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: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

At the end of the day this is a conspiracy based on suspicions and speculation, as many of the other conspiracies are, and as many other new conspiracies will come in time. Taking to demands of one conspiracy will not end the nature of these conspiracies and to how they form. This arguments that it will somehow "satisfy you and your quesioning" is a moot to the argument of the misleading garbage being posted on a daily basis.


The only reason this is even a "conspiracy" is that records that would deflate this argument, have not been released. No verifiable (ie. State of Hawaii) records have been given that provide an exact place of birth for President Obama.

The reason for the suspicion and speculation is again, the document that could provide proof one way or the other, has not been released. You want us to "take it on my word" when there quite possibly, exists a concrete record that would prove that Obama was born at such and such place in Hawaii.

We say Deny Ignorance here, not being given complete information is not doing that, it's embracing ignorance, IMO. All I want is for someone to say Obama was born......___(Here)___.

Why is that so hard to find out?




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
This debate has very little to do with the long form birth certificate


Really, from the majority of the posts here that are yet show me any real evidence questioning his birth on US soil, it appears the long form is the center piece on everybodies minds.


If you had any legal background, you would have, before attempting to sound intelligent, taken a look at Supreme Court precedent regarding the question of what qualifies one to be a "natural born citizen". And you would have discovered that, in order to be a natural born citizen, one needs to not only have been born on US soil, but one's parents must be US citizens at the time of birth.


Which I have clearly discussed in my OP, and which of yet nobody here has managed to prove Obama doesnt apply. I have recieved plenty of posters like you, the ones who cite me the obvious questions, that is "must be a natural born citizenship". The individuals like you attempt to make it clear to me here that you in no way believe his a natural born, but beyond that you have yet to prove he isnt. Thats your personal belief, based on... well nothing really.


Since Obama himself has acknowledged that his Father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth, he has, by his own admission, made it clear that he is not constitutionally qualified to serve as President.


Wrong. He was born on US soil to one american natural born citizen, therefor he is by all means a natural born citizen. If you when to any judge, which by the way im sure you would, and you gave them that question, they would tell that so long as he was born on american soil let alone his mother being a natural born american citizen herself, he is by all means a natural born citizen. Natural born citizenship is a birthright, merely he being born on US soil to what is legally a natural citizen who is his mother, he by all means qualifies.


So all this blabber about the birth certificate, while intriguing, is pointless...


It is, because he has given sufficient proof under the constitution vai congress and the electoral college, conjunction to the satisfaction of the Hawaiian state government and heath department, that he is a natural born citizen.

SG



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
Time is finally on the side of WE THE PEOPLE who believe in the law and that no one is above it.


A federal court in Philadelphia, and the Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed these allegations as baseless.
If you believe in the law you should accept this decision from the judicial system.

Unless you only accept the law when it does what you specifically want it to do.

Unless you think everyone in any position of authority in our government is scrambling to cover for Obama. That's the only way such an alleged cover up of this proportion would be efficient. As soon as he went into office, everyone joined his alleged birth certificate agenda.

You smugly call people "stupid" and imply they are unpatriotic for accepting the birth evidence presented and the court decision, yet you have no proof that what you claim is even right. Nevertheless you have already made your decision with no evidence to support it. You don't have the long form already, unless I'm mistaken.

Yet you think only your position is that of a patriot?

Why I remember not to long ago, people that dismissed, rejected and condemned the former President Bush was branded unpatriotic for their lack of support for our Commander-in-chief.

I remember Dixie Chicks being branded terrorist lovers, and CD's being bulldozed.

I suppose it's fine to not support the president if he isn't affiliated with your own party.
You can maintain your patriot card in those cases.

You claim you are a true patriot, well then I suggest you admit defeat and accept the president that "WE THE PEOPLE" has elected.

People supporting their president are not unpatriotic.
It wasn't under Bush and it isn't under Obama.

You attempt to suppress the voice of the people unless it mirrors your own.

That doesn't sound like a patriot to me.
Quite the opposite.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


HEY OP, I would appreciate it if you would give your opinion on this, thanks.





I don't know if this has been covered yet in this thread, so if it has please accept my appologies.


As I'm sure many of you are aware, there was a lawsuit filed on July 8, 2009 by a USAR Major Stefan Frederick Cook disputing the citizenship of Barack Husein Obama, and also lists as defendants The Secretary of Defense and two Army Colonels.

