THE Obama lawsuit to follow

[ford nut]

Thank you, but it isn't inhuman, just look at the pattern; once this one is kicked to the curb like the others, something else will surface.

Quit your whining, if you weren't so busy trying to sound like the know-it-all college boy, you'd realize I'm not attacking on a personal level. On the other hand, you are, yet again, with those remarks about me.

Anyhow, who should Obama release his COLB too now?

Why its all those pesky irrational arguments that make you a insult magnet.

 

[TheDude]

Of course.
But let's clarify... there are stupid things that "surface" or become a distraction, and there there are issues that are substantive that generate interest. The issue of eligibility is a valid issue and it should be resolved, either by taking the course or not. It's really not kook stuff. And in an honest debate, this question shouldn't have been stifled prior to the election.

It's also very reasonable to note that a lot of questions surrounding Obama were not addressed during the campaign. The fact that he was elected doesn't mean that all past issued were resolved and no longer issues of consequence either.

I can say sincerely that I hope there are no skeleton's in his closet. That Obama did artfully game the Democrat system to ascend to power and despite this, is a man of honor and integrity who will quickly grow into the awesome responsibilities of the office he has been elected to.

But that doesn't mean him or the people around him get a pass and can continue to avoid scrutiny.


Just to make sure we're still on the same page, don't you think the entire COLB/birth certificate stuff is odd? Why is he so strangely elusive concerning this issue? I don't have an answer for this.

And note- I'm NOT a person who thinks he was born in Kenya.

I'm almost inclined to say he's just leaving that out there to keep the fringes on a wild goose chase, too busy to confront him on or with anything of substance...

I agree with the "no free pass", no candidate should, how many of these types of lawsuits is enough, though? There's still people claiming Bush was in the planning of 9/11, yet they're paid no mind; they weren't from the beginning.

Don't know the difinitive answer to that, but would you give out your personal info to anyone who asked? He turned over his COLB, that apparently wasn't enough. So, who of proper authority should he give his info out to now?

In your opinion, and this is a hypothetical, if McCain had won, do you think this lawsuit concerning "natural born citizen" status would have surfaced?

 

[Calabrio]

I agree with the "no free pass", no candidate should, how many of these types of lawsuits is enough, though? There's still people claiming Bush was in the planning of 9/11, yet they're paid no mind; they weren't from the beginning.

I'm not sure how to address the comment, because you still have significant numbers of kooks through out the country in liberal meccas who still are trying to have Bush impeached. Dennis Kucinich, who is a perennial Democrat presidential candidate, and some one held in high regard in the left-of-center crowd, is very vocal in his pursuit of such a thing, even to this day.

I don't think this is a kook lawsuit. I think it's overdue and that everybody was done a service because of the efforts of some to prevent this question from being answered.

Don't know the difinitive answer to that, but would you give out your personal info to anyone who asked? He turned over his COLB, that apparently wasn't enough. So, who of proper authority should he give his info out to now?

You've framed this question wrong. Would I turn over personal information- no. But I'm not running for public office. I have no interest in public office. And in running for these offices, you basically do have to disclose all of your personal information. Of all the things to keep private, why this? Why release bad copies of easily forged document, with graphic inconsistencies, to an organization that you're associated with.

It's interesting to note just how differently McCain handled this challenge compared to Obama. It doesn't necessarily prove anything or mean anything, it is curious.

In your opinion, and this is a hypothetical, if McCain had won, do you think this lawsuit concerning "natural born citizen" status would have surfaced?

It absolutely would have surfaced.
But the circumstances surrounding it are very difficult, so it would have played out differently. It's also important to note, had McCain won,do you think that the activists on the left would have been eager to see McCain step down and Sarah Palin assume the office?

 

[foxpaws]

And in running for these offices, you basically do have to disclose all of your personal information.

Calabrio - I have run for office, and do you turn over personal information to the correct people - not to just anyone who asks. That could be harmful, and isn't required, and it really wouldn't be prudent to do so. This does directly lead to precedent. If Obama does it than all people running for office would have to provide very personal documents to anyone who asked - that is wrong.

