Obama is not eligible for President and how it's covered up

[_bcspace]

Why are there still questions about qualifications? Arguments of president's defenders never actually addressed eligibility

The one subject that has been avoided to date has been whether or not the president is, in fact, eligible.

So far, there have been two definitive statements on the issue that have been made public, including one from an Obama campaign spokeswoman talking about the challenges who told WND, "All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage."

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

As with the court opinions, what is not said is significant. While the certificate on file is "in accordance with state policies and procedures," there's no affirmation that the document reflects a Hawaiian birth.

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state "certification of live birth" that has been posted by Obama on the Internet, purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed that document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

For example, why would an individual with a verified birth certificate also have a "certification of live birth?"

The questions raised over Obama's eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

But getting the issue discussed has been a huge obstacle, and what courts have done several times, including once in a California case, is to schedule hearings on the issue on a date far beyond any reasonable expectation of having applicability, lawyers have said. For example, a challenge to the Electoral College vote for Obama, raised early in November, still hasn't had a court hearing.

The only logical reason why Obama won't come clean and show his actual birth certificate is because he isn't a natural born citizen.

[_cinepro]

BCSpace, if you really believe this garbage, you need to get help.

I mean seriously:

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state "certification of live birth" that has been posted by Obama on the Internet, purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed that document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

The document says "City, Town or Location of Birth: Honolulu. Island of Birth: Oahu. County of Birth: Honolulu.

At the bottom of the document it says "This document serves as the prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

Your only argument is to accuse the Hawaii Department of Health of forging the Birth Certificate (or "Certificate of Live Birth"). Which means somehow the Obama campaign was able to get someone to create a 1961-era birth certificate for Obama, and get it integrated with the Hawaii DOH in such a way that no right-wing nutjob would ever be able to produce evidence that they did it. Which, if they did, means they won and you lost. Sorry.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Hey idiot,

Either this assertion is a purely political ploy, or you don't take your beliefs seriously.

If Obama's birth certificate is indeed a fake, and if he really is a secret Muslim Marxist (that's a logical contradiction, by the way, but I don't suspect that'll stop you from believing it) terrorist, then why are you posting on a damned Mormon message board? Shouldn't you be stocking up on ammo for your compound in Idaho instead of whining about the latest slight against Mormonism? Shouldn't you be trying to assassinate this Manchurian candidate, instead of going to the grocery store (your fatassed family doesn't need any more food, by the way)?

I just don't think that you're being sincere.

[_Calculus Crusader]

(your fatassed family doesn't need any more food, by the way)?

How do you know his family is "fatassed?"

[_JohnStuartMill]

(your fatassed family doesn't need any more food, by the way)?

How do you know his family is "fatassed?"

Clairvoyance. You believe in that BS, don't you?

Seriously, though: a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father told me, right after he told me the meaning of all existence.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Clairvoyance. You believe in that b***s***, don't you?

No. Incidentally, I should think the probability of you being a fat ass is greater, since employment is more difficult to secure with a worthless political "science" degree.

Seriously, though: a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father told me, right after he told me the meaning of all existence.

Like I wrote before, you've already demonstrated your inferior intelligence to me; there is no need to keep swinging at that busted piñata.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Clairvoyance. You believe in that b***s***, don't you?

No. Incidentally, I should think the probability of you being a fat ass is greater, since employment is more difficult to secure with a worthless political "science" degree.

Like I said before: that's what law school is for.

Seriously, though: a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father told me, right after he told me the meaning of all existence.

Like I wrote before, you've already demonstrated your inferior intelligence to me; there is no need to keep swinging at that busted piñata.

Even if you are more intelligent than I am (and I dispute that assertion, make no mistake), that doesn't mean that your belief isn't ridiculous.

It would be "your inferior intelligence to mine," by the way.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Like I wrote before, you've already demonstrated your inferior intelligence to me; there is no need to keep swinging at that busted piñata.

Even if you are more intelligent than I am (and I dispute that assertion, make no mistake), that doesn't mean that your belief isn't ridiculous.

It would be "your inferior intelligence to mine," by the way.

No. You need to read my post again (or, more appropriately, have it read to you). Me is the object of the preposition to.

[_asbestosman]

Intelligence is a funny thing. The same person can show remarkable intelligence and insight at some times and show remarkable foolishness another time. In my opinion, it's foolish to judge someone's intelligence as inferior or superior without something truly remarkable (like having won a Darwin award or the Nobel prize in medicine). It's especially foolhardy to do so over the internet as in-person contact often provides important, though sometimes subtle, clues to a person's intellectual potential.

I've done fairly well in some areas--not exceptional, but enough to impress most of my peers. Some seem convinced that I'm smarter than them or that I'm conceited. Perhaps I am conceited, but I don't think so because in reality I don't think I'm smarter others. I'm just more interested in a few things that work out nicely for school. When I interact with most people, I truly believe that we're about equal in capability. Some may be better or worse at memory or speed, but I think logic is actually a faily unintelligent persuit because unintelligent computers can be programmed to do it. No, I think the most important thing is creativity and maybe a bit of insight or experience.

But that's just from my POV.

As an aside, frequently recycling insults (like "dimbulb", or "have it read to you") doesn't do much to convince me that someone is clever, but then neither does correcting spelling and grammar.

[_JohnStuartMill]

No. You need to read my post again (or, more appropriately, have it read to you). Me is the object of the preposition to.

I considered that reading, in which "to me" is a prepositional clause modifying "demonstrated", but it didn't jive with the context in which it was situated, so I dismissed it. If you've been participating in continual one-upmanship (and you quite obviously have), it doesn't really make sense to bring up my intelligence except to make some kind of comparative statement. In that case, you'd have to bring in the possessive (e.g., my intelligence versus yours), which you failed to do.

I see now that you instead intended to convey that my intelligence is absolutely inferior, and not merely comparatively so. In that case, your grammar is correct, but your apprehension of reality needs serious adjustment. I don't claim to be the smartest guy in the world, or on this board, but there's a lot of independent evidence to suggest that my intelligence is well above the average. Just sayin'.