Birth mirth
Heh: After years of useful service to Obama, birthers get thrown under the bus.
Update: Trump wins. LOL
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 27th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Glenn Beck has just closely examined the released long form certificate of live birth.
They have discovered Obama may be a former conjoined twin or set of triplets, that the record is a theoretical certificate, that it has the mark of the beast upon it if you add and subtract the right numbers, and that its also a forgery, drawn in Kenya by traditional artists, proving that Obama was born in Newfoundland. That his mother is NOT his mother, and that, furthermore, that the President is really George Bush in a mask. Oh, and of course the hospital and the street address are OBVIOUSLY fake, as who spells that way? Waaaay to many vowels…..
April 27th, 2011 at 10:08 am
See, I had the story all wrong:
http://twitter.com/#!/GunmartBlog/status/63228939946037248
April 27th, 2011 at 10:53 am
How quickly some of you are put to sleep by whatever the MSM tells you. How can you guys be so skeptical about anything gun-related, and yet so gullible in other areas?
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii; I am skeptical that he is eligible to be President (even if he was elected to the post). Now, as to this “long form” birth certificate, it’s BS, pure and simple. Think about it for a second.
The HI Secretary of Health has publicly stated that the long-form BC could not be released to anyone, not even Obama. The only things that Barry could do was look at the LFBC in the birth records book, and request a short-form COLB. In fact, it is AGAINST THE LAW to release the LFBC, even to Obama. As recently as April 11 of this year, the agreed-upon narrative was as follows:
“Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of ‘vital records,’ including an original ‘record of live birth’ — even to the individual whose birth it records.
‘It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,’ he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated ‘certification of live birth’ form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/)
So, what changed? Did Obama issue an Executive Order; did the Governor of HI issue a waiver? Was the law broken for the benefit of Obama, or is the document making the rounds of the Internet yet another version of the COLB.
More to the point, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, period. At the time of Obama’s birth (1963), his father was a native of Kenya, and thus a subject of the British Crown. By the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was also a British subject and citizen at the time of his birth:
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
This law was not changed until 1964, and so was in force at the time of Obama’s birth.
The requirement of “natural born” citizenship is there to ensure that whoever becomes President does not owe loyalties to a sovereign foreign power. By definition, anyone in Obama’s situation has divided loyalties, whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not: one loyalty to the United States and one to the British Crown. To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never renounced his dual loyalties, and so cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his loyalties are with the United States and no other.
For God’s sake, ask the questions. Don’t just nod and swallow when your “betters” feed you a turd and call it caviar.
April 27th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Correction: Obama was born in 1961; Kenya
did not become independent until 1963.
April 27th, 2011 at 11:06 am
Obama cannot possibly be an american citizen seeing that he was born in Doushbagistan.
April 27th, 2011 at 11:15 am
The best seller of 1750 was De Vattel’s “The Law Of Nations.” It quickly found its way to the Colonies, where almost every lawyer of prominence had a copy among his law books.
The Law Of Nations gave us many things; for one, a written Constitution that does not change as the wind blows, as opposed to England’s “unwritten Constitution” which is subject to change by Sovereign Decree or Parliament’s order.
For another, recognition that as a matter of long standing custom and of International law, citizenship is passed on by the father.
While I have no doubt Obama was born in the US, he is as a matter of custom and law a citizen of his Fathers country.
Stranger
April 27th, 2011 at 11:26 am
I think this is timed to overshadow / derail response to news of the cabinet-organization putting Leon Panetta in charge of Pentagon
April 27th, 2011 at 11:37 am
I was wondering how the birthers would move the goalposts. I never imagined that the new line would be “the fact he HAS released the birth certificate PROVES he doesn’t have one”.
Bravo! I’m actually impressed by the creativity of your psychosis.
April 27th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Meh. Birther arguments seemed sort of far fetched. However, the left was obsessed with Bush’s military documents for years so it seems oddly fitting that each side has such views.
April 27th, 2011 at 11:47 am
@ Mike & Stranger: What was US citizenship law at the time he was born? British law and international law are irrelevant unless US law invoked or recognized them.
