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.

 

"Evidence" from the birth certificate conspiracy, my analysis

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


Hows it deflecting? He told me Im only referencing "liberal ilk" to prove my point, evidently throughout this thread Iv been referencing the constitution and the laws. For you say im deflecting, and yet not address the OP directly, well shows me that your a full blown hypocrite.

So please, by all means address the OP and tell me how I am proving my points with this "liberal ilk". If Im "deflecting" it shouldnt be too hard for you to address the OP and show me where.

SG




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You really are not the brightest bulb, huh?. For the 235th time, I am not focusing on whether he was born here or not. My entire analysis falls under Article II of the Constitution and what constitutes a "natural born citizen". You keep referring to this foreign-born argument, which I am ignoring, and an analysis of who qualifies as a citizen under the 14th Amendment, which is not the proper vehicle for this analysis. And either you dont get what I am saying to you or you are wilfully choosing to ignore it...if u want to analyze the law on this issue, review the link I sent you...it actually cites case law and excerpts from the Constitution and was written by a lawyer...unlike your snopes.com piece, which was written by a guy with a GED...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
[... seeing as you are such a strong advocate of the anti-Obama crusade on here. Satisfying you over anything is pointless, because you will hate regardless.
First off, you don't know me, second off I have told you that if someone presents credible evidence to where he was precisely born in Hawaii, I would accept it. I have asked you numerous times to answer that simple question, you seem unwilling or unable to answer it.



You, Pavil, among others, will always hold some conspiracy regardless of what anybody does. Actually at the end of the day arguing with you over the matter is a moot, because you yourself hold personal issue with the president, which has clearly clouded your judgement over the matter..... Yet it appears to me you only have your personal suspicions to show for it ...


Again, I have stated "show your proof" as to where he was precisely born in Hawaii and you haven't. You try to flip it on me to prove he was born outside of the U.S., when that isn't the point. We don't know precisely where Barack Obama was born. You or President Obama could end this by just providing ANY inkling of where exactly he was born. You continually deflect my questions and never answer the central point in this whole argument. We know exactly where almost every President in the U.S. was born save for Barack Obama, that is not suspicion, it is proven fact. I'll try one last time to get this answer from you, tell me exactly where Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? By not answering that seemingly simple request, you are the one with cloudy judgement.



Tell me how are you denying ignorance by claiming he was born off US soil merely because of your own personal suspicions? Isnt that ignorant in itself?


I haven't stated where exactly he was born since I am ignorant on it. I readily admit not having enough information to make a definitive statement one way or the other. You seem to be ignorant on it as well as you have repeatedly dodge my every request to answer where exactly in Hawaii he was born. Who is accepting the ignorance and who is questioning the ignorance?



Seeing as you lack the knowledge of the constitutional legality of president Obama and his eligibility for the presidency (as you and others here have clearly not shown me, or by evidence of him being born off soil), since you only base your arguments on personal suspicions while at the same time maintaining the relevance of this conspiracy, the above should then apply to you.


I know the Constitutional requirements to be President or Vice President, it's rather easy to read, thank you. So by me not supplying info to prove my case beyond a shadow of a doubt, I am wrong. When you fail to provide info to prove your case beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is acceptable??? That's a piece of work there. No wonder you "win" your arguments.

I'll ask you one final time and then we will be done. Can you state exactly where in Hawaii Barack Obama was born?


Tell me why you can't seem to answer a question I have asked you at least a half dozen times?

I will take your lack of response to my question as you acknowledging that you don't know where exactly he was born, please just try and answer.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Hahahahahaha. What a legal scholar we have here!! So is this your analysis of Article II of the Constitution? That the legal determination of when someone is a "natural born citizen" is made at the time of his or her birth???? Hahahahahahaha...read closely genius; this is what Article II says:

"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;"

Do the words "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" register with you???????? Was Obama born in 1787??????

