jpr62902
Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
I'm wonderin' .....
If one simply posts "fact" in front of whatever they say, does that render their comment true?
If so ...
Fact: I'm the awesomest dude ever.
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Kangaroo court in DC playing games with Obama SSN case
- Thread starter grizzer
- Start date
I'm wonderin' .....
If one simply posts "fact" in front of whatever they say, does that render their comment true?
If so ...
Fact: I'm the awesomest dude ever.
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
When he put him in school. Only citizens could attend school there. He declared it then.
As for citizenship here one must declare it to be in federal office. There is no record of his filing for re-enstatement and his return to the US was as an "exchange student"
We certainly have not recognized the dual citizenship of any President in the past. And if that were simply the case, why the smoke screen to prevent inquiry and answers to the allogations?
It would seem a simple matter, and to any citizen who's qualifications were patent, there would be not excuse for holding back any documents of proof. More than two years after certification Bari's Questionable birth certificate was finally published. And, like the fake GW Bush National Guard records,the copy shows clear signs of forgery.
As an attorney,you know these are not "facts' but evidence which should be impartialy examined. Not tossed about in bars and analyzed by media pundits.
Of course much hinges on the status of Natural born citizen. As I understand it, there is no certificate of marrige for Stanley Ann and Obama Senior. His mother a US citizen from Kansas and his father a Kenyan diplomant with British citizenship.
There is so much murkyness, and some of it logical and explainable, about the first marriage as to cast doubt on it's validity. The union lasted less than four years so common law does not enter.
I believe justice John Jay described the term "natural born citizen" at one time. How does that align with the law today? And further counselor,, how does the quassi marraige of Stanley Ann to a British subject align with that definition?
Bari, or more likely his friends, has spent millions keeping such questions at bay and out of the courts. I believe intentionaly keeping the pot boiling to divert attention. In the end, he likely has what he considers the proof of his Natural Born Status but chooses to keep the circus buzzing with uselesly spent energy.
His final announcement will hinge, probably, on a legal footnote but would still debase his critics. Except, I fear,he has played the bluff far too long.
The conscious American voter won't stand for the sham. So he must keep the balls in the air till next November. And the SCOTUS, with the help of the lower courts, has made it so.
Last edited:
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
No offenseto the FF folks but what would i find here that i could use to back up anything. Mostly opinions. Some good some not so much but hardly facts.
Been at this for more than two years. Since early 2008 actually. Formed some conclusions. And quite a bit of that searching does back them up. Been here two months.
Folks are agreeable and smart. I would not call them "sources"
But lawyers,for the most part, seem to like and approve of what we have going on now. So keep screaming, However, you have yet to place a credible link to your own statements. Your law degree is likely valid, no disrespect intended. But,,,I don't see it here. And, I must admit, I have been in court enough to know, most of the time, "lawyers only have opinions. And their clients pay dearly for them to exhibit those opinions in front of a judge. And, to add insult to injury, in the end,,, one of the clients losses." That statement from my own attorney
So your credibility, as an attorney, is not patent friend.
I, on the other hand, have claimed to be no more than a laymen.
Last edited:
jpr62902
Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
That's what I thought.
So far in this thread, folks are claiming that BHO has fraudulently obtained an SSN, that BHO is an Indonesian citizen, that the SCOTUS hasn't looked at the issue of BHO's citizenship, blah, blah, blah. And not a single source to back it up. At least Grizzer posted links to some anti Obama websites.
jollyroger88805
New member
Thanks Kane I try to make sure I have researched what I post and that it is factual and true.
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”
Posted on January 27, 2011 | 4 Comments
Does this mean that George Washington and John Jay were the First Birthers? 1 Dragon
On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States from the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. The President and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library.
Some of the records of that Library are of particular interest when considering the influence of the works of Emmerich de Vattel on our Founding Fathers.
Why does this matter? Because of how Vattel defined a term that our Founders wrote into our Constitution, and the implications to Barack Hussein Obama.
From Article II Section 1:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
From Vattel:
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
There is good reason to believe that Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen played a central role in a letter that Founder John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25th, 1787:
“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.”
On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library: Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and volume 12 of the English House of Commons Debates.
The ledger does not record whether the president came in person or sent a messenger, nor is there any record of either volume being returned, or the president or vice-president being fined.
A few news stories recently have made much ado about how large the library fine would be in today’s dollars. But those same stories have neglected the importance of which books Washington checked out.
