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: 34
349
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Wow good find, I didn't know that!

That almost sounds like a chapter from the "Art of War" book of Sun-tzu, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", right?

I don't know if Obama can intimidate a federal judge or not, but he can certainly keep tabs on him.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't speak for everyone but I don't hate Obama.


That doesnt excuse the baseless facts your throwing around. But I do find it rather interesting that you dont dislike the man but yet you choose to participate in favour of these conspiracies filled with hate. Uh no, you can tell that to somebody else, Im not buying it.


While it would have been nice if Obama voluntarily responded to the over 400,000 people who signed a petition


6 million Texans believe Obama's muslim, must he respond to them as well?

There are a fair number of liberals who believe Ron Paul has ties to hate groups, must he respond to them as well?

Those 400,000 people are the same individuals spreading other garbage about the president and to be frank dont deserve any further attention, and I commend the fact that petition went little further than the rightwing blogosphere. Thats where it should to stay.

Its funny, you state that "it would be nice". I'd like to know what "nice things" those 400,000 have being saying about Obama.

There will always be some portion of the population that will hate or be suspicious. That will always be fact.


asking to see his original birth certificate that the state of Hawaii says it has on file, he has chosen to not do so.


Because he has satisified state officials, congress, the electors and the majority of the american people. Your right, he has chosen not to prove anything anymore and thats his right. I hope he keeps it that way, he shouldnt have to respond to people full of hate.


If Judge Carter orders


The judge carter lawsuit is one of a dozen lawsuits over the last few months. Each and every other lawsuit has been either dismissed or has failed to gain any ground. I'd figure you'd become acustomed to that? If you seriously think judge Carter is going to be any different prepare yourself for dissappointment.

The evidence Taitz, Berg and co. have presented has been speculative and thats it. Considering Obama has constitutionally satisfied state officials, the electors and congress, and has fairly won the elections of 08', its going to take solid evidence for him to prove anything anymore, something you fellas have failed to do time and time again.

Its a mockery to the United states justice system in the fact you people continue to assume your speculative garbage and suspicions will get your way. That simply isnt the way our justice system works. If it did according to your logic there would be alot of innocent people out their found guilty.

SG



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Now, I would like to ask you where the solid evidence is concerning Maya having an Hawaiian birth certificate?

You havent been lying have you? Where did Maya say she had an hawaiian birth certificate? Are you able to cite sources beyond the rightwing blogosphere? Where is the evidence that Maya has an Hawaiian birth certificate??



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I didn't invent the claim, it's been reported in the press numerous times and so far no one has provided proof otherwise. If there was any proof I have no doubt the various Obama defense websites would have covered it.

When did it become my responsibility to prove information which has been in the press for months? I didn't write any of the articles in question. Are you claiming this is the first time you've heard this?

Do you need other ATS members to verify the reports of the policy of providing birth certs for home births in Hawaii? OK - would everyone else who has seen or heard that aspect of the case reported please say so?

You need to calm down a bit and stop throwing accusations around at people such as calling them liars. My response to your crappy attitude and hostility can't be put here as it's a T&C violation and probably an illegal act in most of the US. I think you get the message just fine however.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
reply to post by whatukno
 


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


It is fake. The Kenyan government only officially declared its status 9 months following the supposed date of this birth certificate. The official republic stamps were only released 9 months following the official declaration of the republic. Its a fake, and thus far Taitz and her buddies have not been able to get it verified and prove otherwise.


the prez makes $1,600,000 in the 4 yeas he's in office


Cite your evidence from an impartial source.

SG



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
I didn't invent the claim,


You didnt invent the claim and yet your citing it as fact, with nothing to back it up with.


it's been reported in the press numerous times


Where? Where has it been reported? What policy?? The only policy that granted Hawaiian birth certificates to foreign children came out in 1982, over two decades following Obama's birth. What was reported? Source please.


When did it become my responsibility to prove information


When you decided to cite it as fact.


which has been in the press for months?


If its been in the press for months why is it so hard for you to get a source? Better yet why are you running away from providing the sources to back up your argument?

If your not a liar get a source and back up your claim. You provided that policy as fact to back your argument, if you claimed its fact its your responsibility to prove it as fact otherwise dont reference it.

SG

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



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Oddly enough when the accusations against Ron Paul came out he didn't hire a team of attorneys to seal up the evidence and news articles about the story didn't begin to vanish.

He also didn't have a state official go on TV to say "I've seen the newsletter which has been sealed by court order and it did not contain anything racist written by Ron Paul, take my word for it".

