[seekerz]

Poor Mr Obama

Ran on a platform of transparency.
As President, ordered Transparency in government… but then backed off…shhh don’t tell anyone ]

We even have foreigners telling us its not fair. I wonder if they’ve been following the coverage of Ms Kate Meddleton

You seek high profile - you get high profile

Poor Mr Obama

For the umpteenth time: show me how transparency in government involves entering the delivery room of a politician. Just please define transparent government. Is it one where POTUS walks around in a hospital gown to make it easier to ‘investigate’ his person?