Again, it is important that we understand the relationship between President George Washington, first Chief Justice John Jay, the works of Vattel, and the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court held its first session on Feb. 1, 1790, in New York City. The New York Society Library charging ledger provides a record of the books borrowed by Chief Justice John Jay, including:
- Literature. The works of Jonathan Swift; “Don Quixote”, Voltaire’s, “Candidus, or “All For the Best,” as the volume is noted in the ledger; “The Fair Syrian, a novel”; Frances Burney’s, “Cecilia, or Memoirs of an Heiress”; “Arabian Nights Entertainments, consisting of one thousand and one stories, related by the Sultaness of the Indies” and John Aubrey’s “Miscellanies,” a collection of stories on ghosts and dreams.
- History. Plutarch’s, “Lives”; “Lives of the Admirals, and other Eminent British Seamen”; “The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada”; “The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, from a British Province to an Independent State”; and “An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major-General Israel Putnam.”
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
I'm not claiming any of those things, nor am I suggesting Bari should be impeached or removed. I am simply stating the cases should be heard. But, instead of allowing the issue to be settled,the courts have failed to allow it. Generaly for technical reasons.
You know damm well I do not need to site sources for this as it is common knowledge in the first place and such sources have been cited here already. I do not need to be redundant.
After all, I am not composing a legal brief.
You seem to premise the concept that one could cite a source of unimpeachable truth no one would question, and therefore prove the point. What source do I need to prove the simple point that the allegations persist, unanswered for over three years now? It is common knowledge and that sir, is all I have suggested.
Any of my phrophestations from that were preceeded with "I believe" or "I would suggest" making them acknowedged as "opinions," not facts.
Are you sure you are an attorney?
Again, I am not a birther. But, one must recognize the questions on the minds of many and why they persist. My only interest here was to explain that. Not try the case.
Bari has been certified the President. I do not believe any proof that he is not legaly qualified by virtue of a question regarding his birth now matters to that. It is too late, and too Constitutionaly complicated, for that certification to be changed. I'm not a lawyer but that is my opinion on the matter.
jollyroger88805
New member
I am so sorry I didn't respond according to your time table. But I am happy not only to provide source but to provide an actual copy of the report. But I already know you will not accept the truth that will be right in front of you. But just to show others I back up what I post here is what you asked for:
Obama's Tax return Please note the SS# he used.
Here is the SSA verifying SS# 042-68-4425 "Never issued to Obama"
E-Verify showing Obama's SS# Failed check
What else do you want to call me on? So far you have been really easy to please. But I predict you will not accept the truth that has plainly been set before you.
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
So, you cannot cite case law on this issue? 'Cause what with being an attorney and all, one would think you had sources.
I did ask politely once already, for your opinion on "Natural Born citizen."
I posted my short research on the matter. And this is your answer?
Big fail pal.
Of course this is a "birther thread." Your just catching on?
BTW, You should take you own advice and puruse some threads here. Grizzer has a snootful of sources on this issue.
Jus' sayin.
Last edited:
jollyroger88805
New member
Whether you want to call them ineptocrats or Husseinites they all have this in common.
They do not want to SEE the TRUTH.
They do not SPEAK the TRUTH
They do not LISTEN to the TRUTH
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
Whether you want to call them ineptocrats or Husseinites they all have this in common.
They do not want to SEE the TRUTH.
They do not SPEAK the TRUTH
They do not LISTEN to the TRUTH
And your three monkeys actually have names
Congress who will not see it
The media who will not speak of it
And
SCOTUS who will not hear it.
Sorry but I have no links to back up that claim. Just my opinion.
jollyroger88805
New member
You don't have to be a birther on this thread BUT you do have to post facts and truths. If you think those of us on here are birthers because we believe in the Constitution, Supreme Court Opinions/Rulings and the History of our Founders & Forefathers, then forgive us when we think of you as ineptocrats and Husseinites.
Just so you know the definition of ineptocrats and Husseinites are those people who blindly pledge alleigance to & follow an individual instead of following the laws of the land. They intentionally set out to destroy the Constitution.
The monkey picture above is the child's dictionary to the definition of ineptocrats and Husseinites. Whenever you want to be schooled in Constitution, Supreme Court Opinions/Rulings and History of our Founders & Forefathers I do have an opening in the 101 class. Care to enroll?