Again, the analysis of who is simply a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment can be made at birth. But the same analysis does not apply to who is a "natural born" citizen under Article II. Apples and oranges, my friend...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




Mod Edit - Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.


U2U's are ATS Private Messaging system. CLick that link please.




[edit on 17-7-2009 by elevatedone]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   



Originally posted by eniac
What's your source on that?

It's already been posted! Read the thread.


I don't see it posted anywhere on the thread. Seems to me you don't know what you're talking about. Which makes your aloof, 'know-it-all' tone pretty hilarious.




of course I haven't read the whole thread. I'm not going to wade through x pages of lunatic-fringe garbage on a complete non-issue.

Are you two years old or something? Jeeeeze.... we are NOT going to spoon feed you because you are too damn lazy to read the information provided. READ THE THREAD or get off it. That is how it works.

:shk: OY


Yeah, an analyst of your calibre is going to tell me 'How It Works'. You're doing good work-- keep it up.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by eniac]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
First off, you don't know me,


From your posts thus far I know enough to say you have nothing of constitutional or evidence wise to suspect Obama of anything other than your "personal suspicions".


I have told you that if someone presents credible evidence to where he was precisely born in Hawaii


Which is a moot of an argument with you. His presented his short form birth certificate, the evidence his presented for his citizenship has been accepted by the state Hawaii and the Hawaiian health board. Vai the constitution congress and the electoral college accepted him eligible for the presidency by birth. Your definition of "acceptable evidence" not only exceeds what his presented but also exceeds the previous presidents before regardless of whether you didnt "hold these personal suspicions" before.

My point Im getting to you now, since you are so interested in making things clear, is that whether you like it or not under the constitution and on November 4th he presented his evidence of birth in Hawaii and it was accepted. Your personal suspicions of the man are a moot, you wanting to see more evidence are a moot because Pavil your basis for seeing more evidence goes no further that your "personal conclusions" which im sorry are irrelevant under the court of law.



Again, I have stated "show your proof" as to where


Your the one whos promoting this conspiracy that he was born off soil so please dont have the nerve to ask me to show you proof. If you believe he was born off soil you come up with the proof or else you have no case.

The president has satisfied the laws for his eligibility vai the constitution, whether you feel thats "sufficient proof" or not. You certainly have some nerve to come out and ask me to show you proof when you dont have any yourself and you have yet to show anything for it. Get off it, seriously.

Pavil thus far you have not addressed my OP and you have not shown me any questionable evidence of him being born off soil. All you have done so far is making further "personal" questions about the man because your satisfied.

Whether you feel its acceptable evidence or not Obama has proven under the court of law that he is eligible. I cannot say 100% that he was born on US soil, as I cant for the rest of the 44 presidents or any other individual. What I can say is that his satisfied the laws of the land vai the constitution of his birth on US soil vai congress and the electoral college, and the people themselves accepted what he presented on November 4th 2008. I am yet to see evidence to the contrary, which you folks fail to present other that more "personal questions".

So, seeing as this is your fringe conspiracy, you come up with the evidence as to why he is ineligible for the presidency. Until you do so I have no more interest discussing anything with you because you clearly know nothing.

SG


[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
"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;"


Exactly, so long as President Obama was born on US soil to atleast one US citizen he is by all means a natural born citizen. The previous constitutional reference you posted where it referred to both parents having to be citizens only accounts for those children born off US soil which you fellas are yet to prove.

Its funny, for all the credit being given to the CIA and the FBI on this conspiracy website you folks sure dont give them enough credit to use google in the same manner of information as you do.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




The previous constitutional reference you posted where it referred to both parents having to be citizens only accounts for those children born off US soil which you fellas are yet to prove.


Please prove to me that Obama is a natural-born citizen. I don't want speculation; I want hard proof.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
You really are not the brightest bulb, huh?.


If thats the case why is it that I am the only one getting the constitution right?


