Obama Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate Is A Forgery

You make the rest of us look like lunatics. Get out of here with this shit. The saddest part is if you watch the video, Obama's lawyer says none of the nonsense the "Tea Party Times" claims she said. What's wrong with you?
 
Last edited:
STOP the Conpirasy Theories they are making us look horrible...

i was very open to this topic since i had not done a lot of research on it. i am more focused on the Economy really. so i did my research and look at both side of the coin...sorry the facts are in. Obama was born in the USA.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

that birth certificate is just the beginning of the story. HOwever, the records clerk in HI signed a sworn affidavit that what is on the short form certificate and records demonstrate he was born here, which is the kind of thing generally accepted as confirmation as a matter of course. I don't know what reason we have to look further. There is this whole other thread about whether he GAVE IT UP when he took Indonesian citizenship etc which I haven't really tracked, but the clerk saying he was born here was sort of the point where I stopped paying even sporadic attention. People have a right to their own opinions, but I can't see much value to pursuing it as an election issue.
 
Unlike the "Tea Party Times"? Give me a break. They blatantly misrepresent what goes on in the same video that supposedly corroborates the delusional conspiracy theory in the article. They trust dummies to read their garbage and accept it at face value.
 
You make the rest of us look like lunatics. Get out of here with this shit. The saddest part is if you watch the video, Obama's lawyer says none of the nonsense the "Tea Party Times" claims she said. What's wrong with you?

What video? Link please. I agree that the Tea Party Times didn't read what happened correctly, but that's based on statements from the plaintiffs attorney Mario Apuzzo.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/
 
Honestly, I don't think it changes much if Obama was not born in the USA. That is just what I think. The establishment trashes the constitution and everyone "loves" obama.
 
that birth certificate is just the beginning of the story. HOwever, the records clerk in HI signed a sworn affidavit that what is on the short form certificate and records demonstrate he was born here, which is the kind of thing generally accepted as confirmation as a matter of course. I don't know what reason we have to look further. There is this whole other thread about whether he GAVE IT UP when he took Indonesian citizenship etc which I haven't really tracked, but the clerk saying he was born here was sort of the point where I stopped paying even sporadic attention. People have a right to their own opinions, but I can't see much value to pursuing it as an election issue.
Do you know what was required to receive a BC in Hawaii, at the time ?
Look deep, and you might find new found interest in getting to the truth.
 
http://www.examiner.com/article/sno...aminer-obama-eligibility-article?CID=obinsite

Whether or not people actually feel Snopes.com is a legitimate source for determining “truth,” they’ve nonetheless decided to weigh in on an Examiner.com article that has now become another source of controversy with regard to Obama’s 2012 NJ ballot/Presidential eligibility hearing.

On April 18th it was reported that Obama’s attorneys had crafted an argument in an April 10th NJ Presidential ballot eligibility hearing that alluded to the fact that the long-form birth certificate issued in April of 2011 by Obama himself was, if fact, illegitimate.

Instead of actually taking the case head on and trying to truly determine whether or not the birth certificate is actually real or not, Snopes.com’s team of very questionable “researchers” merely decided to argue semantics Friday, instead of facts.

Using an 18 second clip of a three hour hearing that heard many devastating facts about the true nature of a clearly faked birth certificate, Snopes.com’s cleverly worded semantic-laden hit piece tried to use the attorney’s statement in the clip as clear evidence the eXaminer article was “false.”

While ironically using the term, “poor reporting” to describe the article, Snopes.com themselves decided to ignore what the attorney actually said and instead simply used WHY she said it as the example.

Although, in this particular clip it is true that Obama’s attorney did improperly say a birth certificate is not necessary for ballot access in NJ specifically, an arguable assertion in and of itself, it’s how she said it that truly sparked the controversy.

Instead of simply making the statement that a birth certificate is not necessary to show for ballot access and leaving it at that, the attorney made no sense while making the mistake of using the example that, “even if petitioners HAD an authentic copy, it still wouldn’t be necessary to show for NJ ballot access,” openly alluding to the fact that there is no authentic certificate.

Additionally, the attorney twisted reality in this one statement alone because it is the petitioners themselves that are arguing there is no authentic birth certificate to show in the first place. Not to mention, this is a fact that no one in the hearing, including Obama’s attorney disagreed with, not even the judge.

Not only was this embarrassing and twisted “Freudian-slip” one of many mistakes that got her immediately removed after the hearing as Obama’s representing attorney for the 2012 election, mistakes such as admitting in the hearing that Obama’s father was not a US citizen or even born in the USA, ultimately forced the Obama administration to feel compelled to order the public video of the hearing be completely removed from the internet entirely.

What is it about the hearing Obama has to hide? Additionally, how is it that the Obama Administration feels they have a right to suppress the video of a public hearing in the first place? If there is nothing to hide, why would they want it suppressed?

