Evidence reveals Obama's "official " birth certificate was actually photo-shopped!

BLDan; I'm wasn't privy to the inter workings of the DNC/Campaigns, but in my mind the Clinton's (both) made a tactical 'U' Turn, opposed to continuing a rather nasty campaign. If they had any evidence of wrong doing on any issue, they (still both) logically would accept an understanding (would happen, not tacit) of her being offered one of two post (VP/SoS). McCain refused to acknowledge anything that could be construed "racial" or as a "character assassination", nor IMO would the party forces in the RNC. The birth issue was on the table and it was already being used by the media, TO PROMOTE OBAMA.

I disagree on racial, since McCain was also in the mix as are now Jindal/Rubio, but yes on the cultural problem and the reason I've remained skeptical. Anyone with any understanding of American History, knows the founders wished future heads of State were versed on American Tradition, Cultures and Law, even if times changed had changed them (they have) and IMO, Obama does not fit that description.

The question was "does anybody" and Africa is a pretty big Continent, third world or not. That does play to my argument however, in that the years he spent on the Continent and the culture that existed, not to mention his mother's ideology, must have influenced him, all of which has been covered here, many times.

JEFF, Obama campaigned on Healthcare Reform which many of us knew was meant to lead to single payer. The electorate majority then felt *something* had to be done but few thought he and the Democratic Congress would pass the "HC Bill", but in part voted out the House members pushing it, along with the Filibuster Proof Senate. When the 3000 Page Bill along with unknown other legislated policy passed, it was in lame duck session and passed on Christmas Eve, IMO only because those that lost wanted to get home for the Holidays. The "public" did not want THAT reform by Dec. 24, 2009, nor do they today.

 

All of which is irrelevant to this thread.

This thread is about his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office. He is Constitutionally eligible by virtue of his birth in America more than 35 years ago, and his residency in America for more than 14 years prior to 2008. That is all the Founding Fathers required.

Anything else is a political question. If you're arguing that Obama is not a good President, or that there's others who would do a better job, or that he's not right for the office, those are topics for another thread. Those are decisions made by the voters, as the Founders wanted it.

And if you argued those things, I'd probably agree with you. I didn't vote for him.

 

And I will point out once again, when Obama was elected, he was elected on the campaign promise of healthcare reform- and Republicans regularly claimed he was seeking a 'single payer' system. Americans supported healthcare reform at the time.

Republicans opposed healthcare reform- otherwise it could have been completed in less than 2 years. Republicans were not concerned about what the "American public" wanted then- they only claimed concern once public opinion had shifted.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with eligiblity. Your recourse will be at the ballot this year. The ballot is the true score card for any politician.

 

The years he spent on what Continent? By every published account Obama has spent no more than a few weeks in Africa, all as an adult. What has that got to do with anything?

Barack Obama spent 15 of his 18 years of childhood in the United States. Are you seriously so unsure of American values that you think that 3 years in a foreign country would be more important than even 3 years in the U.S.?

I am sure that his mother's ideology did influence him though. Which I am glad about- imagine what an example- a woman who promoted capitalism in a third world through micro-lending to help impoverished peoples start their own business's. What a fantastic role model.

Of course this has all been reviewed by the voters before. I can't imagine any of this is important to anyone who actually is trying to decide whether to vote for Obama or not. Anyone who can't decide on whether to vote for Obama or not based upon his record as President is a fool.

 

Dan; I can't argue your claim, other than my comments are responses to comments, that in turn must be also off topic. I would suggest however that actions/policy/METHODS being implemented by Obama's team are consistent with a possible fraud having been played on the American Primary System and an apparent large number of those people who continue questioning his qualifications.

Don't forget the 14th A, where NB Citizen is often defined from and that could be argued not the INTENT of those founders, especially when you involve British Subject, which was their concern.

You may have noted, I've not been posting on this issue here in Conspiracy or the dozen or so threads popping up under the Political Topics. Once the elections were over, Congress Verified the elections and Obama was sworn into office, skeptics as myself have had little recourse other than possibly keeping this from happening again, if it even matters to future generations of this country.

 

And Jeff, I will "once again" repeat, during the campaign Obama wanted HC Reform of some kind and undefined at the time, which all demographics were interested in, the cost were going up. What he proposed or more likely Democratic Staffers writing the 3000 page socialist manifesto called "Affordable HC" was not and remains undesirable to a majority of the electorate. Very few, IMO including Democrats Hardcore's actual WANT single payer and frankly the only way the Law could be enforced IS AS "SINGLE PAYER".

