It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)

page: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I've not been able to find any independent verification of that quote.


Its politifact, type in google as well to confirm for yourself.


The picture of the CoLB posted on that site was a copy of the forged document.


Because techdude from a hyper conservative website told you so.


The official statement I DID find, however, was this:


The statement you refer to regards Obamas long form. You can argue and speculate regarding his long form but at the end of the day it doesnt prove his ineligible. The short form birth certificate has been sufficient evidence since the founding of this nation to clarify your birth on this soil. If you can provide me evidence that every other US president in the history of this nation has had to present his longer form birth certificate by all means.

The COLB has been authenticate, has been approved by the Hawaii state government as authentic enough to verify Obamas birth there, his birth certificate has been approved by congress (whether you would like to implicate them in the conspriacy as well by all means.)


Ms Okubo CANNOT have "verified"


The director of the Hawaiian state health board confirmed the short form as authentic. Take it as you like.

If simply "want to believe" that Obama was not born in these united states thats your deal, it certainly doesnt hold up in a court of law.



United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5 is the authority in question. I've not said he is ineligible


afew guys thought Reagan was the antichrist back the 80s, im sure they would have demanded Reagan himself to come and prove to them otherwise. Pritty sure there are some reptillian believes who thought Bush was the reptillian king, they demanded he show himself.


Please.... you dont have any standing or authority to ask anything anymore. You didnt like the answer you got because you personally didnt like the man who was democratically elected. Toughies. Theres always 2012.

Now, wheres the evidence that Obama was not born on US soil? You are yet to counter my constitutional evidence.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Now, wheres the evidence that Obama was not born on US soil? You are yet to counter my constitutional evidence.


Birthers don't have any evidence. The reason that these birthers have no evidence that Obama wasn't born in the US is because there is no evidence that Obama wasn't born in the US.

Probably has a lot to do with Obama actually being born in the US.

But the lawsuits will continue, because the Birthers have nothing better to do. Fact of the matter is they would be spending their time and energy much more wisely nitpicking the "stimulus" (Anyone remember the stimulus?) than they would chasing this wild goose.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Its politifact, type in google as well to confirm for yourself.


I saw it at politifact. Taken out of context apparently, no explanatory framework. I went looking for a full citation, and came up empty. Anyone can selectively quote stuff, cut and paste to suit their agenda. I could do that, too, but why bother? You'll not that I included the ENTIRE letter from the Hawaii Department of health, both good and bad, for what it was worth.



The picture of the CoLB posted on that site was a copy of the forged document.

Because techdude from a hyper conservative website told you so.


Negative. Because I could see the "smudge" or "glitch" in question myself, with my own two eyes, as could you if you were but inclined to look.



The official statement I DID find, however, was this:


The statement you refer to regards Obamas long form. You can argue and speculate regarding his long form but at the end of the day it doesnt prove his ineligible.


Yes it was a statement on the "long form". I could find no official statement whatsoever concerning the validity of the short form shown. That by itself makes it suspect. It looks like if the 'statement' at politifact were part of a complete statement, there would be a full quotation available SOMEWHERE, to explain the context for it. Are you saying the statement on the long form is invalid then?

No, it doesn't PROVE he's ineligible. He is providing his own evidence for that, circustantial though it may be, by obfuscating, and trying to keep it under wraps.



The short form birth certificate has been sufficient evidence since the founding of this nation to clarify your birth on this soil.


No, it hasn't. That's a preposterous statement on the face of it. 'Short Form' birth certificates haven't even been available for that long, much less evidentiary of anything. It shows the desperation of the 'hide and glide' camp, a grasping at straws and wholesale manufacture of 'facts' to cover their fearless leader's willful obstruction. Statement like that show they know.



If you can provide me evidence that every other US president in the history of this nation has had to present his longer form birth certificate by all means.


I've said it already, and will say it one last time. Not "every president in history" has had his origins in question. They haven't been required to 'prove' anything against questions unasked. The origins of OBAMA have been called into question. Now do as I asked, and tell me how many WERE questioned, and how it was resolved. Throwing a smokescreen to try covering ALL presidents does nothing to prove either the guilt or innocence of Obama in this matter.



