K-pappy, exactly!

And 23, it is so typical of the left to try to muddy the water by saying that I hate Obama by disagreeing with him. I am against socialism and income redistribution so yes, I'm against Obama's policies.

And second, why is it nonsense to want Barack Obama to do like every other American President has done and prove his eligibility to be President? Was it "nonsense" when Obama publicly asked John McCain to prove he was eligible since John McCain was born in the Panama Canal area? The same group that usually confirms the eligibility of Presidents got all that information from McCain (birth certificate, passport, school records) within 48 hours. Yet after Obama demanded McCain prove his eligibility, Obama has spent $1.4 million in a year to keep his hidden. He is the picture of hypocrisy!

So was it "nonsense" or "nutty" when Obama wanted McCain to prove it 23, or is it only "nutty" when the right expects the left to do the same thing they demand of the right?

One more thing, if someone on the right had spent $1.4 million in hiding his birth certificate, in addition to the left demanding he show itand stop hiding from the people, they'd also say things like, "Just think of how many poor people that money would have fed!" People don't hide something unless they're hiding something! Barack Obama is clearly hiding something.

...umm. yeah. i really dont know what, if anything, will get you guys off this birth conspiracy, but just know that you (and people who are buying it) arent exactly being portrayed as fair-minded people. kind of how they use the crazy people from Westboro Baptist Church who go around holding signs that say "god hates fags" and people who blow-up abortion clinics, these are exactly the kind of things that liberals love because it makes you guys look... crazy, to be honest.  lets see...

-the 2000 election was stolen
-the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11
-obama was born in kenya

...what do all these have in common? not only are they not true, there absolute non-sense. non-desperate and fair minded people can see that, at least most can.

Hawaii has verified that Obama was born there. so, what is this really about? you want to see him submit the long, certified form? 'cause they already released the short form, which is legal (again, hawaii confirmed this). http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html?source=SEM-RR-google-content-birth&gclid=COzgpMrOq50CFQTyDAodYG9Sjw

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as "Certification of Birth", "Certification of Live Birth", or "Certificate of Birth Registration". The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances [7]. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels

From what I know about the man, Carter, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran, must vividly recall, and occasionally reflect on, the oath he took in 1967 upon being commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. military, which was only to protect, preserve, and defend Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Similarly, he took another oath of office before assuming the duties of a federal judge, on October 22, 1998, after nomination by President Bill Clinton on June 35, 1990, and confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 2009. The oath, per Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, is worded as shown below:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as U.S. District Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Quite evident to the reader, in the above oath, is the allegiance sworn by any federal district judge to the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Moreover, that individual judge swears to God, and to the people of the United States, a promise to properly administer justice according to all prevailing laws of the United States. If this is so, I wonder why Judge Carter has been the only federal judge, prior to and subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, to consider the requirement set forth in the U.S. Constitution, for the President to be a natural born citizen, as a law that should be enforced. Judge Carter's statement, that, as a former U.S. Marine, he realizes the importance of a person being constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, indicates his apparent willingness to see that constitutional law is properly administered and followed in his court. His actions seem to reflect the statement by the great John Adams, that "we are a nation of laws, and not of men."

Yet, in the face of all the blatant suspicion that Barack Obama has brought to bear on the legitimacy of his election as President, by the million-plus dollars he has spent in legal fees since October 2008 to oppose public disclosure of a 12 dollar certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and copies of his other professional and educational records, I wonder if Judge Carter is going to end up ultimately thinking politically, instead of legally. I am referring to the state of mind displayed, for example, by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, when she dismissed the federal lawsuit brought by San Francisco Attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victim's families, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the Bush administration, on a basis of sovereign immunity instead of a lack of credible evidence. From what I have discovered factually concerning Dr. Hilton's lawsuit, he had, and still has, some very damning evidence in his possession showing that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military, orchestrated what occurred on 9/11; and the only proper forum for presenting such evidence is in a court of law, where a preponderance of such evidence will vindicate, in a jury trial, the petition of the plaintiff, a forum which was denied Dr. Hilton and his clients.

