# Kangaroo court in DC playing games with Obama SSN case



## grizzer

Plus updates on NH, GA and HI.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12...certificate-case-and-obama-ballot-challenges/

I submitted an appeal in the District of Columbia, and there is a problem there. I filed appeals in the case against the Commissioner of Social Security, Taitz v. Astrue; and Taitz v. Ruemmler (White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler). I got a letter saying I needed to pay $450 for each, so I sent two checks for $450 each. About a month later, I got a letter from the District Court saying that the fee is $455, not $450, and they voided those checks. 

So I attached new checks and sent them with a letter for $455 each. I sent it certified mail and I have the receipt. Now I have a letter from the Court of Appeals saying that the fee is $450 and they didn’t get my checks. They also assigned a different number which I posted on my website. I sent a letter to them again with all of the exhibits and information. I could never even imagine what those people are doing: they’re not accepting documents, hiding documents, not accepting checks; they’re just playing games. I feel as if I’m back in the Soviet Union.


----------



## muleman RIP

Duck and jive shuffle Chicago style. Hoping to stall it past the election filing times.


----------



## Kane

After three years we still don't know who this man is.  No high school friends, no college buddies, no college scholarship info (just who paid for his education?), no university transcripts, no SSN, no nuttin'.  

All we know about him is from his anti-colonist father, that he had one adult friend (an unrepentant terrorist) and a preacher that taught him the virtues of black liberation theology and collective salvation for twenty years.  

All that we have learned about him is that he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and grandiosity, but beyond that, nuttin'.

Maybe the left figures they will give him four more years to come straight.

Me?  Knowing nothing is enough.
.


----------



## joec

Well one would think the following is easy enough to check if they really wanted too.



> In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the _Harvard Law Review_ at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year.


 So I'm sure he published something and one of the other students there would of known of him.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> Well one would think the following is easy enough to check if they really wanted too.
> 
> So I'm sure he published something and one of the other students there would of known of him.



You would think, wouldn't you *joec*.  But not a soul has come forward.


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> You would think, wouldn't you *joec*. But not a soul has come forward.


 
I wonder if anyone really looked, really. If they did their conspiracy theories to end all conspiracies would then be over. This has about as much in the way of truth as Bush had the twin towers destroyed. Hell every time people running for office sneeze it is noted by some opposition research group looking to bring them down. Like Hillary or McCain didn't both opposition research groups and never mind the press as they was in the Obama bag at the time.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> I wonder if anyone really looked, really. If they did their conspiracy theories to end all conspiracies would then be over. This has about as much in the way of truth as Bush had the twin towers destroyed. Hell every time people running for office sneeze it is noted by some opposition research group looking to bring them down. Like Hillary or McCain didn't both opposition research groups and never mind the press as they was in the Obama bag at the time.



To my knowledge, there are but three people come forward to have known Obama during his college days at Columbia.  The rest of his life-story is a blank sheet of paper.  Transcripts sealed, scholarship info missing.  I do recall early on during the 2008 election seeing one bit of scholarship paperwork listing him as a foreign exchange student, but it seems to have been scrubbed.


----------



## joec

Now I have never seen anything on him and he was in government both state and national for a few years prior to even announcing he would run. He was even a speaker at a Democratic Convention and no one had him on the radar since then? For some reason I have serious doubts about that but at any rate it is what it is now and it is to me a waste to keep beating a dead horse as they say.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> Now I have never seen anything on him and he was in government both state and national for a few years prior to even announcing he would run. He was even a speaker at a Democratic Convention and no one had him on the radar since then? For some reason I have serious doubts about that but at any rate it is what it is now and it is to me a waste to keep beating a dead horse as they say.



Well, it ain't exactly a dead horse if there is a chance he could by POTUS another four years.  I wonder if the right will dig a little harder this time.  Recall McCain vowed to not do the Bill Ayers thing in 2008, and only for Palin that ANY questions were asked.


----------



## Cowboy

Kane said:


> To my knowledge, there are but three people come forward to have known Obama during his college days at Columbia. The rest of his life-story is a blank sheet of paper. Transcripts sealed, scholarship info missing. I do recall early on during the 2008 election seeing one bit of scholarship paperwork listing him as a foreign exchange student, but it seems to have been scrubbed.


 Then there were those accusations about Obamas gay affairs that also seemed to be buryed very quickly, which I posted about the other day cuz I love beating dead horses when they stink that bad.


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> Now I have never seen anything on him and he was in government both state and national for a few years prior to even announcing he would run. He was even a speaker at a Democratic Convention and no one had him on the radar since then? For some reason I have serious doubts about that but at any rate it is what it is now and it is to me a waste to keep beating a dead horse as they say.


 

You are, of course, quite right Joec.

There are some 11 million people here in the US with as valid a document as Bark Hussein Obama to qualify for a federal Government job.

Questioning their residency here is also "beating a dead Horse?" 

The point you comments have missed is that any person who is asking for the public trust should have been vetted as legaly within the country. It is entirely possible therefore that Barry has not been so since his days at Harvard. And no one is allowed to question that?

I am not a "birther" but I understand the position of those who are. We get notices from Social Security when numbers are not valid. Those folks either prove they are right or they get fired. If not, I could be arrested for keeping them on my employment rolls.

How come Barry's invalid SS number is not questioned in the same way?


----------



## joec

Because he has a valid SS number that is why. Now as I explained a couple of times before in regards to this. There is no requirement nor has there ever been a requirement to be a resident of a state to apply and get a SS card. They don't even use the first digits any more to designate the state it was issued. So in a word the location means nothing really. 

The example I use is I happen to of been born and raised in Florida and got my SS card there. Now all my kids where born there also however 2 have their SS issued in other states as they never got one when they was in Florida. Both went into the service right out of high school with only part time jobs not requiring them to have one. Now both got their first SS Card in Boot Camp one in San Diego the other in Georgia. 