I am not focusing on whether he was born here or not. My entire analysis falls under Article II of the Constitution and what constitutes a "natural born citizen". You keep referring to this foreign-born argument, which I am ignoring, and an analysis of who qualifies as a citizen under the 14th Amendment,


I have reviewed what you sent me, and heres what I found:


Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.


www.usconstitution.net...

If you look at the above, the first one clearly states any one born on US soil, which Obama has proven under the consitution vai confirmation from congress and the electoral college along wit state officials. The other one I highlighted that you referenced to me is based on the assumption that Obama was born off US soil which you and your comrads here are yet to prove.

SG



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadyLawyer
 


Shady if you look at the current issues regarding illigal immigration where the illigal migrants are having their children on US soil and are automatically becoming US citizens, we can reference modern situations to see where natural born citizenship applies.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Totakeke
Please prove to me that Obama is a natural-born citizen. I don't want speculation; I want hard proof.


Uh no, you prove to me that Obama was born off US soil. I done my part. For somebody who buys this conspiracy your certainly a sorry excuse for having any evidence what so ever.

SG



[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


Hows it deflecting? He told me Im only referencing "liberal ilk" to prove my point, evidently throughout this thread Iv been referencing the constitution and the laws. For you say im deflecting, and yet not address the OP directly, well shows me that your a full blown hypocrite.

So please, by all means address the OP and tell me how I am proving my points with this "liberal ilk". If Im "deflecting" it shouldnt be too hard for you to address the OP and show me where.

SG




I have no idea what you are referring to. I have politely asked you 3 times now give your analysis on my post. That is the deflection I am referring to. Which by the way you have not addressed.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Wow. I give up. It is impossible to get thru to you. Impossible. Typical lib. How frustrating. You are completely incapable of reading Article II and understanding it.

Ok, I'll take one last stab at this. I myself am not constitutionally eligible to serve as President, despite being born on US soil and my Mother being a US citizen at the time. This is because my Father was not a US citizen at the time. Now does that mean I am not a "citizen" as defined under the 14th Amendment? No, in fact, I was automatically a citizen at birth.

However, I can not serve as President because, even though I am a citizen, I am not a "natural born" citizen under Article II of the Constitution.

Only Article II of the Constitution addresses the issue of the qualifications of the President with respect to citizenship. ONLY ARTICLE II. Do you see anything at all in the 14th Amendment which links its definition of citizenship to the Presidency?? Anything??

For the last time, the definition and analysis of a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment is an entirely different animal than the "natural born" citizen requirement that is mandated upon a President under Article II. ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

You can be a citizen under the 14th Amendment, yet still hold dual citizenship...which would disqualify you as a "natural born" citizen under Article II....

While the Constitution was later amended to ease the definition of a "citizen", it was the desire of the the framers to ensure that a President was "natural born", i.e., born on US soil to 2 parents of US blood...the suggestion that the framers, upon a reading of Article II, thought it was ok that one parent was not a US citizen is absurb....

Why is it then that, in your mind, Article II was somehow revoked??? Article II still stands untouched and it clearly and directly sets forth the citizenship requirements of a President....why then are we talking about the 14th Amendment, which was drafted long after the framers were dead and gone and is completely silent as to the citizenship requirement of a President???????????

Seriously, this is not that complicated....



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


No, u are actually getting the Constitution dead wrong....dead wrong, my friend....if this was an exam in my Constitutional Law class, you'd be getting one big fat "F"....



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 



(8) Accuses Barack Obama of having used 39 Social Security Cards and 119 address prior to becoming the 44th President. In addition, one of the SSN cards issued appears to be out of Conneticut and shows him as 119 years old.


Yes, thus far the plaintiff claims to possess this evidence and is yet to prove it. your using some hollow accusation to prove Obama is in some way ineligible or a fraud, we are yet to see this evidence presented. If these accusations are true, if the plaintiff can prove it with evidence under a court of law by all means then, it should be looked into. However, like the fringe lawsuits before it, its all "talk" so far. You will have to wait for them to present it under a court of law to claim anything.