Of all the things to keep private, why this? Why release bad copies of easily forged document, with graphic inconsistencies, to an organization that you're associated with.

So, which source has said that they have a bad copy of the birth certificate? FactCheck and Politifact both confirmed the authenticity of the one they had.

But the circumstances surrounding it are very difficult, so it would have played out differently.

I certainly wouldn't be gleefully finding spaghetti strands and posting them everywhere regarding McCain's birth. I think that is the question here. Would 'rational' people on the left be pursuing the constitutionality of McCain's birth? I don't think so. There are 'kooks' on both sides, and of course some fringe entity would have been. But, here it seems like normally 'rational' people are taking this to heart a little too much. To those on the left - it looks like irrational fear, and not rational thought.

I wish it would go up in the courts - it would create precedent regarding anchor babies. But, I don't think that this is the case that the people who are hoping to not allow anchor babies are looking for, so they certainly won't be backing it.

It's also important to note, had McCain won,do you think that the activists on the left would have been eager to see McCain step down and Sarah Palin assume the office?

Ah, maybe it was a really cunning ploy on McCain's part, choosing Palin. On par with Nixon choosing Agnew. "The left will never bring my downfall - no one wants Agnew as president". The left cleverly got around that little problem before... oust the vp before the p... leaving the speaker as the president.

 

[MonsterMark]

He turned over his COLB....

Really???? Enlighten me. I've been chasing this for 6 months and I have no idea who he 'turned over his COLB" to. Please enlighten me. I feel so stupid.
Thanks.

 

[TheDude]

Really???? Enlighten me. I've been chasing this for 6 months and I have no idea who he 'turned over his COLB" to. Please enlighten me. I feel so stupid.
Thanks.

That certificate to factcheck & politifact, which you claimed to have proof was a fake.

You're welcome.

On that note, who else of authority should he turn it over to?

 

[TheDude]

Calabrio,


Who should he release it to?

 

[04SCTLS]

Why SCOTUS of course.

 

[TheDude]

Why SCOTUS of course.

Have they asked for it?

 

[04SCTLS]

Have they asked for it?

you said who he should release it to (the long form listing the hospital or other place he was born in) not who was asking for it.

 

[foxpaws]

But, if the Supreme Court doesn't ask for it, they won't look at it - they don't have time to just start investigating validity of documents - that isn't their job. Now if there was a case... but, even then, they probably would just look at expert opinion, and not the actual document... I think...

 

[04SCTLS]

But, if the Supreme Court doesn't ask for it, they won't look at it - they don't have time to just start investigating validity of documents - that isn't their job. Now if there was a case... but, even then, they probably would just look at expert opinion, and not the actual document... I think...

They're judges so judging things is their job especially under these extraordinary circumstances.
The validity of the information on a long birth document is something that could be easily verified.
I'm surprised no one has come forward saying "yes Obama was born at_____________ and so and so can corroborate it.

 

[MonsterMark]

On that note, who else of authority should he turn it over to?

Need I remind you he 'released' an email with a scan of the document to Daily Kos FIRST and no back scan. Then KOS emailed it to Fact-Check and Politifact and only then was it put on Obama's site. The high-res file originally posted by KOS had lots of problems with it so they quickly removed it in lieu of a low-res to hide the problems. I happen to have a copy of the high-res scan if you would like to see it.

After he came back from Hawaii, suddenly Fact-Check had a chance to touch and feel it, "supposedly in the Fact-Check office". There is no full shot of the back of the document showing all 3 elements: the seal, the signature stamp and the date stamp. Two of the three were borrowed for the photoshoot which has issues not only with the dates from the camera, but the images were altered in photoshop.
Download any hex editor and see for yourself.

Why didn't Fact-Check rescan the document front and back when they had it? Nobody has ever seen the back in its entirety. No one.

You guys crack me up. You think I'm the nut for asking Obama to provide proof he is qualified to hold the most powerful position in the world. You guys are just plain sheeple.

 

[shagdrum]

Thank you, but it isn't inhuman, just look at the pattern; once this one is kicked to the curb like the others, something else will surface.

That doesn't prove that the motivation behind this is due to being a "sore loser", as you originally claimed. The evidence you give doesn't disprove any other possibility.