I've also heard theories put forward that both his mother and father where working for the CIA and hence the limited background on any of them.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> Because he has a valid SS number that is why. Now as I explained a couple of times before in regards to this. There is no requirement nor has there ever been a requirement to be a resident of a state to apply and get a SS card. They don't even use the first digits any more to designate the state it was issued. So in a word the location means nothing really.
> 
> The example I use is I happen to of been born and raised in Florida and got my SS card there. Now all my kids where born there also however 2 have their SS issued in other states as they never got one when they was in Florida. Both went into the service right out of high school with only part time jobs not requiring them to have one. Now both got their first SS Card in Boot Camp one in San Diego the other in Georgia.
> 
> I've also heard theories put forward that both his mother and father where working for the CIA and hence the limited background on any of them.



You have yo understand, *joec*, that this isn't Obama's first SSN card.  He's had three that I've been made aware of, along with a couple names.   I'll find the old link again when I have some time.


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> You have yo understand, *joec*, that this isn't Obama's first SSN card. He's had three that I've been made aware of, along with a couple names. I'll find the old link again when I have some time.


 
Really now that I would like to see proof off as that might convince me this isn't pure conspiracy theory along the lines of Manchurian Candidate on steroids.


----------



## jpr62902

What source says that Obama's SSN is invalid?

What source says that Obama has 3 different SSN's?


----------



## muleman RIP

jpr62902 said:


> What source says that Obama's SSN is invalid?
> 
> What source says that Obama has 3 different SSN's?


Some guy in Ohio named Jim!


----------



## jpr62902

muleman said:


> Some guy in Ohio named Jim!


 
Now you're just makin' sh!t up, Mulie.


----------



## muleman RIP




----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> Because he has a valid SS number that is why. Now as I explained a couple of times before in regards to this. There is no requirement nor has there ever been a requirement to be a resident of a state to apply and get a SS card. They don't even use the first digits any more to designate the state it was issued. So in a word the location means nothing really.
> 
> The example I use is I happen to of been born and raised in Florida and got my SS card there. Now all my kids where born there also however 2 have their SS issued in other states as they never got one when they was in Florida. Both went into the service right out of high school with only part time jobs not requiring them to have one. Now both got their first SS Card in Boot Camp one in San Diego the other in Georgia.
> 
> I've also heard theories put forward that both his mother and father where working for the CIA and hence the limited background on any of them.


Your "Now as I explained a couple of times before in regards to this." is more an indictment than an explanation to excuse Obama.
1. Your kids were IN the state where they got their SS#. I am sure the first 3 numbers will match up with the state where they got them. Obama was NEVER IN Connecticutt. A place where he would have had to be in order to legally get the number he is using. 
2. The Social Security Administration I am sure would verify your kids were issued the number they are using. The SSA will not verify Obama's SS#. But the SSA HAS VERIFIED that Obama was NEVER ISSUED the SS# Obama is using.
3. I bet your kids' SS#'s would pass E-verify. Obama's SS# failed E-verify 

Now please explain how and on what basis you claim that Obama's SS# is valid.


----------



## joec

You do realize that when Obama was a child his mother, father, grandparents etc could of applied for his Social Security card the same as my wife did and got one for my daughter when she was still and infant. By the way times have changed a lot since then as the first 3 number no longer designate the state and they are issued at birth today.

There is also the theory out there that his parents were CIA operatives which could also be an explanation. There is a book out there based on that theory also. Now I personally don't buy either of these but as I said one would think it really doesn't matter much at this point. We would be stuck with him now.


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> You do realize that when Obama was a child his mother, father, grandparents etc could of applied for his Social Security card the same as my wife did and got one for my daughter when she was still and infant. By the way times have changed a lot since then as the first 3 number no longer designate the state and they are issued at birth today.
> 
> There is also the theory out there that his parents were CIA operatives which could also be an explanation. There is a book out there based on that theory also. Now I personally don't buy either of these but as I said one would think it really doesn't matter much at this point. We would be stuck with him now.


 
And there is the theory that he was placed here by alien extraterrestrial. So,

Newly postulated theories don't discount or debunk older ones. There simply would be no reason for a Connecticut SSN which in 1959 still used the state ID in the first 3 digits.

But nothing is proven by that. After all, he could have gottenthe SS# as a foreign exchange student living there when he went to Harvard. Or any of the Ivy league institutions from which virtualy no one seems to remember him attending.

Other than publishing the law review at Harvard he must have been a rather unremarkable student. At least Billy Clinton and his willy had the female crowd noting his presence. 

As For passing E-verify, I guess I don't have to hire Barry if he turns up at my door.
A good thing because I wouldn't. 

So,   Why do we have to hire him again for Prez?


----------



## joec

So you believe this BS Franc? I don't know why I figured you would be above the birther stuff. I guess not though.


----------



## grizzer

Here is Bari Shabazz SSN issued mid 1970's NYC typically when 1st job required it. Obama family narrative 1st job was at a DQ in mid 70's... Now, poor Obama's CT stolen SSN was 1st used to doctor selective service registration in 1988, and caught attempting to retroactive it 1981 ish. 

Obama & Bill Ayres at Columbia U NYC in 1981, What was that SSN Obama used to register earlier at Occidental College in CA?

