Obama will be tried for treason?

#76
#76
vols4sure said:
Like BPV said, it would make a lot of his detractors look foolish. Also, he is spending an awful lot of money on legal fees by refusing to show his records.

While there are many reasons not to give in to the nutjobs, there are also plenty of reasons to show them what they want to see to shut them up (obviously unless there is something to hide).
Click to expand...

I doubt that, the courts have dismissed almost all of the cases to date, and I am pretty certain the rest will follow.
 
#77
#77
emainvol said:
I doubt that, the courts have dismissed almost all of the cases to date, and I am pretty certain the rest will follow.
Click to expand...

No way. He still has to pay lawyers to file responses and defend him. I guarantee his legal fees on birth certificate alone are almost $1 million. The question is who is picking up the tab?
 
#78
#78
vols4sure said:
No way. He still has to pay lawyers to file responses and defend him. I guarantee his legal fees on birth certificate alone are almost $1 million. The question is who is picking up the tab?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the numbers, but I seriously doubt he has had to respond to much thus far.

Dismiss was the wrong choice of word there. The Courts have examined and thrown out the cases they have been handed so far, so I don't think (unless I am completely mistaken) that his lawyers have had to do much, if anything. Unless there is some far-reaching conspiracy, these cases just don't have legs to stand on.
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
And again, he didn't refuse to show his birth records. He did that a long time ago. I also still refuse to believe that a member of the United States Senate didn't have a copy of his birth certificate on file somewhere in Washington when he took the position.
 
#80
#80
emainvol said:
I'm still under the impression that he did this a long time ago. It's gotten to the point where there is no reason to fight it. He released his birth certificate and all those whackjobs screamed "it's a fake." A Hawaiian official said "no, it's not" and that should have been it. However, it wasn't.

Regardless, I think there are much larger problems to be addressed right now. It's no secret that I have cooled to Obama considerably, but I still think the birth certificate debate should have been buried a long time ago.
Click to expand...
I think there is a reason that the controversy still exists. Strangely, he's the first president that this type of controversy has hounded.
 
#81
#81
BigPapaVol said:
I think there is a reason that the controversy still exists. Strangely, he's the first president that this type of controversy has hounded.
Click to expand...

Considering his background (countries he has lived in, ethnicity, etc.) and the time we live in, I don't find it surprising that the crazies have run with it and continue to run with it.
 
#82
#82
emainvol said:
Considering his background (countries he has lived in, ethnicity, etc.) and the time we live in, I don't find it surprising that the crazies have run with it and continue to run with it.
Click to expand...
surely you find it just as crazy that he hasn't gone out of his way to drop the hammer on those crazies.
 
#86
#86
BigPapaVol said:
but it would take you or I about 47.4 seconds to come up with a viable fake.
Click to expand...

It would, but after that he would have to have the entire federal court system, along with Hawaiian officials all in cahoots to cover it up. That's the thing here, we aren't talking about the case being thrown out once, we are talking almost (the last time I checked) a dozen instances of courts throwing the case out, and on top of that the Hawaiian official verifying it.

this from polifact.

At PolitiFact.com, we’re all about original sources. We don’t take anyone at their word or take the reporting of other media organizations as proof. We go to the heart of the story, the source of the truth — original, corroborating documents.

When the official documents were questioned, we went looking for more answers. We circled back to the Department of Health, had a newsroom colleague bring in her own Hawaii birth certificate to see if it looks the same (itÂ’s identical). But every answer triggered more questions.

And soon enough, after going to every length possible to confirm the birth certificateÂ’s authenticity, you start asking, what is reasonable here?

Because if this document is forged, then they all are.

If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook
County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of StateÂ’s office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies.
Click to expand...
 
#87
#87
vols4sure said:
Do you find it odd that the only people who he has put it out there to is factcheck.org?
Click to expand...

you will have to show me a source on that one. Again, I seriously doubt that the USFG didn't have a copy when he took office as a Senator. Polifact had it, too.
 
#88
#88
emainvol said:
And again, he didn't refuse to show his birth records. He did that a long time ago. I also still refuse to believe that a member of the United States Senate didn't have a copy of his birth certificate on file somewhere in Washington when he took the position.
Click to expand...

He released a certificate of live birth, which is different from a birth certificate. Even the certificate of live birth is a short form from what i understand.