Now, where it gets interesting is section (8) and (9) of the lawsuit respectively.

(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. 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.

(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.


Now, I'm no expert on this, but if this isn't compelling I don't know what is.


Application for Temporary Restraining Order



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Wrong again, genius. I dont know where you get your info re: it only has to be the Mother, perhaps on some left-wing blog, but here's something to help you educate yourself:

people.mags.net...

Fact of the matter is that, when you examine legal precedent on this issue, it appears that the weight of the law is clearly in favor of labeling a "natural born citizen" as one not only born on US soil, but one who's parents were US citizens at the time of birth as well.

And please, do yourself a favor and do not attempt to continue to debate me as if you are some sort of legal scholar; it is readily apparent that you are not. I am a former Constitutional Law Editor of SJU's Law Review...and u??



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
The only reason this is even a "conspiracy"


There are long lists of conspiracies about Barack Obama. This one is just among the list of many. You ask for him to meet your demands, you've certainly got a number of demands other than this one 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.


The reason for the suspicion and speculation is again, the document that could provide proof one way or the other


And that would be the short form birth certificate, as the majority of the 44 presidents have presented in the past (which you are yet to provide me those long forms by the way). You may not feel its satisfactory, you may not feel its sufficient, however you do not represent the views of the entire population of these United states. You do not dictate the will and the standards set forth by the constitution.

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. If that wasnt the case, I would be seeing actual evidence questionable of the presidents birth right. Yet it appears to me you only have your personal suspicions to show for it (and howmany folks in the past have had their personal suspicions). In a court of law your personal suspicions wouldnt get a second look I assure you.


We say Deny Ignorance here


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?


Ignorance, the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

dictionary.reference.com...

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.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Wrong again, genius. I dont know where you get your info re: it only has to be the Mother, perhaps on some left-wing blog, but here's something to help you educate yourself:

people.mags.net...


No, you are incorrect as you are referencing the incorrect law and circumstances to Obama.

The law and the constitution at the time of Obamas birth stated that only one parent had to be a US citizen, provided Obama was born on US soil, which he was and nobody here has proven otherwise.

www.snopes.com...

The law you reference where both parents have to be US citizens only apply to those children born off US soil. You folks are yet to provide proof that Obama was born off US soil and that is the point of the thread at the end of the day.

SG



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


What do you know about The Constitution? Next to nothing I'm willing to wager, like the rest of your liberal ilk. You all love the cite to The Constitution and wax eloquently about your supposed familiarity with it, when the truth is 99% of you have never read it or analyzed it properly to any degree....

You want to debate The Constitution? You want to debate to what degree this usurper-in-chief that you ardently protect has breached its firewalls in just 6 months? I'll be glad to...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Are you a bit mentally challenged? i just cited to you Supreme Court case law that directly counters your contention...I guess you are a Supreme Court Justice now and have unilaterally decided to overrule years of precedent....

Let me spell this out slowly for you, genius...if you are born on foreign soil, but your Mother is a US citizen, then you are, in fact, a US citizen...note, however, that I only used the term "citizen"...not "natural born" citizen...

The Constitution does not simply say that the President must be a "citizen"...it says the President must be a "natural born" citizen...notice the extra 2 words, "natural born"...subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in this analysis...

And please dont cite me snopes.com...u might as well cite to the Huffington Post next...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
What do you know about The Constitution? Next to nothing I'm willing to wager, like the rest of your liberal ilk.


Really, go under each point in my OP and tell me whether those facts were either "liberal ilk" or the actual laws.


when the truth is 99% of you have never read it or analyzed it properly to any degree


If thats the case why is it that you have not proven to me and others here by the constitution or other wise that the president was foreign born? Why do you think those lawsuits one at the time were thrown in the can? Do you think the law is something you can bold to your liking? You were just proven wrong before "genius" and now here you are lecturing me about "truths" and "analysis".

Go back to the drawing boards and come back with some other BS you got under your sleeve, Ill be waiting.

SG



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by EYEOFEAGLE
Time is finally on the side of WE THE PEOPLE who believe in the law and that no one is above it.


A federal court in Philadelphia, and the Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed these allegations as baseless.
If you believe in the law you should accept this decision from the judicial system.

Unless you only accept the law when it does what you specifically want it to do.

