It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Birth certificate issue No. 1 at Fox News

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

certainly the kenyan birth story is very similar to that. his mother went with his father to visit relatives and went into labor, had the baby in kenya. it would not matter if his mother, an american, could have assured his american citizenship. I'm not a scholar in this.only know what I've read. she would have had to spend a certain number of years in the US after coming of age, which she did not. i'm not saying i know what that all means, whether he is eligible or not. the key thing is that the court should decide, though if he had been forthcoming with documents not so many questions would have arisen. I simply dont understand the secrecy he insists on about his past. remember though that these questions were brought up long before the election, and should have been resolved then. it is very difficult confronting such a problem with a sitting president. of course it'a all arbitray. like the age requirement. the presiden is supposed to be at least 35 years old. what if a candidate lied about his or her age and got elected at 31? violation of the law. nothing wrong with 31 year olds, and most 31 year olds eventually become 35 but still, it's the law.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by earlywatcher

Indeed. Why be so secretive. That's one I must agree to as well. Anytime the president becomes secretive, I grow in hatred of him.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:49 PM
Wow look at all the Liberal leftist Democrats doing their best to say it is no big deal....Like always when it is not going their way they sluff it off as unimportant....Well my friends this is a serious, and much needed document, from every President or candidate no matter the party line. This is to serious to have a foriegner running America, with forieger ideas not common to the American way....Wow with that said it kinda explains everything going on with this clown....

Bring on the long form or step down...period....

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by Willbert

I would like to know what qualifications if any, allows you to inform us as to how others would react and what they would do? Giving a plausible scenario which may or may not play out, you're asking us to accept in good faith that a government official would actually tell the truth and be transparent to the general populace.

For start 20 years of observation on humans gives me a pretty good insight into what people are likely to do.

Washington is a cutthroat place. If you have any dirt on you that gives your opponent the edge, they will use it on you. I don't care if they are a part of the NWO, their own megalomania will win out every time, and they won't hesitate to step on you in a heartbeat just to get ahead.

Don't believe me? Ask any political pundit they will all say the same.

reply to post by maybereal11

Thank you for shedding some reason on this seriously misconceived theory. I was starting to think I was alone in thinking this was utter bull.

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow

You're right. I've no interest in seeing the birth certificate. What I would like is any type of at least semi-coherent explanation of why Obama and/or his staff did not immediately show it when first challenged.

Because he doesn't have to. He has provided a legal form of identification that has been verified by the issuing agency. There is no need for him to provide further proof.

Again, (and of yet no one has come up with an answer for me on this, perhaps you will)

Where in the constitution does it say that a long form birth certificate is the only acceptable form of proof one needs in order to become President of the United States?

The verified COLB isn't good enough for you? Well guess what, that is too bad. It's good enough for the courts who have already dismissed this exact case a couple of times for lack of legal standing. You as an American citizen do not have the authority to demand this mans personal papers. He after all is an American citizen afforded all the protections under the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That means in laymen's terms, if a court does not require him to provide said information, he damn well doesn't have to.

reply to post by eightonefive

and to "whatukno" saying that asking to obama to produce documents proving he is a us citizen is illegal search and seizure? Were you dropped on your head as a child? Is that the best you can come up with? Are you part of Obama's Organizing for America Volunteer Organization? Because you seem to have your head so far up the presidents *** that you can't read the facts in front of you. Get off his *****, that's the first ladies job. Time and time again you have been given the facts and yet you still can't keep from rehashing th same old bull$*** about us being racist.

No I called you all Nazi fascists not racists. Again don't play the race card with me, doesn't work. Don't start that "your a racist" crap with me, that is the way wrong tree to bark up.

What FACTS have I been given? Speculation, assumption, and a demand for something that isn't yours to demand. Yes it would be a violation of the presidents 4th amendment rights to be coerced into providing a document that he was not subpoenaed to provide.

I have been given hearsay evidence that has latter proven to be false, I have been given bull [snip] presented as evidence with absolutely zero basis in reality, I have been given assumptions based on libelous and slanderous accusations without merit.

If you had bothered to read any of my other posts in other threads you would see that for the record I think that Obama is a crooked politician that is leading this country into a socialist state. Something I am equally against.