While it is a truth that a standing U.S. President cannot be sued in federal court over what is deemed to be the ordinary legal, and just, processes for the enforcement of federal law, substantial evidence of criminal acts committed deliberately by the President or his agents, under color of executive authority, is certainly actionable. This would be true even if the impeachment process has not been initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives due to innocent ignorance, or as a result of the placating machinery of corrupt political manipulation. In other words, Machiavellian political maneuvering in Congress should not be permitted to displace, or hamper, proper judicial review, that equity, justice, and, if need be, punishment are properly dispensed.

The exact opposite of this is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, when, supposedly, honorable judges, who had assumed their duties prior to Adolf Hitler's assumption of power, allowed themselves to become servants of the evil Nazi Party, in order to keep their jobs. There are quite a few historical examples of lawsuits that were brought by law-abiding German men and women, between 1936 and 1942, against Adolf Hitler and his thugs, which were quickly dismissed on a basis of Hitler's sovereign, all powerful, immunity. Currently, if it can be proven in a court of law that Barack H. Obama knew, at the time he declared himself a presidential candidate, that he was not born in the United States, that he has deliberately misrepresented himself as a natural born citizen, and that he has spent over a million dollars perpetuating a lie to the American people, a charge of criminal fraud would be the only appropriate action to be brought against the man.

Perhaps Judge Illston has called Judge Carter to express her dismay over his willingness to question Obama's eligibility to be President; or maybe she is so politically oriented, and biased, toward Republican neo-conservatism that she would be more than happy to see Obama discredited and forced to vacate the Oval Office. In reality, it is difficult to know where the allegiances of most federal judges really lie, for after they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to their offices for life tenure, they can do essentially whatever they want, for or against the U.S. Constitution, and if they are not impeached, do it with total impunity; for impeachment, in reality, is not a legal process, but one thoroughly political. I recall that a high percentage of the nation's electorate endorsed the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren during the 1958, but nothing ever came of it in the U.S. House of Representatives; and during the last 214 years, you can count on one hand the number of federal judges and justices who have formally been impeached, and on four fingers the number who have been convicted and removed from office.

From what I know about Judge David O. Carter, he seems to be a stand-up individual and one not likely pressured into handing down a decision determined by the effect of political influence. While neither Republican nor Democrat, I only hope that political party affiliation has had no bearing on the decision of Carter to proceed in his court toward a proper examination of the evidence. Nonetheless, only time will tell what type of federal judge Carter actually is. If suddenly the case, Keyes v. Obama, is dismissed, and disappears under a ruling of sovereign immunity, or on a less than cogent basis of the political forces exerted against Carter, the true colors and allegiance of a federal judge will be clearly revealed.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin as attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist and columnist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.
 
alrite, this page does it justice: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

theres a reason as to why the media, for the most part, refuses to talk about this... and i wonder what that reason is.  on a side note, i am sure the fact that Obama has yet to release the long form of his hawaiian birth certificate is a real concern to most of the american people.

LOL, once again 23, the rules are so different for Obama than for others apparently. He demanded McCain prove it and McCain produced his birth certificate as it's supposed to be to be verified.

One person from Hawaii who says they looked at an alleged copy of Obama's birth certificate, then locked it up again and expects the world to take their word for it is not enough. LOL. You're so biased!

And again, Obama has spent $1.4 million instead of producing it. He is not acting like an innocent man and YOU KNOW IT! He is a big lying hypocrite! He demanded John McCain prove his eligibility and now refuses to do the same.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself and just admit that if a conservative had spent $1.4 MILLION DOLLARS to keep from showing his birth certificate to several judges that you'd be crying foul and saying he was hiding something. If you're honest with yourself, you'd admit this. If McCain, after Obama had said he should prove it had spent $1.4 million dollars to keep from showing his citizenship information there would have been protest after protest from the left and they/you'd be saying, "What is John McCain hiding?!"

I just wish you'd give this an honest look instead of your clearly biased look at it. I'm sure I'm asking too much.

Again, why was it not "nonsense" or "nutty" for Obama to ask McCain produce a vaulted copy of his birth certificate AND all the other "necessary information" (passport, visa's, and additional records as requested until declared eligible)?

