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.

 

AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

page: 33
349
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 


There is obviously some kind of cover up going on with the Birth Certificate and all we can do is speculate as to what is being covered up. There are other potential damning facts on the full long form Birth Certificate that could be what’s being hidden or part of what’s being hidden. Information like who is father might have actually been may be on the Birth Certificate (there is some speculation it could be Malcolm X or other 60’s black national/Muslim radicals) as well as things like his parents religion at time of birth and exact location of birth.

Hawaii has a rich and sordid history of robber baron oligarchs, espionage agents from around the world stationing themselves there and an East meets West mingling of blood and philosophies replete with endemic corruption and a deep seeded resentment on the part of local Hawaiians towards both the West and the East that makes it and it’s governance far from the stereotype American State.

Was it accident, design or mere coincidence that Obama claims to have been born there? It certainly had the most favorable and pliable birth recording laws in the Union at the time.

Most telling of all is in the book Obama wrote about his father while he was on sabbatical in Tahiti he wrote a passage claiming to be holding his original long form birth certificate and thinking about his father. We know from that passage there was a time he himself was in possession of the long form or at least claimed to be.

As the passage from his book suggests the cover up likely has more to do with who is actual Father is than where he was born though that is speculation.

We should not have to speculate as Obama wanted the highest office in the land so therefore he must accept the burden of properly qualifying himself to legally hold the highest office in the land. That he is reluctant to do that, that he has gone to great lengths to provide only partial and incomplete answers while at the same time doing everything he can to not have to reveal the full and complete answers is not just circumspect but unacceptable behavior from someone who wants to be the very embodiment of American justice.

There is something rotten in Denmark beyond the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who has not done one credible thing to deserve it.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
Good post! I agree that it's apparent that something is being covered up but that we can only speculate on what that something is. Is it his birthplace, is it his father? Or as someone else suggested, is the "white" box checked in the "race" section of his birth certificate? Who knows, I really don't care so much who his father is or what race box is checked, if his birthplace checks out.

Maybe we'll find out as a result of the trial but I'm not holding my breath for that.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
Good post! I agree that it's apparent that something is being covered up but that we can only speculate on what that something is. Is it his birthplace, is it his father? Or as someone else suggested, is the "white" box checked in the "race" section of his birth certificate? Who knows, I really don't care so much who his father is or what race box is checked, if his birthplace checks out.

Maybe we'll find out as a result of the trial but I'm not holding my breath for that.



Well frankly it’s all relevant information when you consider that the office of the President is typically one Americans look to put people into of the highest moral character.

Would you vote for Adolf Hitler’s great grandchild to be President? The answer is you probably would not no matter how great of a campaign he ran or what kind of agenda he was pursuing because you would think, oh no
Adolf Hitler’s grandson running America, so yes that kind of information can become very relevant.

Is it fair to hold Hitler’s actions against his grandson? Maybe, maybe not but the voter should definitely have the right to know and make that decision themselves.

Withholding key information about his lineage could have made the difference in how many people voted for him or didn’t vote for him or why.

The same is true of his religion. Would you vote someone for President of the United States of America who was born a Satanist? Once again it doesn’t mean he was reared as a Satanist or embraces that philosophy but it becomes pertinent information to potential voters. Is it fair to hold such a candidate accountable for his religion at birth? Maybe, maybe not but the voter should always have the right of full disclosure in making their decision who to vote for because the office is as much about perceived character as it is perceived capability.

Conversely the character of someone covering up deliberately from the public who there parents are or what their religion was at time of birth suggests manipulation, deliberate omission and a lack of character.

Would you elect a liar if you knew them to be lying at the time of the election about whom and what they are and from whence they came and how? Chances are you wouldn’t and that’s why it becomes so pertinent because it all has to do with character.

The American people really do have a right to know exactly whom they elected to be their President and with a deceased mother and father despite the President’s young age, and very few American and English speaking people available who actually were involved first hand in the circumstances of his birth and can testify to it on the public record I would say that there really are a lot of unanswered questions and that those questions have not been answered for some deliberate and likely damning reason.

The citizens have a right to know and ask who represents them at the highest level. No one has a right to deny the citizens who want these questions answered fully and completely and truthfully and accurately.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
Good post! I agree that it's apparent that something is being covered up but that we can only speculate on what that something is. Is it his birthplace, is it his father? Or as someone else suggested, is the "white" box checked in the "race" section of his birth certificate? Who knows, I really don't care so much who his father is or what race box is checked, if his birthplace checks out.


Maybe we'll find out as a result of the trial but I'm not holding my breath for that.




Well frankly it’s all relevant information when you consider that the office of the President is typically one Americans look to put people into of the highest moral character.


I don't know about that anymore... we elected Clinton, knowing full well his moral character was "questionable". We elect representatives and senators many times knowing their character is "questionable".


