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.

 

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

page: 22
182
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



And it's from some lone source that doesn't want you to say anything.

Should we not even consider this because the OP's source doesn't want to be named? What if people had taken that attitude in regards to Deep Throat/Nixon?


Lol, its funny how birthers suddenly reconize some "Very secret but very trustful anonymous" evidence, when before they were screaming our ears off with "African is not a race" and other ridiculous "evidence" they had discovered in Mr.Obama´s birth certificate from US.

If you think Deep Throat case has anything to do with this you are way over your head and you should sit down relax and let the media, entertain you like you always have been, spellbounded and in true denial of whats really happening around the world.

Break away from your telly just for a week or so and try feel the awakening of your soal again, and feel how refreshing it is not to get your sould and mind polluted by a fear mongering monopoly TV set.

Best regards

Loke.:.




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Because I don't agree, then I'm accused of "derailing" the thread?

Well, you can all pile up on people here with a different opinion. But then it's not a discussion it's a RALLY.

Enjoy your rally here.

I am shocked and appalled.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


It's already been established beyond any doubt that Kenya was not a republic until Dec. 12 1964. The document was allegedly signed on Feb 17. 1964 when Kenya was not a republic. This was established pages ago. You've been on this thread for awhile now, what's the matter? This is a faked document.


If that is the case then this is one lazy fake. Why would a credible lawyer chance destroying her career by supporting a document that could be proven fake in 4 pages on ATS.

Are they purposely releasing bad fakes to discredit a movement and if so why bother if it isn't true. Is it a case of muddying the waters? If its real its massive news if its fake its massive news.



I understand what you are saying. But something like that could get overlooked. It happens all the time.

I don't know, this whole thing is bizarre!!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
So IF Obama is removed what does that mean for Sonia Sotomayor?

Will she still be in the mix or will she be removed from eligibility?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 



I'll have to look into this further. Didn't know countries, state, etc. could declare themselves something they expect to be one day in the future that they are not in the present.


It's not exactly that they just declare what they want to be. In the case of American states, they are admitted to the Union, based on the population requirement, and then they're officially ascended to statehood on July 4th.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 
When I tried to go to that website, I got a big red screen telling me it was an attack site.



me too. wtf mate



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
Well, if she's already determined that it's authentic and all of you experts here have confirmed it, then why do we need this discussion?

And for the people who are saying my comments are off topic, you seriously don't believe there is anyone in this movement with a racial agenda?

My opinion that this is largely racially motivated isn't a valid one?

But that doesn't matter now, I guess I'll just wait for the Obama family to move out of the white house and then we'll be in much better shape.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Electro38]


Because "she" has no authority to do anything about it. She's a lawyer, not a judge or legislator.

It's authenticity needs to be determined. That's what she is asking the court to do.

Is that such a horrible thing? To know the truth?

Oh, and aren't you out of race cards yet? Seems to me you've just about gone through the entire deck.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
This is pretty classic stuff


It pretty much boils down one of these two possible explanations:


1. Hawaii Certificate is a Forgery --- Multiple high ranking officials from Hawaii and witnesses have forged a Hawaiian Birth Certificate(or were involved in it indirectly) and lied about everything in order to prove Obama was born in Hawaii and a legal born US citizen. They risk EVERYTHING they have in life if they are to be caught. Their reasoning/motivation behind these actions could stem from many things but there is no real obvious reason that stands out.

2. Kenyan Certificate is a Forgery --- Multiple officials and witnesses from Kenya join together and plot their story about the events of Obama's birth in order prove that he is not legally able to be president and thus force him to be impeached. Their reasoning/motivation behind these actions could stem from many things such as anger, racism, political motivation, or simply tons of bribe money from another person or group that wishes to see Obama out of office.



Now tell me, do you really think that multiple respected officials and multiple witnesses in the state of Hawaii would risk their careers and even jail time?

Basically it comes to a "he said, she said" argument. Both sides have what appear to be legal documents, and those documents "prove" their case is correct. If neither of those documents can be studied and proven to be forgeries, then it becomes a completely futile case.