The 101 class covers the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"
Last edited:
jollyroger88805
New member
I'm wonderin' .....
If one simply posts "fact" in front of whatever they say, does that render their comment true?
If so ...
Fact: I'm the awesomest dude ever.
That may be true BUT when they are facts which you obviously can't refute because you attack the way the post was made and not the content. Bring it on which one of the FACTS were wrong.
Now I do not know you well enough to know whether you are the "awesomest dude ever". So I guess I need to ask for the same thing you asked of me please provide the SOURCE of your FACT. I provided what you wanted. Will you be as courteous and reciprocate? Or will you need to declare your FACT to be false?
Kane
New member
In your queer defense of Obama, jpr, your premise is to marginalize those that oppose you as mere "birthers", not deserving to be heard.
What the People are simply saying, esquire, is that Barack Hussein Obama, suffering so from narcissistic grandiosty, feels that the Law is for the little people - not applicable to someone as awesome as you and he.
But the People take offense to his loathing, demanding still to be heard. Why can't the courts listen? Why can't you listen?
.
What the People are simply saying, esquire, is that Barack Hussein Obama, suffering so from narcissistic grandiosty, feels that the Law is for the little people - not applicable to someone as awesome as you and he.
But the People take offense to his loathing, demanding still to be heard. Why can't the courts listen? Why can't you listen?
.
Last edited:
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
Despite your demands that we show some evidence, we have seen no such substance from you. Rhetoric yes.
You seem to have some belief the FF is a repository of truths. It is in fact, a wonderful collection of comments and opinions.
Nothing More.
We are new here, but hardly newbies
All credentials aside you are still just another guy with an opinion.
Prove me wrong.
I have proposed a belief in a fraud. Here is one expert who's assertions have convinced me, there is at least some smoke.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=305705#ixzz1O9We0NE8
Cowboy
Wait for it.
FYI , this topic has been debated by a lot of us in at least 100 threads that I know of in the last few years. I could be wrong but maybe thats what JPR meant as far as a few of you being new.
It just seems to me that when some new people join its allways those of us that have posted info, links and our opinions to go back and dig through the past threads to explain some of our points. Otherwise its old news, nothing has changed because of it, and it dont look like its going to anytime soon, no matter which side of the isle you are on. Just my thoughts on the subject.
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
FYI , this topic has been debated by a lot of us in at least 100 threads that I know of in the last few years. I could be wrong but maybe thats what JPR meant as far as a few of you being new.
It just seems to me that when some new people join its allways those of us that have posted info, links and our opinions to go back and dig through the past threads to explain some of our points. Otherwise its old news, nothing has changed because of it, and it dont look like its going to anytime soon, no matter which side of the isle you are on. Just my thoughts on the subject.
I understand Cowboy. Listen, I have debated this subject on other forums for years and if post counts mean anything , one of those Forums has 11,300 of my posts in three years. Doesn't mean anything.
Because reviewing all of the posts you guys have done here is
1) tedious and complicated research thrua lot of unrelated comments and subject diversions
2)Admittedly, there is not the best search feature on this site, a rather common problem.
3) what is being presented here today is recent events, not old ones.
As you said, Old news.
If there is "something you old guys posted back there, then go get it yourself and present it. Or at least post a link. Don't ask a newwbie to "go look."
So, suggesting that us "newbies" are virginal and need to do our homework, here on FF's, is rather pretentious, don't you think? I simply reacted to that charge.
No offense intended as this site is awesome. And so are it's contributing members.
Thanks for your advice.
jpr62902
Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
Get over yourself. It's pretentious to show up at a site expecting others to update you on topics that have already been hashed and rehashed.
grizzer
New member
Actually Cowboy this subject is very much alive and in some cases HOT!
Congressional Research Service produced another obfuscating piece 11/14/11.
A few days ago an update to wikipedia "natural born citizen" was stripped out within MINUTES of posting.
In some cases like Justia a trap was laid in wait for the left to start scrubbing false info and was caught red handed...
What was attacks on Obama have now merged into focus on the democratic party itself committing fraud in pushing Obama certification. Pelosi usurped HI law in 2008 to get Obama on the ballot secretly - harsh light of exposure will pre-empt it this time, including any secret SCOTUS meetings with the president elect (without the other party in attendance)
From where I sit this is far more dynamic and interesting than any canned "debates".
Congressional Research Service produced another obfuscating piece 11/14/11.
