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: 38
349
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Oh please, that's being disingenuous,
Your purposefully denying the fact that it's well known that that is the signature that is located on the COLB that is currently online at FactCheck.org.

but we go around around around the same things over and over. It's silly and it's going nowhere. Birthers have to step it up and bring something real to this conspiracy.

reply to post by ecoparity
 


You do know that Kenya is a Country, and Nairobi is a City in the COUNTRY of Kenya?




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Oh that's real easy, because it's an out of context picture.


Oh, OK. I see.



*BH quietly walks away.*


Originally posted by ecoparity
Here are some photos of Kenya in 1960-62. I see a clean, modern city with paved roads and electricity.


Those photos are of Nairobi. Look up Kenya on Google maps and see how far Nairobi is from Kogelo, which is where Obama's family is from.

Here is a story about a man who visited Kogelo recently. And keep in mind this is nearly 50 years later.
The villiage of Kogelo likely did have huts 50 years ago.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 


I have to say, you're not being completely honest in your accusations of racism.

South Guardian (I believe it's him/her) said that about a 1961 Kenya. What's more, it seemed to me that he was exaggerating things just to show the absurdity of what the "birthers" would have people believe, not to mention his/her post had a healthy dose of sarcasm.

I actually found the water buffalo funy. Yes, I am African (whatever that means) and I am not offended.

But on that issue, how exactly do "birthers" propose things happened? I mean how Obama's mother went to Kenya and all that?

On second thought, it doesn't really matter. I honestly don't get how Americans thought Obama would be different. He's a politician, they all feed you the same crap, it's just that they package it differently.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
As I stated before not only is the facsimile of the document on Factcheck.org rife with tell tale alterations it is not a valid document because it is rife with tell tale alterations.

Could this be why BH chose to link to just a picture of a signature?

As stated before the short form certificate does not accurately reflect the place of birth as the long form certificate does. Even if this short form document were not an altered invalid document it would still not meet the evidentiary standards required to clear up where he was born because once again Hawaiian law at the time allows for a person born anywhere in the world to get a Hawaiian Birth Certificate up to one year later.

The short form does not disclose place of birth, the long form does.

Finally factcheck.org is not a empowered government agency or has any legal authority or power vested in it by the people, the government or the constitution.

In essence this would be like me getting a citation for driving with out a license and instead of showing up to court as the law requires posting a copy of my driver's license on the Internet and sending the judge a URL.

The judge would reject that as not meeting evidentiary standards.

Ultimately all you are advocating for is to accept lower thresh holds of evidentiary standard to make the bar low enough for a foreign born person who refuses to show his actual long form birth certificate that lists the place of birth on it to get over the newly lowered bar and to establish a bald faced lie as a fact.

All you are doing is repeating the same old arguments that have been debunked and overcome time and time again, and the only thing you are hoping to accomplish in doing that is preventing the public from demanding true evidentiary standards be met.

It is what it is and frankly I suspect you suspect he was born in Kenya or you would proudly want him to show his long form birth certificate to prove otherwise.

It is what it is and what it is is no constitutional evidentiary standard has been met.

Thanks !


[edit on 18/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Riiiiight!

Anyway, where is the evidence that Obama was in fact born in Kenya? The op of this thread is a AP article (unsubstantiated, unverified, with no Byline.)

And the last major thread? A Kenyan birth certificate that turned out to be a forgery.

So exactly what evidence do Birthers have to substantiate the claims that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii?

The fact you can't read every love note he gave in college? Or an imaginary theory that he is a British subject?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomander
 

So the only way to get around is by water buffalo and there were no hospitals?

I like how one side is allowed to exagerrate and make culturaly offensive statements but the other must be word for word accurate.

Hypocritical doesn't even begin....



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



I like how one side is allowed to exagerrate and make culturaly offensive statements but the other must be word for word accurate.


When your side actually starts being accurate, (I mean at all, about anything) then you can make the statement about being culturally offensive.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomander
 


White or black African?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Once again the evidence is being suppressed by the man who refuses to show his actual valid Birth Certificate in its complete long form to a duly empowered constitutional entity.

Evidentiary standards have not been met and many other candidates have complied in revealing their own documents to prove they actually meet constitutional criteria.

Ultimately who suffers for this arrogance are the American people as it only divides the nation. Ultimately no good leader would do that.