The only way to end this entire conflict is to have both certificates studied by no less than 5 different forensic agencies that have no affiliation with each other, and also include over 10 different and unaffiliated public groups for their own private studies. When the results come in, simply sift through and I'm sure if one of the documents is fake you will see a strong pattern emerge from the studies that will point to the forgery.


To be honest though, the Kenyan document appears to be a forgery. The document is too well preserved and has its full white color, trust me its not easy to fake the faded and yellowish look you get with most documents that are 40 years old.
And the funny part is that my birth certificate looks ten times older than the one the OP posted that says Obama was born in Kenya. I've kept my birth certificate safe and filed properly, I'm only 24 years old, and it is extremely yellow and faded, any creases show signs of color preservation(aka when you crease a document and leave it long enough for the color to begin to change you will see the color on the crease is preserved much more than the rest of the document).

How could they possibly have kept this document so well preserved? You would need a vacuum sealed plastic bag for the color to stay that nicely.



The sad part about all this is that these "birthers" are simply telling the world that we aren't standing behind our own leaders and our great nation is stuttering in its own actions. Your simply making us look bad


If I recall correctly things were on the other side of the swing when Bush cheated in his second term election via Florida and our country fell into a huge conflict over whether bush really won the election thus causing a recount. Everyone who was a supporter of Bush started calling everyone else un-american because they wanted a recount and claimed that "we are making ourselves look bad to the rest of the world by questioning our own leadership/government". They pretty much flat out said that even if Bush did cheat to win that we should not remove him from office and replace him because it would make us look weak to our enemies, essentially "we know your right but its over now, bush won, go home". If all those people took their own words to heart, they wouldn't dare question Obama after he's officially won.


I've come to learn that pretty much everyone is willing to be hypocritical and biased when it supports their beliefs or cause.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by MaynardisGod]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazz87

Originally posted by novacs4me
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 
When I tried to go to that website, I got a big red screen telling me it was an attack site.



me too. wtf mate


Obviously, somebody doesn't want you visiting that site.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazz87
 



Same thing happened to me with my program "spynomore" telling me that the site had spyware on it and was dangerous to my computer.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazz87
 


Works for me. Also, the red screen is a warning. In one of the corners there should be a link to bypass it and continue to the site...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


That's the point I'm trying to make.

If the BC is false, she only leaves herself open to ridicule........if it's genuine, well, she's leaving herself open to a whole lot more than ridicule!


Yea, a lose, lose, situation.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Loke.
 



If you think Deep Throat case has anything to do with this you are way over your head and you should sit down relax and let the media, entertain you like you always have been, spellbounded and in true denial of whats really happening around the world.

I didn't say that Deep Throat had anything to do with this. I was making a comparison. The poster that I was responding to said that, essentially, we should trust the source because he wanted to stay anonymous. I said that, it is silly to do that because Deep Throat himself was anonymous and gave some truthful stuff which led to the Nixon administrations demise.


Break away from your telly just for a week or so and try feel the awakening of your soal again, and feel how refreshing it is not to get your sould and mind polluted by a fear mongering monopoly TV set.

I don't watch TV.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 





Are they purposely releasing bad fakes to discredit a movement and if so why bother if it isn't true.


That thought crossed my mind.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
Because I don't agree, then I'm accused of "derailing" the thread?


Likewise, because we are unsure of his origins, we're racist? Neither is fair. I do not believe you are derailing the thread but I also do not believe the people on this thread are racist.

I am not a 'birther' by any means but I do feel something fishy is going on if you look into all the facts regarding the controversy. I just want the truth- whatever it may be without all the hoaxes, mud slinging, fake documents, and personal accusations.

If he is a natural born citizen and is a legitimate president or if he is a pretender who forged documents- I just want the truth. And so do others. I hope you understand why getting the race card thrown in our faces can be aggravating especially when many of us in this thread were outspoken against Bush as well. Heck, I didn't even like McCain.

So it is frustrating when we are trying to get to the bottom of something but get accused of only caring because he's black. It's frustrating for someone who just wants the truth and isn't motivated by anything untoward.

Comments like 'So let's kick him out now! He's black!' aren't helping the thread. This discussion mainly boils down to whether or not this document is legitimate or a forgery. Not 'let's go raid the white house now.'

