# citizen?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was listening to talk radio yesterday (nope not Rush) and whoever the guy was talked about the number of law suites being filed to force Obama to present a legal document of his citizenship. I thought that this had been done. I thought that it had to be presented to someone before he could run, and it was just that the public was not getting the information. Nope, he has not proven it to anyone. How can this happen in a nation with laws that say you must be a citizen to be president? Is there anyone that disagrees with me that no one should be above the law? What good are our laws if there is no consequence for violating them? Would you or I get away with breaking the law? I don't think so.

Why doesn't every news source out there talk about this? Why does no one care? The people who find this acceptable are the people who put our nation on the precipice of failure. If a man sworn to uphold the constitution violates the constitution the laws are all meaningless and our nation is in jeopardy. Give up the laws and you give up your freedom.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Sure there is someone who disagrees with you, Obama. He doesn't care about the law, he doesn't care about our constitution.

As for the media, their golden boy got elected, they are not going to say **** about this.

huntin1


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman why would the liberial media want to bring down their Messiah?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I think what that shows above all else is that people who vote country first are the minority for the first time in history...and I'm afraid it will only get worse......*QUICKLY!*

The average voter based his decision on who was best for _him_ instead if who was best for the country, and I'm afraid the bulk of the weight of that decision was which one would benefit him the most financially. I believe Obama knew that if he could convince those who want something for nothing that they would get more free money or more free benefits with him in office they wouldn't care if he met all the requirements to run. 

We were warned this would happen..about 225 years ago. :wink:

I know one thing that worries me more than the possibility of Obama circumventing the rules to acheive his goal, and that is my sincere belief that virtually none of his supporters will express any regret if it turns out to be true. A classic example of the end justifying the means.

I'm not blaming Obama, or Clinton, or Bush, or anyone in particular when I say this, but our Constitution is being assaulted from almost every angle, and it's long past time for *EVERYONE* to start to care!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your absolutely right csquare. We are surrounded by people who will quote the constitution when it benefits them, but could care less about it otherwise. Everyone should be concerned that he has not presented a valid birth certificate yet --- everyone.


----------



## tigerdog (Jan 24, 2008)

Some of us discussed this at Thanksgiving. We should all be outraged that the mass media isn't even mentioning it. This may be the largest constitutional controversy in our nation's history, at least regarding presidents, so where is the discussion? If this is swept under the rug, I'm afraid many of our freedoms may be swept away right behind.
IF something does happen and Obama is prohibited from taking office, how will events transpire? Any thoughts on Hillary's 3rd term? I've had a suspicious feeling all along that if the Democrats did prevail, it would be Hillary in the White House. However, I thought there may be an "accident", aka assassination, involved.
With the exception of a day or two during 9/11, I have never been as deeply concerned for our nation's future as I have been in the past couple of months. I'm truly concerned what we'll have to endure in the coming years; I'm still young, so I may have much to endure.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

The media isn't reporting this because it is a non-story. I read about this MONTHS ago. Some individuals alleged that Obama is not a naturally born US citizen, but the state of Hawaii examined his birth certificate and deemed it to be genuine. Seriously, this is a non-issue. Do some googling and find out for yourself.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDaddy, where did you find the info that his original certificate was inspected by Hawaii? It's been awhile since I read about any of this, but I don't remember finding anything that said he had presented a BC to anyone. You'll find what is said to be his BC on several sites, but never forget in the same amount of time it would take to fabricate that in cyberspace they could make you look to be Shania Twain in the same way.

The question that has been asked here many times and is yet to be answered, is why not provide the document instead of legal dance steps to avoid it?

It's entirely possible that he has, but I looked hard to find it and the closest I got was finding the court records documenting the motions to dismiss filed by Obama's legal team instead of providing the BC when asked by the Federal Court in PA. 

Just seems strange to me...and apparently to many others. :wink:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

First, to be clear, the Constitution states that you have to be a natural born citizen to be President. Obama's mother was born in Kansas and was therefore a US citizen. Because Obama is her son, he is automatically a citizen, regardless of whether he was born. However, being a citizen is not the same as being a natural born citizen.