Specifically, it doesn't disprove the claim that this is a legit constitutional issue that needs to be address, and it is the SCOTUS's job to do so.

So, unless you can prove your explaination (or disprove other possible explainations) you are simply cherry picking the explaination that you want and claiming it as fact. Nothing more.

Quit your whining, if you weren't so busy trying to sound like the know-it-all college boy, you'd realize I'm not attacking on a personal level. On the other hand, you are, yet again, with those remarks about me.

Now I am whining and trying to stroke my ego. Love that mind reading ability of yours.

Is that how you are going to justify irrationally disregarding any relevant and logical point I bring up?

And yes, you are making a personal attack. Here is what you said:

...FactCheck was deemed unrealiable (ie part of the conspriracy) when they gave the okay to the Obama COLB. See how it works.

FactCheck was never deemed unreliable because the gave the okay to the Obama COLB. They were deemed unreliable because they okayed an inauthentic COLB. That has been talked about ad nauseam in this forum and you have participated in those threads, so I assume you are not ignorant of that fact.

So, to claim that FactCheck was deemed unreliable simply due to them giving the ok to the Obama COLB is to intentionally distort the reasons given for FactCheck being deemed unreliable.

The only way that is at all relevant to this discussion as an attempt to shift the focus to the people making the argument and subverting the process of proving or disproving the actual claims made by them (ad hominem). It is a dishonest attempt to marginalize and smear anyone who doesn't agree with you on this, and an obvious personal attack on them.

 

[shagdrum]

Intention simply signifies a course of action that one proposes to follow… If that road no longer makes sense – or even no longer exists – what do you do – you do what the framers intended, within the framework allowed.

So...now you are agreeing with me?

...[Jefferson] was frustrated with the idea that it was cast in stone, which was Madison’s point of view. In fact Madison even questioned the necessity of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson wrote Madison many times regarding the Bill of Rights…

“In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, which if rendered independent, & kept strictly to their own department merits great confidence for their learning & integrity.”​

Note that Jefferson was anxious to have the legal check of this document put into the Judicial branch, that having the opportunity to have ongoing review was important to him.

Again, how does this go against anything I have been saying?

Toward the end of Jefferson’s life he often commented on the fact that the amendment policy might take too long – that the avenue of change seemed to be a dead end.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​

There is nothing in that quote that suggests he is against the amendment process or thought it might take to long. It could just as easily been viewed as justification for the amendment process.

So, the constitution states ‘natural born citizen’ regarding the presidency. At the time of the ratification it appears that common usage of that term meant only born on U.S. soil. What do you believe the ‘intent’ of the law was then? No law since has redefined, or clarified it anymore than that. Nor did the framers comment on that section of law. So - truly define it according to the 'intent' of the framers - other quotes, other law that was in effect at the time.

Actually, the definition of "natural born citizen" at the time of ratification did not means simply "born on U.S. soil. that much is clear

In fact, the applicable law at the time was that it took a father who was an American citizen as well as being born on American soil to be a natural born citizen. Go reread the article Marcus posted and post #292 by me (and the attached links).

So, Shag, who should he release it to?

A valid question, but irrelevant to proving or disproving the claim that he should release it. My answer would be to publicly call on, and send the appropriate paperwork, to the appropriate department in Hawaii and have them publicly release it to the press and the public; No blacked out area's, official seal in place, everything. Invite fact check organizations and the organizations/ big names questioning his status to come view it.

His campaign has released COLB to factcheck.org and PolitiFact.

His campaign released an unofficial copy that was questionable, at best, as to it's authenticity for a host of reasons.

Keep in mind, given the unique circumstances of his birth and his previous actions regarding the COLB/natural born citizen issue, you cannot simply take Obama at his word when he claims to be a natural born citizen.

That would be like hiring someone to a job that requires a drug screen and waving that screen simply because they claim they don't do drugs but have been show to lie and be decietful in regards to other qualifications they need to meet.

 

[shagdrum]

Calabrio - I have run for office, and do you turn over personal information to the correct people - not to just anyone who asks.