Withholding key information about his lineage could have made the difference in how many people voted for him or didn’t vote for him or why.


I think his lineage was well established prior to the election. Maybe not his BIRTHPLACE, but definitely his LINEAGE. As a relevant aside, it should be noted that Caucasians put BHO in office, not the minorities.


The same is true of his religion. Would you vote someone for President of the United States of America who was born a Satanist? Once again it doesn’t mean he was reared as a Satanist or embraces that philosophy but it becomes pertinent information to potential voters. Is it fair to hold such a candidate accountable for his religion at birth? Maybe, maybe not but the voter should always have the right of full disclosure in making their decision who to vote for because the office is as much about perceived character as it is perceived capability.


Religion is not and never should be a litmus test for election to office. (I am a "Christian", just for the record.)


Conversely the character of someone covering up deliberately from the public who there parents are or what their religion was at time of birth suggests manipulation, deliberate omission and a lack of character.

Would you elect a liar if you knew them to be lying at the time of the election about whom and what they are and from whence they came and how? Chances are you wouldn’t and that’s why it becomes so pertinent because it all has to do with character.

The American people really do have a right to know exactly whom they elected to be their President and with a deceased mother and father despite the President’s young age, and very few American and English speaking people available who actually were involved first hand in the circumstances of his birth and can testify to it on the public record I would say that there really are a lot of unanswered questions and that those questions have not been answered for some deliberate and likely damning reason.

The citizens have a right to know and ask who represents them at the highest level. No one has a right to deny the citizens who want these questions answered fully and completely and truthfully and accurately.


Absolutely agree with you. We, as voters, have the right to know who we are voting for. Sadly, many times, we are denied that right. But lineage and religious preference should never be considerations for any elected public office. Anyone that thinks it should needs to consider coming into the 21st century.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
i'm still waiting for someone to show me link that says he was vetted by someone other than the press.
i can't find it!

oops! guess we forgot this!

democr atic nomination forms

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
At that time in Hawaii anyone could walk into a hospital, claim to have given birth at home and would be issued a birth certificate. The Hospital, attending physician and so on would not be on the form.


Source please. Statute 338 that allowed this for foreign children only came on in 1982, two decades after Obama's birth. Please prove otherwise.


If you have proof this policy was not in place in Hawaii at that time


Hold on, you claim this policy was in place at the time but you dont know what it is and you dont have a link to it? You want me to do your dirty work for you?

Statute 338 was the only policy that came out regarding birth certificates for foreign children, and that policy was established in 1982. So no your wrong, that policy was not in place at the time of Obama's birth, it came in place two decades later.


I'd love to have a solid answer on this question but unfortunately every document which would provide that has been hidden.


So essentially your claiming there was a policy in place by 1962 allowing Obama to attain a birth certificate without proof of birth of Hawaiian soil and yet you dont have any sources to back it up because... its hidden? I'd say that until you back your statement up your lying

S.G



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hold on this still doesnt prove anything. Where is the evidence that Maya soetoro has an Hawaiian birth certificate? You sent me to Obama crimes, an anti-Obama website, where they claimed that Maya soetoro had an Hawaiian birth certificate, but they didnt have any proof what so ever. You then send me to another rightwing website:

www.examiner.com... ication-of-Live-Birth

Where another individual claims and assumes Maya Soetoro has an hawaiian birth certificate with absolutely nothing to prove for it.

You fellas are blindly buying what other people said, or what some title said, and you have absolutely nothing else to show for it. Honestly, can you atleast try?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


Why don't you call each State Secretary and ask for the nomination forms? You know, the forms that Nancy Pelosi sent to each state telling them that Obama was the person the DNC wants put on the ballot?

Does research scare you people? I give you links to actual Hawaiian laws from the Hawaiian government websites and I am referred to Blogs? I mean C'mon people.

But, like I said before this conspiracy is awesome for Obama, the more this goes on the worse the right looks.

[edit on 10/17/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Actually the longer this goes on the more it looks like Obama is hiding something.

Any serious minded person can see that not all the facts are being presented here.

Any credible person knows there is a simple way to end the controversy.

The reality is that people who don't want to know the whole truth and accept partial answers just aren't serious individuals.

The reality any credible person would say "I understand there is a controversy so let me put it to rest as it does not serve the nation well".

For some reason our new President does not want to serve the nation well and his core supporters seriously don't care.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You know just as well as I do that him releasing the long form birth certificate won't do squat to end the birther movement.

Because people who believe this theory aren't interested in the truth at all. They don't actually care about the truth, they care about trying to remove a president they have political issues with.

It has never been about the truth.