Now back to the main point and Csquared's question. Here is a story from KITV in Hawaii: http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news.

The director of Hawaii's department of health stated that she personally reviewed Obama's original birth certificate for authenticity. She further states that state law prohibits her from releasing copies of the document to the press. That's understandable.

Now, if you want to get nit-picky, John McCain wasn't born in the United States. In fact, he was born in Panama, albeit in the Panama Canal Zone on a military base.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

You're exactly right about McCain. And to be fair, he was scrutinized in the same manner. The difference is when asked, McCain simply provided the document...instead of saying..."I already showed a woman in Hawaii years ago".

Hence the confusion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> motions to dismiss filed by Obama's legal team


That's the biggest problem right there. Why hide it? This gives great credability to suspicions. Before that I would have said there was a 90% chance that he was a citizen. After the motion to dismiss I think there is a larger than 50/50 chance that he is not. It's a disgrace that the entire populace is not demanding it. We have lost a lot in this nation and one of them is respect for the constitution and our founding fathers. Can you even imagine this happening in the early 1900's. Our ancestors would be ashamed of us.

It's only a non story because our bias media is sweeping it under the rug. I think our media is just a little bit right of where Stalin would stand politically. Even worse is out citizens don't care as long as the media tells the lies they want to hear.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

The other part of this story is the fact that Obama became a citizen of indonesia in order to go to school there as a child. During the time frame when he did this (or to be specific, when his parents did this) Indonsesia did not offer dual citizenship. In order to become an Indonesian citizen and attend school he had to give up his US citizenship.

The very most he can be is a naturalized citizen, and thats if his mother had done the paperwork. But she didnt. The bottom line is Obama is in fact an illegal immigrant from Indonesia.

The whole Hawaiian birth certificate can be genuine, it doesn't matter.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

Small Price to Pay for Unity

Is Barack Obama a US citizen...

Of course he is, dummy..

"But how do you know?"

Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.

"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."

The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.

"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."

Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.

"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."

Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"

I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law, Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18, prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, 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 Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.

"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"

I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.

"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."

Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"

I have no idea.

As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.

Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....

"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"

I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.

"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

quit watching those black helicopters, he is a citizen and thats it. Why don't you guys discuss something that matters, then maybe next time we won't get our butts kicked so bad.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> quit watching those black helicopters, he is a citizen and thats it. Why don't you guys discuss something that matters, then maybe next time we won't get our butts kicked so bad.


Our butts kicked so bad? I don't think we are.



> "This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.


Personally I disliked McCain so much that I am not real sad. What I am counting on now is Obama screwing up so bad another democrat will not be president for 50 years. As far as unity the only way that will happen is if conservatives compromise their standards. When it comes to reaching across the isle who does? Republicans never democrats.

There are other very important things, but if a violation of our constitution exists few things are more important. The more Obama fights this the more guilty he looks. Why not just prove it? Very simple. Then we could move on to other important things. I don't think we should trivialize this matter.

Look at it this way. If you were left a million dollars in a rich old uncles will, but you had to produce a birth cirtificate to collect what would you do? How long would you fight in the courts? That's what I thought.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

LT said:


> State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.


So the American people dont have a "tangible ineterest" in this matter? :eyeroll:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

I can only comment on ND's methods but I was adopted and in an attempt to track my biological parents I requested (in writing) my "Birth Certificate" from ND's Div. of Vital Records. They sent me a "Certificate of Live Birth" listing my adoptive parents. It looked almost exactly like the Obama web site picture. It proved nothing except I was alive at birth and nothing more. ie: location, etc. This was done back in the mid 80's so I don't know if things have changed.

My understanding of the Obama saga is the SCOTUS will have a hearing on Dec 5th to decide what steps if any they will follow. I read somewhere that Obama had a deadline of Dec 1 to turn his "Birth Certificate" in to the SCOTUS. The electoral college meets Dec 15th to elect the president so maybe we'll know more by then.

