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: 17
40
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


In the previous post you gave me theories, you didnt prove anything. Thats my point, you dont have evidence, .


wouldn't it be great if we had a President who didn't have something to hide that Americans had to come up with "theories" just to know a simple question about his place of birth.




you dont even have any constitutional evidence


Yeah, unlike McCain who gave us that conclusive evidence mandated he is natural born, Obama spits on the voters and the constitution. To him, its toilet paper and you support that.




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cypher-X
wouldn't it be great if we had a President who didn't have something to hide


He doesnt have anything to hide because he has proven sufficiently under Hawaiian law and vai the constitution his eligibility for the presidency. His short form birth certificate was verified as authentic by the state of Hawaii. On December 15th 2008 Congress and the electoral college had to last say on the matter and they voted him in as president.

He isnt hiding anything simply because you have not proven what he is supposedly hiding. All you have done thus far is to further create theories, assumptions, and questions. He isnt hiding anything until you prove what he is supposedly hiding.

SG



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Cypher-X
wouldn't it be great if we had a President who didn't have something to hide


He doesnt have anything to hide because he has proven sufficiently under Hawaiian law and vai the constitution his eligibility for the presidency. His short form birth certificate was verified as authentic by the state of Hawaii. On December 15th 2008 Congress and the electoral college had to last say on the matter and they voted him in as president.

He isnt hiding anything simply because you have not proven what he is supposedly hiding. All you have done thus far is to further create theories, assumptions, and questions. He isnt hiding anything until you prove what he is supposedly hiding.

SG


So do you believe everything the government says or just things that appeal to your political ideas?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Totakeke
So do you believe everything the government says or just things that appeal to your political ideas?


No I base that on common sense. I can accuse you of hiding something, does that make it true? How do I know your hiding something? what am I basing this on? The fact Im personally suspicious of you? If somebody uses their drivers licence as ID for beer and you refuse to accept as sufficient enough, can a refuse you beer even though the store policy is driver licence only? Based on my own suspicions even though the licence is valid? (by the way you can use your short form to get your drivers licence in Hawaii).

Obama has proven sufficiently vai the constitution and law his eligibility, his short form was verified by state. When through the proper channels of eligibility and checked out. Congress had the last say in December and voted him in. His finished the campaign and is no longer obligated to prove anything further. Your "not satisfied with what his shown and you", thats your personal problem. Fortunatly you and the faction of birthers do not dictate the eligibility of the presidency. Now you accuse the man of hiding something based on what? Because he wouldnt answer to rightwing conspiracy theorists? Right. And what is he hiding? Having you proven what he is supposedly hiding? Or are you basing that on your own personal conclusions again?

You can sit here and argue "who just wants to see what" and it still won't make a difference in getting you that long form. Evidence will however, something you dont have at all apparently.

SG



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


He doesnt have anything to hide because he has proven sufficiently under Hawaiian law and vai the constitution his eligibility for the presidency. His short form birth certificate was verified as authentic by the state of Hawaii. On December 15th 2008 Congress and the electoral college had to last say on the matter and they voted him in as president.

He isnt hiding anything simply because you have not proven what he is supposedly hiding. All you have done thus far is to further create theories, assumptions, and questions. He isnt hiding anything until you prove what he is supposedly hiding.

SG
I
The State of Hawaii doesn't have anything to do with it and are I thought the document fukino was talking about was that she had seen he had his vaulted original BC on record there, or was she merely saying he has a BC and its a hawaian BC so what? That might satisfy the liberals, they don't seem to give a rats ass who runs this country as long as it is someone that will create the largest debt and thr biggest Government but you have not shown me nor has Fukino acknowledged anything but that they have his BC on record. She didn't even see it SG So how in the hell would she know what is on it to confirm a damn thing. Your suggestion he met any standard of conclusive proof is absurd.

We wanted to know what his Vaulted BC said and we still don't and nor do you do you

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Cypher-X]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Totakeke
So do you believe everything the government says or just things that appeal to your political ideas?


