Because nobody would be electable and government would be complete chaos.
Petition For Public Release of BHO's Birth Certificate
- Thread starter Babagounj
- Start date
1989
Well-Known Member
Right...
Babagounj
Strength through joy
In 1961, when Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, his father would have most likely be listed as “Arab”, not black, on his birth certificate. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was only 1/4 black, and identified himself as a Kenyan Arab. According to how the British would have recorded him in their documents back then, BHO Sr. would have been “Arab”.
Furthermore, if Hawaii’s birth certificates in 1961 were like our own birth certificates from Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York in the 1970s, then Obama’s official and original birth certificate would have been handwritten, with the religion of his parents recorded under their names. That’s what all of our birth certificates say, anyway. ”Catholic” is listed under most of our mothers’ and fathers’ names, with “Baptist” and “Episcopalian” on two of those slots.
We’ve always believed the reason Obama does not produce his birth certificate is because his father is listed as “Arab” and “Muslim” on that form, which is what he would have been recorded as in 1961 in Hawaii.
That cuts against the narrative that Obama rode to the White House, which he affirmed in his 2010 census — which is that he is black. This is how he has chosen to self-identify, and it’s the tool he used to advance himself so fast through the Democrat Party. He even had William Ayers write two books all about his racial grievances.
None of that flies if the public sees that his father was an “Arab” “Muslim”, as recorded on that birth certificate.
Furthermore, if Hawaii’s birth certificates in 1961 were like our own birth certificates from Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York in the 1970s, then Obama’s official and original birth certificate would have been handwritten, with the religion of his parents recorded under their names. That’s what all of our birth certificates say, anyway. ”Catholic” is listed under most of our mothers’ and fathers’ names, with “Baptist” and “Episcopalian” on two of those slots.
We’ve always believed the reason Obama does not produce his birth certificate is because his father is listed as “Arab” and “Muslim” on that form, which is what he would have been recorded as in 1961 in Hawaii.
That cuts against the narrative that Obama rode to the White House, which he affirmed in his 2010 census — which is that he is black. This is how he has chosen to self-identify, and it’s the tool he used to advance himself so fast through the Democrat Party. He even had William Ayers write two books all about his racial grievances.
None of that flies if the public sees that his father was an “Arab” “Muslim”, as recorded on that birth certificate.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
It’s classic magic trick distraction.
Painting anyone who talked about his birth certificate as insane.
Just like they call all the Americans who voice displeasure at bho's policies as racists and domestic terrorists.
tieguy
Banned
Sounds about right for our corrupt president and govt then.
Obama may be able to get his testimony sealed like everything else in his life.
tieguy
Banned
the birth certificate provided may as well have been printed on toilet paper. it has the same validity.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Obama was born in Hawaii. Last time I checked, Hawaii was part of the United States. Whether or not his mother "qualified" as a citizen under the laws in 1961 is therefore irrelevant.
The COLB is a legal record of live birth and is considered prima facie evidence of a persons identity. Furthermore, if it was indeed a forgery and Obama was actually born elsewhere...why were announcements of his birth printed in two different newspapers in Hawaii less than a week after he was born?
Whether or not the COLB accurately denotes the race or religion of Obama's father is irrelevant and has no bearing on the fact that Obama was in fact born in the United States.
The problem with continuing to tilt at these windmills is that it deflects attention away from the real issues, which are Obama's politics and voting record.
I dont like the man, but like it or not he is the President and we need to accept that fact and focus on not allowing him to be re elected in 2012.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
sober, next time some one asks for your birth certificate, just show them your COLB and when they stop laughing in your face ask them what's so funny.
151-61-10637 born on Aug. 5, 1961 at 2:12PM
151-61-10638 born on Aug. 5, 1961 at 2:17PM
Obama's:
151-1961-010641 born on Aug. 4, 1961 at 7:24PM
Without seeing his real B.C. , we will never have a definite place of birth.
And what laws were on the books back in 1961 concerning citizenship are still valid.
As for those "newspaper " notices you keep mentioning, so far I have only seen clips of the notices , not the full pages .