Why isn't the media covering this? Why did they not ask questions of Obama like they did Palin and Plumber Joe? My guess is that if Obama was white, the questions would have been asked. (not a racist statement, an honest statement)


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Note to self........

Don't argue with LT !!!!

WOW, what a post !!!!!

:beer:


----------



## landyn2003 (May 14, 2005)

I just can't lead myself to beleive that McCain and the Republican party wouldn't have mad a big deal out of it during the campaign if it were true.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

McCain wouldn't let the campaign use anything about Rev Wright and we all know that was true.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I often wonder if McCain really wanted to win. The guy reaches across the isle just to often. I'll bet he drove Palin nuts with his Mr. nice guy act. He's not that nice, he is just week and compromises his principles easily. I wonder if Obama will appoint him to some position?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Csquared,

I agree, LT "ROCKS". I have a question. Where did cwoparsons go? I miss his comments.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's a good thing he posted it yesterday, because it looks like it is gone today.
Now why would Google censore that, and how can some people think our news is not being twisted for Obama?

Go to the site LT listed and you find this now. 


> Small Price to Pay for Unity (soon to be censored by Google news)


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

DG wrote:


> Where did cwoparsons go? I miss his comments.


Looks like he's been gone since August of '06. Very smart guy. I also enjoyed his posts. But why do you ask me?

Do you know something I don't about him? Are you "him"?

Wouldn't be the first time multiple personalities were on display here. :wink:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > quit watching those black helicopters, he is a citizen and thats it. Why don't you guys discuss something that matters, then maybe next time we won't get our butts kicked so bad.
> ...


obama is hiding lots of things, besides failing to produce a certified copy of his birth as a US citizen......this will continue to be covered up and swept under the table.....along with many more crucial things that this.....


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> It's a good thing he posted it yesterday, because it looks like it is gone today.
> Now why would Google censore that, and how can some people think our news is not being twisted for Obama?
> 
> Go to the site LT listed and you find this now.
> ...


Now THAT scares me. :-?


----------



## triggerhapp3y (Nov 28, 2008)

You can really smell an Obama supporter :eyeroll: out there. They don't care if he does anything wrong at all as long has he gives them more money. That's a big part of the crowd that loved President Clinton. Like a couple of you have said..."Obama is their MESSIAH."
It disgusts me to think that America has come to this. I think America looks just like Sodom and Gomorrah was described in the bible before God brought down his judgement. It's scary to think about, but that could possibly be why we never hear about America in the Bible. China and Russia are constently sending small attacks at us and I think they are doing it to size us up before they really attack us. I'd be a lot more scared if I didn't know who ultimately wins in the end.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Csquared,

No, I am not cwo. I believe his last post was August of 08. I guess I was wondering out loud were he went. Very knowledgeble, from African Safari to the price of "RICE" in China.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

DG wrote:


> No, I am not cwo. I believe his last post was August of 08.


WOW !!!!!

I must have missed a LOT !

You're right about him though. There are a lot of smart people here...even_ some_ I don't agree with. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see the Washington Times is bringing this up again. More serious this time. Evidently they looked into it enough to find that the birth certificate on Obama's site is not a valid Hawaii birth certificate. They have a much longer form, and Hawaii will not release the original. There has to be something real wrong or Obama could settle this with one phone call and release the records. 
To say this isn't serious is to say our constitution has no value. Rules are rules and the rest of us all have to follow them.


----------



## nosib (Dec 4, 2008)

haha i love reading these posts. a lot of people on this forum are conservitive. also i do agree with you plains why didn't they look at that before they had the vote... oh wait if they did look into it we might have a woman pres...... :sniper: :eyeroll:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

My bet is Obama isn't concerned about releasing his birth certificate because of a natural born citizen problem, it's because it lists his father as someone other than who he claims is his father.

Another of his mentors, Frank Marshall Davis, maybe?

There has to be a reason it hasn't been released.


----------