Now lessee that weather underground armored car shootout - cop[ killing, was 1981 in NY with operatives using stolen CT ID's, thanks to Bernadette Dohrn aka future Mrs. Bill Ayres, one carload of operatives escaped, including a black man.

http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/bari%e2%80%b2-barry-barack/

I’ve got tragic news to report, on this *All Souls Day*: in August 1994, at the prime-of-life age of 34, five years younger than was his father Malcolm at his untimely death, *Bâri′* *M. Shabazz* was reported to have died.
From the Social Security Death Index database:
*SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926*
*Hmmm ….. August 1994: Bâri′ M. Shabazz has passed on. *
Oh dear. Whatever will become of all those Dreams Bâri′ was conceived to carry forth?
Not to worry. He didn’t really die. His birth identity ‘had’ to die.
Why?
Let’s see. 1994. 1994. Oh! That’s right! On 21 August 1994, the Illinois State Senate seat ‘officially’ opened up! Its occupant, Alice Palmer – for whom “Barack Obama” was working – could now set her sights on indicted Mel Reynolds’ Congressional seat.
“Barack Obama” was prepping to step out as a political candidate!!
“Congressman Mel Reynolds, the Democrat convicted of 12 charges, including sex with 16-year-old Beverly Heard and asking her to take pornographic photographs of a 15-year old, was indicted on August 21, 1994.”
http://newsbusters.org/node/8110#ixzz1OM9ilHH9
What with his prodigious plans, “Barack Obama” certainly couldn’t risk having *Bâri′ M. Shabazz* walking around, now, could he?!
A simple report was all that was needed.
The SSDI record states that the death information for *Bâri′ M. Shabazz* was coded “V”.
*V *signifies: *“Verified*: Report verified with a family member or _someone acting on behalf of a family member_.”
The report is *not* coded *“*P*“.*
*P *signifies: *“(Proof): Death Certificate Observed”.*
This distinction is critical._Notice of death was made by an informant who did not present verification of his/her reporting, that is, no death certificate was presented with the notification of death._
“SSA receives reports of death from a variety of sources, including friends and relatives of deceased individuals, funeral homes, postal authorities, financial institutions, and Federal and State agencies. Friends, relatives, and funeral homes report about 90 percent of deaths. Postal authorities and financial institutions report another 5 percent of deaths.”
*Once in the federal system, the record was flagged as ‘PE’*, meaning that _an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files_.
Oooops.
Complications.
And now, since you’ve had the forbearance to read along this far, I offer you comic relief.
T*he first listed address for Bâri′ M. Shabazz is*: guess where?
*One street over from Malcolm X’s house!*
*From baby’s conception in 1959 through shortly before Malcolm’s death in 1965, Malcolm lived just one street over from Bâri′ M. Shabazz’s first address in East Elmhurst, New York.*
*The first address listed for Bâri′ M. Shabazz is 32-26 98th Street*, Apt.1, East Elmhurst, New York.
Malcolm’s 1959 address was *25-46 99th Street*, East Elmhurst, New York.
Malcolm and his family resided at *23-11 97th St*. East Elmhurst, New York, from July 1960 through February 18, 1965, three days before his death.
*BM Shabazz (Bari M Shabazz)*
B 10/28/59
D 8/94
SSN 084545926
Residences
Street Address City Name on phone Phone #
1 3226 98TH ST APT 1 EAST ELMHURST, NY 11369
2 32 98 EAST ELMHURST, NY 11369
3 HQCO SUC BN QUANTICO, VA
4 1 HQ CO MCDEC QUANTICO, VA
5 HQ CO SERV BN QUANTICO, VA
6 99999 MILITARY APT QUANTICO, VA 22134
7 HQCO HQSVCBN MCDEC QUANTICO, VA 22134
8 HQCO SERV BN QUANTICO, VA
9 99999 MILITARY APT QUANTICO, VA 22134
Source: Intellius.


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> You do realize that when Obama was a child his mother, father, grandparents etc could of applied for his Social Security card the same as my wife did and got one for my daughter when she was still and infant. By the way times have changed a lot since then as the first 3 number no longer designate the state and they are issued at birth today.
> 
> There is also the theory out there that his parents were CIA operatives which could also be an explanation. There is a book out there based on that theory also. Now I personally don't buy either of these but as I said one would think it really doesn't matter much at this point. We would be stuck with him now.


 *Joe listen to yourself. Reality is Obama, his daddy, his mommy, his grand parents both paternal and maternal NEVER were in Connecticutt. His Aunt and Uncle who are here also never lived in Connecticutt. Remember he said he never knew they were in the U.S. That may be true because they are here illegally too. When Obama supposedly got his SS# the first 3 numbers WERE ASSIGNED according to the States where the cards were applied for.*

*You have absolutely no way to show Obama's use of SS#*
*042-68-4425 is legal. He is using a fake I.D. and you are condoning his use of it by trying to defend him. Surely now you can see how he is using people like you to cover his crime. You said you got your SS# in Fla. So ask yourself if you never were in Fla and none of your family were ever in Fla. how would it be legal for you to use a Fla. SS# ? The reality is it would not be legal. There is no way Obama is using a legal SS#. The Social Security Administration HAS VERIFIED THE SS# Obama IS USING WAS NOT ISSUED TO HIM. E-VERIFY HAS VERIFIED HIS SS# TO NOT BE VALID FOR Obama. You can not get around the fact OBAMA IS USING A FRAUDULENT SS#.*


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> So you believe this BS Franc? I don't know why I figured you would be above the birther stuff. I guess not though.


 
I am not a birther sir. Pay attention please as I have said it often.

I do however have to question the facts as presented in the OP. Whenever and whereever anyone has attempted to get this question resolved in court, they have been stymied by proceedural BullShit. The pervasivenous of this tactic has prevented any suit from ever being presented in a Court.
That sir, troubles me and it should trouble you. 

I have had to prove my birthbplace and my birthright many times. I don't have my finger on the proverbial Nuclear button and, more importantly, a key to the Treasury.
And now, by law, I must verify the birthright eligibility of every person I hire. If I fail to do so, I can gaurrentee myself some time in a courtroom proving something. But it would appear, I am not allowed to question a man from Kenya/Indonisia,Hawaii(maybe) who can send my children to war.


