[gromit]

I miss her. She really contributed to substantive discussions on this board. If it weren’t for powayseller, I’d never have found Roubini, and I never would have gotten out of the stock market in time to miss the crash he was predicting.

[gromit]

[quote=paramount][quote=Colombo]What a Bunch of Wingnut Hoo-hah.

Is there any serious doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen?

While the constitution provides the requirements for the office of the President, US law provides the definition of who is a “natural born citizen”, or expressed differently, who is a citizen at birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

All you wingnuts are fixated on the Hawaiian birth certificate or lack thereof. You miss the point.

Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen and she lived in the US for at least five years prior to Obama’s birth. 8 USC Section 1401. At least two of these required 5 years had to have been achieved after the citizen parent was 14.

His mother’s age at the time of his birth is only relevant insofar as the residency requirements. Because 2 of the required 5 years must be after the age of 14, only a citizen parent 16 years or older would be able to meet this mathematical requirement.

Mrs. Obama was a citizen and met the residency requirements to pass on her citizenship to her child at birth. Thus Obama was and is a natural born citizen as defined by US law.

Read the law. 8 USC 1401. Read it.

It is funny to remember that when McCain was running in 2000 that this same topic came up because he was born in the Canal Zone.

Similarly, John Kerry was born in Switzerland.

Both of those gentlemen were and are “Natural Born Citizens” as defined by applicable US law.

End of story.

Back to your National Enquirers.[/quote]

End of the story for you maybe: the law you refer to was not the law at the time of birth.

“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16. “[/quote]

Almost there, but not quite.

At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

Obama’s mother was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama.

So even if Obama had been born in Kenya… he’s still a natural-born U.S. citizen.

[gromit]

[quote=paramount][quote=Colombo]What a Bunch of Wingnut Hoo-hah.

Is there any serious doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen?

While the constitution provides the requirements for the office of the President, US law provides the definition of who is a “natural born citizen”, or expressed differently, who is a citizen at birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

All you wingnuts are fixated on the Hawaiian birth certificate or lack thereof. You miss the point.

Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen and she lived in the US for at least five years prior to Obama’s birth. 8 USC Section 1401. At least two of these required 5 years had to have been achieved after the citizen parent was 14.

His mother’s age at the time of his birth is only relevant insofar as the residency requirements. Because 2 of the required 5 years must be after the age of 14, only a citizen parent 16 years or older would be able to meet this mathematical requirement.

Mrs. Obama was a citizen and met the residency requirements to pass on her citizenship to her child at birth. Thus Obama was and is a natural born citizen as defined by US law.

Read the law. 8 USC 1401. Read it.

It is funny to remember that when McCain was running in 2000 that this same topic came up because he was born in the Canal Zone.

Similarly, John Kerry was born in Switzerland.

Both of those gentlemen were and are “Natural Born Citizens” as defined by applicable US law.

End of story.

Back to your National Enquirers.[/quote]

End of the story for you maybe: the law you refer to was not the law at the time of birth.

“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16. “[/quote]

Almost there, but not quite.

At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

Obama’s mother was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama.

So even if Obama had been born in Kenya… he’s still a natural-born U.S. citizen.

[gromit]

[quote=paramount][quote=Colombo]What a Bunch of Wingnut Hoo-hah.

Is there any serious doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen?

While the constitution provides the requirements for the office of the President, US law provides the definition of who is a “natural born citizen”, or expressed differently, who is a citizen at birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

All you wingnuts are fixated on the Hawaiian birth certificate or lack thereof. You miss the point.

Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen and she lived in the US for at least five years prior to Obama’s birth. 8 USC Section 1401. At least two of these required 5 years had to have been achieved after the citizen parent was 14.

His mother’s age at the time of his birth is only relevant insofar as the residency requirements. Because 2 of the required 5 years must be after the age of 14, only a citizen parent 16 years or older would be able to meet this mathematical requirement.

Mrs. Obama was a citizen and met the residency requirements to pass on her citizenship to her child at birth. Thus Obama was and is a natural born citizen as defined by US law.

Read the law. 8 USC 1401. Read it.

It is funny to remember that when McCain was running in 2000 that this same topic came up because he was born in the Canal Zone.

Similarly, John Kerry was born in Switzerland.