No I base that on common sense. I can accuse you of hiding something, does that make it true? How do I know your hiding something? what am I basing this on? The fact Im personally suspicious of you? If somebody uses their drivers licence as ID for beer and you refuse to accept as sufficient enough, can a refuse you beer even though the store policy is driver licence only? Based on my own suspicions even though the licence is valid? (by the way you can use your short form to get your drivers licence in Hawaii).

Obama has proven sufficiently vai the constitution and law his eligibility, his short form was verified by state. When through the proper channels of eligibility and checked out. Congress had the last say in December and voted him in. His finished the campaign and is no longer obligated to prove anything further. Your "not satisfied with what his shown and you", thats your personal problem. Fortunatly you and the faction of birthers do not dictate the eligibility of the presidency. Now you accuse the man of hiding something based on what? Because he wouldnt answer to rightwing conspiracy theorists? Right. And what is he hiding? Having you proven what he is supposedly hiding? Or are you basing that on your own personal conclusions again?

You can sit here and argue "who just wants to see what" and it still won't make a difference in getting you that long form. Evidence will however, something you dont have at all apparently.

SG


You seem to be forgetting one glaring detail, southern Guardian, This man more than any President has done more to hide his past than anyone before him. He has used dead mens social security numbers has memory lapse when he speaks off the cuff making errors where memories that are true don't often change, their is plenty of reason Americans felt they had every right to know what this man about to take that office was about .


then after his camp insisted a full investigation be done on John McCains BC, we wanted to see his original BC and we waited and waited and waited and waited and by that time some went to find out on there own because Obama just avoided it. That is when the discrepancies of his place of birth came to light and the first clue as to why he procrastinated in furnishing his original BC . So what did we get a FAKE colb. It was proven fake and they came up with another, but that one didn't have a raised seal. No problem, they put up another version and it still didn't have anything substantive on it. We said where is your original BC and all we got was excuses about silly laws that he couldn't show it which was BS.

Then we saw snopes changing there story to match the new testimoney which by the way has always been second hand.

We wanted to see that vaulted BC and lo n behold Obama flys to Hawaii and the DOH comes out and says she seen the files in the data base and yep Obama has a his original BC on record there.

Yeah SO?????

So thats all you get there are more important things to be done she stuck her nose in ther air and left. WTF is that? What is more important than making sure the constitution is upheld by a legitimate natural born citizen ?

She gave another excuse saying she wasn't authorized to tell us what was on the vaulted BC she never authenticated the COLB nor did she give us any answer at all other than telling us Obamas BC was now listed in a database. Well Gee I guess we figured that out when he flew there to make arraingments for them to have it there . I mean it is anyones guess.

Then we have people like you here who are so enamored so in love so infatuated with this sleazeball and his shifty BC shell game, telling us were out of line for asking to see the proof we have to date never seen?

How gullible



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cypher-X
The State of Hawaii doesn't have anything to do with it and are I thought the document fukino was talking about was that she had seen he had his vaulted original BC on record there,


Im going to repeat this post to you, and Im going to remind you again in both quote she personally verified the short form as authentic. I have repeated this to you numerous times. I know of the statement she made regarding the long form, the quotes below are not regarding the long form or that statement from her regarding the long form, it is about his short form birth certificate.

His short form birth certificate is sufficient evidence of birth for the state of Hawaii, which was verified by the state of Hawaii itself, including the Hawaiian health officials:


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...


Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid.

www.starbulletin.com...

the two statements above were personal analysis over the authenticity of Obamas short form.

Birth certificates as defined:


Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


hawaii.gov...

The above two quotes are verification of his short form. I did not use the quote of hers regarding the long form. You continue to purposefully get the statements mixed up but as I said in other threads and on here, i am happy to continue to drill this fact until you cut ignoring them. Fukino personally verified his short form as authentic, short form birth certificates are sufficient evidence of birth in the state of Hawaii. Fukin further made a statement that she is personally holding his long form but will not release it without Obamas consent. You may have your personal suspicions, you may "just want to see it" also but you dont have the standing neither the evidence to demand such a document.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Its amazing howmuch you continue to back this conspiracy that appears to be completely hollow of any evidence or commonsense what so ever. Is this because your afraid to admit you suspicions are absolutely baseless and personal? Who knows eh?


