Is Resident Obama a Fraud?

[trubeautie]

I definitely believe our current Obama administration, Congress etc. are bringing us closer to the end. No different from the last administration. The most important thing is the we have our individual lives in order and keep watching and praying.

That aside, why do people insist on questioning Obama's birthplace? Sometimes it seems like you cannot be a child of an immigrant and non-white in this country without your "American" status being called into question. Some Americans can be so ridiculous. Why not make a huge deal about McCain and his birth in Panama?

So what if one can prove Obama was a British citizen at the time of birth, as the article claims. I was technically a citizen of another country at the time of my birth in the U.S. too, because my parents were born in another country. That does not negate my U.S. birth and citizenship.

I'll bet Obama was also a Kenyan citizen at birth. And since Kenya was still under British rule, he likely had British citizenship by decent. Just like my parents, who are a bit older than he, were British citizens due their country being under British rule.

Oh and Islam...if you have any connection whatsoever to the faith, then you will never live it down. Do people realize that there will be individuals who practiced Islam in heaven?

 

[Xenon]

What scares me most is how much of this thread goes against all biblical advice regarding our rulers.

 

[honorthesabbath]

What scares me most is how much of this thread goes against all biblical advice regarding our rulers.

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

 

[honorthesabbath]

I definitely believe our current Obama administration, Congress etc. are bringing us closer to the end. No different from the last administration. The most important thing is the we have our individual lives in order and keep watching and praying.

That aside, why do people insist on questioning Obama's birthplace? Sometimes it seems like you cannot be a child of an immigrant and non-white in this country without your "American" status being called into question. Some Americans can be so ridiculous. Why not make a huge deal about McCain and his birth in Panama?

So what if one can prove Obama was a British citizen at the time of birth, as the article claims. I was technically a citizen of another country at the time of my birth in the U.S. too, because my parents were born in another country. That does not negate my U.S. birth and citizenship.

I'll bet Obama was also a Kenyan citizen at birth. And since Kenya was still under British rule, he likely had British citizenship by decent. Just like my parents, who are a bit older than he, were British citizens due their country being under British rule.

Oh and Islam...if you have any connection whatsoever to the faith, then you will never live it down. Do people realize that there will be individuals who practiced Islam in heaven?

Hi Tru--just curious about this last statement you made. On what basis do you believe this?

 

[Xenon]

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

The context of that verse is for judging matters peacefully in the church and not bringing them to court. The emphasis is on mercy, not judgment, for "mercy triumphs over judgment". Furthermore, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Why would Paul advocate suffering loss before bringing others to judgment? Love, of course. He does not want us to harm our brothers and sisters. But if we cannot love those outside the church, what good does it do us?

 

[honorthesabbath]

The context of that verse is for judging matters peacefully in the church and not bringing them to court. The emphasis is on mercy, not judgment, for "mercy triumphs over judgment". Furthermore, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Why would Paul advocate suffering loss before bringing others to judgment? Love, of course. He does not want us to harm our brothers and sisters. But if we cannot love those outside the church, what good does it do us?

If we are not to judge our 'leaders' performances in office--pray tell when would we know it was time to boot them out?? When would we know when to flee from their inquisitions?

 

[Xenon]

If we are not to judge our 'leaders' performances in office--pray tell when would we know it was time to boot them out?? When would we know when to flee from their inquisitions?

It's the attitude that bothers me. To call them 'leaders' and not leaders, saying "Resident" instead of President even though there's been no real cause for concern...it seems that you have already judged them. And I don't recall ever seeing anything in the Scriptures that commands us to "boot" our leaders out of office. Instead, it says that they are put there by God. The only time that leaders were ever resisted by the church was when they went against God's commands. And even then, it was resistance, not rebellion. I don't ever recall seeing any campaigns run by Christians against the Jewish leadership to have them removed after they rejected Jesus.

I'm not trying to be mean, but when I see how you're portraying this, it looks like you're going down a dark and dangerous road. We cannot afford to go against Scripture on any point. Turn away!

 

[Pythons]

It's the attitude that bothers me. To call them 'leaders' and not leaders, saying "Resident" instead of President even though there's been no real cause for concern...it seems that you have already judged them. And I don't recall ever seeing anything in the Scriptures that commands us to "boot" our leaders out of office. Instead, it says that they are put there by God. The only time that leaders were ever resisted by the church was when they went against God's commands. And even then, it was resistance, not rebellion. I don't ever recall seeing any campaigns run by Christians against the Jewish leadership to have them removed after they rejected Jesus.

I'm not trying to be mean, but when I see how you're portraying this, it looks like you're going down a dark and dangerous road. We cannot afford to go against Scripture on any point. Turn away!

Our leaders are 'out of us', "E pluribus unum", and given that a President swears to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and the first of the amendments in that constitution codifies free speach it is not only our right but our duty to speak out about the disgusting Goose chase our current leader is taking us on.

Did anyone seriously believe that a day would come when private corporations could, in effect, levy taxes on private individuals! This is the just the start people - within time, if this keeps up- you will get your beer by having it dumped into a glass jar with a measuring line, then "walk it" home and enjoy it for the next month because that's how long it will take before you get your next "allotment".

Obama should have let the banks and GM implode. The money that has been spent has all been wasted.

