Obama, new info?
- Thread starter Willie Anglin
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
EDIT:That Snopes article uses one theory to "prove" another. Even if you believe those theories to be "facts", you have to see that using one disputed notion to corroborate another will never convince those who have doubts...and isn't that the whole point of Snopes?
While we're on the subject of Obama's reelection & conspiracy, have you guys seen the email with the article from black economist Dr. Walter Williams? I'm sure you have, the one where the man asserts that Obama cannot loose the 2012 election, and briefly corroborates his claim?
Back to the quoted question, I agree that the answer will give us the truth. However, unlike nagging Presidential questions whose answers will largely just sate the history books' appetite for information (eg:JFK, lost Nixon tapes, Buchanan's sexuality), this one would also answer a very important, very present question: Does America need to instate a stricter program of vetting the eligibility for candidacy of those who run for her highest office?
While we're on the subject of Obama's reelection & conspiracy, have you guys seen the email with the article from black economist Dr. Walter Williams? I'm sure you have, the one where the man asserts that Obama cannot loose the 2012 election, and briefly corroborates his claim?
Back to the quoted question, I agree that the answer will give us the truth. However, unlike nagging Presidential questions whose answers will largely just sate the history books' appetite for information (eg:JFK, lost Nixon tapes, Buchanan's sexuality), this one would also answer a very important, very present question: Does America need to instate a stricter program of vetting the eligibility for candidacy of those who run for her highest office?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
WOW, looks as official as the one put out by Obama, we'll have to verify footprints now...
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
Oh well Im wrong. But he still stinks like a spoiled fish. Also most around him.
Al I ask of any politician of any party. Is to be up front with public records. Dont spend millions to supress them.
Al I ask of any politician of any party. Is to be up front with public records. Dont spend millions to supress them.
Eddie,
You need to go back and read Snopes again. Snopes is saying that the whole story is complete fabrication. Obama's SSAN is not the same as this Jean Paul Ludwig. Ludwig died in 1981, long after Obama had gotten his SSAN, and Ludwig's death was reported and verified in the Social Security Database (they even provide a link).
Also, the SSAN numbering system for the first three digits is not issued by state, but is based on the SS office. The actual number assigned is based on where the mailing address (actually the zip code) of the person requiesting the card...That address does not have to be his/her residence. In Obama's case, his number is 045 (falsely reported as 042) and Snopes indicates that it appears that a clerk at the SS HQ in Baltimore may have simply misread or mistyped Obama's Honolulu zip code as begining with a 0 instead of a 9 and thus he received a SS card issued with a Conneticut SS Office number....Wow, big conspircy there:grin:
As I said before, all of this about Obama being born outside the USA or stolen SSAN, etc is just a bunch of CRAP! Everyone of these BS stories has been proven false. The problem seems to be that some people hate him so much that they just assume he must have gotten into office illegally. They are so determined to find any thing they jump on and proclaim they have proof there was this big conspiracy...:bwahaha: They don't seem to want to do any research? They just make accusations, no matter how far fetched or how easily it can be debunked ! It just shows that they are not really interested in the truth :banghead::banghead:
...Rich
You need to go back and read Snopes again. Snopes is saying that the whole story is complete fabrication. Obama's SSAN is not the same as this Jean Paul Ludwig. Ludwig died in 1981, long after Obama had gotten his SSAN, and Ludwig's death was reported and verified in the Social Security Database (they even provide a link).
Also, the SSAN numbering system for the first three digits is not issued by state, but is based on the SS office. The actual number assigned is based on where the mailing address (actually the zip code) of the person requiesting the card...That address does not have to be his/her residence. In Obama's case, his number is 045 (falsely reported as 042) and Snopes indicates that it appears that a clerk at the SS HQ in Baltimore may have simply misread or mistyped Obama's Honolulu zip code as begining with a 0 instead of a 9 and thus he received a SS card issued with a Conneticut SS Office number....Wow, big conspircy there:grin:
As I said before, all of this about Obama being born outside the USA or stolen SSAN, etc is just a bunch of CRAP! Everyone of these BS stories has been proven false. The problem seems to be that some people hate him so much that they just assume he must have gotten into office illegally. They are so determined to find any thing they jump on and proclaim they have proof there was this big conspiracy...:bwahaha: They don't seem to want to do any research? They just make accusations, no matter how far fetched or how easily it can be debunked ! It just shows that they are not really interested in the truth :banghead::banghead:
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
"Natural Born Citizen"
Some need to understand what the above means when you apply it to eligibility to be President of the United States.
