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: 39
349
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Well, well, this is interesting, more from the private investigator who found Obama‘s anomalies with his SSN issued in the state of Connecticut, where he never resided. As I posted the other day there is some evidence of multiple addresses used by Obama on his SSN.
I too wondered about an anomaly which showed 2 birthdates for Obama. One was American style 08/04/1961, and the one beneath it was British style 04/08/1961. How very interesting. Were there two certificates…one the British birth certificate and the other the certification of live birth from Hawaii? There are also two names associated with the SSN. Barack Obama and Barack Hussein Obama. The affidavit can be found in this article;


thepostnemail.wordpress.com...


For direct access for the lazy of mind, here is a direct link to the affidavit;


ia301520.us.archive.org...


And now we have this on Orly’s site about Michelle Obama;



Additionally now there is a mountain of evidence of illegal activity in relation to Michelle Obama. National databases show her going by different last names in association with the same social security number xxx-xx-2302, born 09.03.66. We have her under the names of Michelle Meyers and Michelle Paton in national databases in Alfaretta, GA, Atlanta GA and Suwanee GA as well as numerous other locations around the Nation, such as Owatonna MN and Port Jefferson NY.

Interesting observation:

There is a sale of a house in Alfaretta, GA parcel 22-4952-1050-115 at 225 Relais trce, Alfaretta GA. The sellers are Michelle and Fred Meyers. Social security number used, is one used by Michelle all her life xxx-xx-2302 (I am not allowed to publish the full birth certificates number, I have to redact it. The full number can be published only for the deceased). Who is Fred Meyers, listed on the deed with Michelle? Did Obama go by that name? Is this a real sale of a real house or was it a banking money laundering transaction used with a bogus name and address? Why is our worthless department of Justice (Injustice) and FBI (as in FalseBirthcertificates and Ids) doesn’t do a thing to investigate this criminal activity and bring Obamas to justice.




www.orlytaitzesq.com...


There are also very interesting reader comments on that page of Orly’s. One stating that Michelle’s father’s SSN seems still active, with several addresses.

There is also the old findings of Neil Sankey, ex Scotland Yard detective; listing what seem to be multiple SSN’S and addresses for Obama including one with an age of 119.

And for Stanley and Stanley Ann Dunham, Stanley Sutoro, we have this list of names, addresses and SSN’s and her as both male and female, alive and dead. There are many, many more names, numbers and companies formed elsewhere on the web. But here is a taster;



www.orlytaitzesq.com...

*Read right down to the end to ‘attachment C, attachment D, attachment E, attachment F’ to see the possible 9/11 connections and Michelle’s brother, and the Osama Barakat and Al Qaeda stuff if you have not come across it before.

Just as Obama’s mother seems still ‘alive’ with several addresses and a company opened after her death. What the hell is going on? There seems to be doubt about whether Ann Soetoro , Stanley Soetoro, Stanley Ann Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham, Ann sutoro, Patricia Ann Dunham, Kelly Ann Dunham, Ann Obama, Anne Obama, Stanley Ann Obama and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, is actually dead, and there is doubt around granny Madelyn, and an awful lot of activity on their names and numbers.
Of course there is nothing to see here folks…..




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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"?



Obviously people do give birth all the time in that village even though they aren't always teenage girls from kansas. People give birth in the backs of taxi-cabs, in restroom stahls, in police cars, at home, in fields and I even hear tell one child who very much influences your thinking was born in a manger in Betheleham.

You guys are funny I will grant you that! Though I put Southern Gaurdian on ignore months ago since ATS wasn't meant to be commedy central.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Pursuant to this discussion, I have to point out this theory is being forwarded by less than .015% of Americans. Just a little factoid I thought I would throw out there. If this were a democracy the issue could go for a vote and the birther theory would just die. But we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

As far as Orly Taitz, she stopped being credible at all when she started faking documents as part of her "investigation"

Sorry, the lady is completely nuts and I will laugh a mighty laugh when she is disbarred.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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?

Have you traced your genealogy back 400 years?



Yes BH. Further.

I take it from your statement that you have studied genealogy. I have not studied genealogy in general, just my own.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


If you're not going to provide any evidence of what you state as facts, your credibility is zero. Your lack of willingness to source ANYTHING you say makes your demands on Obama meaningless and hypocritical... and not worth the time to debate.

And for everyone who's upset about SG's description of the rural village of Kogelo in 1961, here's Obama sitting in front of a hut when he visited. It's very mush like SG described. Obama looks to be about 20, so it's around 1980.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Nice try, I am not running for President of the United States nor is my citizenship in question.

I am a person QUESTIONING the citizenship of the President of the United States because HE has NOT met EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS.

I am the one REQUESTING evidence not the one offering evidence.

The evidence I am REQUESTING only the President can provide.

It is a known fact he is using TEAMS of lawyers to NOT HAVE to provide it.