NO, the Republicans opposed the proposed HC Bill, not trying to contain cost or implementing some legislation. During those "TWO YEARS" the Democrats could have passed anything they wanted (filibuster proof) but COULD NOT. They feared being voted out and only passed it AFTER they were voted out, elections November, passed December 2009....

Obama Sr. was the influence along with childhood memories he must have had, both from being there and from what he was told. They had just gained independence from England, his grandfather was said beaten up by the British and so forth. Do you think, he could possible have good memories of what was then America's best partner.

YES; antidotal, but I spent a little time in Mexico as a child, with my parents in the 40's and it influenced me a great deal throughout my life, even having three kids with Latino heritage.

I'm not sure his mother promoted CAPITALISM in the third world or anyplace else or in fact was a role model for any American to be President, but you are welcome to review, this rather biased article and video. The video may have been deleted.

http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

No it wasn't, 95% of what was known before the 2008 Elections was never reported by most media or portrayed as bigoted biased right wing rhetoric to keep a "black man, with a funny name" (Obama quote) from becoming President.

I do agree on the 2012 Election and folks should vote on his record, but please study it first....I might also suggest they concern themselves with the future of the US, its Constitution, traditions, cultures and economic system and forget what they personally might gain from four more years of what has been....You know the statistics.


Note; All comments on last two post, are in answer to other comments, I am aware they are off topic to the thread.

 

We are going nowhere.

You oppose Obama- that is your right and I encourage you to avail yourself of your vote and right of free expression. I think you are clearly wrong, but I do not find it worthwhile to continue such disagreements- we are not going to convince each other.

President Obama was and is eligible to be President of the United States. The voters will decide based upon his record whether they want him to continue as President. Regardless of how the voters decide, I will accept as President whoever the voters choose.

Will you?

 

What would lead you to hallucinate that President Obama is not "versed on American Tradition, Cultures and Law?"

 

JEFF; There's really no alternative to accepting, what the voters choose, but if it happens to be Obama I'm not going to shut up or go away. I'll promote the American Dream, personal responsibility and the Constitution I feel led the world into prosperity never before seen by humanity. If this is wrong, so be it and admittedly I've been wrong before, Bush 43 Domestic Policy!!!

Wong; Obama is supposed to be educated/versed in Constitutional Law, which requires a extensive American History course. There are near 7 million sites on google, under "Obama Unconstitutional Acts", which I've copied/pasting the first three. Knowing you somewhat understand law, it's difficult for me to understand why you would even ask the question...He has consistently subverted both the meaning and intent of the Constitution/law, simply to satisfy an specific electorate and IMO a Socialist Agenda.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/obama_s_unconstitutional_war

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ed-...olution-condemning-obama-unconstitutional-act

http://www.deflationeconomy.com/president-obama-unconstitutional.html

I understand culture and traditions can be subjective, but regarding them, many things Obama has promoted, especially HC are attempts to place the Federal Government ahead of the States and most importantly the INDIVIDUAL. Said another way; In a Country of 13 Sovereign States (Now 50) the founders left certain things for States to decide (enumerated rights) and he has decided whether with/without Congressional Advise/Consent or not he will mandate actions with Executive Orders leading to or directly through the various Federal Agencies, Cap and Trade the best current example....Understand, I am not saying he (Obama) is the only President that acted in this manner, but the worst, when considering the irreversible nature of his actions.

 

Actually, "Obama Unconstitutional Acts" returns only 6,300 results. Removing the quotation marks returns only 262,000... to include articles that never accuse Obama of committing a single unconstitutional act.

Lets put that in perspective.

"Unidentified Flying Objects" returns 782,000 results.

"Abominable snowman" returns 1,400,000 results.

And "Loch Ness Monster" returns 3,360,000.

You can have a whole lot of web hits for things that are not true. Frankly, the three sites you posted do not impress me as either reasonable, sober or true. In fact, they do not strike me as being very familiar with the Constitution at all.

You describe a tension within our body politic that is actually older than the Constitution itself. It is the same conflict of ideas that fueled the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists more than 230 years ago. Both positions are equally American, each with as deep a pedigree and as much respectability as the other.

Your vision of America is not the only American vision of America. There are a large number of patriots who disagree with you. So I ask again the question... What would lead you to hallucinate that President Obama is not "versed on American Tradition, Cultures and Law?"

