OHCHUTE

It's your right to keep me safe. So don't mess up.

Here goes another billion dollars. Like I need training on how to sell gun via private sales that I'm doing with commerical sales already. I worry about confiscation, and how they'll determine state of mind for ceasing guns. State rules are worse than this...

It looks convincing to you because you have a predetermined belief and an axe to grind. It's like the Bible looks like pretty convincing 'evidence' for young earth creationists... GET THE TINFOIL HATS! Check the left side to the photocopy. Appears to have come from a bound book. Show me the bound book from which the scan was taken. If you can't do it that then we're done.

Wendy It's peoples actions who had direct hand in dealing with information that brought the controversy to begin with. The questions are why did people act the way they did. Why were there delays to providing information when the campaign knew people wanted facts and when this birth cirtificate was so available. Why did OBAMA friend indicate no records existed then all of a sudden Obama was certified qualified to run? Lack of information breeds skepticism. I have no opinion only qestions. I know this. no one will see the orginal ever, unless the Supreme Court of the United States of America demands it to prove any allegation. And that's probably not going to happen. The country is so horribly screwed up they'd not take a chance to throw a wrench into what might make matters worse, even if there is doubt. The need to know would not justify any result. The idea that communications can't influence peoples thinking or that a photo couldn't be altered borders on irrational thinking. As communciations can influence and photo's can be altered. Nixon lost audio tape etc so it's not beyond humans no matter their status in life to fuge here and there. The idea that a Certification of eligibility to run for office, that was party generated, not via independent bipartisian certification, where no birth certificate was used to generate the Certificate added to the problem. Everyone needs vetted via unbias process utilizing genuine credentials. This was not the case in this instance.

With the people work for me I could have Abe Lincoln and Betsy Ross be OBAMAS parents signatures on that photograph and it would look jsut as authentic or better than what you displayed. Now enough with photocopies. Bring in the real doc. And if you can't do that then you might contact Chief Justice to do an investigation to determine the documents are real. Having info about the ss# that are authentic would help. Now step aside.. Believers conspiracy. Joan Rivers the leader of the Believers. Believers that just because its posted on the internet its true. Lots of Believers around here. Sorry, you're not getting to the gate with bogus pictures from the Believers Conspiracy. Go to LAX and hold up your phone showing them a picture of your passport and see if you get in. Proof is in the pudding. Put up or shut up. Show or fold.

Why all the dancing? Now you stopped dancing and furnish a date with no supporting evidence. You are quite the investigator. A quick google search will show information you've provided could be wrong. On the WhiteHouse website as it says the birth certificate was posted in 2008 not April 27, 2011. The link that contains the actual supposed birth certificate, the GIF file contained within the HTML is a digital copy. It's shows it's signed by his mom. The document is quite convincing. (First time I've seen this file. A file I located myself.) However before you can pass me and get to your gate to catch the airline, please show me the original along with a letter from the states attorney's office of the state of Hawaii stating that the orginal is authentic along with a paper from the hospital that the doc is genuine. Then I'll let you pass to your gate. Also, since you are speculating, why do think Obama's Hawaiian buddy went to Kenya before the election process? Journalists know there are regular flights to Kenya. What business did he have there. And if this birth certificate was so readily available at the time he inquired about it, to which he was told it was not available and even certified that it was not available, why all of a sudden did it become available for OBAMAS lawyers in 2008. And why did it take a team of lawyers to find it long after it was needed. And can you trust a copy furnished by the person who say's it's authentic? Show the orginal and the document certifying authenticity and I'll let you pass. Not done. And won't be done by you, me or the man in the moon. This can only be done by attorney with court orders and warrents. Chief Justice who will be swearing in OBAMA on the 21st. might be such a person who would issue an order and only GOD knows what he must be thinking as OBAMA is before him at the sweare-in with TAILZ's complaint on his schedule for FEB 15. LIKE NO ONE TALKS TO ANYONE. Keep dancing or fold. You don't don't have an argument and neither do I, even if I wish to argue, which I'm not arguing, until you and I stand there together examining the documents together the truth will be known. I'll leave forging paper documents to the WWII vets who were pretty good at that. I can attest that the Whitehouse removed Tailz petition from the Whitehouse petition website yesterday as I was on the site when the link was removed. So whitehouse has control on what is placed there. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf

I think the reason most attendee at SHOT aren't discussing the matter is that Gov't will pass whatever rules they think they should pass. The good news is that they're mostly promoting passing laws that are already on the books which is only natural as there is little else they can do as there's so many restrictions already. For instance AR's with grenade launcher and flash suppressor and folding stocks in some states are alread banned as well as street sweepers etc. With the cost of ammo, I'm sure people will give up 30 rounders pretty easy if they are even loaded to capacity. The glock 17 rounders are even difficult to load to cap without using a mag loader et. I think law makers are at a dead end in knowing you can't legislate against someone going nuts. So talking about guns any more is basically a waste of time. IMHO. Especially with idiots who never held a gun and is scared to death of guns, not knowing a thing about our SPORT or HOBBIE. If we could only take their poodles and restrict walking their dog to their own property, not the neighborhood! That will get em'

I have no opinion. I have no clue the truth of the matter. Reason: I've not examined the records or had a team of criminal forensic investigatosr look at evidence. But it appears the conversation regarding the legitimacy of the information was started by individuals in Hawaii who indicated no records existed. That information was redacted by the same group of people. Instead of ending speculation, or skeptism, by producing the information, a 3 million dollar advertorial campaign was launched to offset the buzz that there was no birth certificate. This is the dancing around the facts, name calling, etc. Much of what you bought into. Now I've not bought into any point of view aside from: Show me the docs. And if you can't do that you're not getting to the airliner. Now in poker terms: show your cards or fold. Put up or shut up. Cat's got your tongue? If some of you had a machine gun stuck up your face, asking for documents, maybe you'd quit you dancing around. It's amazing how people think that it takes 1,000 people to wage a fraud, when it can be as little a a couple of people, that know the real story. In the instance of Mr. Ponzi, who duped many, he was the only perp. Enron- 3 perps. Madoff, a handful. Obama and his buddie rode on Airforce 1 to DC from Hawaii just a few weeks ago. Like they never talked? Again, produce your docs or you don't get to the gate and I don't care if you have organized 500 million people, via a communications program standing over there yelling out you have a license or passport that you should be amitted without showing the documents. This is pretty easy folks, not sure all the dancing.

Plenty of that on both sides. Absolutely true, both sides of the issue are arguing out of frustration. A problem in any wide-spread political debate like this is that people's attentions are naturally drawn to the biggest train-wreck of an argument on the other side, and soon everyone is talking in hyperbole. There are quite a few gun rights advocates that have gotten a lot of attention with their, "cold, dead hands," attitude, but there's a couple things from the gun control camp that I'd like to point out too. 1) "If not now, then when?" This, as many have noted is a pretty dangerous attitude. It's an acknowledgement that political will is driven by emotional responses and it's more important than doing the right thing and I'm at a loss as to why that is being touted in this case. You don't go grocery shopping when you haven't eaten all day, you don't drive after you've been drinking, and you don't pass legislation when you're crying. Callous? Sure. But what happened to cooler heads prevailing? 2) "We need to have a serious talk as a country [...about reinstating an assault weapons ban.]" Whether the person says the second part or not, It seems like it's always there. It's like the whack-a-mole of this debate. It's not the only thing that stricter gun control advocates bring to the discussion, but they'd do themselves a favor if they stop making it their starting point over and over again. /edited: A had a "that" that was supposed to be a "than" and it mangled the meaning of one of my sentences. Debate? What debate. NY just enacted laws today. Laws are coming quick and swift. No debate.

You are participating here exactly what happened in real life. Avoid the question, make fun, waste time, keep the conversation going,get others to chim in like little pussies, but the fact of the matter is until you BILLVON place your documents on the table so that they can be inspected, you are not a Natural Born Citizen until you prove it. The reason the question is tendered with the Supreme Court. His citizenship is questionable. Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to answer the question than to jump around like little baby clowns making claims wiithout any support. But we know that isn't possible, so keep your clowning. Bla Bla dancing around like fools.

WHAT? I just looked at my fingers. I was once a girl. I'm going go tell my wife the news.