Originally posted by Cypher-X
You seem to be forgetting one glaring detail, southern Guardian, This man more than any President has done


I dont care if the man wears suspicious sun glasses in the whitehouse from day to day, that still doesnt prove his was born off US soil, that still doesnt prove to me his hiding anything. I'll remind you again, the law and the constitution doesnt care about your personal suspicions or theories about the man. What matters is solid evidence. Until you come up with that your dead in the water, plain and simple. There are literally a flood of other conspiracies out there that even they have more weight than this single conspiracy, and yet officials and judges have better things to do with their time than entertain that speculative garbage, this is no different


more to hide his past


And this is going to get you those documents? Your personal suspicions? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Is this the solid evidence of him being born in Kenya?


It was proven fake


It was not "proven fake", it was called a fake by a bunch of angry rightwing bloggers with no credentials to show for it. The short form was verified by the health department of Hawaii. The "analysis" made by the "self described experts" who hide behind blog names was debunked by a real expert in the matter of authentic documentation online. The link is in the OP which I have directed you to numerous times and which you continue to ignore.

Now heres an analysis of somebody with real credentials not afraid to reveal himself and counter the phony analysis of the birth certificate done by a bunch of faceless bloggers with no credentials:

Dr. Neal Krawetz (real name)
www.hackerfactor.com.../archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

Here are his credentials by the way:
hackerfactor.com...

If the link doesnt directly lead you to the article simply quote my reply and copy the link in its full here.


We wanted to see


Thats not going to get you that long form. Evidence is.


gullible


I know right? The Belief that somehow Ms Dunham 8 months pregnant managed to afford a flight ticket to Kenya to only give birth to Obama there and then somehow fly back to then announce it in the papers. Makes logical sense right? No flight records to prove it. No evidence of her absence from Hawaii during that time. Do you even know howmuch plane tickets were back in those days? $400 dollars in the 1960s. Do you know howmuch that was in the 1960s?? Therefor this is proof that Obama is not a natural born? This theory? but his real father is Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis, two natural born americans making him have two natural born parents even if he was born off soil. No evidence other that than so called accounts from an unauthentic audio tape and some guy who "claims" to faked the BC but thats it. I met a guy once who thought he was an elf from the north pole. Damn. Some revelation. And then we have those who base the entire evidence of the conspiracy over the fact "we didnt see the document we wanted".

Gullible you say. Funny that.


[edit on 27-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


To all on this post, do not bother trying to explain to Southern Guardian that this is a "legal" question as opposed to a "birth" question. I tried, on a number of occasions to explain the following, which is nicely presented in the link below, to him to no avail...because he has absolutely no schooling or experience in the law and hasnt a clue as to the proper application of Article 2 of the Constitution and the value of Supreme Court precedent. Instead, he will drone on and on about the 14th Amendment and how that somehow applies, which it does not, as a simple reading of this link below makes clear:

canadafreepress.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



And here are some more links on the topic of "birthers" and our-state run media, for whom Southern Guardian, I'm sure, is an avid fan...

www.americanthinker.com...

canadafreepress.com...

www.australia.to...:media-mischief-the-obama-eligibility-issue-and-the-dispositive-fact-&catid= 71:world-news&Itemid=201

canadafreepress.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Damn, for the 2,546th time, my whole point here is that it is time for the Supreme Court to decide this issue. That they need to hear these cases, not so much for the "birther" issue, but to clarify the Framer's meaning of a "natural born" citizen under Article II. Until they do so, Obama's eligibility to serve is in doubt. That doesnt mean i advocate for his immediate removal; it means the current Supreme Court needs to firmly address this issue, rather than leave it in limbo as the Court in the Minor case did...get it now?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




and yet officials and judges have better things to do with their time than entertain that speculative garbage, this is no different


And yet you make a thread about it.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Totakeke
And yet you make a thread about it.


Well because I have the confort of knowing Im not a judge, Im not a law maker and I choose to participate on conspiracy forums and debate.

How bout' that Kenyan evidence?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
To all on this post, do not bother trying to explain to Southern Guardian that this is a "legal" question as opposed to a "birth" question.