It is a unanswered question that can only be decided by the Supreme Court.
It has very little to do with where President Obama was born.
Read the Constitution and the founders writing on the subject.
Some need to understand what the above means when you apply it to eligibility to be President of the United States.
It is a unanswered question that can only be decided by the Supreme Court.
It has very little to do with where President Obama was born.
Read the Constitution and the founders writing on the subject.
![[Ford Explorer & Mazda Navajo (91-01), Mercury Mountaineer (97-01), Explorer Sport (00-03), & Explorer Sport Trac (01-05) Haynes Repair Manual] [By: John H. Haynes] [November, 2005]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51rNKiwBPpL._SL500_.jpg)
Redfish,
OK, what are you saying??? Your statement does not say what you read or interpret from the Constitution that either supports or opposes Obama's Presidency or requires a Supreme Court decision?
It appears that the anti-Obama crowd wants to keep changing the rules. They have consistantly said he was NOT born in the USA and that has been proven false over and over and over again!
Now they claim he stole someone's SSN, which has also been proven false at so many levels it's ridiculous. The only conspiracy that I see is the nuts who keep dreaming up this stuff since it seems like a coordinated effort to discredit Obama Presidency as being illegal?
Over 90% of the negative information posted about Obama on Snopes has been proven to be total fabrications without an ounce of truth. A few Items are partially true but often taken out of context. The frew that are true are mostly about his political opinions which everyone has the right to disagree with him on...and often do. As of yesterday there is only one open issue which deals with VP Joe Bidens campaign debts and is not really related to Obama.
Like it or not, He won the election and was sworn in as President...get over it ! :btddhorse:
...Rich
OK, what are you saying??? Your statement does not say what you read or interpret from the Constitution that either supports or opposes Obama's Presidency or requires a Supreme Court decision?
It appears that the anti-Obama crowd wants to keep changing the rules. They have consistantly said he was NOT born in the USA and that has been proven false over and over and over again!
Now they claim he stole someone's SSN, which has also been proven false at so many levels it's ridiculous. The only conspiracy that I see is the nuts who keep dreaming up this stuff since it seems like a coordinated effort to discredit Obama Presidency as being illegal?
Over 90% of the negative information posted about Obama on Snopes has been proven to be total fabrications without an ounce of truth. A few Items are partially true but often taken out of context. The frew that are true are mostly about his political opinions which everyone has the right to disagree with him on...and often do. As of yesterday there is only one open issue which deals with VP Joe Bidens campaign debts and is not really related to Obama.
Like it or not, He won the election and was sworn in as President...get over it ! :btddhorse:
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Q: Who was first to expose Wiener?
A: Doesn't matter. The question is funny even without an answer.
TJR
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Redfish shows one of the things that is wrong with this country, IMHO.
The idea that there are these things, these definition, which are so vague and when answered so paramount that they must be ruled on by SCOTUS, to me, is troubling. That is what is wrong with America today, among other things. We seem to have lost common sense and need others to rule, to explain things for us. I find that disturbing.
I really, really don't like it when the SCOTUS has to get involved with things, especially matters of interpretation, because then it often comes down to opinion and therefore is dependent on the values and beliefs of the justices...which frankly, I think is kind of scary. We then fall to the mercy of who is on the bench, whom they were appointed by, etc.
To me, it seems, the SCOTUS should carry out our laws. Period. Not define them.
"Natural born citizen", to me, requires no definition by SCOTUS. It seems clear to me. A person is BORN in this country, or not. Period. The date and place that they are born defines the facts; the only third fact is whether or not that place at that date is/was part of the USA. Take those three facts together, and you know "natural born citizenship."
TJR
The idea that there are these things, these definition, which are so vague and when answered so paramount that they must be ruled on by SCOTUS, to me, is troubling. That is what is wrong with America today, among other things. We seem to have lost common sense and need others to rule, to explain things for us. I find that disturbing.
