Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

reply to post by neformore


I'm pretty sure this was done to mess with birthers and she being the leading character amongst them with her specifically. I doubt that she herself created them, she was played just as much as any birthers who believed this.

reply to post by neformore


OK I am going to give you a chance to elaborate somewhat because at the moment the claims of a conspiracy behind this hoax seems pathetic .

Can you name a media outlet other then say blogs that has been discredited by the poor forgery ?

Do you think that there was specific intend to discredit ATS ?

reply to post by xpert11


Conspiracy - definition

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

No.1 - describes the perpetration of the hoax, as a subversive action
No.2 - describes the people who perpetrated it.
No.3 - may very well describe the filing of forged documents as "evidence" to a court of law
No.4 - describes the underlying sentiment behind the first three (except for the tide and coast thing, which is kind of random)

I'm not sure what you are alluding to with the "media outlets discredited" - its nothing to do with that. Whoever did this tried (and to some extend succeeded in trying) to smear the POTUS.

Edit - found a massive spelling error on my part.


[edit on 9/8/09 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore

Originally posted by neformore
Damn. I could of sworn she was there to smear the President of the USA - and try and take down some journalists at the same time.

OK maybe I should have said journalists instead of media outlet but I thought you would understand where I was coming from .

A smear against Obama ?
Come off it any kind of smear has to have some creditability . I do believe that the myth of Obama being born in Kenya is in the process of being created . But just like that other American right wing myth about the Vietnam being won when the US pulled out of that country , the claims of birthers comes unglued with rational thinking . Now I don't necessary believe this but up to a certain point I could follow the idea that the forged document was designed to discredit ATS . Such a notion is far from perfect thou .

I hope you understand where I am coming from .

Originally posted by xpert11
Come off it any kind of smear has to have some creditability .

Does it really, these days?

We live in the digital age. Information to the masses and all that. Chinese whispers never was more sinister.

Stuff like this could, literally, bring down governments.

All it takes is the right lies, at the right time and you can change the world.

reply to post by neformore

We live in the digital age. Information to the masses and all that. Chinese whispers never was more sinister.

Stuff like this could, literally, bring down governments.

All it takes is the right lies, at the right time and you can change the world.

Well if you believe that to be true then as the government shakes and quakes in it's boots, knowing full well the unease this is producing, all the more pressing reason to simply show his long form to allay most suspicion and put it all to rest.
By the way, has the 9/11 information brought down the government? You couldn't get a subject more serious and damning than the idea that a government killed thousands of it's own people. Has it been brought down?

Originally posted by lee anoma
If we had known that this was sent to the ATS administration anonymously from the start I doubt we'd even be having this particular line of discussion right now.

I clearly agree, I suspect that's the point.

ATS withheld key facts...

Agreed

It is an easy way to get off the hook.

Yep if it wasn’t for this pesky little thing called facts.

Originally posted by neformore
Can you not see that it made no difference whatsoever how it got here, because it existed outside of ATS before it came on to ATS?

No. I cannot see it made no difference (a double negative btw) It made a HUGE difference. It was secretly sent by the site owner to a select member who clearly supports ONE SIDE of this debate. The Mods were informed (although in my opinion not complicit) and the true source WAS NOT revealed until beyond 2,000 replies or 100 pages. (Your mileage may vary.)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Were members on "both" sides of the debate sent this?

I sought out those who were active in the "natural born" discussions, who were also long-time members. I'm not sure it ended up representing a balanced perspective.

Were the members “instructed” NOT to reveal source?

Yes... or at least until I could ascertain more details on my own... which I didn't, which is why I posted as I did.

(Above quote by SO bolded by me.) On Page 108, 5 days later.


And since a picture is worth a thousand words............
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9701c2a5315.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 9-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Not asking in an accusatory way mind you, I am just surprised that you would choose to subject yourselves to the unnecessary accusations and drama that you must have been sure would ensue, when the damn thing was going to get posted anyway.

Clearly, I had hoped/assumed the method of handing-off the document would avoid accusations and resulting drama.

We're constantly damned if we do, damed if we don't.