The second he releases his long form birth certificate, I will bet the national debt, is the same microsecond someone posts on ATS that it's a fake.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by bl4ke360


Are you to assume that every author, pundit, anchor has his or her facts straight? We have an Hawaiian birth certificate of Obamas authenticated by the Hawaiian state department and you choose to take what some author said?


Short form BC, not the long form BC that would truly show his validity.

He will NEVER show the long form copy if it remains in his power to
hide it from the public.

The fact that he has gone thru so much to keep it hidden shows
that he has something to hide.

Why hide it ? It is obvious.

This is also why he refuses to release some of his school records,
they show he applied for student aide as a foreign student.

Even his grandmother said he was born in Kenya.

But I think it will do no better have Biden as president, and to be honest
they are almost all CFR puppets anyways.




[edit on 17-10-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


That is an assumption sir. If the prez were willing to show me and the world I would be satisfied.


You just wanna protect the democrat in office like the neocon nazis wanted to protect bush... The leader changes and the game stays the same. Bi partisan bi partisan you vrs me sillyness..

I just want to see the mans REAL birth certificate....

It is not so much to ask for.

Something with a doctor signature.

I do not trust medical papers not signed by any medical professionals and that is what Obama gave the world... a medical paper with no medical bona fides.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


What would it prove? If it was immediately assumed to be a fake what's the point of showing it? He could produce his long form birth certificate, have it verified by the state of Hawaii that it's genuine, and still, people would say it's a forgery concocted by staff and that Hawaii is covering something up.

The doctor who signed it would be harassed endlessly (and I mean endlessly) and if the poor man is dead? It would be said he was assassinated. (even if he died at 90)

I'm not saying that no one would be satisfied. I just know when a conspiracy has no end, this one has no end.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You know just as well as I do that him releasing the long form birth certificate won't do squat to end the birther movement.

Because people who believe this theory aren't interested in the truth at all. They don't actually care about the truth, they care about trying to remove a president they have political issues with.

It has never been about the truth.

The second he releases his long form birth certificate, I will bet the national debt, is the same microsecond someone posts on ATS that it's a fake.



I know no such thing, and neither do you. That contention is nothing but a deflectionary attempt to avoid doing the credible and responsible thing.

The fact of the matter is it’s not in his best interests not to show the long form birth certificate as all it does is divide the nation on the legitimacy of his Presidency and no legitimate and responsible leader would do that.

An elitist abusing his usurped power and position would, but not a credible and responsible leader.

How you imagine people might react is further based on what you imagine the truth to be.

For all you know if he revealed his long form Birth Certificate it would say Born in Kenya.

Your whole position is based on wanting to accept partial disclosures and assumptions including the assumption that he isn’t hiding the whole truth for some damaging reason.

That is foolish, self serving and naïve and so is trying to assume you know how people will react to something that has yet to transpire.

There are questions, they are legitimate questions and they need to be addressed.

You like many people have no idea how the Powers that Be control and rig the political process and how they rule, as you are too caught up in the pseudo intellectual dysfunctional thinking of the suppositional arguments you embrace.

The reality is the timing of this story is no coincidence right as a key U.N. Vote on Israeli War Crimes has taken place and is set to next go to the U.N. Security Council. This is the Powers that Be way of saying “We own you Obama, remember that when it’s time for that critical vote”.

All you are doing is playing a bit role in a game you don’t even understand and what’s sad is you don’t care to understand it for some superficial and supercilious reason you imagine serves you somehow.

It doesn’t serve you, your family, me, my family or the nation to have this question hanging and trash arguments based on what you merely imagine are only defeating this nation and dragging it deeper into its morass.

In case you haven’t noticed yet Obama is no different than Bush or any other President. He is bailing out the bankers, continuing and broadening the wars, further enriching the Military Industrial Complex and rapidly drawing us deeper into debt.
Only in a blind love affair could that equate to something worth defending or placing hope in.

The American people have a right to know the truth and only a fool would not want to know the whole truth.

I don’t know what the truth is because there has not been full disclosure. If you know the truth it is only through guessing because there has not been full disclosure.

No one should have to guess at the truth, especially when it’s so darn easy to prove.

Why would an intelligent man who has nothing to hide make something so easy so difficult?

Answer, they wouldn’t.

Political correctness is no substitute for common sense. You should get serious, and stop imagining things there is no need to have to imagine when it’s easy enough to present the facts and then know for sure.

Ultimately all you are doing is advocating for obstructing the truth based on silly, petty and personal reasons.

The American people deserve to know the precise and full truth regarding the man that wants to be their President and no responsible American would accept anything less than the precise and full truth as being truthful.




[edit on 17/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
Short form BC,


Which I and millions of other americans use as confirmation for citizenship to attain a passport or renewed licence.