A few days ago an update to wikipedia "natural born citizen" was stripped out within MINUTES of posting.
In some cases like Justia a trap was laid in wait for the left to start scrubbing false info and was caught red handed...
What was attacks on Obama have now merged into focus on the democratic party itself committing fraud in pushing Obama certification. Pelosi usurped HI law in 2008 to get Obama on the ballot secretly - harsh light of exposure will pre-empt it this time, including any secret SCOTUS meetings with the president elect (without the other party in attendance)
From where I sit this is far more dynamic and interesting than any canned "debates".
FrancSevin
Proudly Deplorable
I didn't "expect" anything.
You told me to go search something of which YOU claim to be an expert. I just wondered why I had to look through everything on the board to find some nugget you could have just been polite and brought forward. But from you, not even a hint.
It also appears to difficult a task for you to be polite.Me thinks you simply cannot meet the very bar you placed before me.
Thanks so much for your kindness. But having seen none of the wisdom or wealth of knowledg of which you hold so dear being presented, I'll just have to plod along best I can.
Of what little of the world I do know this I know for sure,,,the more I learn the more I learn how much I don't know.
I also know this, your little affection for me, isn't the subject of the thread. So, unless you have something of substance, ,,,,,,, I would humbly suggest,,,,we are done here.
jollyroger88805
New member
jpr I have given you sources and facts on all my responses to you. I have not seen any sources or facts posted on your part. Well I should ammend that somewhat. You comments are almost 100% quoted from the book, "Just because I said so". It works almost as well as quoting from Snopes.
Kane
New member
jpr I have given you sources and facts on all my responses to you. I have not seen any sources or facts posted on your part. Well I should ammend that somewhat. You comments are almost 100% quoted from the book, "Just because I said so". It works almost as well as quoting from Snopes.
It also begs the nagging question as to why jpr feels Obama is exempt from the Law and why Obama spent reported millions of dollars to dance around it?
Is the Rule of Law just for the little people?
.
jollyroger88805
New member
That is exactly what it will be "Rule of Law" for the little people as soon as Obama finishes destroying the Constitution. That is what scares me the most. You see the Constitution is the only protection I have agaiinst people like Obama.
jollyroger88805
New member
joec WOW how can anyone say well dah he got away using a fraudulent SS# 3 times so that makes it legal. How pathetic! You condone illegal activity just because you voted for this usurper. What will it take before you see the con man that Obama is.
1. No background
2. What is known shows him to be a socialist
3. Fake documents for ID
4. Family has a history of being illegal in this country or thrown out.
5. At every turn claims to be a christian but actions refute that
6. Doesn't know or understand American history or geography
7. Fast and Furious colaborator
8. Doesn't uphold U.S. laws instead sues States that try to uphold them
9. Apologizes for America without reason
10. Bows to Muslim and Socialist foreign leaders
11. Uses U.S. tax dollars to fund foreign abortions
12. Has spent more money in 3 years than all the previous Presidents combined
13. Has been sued and hid behind court procedure more than any person who has sat in the White House
14. Only person to be so non-transparent that millions of people are demanding to see his credentials
15. Only person to every have sat in the White House that several States are now being petitioned to keep his name off any ballot
16. The man behind the unConstitutional Obamacare mandate
17. The man who declared the Fort Hood killings a "work place hazard" preventing the Purple Heart being awarded to the victims
18. The man who threatens both the elderly and the military with cutting off their checks
And these were just some general attributes of the usurper.
jollyroger88805
New member
IF you have debated this as long as you said you should be able to post facts without having to go back and look them up. IF they were facts then they are still facts and be easy to state. Being relative newbies as you say doesn't mean you can just sluff off your opinions as facts to those of us who know better. I have yet to see you refute ANY of my posts. I'll make them both very plain for you to try to refute.FYI , this topic has been debated by a lot of us in at least 100 threads that I know of in the last few years. I could be wrong but maybe thats what JPR meant as far as a few of you being new.
It just seems to me that when some new people join its allways those of us that have posted info, links and our opinions to go back and dig through the past threads to explain some of our points. Otherwise its old news, nothing has changed because of it, and it dont look like its going to anytime soon, no matter which side of the isle you are on. Just my thoughts on the subject.
1. Obama is not a natural born citizen according to the Constitution.
2. Obama is using a fraudulent SS#
I look forward to anything you wish to put up to refute that.
Time to...........