The COLB has been authenticate, has been approved by the Hawaii state government as authentic enough to verify Obamas birth there, his birth certificate has been approved by congress (whether you would like to implicate them in the conspriacy as well by all means.)


I haven't seen any statement from the Hawaii state government, since you discount the letter from the HI dept of Health. Beyond that, there is a statement attributed to Ms Okubo, without any sort of verification attached. Neither have I seen any sort of Congressional approval of either long OR short forms, But in any event, congress is not qualified to determine questions of Constitutionality. That is the provenance of the Supreme Court, and is built in to the separation of powers concept.

Of course, with the things we've seen come out of Congress of late, it really wouldn't surprise me.



Ms Okubo CANNOT have "verified"

The director of the Hawaiian state health board confirmed the short form as authentic. Take it as you like.


Nope. It was confirmed to be the proper type of form, not verified as containing accurate information.



If simply "want to believe" that Obama was not born in these united states thats your deal, it certainly doesnt hold up in a court of law.


As is your 'belief' your deal, and has no more weight in "a court of law" than does mine.




United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5 is the authority in question. I've not said he is ineligible


afew guys thought Reagan was the antichrist back the 80s, im sure they would have demanded Reagan himself to come and prove to them otherwise. Pritty sure there are some reptillian believes who thought Bush was the reptillian king, they demanded he show himself.



Another ridiculous smoke screen to attempt to conceal the issue at hand. Minimize, misdirect, and marginalize all you like. The issue will not go away until made to go away, the simplest way to do so is provide verification.



Please.... you dont have any standing or authority to ask anything anymore.


It just so happens that I don't recognize your authority to make that determination on my behalf. I will ask anything at any time I please, with or without your permission. As you say, 'toughies'.



You didnt like the answer you got because you personally didnt like the man who was democratically elected. Toughies. Theres always 2012.


No need to try personalizing an attack. Just so happens that I don't DISLIKE Obama. I don't even know him. The fact remains that he wasn't "democratically elected" at all if he wasn't eligible to run to begin with. THAT is what is in question, not my likes or dislikes.



Now, wheres the evidence that Obama was not born on US soil? You are yet to counter my constitutional evidence.


The evidence has not been heard in any court, but is around for anyone interested. Since it isn't "my" evidence, I'm under no compulsion to do your homework for you. And I have yet to see any "Constitutional evidence" that you've provided. Indeed, I'm curious to see how one defines "Constitutional evidence". What sort of "evidence" do you think is "Constitutional"?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Birthers don't have any evidence. The reason that these birthers have no evidence that Obama wasn't born in the US is because there is no evidence that Obama wasn't born in the US.

Probably has a lot to do with Obama actually being born in the US.

But the lawsuits will continue, because the Birthers have nothing better to do. Fact of the matter is they would be spending their time and energy much more wisely nitpicking the "stimulus" (Anyone remember the stimulus?) than they would chasing this wild goose.



You may be right and we're being sucked in to a fabricated conspiracy theory.

But there there is more room for doubt here than with McCain or any President in at least a century.

I doubt very much Obama's legitimacy would be contested by the Supreme Court at this point, even if hard evidence turned up. Politics is politics.


Mike



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


Look here buddy Im not concerned anymore about your take on the birth certificate itself, its apparent you dont believe the Hawaii state health board, its apparent you dont believe the verification from the factchecker websites. God himself can verify the birth certificate and you still will not be satisfied.

My issue now that if your basing Obama ineligibility all because he didnt show you the long form which would be p*ss poor presentation of evidence and excuse for believing he was born off shore.

Wheres the constitutional evidence? Answer me, why is it that your running away from me when I ask you for constitutional evidence? Do you have any constitutional evidence or are running this whole conspiracy on the basis on what "techdude" from altas shugged told you?

Wheres the evidence?


[edit on 13-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
[Wheres the evidence?

Jay McKinnon confessed



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I can just as easily confess to killing Michael Jackson, there you go folks, I confessed.

Wheres the constitutional evidence? Wheres this damning evidence? Your basing the entire birth certificate conspiracy on what somebody "told" you. Where this evidence he was off soil?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Dude, you're tireless AND clueless!
I, and others, have explained VERY succinctly the problems with Obama's eligibility. But, you cannot seem to wrap your head around it. I find it ironic how you would make claims about God himself proving it and [you] still not believing it.