Apparently that would have been the right and proper thing to do.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
Oddly enough when the accusations against Ron Paul came out he didn't hire a team of attorneys to seal up the evidence


And Im pritty sure Obama didnt hire lawyers to specifically seal up his BC. But yes you can provide a source to back that up as well.

Now Im going to ask you again as in the last comment, wheres your sources concerning this supposed policy?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'll reference whatever I want to and you can suck it if you don't like it. I don't appreciate being called a liar especially when you can sit back and demand sources you know are vanishing from the archives left and right.

Do you think I'm going to hop in my car and drive around the country looking for hard copies of news articles I read numerous times which are now MIA? Cause satisfying a political shill on a forum is the focus of my life, right?

You need to calm down a bit and quit throwing personal accusations around. Why don't you exercise some patience and allow the other ATS members who read those same articles to speak up instead of acting like a rabid Obama supporter. Oh, well I guess that might be difficult i your case.

All you've managed to accomplish so far is to show yourself to be just as ridiculous as the rabid Bush supporters were. Personally, I wouldn't tie my reputation to any politicians, period. Lay down with dogs, come up with fleas and so on.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
I'll reference whatever I want to and you can


You'll reference whatever you want but you wont back up your accusations? And you say Im wrong for calling you a liar?

Fact of the matter, you made an argument, cited a policy, failed to reference it but repeatedly claimed its existence. Sounds to me as though you were lying to back up your argument.


Do you think I'm going to hop in my car and drive around the country looking for hard copies of news articles


I dont know, I dont care. It seems to me as common sense that if I were to claim something and reference a policy, I would have a source to back up the existence of that policy. I dont care what you think you'll have to do, put the evidence where your mouth is or deny ignorance.

SG



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Here's one source which you'll just ignore as the article is on WND:

Multiple ways to obtain a BC in Hawaii

Investigation referenced in WND article

Wow, I didn't lie about it. Regardless of your opinion of the source I expect an apology.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by ecoparity]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Here's one source which you'll just ignore as the article is on WND:

Multiple ways to obtain a BC in Hawaii

Investigation referenced in WND article

Wow, I didn't lie about it. Regardless of your opinion of the source I expect an apology.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by ecoparity]

Actually, I looked over the article, and several areas in that article ARE DEAD WRONG.

The author wrote that the certificate was only posted online.


The investigator said the "Certification of Live Birth" posted online by the campaign "proves nothing.


Actually, Obama's campaign showed the birth certificate offline as well, and if you want evidence of that, I can show you.

Lol, stupid author...



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
Here's one source which you'll just ignore as the article is on WND:


No I wont ignore the fact its WND. I asked you for a direct pure impartial source and you send me like the others yet again to an Obama bashing site that lies on average in its articles. I will however address the link you gave me:


Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, state policies and procedures could accommodate even "children born out of State" (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original birth certificate on record. But though Act 182 does provide children born out of state with a birth certificate it does not provide them with birth certificates that say that these children were born in Hawaii or at a specific location in Hawaii. Consequently these birth certificates cannot engender Certifications of Live Birth which state that the subject was born in Honolulu, as the purported Obama Certification of Live Birth does. So if the Obama Certification of Live Birth was not forged, it could not have been engendered by an Act 182-authorized birth certificate for "children born out of state". And if it was forged, the false information on it was not based on anything that could be on an Act-182 authorized birth certificate. So Orly Taitz' assertion that "Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates" is irrelevant.


This claim was debunked by western journalism themselves.

Your original claim two pages back was:


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.


www.westernjournalism.com...


I didn't lie about it.


You willfully took what was said on an anti-Obama website as fact and presented it as fact without credible source. You cant call it what you like.


I expect an apology.


Nothing of the sort. I stand by what I said and I'd advise to think for yourself next time, do your own research beyond that of what "he said she said".

SG



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


1. You keep referencing the foreign born child part of the law which the investigator claims was always policy in practice but regardless I've stated several times my question on the BC is over the possibility his Mom claimed a home birth in order to obtain US citizenship for him. The long form would clear that up.

2. Your accusation was that I was "making it up". I've proven that is not the case and guess what? You don't get to define what sources I find credible. WND was reporting on an investigation performed by a completely different group, which I've also linked to and I find it completely credible.

Now it's your turn. If you have proof that home births were not able to obtain a BC in Hawaii in 1960-61 then please provide it. Given the investigator listed the relevant laws I think you know damn well I'm right on this one but you're not interested in anything that runs counter to your political bias.