If we are a nation of laws, equaly employed, then explain the difference.


----------



## Kane

Oh, I suppose it could just be a mistake.

The SSN's of a person born (or applying for SSN) in Connecticut usually begins with a zero (0).  The SSN of a person in Hawaii usually begins with a nine (9).  So maybe someone just entered the first number as a zero when they should have correctly entered a nine.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Kane

Tell me who paid for Obama's education, some of it as a foreign exchange student?


----------



## FrancSevin

Kane said:


> Oh, I suppose it could just be a mistake.
> 
> The SSN's of a person born (or applying for SSN) in Connecticut usually begins with a zero (0). The SSN of a person in Hawaii usually begins with a nine (9). So maybe someone just entered the first number as a zero when they should have entered a nine.
> 
> Just sayin'.


 
Kane, clearly anything is possible. Including the charges that Barry is a poser. Doesn't matter at this point because the damage is done. SCOTUS won't touch this under any circumstances, 50% of the populatin still wants their benes,,,,,,, and, so,,,,we are stuck with him.


----------



## joec

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.  He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School  from 1992 to 2004. So perhaps it was a combinations of education loans, parents help and working while going to school I would guess is to how he paid for his education.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.  He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School  from 1992 to 2004. So perhaps it was a combinations of education loans, parents help and working while going to school I would guess is to how he paid for his education.



That's a lot of high-priced education.  You can strike "parents help" and "working", so how did Obama pay for so much school?


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> That's a lot of high-priced education. You can strike "parents help" and "working", so how did Obama pay for so much school?


 
Perhaps with scholarships and student loans. His grandparents are broke either as far as I understand it. Many other students get these high priced educations the same way especially minority kids do. He also drew a salary as a community organizer while he was getting his law degree as he did that while attending school. Michelle Obama also comes to mind as father wasn't a rich man either and she meet him in collage..


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. So perhaps it was a combinations of education loans, parents help and working while going to school I would guess is to how he paid for his education.


* Joec Am I to take it that you agree that SS# Obama is using is fraudulent since you haven't replied and have changed the subject to where he worked. What he education was or how he got paid or some other non-relevant issue? *


----------



## jollyroger88805

Kane said:


> Oh, I suppose it could just be a mistake.
> 
> The SSN's of a person born (or applying for SSN) in Connecticut usually begins with a zero (0). The SSN of a person in Hawaii usually begins with a nine (9). So maybe someone just entered the first number as a zero when they should have correctly entered a nine.
> 
> Just sayin'.


 *Wrong Wrong Wrong At the time Obama's SS# was issued Hawaii's indicator numbers were *575-576 HI 
*No error explanation. But EVEN if that were a possiblity it doesn't fit Obama's use of 042-68-4425. You see the Social Security office has said 042-68-4425 has not been issued to Obama. AND E-Verify has verified it doesn't belong to Obama. Lets see if you can come up with another incorrect explanation.*


----------



## joec

No I don't he has a social security number the same as anyone that works in this country. As to where he got it I listed how he could of come by from Connecticut though he may of never worked or lived there. As a minor his mother, step father, grandfather, grandmother etc could of gotten if they where  ever there. I might add it could of also be a simple clerical error also. Now would bet that the SS # given is his since those numbers are not normally part of public records regardless and are illegal to use as identification either way. As far as I'm concerned he was born in Hawaii and believe his birth certificate is ligament and he is a citizen of the US and as such can and did run for president. I find the birther arguments about as mind boggling as the ones about Bush bombing the Twin Towers.


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> No I don't he has a social security number the same as anyone that works in this country. As to where he got it I listed how he could of come by from Connecticut though he may of never worked or lived there. As a minor his mother, step father, grandfather, grandmother etc could of gotten if they where ever there. I might add it could of also be a simple clerical error also. Now would bet that the SS # given is his since those numbers are not normally part of public records regardless and are illegal to use as identification either way. As far as I'm concerned he was born in Hawaii and believe his birth certificate is ligament and he is a citizen of the US and as such can and did run for president. I find the birther arguments about as mind boggling as the ones about Bush bombing the Twin Towers.


* Joec I am going to make this real simple. Obama is and has been using SS# issued in Connectitcutt 042-68-4425. The Social Security Administration has verified that that particular SS# was not and has not been issued to him. Since it has not been issued to him it is not his SS#, plain and simple. Your opinion of how he might have gotten it holds no weight. And especially since the SSA has verified it is NOT his SS#. It is also a known fact Obama never was in Connecticutt. But lets say he was. The SSA still says that SS# 042-68-4425 was NOT issued to Obama! You have yet to put forth any possibility that disproves Obama is using a fraudulent SS#. And I haven't mentioned a thing about where he was born. How does that make his fraudulent use of a SS# a birther issue? Would you like to try another incorrect explanation to defend this usurper in chump?*


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> .


_"was born in Hawaii and believe his birth certificate is ligament and he is a citizen of the US and as such can and did run for president."_

Actually Joec that is not enough. He must be a "naural born citizen" and that is quite different.

But, all atempts to have this little detail resolved have met with legal obstacles and such sidestepping rulings and declaring the litigant as having "no standing" on the issue being brought before the court. This should seem a simple matter.

But apparently, if you are the chosen one, it is not so "Simple" And since he has been certified by so many who should have vetted him but didn't, it is an embarrasing question. The answer to which many do not wish to chance.


The SCOTUS will never hear this case. Doesn't mean they shouldn't. It just means that they won't.