He will NEVER show the long form copy


Because his satisfied the proper autherorities with his short form, because his satisfied the majority of americans, because short forms are largely accepted in most states, because the Bush administration, McCain/Hillary campaigns and the relevant agencies did their backround checks on the man and found nothing more.


Why hide it ?


Hide what? Whats he hiding? What was requested of him was confirmation of citizenship, of birth right, to which he presented his short form, to which the Hawaiian state officials accepted, to which the majority of americans accepted. He has no need to show anything any further.

What does he need to hide? You think his hiding something personally from you??
Are you a threat to him? Are you going to continue posting more baseless conspiracies on this conspiracy forum?? Must he hold himself accountable to the demands of every single individual, even those that will hate him regardless?

His not hiding anything good man. His presented what was required.


CFR puppets anyways.


Theres an NWO forum where you can post your theories. All Im concerned about are cold hard facts, and you fellas have thus far presented nothing of the sort.

SG



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
That is an assumption sir.


An assumption? When you choose not to believe this:

www.politifact.com...

short form:
www.politifact.com...

Verified by these state 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...

With this, the bottom where it clearly presents a seal and the signature of director for the health department of Hawaii, Alvin T. Onaka.

www.factcheck.org...
www.factcheck.org...

But you choose to believe a title of an article with no original link, with no verication, or bloggers who have no evidence or facts to back up their claims, hows it an assumption?

Your not going to buy anything further from what he shows. Regardless of what he does your going to continue to hate and thats that. You know it personally, I know it. At the end its just a matter of another unsatisfied ideological individual who wishes to throw his demands around. Im sorry it doesnt work that way.

SG



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Must he hold himself accountable to the demands of every single individual, even those that will hate him regardless?


I can't speak for everyone but I don't hate Obama.

While it would have been nice if Obama voluntarily responded to the over 400,000 people who signed a petition asking to see his original birth certificate that the state of Hawaii says it has on file, he has chosen to not do so.

In the absence of his voluntary cooperation, it now appears to be in the hands of the Honorable David O. Carter, U.S. District Judge:

www.orlytaitzesq.com...

If Judge Carter orders Barack Obama to show his birth certificate, I expect him to comply with the Judge's order.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


OK just for ha ha's.. Assume for one moment that the officials in Hawaii were "bought off" and said what they said because they received some sort of gratuity. (I am in no way suggesting that this was the case, I want to be clear about that, I have no idea who these people are other than their official state bios) Then for more ha ha's take Pelosi's certification for the DNC and say that she never really saw anything, she just went along with it.

Now IF that was all the case, and IF this came out tomorrow, what would you do?

I am still on the fence on this whole issue, I didn't vote for the guy, I think he's an idiot and clueless, but..... I find that one of the previous posters hit the nail there are other issues with the man other than the BC, like the Sinclair issue that need to be addressed. I still think that this COULD be the catylist that the nation needed to push it to a total dissolve of the union in the end, but that's just my paranoid side talking (or maybe it's my hormones, I can never tell anymore)



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




In the absence of his voluntary cooperation, it now appears to be in the hands of the Honorable David O. Carter, U.S. District Judge:


I have just seen this;



thepostnemail.wordpress.com...



Siddharth Velamoor is the lawyer chosen by Carter to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010, according to Wikipedia. Velamoor is listed as an associate with Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Seattle, Washington.

Robert F. Bauer, is a partner of Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Washington, D.C.. His bio at the company identifies him as holding the Chair of the Political Law group at the firm; general counsel to Obama’s Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Bauer’s wife is none other than Anita Dunn, the Whitehouse Communication’s Director.


Oh and then they scrubbed wikipedia…no surprise there.

Yes, just a simple coincidence that Siddharth Velamoor is now an official clerk with Judge Carter, if it is true. This might explain how the judges demeanour had changed and he apparently seemed more uptight on Oct 5th, now that they have someone near the judge directly linked to Obama and that Mao loving lunatic communications manager, Anita Dunn who is the wife of Robert Bauer, partner of Perkins Coie.
But nahhhh…there’s nothing to this whatsoever. Nothing fishy going on at all. Oh…I see pigs flying….



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


wasn't the first thing everybody said when the kenyan BC
came out was IT'S A FAKE!!!!

people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

seems to me that if there was proof,you wouldn't believe it,no matter what!

the prez makes $1,600,000 in the 4 yeas he's in office
that puts him in the 40% tax bracket
that leaves him with about $960,000 at the end
so why has he spent more to cover his past then he will make holding the office?
oh ,i know! he works for free! what a patriot!!!!!


still spewing,huh?
hey ,i have to ask. in your avatar,is that a picture after biden let one loose in the oval office? musta been a ripper!


oh btw,did you find the vetting site i asked for? it will only help your case. you've had almost 20 hours to find it!!


[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]



new topics

top topics



 
349
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join