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: 36
349
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 


I'm just stating my opinion backed up by what facts I have at hand. I also have questions. I question this conspiracy, because as of yet I have not seen any shred of convincing evidence to support there being a conspiracy.

I don't think I have ever said to anyone they should stop pursuing this. Fact of the matter is, this conspiracy is great for the left. Because it makes the right look nutty which is always a good thing.

I am sure there are many more BS websites you can find pseudo evidence to support this nutty theory. I do enjoy debunking them. But by all means please, don't take my debunking to mean that I am trying to shut you up. That certainly is not the case.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ecoparity
You can try to twist the facts all you want to,


Im not the one twisting facts, and will happily remind you of your original statement:


Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

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.


To which I clearly proved thats a blatant lie. Nobody could simply walk into a hospital and "claim" the circumstances of birth. Documentation needed to be provided of birth on soil of the child a year following the childs birth to which they would have recieved a delayed birth certificate and it would have been stated as such on all forms of certifications of birth.


By Melody Lassalle
How did a person go about getting a delayed birth certificate? The person filled out an “Application for Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”. This application asked for basic details such as name, place of birth, date of birth, current address, race of father and mother, father’s name, mother’s name, and any physical identifying marks.

The applicant then appeared before the Court. The applicant was interviewed by a representative of the Secretary of Hawaii. At that time, the applicant gave testimony about their birth, parentage, siblings, etc. They presented any documentation that proved they were born in Hawaii. This might include baptismal or other religious records, their parents’ immigration reocrds, or parents’ marriage records.

Next, witnesses gave testimony on the applicant’s behalf. The witnesses might be family members or friends. They had to have first hand knowledge of the applicant’s parentage, birth, and details of their early life. This information was needed to corroborate the applicant’s story.

After the witnesses gave testimony, the applicant might be called back to clarify any discrepancies. The case was reviewed and an official ruling was made. This delayed birth record could then serve the purpose of a real birth certificate.

The delayed birth record provides a wealth of information for family genealogists. First, you’ll find testimony from the applicant and witnesses. Many of the questions can resolve questions about parentage, spouses, children, and siblings. Second, copies of documentation or typed notes from the documentation are included. This is very helpful especially if you need to locate the church that your ancestors were members of or need to know where your ancestors parents were from.

hawaii.gov...
nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...

Theres no twisting of facts. You made a claim and you failed to back it up.

SG


You're playing word games. I provided proof of the central question, you just want to challenge it based on how it was worded.

Since the required proof eventually boiled down to testimony from a family member I'd say it was well within reach for someone to obtain a home-birth loophole BC in Hawaii at that time, fraudulently. All the person in question had to do was provide a good story as to why they did not have the preferred documentation.

I understand, you can't acknowledge even one question as to the short form being acceptable in order to maintain your position. That's OK, people on ATS, at least the real members here are more than intelligent enough to see what you're trying to do.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



I understand, you can't acknowledge even one question as to the short form being acceptable in order to maintain your position. That's OK, people on ATS, at least the real members here are more than intelligent enough to see what you're trying to do.


The short form is perfectly legal. It even says so at the bottom of the form.

And SG is a real member, do you think that SG is some sort of bot or something?
Interactive politibots news at 10



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
where would you want your child's birth registered? america or kenya?
wouldn't there be a lot more benefits if in america?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
You're playing word games.


Word games? Need I remind you regarding your original statement?


Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

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.


So, in reply to your own statement, could anybody at the time just walk into the hospital and "claim" to attain an hawaiian birth certificiate?


I provided proof of the central question,


Proof? All you provided was a link to WND, a known anti-Obama website which got its facts wrong on the policy. You have failed to reference to a non-ideological website which backs up your claim. There were no policies at the time where you could just walk into a hospital and attain a BC by word of mouth.

*snip*
mod edit to remove ill-mannered remark.

[edit on 18/10/09 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


I just want to make sure I got this straight. So the new theory here is, they were residents of the state of Hawaii, A pregnant Ann Dunnham gets on a flight to Kenya, has Obama in Kenya, flies back to Hawaii with little Obama in hand and then fraudulently gets a birth certificate from Hawaii.

Is that what I am to understand?






posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
where would you want your child's birth registered? america or kenya?


Im wouldnt be sure myself, what I do know is that if my child was born in Kenya, it wouldnt matter if I left back for Hawaii in the United states. My childs vaulted long form birth certificate would be in the hands of the Kenyan government, not Hawaii.


wouldn't there be a lot more benefits if in america?