 

I often make mistakes, but I don't intentially lie...Of course there are duplication, but the point stands.

About 8,160,000 results (0.14 seconds), no quotation marks, requested 11:50ET

Interesting, I say "I understand culture and traditions can be subjective" and you spend time telling me I'm correct.

Yes, the Articles of the Confederation (ratified 1781) were more restrictive to a Federal Authority, giving way to the current Constitution, a compromise and outline to how a Union of States could best operate. Obama, by his own words, feels the Executive should have power over Congress and the people to attain social justice AS HE SEES IT....There is no comparison and no one person was ever intended to mandate anything.

 

About 2,340,000 results (0.39 seconds) , no quotation marks, requested 12:15ET

But your point remains completely pointless. As I have demonstrated, you can find anything on the Internet, including millions of returns that are promoting things that are false. The number of hits returned by a google search is hardly a rigorous measure of either truth or general interest.

Accusations made by a man's political enemies do not become true simply because you can find them on the Internet. And again, the actual references you gave were tendentious political propaganda, further suggesting deep skepticism regarding your reasoning and your claims.

Fascinating that you focus on the trivial and ignore the substantial. Your failure to recognize your own internal contradiction remains completely inexplicable.

You have now gone from vacuous to incoherent.

So I ask again the question... What would lead you to hallucinate that President Obama is not "versed on American Tradition, Cultures and Law?"

 

Actually that's interesting, but for different reasons. I've heard about google USA messing with the choices offered, especially for Obama inquiries, but hadn't noticed any difference. I keep 2 Computer around here for my small day trading pleasure, one of which has google UK (probably since I use a British email provider) and the other must be US. The figures I gave you came from the UK site and the other just came up with about your 2.3M figure.

I'm not going any further on your other stuff, we're going around in circles....

 

Never underestimate the ability of conspiracy theorists to find even the most ordinary of phenomena suspicious. That's how we get "chemtrails" out of contrails and "signs of forgery" out of ordinary digital compression.

Ya know? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

No we're not. We reached the complete exposure of your argument's fail in a direct and very straight line.

I guess I simply must accept that you are unwilling to answer the question: "What would lead you to hallucinate that President Obama is not 'versed on American Tradition, Cultures and Law?'"

Thanks for almost playing.

 

The birther issue was started by Dems who backed Hillary

That seems to have been lost ion this debate on a topic that was always a waste of time

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJU37U5_rbc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJU37U5_rbc[/ame]

 

Wrong. The journalists who made this assertion did not do particularly thorough research. That they are wrong can be objectively proven. The original posts and blog entries are all still available on line, and they prove that the Birther issue was started on the right-wing conservative web forum Free Republic on March 1, 2008. The PUMA's did not pick up the issue until at least 3 and half months later... and they never were the primary proponents. The water carriers on this conspiracy theory remain almost exclusively right wing.

Even the original McCain Birthers were right wing Conservatives.

 

When DNCTV (aka MSNBC) admits the Clinton supports started all this crap - it is true

I know libs want to blame EVERYTHING on the R's when it comes to Obama, but this one belongs to the Clinton backers

 

I have asked before- you seem really hung up on trying to blame the start of Birtherism on somebody.....

But what do you believe?

Are you posting here in support of Birtherism- and if so, give us your thoughts.

Are you against Birthers? Then give your thoughts?

Or are you not actually for Birthers, but against anyone who is against Birthers?

 

I have posted several times I NEVER thjought this worth the time that was spent on it

If Bil and Hillary could not prove Obama was born outside the US he was born in the US

Noone is better at destroying people then the Clinton's

 

There we go then.

Does it really matter who started the idiocy, when the problem is the idiocy?

 

I have proven that it is not. No matter what MSCBC says.

My irony meters have just exploded again.

You have exactly no idea what you are talking about.

 

Sory but it is a fact the Hillary backers first used the birther issue against Obama

and many Dems who did not like Obama jumped on it

Funny how facts always mean little to libs who are out to protect their own and pass the buck to others

 

I have proven that to be wrong.

Why do you persist on repeating the lie in the face of your objective and comprehensive fail?

 

Whatever

Trying to educate a liberal onthe facts is like ramming your head into the wall

It hurts like hell and accomplishes nothing

 

Hey and I was just thinking that trying to get a Conservative to accept the facts is like trying to teach a pig to sing!

Except......I know enough to know that not all Conservatives are pig headed.