Ultimately no critical mind would accept anything as fact that the evidentiary standard to establish fact has not been met.

It has not been met in this case; hence that is why there is a controversy.

It is not the people’s fault that the President refuses to meet evidentiary standards and the mere coining of the world ‘birther’ not only denotes a conspiracy but is a disingenuous effort to label intelligent people who have credible evidentiary standards as being some type of lunatic fringe.

That in itself is further evidence that a conspiracy exists.

The President has not met evidentiary standards that people with critical minds have questions is the President’s fault for not meeting those evidentiary standards, not the critical minded people’s fault for seeing the inherent wisdom in making sure evidentiary standards are always met.

Once again all you are advocating for is that evidentiary standards be discarded for self serving and foolish reasons.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


And you can join your partner on ignore. You've reached the point of less than zero credibility. Your here to derail the discussion and engage in partisian politics. All you do is post the same two links over and over while pretending your entitled to more consideration than everyone else.

I'm here to discuss a conspiracy you refuse to acknowledge to the point of absurdity. If ATS won't protect that environment then i have no option but to end further pointless wasting of time.

This is supposed to be a place where people can discuss and debate these subjects. You and SG left the realm of debate a dozen pages ago.

I can honestly say I just want to find the truth no matter what that is. You and your partner are not interested in that exploration. You've already decided.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Once again the evidence is being suppressed by the man who refuses to show his actual valid Birth Certificate in its complete long form to a duly empowered constitutional entity.


Which would that be? The DNC chaired by Nancy Pelosi? or Congress when they confirmed him? Or perhaps the Supreme Court when the chief justice swore him in?


Evidentiary standards have not been met and many other candidates have complied in revealing their own documents to prove they actually meet constitutional criteria.


As did Obama, except you refuse to acknowledge that fact.


Ultimately who suffers for this arrogance are the American people as it only divides the nation. Ultimately no good leader would do that.


There is nothing further he can do, the people demanded proof, he complied with the will of the people, some rejected that proof, so there is nothing else he can do. He does have a country to run and a lot of other problems on his plate. (some of which he is causing himself)


Ultimately no critical mind would accept anything as fact that the evidentiary standard to establish fact has not been met.


But when it has been shown, and a select few refuse to believe it. There is no critical mind that would accept that few's theory about the subject.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The lengths the shadow government (or whatever nonsense you happen to buy into on here.) would have to go through to get Obama elected are beyond rational. There would be just as many willing stooges they could have picked besides Obama.



Stanley Armour Dunham

Stanley Dunham is the grandfather of Barack Obama. He was born in 1918 and served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army during World War II, enlisting just after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Stanley and his wife Madelyn raised Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition to President Obama, Stanley is related to six US presidents: James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. He died in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1992 and is buried at the Punchbowl National Cemetery. - Wikipedia


Unlike Obama, I have no former US presidents or English monarchs even remotely in my family tree. How about you?


The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the Chinese-speaking Geithner is an associate of Henry Kissinger who can be counted on to convince the Chinese Communists to continue to buy U.S. debt and finance Obama’s massive expansion of federal government power. That is why Obama and his fellow Democrats are putting so much faith in him.

As Henry Kissinger recently put it, when he was celebrating U.S.-China relations on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Obama’s mission is to usher in a “New World Order.” He forgot to mention, of course, that it is a China-dominated New World Order in which the U.S. has become a subsidiary of China Inc.

Kissinger did comment that Obama had “appointed an extraordinarily able group of people in both the international and financial fields.” He didn’t name names, but that obviously includes Geithner, who used to work for Kissinger Associates.

It also turns out that Geithner’s father, Peter F. Geithner, serves on the board with Kissinger of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. This is the group that rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange, celebrating Chinese investments in the U.S. economy. In another interesting connection, it turns out that Peter F. Geithner was with the Ford Foundation and oversaw the work of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, developing what are called microfinance programs in Indonesia.

It should be apparent by now that the major media aren’t interested in holding Geithner accountable for his tax “mistakes” or anything else. Only the American people can do that. - excerpted from The Big Money Behind Geithner by Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media


Stanley Ann Dunham was under the wing of Peter Geithner and the Ford Foundation a remarkable coincidence her being the mother of a future president who goes on to select Timmy G despite the Wall Street fiasco he oversaw while president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York not to mention his personal "tax problems". "Lengths" indeed.