Remember the issue McCain had? Even though both his parents were citizens when he was born (and his father was a US Navy officer) that didn’t necessarily make him a citizen at birth due to the way the laws were written at the time (there is apparently some confusion due to conflicting court precedents). In fact, 8 U.S.C. 1403 retroactively grants citizenship to “Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States”.
Only US law governs US citizenship, not foreign or international laws.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
After reading the first comment I thought – must be a youtube commenter, but it was nice to see real content in the following comments
April 27th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Hey, Stormy Dragon:
Are you blind or just dumb?
Re-read what I wrote: where did I say I was a “birther” as commonly understood, i.e., Obama was born in Kenya? I went out of my way to state that I believe he was born in Hawaii.
Second, as noted wisely in the movie “Braveheart”: “Answer the fookin’ question”.
Was the law of the State of Hawaii broken for the release of this document to be effected, and for the direct political benefit of Obama? Remember, the AG of Hawaii is on record, as recently as this month, saying that it is AGAINST THE LAW to release the LF BC to anyone, even Obama. When did the Hawaii Legislature meet to reform the law so as to allow a copy of said document to be released to Obama (and thence to the world)?
If the law (as explicitly noted by the HI AG) was NOT broken in this instance, then, by definition, this is NOT the original document embargoed under state law.
Either the law was broken, or this is another version of the COLB.
Third, if the law was broken and this IS the original, then why did Obama spend $2M+ to keep it under wraps? And don’t give me that crap that Tam is peddling: that it’s “nobody’s business”. He was running for President in 2008, and will do so again in 2012. This IS our business, like it or lump it. His BC is our business; his professional and personal associations are our business; his tax returns and income sources are our business; his educational records (still under lock-n-key, BTW) are our business; his employment history and records are our business. Hell, most of this information is REQUIRED when applying for most government jobs; ALL of it is required when applying for TOP SECRET clearance in government service. And it’s none of our business when we ask questions about a man who has access to government secrets at the highest level possible? Now, that is dereliction of duty: the Founders expected us, the People, to be the ultimate watchdogs of government. If you want to switch off your brains, go for it; I will continue to ask questions, no matter how “gauche” some people consider those questions to be.
Why don’t you sit down and think about it during the commercial breaks, OK?
April 27th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Randy,
Not a you tube commenter.
Just thought that Glenn was being funny. And he was.
Personally, I think that this situation needs to be addressed. We need a clear definition of “natural born” so that some child of illegal aliens does not become President.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I recently had to obtain and produce a copy of my birth certificate to renew my permit to exercise my right to carry the means of armed self-defense.(It’s Constitutionally unlawful to require a permit to exercise a right) I only ask that all of my employees, that is, elected and appointed gov’t officials, be held to the same legal standard as me and all of us according to “the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) If that is “fringe” and “extremist”, then so be it.
But that such is even an issue, demonstrates an arrogance of power that makes one unfit to be the public SERVANT of a free and self-gvoerning people!
April 27th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
The birther-lite position among the Pain derangement syndrome folks is that Pain has yet to release Trig’s birth cert.
The local lefty blogs should be fun today.
Palin has recently gone on record as saying that she believes Pres. Obama is a Nat-born citizen but Trump is valid to ask “why hasn’t he released the BC and cleared it up?”
If this is a counter move, it isn’t just against Trump. It’s a larger strike against Repubs who were playing both sides of the fence.”I don’t doubt, but what are you hiding.”
From this point forward if those positions aren’t refudiated 😉 they can be used as a bludgeon.
Most of America will see this as settling the “birther” issue, as it came to be summed up as “show the cert”. The Nat-born nuance is lost on the majority of undecideds.
To keep bringing it up will effectively marginalize candidates moving forward.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Ron,
The short form cert. Obama already produced would work for that purpose if Hawai’i actually issued their permits.
I’m any event, if your state requires a BC for a permit, that’s a state problem, most only require a driver’s license for ID. Maybe you should be angry about it at your state legislators.
April 27th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Really, mom was just 18?