Our lesson was learned from several UFO topics where we attempted to vet or otherwise confirm material where the provenance was in doubt... or in making direct contact with eye-witnesses. In those cases, our overt involvement overwhelmed the topic into a zone of unproductiveness. And now, in this case, our lack of involvement has overwhelmed the topic into a zone of unproductiveness. Truly amazing.


We have, what appears to be grousing from two distinct camps. One camp is simply comprised of those who continually look for reasons to cast aspersions on ATS, and their faux indignation is transparent. The other camp are ATS members who feel my action in this regard diminished their trust in our management of ATS.

To that second camp, to me, in my mind, I feel the most trust-worthy thing to do was to hand off something like this document of unknown origin to long-standing members who are more aware of the debate and issues than I. It demonstrates a mutual trust in the community... I trusted our members to work it out, and in turn, anticipated reciprocal trust because of our stepping back.


This is another in a long line of similar valuable lessons for me/us... because, apparently no matter what we do, or how we do it, there are those who prefer to twist our perceived motivations to fit their own preconceptions.


[edit on 9-8-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name.

Nearly EVERY noun was capitalized on the Constitution! Look at your sentence. "Piracies and Felonies" The very next line is:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

What proper names were they referring to when they sited "Marque and Reprisal" or "Land and Water"???

Misspellings in the Constitution

New students of the Constitution often see one more thing that raises eyebrows: the use of capital letters in the original text. Some have even gone so far as to say that capitalized words in the original Constitution have some sort of special significance above and beyond the non-capitalized words. This is only true in that most of the non-standard capitalization is done to nouns. Again, this was an issue of style, and is similar to the way German capitalizes nouns - they are simply capitalized, and that's all. The words "People" or "State" has the exact same significance and meaning as "people" and "state".

Your Argument holds absolutely no Water.

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
A public official becomes an open book which includes minor details such as showing PROOF of who you say you are!

Show me a legal document that dictates that the president "becomes an open book" and is obligated to prove his eligibility to the entire country.

Baby, when you apply for the highest ranking job in the country you are required to provide PROOF of being eligible to hold that position. Your matter of privacy is no longer an issue.

Show me a legal document that dictates that the president is obligated to prove his eligibility and that his privacy is no longer an issue.

Forgive me, but your stating these opinions does not make them truth.


Edited to add:

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
Your two parents merely have to be US Citizens!

Only the person running for POTUS must be a Natural born citizen, which means both his parents only need to be US Citizens!

Obama is the Seventh US President with foreign-born Parents

Of these seven, at least one other, Chester A Arthur, had a parent who was NOT a citizen of the US when his presidential son was born (making him NOT natural born according to you).

William Arthur Naturalization Certificate - 1843

Edit: Corrected date from 1883 to 1843

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by FollowTheConstitution


I think the US Constitution stands on it's own and does not require any other French document in which to interpret it.


The Law of Nations isn't even written by an American so how can it be used?


No thank you, the only documents which describe what the Constitution means is the Constitution.

Any other interpretation comes through the Judicial Branch of our own country.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name.

Of these seven, at least one other, Chester A Arthur, had a parent who was NOT a citizen of the US when his presidential son was born NOR when he became president in 1881 (making him NOT natural born according to you).

William Arthur Naturalization Certificate - 1883

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

How did his father's naturalization record end up in the Library of Congress? If POTUS is not required to present eligibility documents, then why would the birth record of a president's father be in the Library of Congress?

Certificate of US naturalization of William Arthur, Irish father of President Chester A. Arthur, State of New York, date: August 31, 1843; facsimile of a microfiche record at the Library of Congress

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
What you don't seem to understand is the orders from Bush to the military were legal lawful orders because Bush was in fact the President!

Obama is not! He is merely a usurper that never was vetted and never provided any proof that he is in fact, without a doubt, eligible to be POTUS!

Legal lawful orders???????????

Bush was not elected president. He did not win the popular vote. He did not ear a majority of the electoral college. He was appointed president of the United States by the supreme court. Show where the constitution says that is how we pick presidents and maybe you have a point. Until then, all you have is either two illegitimate presidents or neither.

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
How about just his birth place???

He was born in Hawaii.

Since NO ONE has seen it then how does ANYONE know where he was really born?

