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: 59
182
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   


Recently a Californian attorney, Orly Taitz, publicly released a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. Taitz has filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for authenticating the document, but as of right now, the birth certificate appears authentic. As World News Daily reports, “No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly used as a certified copy of the original in February 1964. WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical. Despite the fact that a hoax document similar in nature circulated the Internet last week, WND reports that the document ‘bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.’”[5]

Taitz told WND: “I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds.

I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a

deposition from Hillary Clinton

so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].

”[6] The birth certificate was discovered by an anonymous source, who feared publicity because of the possibility of retaliation.[7]

Many Obama supporters have naively claimed that the birther movement has been ridiculous because there is no way the government would allow such a thing to ever happen. Obviously, this discovery raises the question of who allowed this to happen and how honest the American government truly is to its people. Who are the Obama administration and the government really working for?


www.examiner.com...




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
How many people really believe that the doc. we've been looking at in this thread will be accepted in court?

Haven't there been other documents found before this one, which had you all going nuts with orgasmic enthusiasm?

What happened to those documents? Any court trials going on with those?


Other documents? None that I know of. What are you talking about? Wishful thinking?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
Here's the original Constitution of Kenya Act, it's the one which took Kenya into independence. There's no reference I can see to "Republic". Republic was only added by amendment to this constitution in December 1964.

It's a PDF file, might take a few seconds to load up.

www.constitutionnet.org...


I've already posted a newspaper article from 1963 calling the country "the republic of Kenya", and I could post others.

Can we stop beating this horse that has been dead since yesterday?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 


Our Founding Fathers called their land the United States of America before 07/04/1776.

And they were still under British rule!


The documents they wrote before that time must be fake as well, right?




Edit: The [HOAX] tag was taken off because of a new developement, and proof posted by WND that this could be the real thing.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Loke.
 


Your are not helping post some research, you are just doing this to hide and bury what we are posting,There is a document out there and it needs verified, I can't and you can't.

MY OCD is a plus sometimes, I wont give up until this is resolved, you can berate and harass me until the cows come home, that just makes me more determined.



[edit on 043131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


In the Declaration of Independence your nation is referred to as the united States of America, with a lower case u in united.

A bit pedantic, I suppose, but if you can't even get your own nation name correct ...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Ummm...pardon me for not reading 58 pages....but was this thread not marked [HOAX] just a few hours ago?

Just curious


Yes. It was categorized as a hoax this morning? And then, lo... here we go again.

I don't know what really happened.



What happened is someone posted a list of document "problems" they copied from that bastion of unbiased information - democratic underground.


For some reason that convinced a mod to *HOAX* the thread. Then the list was taken apart point by point with actual research, and "VIOALA", it was *UNHOAXED*.

Lesson learned? Never, EVER, swallow something scraped from the DUmster.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Ulala
 


Our Founding Fathers called their land the United States of America before 07/04/1776.

And they were still under British rule!


Did they put "United States of America" on their letterhead or official documents though?

Just sayin'



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

WASHINGTON — Six Texas congressmen are in the middle of a summertime political tempest sweeping the nation's capital over legislation to require future presidential candidates to show birth certificates to prove they are “natural born citizens” of the United States eligible to serve as president.

The effort by the lawmakers, including Houston-area Reps. Ted Poe, R-Humble, and John Culberson, R-Houston, stems from a so-called “birther movement” mounted by some conservative Republicans and talk-show hosts who continue to question whether President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.

The Texans have not adopted the prove-it's-not-true approach pressed by talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, who insists “Barack Obama has yet to prove he's a citizen” and “all he'd have to do is show a birth certificate.” But the lawmakers' effort lends credence to what some dismiss as a fringe movement fanned by unsubstantiated rumors swirling on the Internet thanks to bloggers such as Californian Orly Taitz. “I believe it is a serious concern” that requires Congress to “subpoena all of Obama's vital records,” Taitz writes.