Actually, let me go ahead and explain this theory of Kenyan born Obama:

1.) First, it would entail a massive battery of immunization shots that NO competent American pediatrician would allow a late term teenager to endure. It would require passports and airline travel money that students might not be expected to have. But lets suppose they did.

2.) There were NO direct flights from ANYWHERE in America to Kenya in 1961. The flight from Hawaii would have several hops and layovers: Honolulu to San Francisco to Chicago to New York to London to Rome to Cairo. And then a local flight to Nairobi, Kenya. Total time? About SEVEN DAYS with layovers. Then another 200 miles north over land to Kogelo Village in west Kenya, where the Obama clan called home. Quite a trip for a pregnant teenager.

3.) Very pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham makes the trip, meets Obama's parents, and settles down into their un-air conditioned, no electricity hut, complete with open windows, mosquitoes the size of birds, tse-tse flies and Discovery channel wildlife along the perimeter. She's right at home, and glad she came.

4.) Soon she realizes she's got to get back to America to have her baby. So she gets back into the Obama's Range Rover (oh, sorry, she mounts their domestic water buffalo, the same one that brought her from Nairobi thru lion infested territory, since there aren't any Interstate highways in Kenya) and makes the two hundred mile trip back to Nairobi. But by then the airlines won't let a pregnant white woman fly. So, instead of having the child in Nairobi, she mounts the water buffalo again, still pregnant, and rides ANOTHER 150 miles south to Mombasa to have the child. It's Aug 4. 1961. Obama's grandmother is present.

5.) Eschewing any recovery time, Stanley Ann mounts the water buffalo two hours after giving birth, rides back to Nairobi with her bundle of joy in tow. She catches the first thing smoking. Local flight to Cairo, then TWA to Rome, then to London, then to NY, then to San Francisco, then to Honolulu, bleeding from her nether parts the whole way. According to ineligibility theorists, the return trip took all of 2 days in 1961, and there weren't any standard layovers. (And remember, a good water buffalo can travel about 10 miles a day.)

6.) She arrives in Honolulu and rushes straight to the newspapers to report her son's birth. The birth is duly noted in two Honolulu newspapers.

This is the garbage you fellas choose to buy as a opposed to an Hawaiian state verified birth certificate spectre. That and what some title says on an online article that has no original link and no verification. And you expect anybody to take you seriously when you claim the long form will end it all?? Get off it will ya?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That is absolutely brilliant! You figured out this whole conspiracy! That is exactly what must have happened!

Now the thing we must ask. Where is the water buffalo? Show us the water buffalo and we will stop denying this conspiracy!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


ATTN SOUTHERN GUARDIAN

This is the third time I have addressed you with in the last three pages.

You are not telling the truth either by accident or with intent. I think on purpose now since you choose to ignore me.

The JPG you post a link to... The public BC has no signature by Alvin T. Onaka... If you see other wise please state where you see it because as I look at it I see no signature of any kind. And that is what bothers many folks.....

The lack of medical bona fides like signatures....and seals.....


Ignore the seal Southern Guardian show me the sig by Alivn T Onaka....

Tell me where it is at!

Otherwise your just lying for you man in office. just like the neo con nazis did for bush making you no different from them.......



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


www.factcheck.org...

That one?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


oh you mean THIS one!!!.


colb debunked



by the way, that was on the third version of the daily kos releases.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


Nope the FactCheck one.

BTW didn't WND Debunk your debunking?


Now this is getting silly, just show the water buffalo and prove that Ann Dunnham traveled pregnant to Kenya.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by ecoparity
 


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.


Sorry all, I'm late getting back into this but I thought the thread had run dry.

Proto makes a point that backs my thought that the cover-up is more to do with who the genetic father is, perhaps Frank Marshall Davis, than where he was born. Was the birth certificate mention in the book planted to deal with this future issue? To throw off the hounds as I suggested? How often do you look at your birth certificate? Just sitting in Tahiti writing about my dear old awol dad and reminiscing about that time I had possession of my long form birth certificate. Good times, good times.

It takes quite an ego to write your memoirs at the age of 34 and drop good old "Frank" into the book as well. If "Frank" was of little consequence why the mention? He in fact was a key figure in Obama's life. As the newly elected first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, you would think Barry would be smart enough to know that a mention of this man could come back to bite him in the butt. So why include it? Who would have known? Likely the mention was out of some sense of duty to either his genetic father, his communist mentor or both. I'm sure this egotist never considered anyone outside his radical circle would connect the dots.

Barry has never been told no and appears impervious to careless moves that would have ended any other career in public office. Roll over John Gotti there's a new “Teflon Don".