I really, really don't like it when the SCOTUS has to get involved with things, especially matters of interpretation, because then it often comes down to opinion and therefore is dependent on the values and beliefs of the justices...which frankly, I think is kind of scary. We then fall to the mercy of who is on the bench, whom they were appointed by, etc.
To me, it seems, the SCOTUS should carry out our laws. Period. Not define them.
"Natural born citizen", to me, requires no definition by SCOTUS. It seems clear to me. A person is BORN in this country, or not. Period. The date and place that they are born defines the facts; the only third fact is whether or not that place at that date is/was part of the USA. Take those three facts together, and you know "natural born citizenship."
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, mostly.
The executive branch carries out laws. The legislative determines laws. The judicial branch interprets them. That is our system and I think it is well conceived. I truly believe only the most important matters make it to the Supreme Court. This matter never will.
The executive branch carries out laws. The legislative determines laws. The judicial branch interprets them. That is our system and I think it is well conceived. I truly believe only the most important matters make it to the Supreme Court. This matter never will.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Hugh, I agree. There will always be the "interpretation" aspect to SCOTUS. But, c'mon, for things like this which seem so darn black and white (no pun intended)??? Scratching my head.
TJR
TJR
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Curious, what was the Constitutional matter that let the Supreme Court hear a case which lead to rulings on regulation of carbon dioxide?
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
What am I saying?
Sorry, I read my post and it's as clear as I can make it.
I have no opinion on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as described by some of the founding fathers. I feel it's a constitutional question to be decided by the Supreme Court. It has been a question throughout history and will continue to be a question until clarified.
Simple.
Hugh is correct it will never get before the court. Many have tried.
Disclaimer: I am in no was saying that President Obama should be removed from office or prevented from serving 4 more years if elected. I am saying that anyone interested should look at the Constitution and why the founding fathers used the language they did in certain instances.
Sorry, I read my post and it's as clear as I can make it.
I have no opinion on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as described by some of the founding fathers. I feel it's a constitutional question to be decided by the Supreme Court. It has been a question throughout history and will continue to be a question until clarified.
Simple.
Hugh is correct it will never get before the court. Many have tried.
Disclaimer: I am in no was saying that President Obama should be removed from office or prevented from serving 4 more years if elected. I am saying that anyone interested should look at the Constitution and why the founding fathers used the language they did in certain instances.
I agree with TJR's statement
Redfish,
No it is not simple and we don/t know what you are talking about unless you tell us?
You seem to have a different opinion, and that's why I asked what you meant??
Your statement seems to indicate that you see more to the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" than we do, and that would imply that you feel Obama was/is ineligable to be President? So I ask you, what part of the Natural Born Citizen definition causes you to have concern and why do you feel it requires clarification by the Supreme Court?
I could go and read the Constitution, and still not see what you are claiming is unclear, so please point out to me to the exact verbage that causes you so much concern?
And remember, that if the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is not clear in the Constitution, then it will require a Constitutional Ammendment to change it to be clearer, and the Supreme Court does not have the authority to make Constitutional Ammendments. If the Constitution has been violated they have the authority to take action, but since nobody has made any legal motions to challenge anyone's eligibility to be President or the Constitution's definition of "Natural Born Citizen" it seems to me that the definition is legally, sufficiently clear for most people to understand.
If any of these tabuloid papers had any valid evidence that Obama's Presidency is invalid, all they have to do is file suit and I bet it would immediately go to the Supreme Court for a ruling. The reason that has not happened is because nobody has any positive proof that Obama is not a Natural Born US Citizen...yet they all claim they have found the Smoking Gun...but it always ends up to be a pack of convoluted fairytale lies.
...Rich
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Richard,
Have you read the Constitution?
Have you read the Founding Fathers reasons for adding "'Natural Born Citizen" to the offices of President and Vice President. What were their fears?
If you have no problem with what is written, it's OK with me.
I have never said or implied that Obama is not eligible to be President. I am not the least bit concerned. Unless, he takes away my $170.00 a month SS. I spend that money on beer and waste anything that is left over.
Have you read the Constitution?
Have you read the Founding Fathers reasons for adding "'Natural Born Citizen" to the offices of President and Vice President. What were their fears?
If you have no problem with what is written, it's OK with me.
