Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

I don't think civil unrest will come because of any of these Obama citizenship questions. I find myself in agreement with Rob Sanchez, who is watching the unemployment rate. His latest newsletter has this:

John Nichols, a correspondent for "The Nation", did a very thought provoking video about unemployment and what it means for the Obama administration. Nichols warns that if the unemployment rate continues to rise past 13% or 14% it will be the ONLY issue for Obama. He never mentioned specific legislation such as "Cap and Trade", health care, and immigration, but if he is right and if our population continues to lose jobs, we can expect those proposals to become mere side issues -- and that's without mentioning that we are still in at least 2 wars!

See the Nichols video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltVzelwzlm4

I have often predicted that when the unemployment rate reaches 25% there will be massive civil unrest that will lead to riots and violence. I base the prediction on the history of the Great Depression and the Panic of 1873. During those tough economic times unemployment rose to the 25% level
-- and violence flared throughout the nation.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Inflation, Money Supply, GDP, Unemployment and the Dollar - Alternate Data Series

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/ ... onNews.htm

I'm just grateful that society seems to understand that unemployment is a problem this time around: in the 2001 dot com bust there seemed to be a lot of apathy as to the fate of the laid off workers. Watch for the Durbin bill restricting guestworkers to gain traction due to this issue. Note too that Obama has quietly backed away from his rhetoric about a temporary guestworker increase, in spite of the Indian-Americans he appointed to high posts. But I don't think any upheavals will be about race or socialism.

I don't think civil unrest will come because of any of these Obama citizenship questions. I find myself in agreement with Rob Sanchez, who is watching the unemployment rate. His latest newsletter has this:

John Nichols, a correspondent for "The Nation", did a very thought provoking video about unemployment and what it means for the Obama administration. Nichols warns that if the unemployment rate continues to rise past 13% or 14% it will be the ONLY issue for Obama. He never mentioned specific legislation such as "Cap and Trade", health care, and immigration, but if he is right and if our population continues to lose jobs, we can expect those proposals to become mere side issues -- and that's without mentioning that we are still in at least 2 wars!

See the Nichols video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltVzelwzlm4

I have often predicted that when the unemployment rate reaches 25% there will be massive civil unrest that will lead to riots and violence. I base the prediction on the history of the Great Depression and the Panic of 1873. During those tough economic times unemployment rose to the 25% level
-- and violence flared throughout the nation.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Inflation, Money Supply, GDP, Unemployment and the Dollar - Alternate Data Series

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/ ... onNews.htm

I'm just grateful that society seems to understand that unemployment is a problem this time around: in the 2001 dot com bust there seemed to be a lot of apathy as to the fate of the laid off workers. Watch for the Durbin bill restricting guestworkers to gain traction due to this issue. Note too that Obama has quietly backed away from his rhetoric about a temporary guestworker increase, in spite of the Indian-Americans he appointed to high posts. But I don't think any upheavals will be about race or socialism.

I would ask the question , what country issued obama a passport to travel to Pakistan in the '80's when travel there was banned by the US ?

I would ask the question , what country issued obama a passport to travel to Pakistan in the '80's when travel there was banned by the US ?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I heard they might have changed the law that demanded only a certificate (and not a certificaTION) as being "good enough" to qualify for some of the Native land homesteading rights.

What qualifies a birth document is the embossed seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and the signature stamp of the State Registrar of Vital Records. Hawaii no longer distinguishes between a Certificate and a Certification for the purpose of Hawaiian Lands verification. The U.S. Passport Office made the distinction, accepting a Certificate but not a Certification, but it may have changed that policy when the state of Hawaii did.

The argument is moot in any case, because the Certification image presented by DailyKos and the Certification photographs presented by FactCheck represent a forgery. To debate the difference between types of documents which are forged is pointless in the extreme.