Here's the entire piece:

The Big Money Behind Geithner

Kissinger remains a constant in US foreign affairs from the Nixon administration onward. Perhaps clandestinely driving the bus all these years.


Nixon did not anticipate the extent to which Kissinger, whom he barely knew when he appointed him national-security adviser, in 1969, would be envious and high-strung—a maintenance project of the first order. Nixon had a running conversation with Haldeman about "the K problem," as Haldeman noted in his diaries. Nixon complained in one taped conversation with the chief of staff: "Henry's personality problem is just too goddamn difficult for us to deal [with].… Goddamn it, Bob, he's psychopathic about trying to screw [Secretary of State William] Rogers." Haldeman feared that if Kissinger "wins the battle with Rogers" he might not be "livable with afterwards." Nixon agreed that he would "be a dictator." "Did you know that Henry worries every time I talk on the phone with anybody?" he told Haldeman and domestic counselor John Ehrlichman in another taped conversation. "His feeling is that he must be present every time I see anybody important." - Robert Dallek, Vanity Fair, May 2007


Why would Nixon appoint Kissinger "whom he barely knew"? He had no choice, he was encouraged to do so I'm certain. Nixon was just one puppet in a long line selected by the "shadow government" you mention. The political pendulum has swung right and left and finally hard right to hard left with the latest administrations. My take is most Americans are centrists. How could this happened without extensive manipulation of the media? Kissinger was not eligible to run for the presidency as we know. Here's the entire Vanity Fair piece:

The Kissinger Presidency

The bus driver speaks:


Henry Kissinger warned Thursday night that it is crucial President Obama sends all troops in Afghanistan that are necessary to secure as much of the country as possible from the terrorist Taliban. If Obama doesn’t follow the recommendations of “the ambassador and the general appointed by the Administration, and the commander of U.S. Central Command,” added the former secretary of state, Obama “cannot face the domestic consequences -- it would be a big mistake.” - John Gizzi, political editor, Human Events.com October 12, 2009


The entire piece:

Kissinger: Obama Should Send Troops, Then Neutralize Afghanistan

The lengths the shadow government goes to might be beyond rational for you. I think little is left to chance. The constant mystery surrounding Barrack Obama is beyond rational for me and thus my doubts. It will be interesting to see who drives the bus in coming weeks.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The hysterical thing here is that the more you argue for people accepting alternative and incomplete answers regarding this issue, the more you illustrate that they are alternative and incomplete answers that have been used in a vein effort to try to placate people on this issue.

The point and fact that Obama refuses to show his original long form birth certificate speaks for itself.

All your other attempts at deflection are just that, attempts at deflection.

You keep deflecting I will keep stating the obvious.

Evidentiary standards have not been met in regards to this question.

People with critical minds require that evidentiary standards be met.

People who are not serious and not credible do not require evidentiary standards be met. Those would be the kind of people who A. Think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and must be invaded and B. people who think Obama was born in the United States because he posted an altered invalid short form birth certificate that does not reveal where he was born on a non-government, non-official web site.

All you are demonstrating is what kind of mentality it takes to wrongfully invade a nation and bankrupt a treasury and how you end up with 4 more years of George Bush on steroids instead of hope and change.

Good luck on winning any one over with those arguments.

I would try the comedy club with these arguments of yours, they are after all funny!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by Anomander
 


White or black African?



Kindly explain to me what my skin colour has got to do with anything? Wait wait. Did you just say that there are no Asian Africans?! Then I've got to tell those Indian guys to catch the next water buffalo headed to India.

But most importantly, tell me why you would ask such a question. I'm highly suspicious of strangers who ask me bizarre questions on the internet.

And you fail to see that the issue is not really the water buffalo. Out of curiosity, how is it exactly "culturally offensive"?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Well after reading all of this and seeing both sides presented, I sincerely hope that the courts rule in favor of the Plaintiffs and force the issue of his birth. Seems to me a lot of time and effort is being wasted (as well as taxpayer dollars) by Barack to fight this if it were not a deep rooted skeleton, what's the old saying? If you have nothing to hide?

