426 thoughts on “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?”

  1. It sure is funny that after one year of obama, every one that I ask says they didn`t vote for him.Whats up with that? Nobody want to take the blame? The only people that say they did are hideing behind their computer.

  2. Phil asserted:

    To date, I have seen no constitutional verbiage nor federal law that specifically says that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility (versus, of course, impeachment).

    Here’s the most recent ruling from a Federal Court on the matter:

    [O]n the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in theT wenty-Fifth Amendment…. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.

    Barnett v. Obama, “Order regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, at pp. 24-25; see:

  3. JJ says:
    October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
    For all of your points pro or con of the constitutional matter….heed this…….

    If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
    You’re okay with that??
    Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.

    The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
    And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.
    Wow, a entire post filled with speculation and no facts. That was impressive. Let us address some points. First of all can you show us some legally admissible proof that President Obama ever changed his name to Soetero or was adopted? And we don’t mean the unsourced “Indonesian school record”. That is not considered proof. Secondly can you show us where the President spent “millions of our tax dollars” hiding his documents? I mean yo were so specific so you must have proof? Since Obama is the President, the DOJ is defending him in these ridiculous lawsuits. And the so called documents are all protected by federal privacy laws. Now if you want to change the privacy laws so that anyone can look at your personal records, then do that. The only waste of taxpayer money is all of the time the courts have to waste with these frivolous lawsuits by Orly, Apuzzo, and Berg. Leo never had the guts to actually file one so he is not in the same category as the others. And of course the biggest lie is that your parental citizenship status matters in determining whether or not you are a natural born citizen. That has never been the case and is currently not the case. That was a birther invention from some Swiss philospher. Not the US Constitution and definately not SCOTUS rulings. Thanks to the Wong ruling, we know that is not the case. Sorry. The President was born in HI, so he is a natural born citizen.

  4. terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
    fraudster Black Lion:
    Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..” US Constitution 14th Amendment

    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?

    and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…


    First of all the Senate resolution also said that you had to be born in Panama in 1936 but I see you of course forget to mention that part of the resolution. So that means that no one other than McCain is eligible to be President.

    Subject to the jurisdiction of does NOT mean sole allegiance. It means that being born in the US means that you are subject to its jurisdiction by virture of being a citizen of the country.

    Chester A Authur’s father’s status was known at the time. There are writings that show that.

    Regardless of what Bingham may have said, AG Bates said different as shown in my quote. Also the Wong Kim Ark ruling was in 1896, which came after the 14th amendment, is the case regarding citizenship.

    So overall you have been proven wrong. But you knew you would be. Hence the name calling. I guess when your argument makes no sense, like yours, you need to distract by calling names. Which is the usual birther M.O.

Comments are closed.