Definitive proof of forgery would require the actual paper that appeared in the images shown on Daily Kos, Fact Check, Fight The Smears etc. The likelihood that there's a piece of paper out there seems 99%, given the reported dust specks which a scan would have let slip past. Until there's something definitive, I personally wouldn't "conclude" anything about forgery.

Comparing the differences between Certificate and Certification is not "pointless" in the sense that the former is an information-rich original source document while the latter is an abstracted summary which could even suffer from data-input errors.

It's a curiosity that someone could reach the office of POTUS with so little scrutiny of documents that would "prove" his background. I think that a focus on "just" the certificate however is going to miss the real legal point; just as a Johnny One Note reliance on Vattel is going to miss a lot of history showing that "nbc" was defined by historical correspondence among the Framers and not Vattel at all.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I heard they might have changed the law that demanded only a certificate (and not a certificaTION) as being "good enough" to qualify for some of the Native land homesteading rights.

What qualifies a birth document is the embossed seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and the signature stamp of the State Registrar of Vital Records. Hawaii no longer distinguishes between a Certificate and a Certification for the purpose of Hawaiian Lands verification. The U.S. Passport Office made the distinction, accepting a Certificate but not a Certification, but it may have changed that policy when the state of Hawaii did.

The argument is moot in any case, because the Certification image presented by DailyKos and the Certification photographs presented by FactCheck represent a forgery. To debate the difference between types of documents which are forged is pointless in the extreme.

Definitive proof of forgery would require the actual paper that appeared in the images shown on Daily Kos, Fact Check, Fight The Smears etc. The likelihood that there's a piece of paper out there seems 99%, given the reported dust specks which a scan would have let slip past. Until there's something definitive, I personally wouldn't "conclude" anything about forgery.

Comparing the differences between Certificate and Certification is not "pointless" in the sense that the former is an information-rich original source document while the latter is an abstracted summary which could even suffer from data-input errors.

It's a curiosity that someone could reach the office of POTUS with so little scrutiny of documents that would "prove" his background. I think that a focus on "just" the certificate however is going to miss the real legal point; just as a Johnny One Note reliance on Vattel is going to miss a lot of history showing that "nbc" was defined by historical correspondence among the Framers and not Vattel at all.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I heard they might have changed the law that demanded only a certificate (and not a certificaTION) as being "good enough" to qualify for some of the Native land homesteading rights.

What qualifies a birth document is the embossed seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and the signature stamp of the State Registrar of Vital Records. Hawaii no longer distinguishes between a Certificate and a Certification for the purpose of Hawaiian Lands verification. The U.S. Passport Office made the distinction, accepting a Certificate but not a Certification, but it may have changed that policy when the state of Hawaii did.

The argument is moot in any case, because the Certification image presented by DailyKos and the Certification photographs presented by FactCheck represent a forgery. To debate the difference between types of documents which are forged is pointless in the extreme.

Definitive proof of forgery would require the actual paper that appeared in the images shown on Daily Kos, Fact Check, Fight The Smears etc. The likelihood that there's a piece of paper out there seems 99%, given the reported dust specks which a scan would have let slip past. Until there's something definitive, I personally wouldn't "conclude" anything about forgery.

Comparing the differences between Certificate and Certification is not "pointless" in the sense that the former is an information-rich original source document while the latter is an abstracted summary which could even suffer from data-input errors.

It's a curiosity that someone could reach the office of POTUS with so little scrutiny of documents that would "prove" his background. I think that a focus on "just" the certificate however is going to miss the real legal point; just as a Johnny One Note reliance on Vattel is going to miss a lot of history showing that "nbc" was defined by historical correspondence among the Framers and not Vattel at all.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I heard they might have changed the law that demanded only a certificate (and not a certificaTION) as being "good enough" to qualify for some of the Native land homesteading rights.

What qualifies a birth document is the embossed seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and the signature stamp of the State Registrar of Vital Records. Hawaii no longer distinguishes between a Certificate and a Certification for the purpose of Hawaiian Lands verification. The U.S. Passport Office made the distinction, accepting a Certificate but not a Certification, but it may have changed that policy when the state of Hawaii did.