[edit on 8/2/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 



I'll have to look into this further. Didn't know countries, state, etc. could declare themselves something they expect to be one day in the future that they are not in the present.


It's not exactly that they just declare what they want to be. In the case of American states, they are admitted to the Union, based on the population requirement, and then they're officially ascended to statehood on July 4th.


Here's what I'm trying to get across here octotom(nice name).

news.google.com...,509858&dq=republic+of+kenya

They approved the republic on Nov. 5th 1964. Why would official papers have "Republic of Kenya" before then?

edit to add:

Dam it, the link is too long. Here it is in unclickable form.

news.google.com/newspapers?id=FxYUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jZYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1278,509858&dq=republic+of+kenya

what a mess. I hope you can get to the link.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
No. Following the Constitution has nothing to do with race. Obama's being half black has nothing to do with this, largely.


So because I believe there is a racial component to this movement, and you believe you are upholding the constitution, my opinion is therefor invalid?

I'll take your advice. Please excuse me while I retreat and reform my opinions.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Loke.
 


First off, he was making the point about deep throat in the fact that its an un named source.....

Just because its an unnamed source DOESNT mean that it isnt authentic or that the truth isnt being presented....just as it doesnt mean that it IS authentic.

There are plenty of people that release information that dont want to be named.....youre telling me that if the gov had information from an unnamed informant that Bush was behind the KKK or something(not that he is) , that just because he wasnt named, that his information is invalid?

Thats a very dim way to look at things and not objective at all...frankly im disappointed......

Second to Electro.........they didnt say you were derailing the thread because you dont agree.....

I cannot understand how you cant see, that coming on to a thread that is debating the legitimacy of a document, and calling everyone that is talking about this a RACIST, is derailing the thread......

Its not about whether you think the people who are behind this or investigating it are racist....it is about the LEGITIMACY of the document and any debate OF SAID subject...

Not whether you think "whitey" wants to oust the POTUS because he is black.
There are plenty of other boards that are debating the REASON behind all of this......feel free to take it there.

P.S I didnt vote for Obama, I didnt vote for McCain .......Im black....so does that make me a racist because i think he is a disgrace to the country for what he continues to do with our rights? Does it make me a racist because I believe if they wanted a "black man" in office that bad, they could have picked quite a few others who were better qualified and didnt have as many skeletons in their closet?

The only people ive seen on these boards bring up race at all are the staunch Obama supporters......they MAKE it an issue where there is none...



Now as far as this documents concerned i stated earlier in the thread my thoughts, to me the same line of thought could be made on THIS document as the one presented by Hawaii......The left say "look weve done what you ask this document is real, theres your proof" Sorry, no its not proof, and we dont know if its fake or not.....and if it ISNT its still not a BC.

This document has all the earmarks (from a laymens perspective) that the COLB has that the administration put forth.

He wont release his longform BC, so who is to know? Perhaps we are closer to the truth with this new information.......perhaps not.....we shall see as the story develops, but im not going to count it out as a fake until i get the facts....and if you were TRULY objective, and TRULY cared about your country, you would do the same.

If this turns out to be true, than it is just another red flag on what lengths the gov will go to, and how walking on the constitution and the rights given to us, is not a problem for them........and the need for us to remind them who they work for



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Well I'm from the UK so I don't profess to be any expert on American politics, but do you guys from the US really think that you actually decide who your president is going to be?

The USA is a major super power, to lead that country is a decision that the PTB are never going to leave to the actual people that live there........I believe that your president, whether eligible or not, is not decided by the voters.

whether this BC is deemed the real deal or not, it wont change, nor make any difference to whatever is in store for each and every one of us.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 



They approved the republic on Nov. 5th 1964. Why would official papers have "Republic of Kenya" before then?

That's a good question. Logically, they couldn't. But, earlier in this thread, if I understood right, it was said that Kenya started the transition to a republic in 1963. Does this newspaper link say to the contrary? I can't find anything but want ads and the FDR won by a huge margin.
Is there somewhere exactly I should look?

Thanks for the comment about my screename. I'm really not creative--my name is Tom and I was born in October. Haha. But, it does make me seem like an animal or something I suppose. Haha.



new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join