Please answer the question instead of just spinning some vague answer telling us we're cooks because we want him to produce a birth certificate instead of spending money to hide it from judges, us and the world. You're being intellectually dishonest by acting like there's not something very, very suspicious going on. Admit it.

leeford... i suggest you take a look at my previous post, and read a little closer.

plus, i do not defend prez obama on every issue.. i have stated this before.

you call me biased..... when youre the one depicting obama with a joker face, calling him a socialist.... yeah... Im the one whos biased here.

to be fair, we're both obviously biased but then again EVERYone has a bias. however... doesnt really mean anything.

Nobody's ever had to prove their eligibility to be President. There's no panel or board set up to examine prospective candidates' citizenship. If there's any reason to wonder if they were born here they usually provide the paperwork necessary to prove that they were, and that's what happened here.

The rest of it is just hyperpartisan hyperventilation.

but again... read my previous post (and the link i put) a little closer.

Just having a law doesn't make a thing happen. There also has to be some instrument set up to enforce that law. Right now, the closest we get to that is the FEC, and they greenlighted Obama's campaign without reservation.

You're only flabbergasted because you and people like you are trying to manufacture outrage where there is none.

23,

Again, a website and one person in Hawaii doesn't make Obama eligible. Secondly, McCain gave his documents to a nonpartisan group that DOES vet Presidential candidates to make sure they're eligible. They approached McCain and had all the necessary documents they requested within 48 hours. Obama refused to comply even after saying McCain should comply. And now here we are a year later and Obama still hasn't complied and has spent $1.45 million to keep from doing what McCain did in 48 hours!

It's very simple, if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't have spent $1.45 million hiding. Something is wrong, the emperor is naked and we are living in very strange times. You are holding to his innocence because of your bias and if you could take that away for a moment you would see that something is very wrong.

But I guess you'll keep saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" because of his persona, his smile and the fact that he's the first minority President. Scary. Deep down though, you know something is wrong with Obama spending all this money and blocking his information from being seen. And I know that you know that even though your bias is keeping you from admitting it or wanting it to be true.

And no, I'm not biased. For me it's all about a candidate's policies. I don't care what their party affiliation is. I simply want what the Founding Fathers wanted and that is a small government kept in check by the people and not a burden to the people which is just the opposite of what Obama and the Democrats are doing. Since the early 1980s the political parties have polarized. But that's neither here nor there with this issue.

When I first heard about this issue I thought it was silly and a distraction. But, even before he was the candidate for the Democrat ticket, as I looked into it I kept shaking my head and asking one question, "Why is Obama spending all this money to keep his birth certificate from being seen?" And the questions kept mounting because he was also hiding his passport records, college records and any records that were connected to citizenship issues. And a Democrat named Phil Berg was leading the way saying that there's a big problem.

Obama is hiding and you don't hide something unless you have something to hide.

The trial starts in January and I'm wondering if people like you, 23, who are defending Obama concerning anything and everything will defend him if it comes out that he was not a natural born citizen. Now you act like it's a preposterous thing to suggest, even though if it was then Obama wouldn't think it worth $1.45 million to keep his information hidden, but I wonder if it comes out that he wasn't a natural-born citizen if you will then say that it doesn't matter, that we should amend the constitution to allow people who aren't natural-born citizens to be President. The problem then however will be that Obama knowingly broke the a law of our constitution. But again, people who act like it's crazy now are the ones who will say that he should still be allowed to be President if it comes out that he is not a natural-born citizen. Rather than admit you're wrong you'll flip and tell us that it doesn't matter as has happened with several issues. Again, it's a sick form of worship and I've never seen anything like it.

It isn't ridiculous.  It's the law.  And finally there is one judge with all the right stuff to stand up for the law. (whew...took me a long time to say that politely...)

Yes, I am adamantly against Obama.  Jennings is the absolute final straw.  Obama is clueless as to how to run a country or keep it safe!


If you really wanna make me mad, call me a racist!  I am so fired-up angry right now, it would give me an excuse to let-'er-rip!