Both of those gentlemen were and are “Natural Born Citizens” as defined by applicable US law.

End of story.

Back to your National Enquirers.[/quote]

End of the story for you maybe: the law you refer to was not the law at the time of birth.

“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16. “[/quote]

Almost there, but not quite.

At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

Obama’s mother was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama.

So even if Obama had been born in Kenya… he’s still a natural-born U.S. citizen.

[gromit]

[quote=paramount][quote=Colombo]What a Bunch of Wingnut Hoo-hah.

Is there any serious doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen?

While the constitution provides the requirements for the office of the President, US law provides the definition of who is a “natural born citizen”, or expressed differently, who is a citizen at birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

All you wingnuts are fixated on the Hawaiian birth certificate or lack thereof. You miss the point.

Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen and she lived in the US for at least five years prior to Obama’s birth. 8 USC Section 1401. At least two of these required 5 years had to have been achieved after the citizen parent was 14.

His mother’s age at the time of his birth is only relevant insofar as the residency requirements. Because 2 of the required 5 years must be after the age of 14, only a citizen parent 16 years or older would be able to meet this mathematical requirement.

Mrs. Obama was a citizen and met the residency requirements to pass on her citizenship to her child at birth. Thus Obama was and is a natural born citizen as defined by US law.

Read the law. 8 USC 1401. Read it.

It is funny to remember that when McCain was running in 2000 that this same topic came up because he was born in the Canal Zone.

Similarly, John Kerry was born in Switzerland.

Both of those gentlemen were and are “Natural Born Citizens” as defined by applicable US law.

End of story.

Back to your National Enquirers.[/quote]

End of the story for you maybe: the law you refer to was not the law at the time of birth.

“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16. “[/quote]

Almost there, but not quite.

At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

Obama’s mother was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama.

So even if Obama had been born in Kenya… he’s still a natural-born U.S. citizen.

[gromit]

[quote=paramount][quote=Colombo]What a Bunch of Wingnut Hoo-hah.

Is there any serious doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen?

While the constitution provides the requirements for the office of the President, US law provides the definition of who is a “natural born citizen”, or expressed differently, who is a citizen at birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

All you wingnuts are fixated on the Hawaiian birth certificate or lack thereof. You miss the point.

Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen and she lived in the US for at least five years prior to Obama’s birth. 8 USC Section 1401. At least two of these required 5 years had to have been achieved after the citizen parent was 14.

His mother’s age at the time of his birth is only relevant insofar as the residency requirements. Because 2 of the required 5 years must be after the age of 14, only a citizen parent 16 years or older would be able to meet this mathematical requirement.

Mrs. Obama was a citizen and met the residency requirements to pass on her citizenship to her child at birth. Thus Obama was and is a natural born citizen as defined by US law.

Read the law. 8 USC 1401. Read it.

It is funny to remember that when McCain was running in 2000 that this same topic came up because he was born in the Canal Zone.

Similarly, John Kerry was born in Switzerland.

Both of those gentlemen were and are “Natural Born Citizens” as defined by applicable US law.

End of story.

Back to your National Enquirers.[/quote]

End of the story for you maybe: the law you refer to was not the law at the time of birth.

“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16. “[/quote]

Almost there, but not quite.

At the time Obama was born, the law stated that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14—in other words, 19.

Obama’s mother was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born. But subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in another country. Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama.

So even if Obama had been born in Kenya… he’s still a natural-born U.S. citizen.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=yooklid]I would have thought the schadenfreude explosion would have been greater. [/quote]

I’d jump on the schadenfreude bandwagon– but I don’t know who Gary Watts is. Who is he?

[gromit]

[quote=yooklid]I would have thought the schadenfreude explosion would have been greater. [/quote]

I’d jump on the schadenfreude bandwagon– but I don’t know who Gary Watts is. Who is he?

[gromit]

[quote=yooklid]I would have thought the schadenfreude explosion would have been greater. [/quote]

I’d jump on the schadenfreude bandwagon– but I don’t know who Gary Watts is. Who is he?

[gromit]

[quote=yooklid]I would have thought the schadenfreude explosion would have been greater. [/quote]

I’d jump on the schadenfreude bandwagon– but I don’t know who Gary Watts is. Who is he?

[Author]

Posts