The Hawaiian official you spoke of did not really say he was born in Hawaii, just that they had a copy of his certificate of live birth, they did not address where he was born. A certificate of live birth is given in many different situations, when a person was born at home, or when they are born out of the country. This does not confirm nor discredit a claim for either side here. For those that believe Obama was not born in the US, but was born in Africa therefore thereby disqualifying him from office, it tends to lend them some credence if Obama appears to be stalling or fighting the release of the documents we know exist that would tell us one way or the other.

It seems to me that releasing the documents that would prove or disprove any claims being made would end this once and for all, why delay it?
 
#89
#89
KB5252 said:
He released a certificate of live birth, which is different from a birth certificate. Even the certificate of live birth is a short form from what i understand.

The Hawaiian official you spoke of did not really say he was born in Hawaii, just that they had a copy of his certificate of live birth, they did not address where he was born. A certificate of live birth is given in many different situations, when a person was born at home, or when they are born out of the country. This does not confirm nor discredit a claim for either side here. For those that believe Obama was not born in the US, but was born in Africa therefore thereby disqualifying him from office, it tends to lend them some credence if Obama appears to be stalling or fighting the release of the documents we know exist that would tell us one way or the other.

It seems to me that releasing the documents that would prove or disprove any claims being made would end this once and for all, why delay it?
Click to expand...

Even then I don't think it matters since his mother was a citizen.

Also, I think that some states call it one thing and some call it the other. Certification of Live Birth is the same as a Birth Certificate, at least from the info that I can gather.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
emainvol said:
It would, but after that he would have to have the entire federal court system, along with Hawaiian officials all in cahoots to cover it up. That's the thing here, we aren't talking about the case being thrown out once, we are talking almost (the last time I checked) a dozen instances of courts throwing the case out, and on top of that the Hawaiian official verifying it.

this from polifact.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but seems to me if this were that open and shut, we would see a campaign of discrediting bloggers around it.

I truly believe that if the man were anything but an American, our intelligence services would have imploded his candidacy long before now, but didn't see this technicality as reason to intrude.
 
#91
#91
emainvol said:
you will have to show me a source on that one. Again, I seriously doubt that the USFG didn't have a copy when he took office as a Senator. Polifact had it, too.
Click to expand...

That is what is so hard about all this. It is all blogs etc. No real reporting by a major news source as to the actual facts (shocking). My thoughts are generally in line with this editorial.

American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

2. The October 31, 2008 statement that Dr. Fukino "ha 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." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.

3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.

This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one.

Personally, I think the people filing lawsuits are idiots. But this whole thing raises issues that should be addressed and should be addressed at the beginning of a candidacy.
 
#92
#92
emainvol said:
Even then I don't think it matters since his mother was a citizen.

Also, I think that some states call it one thing and some call it the other. Certification of Live Birth is the same as a Birth Certificate, at least from the info that I can gather.
Click to expand...

It would matter as i understand it because of her age at the time of his birth. I don't remember specifics here.

A certification of live birth is a valid document but not a birth certificate, Hawaii uses both from what i understand.
 
#93
#93
vols4sure said:
That is what is so hard about all this. It is all blogs etc. No real reporting by a major news source as to the actual facts (shocking). My thoughts are generally in line with this editorial.

American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

2. The October 31, 2008 statement that Dr. Fukino "ha 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." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.

3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.

This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one.

Personally, I think the people filing lawsuits are idiots. But this whole thing raises issues that should be addressed.
Click to expand...


To KB: I stand corrected.
 
#94
#94
emainvol said:
To KB: I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

I think we are splitting hairs here. I am torn on this issue, it just didn't pass the sniff test with me at first for reasons BPV stated earlier. As this has dragged on and Obama has apparently spent some serious cash to seal records and delay proceedings it makes me wonder could he be trying to hide something politically damaging?
 
#97
#97
I suppose the liberal press was in on the coverup since his birth announcement was published in both of Honolulu's daily papers (Advertiser and Star-Tribune) on August 4, 1961.

Or maybe the newspapers were just covering it up ahead of time because they just knew that this baby named "Barack Hussein Obama" would someday be President of the United States?

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
#98
#98
notverycrucial said:
I suppose the liberal press was in on the coverup since his birth announcement was published in both of Honolulu's daily papers (Advertiser and Star-Tribune) on August 4, 1961.

Or maybe the newspapers were just covering it up ahead of time because they just knew that this baby named "Barack Hussein Obama" would someday be President of the United States?

Sounds reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Clearly you aren't aware of what can be done with a DeLorean and a plutonium-loaded flux capacitor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top