Furthermore, how the heck did Snopes.com in particular become a viable resource in determining the legitimacy of any particular claim, fact, urban legend or rumor? Or, are they?

The truth about Snopes.com:

Somehow, Snopes.com was given immediate legitimacy in the early to mid 1990’s by the establishment’s media with multiple national stories about the site and its owners, even though the site was and still is simply run by a typical married couple from California who took it upon themselves to embark on the impossible task of either proving or disproving every popular rumor that surfaced from the comfort of their own living-room.

Mr. Mikkelson simply happens to be a former computer programmer, while Mrs. Mikkelson herself is merely a self-described, “house-wife,” hardly a tandem worthy and deserving of an odd and curious vault to the top of the public investigation echelon.

Remarkably, they were allowed to be some sort of viable source by the general media anyway, thus also by a typically large portion of an unwitting public, a preposterous notion that somehow continues to this day. After almost 20 years, the media still remarkably cherry-picks their “findings” from time to time as reliable and newsworthy if expedient.

Even high-level Washington politicians have surprisingly used Snopes.com as a valid source in public, tax-payer funded hearings.

Snopes, not unlike any other quasi-“mainstream” source, takes advantage of the fact that people in general want to believe the government is good and is aiming to do the right and just thing.

By now, however, you’d think the retired couple that runs Snopes knows most people want to believe BHO’s birth certificate is real. Even those who claim Republican affiliation would generally not want to be forced to admit that someone would be allowed to run for office if they had never proven their right to do so. Even worse, if it turned out that individual truly ends up not being legally able. Especially if that individual had been in office long enough to already be attempting a second term.

Therefore, for almost 2 decades, Snopes.com and its owners have been able to basically say whatever they want that happens to be pro-establishment and now be somewhat supported by the court of public opinion. The very same fact holds true with all so-called “mainstream” sources. A fact however, that has slowly continued to lose validity as more and more people start to realize just how disingenuous the establishment and its media have become. Even if the two who run Snopes.com don’t yet realize that fact themselves.

Snopes however, instead of being a true voice of the people and giving an unbiased and well-researched finding on any random “rumor” they choose to assume responsibility for, always show their true colors by merely echoing typical establishment rhetoric and will never go any farther than what is currently “politically correct,” even if their “findings” happen to be totally inaccurate as a result.

The best example for this situation would be to point out that Snopes.com has an entire section about Barack Obama and “Birthers,” that obviously aims to prove every argument against BHO and his Presidential eligibility to be false. This is obviously not the work of open-minded and objective individuals with a passion for unbiased truth… Something every person expects from every person in the so-called media.

Snopes.com, however, has proven time and time again to merely be just another “mainstream” supported, politically-correct, establishment rhetoric echo-chamber that will never go far enough to let people hear the ugly truths that people truly need to hear to be truly informed.

World Net Daily stated in a 2009 article that even, “The Mikkelsons admit, however, that Snopes is only as reliable as the sources it cites, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.”

The Truth about Obama and his eligibility, despite Snopes.com:

The fact is, since even prior to Obama officially announcing his bid for the ’08 nomination there has been attorneys challenging his eligibility, just in case. Even then those attorneys were successfully arguing his ineligibility, yet every single judge that has heard a case regarding the issue thus far has ended up completely avoiding the issue altogether by passing the buck or found an excuse to have the case dismissed.

One such case for example was a recent hearing in GA witnessing the sitting judge publically state he was probably going to rule against Obama and strike his name from the 2012 ballot for committing contempt of court by not appearing at the hearing under court order, only to change his mind at the last minute and rule for Obama anyway. One has to wonder what actually happened in the hours between the hearing and his ultimate decision days later.

Sadly and unfortunately, not only does Snopes.com receive millions of hits per day with people not realizing the true nature of who actually owns and runs the site, but people valiantly share Snopes regurgitated garbage like it’s gold, just as they and the media have done when Snopes decided to embark on attempting to disprove the claim that Obama’s long-form birth certificate was forged.

After reading Snopes’s disastrous attempt to disprove yet another anti-Obama type claim, it became crystal clear they were also unwilling to address any facts or pieces of evidence they could not rebuke without shedding light on their true biased motives.

The best examples of the fraudulent nature of Obama’s birth certificate that cannot be argued may be the fact that certain signatures, words and one of the numbers in the date on the document are in completely different resolutions and colors when enlarged enough to see individual pixels, a total impossibility if the image is merely a scanned image of a single document. If that were the case everything on the document would be the exact same resolution.

There is also a reluctance to fully touch on the fact that Obama uses a fraudulent social security number that would normally only be issued to residents of Connecticut.

Further examples of open Snopes avoidances of known facts are Obama’s grandmother claiming he was born in Kenya, Africa, or according to the Daily Nation, “The Kenyan Government plans to build a Sh112 million cultural centre in honour of US President Barack Obama at his ancestral home in Kogelo, Kenya.”