I have seen it. Hawaiin officials have confirmed it. Sorry if you fdid not get your golden ticket to the big showing but I guess this is still America and people like you cannot demand to see any document on anyone else they like. I am not sure how you missed this though.

Since there are 4 ways to obtain an original birth certificate from HI for people that were born at that time, and only ONE of those four would be a birth certificate that has a doctor's signature who delivered the birth and naming the hospital where the birth took place.....HOW do YOU or anyone else for that matter, knows whether or not it is one of the other 3 ways he could have obtained a HI birth certificate???

Because I know that his parents and two Hawaiin newspapers had no idea that he would run for president as an adult but you want me to believe they planned this from day one and planted his birth announcements and got to work on fake BC right away?

STOP BELIEVING CRAP JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS WHAT YOU WANT IT TO.

I want to believe in the Loch Ness Monster, unfortunately, I have never once latched on to flimsy evidence and then refused to budge even after it turned out to be a doctor and a toy. You believed, you were duped, you were wrong. You really want to fight to stay on your side?

Please, go ahead and be the good American Citizen, so worried about the constitution for the first time ever, that this Russian fraud tells you to be. She will not even be a lawyer much longer, she will need a friend to stay with anyway.

Originally posted by Hazelnut
How did his father's naturalization record end up in the Library of Congress?

I have no idea. Why shouldn't it be there? You can speculate all you want, but it doesn't really mean anything.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Hazelnut
How did his father's naturalization record end up in the Library of Congress?

I have no idea. Why shouldn't it be there? You can speculate all you want, but it doesn't really mean anything.

It's common to find all sorts of genealogical data in the LOC.

It's commonly listed on many sites focused on genealogy as a great source for documents such as naturalization.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

To that second camp, to me, in my mind, I feel the most trust-worthy thing to do was to hand off something like this document of unknown origin to long-standing members who are more aware of the debate and issues than I. It demonstrates a mutual trust in the community... I trusted our members to work it out, and in turn, anticipated reciprocal trust because of our stepping back.

For what it is worth, I believe you, after all you didn't have to come forward with this information.

However it would have been just as easy for you to have started the topic with the information and explanation you have given us and asked the members to either prove or debunk it,
Then everything would have been on the up and up from the get go, and you would not have had to clarify the situation, honesty is always the best policy.

Why pass it on to another member?

Is this done often?

Did you imagine that flyersfan would get attacked for posting this topic, or have her reputation and credibility damaged because of it?

I guess she is a big girl, and knows how to handle herself,

Have a wonderful day.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I don't think FlyersFan was ever attacked for posting it. I have to defend FlyersFan because she never once claimed it was real, even though it would benefit her political world view if it were.

There are few like FlyersFan.

In my opinion she is beyond reproach in this matter.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

I don't think FlyersFan was ever attacked for posting it. I have to defend FlyersFan because she never once claimed it was real, even though it would benefit her political world view if it were.

Actually yes she was, I read it myself, as I was the one that stood up for her.

Yes they attacked her credibility.

This is the quote,

Stormdancer777

Member




Registered: 113030p://bWednesday2007
Location:

Member is on ATS now.




posted on 033131p://bSunday2009 @ 03:39 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:



Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by FlyersFan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, Flyers Fan, posting this with a thread title of "Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate" and asserting without proof or investigation that this is a legitimate official document has dropped your credibility to a new low. You don't think that the document in the photo could have been faked??? Give us all a big break and refrain from publishing such wild assertions before you've done your due diligence. Your agenda is showing!



No it hasn't

FF is investigating it, no one

no

one has said it is proof,

Even if we had proof you would not believe it.

Show me where FF said this was proof,

Show me.

You cannot.

[edit on 033131p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]

I am posting this as proof that I am not a liar,

and yes there were many attacks on people character under this topic.

To that second camp, to me, in my mind, I feel the most trust-worthy thing to do was to hand off something like this document of unknown origin to long-standing members who are more aware of the debate and issues than I. It demonstrates a mutual trust in the community... I trusted our members to work it out, and in turn, anticipated reciprocal trust because of our stepping back.

And another thing, why didn't you come forward with this information the first time this topic was labeled a hoax?

[edit on 053131p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]