They should deputise every law abiding citizen, allow them to carry a gun if they want and be able to shoot any person they see who has any gun out of a holster. That ought to cure the problem. Make a law you can only take your gun out of your holster upon shooting another person who has their gun out of their holsters. This way no one would dare take their gun out of their holster in public. All the criminals could easily be identified. Hey, hes' got his gun out etc. Any questions? Look all this gun BS started when they gave up guns and let the sherriff carry the gun. We need to go back to cowboy days. Just loved watching those elementary school teachers in TX shoot at targets. WOW that was sweet. Bang Bang Bang Yeehaw

Edit: Rather, Certification stating that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as president, is not a birth certificate as no ORGINAL birth certificate was ever even produced, let alone a copy of one. So take no drivers license to the airport and but take my letter stating your have a drivers licenses and see if you get on the airliners. A birhter is a term created by the OBAMA machine to squelch demands for prodution of official documents. Instead of producing documents, they simply turned it around and called people birthers. By the looks of thing they did a swell job of diverting attention of the docs. But what can you expect when fraud is the new capitalism. From Lance Armstrong, Madoff, Banksters, even Facebook guy started his business via theft of property, school property and intellectual property. SEC is about to relax advert rules for selling securities so look for next up and coming investment scams taking your money utilizing sofisticated websites you have no clue who even owns it. USA Owned

I never really delved into this until yesterday and I find it pretty interesting. And I see the connection between individuals. Obama was compelled to run. Not his choice. I wonder why. I'm not debating this. I'll let the court decide. BUT WE ALL KNOW NO PHYSICAL ORGINAL DOCUMENT WAS EVER PRODUCED FOR ANY INSPECTION. Plus his ss# is borrowed. Go to the friggin airport and try to get on an airliner by showing them a copy of your drivers license and see if you can get on a plane. You need the orginal. Not sure why so many Americans think that a copy is as good as an orginal.

Huh. Just curious, but are you surprised that white people watch westerns? Huh? 'Cus they know what happened in the west. u wearing tin foil hat if u think that's an acceptable parallel. Ok, maybe a better parallel would be being surprised that Christians went to see The Passion of the Christ. ...but then again, it's like my dad (who was not particularly religious) once said, "why would you wanna go see the guy get the shit kicked out of him for 2 hours..." Felt pretty dumb sitting through that one I'm surprised I didn't walk out. I mean come on. You got whity up there talking about their n's this and n's that even I was feeling dumb for sitting there. My ass did hurt too so that might have been a factor as I was actually feeling the pain. It's still worth seeing.

"The fact that Schatz refused to certify Obama's eligibility proves the records do not exist. . Using the information in any original records, Schatz would have assessed Obama’s constitutional eligibility and, therefore, if upon confirming that Obama was a Natural-born citizen, would have authorized an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) which would have included the explicit language required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) thereby enabling the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin, to approve Obama’s placement on the Hawaiian ballot. However, Schatz did not do this. Then, scandalously, one day after Schatz filed the DPH’s non-certification, the Democrat National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, issued a fraudulent Certification stating that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as president, even though the DNC had no original documented evidence to support such a claim. http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/third-hawaiian-official-denies.html Let revisit Feb 16

I am not sure I'd go that far. Only the utterly fucked up (and I say that as a legal term) get kicked out on procedural grounds at the level I'm talking about. I'd say "the schedule" means they received it and it was not kicked out on procedural grounds. They also can't kick out the ones that say "the Warden is a Space Alien" if they're not eliminated on procedural grounds. It basically means that the plaintiffs didn't use the wrong font, used the right margins, didn't write in crayon, etc. OK its on the schedule. Here is the guy who was in Hawaii during the time the records were produced for OBAMA that are in question. You will note this person spent time in Kenya. This person is also listed in the complaint. This is an interesting case worth exploring further. AAAAhhh but these guys will never let the truth be known.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schatz

FB reported today they're offering search within their domain for content you're already approved to see.

Huh. Just curious, but are you surprised that white people watch westerns? Huh? 'Cus they know what happened in the west. u wearing tin foil hat if u think that's an acceptable parallel.