Hope that clears that up, on a side note it really is amazing that Joseph and Mary where able to get to the manger in Bethleham in the year 0 with it's current technology don't you think?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



If you're not going to provide any evidence of what you state as facts, your credibility is zero.


Well, Obama stated that his first visit to Kenya was in 1988 when he was 27...not 20.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist..lol



In his memoir Mr Obama describes the joy of meeting his father’s family during his first visit to Kenya in 1988.




www.timesonline.co.uk...


Not that he wrote his own book of course, even though he stated categorically that he did. William Ayers, the terrorist, has laid claim to having written it. And as there are many passages almost word for word straight from Ayers books, I find that easy to believe.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


But he has provided the very evidence that your requesting. He provided it to the satisfaction to the vast majority of voters, & citizens of this country.

If you refuse to acknowledge or believe that evidence, even though it is verified by the state, and it is perfectly legal evidence. It's not his problem. It would be as if someone requested evidence from you, then after you gave them what they asked for, rejected it out of hand and instead asked for the same evidence in a different way.

The first bit of evidence you gave them was perfectly legitimate, and they rejected it out of hand, why wouldn't they just reject other forms of the same evidence?

The main problem I have with this issue is the lack of real research. Birthers have problems with every conceivable form and paper the president could provide. But make absolutely no effort to do any real research for themselves. They don't make phone calls, they don't write letters, they don't look through actual files to try and find the truth they think they know. Instead they rely on assumption. And we all know the phrase when you assume it makes an ass of u and me.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The point and fact that Obama refuses to show his original long form birth certificate


Your perception changes a bit when you realistically consider the notion that the President isn't actively "refusing".....but showing you the face of what is utter disinterest in the wants and demands of a few nut cases on the Internet.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Let me repeat this once more for you.

He has not shown his long form Birth Certificate.

Only his long form Birth Certificate displays his actual place of birth.

Once more Hawaiian Law in 1961 would allow ANYONE born ANYWHERE on the PLANET to OBTAIN a HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE up to ONE (1) YEAR LATER even though they WERE NOT BORN IN HAWAII.

Once more no one from the State of Hawaii said he was born there all they have said is that they have his original birth certificate on file.

I defy you to show me a quote from anyone who holds official office in Hawaii who has said he was born there. In fact no one in an official capacity with the State of Hawaii claims he was born there which is highly suspicious in and of itself, all they will say is they have the document, and they have the document under 'special' custody.

Obviously he has NOT SHOWN his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE or I WOULD NOT BE ASKING for him to do so.

Obviously YOU HAVE NOT DISPLAYED IT EITHER or I would not be asking to see it.

So once again all you are doing is deflecting from the facts that the President REFUSES to meet EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS regarding his PLACE OF BIRTH.

I think that was clear SEVERAL PAGES AGO, I hope it’s clear now, in the mean time you might want to TAKE A READING RETENTION AND COMPREHENSION COURSE so people do not HAVE TO CONTINUALLY REPEAT themselves to you.

Thanks.

Once again the President REFUSES to display HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE which STATES WHERE HE IS BORN.

The President is HIDING SOMETHING or he would NOT refuse this REASONABLE request that EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE COMPLIED WITH.



[edit on 18/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cranberrydork

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The point and fact that Obama refuses to show his original long form birth certificate


Your perception changes a bit when you realistically consider the notion that the President isn't actively "refusing".....but showing you the face of what is utter disinterest in the wants and demands of a few nut cases on the Internet.


That is merely your opinion and your opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution you favor disregarding by lowering the standards to hold the highest office in the land.

The President has not met the Constitutional requirement to hold the office.

Insane would be not expecting the person who wants to hold the highest office in the land to not comply with the law.

Critical minds require real facts, real facts have not been presented.

That's very obvious.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Which goes back to the question I used to ask repeatedly with no response.

Where in the constitution does it say that the long form birth certificate is the only acceptable document to prove ones eligibility for the POTUS?

The answer is?

The short form is prima facie evidence that his long form does exist. It states he was born in Hawaii.

Fact in point, unless you show me the specific law from the Hawaiian state statues (Not from a blog, not from Orly Taitz's website) that makes it possible for anyone to get a birth certificate in Hawaii coming from anywhere on the globe. I don't buy that as a fact.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Once again the short form birth certificate does not state he was born in Hawaii or where he was born. All it states is that Hawaii is registering his birth. A birth that because of Hawaiian laws regarding birth registery could have taken place any place on the globe and been lawfully recorded in Hawaii up to one year later.

Obviously if his short form does not denote the place of birth, and the place of birth as being the United States and where and when and witnessed by whom in the United States...IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OR MEET EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS regarding where he was born since it does NOT SAY WHERE HE WAS BORN.

Once again NO OFFICIAL from the STATE OF HAWAII CLAIMS HE WAS BORN THERE JUST THAT THEY HAVE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE ON FILE UNDER SPECIAL CUSTODY.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
That is merely your opinion and your opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution you favor disregarding by lowering the standards to hold the highest office in the land.