As an Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator design worker, there are a bunch of weird artifacts that you can see in the Illustrator .pdf file if you look at it as an “outline.” Why did they make a compound path (a hole essentially) out of the background? The date (box #20) section that says “AUG 8 – 1961” is also a separate element-thing that’s pasted-in, and underneath where it says “Type of Occupation” (box #17) the word “none” is also pasted-in as a separate element. The other date “Aug 8 1961” on the lower right has also been worked-over. The bit actually only says, “AUG 8” then just “61”. And it’s a separate bit. This is all visible in the document…it’s not a straight-up .pdf of a photostat or document. It’s been worked-on.
I’m sure Charles Johnson at LGF will get right on it…
April 27th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
You guys are all missing the point. Just connect the dots. The birth certificate was responsible for ordering the missile attack on the Pentagon….
April 27th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Mike,
Are you claiming that some British statute actually trumps the Constitution of the United States?
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If you’re born anywhere in the US (like, say, Hawaii), and you’re not the child of an ambassador, you’re an American citizen. Parliament has no say in the matter.
April 27th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Mike, i would pay you an incredible amount of money to go back in time and tell Andrew Jackson that all of that is your business.
My friend wondered why under “race” on the certificate it says “African.” He says Africa is not a race, and wasn’t it usual to describe that as “negro?”
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
April 27th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
All this aside, if he was born in (insert popular theory or Newfoundland here), what would that do today, other than massive civil unrest from the arrest of a sitting president (my educated guess would be that most of his feverish supporters would call it a racial attack and riot in kind), and we would be thrust onto a constitutional crisis (as if we havent had those since Wilson was in office).
All of that would solve the problems with the fed printing money and congress spending billions that we dont have to buy votes from old people and those who dont want to work.
April 27th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Go download it and look at it in Illustrator.
Why all the different artifacts and elements? Why the paste-up?
April 27th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Matthew,
Yes, Matthew, I said requiring a permit with personal information to exercise a Constitutional right is unlawful. My State of Tennessee is unlawfully requring that. Requiring a birth certificate to get on the ballot would not be intrusive of a right.One of the two qualifications to SERVE as President is to have been born in the U.S. The other is to be at least 35 years old, both of which are addressed and ascertained by a birth certificate which should be a basic requirement.
Once again, to refuse to produce that at the outset demonstrates an arrogant disregard for basic legal requirements which should certainly disqualify ANYONE from being on the ballot.
April 27th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Wait a minute! I’ve got some more fuel for this fire! A) Didn’t I read somewhere (might have been his Autobiography) that Barry legally had his named changed to Barack when he was 18 or 19? But the name on this form is Barack. So he changed his name from Barack to…. Barack? B) This is not a Birth Certificate, but a Record of Birth. I’m old enough to remember that Birth Certificates used to come on White Paper, sorta/kinda looking like Diplomas and they were Two Sided, with the Baby’s Foot Prints stamped in ink on the back. That was they way mine was done in Ohio in 1958, and I don’t think Hawaii had that much of a different system back then. Especially when it was (and still is) EXTREMELY Important to know who is descended from Hawaiian Royalty and/or is considered a Native Hawaiian, and who is just a Haole, even though one is born there). I don’t think anyone was using Counterfeit Resistant Green Computer Paper back in 1961, since it was NOT in Existance. C). The form I saw today had faint numbers on each space, like someone was going through a Check List. Why? D) Where is the Embossed Seal on the Form, required by Federal Law for the last few years (just look at the Passport Regs for legitimate forms of I.D.)? E) and finally, Is it not a little Strange that 2 weeks ago, the only Certified and Stamped Birth Certificate that the State Department is accepting MUST have the FULL name of the Parents, and NO middle Initials are allowed? Plus there is no Grandfathering. So if your state put down “John T. Doe” as the Father back in 1956, that is no longer acceptable ( and it’s making it harder for people to get their Passports and vote with their Feet, also. Funny how that happened, isn’t it?) Yet there it is, bold as day, Hussein on the form, which was NOT the Normal way of doing so back then.
Nope, this is just a Dog and Pony Show to get Trump off Barry’s Back.
April 27th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Dog and Pony! The whole green “non-counterfeit” background is a separate element, with the text laid over it. If the explanation for the layers is correct where’s the interpreted bits of the embossed seal?