Incorrect. It is on the docket (I posted a link, above) as scheduled for judicial conference. That's an in chambers conference amongst the Justices; she will not be present for it. Neither will any other attorneys. Roughly 10,000 requests for cert and similar petitions are reviewed by the Court each year; only about 100 go to oral argument and a Court opinion. I would not put money on this proceeding to an oral hearing. Procedurally, "getting on the schedule" is meaningless. So if it is meaningless to be on the schedule then the schedule is meaningless. Right? I suspect if conferences are not scheduled then cases have even less of a chance to be decided to be heard. OR since you are the expert, are cases heard that are never on any conference schedule? If so, name a few cases the SC has heard that were never on a conference schedule. OK, sorry, it's not "meaningless", but purely procedural... Think of it this way - the Court gets tons of requests for certiorari, right? They have to put almost all of them on a schedule and then decide which ones they are going to actually pay attention to... I say "almost" because the Court does have the ability to eliminate some requests for cert without hearing when it's determined (by the Clerk's office) that they fail to meet the procedural requirements. (There are tons of folks in jail who send in crazy letters to the Supreme Court requesting this and that [e.g., the "Warden is actually a Space Alien..."]; those are often dealt with that way.) Anyway, the point is that mailing something in and getting on the schedule doesn't mean that anyone has looked at the request and said "oh, ok, let's think about that!". It's merely that it was received, they couldn't kick out the request on procedural grounds, and so it goes on the schedule. There was no independent thought about it - it was purely procedural. Does that make it more clear? I don't know the proceedural rules regarding the listing of cases to the schedule to be discussed during a conference. I do know that during the conference they may or may not discuss what is on the schedule or can place items on future schedules. They can also bring up new items not on the schedule for placement in future conferences. I think the key here is that they got it, and it's on the schedule. I believe the listings on the schedule is controlled by the Chief Justice. Chief Justice get the first vote in deciding cert. on any particular case. So, the schedule is more than just a receipt they got the petition as there's an elimination procees on what gets listed. Not all petitions make the schedule. Not all items on the schedule gets voted on.

Huh. Just curious, but are you surprised that white people watch westerns? Huh?

Incorrect. It is on the docket (I posted a link, above) as scheduled for judicial conference. That's an in chambers conference amongst the Justices; she will not be present for it. Neither will any other attorneys. Roughly 10,000 requests for cert and similar petitions are reviewed by the Court each year; only about 100 go to oral argument and a Court opinion. I would not put money on this proceeding to an oral hearing. Procedurally, "getting on the schedule" is meaningless. So if it is meaningless to be on the schedule then the schedule is meaningless. Right? I suspect if conferences are not scheduled then cases have even less of a chance to be decided to be heard. OR since you are the expert, are cases heard that are never on any conference schedule? If so, name a few cases the SC has heard that were never on a conference schedule.

So much hot air from web forums

It's conference to determine if the case is to be heard. That's all it is. The allegation could be a stretch, false, untrue. That's what the justices will attempt to learn. Due to politcal reasons, even if the allegation is true the Judges don't have hear the case and they don't have to give any reasons for not hearing the case. Someone could have something on Chief Justic that they wouldn't hear the case. Who knows but the story has my interest. I like the way you're setting this up so you can still claim moral victory when the justices dismiss it out of hand. Clever. There is no victory in learning if your elected guy is a fraud. There is no moral victory in learning you'll never know he wasn't a fraud. Why all the mystery about a couple of documents. But I have to roll up my sleeves at the airport and gain a randam swab for chemical trace against my constitutional right that I will not be searched without probably cause and without a warrent. The petition the attorney placed on the Whitehouse petition website was removed. And before it was removed the counter wasn't registering votes correctly. There must be a reason they're so coy with the information and don't want it discussed. [email] At least we'll have comfort knowing OBAMA's communications machine won't be in the room when the information is talked about.

It's conference to determine if the case is to be heard. That's all it is. The allegation could be a stretch, false, untrue. That's what the justices will attempt to learn. Due to politcal reasons, even if the allegation is true the Judges don't have hear the case and they don't have to give any reasons for not hearing the case. Someone could have something on Chief Justic that they wouldn't hear the case. Who knows but the story has my interest. Lets suppose they hear the case and determined OBAMA's doc were forged. Then what?