You are yet to prove Obama is unconstitutionally fit to be president. You merely cited me a supreme court ruling where it cast US born children to one natural born parent "in doubt" in the case of natural born citizenship. "In doubt" is not a ruling by law against. On the constitution it clearly states that eligibility for the presidency is a birth right. It mentions nothing of the citizenship of the parents. Obama is constitutionally eligible for the presidency and you are yet to prove otherwise.


I tried, on a number of occasions to explain


You tried on a number of occasions to make "in doubt" sound like a definite ruling of Obamas ineligibility when it clearly wasn't. Merely the constitution stating eligibility for the presidency is a birth right already casts Obama as eligible.


canadafreepress.com...


Firstly, for all the talk of how bad and bias the annenberg factchecker is (which was founded by a pro-Reagan supporter might I add) you fellas continue to reference rightwing fringe blogs that are bias in every sense. Has anybody got the spine to actually venture beyond websites that cater to their personal ideological beliefs?

The article again discusses the supreme court ruling in 1874 regarding "birth by soil to one parent of US citizenship and one parent of foreign citizenship" in doubt. The article doesnt deny Obama's natural born citizenship, it just casts it in "question". The Supreme court ruling of 1874 did not rule a definite standing that children born to one non-citizen on US soil to not be natural borns, the entire comment on "doubt" was just a "question". It never became law, it was not a ruling disqualifying Barack Obama.

You seem to be getting frustrated because we dont take "in doubt" as a definite "law" establishing rule..... but its not, sorry. Niether does it prove Obama is not a natural born. He is already constitutionally eligible merely by being born of US soil. As for statutory, (federal laws and court ruling following that) it has only been cast as "in doubt" but never ruled as not rightfully natural born.

SG

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
You've said twice already you were leaving this thread, and yet you continue to come back with the same tired excuse? Will this be your last time for good, or will be fortunate enough to continue this debate with you?


Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
Damn, for the 2,546th time, my whole point here is that it is time for the Supreme Court to decide this issue.


So you admit this "in doubt" matter isnt evidence of Obamas ineligibility? Merely being born on US soil via the constitution already made you a natural born.... I dont care "how different times were in the 18th century with all our immigrant problems now".. that was the ruling upon the declaration of independence. Any ruling by the supreme court now will not apply to Obama as he has already been confirmed by congress and the electoral college as the constitution has allocated and his short form birth certificate has been sufficient enough. Any ruling will apply following the term of a sitting president who previously was by right under the law to serve the presidency.

If the court ruling for future candidates is going to make you happy... so be it. That still isnt going to change the fact Obama is the current sitting president, that still isnt going change the election outcome of last year. Take into mind as well that the founding fathers clearly established the presidency as a birth right, and that was all they put into the constitution. Although the founding fathers did allocate the power to congress and the supreme court to make admendments, it should be noted that this still changes the original intent written by them back in 1775. You can change their views to suit your argument, but thats all you'll be doing, changing the constitution to suit your "pro-constitutionalist" standing.



not so much for the "birther" issue


It will not be a birther issue any longer when the real evidence is provided against this sitting presidents eligibility. If you well and truly feel his ineligible cut the excuses and start coming up with solid evidence. Your a lawyer right? You should know better than the rest of the birthers here.

SG


[edit on 30-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


No genius...why dont u read Article 2 for crying out loud???? The Framers' intent was to clearly make a distinction between simply being born here and something more than simply birth, i.e., a "natural born citizen"....how else do u explain the clear language of Article 2, which makes a distinction between a "natural born" citizen and someone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was drafted???

Do u actually read the links i post????? Read again, genius; for the WND article, pay particular attention to the excerpt from the First Congress in 1790...

canadafreepress.com...

www.wnd.com...

And btw, if the Supreme Court was to rule on this issue the way it should, what would then prevent a potential impeachment of your Messiah?? Pray tell?? A simple resolution passed by Congress??? I think not....



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Stop distorting the intent of my posts. It's a pathetic way to argue...

And where is it in the Constitution that it says the eligibility of a President is determined by where he was born??????????????? WHERE???????????? Are u going to resort to the 14th Amendment again for the 20th time, even though it clearly is inapplicable to this particular issue???