You accuse people of making things up, lying and when they prove that's not the case you just change the parameters and back peddle. That makes you a coward and completely dishonest, IMO. If you're going to go around making accusations then at least be man enough to admit when you're wrong.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
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?


What would it prove? Well for starters it would prove that he no longer has any fear about what it may reveal. And why should he have any fear over that right?

I mean the long form says the same thing as the short form it just has more info right?

You mention that the doctor that delivered him would be forever harassed. Well that is your opinion but...I wonder why has that doctor been silent? Why has he not already come forth and said " I DELIVERED OBAMA!"?

It is not like harming the doctor will affect Obama... Come on man think logically. Not partisan.

But first, if he really was delivered in Hawaii, we must assume it was a Hawaiian doctor. If he lives he could put an end to this by coming forward. There would of been Hawaiian nurses assisting him. They could come forward and end this. Their would of been Hawaiian medical transcriptors. The folks that record who goes into and out of hospitals and what transpired. THEY COULD COME FORWARD AND END THIS.

Two people walk in three people walk out this is not hard math. Their would be records. All kinds. Not just one shady short form.

So why is one shady short form the only evidence?


Hmmmmmmmm?

I am sure it does not make you wonder but those among us that are not part of partisan politics do wonder.

It has nothing to do with dem/rep and everything to do with eligibility.

We are not blinded by the ideology of "HE IS MY CANDIDATE AND YOUR PRESIDENT" We just want proof.

Real proof.

With real medical bona fides.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


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



Your post to my provided a link to a JPG of the Birth certificate. There is not signature on it. If you see one please tell me where it is.

Alvin T. Onaka did not sign that scanned copy.

The validity of your word is in question.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by titorite]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
You mention that the doctor that delivered him would be forever harassed. Well that is your opinion but...I wonder why has that doctor been silent? Why has he not already come forth and said " I DELIVERED OBAMA!"?


To be fair, it's entirely possible that whoever delivered Obama is either dead and gone or doesn't remember one baby out of thousands.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Well, once again I am getting caught up with reading all of this thread.

In my reading, as I browse the web tonight, I again note a few posts that appear to be the efforts of those employed by the White House to infiltrate and sway discussion on the media and web. I believe that I may recognize some of their serious efforts in this thread and I have to commend them for attempting to fulfill their assignments to the best of their abilities. (I still like to get my tax dollar's worth when I can.)

A couple of points I would like to explain for those who lack the initiative to learn the law themselves or who choose to ignore its true meaning in favor of thier preferred interpretations:
1. Regarding the "SO WHAT!" response attributed to Obama in his debate with Alan Keyes, the official transcripts do not reflect the entire debates but rather the massaged version that the television station broadcast. The complete un-edited versions containing that particular exchange were supposedly broadcast twice by C-Span in April and May of 2005. The version of those debates currently available from C-Span show an obvious edit at one point of unknown length. SO???
2. The Constitution of the United States of America and it's Amendments are the law of the land which is applicable regarding this issue. All other laws regarding citizenship are secondary. Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, requires that the president be a “natural born citizen.” At the time when the Constitution was adopted, the commonly accepted definition of the term “natural born citizen” requires being born in the country and of parents both of which are citizens of that country.
3. Until the Supreme Court rules on the definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen", as utilized in the Constution and amendments, there will be no end to this battle and it is quite likely to get worse as our government continues to further abuse those whom it is supposed to serve.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



Here's the thing about WND, they just can't get their facts straight.


A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.


www.wnd.com...

Why anyone would think WND is a valid news source is beyond me.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Old Farmer
2. The Constitution of the United States of America and it's Amendments are the law of the land which is applicable regarding this issue. All other laws regarding citizenship are secondary. Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, requires that the president be a “natural born citizen.” At the time when the Constitution was adopted, the commonly accepted definition of the term “natural born citizen” requires being born in the country and of parents both of which are citizens of that country.
3. Until the Supreme Court rules on the definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen", as utilized in the Constution and amendments, there will be no end to this battle and it is quite likely to get worse as our government continues to further abuse those whom it is supposed to serve.

AT THE TIME the Constitution was written.

So, you admit that that's not the case anymore. The Constitution makes no mention as to what a natural-born citizen is, other then, naturally, you have to be born in the country.

[edit on 18/10/09 by Mak Manto]




top topics



 
349
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join