Unless you think everyone in any position of authority in our government is scrambling to cover for Obama. That's the only way such an alleged cover up of this proportion would be efficient. As soon as he went into office, everyone joined his alleged birth certificate agenda.


What you say is true ,but things are beginning to change even with Supreme Court.
As other questions arise, such as how did Obama go to college on a grant ment for no-U.S. citizens, this is raising eye brows.
Obama's people have ask for 173 days to anwser this one, I believe my numbers are correct on this one.
So while he scrambles to come up with cover story for this one he is still a cheat or lier, he took something away from someone else, who could have been entitled to the Grant.

The other factor is this is dealing with Constitutional Law, the Constitution has been trashed so badly, this is something that needs to be addressed.
Especially when dealing with someone like Obama who wants to rewrite the Constitution of the United Steates of America.
Who does he think he is George Washington, oh no that would be Abraham Lincoln.
But any how on that he needs to shut up , or go dig up the founding fathers, reanimate them and see what they have to say about that one.

Better believe Obama's got more dirt he's hidding, it's only matter of time.







[edit on 17-7-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Out y'all...FBO


Wow... ShadyLawyer ... those last few posts were really childish... reduced to name calling? really?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Deflected noted.....I presume since you failed to respond to a post I have now posted twice in this thread.

If anyone else has any opinion, please respond.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
What I find odd is that someone who has repeatedly called the 'Birth Certificate Conspiracy' a waste of time, would go through all the trouble of making a thread about that same subject... hmm. Aching for points? You had to know that nothing you said would make an ounce of difference. Because in the end you can't produce a solid piece of evidence either, just like the so-called 'birthers'. Uggh, that term is horrible. Makes me think of those pro-life people that kill doctors and blow up clinics. You guys really do need to come up with a better name than that. But, back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that the one thing that would make this all go away won't ever be brought to light, so the point is really moot. One has to wonder though, why some folks feel the need to defend a person who is so inherently flawed and shady. Who appears to have no idea how to do the job he'd been given, and who, seemingly, doesn't even really care about you in the first place. Kinda scary that someone can inspire such blind loyalty. But then again, perhaps not so surprising. Religion does it all the time.


Chrono



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Chronogoblin
 


I'm pro-life and I've never killed a doctor or blown up a clinic. In fact, most people whom are pro-life haven't done either of those things.

I just wanted to make that clear.



Religion does it all the time.



Really? We're talking about Obama, not your opinion of religion.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
The best angle here is the one about BOTH PARENTS being U.S. citizens otherwise Kim Jong-il could have his henchmen abduct a Jewish girl in New York, have them fly her to North Korea, then he could impregnate her, send her back to Los Angeles where she would have the baby, then the baby would be a U.S. citizen with a North Korean dictator father, and if the baby had wealthy handlers to raise it and train it for the Presidency and manipulate the media the baby could grow up to become the President of the United States.

Do you want Kim Jong-Il's demon spawn to be President of the United States?

Why not... it is perfectly legal and the socially responsible thing to do right?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


Actually it isn't just 'my opinion of religion'. As many people have claimed Obama as the second coming.
It is very much on-point as well, the parallels between the blind faith people put in the man and the self-same faith people put into religion. Seems kinda odd that you would go off-topic to point out how I, myself, apparently went off-topic... Isn't that counter-productive? I think a simple U2U would've sufficed, but perhaps that wouldn't have assuaged those nerves I apparently touched on with my statements. As for the pro-life thing, obviously I was referring to the extremists, but perhaps I am just giving people too much credit. I think I need a disclaimer in my sig that states that I assume that you have to possess (insert number) amount of IQ points to ride this ride...

Chrono



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
What I find odd is that someone who has repeatedly called the 'Birth Certificate Conspiracy' a waste of time


Were you refering to me? Where did I say that? I said arguing with some people who's evidence only have their personal issues on the matter is a moot, didnt mention the conspiracy in itself was a waste of time to me. This is a conspiracy website after all, so go figure right? We are here to debate no?

The rest of your post is pointless garbage as usual, nothing to show me by law or otherwise that Obama is ineligible, just "talk" and "personal suspicions". Am I wrong to say your entire belief in the conspiracy goes no further than personal suspicions? Speculation? Please prove me wrong by actually coming up with evidence.

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



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join