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
No genius...why dont u read Article 2 for crying out loud???? The Framers' intent was to clearly make a distinction between simply being born here and something more than simply birth, i.e., a "natural born citizen"


The constitution mentions nothing in definition about natural born citizenship. It does however state clearly that the president must have been born on US soil to be eligible for the presidency. It does not mention anything particular regarding the parents. It clearly states the right to the presidency is a birth right. The ruling from the supreme regarding Wong Kim Ark was based on the fact Wong Kim ark was born to two parents who were not legally in the United states.

The other supreme court that makes the comment "in doubt" did not rule against the natural born citizenship of children born on US soil to one American citizen and one legal foreign exchange student, so thus far you have not proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen. You refer me to that particular supreme court ruling that doesnt prove your case that his ineligible.


how else do u explain the clear language of Article 2, which makes a distinction between a "natural born" citizen and someone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was drafted


Tell where does the constitution define natural born citizenship as a child born on US soil to two american citizens clearly? Can you go onto the constitution and reference me that direct meaning please? Because all I see is that it states:

To be eligible for the presidency you must be 35 years old, you must have been a resident in the US for 14 years atleast and you must be a natural born citizen. This is the only part in the constitution where it even mentions natural born citizenship. It also also clearly states that the path to the presidency is a birth right and mentions nothing of the parents.

Now you continous tell me about the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship but I have never mentioned citizenship in justifying Obamas eligibility. I have been talking about Obamas natural born citizenship which you continuously accuse me of getting mixed up in. Im telling you that you are yet to prove Obama is not a natural born citizen, I am not talking about "citizenship in itself".


Do u actually read the links i post


Why do you continously link me to rightwing fringe blogs? The absolute biasness in these articles is astounding. Why should I bother reading whats on the Obama bashing fringe sites when you refuse to listen to my constitutional references?


Read again, genius; for the WND article, pay particular attention to the excerpt from the First Congress in 1790


And I told you even the article from canada free press refuses to admit that Obama is not natural born, it merely states there were questions in the past in cases similar to Obama. "In doubt" is not a definite ruling over cases such as Obamas not being natural born. It wasnt made law, it was "in doubt". Continously make this as if this was a ruling by law, but you fail to prove so.


www.wnd.com...


Again WND fails to prove Obama ineligibility. In the article it states that the definition from one website out of numerous others claimed there needed to be both parents who were citizens. The definition from these individuals are not the widely recognized definition of natural born citizenship to others. Just because afew websites and individuals personally define natural born citizenship as both parents doesnt make it law. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that both parents have to be american citizens. You have failed to reference me in the constitution or an admendement where it clearly states that both parents have to be citizens. I am not concerned about what some fringe website found as a definition on another website or from some individual, I am only concerned about what is said in the constitution and by federal law which you continuous fail to prove me.

Stop referencing me articles form fringe websites that spend 99% of their time smearing this administration. I want actual references from the constitution.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Stop distorting the intent of my posts. It's a pathetic way to argue...

And where is it in the Constitution that it says the eligibility of a President is determined by where he was born??????????????? WHERE????????????



''anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized ''

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

The only law where it requires both parents to be citizens in order to be natural born is when the child is born abroad. The constition neither its admendments bases this qualification on children born on US soil. You are yet to reference me any such ruling.


Are u going to resort to the 14th Amendment again for the 20th time, even though it clearly is inapplicable to this particular issue???


Listen here. You get me a constitutional reference or law vai the constitution where is specifically says both parents must be citizens for the child to be natural born.

I dont want your phony references to propaganda fringe websites.
I dont want your constant drilling of a supreme court ruling that merely tells me "in doubt"
I want a clear reference from the constitution where it says both parents.

SG



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




There is no point in talking to you...you are beyond thick-headed and have no legal background or understanding of the Constitution and legal precedent...I might as well try to convey my points to a 3-year old...I'd have a better chance of success...u've wasted enough of my time...those with an IQ of 15 or more who read our respective threads can judge for themselves who is a Constitutional expert and who is an unbending ideologue...



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join