The picture of the seal could be from another paper than the front of that certificate, as could the "signature" or should I say rubber stamp, there's nothing really tying the pictures of the seal or sig to the purported document front that is being claimed as the COLB. And to be honest, a seal WOULD have shown through on both sides had the document been scanned, raised (or depressed) areas would have left a distinctive shadowing.

Soo... what I am left to assume is that a) he faked something, something that maybe his wife doesn't even know about and b) we need him out and someone qualified in, I really don't care who at this point, as long as they arenn't trying to manipulate the basic and fundamental rules for becoming the POTUS



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
As stated before the short form certificate does not accurately reflect the place of birth as the long form certificate does.


You say this like it's a fact. The truth is that ALL the information on a short form birth certificate is taken DIRECTLY from the long form.

Proof of the above statement



Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a "Certification of Birth" or "Certificate of Birth Registration". The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances [2]. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels [8].




It is what it is and what it is is no constitutional evidentiary standard has been met.


How do you know that Obama hasn't shown his long form birth certificate to the head of the DNC? You state this like it's a fact. Have you spoken to them? Do you have evidence that Obama has NOT shown his BC to the proper authorities?


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Once again the evidence is being suppressed by the man who refuses to show his actual valid Birth Certificate in its complete long form to a duly empowered constitutional entity.


HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? What is your evidence for this statement???



Evidentiary standards have not been met and many other candidates have complied in revealing their own documents to prove they actually meet constitutional criteria.


HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Which "many other candidates" have complied? How do you know? For someone who demands evidence, you are full of assumptions with no evidence whatsoever! Spouting statements with NO evidence doesn't make it fact. Wow.

Could you say "evidentiary standards" one more time?



Originally posted by ecoparity
So the only way to get around is by water buffalo and there were no hospitals?


It's just a funny little story to point out how unlikely it is that Obama was born in Kenya. Don't take it so seriously.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere
Unlike Obama, I have no former US presidents or English monarchs even remotely in my family tree. How about you?


Are you sure about that?



genealogy
It is common for Americans who descend from 17th century American colonists to be related to famous people and to descend from old royal ancestral lines, many of which go back to medieval times.


Have you traced your genealogy back 400 years?



The gateway to President Obama’s shared ancestors with President James Madison, and to one of their royal lineages, is through Martha Eltonhead, who was born in England more than 400 years ago. This is their shared descent:


All these famous people who are related isn't really such a surprise at all if you've studied genealogy.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




It's just a funny little story to point out how unlikely it is that Obama was born in Kenya. Don't take it so seriously.


Yes, just a funny little story when someone backing Obama writes it. Can you imagine the cries of 'racist' if anyone doubting Obama's eligibility wrote a similar 'funny little story' about how backward Kenya and Kenyans were. Not only is it not funny, but every point, if it was meant to have any serious point to it, is laughably from the fevered imagination of someone...well....a bit backward.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Like it or not, SG's tale is very likely close to the truth of what would have happened for Stanley Dunham to give birth in the small, primitive village of Kogelo in 1961. I fail to see what is "racist" about it at all.
Can you quote the phrase or paragraph you find to be "racist"?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Once again evidentiary standards have not been met regarding Obama’s place of birth and his Birth Certificate.

It does not matter how many deflections from that argument you raise.

The American people have reasonable and legitimate concerns in regards to this issue because evidentiary standards have not been met.

The only reason evidentiary standards have not been met is because President Obama refuses to meet those evidentiary standards and to use teams of lawyers to keep from having to meet evidentiary standards.

Once again the President does not want to meet evidentiary standards to end this controversy because the President does not care that it divides and weakens the nation he leads into a downward spiral of ballooning debt, foreign wars, massive giveaways of taxpayer dollars to corporations owned by the wealthiest people in the world, massive unemployment and the nationalization of everything from banking, insurance, manufacturing, retailing to health care.

Many would argue it serves a President with such an agenda well to have the people bitterly divided over his illegitimacy.

Nonetheless evidentiary standards have not been met and all you are advocating is for lessening the evidentiary standards and assuming someone else, somewhere else has seen what the President is spending considerable sums of money and employing vast numbers of attorneys not to have to display to the courts and the American people.

That’s your argument and I am rejecting it because it does not meet evidentiary standards.

The evidentiary standards are fair ones; there is no reason not to meet their threshold.

Someone withholding such evidence would only be doing so because they have something to hide.

That’s just common sense.

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
349
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join