But go ahead, insult me, belittle me, accuse me of doing whatever to the president his wife should be doing. Ain't gonna change my mind that on this issue the facts have already been presented, and they don't go the way of a conspiracy.


The amount of Fascist leanings in this thread makes me sick. Demanding papers from another citizen without due process? The last time I checked this is America, where we don't have to provide our papers to just anyone for just any reason. If any one of you demanded my long form birth certificate on the street as proof of my right to be in this country I would laugh in your face.

What makes any of you think that just because this man is the POTUS he has to give up his rights afforded to each and every citizen under the Constitution? Where does it say in the Constitution that the man that is primarily in charge of protecting and defending the Constitution and the law has to do so without the basic protections it guarantees?

I suppose if someone were to go ahead and make a law subverting the fourth amendment so that Obama would have to provide your narrow speculative scope of what proof means, you would be all to happy about it going into law now wouldn't you? Despite the future consequences to personal liberty and freedom?

To some of you maybe personal liberty and freedom doesn't mean much. Maybe to some of you it would be easier to just throw away that dusty old document and give up our freedoms for a fascist state. But not me. If the Constitution protects me, I expect it to protect the person we elected to run this country.

I don't like this new mindset in America. I don't like what the last 8 years has done to liberties flame here. I for one don't want big brother (not to mention john q public) that much access to my private life.

Like many Republicans, I think the government should deliver the mail and stay the hell out of my life.

But people in this thread don't seem to share that ideal. I guess to them it's ok to step on the Constitution when it doesn't go along with your agenda. I guess some in this thread don't like civil liberties afforded to us by this document.

People in this thread are saying "Atchung! Papers please!" without the legal or constitutional grounds to do so.

"Just show the damn form already and shut us up"

Show us yours first. Post your long form birth certificate in this thread. Do it. I bet you won't will you? Why? Because it's none of our damn business, and the same goes with Obama.

By saying show it already you people sound like a bunch of Fascists living in Nazi Germany. You people when you say that are offensive to everything that liberty stands for. By saying that, you suggest that this man has no rights under the Constitution and the law. How dare you deprive a citizen of this great nation the basic liberty of innocence before proven guilty! Who are you to demand this?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by TooRisky
Wow look at all the Liberal leftist Democrats doing their best to say it is no big deal....Like always when it is not going their way they sluff it off as unimportant....Well my friends this is a serious, and much needed document, from every President or candidate no matter the party line. This is to serious to have a foriegner running America, with forieger ideas not common to the American way....Wow with that said it kinda explains everything going on with this clown....

Bring on the long form or step down...period....

The birth certificate is probably not important to most people because our educational system is so horrible that they likely never knew proof of birth was required. Hell, I think I know some people who think the electoral process is part of the powerball lottery.

As far as foreign ideas.... All ideas are foreign until they find a home.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by TooRisky

Bring on the long form or step down...period....

Show me where in the Constitution he has to show that specific piece of paper. Please show me exactly where it states in our Constitution where that is the only form acceptable to prove ones eligability.

I have asked this question repeatedly, and as of yet none of you have provided an answer.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:02 PM
then what, exactly is a document, according to you, that he can provide the courts that would be legal? short form birth certificates are not even legal in ILLINOIS, Obama's state, to get a driver's license. You have to provide a LONG FORM. the cerificate of live birth can be forged.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:38 PM
Whatukno: You may be right that Obama may not be legally obliged to show us the long form BC, but you are failing to see one thing here:

Even if he's not obliged to do it, he should, because it is worrying a lot of his people and he can calm them down and have them join the rest of America in accepting their true president with one simple action, probably the easiest thing he's ever have to do in the White House.

Then, America could at least stand united in their acceptance of the POTUS, and soldiers overseas could finally do their job without having to worry about Obama being a communist muslim from Iceland or God knows where else.

You debate strictly with your rational brain here, but it's the people's hearts and fears that are the issue. Granted, many people make mistakes and many weren't educated to not be racist or afraid of commies or muslims, but it is up to Obama to be the better man here, not the US Citizens.

He should be our shining example, he should be the embodiment of transparency, a guiding star that breathes the Change and Hope he preached for all to behold in bewilderment.