The Constitution stipulates that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to serve as president. The Presidential Eligibility Act proposed in March by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., would require campaign committees to submit a copy of the candidate's birth certificate to the Federal Election Commission with other documentation as necessary to prove eligibility.

www.chron.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I started a thread about that bill a few weeks ago. Regardless of how this whole Obama mess turns out, this bill is sorely needed.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I started a thread about that bill a few weeks ago. Regardless of how this whole Obama mess turns out, this bill is sorely needed.


How crazy is it that our country didn't have this covered?

also

Multiple COLBS Warning [someone swapped out the Kenya BC AFTER it was posted]
I am picking up some info from another forum that is good but I can't post it here.
I don't think .



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
You know what, I'd like to apologize to all the birthers and people in the middle on this argument. I've been arguing against you people and throwing a lot of cheap shots in this debate. After thinking about it for awhile I realized I was becoming rather intense on the anti-side to the point where I wasn't impartial anymore. I became rather emotionally invested in disproving Birthers and mocking your side. However, after thinking about it quite a bit, I realize that was really poor behavior on my part. What we have here is a thought process and developing ideology not unlike the JFK Assassination or Watergate in terms of scope of the beliefs and implications. It should be viewed and judged based on the evidence presented without personal prejudice. However, with the politics involved with this situation, it's very easy to get caught up in sides. I think two sides developed in this thread that got up in fighting each other rather than genuinely looking at this story and the evidence presented. I think it was like 40% pro, 40% con, and 20% who were actually doing the right thing and examining evidence. I'm personally fascinated by the psychological realities that happened in this thread more than I am in this conspiracy at this point. And how the ramifications of the different psychologies and personalities would play out in the world if this ever became a reality. Just interesting things to think about.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Although, they did not have true letterheads, at the time, it is well established, that they referred to their land by that name.

It was first used by Alexaander Hamilton in one of his papers.

Google is your friend



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   


In the Declaration of Independence your nation is referred to as the united States of America, with a lower case u in united.

A bit pedantic, I suppose, but if you can't even get your own nation name correct ...



That's more than a bit pendantic and the rest is an ad hominem attack based on the poster you are replying to not knowing some obscure bit of historical trivia. Your position that the words "Republic of Kenya" was not used before 1964 has been shown to be incorrect in this thread numerous times, many of the times were in a reply directly to yours.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I still haven't heard anyone explain why this thread was labeled hoax earlier is now no longer labeled as such?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Take a look here

www.orlytaitzesq.com...

It appears it was part of a court filing AUG 1 ?


Another sign that this site is not legit...

safebrowsing.clients.google.com...://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1

What is the current listing status for www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 17 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 8 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-08-02, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-08-02.

Malicious software includes 10 scripting exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new process(es) on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 3 domain(s), including cybercrime-protection.cn/, security-alerts.cn/, mcafee-malware.com/.

1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including security-alerts.cn/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS6245 (NETWORK).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1 appeared to function as an intermediary for the infection of 1 site(s) including zillr.com/.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

Next steps:

* Return to the previous page.
* If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I still haven't heard anyone explain why this thread was labeled hoax earlier is now no longer labeled as such?


People have been screaming at the poor mods in U2U during this whole thing. I know because I was one of those people yesterday. The mods are the ones getting screwed with the craziness in this thread.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by CuriousSkeptic]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 




I realize that.




The engrossed copy of the Declaration renders the "u" in United States in small case, i.e. "united States", one of several variations in capitalization and punctuation that historians Boyd and Becker believed to be of no significance; Boyd, Evolution, 25–26. In his notes and Rough Draft, Jefferson capitalized variously as "United states" (Boyd, Papers of Jefferson, 1:315) and "United States" (ibid., 1:427).



It is in the Constitution, though.



But that is neither here nor there, as my point still stands.


[edit on 8/3/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



new topics




 
182
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join