Look, it is not up to anyone to prove that he is not a citizen, the burden of proof is upon him to demonstrate his CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility. And since you keep demanding Constitutional evidence, here: Section 1 of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that a President must:

be a natural born citizen of the united States
be at least 35 years old
have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years

There!? Plain enough for you!? You still haven't adressed the fact the COLB DOES NOT denote his place of birth. The COLB lists his father's race as "African". The COLB could have been secured after 1982 which still proves nothing with respect to him being "Naturally born".

The Hawaiin officials have only stated that they have Obama's Birth Certificate. Read more about it HERE or The OFFICIAL RELEASE located here. How aboyt that!? Did you read EXACTLY what is says??? DID YOU!?!? Show me where it says that htey have confirmed his place of birth or verified that the COLB was legit - WHERE!?!?!?!?!?!!?

Talk about someone seeing, hearing or believing what they want to believe - despite the facts!


I would also like you to show where the Supreme Court has rendered a decision on the matter. They have refused to hear the matter as an issue regarding "Standing" NOT merit!!!


Southern, no offense man but you should simply recognize when you've been beaten and let it go! He has yet to provide proof that he is, in fact eligible. In fact, he has gone to great lengths to suppress the very means that would put the issue to rest, once and for all. I wonder why???

Edited to add: Isn't curious why the Certificate Number has been blacked out? It's not a Social Security number! It's blacked out because revealing it would most likely demonstrate that it was secured in the late 1980s!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by kozmo]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
be a natural born citizen of the united States


Wheres the evidence he was not born on US soil? All I hear is talk regarding him not showing this or that document, what somebody else said, I am yet to see evidence that he was born off US soil.


be at least 35 years old


What is there a conspiracy about him being younger than 35years old as well?


have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years


Yep thats already confirmed.


To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...

If you would like to contact Janice Okuba and those in charge of the Hawaii health department to deny this by all means go ahead, its your conspiracy.

Now whers this damning evidence that claims he was not born on US soil? Do you have any evidence at all?? Wheres the constitional evidence? Wheres the documentation from Kenya that confirms his birth there?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Look here buddy Im not concerned anymore about your take on the birth certificate itself, its apparent you dont believe the Hawaii state health board, its apparent you dont believe the verification from the factchecker websites. God himself can verify the birth certificate and you still will not be satisfied.


Well then, feel free to change the debate in mid-stream. Always a good tactic to employ when you find yourself on the losing side.


Unfounded and outrageous accusations help to cover ineptitude as well. How would you know what God and I talk about? And how do you know God can verify it? Please expand on that concept. You might convince me yet.




My issue now that if your basing Obama ineligibility all because he didnt show you the long form which would be p*ss poor presentation of evidence and excuse for believing he was born off shore.


It's obvious you have issues. Thanks for clearing up what YOU think they are.

Could you say that more slowly, and with less ire? I might get the gist of it if you could explain how presenting any evidence at all is "piss poor presentation of evidence".



Wheres the constitutional evidence? Answer me, why is it that your running away from me when I ask you for constitutional evidence? Do you have any constitutional evidence or are running this whole conspiracy on the basis on what "techdude" from altas shugged told you?

Wheres the evidence?



You've yet to explain what "Constitutional Evidence" IS. How is evidence "Constitutional"? How am I supposed to provide what you yourself cannot define?

This isn't the first time I've asked that.

WHO is evading and "running away" again?

I don't know who this "techdude" you keep mentioning is. Care to clarify?

Please get your blood pressure back under control. I'd hate for your head to explode when you're this close to losing your argument altogether, "buddy".

[edit on 2009/7/13 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
You've yet to explain what "Constitutional Evidence" IS. How is evidence "Constitutional"?


Anything constitutional that shows him to be ineligible. Incase you have not been reading lawsuits yourself the majority of them cited constitutional evidence on the grounds that Obama was ineligible, though one by one they were debunked:


One lawsuit said during the 60's foreign children were able to attain a Hawaiian birth certificate; truth is the law regarding that only came in place following 1982, before that you had to have been born in the US to have attained a birth certificate.