----------



## joec

jollyroger88805 said:


> * Joec I am going to make this real simple. Obama is and has been using SS# issued in Connectitcutt 042-68-4425. The Social Security Administration has verified that that particular SS# was not and has not been issued to him. Since it has not been issued to him it is not his SS#, plain and simple. Your opinion of how he might have gotten it holds no weight. And especially since the SSA has verified it is NOT his SS#. And I haven't mentioned a thing about where he was born. How does that make his fraudulent use of a SS# a birther issue? Would you like to try another incorrect explanation to defend this usurper in chump?*


 
And you know that is his social security number for sure? I sure wouldn't let mine become common knowledge would you?


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> And you know that is his social security number for sure? I sure wouldn't let mine become common knowledge would you?


 *Hmmmm let me think a second. Yes I am sure. Obama used it to apply for his Selective Service Registration. And it was not redacted from the Senate financial disclosure statement he made and it is the same as the Selective Service Registration SS#.*
*Do you have any more excuses you want eliminated?*


----------



## joec

Well then I guess that is his social security number then and if he applied for Selective Service Registration and his financial disclosure then it would have to be acceptable I would think then.


----------



## joec

FrancSevin said:


> _"was born in Hawaii and believe his birth certificate is ligament and he is a citizen of the US and as such can and did run for president."_
> 
> Actually Joec that is not enough. He must be a "naural born citizen" and that is quite different.
> 
> But, all atempts to have this little detail resolved have met with legal obstacles and such sidestepping rulings and declaring the litigant as having "no standing" on the issue being brought before the court. This should seem a simple matter.
> 
> But apparently, if you are the chosen one, it is not so "Simple" And since he has been certified by so many who should have vetted him but didn't, it is an embarrasing question. The answer to which many do not wish to chance.
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS will never hear this case. Doesn't mean they shouldn't. It just means that they won't.


 
Natural Born so what does that mean to you then? His mother and America citizen he is born in one of the states or possessions of the US. McCain was born in Panama as is considered a natural born citizen as he was born in a local hospital just off the US Naval base his father was station at. If I understand it a kid even of Mexican parents here illegally if born here is a natural born citizen.


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> Natural Born so what does that mean to you then? His mother and America citizen he is born in one of the states or possessions of the US. McCain was born in Panama as is considered a natural born citizen as he was born in a local hospital just off the US Naval base his father was station at. If I understand it a kid even of Mexican parents here illegally if born here is a natural born citizen.


 
It matters not a twit what it means to me sir. That would be an opinion. What matters is what it means to the law. And that sir is the question the court has avoided, at all costs, having to answer.

Why can they not resolve this? It would put half of the Birther's arguments asleep, or confirmed. Some would suggest such anigmatic arguments are just what Bari needs for smokescreens.

BTW, McCain was certified by the Senate as natural born. vetted, cleared and done.  Wonder who demanded the test?


----------



## joec

FrancSevin said:


> It matters not a twit what it means to me sir. That would be an opinion. What matters is what it means to the law. And that sir is the question the court has avoided, at all costs, having to answer.
> 
> Why can they not resolve this? It would put half of the Birther's arguments asleep, or confirmed. Some would suggest such anigmatic arguments are just what Bari needs for smokescreens.
> 
> BTW, McCain was certified by the Senate as natural born. vetted, cleared and done. Wonder who demanded the test?


 
I know McCain was as was others in our history as well. Now I have no idea why the SCOTUS takes only a few cases a year but the take less now than the did in previous times. I sure don't have the answer on this. I do know I don't buy the birther arguments especially at this point. Think about if they one their argument our president would be Joe Biden.


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> Well then I guess that is his social security number then and if he applied for Selective Service Registration and his financial disclosure then it would have to be acceptable I would think then.


 *How naive can a person be.? Obama uses a SS# that the Social Security Administration did not issue to him.*
*Fact: Only the Social Security Administration can issue SS#'s*
*Fact: The Social Security # Obama is using WAS NOT ISSUED to him by the SSA.*
*Fact: If you use a SS# that has not been issued by the SSA to you then you obtained it illegally and are using it illegally.*

*A person would have to be naive and gullible to accept the lies and fraudulent documents being put forth by Obama. And then to ridicule people who are asking legitimate questions is doublely naive and gullible.*


----------



## joec

jollyroger88805 said:


> *How naive can a person be.? Obama uses a SS# that the Social Security Administration did not issue to him.*
> *Fact: Only the Social Security Administration can issue SS#'s*
> *Fact: The Social Security # Obama is using WAS NOT ISSUED to him by the SSA.*
> *Fact: If you use a SS# that has not been issued by the SSA to you then you obtained it illegally and are using it illegally.*
> 
> *A person would have to be naive and gullible to accept the lies and fraudulent documents being put forth by Obama. And then to ridicule people who are asking legitimate questions is doublely naive and gullible.*


 
So now I'm naive and gullible and accept fraudulent documents? Ok have it your way then and go back to beating a dead horse then. Like it will solve what problems we face today? It seems to be working for him regardless of what any one thinks at this point since he has been in office now for 3 years.


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> So now I'm naive and gullible and accept fraudulent documents? Ok have it your way then and go back to beating a dead horse then. Like it will solve what problems we face today? It seems to be working for him regardless of what any one thinks at this point since he has been in office now for 3 years.