Since you have run for office and, based on that authority, know who you have to turn over your personal information to, then you should be able to answer your own question about who Obama should turn the info over to; who the "correct people" are.

That could be harmful, and isn't required, and it really wouldn't be prudent to do so.

Actually, any info necessary is required for the office being sought. You wouldn't wave a lie detector test or a drug screen for a job that requires it simply on the word of the applicant.

So, which source has said that they have a bad copy of the birth certificate? FactCheck and Politifact both confirmed the authenticity of the one they had.

This has been talked about, ad nauseum here. If you missed it, then please go back and use the search function so we don't have to rehash it here again. I think I may have linked to some info on it in one of my recent posts in this thread.

Would 'rational' people on the left be pursuing the constitutionality of McCain's birth?

First, this question is a moot point and irrelevant to this discussion as McCain is not currently running for , or been elected to the office of the president. It serves as a red herring to shift the focus of the debate away from Obama.

Second, the Donofrio case did challenge McCain's natural birth status.

But the challenges are unique to each case. While there is some similarity (hence McCain being named in the Donofrio case) they are different enough that any comparison between the two in this debate is a false analogy, inappropriate and only serves to obfuscate.

I don't think so. There are 'kooks' on both sides, and of course some fringe entity would have been. But, here it seems like normally 'rational' people are taking this to heart a little too much. To those on the left - it looks like irrational fear, and not rational thought.

Actually, I would say that there is a lot of irrational fear and hatred, as well as unjustified arrogant condescension coming from the left here.

They consistently call anyone who doesn't disregard any of these claims out of hand "kooks", "irrational", "sore losers", etc. without any justification other then that these "kooks" don't disregard the challenges of Obama's natural born status out of hand. Can you say circular reasoning?

These personal attacks by the left are also petty and illogical in there attempt to marginalize those who disagree with it on this. Anytime someone resorts to making an argument like that, it sends up a red flag in my mind that they don't have a solid argument and the truth is probably different then what they are arguing.

And make no mistake, this is coming from the vast majority of the left (it is their typical MO) as well as many on the right side of the isle who disregard these challenges out of hand as well...

I don't think, given the known facts and actions, that it can be logically concluded that Obama is not a natural born citizen. It is questionable, either way. But if there is any reasonable question (and there is), then per the constitution he has to be proven to be a natural born citizen before he can be the president.

 

[shagdrum]

That certificate to factcheck & politifact, which you claimed to have proof was a fake.

You're welcome.

On that note, who else of authority should he turn it over to?

Again, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum in a number of threads. I am pretty sure you participated in a number of those threads.

You do this all the time! You make claims that ignore the arguments that have come before it and force anyone wanting to attempt a rational debate with you to rehash their entire argument! There is no way that is unintentional on your part (unless you have alzheimer's).

You either don't care to know the argument you are trying to counter, are smart enough to grasp it or are intentionally ignoring it to incovenience those you disagree with (any of these explainations would also explain your consistent mischaracterizing of opposing points of view). I know you are smart enough to grasp the arguments, so i assume you are either don't care to know the argument you are countering or are intentionally ignoring it to inconvenience people.

Stop baiting by playing ignorant when we all know you have been exposed to and know the argument.

 

[fossten]

There is no way that is unintentional on your part (unless you have alzheimer's).

I think he has alzheimer's.

 

[TheDude]

Again, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum in a number of threads. I am pretty sure you participated in a number of those threads.

You do this all the time! You make claims that ignore the arguments that have come before it and force anyone wanting to attempt a rational debate with you to rehash their entire argument! There is no way that is unintentional on your part (unless you have alzheimer's).

You either don't care to know the argument you are trying to counter, are smart enough to grasp it or are intentionally ignoring it to incovenience those you disagree with (any of these explainations would also explain your consistent mischaracterizing of opposing points of view). I know you are smart enough to grasp the arguments, so i assume you are either don't care to know the argument you are countering or are intentionally ignoring it to inconvenience people.

Stop baiting by playing ignorant when we all know you have been exposed to and know the argument.

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of two organizations over the rantings of conspriracy seekers.

Who should he turn it over to?