These are just a few of the many examples media sources like Snopes.com cannot touch honestly with a 10 foot pole.

Nonetheless, establishment media and oddly supported wanna-bes like Snopes.com continue to be pushed by a witting media and an unwitting public at large as a source worthy of reliability, even as the truth continues to emerge that many of their findings have been proven to be a total farce, much like Barry-Barack-Hussein-Obama-Soetoro-Dunham’s long-form birth certificate and ultimate Presidential eligibility.
 
She never said you didn't "need proof to be president" she said "you didn't need proof to be a candidate for president". Legally she's right.
 
Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier believes Barack Obama is eligible to be president.

I guess we can stop looking right here, but if you're still curious you'll find this article well researched and written.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/fox-news-anchor-declares-obama-is-eligible/

Prominent Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier has posted an explanation on the network’s website of why he believes Barack Obama is eligible to be president.

“Here’s the deal,” wrote Baier, host of “Special Report with Bret Baier.” “The Constitution requires that the president be a ‘natural born citizen,’ but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father’s nationality.”


However, Harvard-educated Jerome Corsi, author of Where’s the Birth Certificate? says Baier isn’t quite on track yet.

“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”

Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.

“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.

See all of those who have made statements about Obama’s eligibility, in The BIG LIST.

Baier, who took over the time slot from Brit Hume in January 2009, previously was the network’s chief White House correspondent. Prior to that he was national security correspondent, reporting on defense, military and intelligence community issues. He has reported from Iraq 12 times and from Afghanistan 13 times.

He said he posted the information because of all of the questions being raised about Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal and whether they qualify as “natural born citizens.”

“This is obviously getting a lot of attention … so we think we should do a full piece on the show about it … and maybe have a penal of constitutional scholars … and legal experts to discuss this,” he wrote.

“There obviously is a lot of confusion.”

He said, “The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate – has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship.

“The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States, no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child.

“And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14,” he said.

“They’re all natural born U.S. citizens,” he said.

Corsi, however, explained further.

“To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” he said.

Join the billboard campaign that seeks the answer to “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”

“But consider that the mother and child return to China and Turkey and raise the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.”

He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”

As to Obama’s documentation, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio assembled a Cold Case Posse of professional law enforcement investigators who looked into the birth certificate information Obama posted online from the White House.

Their conclusion: There is probable cause that there was forgery in the creation of the document and fraud in its presentation to the public.

There are many who believe that even if Obama was born in Hawaii he wouldn’t be a “natural born citizen,” as the father listed on his birth documentation never was a U.S. citizen. Barack Obama Sr. left Stanley Ann Dunham to go to graduate school, then returned to Kenya where he served as a government official and married additional wives.

Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation after six months investigating Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president in “A Question of Eligibility,” co-authored by Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo.


Although Rubio’s name is mentioned more than any other as a potential GOP vice presidential candidate, a document found in the National Archives raises questions about whether the popular U.S. senator is qualified constitutionally to serve as president or vice president.

The Petition for Naturalization on behalf of Mario Rubio, the senator’s Cuban father, has been retrieved from the National Archives and posted online by the PixelPatriot website, confirming that Marco Rubio was about 4 years old when his parents became U.S. citizens. Mario Rubio was naturalized as an American citizen in 1975, based on the Sept. 9, 1975, date on the petition; Marco Rubio was born in 1971.

Attorney Herb Titus, who has taught constitutional law for nearly 30 years and was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., says the “natural born” language was used because the Founding Fathers wanted a leader without divided loyalties.

“That’s precisely what a natural-born citizen is,” Titus said in a YouTube video, “one who is born to a father and a mother, each of whom is a citizen of the United States or whatever other country they’re claiming natural-born citizenship in.”

His explanation:
Concerns over the loyalties of the commander-in-chief were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington.

Wrote Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

In fact, Congress in 1790 defined “natural born citizen” as a child born of two American citizens, but the law containing the definition was repealed several years later.

“The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father’s citizenship was a loyalty issue.

Explains Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … 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.”

Also, in 2008, when the U.S. Senate resolved that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, stated that McCain – born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 – “is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

The Article II Superpac posted an analysis arguing that the parents of a “natural born citizen” must be citizens at the time of his or her birth. The organization noted that Supreme Court rulings suggest the term applies only to those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WND.com, also has argued that the definition of “natural born citizen” excludes Rubio.

“Rubio is, quite simply, not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the accepted legal, English-language standard as it has been known throughout American history. He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents,” he wrote.

“I know this is not a popular notion among Republicans, just as it wasn’t among Democrats when challenges were made to Obama. However, the Constitution should always trump political expediency.

“This is not a ‘technicality,’ as some might suggest. If we don’t adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation. Indeed, it becomes the kind of ‘living document’ that many liberals have claimed it should be – ever-changing to new circumstances,” he said.
 
Back
Top