 

[honorthesabbath]

What scares me most is how much of this thread goes against all biblical advice regarding our rulers.

This ones for you Xenon.....

ROMANS CHAPTER 13 REVISITED ​

By Chuck Baldwin
July 15, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).
The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

 

[Xenon]

The only time that leaders were ever resisted by the church was when they went against God's commands. And even then, it was resistance, not rebellion.

Every example quoted in the article went against God's commands (although the incident with Moses is debatable). You pretty much just proved my point.

My concern is that it looks like you've already condemned Obama with almost no proof of wrongdoing on your side. If he's found out to be a liar about his past, then full steam ahead. But this is simply speculation, not hard facts. Furthermore, you're denying his official position based on that speculation. It's totally unjust to condemn him because people simply suspect that he was not born in the US.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Every example quoted in the article went against God's commands (although the incident with Moses is debatable). You pretty much just proved my point.

HHmm--not sure if you read the same article I posted, but it didn't prove your position right at all, but in actuality proved you wrong. Only when the leaders are CORRECTLY leading the ppl are we obliged to obey them. This is what this article plainly is showing us from the scriptures.

My concern is that it looks like you've already condemned Obama with almost no proof of wrongdoing on your side. If he's found out to be a liar about his past, then full steam ahead. But this is simply speculation, not hard facts. Furthermore, you're denying his official position based on that speculation. It's totally unjust to condemn him because people simply suspect that he was not born in the US.

Xenon--there have been several lawsuits filed with the Supreme Court simply asking Obama to produce his true birth certificate AND his passport when he was in college showing which country he claimed citizenship with--he refuses to show either. Now why would he do that if he has nothing to hide?

 

[Xenon]

Xenon--there have been several lawsuits filed with the Supreme Court simply asking Obama to produce his true birth certificate AND his passport when he was in college showing which country he claimed citizenship with--he refuses to show either. Now why would he do that if he has nothing to hide?

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Complete with picture of Obama's birth certificate, showing he was born in Hawaii. Also, as a bonus, an article from the local newspaper about him being born.

Game over.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Game NOT over. First of all--snopes is NOT a bona fide or certified center of truth, so I do not recognize them as anything other than an opinion.

 

[Xenon]

Game NOT over. First of all--snopes is NOT a bona fide or certified center of truth, so I do not recognize them as anything other than an opinion.

I'd say that those pictures were pretty objective. And I haven't seen a shred of evidence for the other side, no matter how many Obama hate sites I visit. He's clearly legal.

Whether or not we agree with his policies is another matter, and for the record I do not. But he is the valid President of the United States. If anything, say that he is doing a bad job (which you are, and again, I agree). But please don't buy into obvious lies about his heritage when all the documentation is on his side with no proof on the other. He's the legal President, whether you like it or not.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Well Xenon--we are deadlocked on what we believe about Obama's legality, and so I'll concede that. And as you say--irregardless of his legal standing as president, he is doing the bidding of the powers behind him (vatican) and will help them ruin this nation. But it's all good--since this brings us closer to the END!!

 

[Xenon]

Well Xenon--we are deadlocked on what we believe about Obama's legality, and so I'll concede that. And as you say--irregardless of his legal standing as president, he is doing the bidding of the powers behind him (vatican) and will help them ruin this nation. But it's all good--since this brings us closer to the END!!

I can agree to this. My jaw almost dropped when I heard about the trillion dollar deficit. Fun times ahead, for sure!

 

[honorthesabbath]

Comment from: Bennie Walton owner of Gimeweb.com, and an RSOL freedom fighter in Colorado.

We as a people are not ready to march in mass to effect the changes we know need to be made. It took the civil rights marches by many brave individuals (the harmed) and other individuals (supporters) to bring the terrible wrongs of the legal systems, enforcement systems, judicial systems, and the political systems squarely into the light of day. It will take that effort repeated in our time. Until we are ready to march in mass, we must continue to work each state in ways that will elicit responses, and help those in other states as well. Some responses we will not like, but that is the nature of fighting for true justice and for the humanity of man and woman. As President Obama stated when in Africa; 'the capacity of humans to exact great harm upon others still exists'.

Well, he should know shouldn't he! He is the expert at that!

 

[honorthesabbath]

Al, Bill & Barrack in Heaven:


Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama go to heaven.

God addresses Al first. "Al, what do you believe in?"

Al replies: "Well, I believe that I won that election, but that it was your
will that I did not serve And I've come to understand that now."

God thinks for a second and says: "Very good. Come and sit at my left."

God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?"

Bill replies: "I believe in forgiveness. I know I have sinned, and hope I
will be forgiven. I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope
no grudges are held against me."

God thinks for a second and says: "You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at
my right.''

Then God addresses Barrack. "Barrack, what do you believe in?"

He replies: "I believe you're in my chair."

 

[RND]

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Complete with picture of Obama's birth certificate, showing he was born in Hawaii. Also, as a bonus, an article from the local newspaper about him being born.

Game over.

A "certification" is different than an actual "certificate." This "certification" has no hospital of record or does it have a doctor signature on it to attest or "witness" to a live birth.

Here's an example of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the State of New York.

Until one of these is produced with an actual siggy of a physician attesting the live birth of P.B.O. then unfortunately there will always be questions about the claims made.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Was trying to post a pic--but it is too small--ggrr.