Another past lawsuit argued Obama attained Indonesia citizenship, due to Indonesian laws you had to give up your US citizenship thus making Obama ineligible, however the laws at the time of Indonesia disprove this fact as Obama was too old to automatically gain Indonesian citizenship as he resided there less than 6 years, over the age of 5. In addition his natural born citizenship does not recognize the laws of other nations so it was irrelevant. Regarding his attendance in public school his step father obviously lied because the laws did not allow under any circumstance Obama to gain Indonesian citizenship.

Yet another lawsuit came out arguing his Kenyan/British dual citizenship where the constitution forbids.... however Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21 as he did not give up his natural born American citizenship. The laws of Kenya at the time were also not recognizing by the US in anyway thus the laws there did not affect Obama. The constitution also states dual citizenship at the time of running for the presidency.

And then there was one lawsuit that argued that his mother was too young to pass her citizenship on to Obama when he was born.... yet Obama was born on US soil in any case so he is by all means natural born, in addition the marriage of his mother and father was not valid as his father was already married in Kenya, so any complications there don’t work out. This notion that somehow Miss Dunham went to Kenya at such a young age, 8-9 months pregnant, had Obama there, then rushed back makes no sense, especially considering his announcement in the Hawaiian papers at the time, that required you to have a birth certificate.


Your basing the entire birth certificate conspiracy on the basis that "he didnt show you other documents as you demand" or "what somebody else told you". This isnt sufficient under the court of law. You folks complain that these lawsuits never get a chance under the court of law, the truth is they evidence they present falls short in the first place.

If you well and truly believe Obama to be born off US soil surely one would assume you would have evidence, something in form of documentation proving he was born off US soil or something on the lines of the constitution itself, you know that paper that starts with "we the people"? Do you have any evidence at all? Or are you taking this entire conspiracy on the basis of speculation?

SG

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


I am no way going to try to mock your cause here now, Im asking, as if I were a judge. If you have real concerns regarding Obama being ineligible do you have any documentation from Kenya or any evidence vai the constitution to prove that?

You argue these lawsuits dont get far, so tell me what evidence you have.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by nenothtu
You've yet to explain what "Constitutional Evidence" IS. How is evidence "Constitutional"?


Anything constitutional that shows him to be ineligible.


OK, this is only the, what? 7th or 8th time now?

United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, paragraph 5.



Your basing the entire birth certificate conspiracy on the basis that "he didnt show you other documents as you demand" or "what somebody else told you". This isnt sufficient under the court of law.


No, you misinterpret the argument. He doesn't have to show ME anything. He's been taken at law to show it, to the court, and failed to do so. Repeatedly.

If I've been misinformed, then show me where he HAS shown it to the court, and I reckon I'll have to shut up about it, won't I?



If you well and truly believe Obama to be born off US soil surely one would assume you would have evidence, something in form of documentation proving he was born off US soil or something on the lines of the constitution itself, you know that paper that starts with "we the people"? Do you have any evidence at all? Or are you taking this entire conspiracy on the basis of speculation?


My argument isn't any more "speculative" than is yours. If YOU have the evidence to back up your argument, it should be a simple matter to show it, and shut me up.

However, as an experiment, I'm willing to take your line of reasoning with me the next time I go apply for a job. I'll just tell them that of course I was born in the US, and it's up to them to prove I wasn't, so I don't have to show any sort of documentation.

We'll see how well that goes over.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

I am no way going to try to mock your cause here now, Im asking, as if I were a judge. If you have real concerns regarding Obama being ineligible do you have any documentation from Kenya or any evidence vai the constitution to prove that?

You argue these lawsuits dont get far, so tell me what evidence you have.


Okay, I'll play.

***************************************************************

Yes.

The evidence is that he has not shown eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America, pursuant to Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5, United States Constitution, and has in fact repeatedly failed to show such eligibility when called upon to do so by his alleged employers, the People of the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as "the United States".

Failure to produce evidence of such eligibility is sufficient to prevent an ordinary citizen of the United States from obtaining employment, and a person aspiring to the office of President is not above the law.