 *First of all I didn't call you naive and gullible. That would be a personal attack. I do not do that. *
*But now that you admitted that he is using a fradulent SS# and has presented fraudulent documents both of which are illegal that makes everything OK because he has gotten away with it for 3 years. That makes no sense. This man is supposed to be upholding ALL the laws of the land. Instead he violates them. And then people want to justify this behavior. It is just totally beyond belief. Now that you know he is breaking the law are you willing to become one of the millions of people who want him brought to justice for violating the law?*


----------



## joec

jollyroger88805 said:


> *First of all I didn't call you naive and gullible. That would be a personal attack. I do not do that. *
> *But now that you admitted that he is using a fradulent SS# and has presented fraudulent documents both of which are illegal that makes everything OK because he has gotten away with it for 3 years. That makes no sense. This man is supposed to be upholding ALL the laws of the land. Instead he violates them. And then people want to justify this behavior. It is just totally beyond belief. Now that you know he is breaking the law are you willing to become one of the millions of people who want him brought to justice for violating the law?*


 
Now you are putting words into my fingers. I said the powers that be are accepting it so evidently those it matter to believe it to be ligament so why would I question it then.


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> Well then I guess that is his social security number then and if he applied for Selective Service Registration and his financial disclosure then it would have to be acceptable I would think then.


 *It is not acceptable or even legal for Obama to be using SS# 042684425. Those agentcies you mention do not verify SS#. That is not their duty. But the Social Security Administration does. Using a fraudulent SS# on official documents does not make it legal. But it appears you do not care if people break the law, especially Obama. Such blind obedience. Too bad it is for an illegal usurper and chump.*


----------



## joec

Nope I sure don't care jolly. To bad you might have to deal with him another 4 years.


----------



## jpr62902

I gotta ask again.  What source says Obama is using a fraudulent SSN?

And I'm gonna ask another one.  What case in particular should the SCOTUS have heard on Obama's eligibility to be POTUS?


----------



## pirate_girl

Interesting posts you're making jollyroger.
Have you made an introduction thread yet and told us more about yourself?


----------



## jollyroger88805

joec said:


> Nope I sure don't care jolly. To bad you might have to deal with him another 4 years.


 *Joec I had a feeling that you were just like Obama and all his Husseinite followers. They have no respect for the law. In fact I do not believe they have ever seen a law that they haven't broken for their selfish interests.*

*And I am not worried about the usurper and chump getting 4 more years. But you should be worried about whether he even is able to get on all the state ballots. But shoot all I need to hope for is that just 1 of the 50 (not 60 like Obama thinks) States keeps him off the ballot. That will make this house of cards crumble.*


----------



## jollyroger88805

pirate_girl said:


> Interesting posts you're making jollyroger.
> Have you made an introduction thread yet and told us more about yourself?


 *No I haven't PG. Is there anything specific you would like to know just ask.*


----------



## jollyroger88805

jpr62902 said:


> I gotta ask again. What source says Obama is using a fraudulent SSN?
> 
> And I'm gonna ask another one. What case in particular should the SCOTUS have heard on Obama's eligibility to be POTUS?


 * 1st question - Social Security Adminisrtration says that the SS# 042-68-4425 Obama is using was never issued to him. That means he is using a fraudulent SS#.*

*2nd question - All that deal with Obama's Constitution eligibilty to hold the office of President.*


----------



## pirate_girl

jollyroger88805 said:


> *No I haven't PG. Is there anything specific you would like to know just ask.*



_*NO, but I thought it would be nice if we all got to know you a little better.
It's not required, but appreciated*__* you colourful poster you..*_


----------



## jpr62902

jollyroger88805 said:


> * 1st question - Social Security Adminisrtration says that the SS# 042-68-4425 Obama is using was never issued to him. That means he is using a fraudulent SS#.*
> 
> *2nd question - All that deal with Obama's Constitution eligibilty to hold the office of President.*


 
The SSA never said that.  Try to back up what you aver, please.


----------



## FrancSevin

jpr62902 said:


> I gotta ask again. What source says Obama is using a fraudulent SSN?
> 
> And I'm gonna ask another one. What case in particular should the SCOTUS have heard on Obama's eligibility to be POTUS?


 

Scotus will not hear a case that has not been appealed through the lower courts. That process normaly takes a bitof time. However, if the lower courts can avoid ruling, then there is not series of appeals and hence the SCOTUS will not be engaged to hear it.

That said,there are several but almost al revolve around the premise that his parentage was not American under the definition of Natural Born Citizen. That and his loss of US citizenship when his stepfather made him a citizen in Indonesia. A status he did not ever change back to USA. 

Many nations recognize dual citizenship but the US does not. So while we have many various legal points here, we do not have a clear vision of where Bari stands in them. It could be settled in the courts but so far no one has had "standing" to bring a case successfuly thru a court process.

Just as the Constitutional legality of Obamacare has ventured thru the system to finaly be heard , expeditiously this session, so must the validity of President Bari Obama. If it is to ever be heard at all.


BTW,the source of the fraudelent SSN is his tax return and his Selective service appliction. As I understand it, the number was somehow not redacted when published. I'm sure Snopes will debunk it. 

Bottom line here is that the question was raised by Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign and never pursued by the press or the secretary of State in any of the 57 states of the Republic.

My personal belief is that she has the goods on this. Hence her position of Secretary of State and likely succession to VP in 2013. 
Biden will resign.


----------



## jpr62902

Lots of generalities, there, Franc.  Some incorrect legal premises, too.


----------



## FrancSevin

jpr62902 said:


> Lots of generalities, there, Franc. Some incorrect legal premises, too.


 
It was a general response to the question. Sorry, but more specifics would require tedious time. You didn't ask for that.
And besides, I am not an attorney. Are you?

As to incorrect legal premises,,,,
Name them.


----------



## jpr62902

jpr62902 said:


> I gotta ask again. What source says Obama is using a fraudulent SSN?
> 
> And I'm gonna ask another one. *What case in particular should the SCOTUS have heard on Obama's eligibility to be POTUS*?


 


FrancSevin said:


> It was a general response to the question. Sorry, but more specifics would require tedious time. You didn't ask for that.
> And besides, I am not an attorney. Are you?
> 
> As to incorrect legal premises,,,,
> Name them.