You, nor anyone else here, can determine my "opinion" on this subject.....go look for it....I dare ya'. Simply because I suggested an alternate way of looking at the subject...you feel it's right to characterize me as "disregarding the Constitution"?

And his complete lack of interest in bending to the will of a bunch of Internet nutcases.....tends to lend a bit more credence to my opinion. Don't you think your outrage is better served exposing the problems with the world's financial systems? Maybe?

I have news for you.....the "highest office in the land" is wonderful hyperbole, but sadly, it isn't the Office of the President anymore......I'm pretty sure it's the CEO of Goldman Sachs right now.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


Whether President Obama has met evidentiary standards regarding his place of birth (he has not) is not about you or I so lets not pretend it's about you or I.

I want him to meet evidentiary standards and have every right under the constitution to insist those standards be met.

If you are not concerned that evidentiary standards have not been met (and they have not been met) that is your business. Just as your opinion is your opiniion.

Neither your opinion or your business replaces the Constitution though.

It is not about me, it is not about you, it is about the President REFUSING to disclose the information and the President hiring legal teams to keep from having to MEET CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


www.factcheck.org...

There you go check it out yourself, it does say that he was born in Honolulu Hawaii.



Gibbs is right. it doesn't matter.


[edit on 10/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Once again that is not a valid document and once again you are being disengenuous by posting the link instead of the image.

The Long Form Birth Certificate would be the ONLY suitable document for determining his place of birth.

The fact that he refuses to display his long form Birth Certificate which is the ONLY suitable document for determining his place of birth suggest that he is hiding something.

Only seeing the Original True Signed Document will we know WHAT if ANYTHING is being hid.

Evidtentiary standards are not being met and MORE IMPORTANTLY...AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is being SUPRESSED.

That available evidence would be the LONG FORM birth certificate OBAMA IS PAYING SCORES OF LAWYERS TO KEEP FROM HAVING TO PRODUCE.

What part of DOES NOT MEET EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS don't you get.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
This is apparently what a few of you fail to get. Whether you fail to get it because you are lackadaisical, disinterested, antagonistic, sadistic, malicious, ignorant, and blind or pursuing a singular personal agenda and objective is meaningless.

What is meaningful is that the actual ‘definitive document’ exists.

There is no valid reason to accept anything less than the ‘Original Definitive Document’ as being accurately and 100% reflective of the ‘Original Definitive Document’ when the ‘Original Definitive Document’ does exist and can in fact be displayed in a proper fully disclosed official way.

We have the original Declaration of Independence under glass in Washington D.C. for people to see. We know this because we can see it. We know it exists because we can see it.

Maybe you walk into a restaurant and don’t order a Coca Cola™ but say hey ‘do you have a cheap facsimile of coke’?

I don’t though. All you are suggesting is a cheap facsimile should be treated as the genuine thing and that is absurd.

The real deal exists; it is the only thing that is real. There is no credible or legitimate reason for not showing it.

None, zero, zip, nadda.

I have no idea what would cause anyone to accept anything less. When I say I have no idea what would cause anyone to accept anything less I mean I as in me, myself and I would never accept anything less. Asking, arguing, cajoling me, or begging me to do otherwise is an absolute and utter waste of time, yours and mine.

I have standards THE HIGHEST, those who want to appeal to the lowest possible common denominator may do so, I choose the HIGHEST possible common denominator.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Prove it's not a valid document.

As far as Hawaii is concerned it is, they after all issued it.

What's on the long form that you so desperately need anyway? The doctors name? Why so birthers can then go harass him over this? What if he had passed away? It would obviously be seen as some sort of cover up.

I'm not going to change your mind, that's fine. But if your not going to at least prove your case I can't help that. Least the side of the issue I stand on is trying. You might want to reciprocate some research of your own instead of just spewing up words.

Because it's not my problem. Your belief is your belief. Your quite entitled to it. I'm certainly not going to believe just you. Why should I? You haven't brought up anything supported by any rational reasonable credible sources to prove your side of this issue.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Friend this has been explained to you time and time again.

Mine is a very simple and straight forward honest, poignant and accurate contention.

Only the original long form signed document is 100% fully reflective of his place of birth.

The reasons for that are simple to. All these reasons have been explained to you time and time again.

I am not here to answer questions.

I am here to say a question that is being asked has not been answered.

That question is what is on the original document and why will the President not show what is on the original document and is instead hiring lawyers to keep from having to show it.

You have not answered those questions.

You are not attempting to answer those questions.

You can not answer those questions as only the President can answer those questions and you are not the President.

I have the most valid and serious question that I am looking for valid and factual answers for supported by the highest standard of evidence.

I am not here to prove anything to you.

I am not here to answer questions beyond why I want to see this information and why I believe it to be valid, and why I believe other people should feel the same question is valid and to ask it too.

You have been unable to meet evidentiary standards and I will not lower mine.

Thanks.




top topics



 
349
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join