Furthermore, Your Honor, said plaintiff has willfully produced falsified documentation to present to said alleged employers informally, in furtherance of gaining and maintaining such employment unlawfully, and in violation of the above cited section of the United States Constitution.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, paragraph 5.


Exactly yet you have not proven that he was born off US soil. Until you come up with the evidence that he was born off soil your references to article II under tha constitution falls short.

You say his ineligible for president because he wasnt born on US soil, then you reference me the constitution where it says that, yet you have not proven he was born off soil in the first place.



No, you misinterpret the argument. He doesn't have to show ME anything. He's been taken at law to show it,


And he has, his birth certificate. Its only a minority of rightwingers who feel its fake. When your buddies here come up with the evidence he was born off soil then they will have a case.


My argument isn't any more "speculative"


Whats that, you mean the constitutionally I had it wrong? The birth certificate was sufficient under law for him to become president. None of the branches, nor the Bush administration, nor his opponents opposed his eligibility. The only people who cite the birth certificate as fake are the very same individuals who hold numerous other conspiracies about him.

I dont need to speculate about anything, his eligibility has been verified by the proper officials as all presidents in the past. You are yet to provide evidence he was born off soil in the first place.


If YOU have the evidence to back up your argument


Im not the one accusing him of being born off american soil. So I suggest you get your facts together, you get that evidence of yours that he was born off US soil or you will continue to be dead on water under the court of law.

SG



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
The evidence is that he has not shown eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America, pursuant to Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5, United States Constitution, and has in fact repeatedly failed to show such eligibility


He has, his short form birth certificate which has verified by the Hawaii state department and the Hawaiian state government. Upon his presidential confirmation in December 24th 2008 he was confirmed eligible with the evidence he provided and was then confirmed as president.

You say he repeatedly failed, under whos authority? Is this the consensus of the majority of american citizens or just a small fraction? Do you represent the entire population of these United states? You dont speak for all of us sorry.

In addition to some of you folks claiming the birth certificate being fake, that still doesnt even by least prove he was born off US soil. Again at the end of it all its speculation. You think its fake and addition to that belief you agree he wasnt born on US soil, yet you have nothing else to show for it.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
it's an interesting point that obama has several times been ordered to appear and present evidence of his eligibility, but his team of lawyers keep asking for more time or they just ignore it entirely. and because barack obama is such an extra special person, the court has been okay with that. so he has been ordered to appear; he has failed to produce proof. it's true that the specific proof of eligibiity is not laid out. doesn't say he has to produce the long form. we'll see if he ever bothers to respond. he's pretty extra special so chances are he won't. but that doesn't mean any evidence has been thrown out, only that he is above the law.

i got my driver's license renewal form and here in oregon we now have to bring in a whole stack of documents to renew, to prove i am who i say i am, and live in oregon, etc. i guess obama doesn't have to bother with such things because no one expects him to prove anything.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a new development.


The hearing was on her motion for a default order against Obama, because although Taitz said she notified him of the action, Obama's attorneys did not make an appearance.


the motion was filed on Jan 20, inauguration day, about his actions before becoming president.


The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in the state's court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
...
The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant "Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro."
...
While no attorneys appeared on Obama's behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney's office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president. The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.
...
Taitz' complaint cites Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.


world net daily

the judge promises this will not be dismissed for procedural reasons. He issued no orders, but promised that the case would be moved forward and he would address the merits of the dispute.

we'll see what happens with this. should be very interesting



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Your name would'nt happen to be
Andrew Wiggins would it?


Your name wouldn't happen to be Jamie 83 would it?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Again your showing us blogs and claiming it's the truth. How about reliable news articles? How about something besides speculation?

And as for Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 where does it say in that section that any president has to show only his long form birth certificate as the only means of proving they are a natural born American citizen?

That's the question you "Birthers" never answer. EVER! you never answer it because you know it's not in there. It's not in the 14th amendment either. There is no constitutional proof that the long form birth certificate is the only acceptable form of identification that one must present in order to be president.

In short the COLB a valid, legal, and authenticated document issued by and verified by the Hawaiian department of Health is all that is legally required for Obama to prove his natural born citizen status and thus prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is our 44th president. Legally and will be at least for the next 3.5 years if not 7.5 years.




top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join