The argument is moot in any case, because the Certification image presented by DailyKos and the Certification photographs presented by FactCheck represent a forgery. To debate the difference between types of documents which are forged is pointless in the extreme.

Definitive proof of forgery would require the actual paper that appeared in the images shown on Daily Kos, Fact Check, Fight The Smears etc. The likelihood that there's a piece of paper out there seems 99%, given the reported dust specks which a scan would have let slip past. Until there's something definitive, I personally wouldn't "conclude" anything about forgery.

Comparing the differences between Certificate and Certification is not "pointless" in the sense that the former is an information-rich original source document while the latter is an abstracted summary which could even suffer from data-input errors.

It's a curiosity that someone could reach the office of POTUS with so little scrutiny of documents that would "prove" his background. I think that a focus on "just" the certificate however is going to miss the real legal point; just as a Johnny One Note reliance on Vattel is going to miss a lot of history showing that "nbc" was defined by historical correspondence among the Framers and not Vattel at all.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I heard they might have changed the law that demanded only a certificate (and not a certificaTION) as being "good enough" to qualify for some of the Native land homesteading rights.

What qualifies a birth document is the embossed seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and the signature stamp of the State Registrar of Vital Records. Hawaii no longer distinguishes between a Certificate and a Certification for the purpose of Hawaiian Lands verification. The U.S. Passport Office made the distinction, accepting a Certificate but not a Certification, but it may have changed that policy when the state of Hawaii did.

The argument is moot in any case, because the Certification image presented by DailyKos and the Certification photographs presented by FactCheck represent a forgery. To debate the difference between types of documents which are forged is pointless in the extreme.

Definitive proof of forgery would require the actual paper that appeared in the images shown on Daily Kos, Fact Check, Fight The Smears etc. The likelihood that there's a piece of paper out there seems 99%, given the reported dust specks which a scan would have let slip past. Until there's something definitive, I personally wouldn't "conclude" anything about forgery.

Comparing the differences between Certificate and Certification is not "pointless" in the sense that the former is an information-rich original source document while the latter is an abstracted summary which could even suffer from data-input errors.

It's a curiosity that someone could reach the office of POTUS with so little scrutiny of documents that would "prove" his background. I think that a focus on "just" the certificate however is going to miss the real legal point; just as a Johnny One Note reliance on Vattel is going to miss a lot of history showing that "nbc" was defined by historical correspondence among the Framers and not Vattel at all.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I heard they might have changed the law that demanded only a certificate (and not a certificaTION) as being "good enough" to qualify for some of the Native land homesteading rights.

What qualifies a birth document is the embossed seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and the signature stamp of the State Registrar of Vital Records. Hawaii no longer distinguishes between a Certificate and a Certification for the purpose of Hawaiian Lands verification. The U.S. Passport Office made the distinction, accepting a Certificate but not a Certification, but it may have changed that policy when the state of Hawaii did.

The argument is moot in any case, because the Certification image presented by DailyKos and the Certification photographs presented by FactCheck represent a forgery. To debate the difference between types of documents which are forged is pointless in the extreme.

Definitive proof of forgery would require the actual paper that appeared in the images shown on Daily Kos, Fact Check, Fight The Smears etc. The likelihood that there's a piece of paper out there seems 99%, given the reported dust specks which a scan would have let slip past. Until there's something definitive, I personally wouldn't "conclude" anything about forgery.

Comparing the differences between Certificate and Certification is not "pointless" in the sense that the former is an information-rich original source document while the latter is an abstracted summary which could even suffer from data-input errors.

It's a curiosity that someone could reach the office of POTUS with so little scrutiny of documents that would "prove" his background. I think that a focus on "just" the certificate however is going to miss the real legal point; just as a Johnny One Note reliance on Vattel is going to miss a lot of history showing that "nbc" was defined by historical correspondence among the Framers and not Vattel at all.