April 27th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I prefer V for Vendetta: “No.”
April 27th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Update: Apparently Obama asked for, and received, a “waiver” of the HI Health Department’s regulations regarding the release of this document.
And, yet, I still have questions. As the issue was presented by the HI AG, embargo of a LF BC was a matter of LAW, exemptions to be given to no one, including Obama. The way this release has been presented is that embargo of a LF BC is a matter of departmental REGULATION. So, which is it? If a matter of law, only the legislature could make the necessary changes to cause release of the document; if a matter of regulation, then the relevant agency authority could issue a waiver, but that is NOT how this was presented to the public. NOTHING is straightforward with this guy.
On a slightly separate note, folks, there is no one “birther” movement. There are at least three types:
(1) Those who believe Obama was born in Kenya, and any document from HI is a forgery;
(2) Those who believe that Obama was born in HI, but by descent was a British subject at the time of his birth, and so is not a “natural born” citizen (i.e., one whose loyalty to the U.S. alone is unquestioned).
(3) Those who believe that Obama was born in HI, who consider the British Nationality Act of 1948 to be irrelevant, but who believe that Obama is not eligible to be President because a “natural born” citizen at the time of the Founders and the early Republic was understood to mean someone who was born to two parents who were BOTH U.S. citizens.
April 27th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Mike, of your list (1) involves serious fabrication of nonexistant “facts” to create such scenario; your items (2) and (3) simply are not valid statements of the law. There is no Supreme Court interpretation of the Article II requirement, but given past interpretations by the SCt of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is zero chance of the SCt ruling that a person born in the United States, and not the child of foreign state diplomats, was not a “natural born citizen”. Absolutely zero.
April 27th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Ummm, you do know that there are “problems” with the birth certificate, right?
I believe he is a U.S. citizen or Clinton’s army of private investigators would have broke it. However, Obama’s bumbling is going to create more problems than this will clear up.
The Left lies as a conditioned response, even when there is no reason to lie.
April 28th, 2011 at 2:48 am
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185094
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185101
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185119
If it is his real certificate, why didn’t they just do a straight photo without all the alterations? Either it’s fake, or someone wants people to think it’s fake. I’m going for #2, provide evedence technically minded people will see, and average dumbasses won’t believe. Even if it’s real, they just made it look fake as hell to anyone with any decent photoshop / illustrator skills.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:34 am
A friend put this on my Facebook.
April 28th, 2011 at 10:16 am
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I told you people to be skeptical. You suckers have been had: The BC is a fake!
I don’t know about the photoshop/pdf issues (still agnostic on that).
What I do know is that the physician widely touted in the MSM as having delivered Obama, Rodney T. West, magically transformed into “David Sinclair” on the document that the WH released yesterday (with his signature and all, to make it look legit).
Market-Ticker has the dirt —
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185110
April 28th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
That just does not make any sense, Mike. The PDF layers are not evidence of manipulation. And the risks of releasing a forged document are too high – it would be an impeachable offense.
That a different physician signed the doc as the attending is not evidence of anything either.
You gotta dial-back the excitement. It should not go to eleven.
April 28th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
SPQR:
Do you honestly, truly, believe that the Congress of the United States would impeach this nation’s first black President? Really? You do realize that such an act would risk violence in this nation such as we have not seen since the Civil War, don’t you?
Now, if Obama put out a false document, it was with the confidence that no one would have the curiosity to question its veracity. And he is correct: even as we speak, the MSM is shouting down anyone who questions the authenticity of the document.
Even if someone did display a modicum of skepticism and discovered it to be false, he knows that there is not one single person in this country who would have the balls to do anything about it.
And, in that, he is 100% correct. With Obama, it’s better to not know than to seek out the truth, knowing that the truth might lead to chaos and violence.
April 28th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
No, Mike, Obama is pretty arrogant but he wouldn’t forge a document. And he knows that this one will be scrutinized.
April 30th, 2011 at 2:39 am
These birthers are so crazy they can’t even see how crazy they are.
Can we get back to guns? How is the NRA show?