It's the people who let this kind of stuff slide out of adoration for his brown skin that are the racists here.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by Psynarchist

excellent point! obama has presented himself to us in conflicting ways. He appeals to the desire for change, for cleaning up washington, for transparency, for ending war, for the voice of the average citizen to be heard, especially those who have been ignored. At the same time he seals all records about his own past, rushes through unexamined legislation on an emergency basis etc (the very opposite of transparency.)

since he does everything with a purpose. and if you ever even thought of buying a calendar from the obama campaign, you had to fill out a whole form describing your personal past and affiliations so you wouldn't turn out to be an embarrassment. If he himself does not have anything to hide but is merely keeping all these things sealed because of his own personal right to privacy that he believes is sacred, they why IS he doing this? What other purpose does all these secrets have? What do they accomplish?

Does he want people to be fearful? Does he want people to be suspicious? Does he want us to focus on that instead of what he is doing as president? these seem trivial. could there be some other reason?

what does keeping secrets accomplish?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

i can't believe how ready available this kind of information is, and how
few americans really even have the vagest idea.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by whatukno

Show me where in the Constitution he has to show that specific piece of paper. Please show me exactly where it states in our Constitution where that is the only form acceptable to prove ones eligability.

I have asked this question repeatedly, and as of yet none of you have provided an answer.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It is not unreasonable to require canidates to provide "proof" of citizenship.
In the case of "barry" there is in fact specific allegations he was not a natural born citizen. It is up to him to prove his is eligible.........

To date he has not provided such proof............

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:09 PM
American military personnel need to realise that they are not sent to war by decree of the president,but by congressional decree.

They like young guys in the military cuz they're dumb.

I got booted cuz I wasn't dumb enough.

I refused to do the crap they told me to do.

And I am not a criminal in my mind.

So there.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
I do not want to insite any fires that will feed the already frenzied flames of this string. However, I have a simple question to go with my simple understanding of this situation. What is Obama/Soetoro and his adminitration covering up by allowing the general public to get focused on what should be a trivial issue?

Truth: There are people who verify the authenticity of a persons claim to being a Naturally born U.S. Citizen before they are allowed to take any public office. The higher up the political ladder, the higher the investigating agency.

Truth: If people are calling for visual proof the easiest and quickest way to shut them up is to give them the long form BC to pick and poke at and verify. So why not placate the masses? He was so ready to do that during his campaign, why stop now?

Truth: Diversionary tactics have been used in politics since there were politicians. Hell, I think the military learned this tactic from the politicians. Examples, Nixon signed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act on January 2, 1974. Many people see this as harmless because of the oil crisis that was taking place at the time... however, he was motivated to do this by a need to cover up various other dealings. The least of which was what eventually came out as The Watergate Scandal.

In the movie Lucky Number Sleven, this tactic was called a Kansas City Shuffle. You look left, while the perpatrator goes right. So with this and all the other CT circling Obama/Soetoro is anyone else checking all points of their paverbial compass?

That being said, with everything surrounding this BC issue, you have to wonder... if thats in his left hand to distract the masses... what is his right hand doing??? What is Obama's Watergate???

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by eightonefive

Birthright citizenship, plain and simple. As there is no specific document required to prove eligibility, nor is there a clause within the United States Constitution that specifies exactly what document is proof positive of eligibility, We must go to the 14th amendment of the United States in order to correctly answer this question.

Birthright citizenship, means that his mother was a citizen at the time of Obama's birth, and his father was a foreign national who are lawfully inside the United States, with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.

Obama's COLB was verified by a state agency as valid. This along with the above is more than enough proof to show that Obama is eligible for the job of POTUS.

It doesn't matter that Illinois requires you to have the long form document to get a drivers license, there is no constitutional requirement that the POTUS has to provide the same. Certainly there is no requirement, nor is there any precedent that the president show this document to everyone as a matter of course.

reply to post by Psynarchist

You debate strictly with your rational brain here
Oh so many in this thread would disagree with you on that.

The problem is, Obama is a politician, he is a trained con artist. He smiles at you with one hand then stabs you in the back with the other. That whole BS about transparency in the government was such a load of horse manure I can't believe that people in Japan didn't smell it.