Why is it that to date no one has tried to claim any of the posted reward monies that are being offered for actual proof of his birth place ? Surely some nurse or old hospital employee would remember his historical birth .
Try looking up the conditions that our founding father set forth , they knew what it was like to be born under two or more different flags, so they added a little clause that would protect their ideals. The fact that his father was not a citizen has bearing and he knows it.
If you really want to halt barry, then I suggest you move to California and vote for Dr.Orly Taitz for secertary of state, who plans to pursue an investigation of barry's citizenship if he plans to run for re-election. Now wouldn't that be a riot if he did not qualify to be on the ballot in California.
151-61-10638 born on Aug. 5, 1961 at 2:17PM
Obama's:
151-1961-010641 born on Aug. 4, 1961 at 7:24PM
Without seeing his real B.C. , we will never have a definite place of birth.
And what laws were on the books back in 1961 concerning citizenship are still valid.
As for those "newspaper " notices you keep mentioning, so far I have only seen clips of the notices , not the full pages .
Why is it that to date no one has tried to claim any of the posted reward monies that are being offered for actual proof of his birth place ? Surely some nurse or old hospital employee would remember his historical birth .
Try looking up the conditions that our founding father set forth , they knew what it was like to be born under two or more different flags, so they added a little clause that would protect their ideals. The fact that his father was not a citizen has bearing and he knows it.
If you really want to halt barry, then I suggest you move to California and vote for Dr.Orly Taitz for secertary of state, who plans to pursue an investigation of barry's citizenship if he plans to run for re-election. Now wouldn't that be a riot if he did not qualify to be on the ballot in California.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Kenya: Special Report: Sleepy Little Village Where Obama Traces His Own Roots
John Oywa
15 August 2004
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, as it were, in the sleepy village of Alego-Kogello where Barack Obama Snr grew up, they call the prospective Senator "Wuod Sarah", Dholuo for "the son of Sarah", Sarah being his foster grandmother.
Obama's real grand mother - the late Habiba Akumu separated with his grandfather, thus forcing Sarah to step in to care for him
The Obama family are among the few Muslims in the locality.
According to the family, Obama's father travelled to America to study at the University of Hawaii in 1959.
While there, he worked for an oil company and married his second wife, a white woman, named Anna Toot, and their union produced Barack Obama Jr.
The marriage later broke up after Anna's father opposed it, according to Mama Sarah.
"Anna's father was furious about the marriage and threatened to have Obama Snr expelled from the university.
Our son sent us letters, pleading that we intervene to save the marriage," remembers Sarah.
John Oywa
15 August 2004
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, as it were, in the sleepy village of Alego-Kogello where Barack Obama Snr grew up, they call the prospective Senator "Wuod Sarah", Dholuo for "the son of Sarah", Sarah being his foster grandmother.
Obama's real grand mother - the late Habiba Akumu separated with his grandfather, thus forcing Sarah to step in to care for him
The Obama family are among the few Muslims in the locality.
According to the family, Obama's father travelled to America to study at the University of Hawaii in 1959.
While there, he worked for an oil company and married his second wife, a white woman, named Anna Toot, and their union produced Barack Obama Jr.
The marriage later broke up after Anna's father opposed it, according to Mama Sarah.
"Anna's father was furious about the marriage and threatened to have Obama Snr expelled from the university.
Our son sent us letters, pleading that we intervene to save the marriage," remembers Sarah.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department "registered" a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them.
Given Hawaii's very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there.
The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The only thing the ads do is confirm that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961.
Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time.
Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement.
For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child.
The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order.
The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the "son."
The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers.
Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing.
The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth.
Note the heading of both of the ads says "Health Bureau Statistics" which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;
Given Hawaii's very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there.
The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The only thing the ads do is confirm that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961.
Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time.
Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement.
For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child.
The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order.
The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the "son."
The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers.
Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing.
The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth.
Note the heading of both of the ads says "Health Bureau Statistics" which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Babagounj
Strength through joy
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3735
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.
Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.
Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?
Since its original posting ( the COLB ), numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.). Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.
This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.
Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.
Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?