 

[TheDude]

Need I remind you he 'released' an email with a scan of the document to Daily Kos FIRST and no back scan. Then KOS emailed it to Fact-Check and Politifact and only then was it put on Obama's site. The high-res file originally posted by KOS had lots of problems with it so they quickly removed it in lieu of a low-res to hide the problems. I happen to have a copy of the high-res scan if you would like to see it.

After he came back from Hawaii, suddenly Fact-Check had a chance to touch and feel it, "supposedly in the Fact-Check office". There is no full shot of the back of the document showing all 3 elements: the seal, the signature stamp and the date stamp. Two of the three were borrowed for the photoshoot which has issues not only with the dates from the camera, but the images were altered in photoshop.
Download any hex editor and see for yourself.

Why didn't Fact-Check rescan the document front and back when they had it? Nobody has ever seen the back in its entirety. No one.

You guys crack me up. You think I'm the nut for asking Obama to provide proof he is qualified to hold the most powerful position in the world. You guys are just plain sheeple.

Fine, factcheck is a scam, let's just go with that. I know you want to see it, but he has no reason to turn it over to you. So who?

What about politifact, did they scam too?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, if you check - the only 2 framers quotes (Hamilton and Jay) we have point to only born on US soil, and the law in effect at the time (British law) was also defined as only born on US soil - it appears by these two items the framer's concept of natural born citizen did not involve parentage, but only on where you were born

I read the rather odd op-ed article you posted on the 14th amendment (did you see the other articles on the subject at the site?) - and whole 'father' thing is rather silly - In 1994, Congress passed a law retroactively granting citizenship at birth to children born abroad to US citizen women (actually the only way that really makes sense - hey, we always know who mom is.. dad - anyone's guess) . But, once again - since Obama was born on US soil - this really doesn't mean anything.

A valid question, but irrelevant to proving or disproving the claim that he should release it.

Should he release it to 'anyone'- as I stated before I think it is bad precedent if he just does... It makes no sense whatsoever. . I gave it to the county clerk - that is all that was required. She authenticated the documents and placed my name on the ballot. The Obama campaign is required to provide proof to each state's secretary of state - and then those secretaries, when they are satisfied, place the candidate's name on the ballot.

I stated this before - that is all they are required to do, and they obviously did it - his name was on all 50 state's ballots. That was the crux of the Donofrino's lawsuit - that he wasn't satisfied with New Jersey's secretary of state's acceptance of the proof that they were presented regarding 'natural born'.

As far as the whole presenting of birth certificate thing - none of the major networks have covered this whole conspiracy thing at all. I would imagine it would appear to them as rather odd if some representative from the Obama campaign came up to them and asked them to look over the birth certificate and see if it was legal. What 'legitimate' source has asked to see it and has been denied? McCain didn't ask, Hillary didn't ask, Fox didn't ask, WSJ didn't ask, CNN didn't ask (seeing a pattern here shag?)

As polifact states "And you can’t help but ask: How do you prove something to people who come to the facts believing, out of fear or hatred or maybe just partisanship, that they’re being tricked?"

So, shag I did look - what source has said they have had a bad copy or bogus copy of the birth certificate in their hands? I can't find anything about that. I see lots of speculation of what people have 'seen' on websites - but nothing about a source saying that they have seen and held the actual birth certificate and found it lacking.

And I did state that 'kooks' on both sides would be looking to questioning McCain.

I am not afraid at all of the court looking into this - I have stated over and over again I think it would be a good thing.

Remember - this is a blogger/conspiracy thing - not a 'news' item. It is classic conspiracy theory.

 

[fossten]

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of two organizations over the rantings of conspriracy seekers.

Who should he turn it over to?

Organizations?

Enron and Arthur Andersen were organizations too. So is the Democrat Party.

 

[TheDude]

Organizations?

Enron and Arthur Andersen were organizations too. So is the Democrat Party.

As is the Republican party and the Evangelical chruch, they must all be corrupt, the plot thickens.

 

[fossten]

As is the Republican party and the Evangelical chruch, they must all be corrupt, the plot thickens.

Nice non sequitur, even though it proves my point.

 

[MonsterMark]

Entertaining Song...

YouTube - Happy Holidays from Country First - Rev 2