I have never said or implied that Obama is not eligible to be President. I am not the least bit concerned. Unless, he takes away my $170.00 a month SS. I spend that money on beer and waste anything that is left over.
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
There has been numerous suits filed, they all get shoved under the rug....these cases have been brought by former attorney generals among others. Also some soldiers that have refused to accept orders to deploy by the military have been dismissed....
Obama supporters are so adament with their support, they clearly cannot see what is going on with his left wing agenda, let alone his evasiveness with regards to everything relating to his college transcripts, birth certificate etc....
All they do is label things BS, call names, blah, blah blah.....We just want to get this country back on the right track.....it starts at the top....
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
Bud... A lot of those "Obama supporters" don't necessarily support Obama, but the Democratic philosophy and they don't like the way the current Republican party (and conservatives) are trying to make things more conservative than they've ever been in the past.
I'm not sure. Give me the name of the case and I'll let you know. I didn't follow that one at all and don't recall anything about it. I'm also too busy/lazy to look it up myself.
Oh, come on. You don't really believe that do you? Today's GOP is more liberal than ever. Bush's spending only looks conservative when compared to our current administration.
Redfish,
I have not read the Constitution in many years, but since you have, why don't you inform us about the "Natural Born US Citizenship" that causes you concern that prompt you to tell us to read it? Like I said, if I don't know what you find that needs interpreting by the Supreme Court, I will likely just read over it without a second thought since it already seems pretty clear to me??
Bud,
Lawsuits are filed everyday, and many are dismissed because they are without merit. So name a lawsuit that was filed that claims Obama is not a natural born US citizen that has any concrete evidence to support that claim? Soldiers refusing to be deployed has gone on since the first Continental Army was formed, and there will always be soldiers who do that and the oath taken by everyone who joins the military requires that they follow orders.
I am not an Obama supporter and I certainly don't agree with his flavor of politics. But I don't think making up lies and continuing to question his citizenship, religion, or continuing to claim he is an illegal President does not make his opponents look any better!! In fact it makes them look like a bunch of idiots and could lead to a backlash that gets Obama elected for a second term.
He is not required to publish his birth certificate, or his college transcripts, just because the doubter want to see them...and when he showed his birth certificate, they claimed it was forged, and now claim his college transcript prove he is not a US citizen...which is also BS because it has already been show to be BS. Next week it will be something else.. someone will probably claim they have DNA evidence that Obama is really Bin-Ladin's brother :bwahaha:
It just makes the Obama opponents look like a bunch of consiricy theorist run amouk :btddhorse:
If you want him out of office, attact his budget, his spending, his healthcare plan and all the other things he has done to drive this country into the poor house...there is plenty of evidence for that, just stop chasing ghosts
....Rich
I have not read the Constitution in many years, but since you have, why don't you inform us about the "Natural Born US Citizenship" that causes you concern that prompt you to tell us to read it? Like I said, if I don't know what you find that needs interpreting by the Supreme Court, I will likely just read over it without a second thought since it already seems pretty clear to me??
Bud,
Lawsuits are filed everyday, and many are dismissed because they are without merit. So name a lawsuit that was filed that claims Obama is not a natural born US citizen that has any concrete evidence to support that claim? Soldiers refusing to be deployed has gone on since the first Continental Army was formed, and there will always be soldiers who do that and the oath taken by everyone who joins the military requires that they follow orders.
I am not an Obama supporter and I certainly don't agree with his flavor of politics. But I don't think making up lies and continuing to question his citizenship, religion, or continuing to claim he is an illegal President does not make his opponents look any better!! In fact it makes them look like a bunch of idiots and could lead to a backlash that gets Obama elected for a second term.
He is not required to publish his birth certificate, or his college transcripts, just because the doubter want to see them...and when he showed his birth certificate, they claimed it was forged, and now claim his college transcript prove he is not a US citizen...which is also BS because it has already been show to be BS. Next week it will be something else.. someone will probably claim they have DNA evidence that Obama is really Bin-Ladin's brother :bwahaha:
It just makes the Obama opponents look like a bunch of consiricy theorist run amouk :btddhorse:
If you want him out of office, attact his budget, his spending, his healthcare plan and all the other things he has done to drive this country into the poor house...there is plenty of evidence for that, just stop chasing ghosts
....Rich