He has proved his eligibility to the people who needed to be proved to. Other than that he could give two [snip] about the small percentage of the population that has questions about it. Down the road it will become apparent that Obama cares about the little guy about as much as Bush did when he was in office.

reply to post by heliosprime

It is not unreasonable to require canidates to provide "proof" of citizenship.
In the case of "barry" there is in fact specific allegations he was not a natural born citizen. It is up to him to prove his is eligible.........

Well no, there still is the matter of innocent until proven guilty, it's up to the accusers to prove that he is ineligible. Please, don't forget that we do have due process and rights under the law in this country, if you take away Obama's basic right of innocence until proven guilty, and instead tell him he is guilty until he proves otherwise, what do you think that will do to freedoms in this country? What will that do to our court system? When the tables turn and it is the accused that must prove their innocence?

The accusation has been raised indeed, now it is up to the accusers to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is not who he claims to be.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:10 AM
I don't think McCain was running to win, He was down and out then he had all this money, went from almost pulling out with no money to back in the race with all the money, How could a man that admitted he couldn't turn a computer on be the candidate, out of 300 million, McCain was the best to run against a man he moves his body weight from leg to leg and swing his arms like he is trying to fly away very quietly is call a great dancer. kiding yourselves. alson to run with Palin, why would u pick a person who was going to alienate herself from non shooting, non redneck america.
An Old man who can't turn on a computer and a women who shoots deer from her porch where the best America had to run against Obama and Clinton.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by whatukno

No If i go to get a drivers licence I have to prove who I am, I can't be given due prcess, there for I am who ever i say I am until they prove I'm some one else. He'd already lied on his application, why would he stop at one lie.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by MrBlonde

Ah yes the agency you have to prove your identity to. But do you have to prove your identity to everyone in the room at the DMV or just to the person you get your drivers license from?

If the DMV accepts your proof of citizenship, then some yahoo in the back claims that your proof isn't valid, do you not have a right to face your accuser? Do you not have a right to have that person bring forth evidence proving their case?

Or do you have to surrender your drivers license because of one person with faulty claims?

[edit on 6/3/2009 by whatukno]

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:10 AM
I still don't see this issue going anywhere. Even if Bammer is foreign-born and the questions heat up, all he has to do is forge the needed documents and that will be that. Who's gonna stop him?

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45

you're right of course. nothing will remove him unless there is public outcry over current events like the nationalization of businesses that are competing against private businesses. the executive branch does not seem to be expected to pay attention to the constitution any more. they are exempt. the legislative branch also seems pretty much exempt from laws because nobody brings charges about anything except maybe sex. It seems like the judicial branch is becoming more activist, though i don't know that. I don't particularly follow it, but i don't think they are going to do anything to get the other branches to apply the constitution to their own activities. somebody would have to take the case to them. many people have tried to take the eligibility case to them with no success, let alone stuff about those running governmet. It appears that no matter what happens with the eligibility situation, he will stay in office. nobody is going to turn him out of office with the country in such a mess. if ever the phrase too big to fail applied, it applies to obama.

as for line of succession, i think that if obama were to be removed for ineligibility, it might also knock out biden since he was part of an ineligible ticket, so we would get pelosi. she would appoint a vice president. maybe we would have a special election. if biden did become presdient, he would appoint a vice president, just as happened when nixon left. there is no good scenario to this.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by whatukno

So basically no qualifications as that would mean some sort of recognition by some institution on "your" views about the general populace. Well good for you for considering yourself a person who is sure of what others would do. I'm sure the lack of education and credentials you may or may not posses is sure to be accepted as credible to any educated individual.

As for opposition pouncing on others to get ahead.. this just proves how naive you are in understanding the human Psyche in one field. There are those who would prefer to "bribe", or make back room deals with their opposition to get what they want without the headaches of answering to others. That is how most if not all issues of this kind is dealt with be it in politics or organizations.

That aside.. your speculation on how others handle things is not viable information and your speculation on how things are handled behind the scenes is stagnant and flat.

Have a great day in your bubble...

"Don't believe me? Ask any political pundit they will all say the same. "

Oh really.. what would they say without a lawyer present or "not" being truthful? What they want me to hear or want they want me to believe.... nice source.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Willbert]

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in