Since its original posting ( the COLB ), numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.). Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.
This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
This must be like soft porn to Baba. I picture him slowly rubbing SPF 15 sunblock cream on his chest as he watches this....lol
That is an insult to true porn lovers everywhere!
Babagounj
Strength through joy
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22835
Affirming that the world recognizes "birthrights" of the Father (not the mother), bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright
Natural-Born Citizen per Justice Ginsberg?
By JB Williams Wednesday, May 5, 2010 In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statements… affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the Father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright… aka, “natural-born citizenship.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TUAN ANH NGUYEN etal. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99—2071. Argued January 9, 2001—Decided June 11, 2001
She would also be familiar with the respected writings of Vattel in his 1758 book on the topic of “sovereign citizenship” from which the U.S. Founders borrowed the term “natural-born citizen” as a requirement for the offices of President and Vice President.
Vattel is VERY clear on the matter - “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” - “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
Our Founding Fathers were equally unambiguous - “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Affirming that the world recognizes "birthrights" of the Father (not the mother), bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright
Natural-Born Citizen per Justice Ginsberg?
By JB Williams Wednesday, May 5, 2010 In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statements… affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the Father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright… aka, “natural-born citizenship.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TUAN ANH NGUYEN etal. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99—2071. Argued January 9, 2001—Decided June 11, 2001
From the decision—”§1409(a)(4) [DNA of the father] represents a reasonable legislative conclusion that the satisfaction of one of several alternatives will suffice to establish the father-child blood link required as a predicate to the child’s acquisition of citizenship.”
Ginsberg is clearly familiar with the Law of Nations, as were the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the birthright of children based upon the father’s bloodline, a matter of “natural law” recognized the world over.
She would also be familiar with the respected writings of Vattel in his 1758 book on the topic of “sovereign citizenship” from which the U.S. Founders borrowed the term “natural-born citizen” as a requirement for the offices of President and Vice President.
Vattel is VERY clear on the matter - “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” - “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
Our Founding Fathers were equally unambiguous - “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Also from the decision—“Finally, even a facially neutral rule would sometimes require fathers to take additional affirmative steps which would not be required of mothers, whose names will be on the birth certificate as a result of their presence at the birth, and who will have the benefit of witnesses to the birth to call upon. Pp. 7—9.”
tieguy
Banned
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Fourteen percent of Americans say without prompting that they think Barack Obama was born in another country, rising to one in five when those with no opinion are offered that as a possibility.
But for many it’s not a firm belief – and some appear not to hold it against him.
Among those inclined to think Obama was born abroad, half also say that’s their suspicion only, not a judgment based on solid evidence, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
And perhaps surprisingly, about a third of so-called “birthers” nonetheless approve of Obama’s work in office and express a favorable opinion of him personally.
….At the same time, 15 percent of Democrats say they think Obama was born elsewhere, as do 12 percent of liberals. And among people who say this, 31 percent approve of his job performance regardless, with an additional 3 percent expressing no opinion of his work in office. Similarly, among people who think Obama is foreign-born, 34 percent also express a favorable opinion of him overall; 64 percent, unfavorable.
But for many it’s not a firm belief – and some appear not to hold it against him.
Among those inclined to think Obama was born abroad, half also say that’s their suspicion only, not a judgment based on solid evidence, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
And perhaps surprisingly, about a third of so-called “birthers” nonetheless approve of Obama’s work in office and express a favorable opinion of him personally.
….At the same time, 15 percent of Democrats say they think Obama was born elsewhere, as do 12 percent of liberals. And among people who say this, 31 percent approve of his job performance regardless, with an additional 3 percent expressing no opinion of his work in office. Similarly, among people who think Obama is foreign-born, 34 percent also express a favorable opinion of him overall; 64 percent, unfavorable.
tieguy
Banned
Be careful. exercising your constitutionally supported right to question the presidents qualifications may get you labeled a ....gasp...ugh.....birther.
hat
The liberals with the help of their monopoly on the press have been able to suppress free speech by having anyone that disagrees represented as some type of slobbering racist hillbilly.