 
I did ask for specifics, and yes I am.

Incorrect legal premises?  Well, where did Papa Soetoro "make" BHO an Indonesian citizen?

US law does recognize dual citizenship.  Because a person may be a citizen of another country by that sovereign's law, does not, in and of itself (we lawyers would say, "ipso facto") obviate that person's US citizenship.


----------



## Kane

jollyroger88805 said:


> *How naive can a person be.? Obama uses a SS# that the Social Security Administration did not issue to him.*
> *Fact: Only the Social Security Administration can issue SS#'s*
> *Fact: The Social Security # Obama is using WAS NOT ISSUED to him by the SSA.*
> *Fact: If you use a SS# that has not been issued by the SSA to you then you obtained it illegally and are using it illegally.*
> 
> *A person would have to be naive and gullible to accept the lies and fraudulent documents being put forth by Obama. And then to ridicule people who are asking legitimate questions is doublely naive and gullible.*


A post as clear and thoughtful as this is welcomed.  And like you, *jollyroger*, I am puzzled how reasonable people can parse the facts, pretend they are irrelevant and then vilify the messenger.

Welcome to FF.

.


----------



## jpr62902

Kane said:


> A post as clear and thoughtful as this is welcomed. And like you, *jollyroger*, I am puzzled how reasonable people can parse the facts, pretend they are irrelevant and then vilify the messenger.
> 
> Welcome to FF.
> 
> .


 
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

jpr62902 said:


> I did ask for specifics, and yes I am.
> 
> Incorrect legal premises? Well, where did Papa Soetoro "make" BHO an Indonesian citizen?
> 
> US law does recognize dual citizenship. Because a person may be a citizen of another country by that sovereign's law, does not, in and of itself (we lawyers would say, "ipso facto") obviate that person's US citizenship.


 
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.


----------



## jpr62902

Holy carp.  Doesn't anyone believe in sources anymore?  Sorry Franc, but just because you say so, don't make it so.  Try searching some threads here over the last 2 years.  You'll find lots of discussion on this topic already and sources to back it up.


----------



## FrancSevin

jpr62902 said:


> Holy carp. Doesn't anyone believe in sources anymore? Sorry Franc, but just because you say so, don't make it so. Try searching some threads here over the last 2 years. You'll find lots of discussion on this topic already and sources to back it up.


 
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.


----------



## jpr62902

FrancSevin said:


> 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.
> 
> But lawyers,for the most part, like what we have going on now. So keep screaming but you have yet to place a credible link to your statments. Your law degree is likely valid But,,,I don't see it here. And, i 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.
> 
> I, on the other hand, have claimed to be no more than a laymen.


 
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

Kane said:


> A post as clear and thoughtful as this is welcomed. And like you, *jollyroger*, I am puzzled how reasonable people can parse the facts, pretend they are irrelevant and then vilify the messenger.
> 
> Welcome to FF.
> 
> .


 *Thanks Kane I try to make sure I have researched what I post and that it is factual and true.*


----------



## FrancSevin

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*
http://cdn1.newsone.com/files/2009/11/Picture-8.jpg​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.”


----------



## jpr62902

Got it.  This is a birther thread.  Ciao!


----------



## FrancSevin

jpr62902 said:


> 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.


 
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

jpr62902 said:


> The SSA never said that. Try to back up what you aver, please.


 
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

jpr62902 said:


> Got it. This is a birther thread. Ciao!


 
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.


----------



## jollyroger88805

*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

jollyroger88805 said:


> *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

jpr62902 said:


> Got it. This is a birther thread. Ciao!


_*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"*


----------



## jollyroger88805

jpr62902 said:


> 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

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?

.


----------



## jpr62902

To Jolly Roger, Franc and Kane, y'all are relative newbs here.  I've already posted legal authority for my positions.  You folks can stick to your opinions as fervently as you desire, no matter how unfounded they are.  Have a nice day.


----------



## FrancSevin

jpr62902 said:


> To Jolly Roger, Franc and Kane, y'all are relative newbs here. I've already posted legal authority for my positions. You folks can stick to your opinions as fervently as you desire, no matter how unfounded they are. Have a nice day.


 
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

FrancSevin said:


> 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


 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

Cowboy said:


> 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

FrancSevin said:


> 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.



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

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".


----------



## FrancSevin

jpr62902 said:


> 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.


 
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

jpr62902 said:


> To Jolly Roger, Franc and Kane, y'all are relative newbs here. I've already posted legal authority for my positions. You folks can stick to your opinions as fervently as you desire, no matter how unfounded they are. Have a nice day.


 *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

jollyroger88805 said:


> *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

Kane said:


> 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?
> 
> .


*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

joec said:


> Well then I guess that is his social security number then and if he applied for Selective Service Registration and his financial disclosure then it would have to be acceptable I would think then.


 *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

Cowboy said:


> 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.


 *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.*
*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.*


----------



## jollyroger88805

grizzer said:


> 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".


 
*The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen.* 
http://www.youtube.com/


----------



## pirate_girl

Time to...........


----------



## Alonzo Tubbs

Hi JPR.  It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, ain't it?  When do the Ron Paul adds start and why are you wasting your time on this mess again?  Let the Trolls run around until they get tired of running around


----------



## Kane

Alonzo Tubbs said:


> Hi JPR.  It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, ain't it?  When do the Ron Paul adds start and why are you wasting your time on this mess again?  Let the Trolls run around until they get tired of running around



Troll or no troll, sir, why cannot either of you respond to the simple question:  why is Barack Hussein so arrogant?  Why can he not follow the Rule of Law, just like the little people?


----------



## grizzer

I'm gonna step in and defend JPR.

Not from the newbies.   PS (**Way cool video**)

From Alonzo.