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
ATTN SOUTHERN GUARDIAN


Titor if anything you have been among the dismissive of the evidence contrary to this conspiracy, but I will once again reply to another specific issue you pulled out:


The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama's birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.


"I guess the big issue that's being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature," Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. "Because they scanned the front … you wouldn't see those things."

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? "When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it."

Still, she acknowledges: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."


www.politifact.com...

Now you can either believe the above or buy the theory below:


1.) First, it would entail a massive battery of immunization shots that NO competent American pediatrician would allow a late term teenager to endure. It would require passports and airline travel money that students might not be expected to have. But lets suppose they did.

2.) There were NO direct flights from ANYWHERE in America to Kenya in 1961. The flight from Hawaii would have several hops and layovers: Honolulu to San Francisco to Chicago to New York to London to Rome to Cairo. And then a local flight to Nairobi, Kenya. Total time? About SEVEN DAYS with layovers. Then another 200 miles north over land to Kogelo Village in west Kenya, where the Obama clan called home. Quite a trip for a pregnant teenager.

3.) Very pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham makes the trip, meets Obama's parents, and settles down into their un-air conditioned, no electricity hut, complete with open windows, mosquitoes the size of birds, tse-tse flies and Discovery channel wildlife along the perimeter. She's right at home, and glad she came.

4.) Soon she realizes she's got to get back to America to have her baby. So she gets back into the Obama's Range Rover (oh, sorry, she mounts their domestic water buffalo, the same one that brought her from Nairobi thru lion infested territory, since there aren't any Interstate highways in Kenya) and makes the two hundred mile trip back to Nairobi. But by then the airlines won't let a pregnant white woman fly. So, instead of having the child in Nairobi, she mounts the water buffalo again, still pregnant, and rides ANOTHER 150 miles south to Mombasa to have the child. It's Aug 4. 1961. Obama's grandmother is present.

5.) Eschewing any recovery time, Stanley Ann mounts the water buffalo two hours after giving birth, rides back to Nairobi with her bundle of joy in tow. She catches the first thing smoking. Local flight to Cairo, then TWA to Rome, then to London, then to NY, then to San Francisco, then to Honolulu, bleeding from her nether parts the whole way. According to ineligibility theorists, the return trip took all of 2 days in 1961, and there weren't any standard layovers. (And remember, a good water buffalo can travel about 10 miles a day.)

6.) She arrives in Honolulu and rushes straight to the newspapers to report her son's birth. The birth is duly noted in two Honolulu newspapers.


Can you choose which side you buy?


This is the third time


The theory of his seal and signiture are the most common and I have addressed the matter in other birther threads. Its never ending for folks like you however.

SG

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 



just show us one piece of tangible evidence that shows he's qualified. not the fake colb. show us the site where it says he was vetted,by someone other than nancy pelosi.


Ask her yourself. I am not here to do research for you. Go ahead, shes pretty easy to get a hold of.


if you wanna see the water guffalo,turn around an look at your girlfriend!!!!!


You can insult me all you want, I really don't care, but please, keep it at me thank you.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere
Proto makes a point that backs my thought that the cover-up is more to do with who the genetic father is, perhaps Frank Marshall Davis,


Because goodness knows that when the theory of a Kenyan born Obama falls on it's back, theres always another member to claim the "father conspiracy" out of thin air. Way to go to move along from one version of the conspiracy to another.

SG



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Ask her yourself. I am not here to do research for you. Go ahead, shes pretty easy to get a hold of.


Its really funny. They bring up this conspiracy, they make serious accusations pulled out of thin air with nothing to show for it and they expect others to prove what they claim? What world do these fellas come from? Bizarro world?? And I'll assume we can picture a court room where the birthers make out fantastical stories with nothing to show for it and President Obama is then pulled out of the whitehouse and charged with crimes.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


It's like we work in the worlds most screwed up office around here sometimes.

"Go find me this!" you tootle off and find it, "That's fake!" "Here swallow this nonsense I just made up out of thin air!" "What do you mean you don't agree with me? You must be working for THEM!"



[edit on 10/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Well isn't this the pot calling the kettle... Politifact is just as biased as every other "news" organization out there. Yet you seem to think since it's from them it MUST be the truth.

But who owns them? The Poynter Institute for Media Studies (the St Pete Times company is owned by that school) Which has a reputation for being extremely libertarian in it's views and hardly an unbiased source..

So as it stands both sides are clinging to biased sources and because of the climate here in the US we may never know the real truth because remember this one solid fact that noone can dispute.

There are 3 sides to every story, the 2 opposing and somewhere in the middle the truth...



new topics

top topics



 
349
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join