This coupled with the fact that Barrack's grandmother, Madeline Dunham, was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate Department and had access to the social security numbers of the deceased.


We can speculated his grandmother did that, but thats as far as you'll go. Speculation, personal opinion doesnt cut it under a court of law. You have prove this actually happened.


(9) Brings up an important citizenship law regarding the state of Hawaii. It states that Hawaiin Statue 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates.


Yes, this law does exist, however, I'll say this again, it was only established from 1982 onwards, two decades after Obamas birth. Prior to that you had to have been a natural born citizen of the state of Hawaii.

Here I'll reference you the law:


[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

This was my reply when you accused me of deflecting. Now go back to the drawing boards and come back with some better excuse that you actually took the time to research on.

SG




[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




My God! Why do u keep insisting on a strict "citizenship" analysis under the 14th Amendment????? For the 1,468th time, the "natural born" citizen analysis, which governs who may be a President, and which was mandated by The Framers, governs this issue completely.

Are u incapable of separating the "citizen" analysis under the 14th Amendment and the "natural born" citizen requirement mandated upon a President under Article II???????????



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 



(8) Accuses Barack Obama of having used 39 Social Security Cards and 119 address prior to becoming the 44th President. In addition, one of the SSN cards issued appears to be out of Conneticut and shows him as 119 years old.


Yes, thus far the plaintiff claims to possess this evidence and is yet to prove it. your using some hollow accusation to prove Obama is in some way ineligible or a fraud, we are yet to see this evidence presented. If these accusations are true, if the plaintiff can prove it with evidence under a court of law by all means then, it should be looked into. However, like the fringe lawsuits before it, its all "talk" so far. You will have to wait for them to present it under a court of law to claim anything.


This coupled with the fact that Barrack's grandmother, Madeline Dunham, was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate Department and had access to the social security numbers of the deceased.


We can speculated his grandmother did that, but thats as far as you'll go. Speculation, personal opinion doesnt cut it under a court of law. You have prove this actually happened.


(9) Brings up an important citizenship law regarding the state of Hawaii. It states that Hawaiin Statue 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates.


Yes, this law does exist, however, I'll say this again, it was only established from 1982 onwards, two decades after Obamas birth. Prior to that you had to have been a natural born citizen of the state of Hawaii.

Here I'll reference you the law:


[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

This was my reply when you accused me of deflecting. Now go back to the drawing boards and come back with some better excuse that you actually took the time to research on.

SG




[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



Thanks SG,

See this pisses me off, why would these idiots put that in the suit when it is obviously not applicable. Jeez....I feel like I wasted my time with all this, but thank you for your response.

I think the biggest thing is that people want it to be true more than anything and unfortunately, I can't be a hypocrite and say I'm not one of them. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Carry on.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
I think the biggest thing is that people want it to be true more than anything and unfortunately, I can't be a hypocrite and say I'm not one of them. Oh well, back to the drawing board.


Look go back and get me some laws that clearly state somebody born on US soil to be ineligible, or go back and cite me laws that contradict my OP. Im here to debunk the laws and to address them fully if need be, Im not here to necessarily shoot down people who have real evidence.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadyLawyer
 


I'm going to make a pretty much off-topic comment. I think it needs to be said, and let the chips fall where they must.

I think you bring some very intelligent insight to this issue Shady, and you understand and are able to articulate the nuances of law that are pertinent to this case.......... in short, you contribute positively.

I am really put off by your barbs and insults, though. The OP and folks that you're talking to perhaps don't have your immersion in law, and Constitututional law, in particular.... and while I share some of your frustration at the stonewalling of issues, you are --my opinion -- doing a disservice to this issue, and self-smearing your own case with the insults.

I think your points would be much more salient, and quite possibly..... be HEARD.

For example, you --if you chose -- could outline the parameters that might cause the "standing" issue to be challenged.

thanks for listening, counselor, and welcome to ATS



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join