JPR labored mightily to prove his points and make his case. I have the highest order of respect for that.

At the time of our (JPR & me) debate neither of us had any idea of the scope and scale of the scam being driven by the White House' Jimmy Johnson and his 100 strong army of OBOTS.

JPR may not have access to some earlier references as the wayback machine has been usurped by Justia. Those clowns should be handcuffed & frog walked out the door in front of MSM cameras. 

Since I started the thread I'll borrow an opinion from 9th(?) Circuit Apellate Court "This matter has been twittered & thus settled."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*CERTIFIGATE*[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]*White House operative heading 'birther' smear campaign?*

[/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Former Fannie Mae chief allegedly manages 100-strong attack team from Pennsylvania Ave*

[/FONT][SIZE=-1]Posted: July 19, 2011
8:21 pm Eastern

[/SIZE]
By Jerome R. Corsi
[SIZE=-1]© 2011 WND [/SIZE]


_This is the third in a series of continuing articles aimed at exposing the "OBOTs" – radical supporters of Barack Obama dedicated to disrupting people who question Obama's eligibility to be president. _

_The first article exposed former California lawyer William L. Bryan, aka "P.J. Foggy." The second rticle exposed Foggy's sidekick, Kurt Coleman, aka "Rikker." _
[COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important][/COLOR] 
[COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]NEW [COLOR=blue !important]YORK[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] – A top Democrat, apparently operating with the full approval and cooperation of the president, has been directing a team of up to 100 who are paid to publish disinformation on a wide variety of websites to discredit "birthers," according to anti-Obama researchers. 

The radical supporters of the president, known as Obama [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]robots[/COLOR][/COLOR], or "OBOTs" for short, have confirmed their White House-appointed ring leader is Democratic Party operative James A. Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae. 

Initially, the OBOTs attempted to mask their Internet identities by posting under usernames with avatars that suggest their personalities. But due largely to the efforts of anti-Obama researchers, including "birthers" vilified by the OBOTs, the true identities of key OBOT operatives have been revealed. 

_Jerome Corsi's book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" is available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore_ 

Remarkably, key OBOT operatives, including possibly Johnson himself, have tended over time to self-identify. Two OBOT usernames – "NeonZX" and "JimBot" – may have been usernames Johnson himself created to cover his tracks. 

If "NeonZX" and "JimBot" are James A. Johnson, a link will have been established between the [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Obama [COLOR=blue !important]White [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]House[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] at the topmost levels and a highly organized disinformation campaign, most likely financed by taxpayer funds. The campaign has been aimed at anyone who challenges Obama's eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. 
WND contacted Johnson's office for comment, but Johnson did not reply. 



Read more: White House operative heading 'birther' smear campaign? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=323913#ixzz1gC9sDrFr[/COLOR]​


----------



## pirate_girl

grizzer said:


> I'm gonna step in and defend JPR.
> 
> 
> JPR labored mightily to prove his points and make his case. I have the highest order of respect for that.



^what he said.


----------



## FrancSevin

Thanks for bringing this foreward Grizzer. That is all I had asked JPR to do. He didn't. Instead repeatedly scolded the "newbies" for not seaching this forumm.
Try that yourself sometime. Blindly searching in strange waters.

My comments are not aimed at you sir but to those who think a high post count automaticaly awards special status. While it may to some degree, it does not also validate one's arguments.

Because someone is new here doesn't mean they are newbies to the subject. With all due respect, those who base their argument on the facts warrant more recognition than those who base their point on their personal seniority.
I invited at least five new members here of whom all had experienced this debate subject for years. We know this game just a bit.

And how the newbies often get treated by the resident "experts. "Respect is earned both ways sir.
I'm not asking for any special respect. But three of us repeated asked for these "debunking" links and were told to go "fish."


----------



## Cowboy

FrancSevin said:


> Thanks for bringing this foreward Grizzer. That is all I had asked JPR to do. He didn't. Instead repeatedly scolded the "newbies" for not seaching this forumm.
> Try that yourself sometime. Blindly searching in strange waters.
> 
> Because someone is new here doesn't mean they are newbies to the subject. With all due respect,,those who base their argument on the facts warrent more recognition than those who base their point on their personal seniority.
> I invited at least five new members here of whom allhad experienced this debate subject for years. We know this game just a bit.
> 
> And how the newbies often get treated by the resident "experts."


 Just keep in mind Franc, the search feature here sucks for us too. 

  I myself have started threads with similiar info that has been posted in this thread with some of the same info, links and videos as lot of the newcomers have posted, I can only search the last 200 of the threads I have posted so I am unable to find where this has been debated before. 

  I might also add that my computer crashed awhile back so I lost all of the info and sources I had saved from back then. 

 And to JollyRoger that quoted my reply, I dont think you read my reply good enough or you might know why I am not "reputing" your claims. I dont consider myself a "birther" but I do know something is seriously wrong with all of the secracy behind these accusations. I have also been following this for quite sometime and as I stated, nothing has been done about it yet and its not looking good for anyone to come clean any time soon about the "supposed" coverup. That dont mean I dont still want answers for myself, I just dont see it happening due to the corruption in this administration.


----------



## Kane

Pardon my paltry post count, but no matter the web site, I am amused to no end by those that still, after three years, defend this president and his inability to define just who he is.

Never mind he spent the first half of his life mixing with anti-colonist Muslims.  Never mind he spent the second half in a collective salvation ministry under a black liberation theologist.  Never mind his affinity with unrepentant terrorists, one of which ghost-wrote his first best-selling book.

And to the OP, thank you, never mind the myriad legal obstacles put to this day in front of those seeking the truth.

So all I ask of those that still defend him, never mind proving to me he was really born in Hawaii, just try to tell me who he really is.

.


----------

