Revealed: Obama's CT Social Security # Traced To John Paul Ludwig (Lived CT-Died HI)

I would not say that, with something like this they will take their time,,why blow it there is no hurry. I do not know if it's true or not but if it were me I would be getting all my ducks in a row.

 

I know, every time we look into this guys past it's like a kaleidoscope...




Having a guy like this as President is a real embarrassment, no History, no decent family, nothing but twists and Gaffs. I cant wait until we get somebody normal with a normal upbringing and bring pride back into the White House..

My God his mother even shot Porn..

 

Don't forget, Gibbs was asked about it, and have seen fit to avoid answering.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Aahw3NT6E"]YouTube - Robert Gibbs Is Asked About Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number.flv[/ame]

 

Okay, well clearly no one has any convincing evidence to present, so I'm unsubscribing from this nonsense.

 

Yep its another "we have the evidence, we have the evidence- but won't show you" thread.

 

The same thing that happens here Dutch, why did not that man deserve an answer? Gibbs can think what he wants of him but the man still deserves an answer and respect.
How many times are we told by the left, no matter what you think of a persons lifestyle, or belief that person is an individual and you have no right to question or ridicule him,,,what did Gibbs do? Besides that he did not accuse Obama of anything, he merely asked a question. I remember that briefing and Gibbs should have been ashamed and questioned about that treatment. However when you do not have an answer this is what you do, try to minimize or degrade the question.
Did Gibbs accomplish anything?, no he just ran and it got worse.

 

No no no flounder you see...Gibbs is allowed to think what he wants, but the ballsy man from WorldNet Daily isn't, got it. Just like we all know that everyone on the left is entitled to their own opinions, but people on the right aren't. Didn't you and I cover that like...3yrs ago?

 

What was I thinking,,I'm sorry I forgot their version of free speech...
ONE FOR ALL, AND ALL FOR THEM....*

 

Lets just settle the birth certificate question right now. Here it is I finally got the official copy of Obama's birth certificate. There can be no more denials.

Obama's official birth certificate finally posted online
http://www.hawaiian-tv.com/showthrea...th+certificate

 

Lets just settle the birth certificate question right now. Here it is I finally got the official copy of Obama's birth certificate. There can be no more denials.

Obama's official birth certificate finally posted online
http://www.hawaiian-tv.com/showthre...a's+official+birth+certificate+finally+online

 

I swear, if I click on that link and Rick Roll starts playing I will reach through the computer and strangle you.

 

I agree that he should release ALL his vital information and end the matter. When it shows he was born in Hawaii that ends the matter of his citizenship. Then Apuzzo can discuss why his SS# begins with whatever it begins with.

Do you agree that once the vital information is release it will lower the 43% who have questions to about 1%?

Do you agree there is NO reasonable reason not to have ALL the vital information of our sitting President made public?

 

It's Plame and lot's of leftist claimed, just as you do now, that it was an illegal act yet you did not prove it was nor presented any evidence, so you claim here falls flat.

So have you gone to the FBI with your evidence?

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
So all the information contained on his original COB has been released? ALL of it?

 

hawaii released the only document they release, which is the COLB.

what do you think is on the long form that has any relevance? the only thing required for eligibility is date and place of birth. the COLB has the only relevant information pertaining to eligibility. And happens to be the only BC they issue.

 

People have been posting 'proof' for over two years (though admittedly the best 'proof' is BoBo's refusal to produce the proper documents)...

I have noted over and over, I do not care because it does not matter...the dem exemption will apply.

 

The COLB doesn't determine your allegiance for Article 2 Section 1. The founders wanted strict allegiance to the United States through your parents. Obama's fathers allegiance was to the British Crown thus make Obama born with dual allegiances. He is not technically eligible.

 

US law, every legal textbook, the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress, and the ENTIRE judiciary say you are wrong. what does that tell you? you need to address this. Either all of the above are in on the conspiracy, or you are wrong about your definition of NBC. You need to pick one.

And, the COLB has the only relevant information pertaining to eligibility. Date and place of birth.

 

You're wrong as your continued predilection for irrelevacy demonstrates.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. natural born Citizenship and Allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers’ meaning of what a “natural born Citizen” is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens&#8221 except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the “natural born Citizen” clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

This is why rahl, all presidents post grandfather clause have been born to TWOU.S. Citizen parents (plural).

Here is Obama's status from his own website when it comes to born allegiance and citizenship:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


As you can see rahl, Barack Obama holds dual citizenship and allegiance to the British Crown. The last sentence confirms it.

 

US law, every legal textbook, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress, and the ENTIRE judiciary say your wrong. what does that tell you? I have asked you this question in 5 threads now and you refuse to address it. Either every one of those things I listed are in on the conspiracy, or your definition of NBC is wrong. which is it?

 

Ummm- that was my whole point.

There never was any evidence that Bush was involved in outing Plame, nor was I implying that there was. I personally do not think he was aware that persons in his administration outed her.

But if I had discovered evidence that he had I would have gone to the FBI and the CIA and send copies to Congress and the NY Times.

I wouldn't be posting about it here.

 

Doesn't end the citizenship arguments from Apuzzo, or NB, or Keyman or Foolardi- seriously the only one it would end it for is you. And like you said, it wouldn't end whatever other conspiracy nonsense Apuzzo dreams up.

I personally don't think so. I think that those 43% haven't looked at the existing evidence but are reacting to the general mis-information being spread by Birthers. I don't think that 43% will look at any other information released by Hawaii or President Obama either. And the 20% who say that they are certain that President Obama was born in the U.S.? No amount of information will budge them.

Not at all. As I have said over and over- I don't think this President- or any future President should indulge fringe movements demands. It is a bad precedent to make concessions to political opponents and it will not help him with his presidency in anyway.

In regards to the laundry list of other information that Birthers demand, that is unrelated to eligibility? They are just digging for dirt, hoping to find something to continue on their quest to damage this presidency. Just like the COLB, just like Dr. Fukino's clear statements- they will twist everything released and no matter what it says, will pretend it means something damaging.

We have survived every other Presidency just fine without having "all" of their vital information, we can survive this one just fine too.

 

Quoted because I agree entirely.

70 million voters disagreed with you.
The Electoral College disagreed with you.
Congress disageed with you.
Chief Justice Roberts disagreed with you.
Justice Scalia disagrees with you.

I have posted quote after quote of both modern and historic sources which disagree with you.

What you have never addressed, and will not address, is that your 'interpretation' is at odds with the consensus interpretation of the population and both the legal and political establishment.

Explain exactly why you feel that the votes of 70 million American citizens, who voted for a candidate that is eligible per the consensus interpretation of the Constitution should be overturned?

 

We need to have all of Obama's records released. When Obama AKA Soetoro ran for public office, he was no longer a private citizen. Dem. Senator Charlie Schumer stated this about McCain's records, "when you're running for President everything should be made public..." During the last mid-terms a judge in Alaska ruled this about Alaska senator candidate Joe Miller's records; "Mr. Miller is a public figure by virtue of the fact that he's a candidate for the U.S. Senate," thus, "the public's need to know is more compelling than Mr. Miller's right to privacy."

 

They need not be, and should not be overturned - they all voted in good, however misguided, faith. However, if it's going to be proven Obama the Magnificent is a fraud, the Law will step in and, hopefully, will move Obama to another semi-permanent place of residence. And if it's going to be proven Obama was not eligible for the Throne to begin with, I suppose it'll be a matter for SC and Congress to decide what to do about.

How does any of this concerns 70mln poor souls who voted for The One?