AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

You have not answered those questions.

Not my problem to, I am satisfied with the answers I was given when I too questioned the eligibility of then candidate Obama. Once the birth certificate came out and was verified. Those questions in my mind were put to rest.

You are not attempting to answer those questions.

See your next statement for the answer.

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

Righto, he did, it's done, get on with life. Or not, who am I to judge what you do with your time?

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.

Yet you provide none of your own that there is anything to question?

I am not here to prove anything to you.

My point exactly.

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.

Ask away, just don't hold your breath waiting for a response if you don't have anything that supports your cause and actually raises legitimate questions about the president's place of Birth. Just your inquisitiveness does not justify a lynching. I suppose it is your right to question authority, which is not only your right but responsibility. But to blatantly ignore the obvious real answer to your question is just as disingenuous as a lot of people seem to claim I am.

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

I haven't met your evidentiary standards. The president met a court of laws evidentiary standards, with the prima facie evidence supported through his COLB, but if that's not good enough for you, it's not his problem to satisfy your unjustly high standards, as obviously no amount of evidence would satisfy your standards.

Fact of the matter is, you can't point to anywhere in the United States constitution that the long form birth certificate is the only evidentiary standard to satisfy the obligation of the eligibility clause. It's a good piece of evidence that proves it to be sure, but not the only one. The United States constitution does not list what specific forms are acceptable to prove ones status as a Natural Born Citizen.

So you are assuming that the long form BC is the only form acceptable. If you were for instance a supreme court justice or a member of congress it might matter, but you're not. Your a person behind a desk typing on a keyboard.



[edit: to satisfy grammar Nazi Sig Heil!]

[edit on 10/18/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


So then why do you keep trying to convince me to as you say "accept that evidentiary standards have not been met and get on with life".

The fact that some people chose to be negligent and derelict in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and accept shoddy and fraudulent government does not mean everyone should or will, nor should they.

That is where an agenda becomes suspect on your part.

For it is clear evidentiary standards have not been met as you yourself partially concede in your frustration after having been failed by a leader whose allegiance you have sworn yourself to who willfully, deceitfully, and arrogantly and illegally withholds and suppresses this evidence.

The fact of the matter is had the Officer of the United States who swore him his Oaths as President and Chief Executive and Commander in Chief demanded evidence of the document in order to swear him in, he would have complied had he wanted to hold the office.

A derelict government has willfully and negligently failed in its constitutional responsibilities in this regard and it is every noble and true citizen’s duty to uphold the constitution and demand the government do so too.

I contend that if the government is not doing its job, and we have more than demonstrated the government is not doing its job then it is up to the citizen to hold it to account.

For if not the citizens holding it to account, then prey tell who will hold it to account, when it, itself is derelict and negligent in its duties?

Nay I say to ye shall such irresponsible thinking hold sway in my mind or heart and I very much resent the notion that anyone would want me to live by such meaningless and powerless standards.

It is the citizens job to ensure good government, not as you suggest to ‘accept bad government.’


[edit on 18/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Nay ye say to me? Nay nay I say to thine. I repudiate thy attempt at scorn upon my eye. Be it not said that the governance is a den of wolves?

Amidst those very wolves thine eye a hyena dressed in their skin? Be he beast of another land he doth palms exhibit which doth declare him a native to our land?

But ye, ye behest them to deny this man the right of his fair appointment justly won? Nay I say to ye, I require irresistible demonstration that the hyena you claim is in said masquerade.

Yea I do claim and I dare say that ye be in remiss of your virtuous vigilance as to dismiss by proxy the self evident endorsement. Thee governance of Hawaii dispatched said parchment duly noted and notarized. Be it ye to eschew said document as fallacy with prejudice to it's intent and clause.

reply to post by cranberrydork


WELL RIGHT OFF THE BAT ,UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. how's that for a start.
wanna talk about intrusion into states rights?
thats two for the 10th amendment right there.

you do remember the push for state Sovereignty

states seeking constitutional protection from obama's control

Originally posted by whatukno
no amount of evidence would satisfy your standards.

Granted, it would take somebody like Factcheck.org doing what they did with the certification of live birth, to validate that the released original birth certificate document is real, but besides releasing the document, that would be enough for me and a lot of others I see posting here. So I think you're being ridiculous with a statement that "no amount of evidence" is satisfactory, when I just want to see one document and have someone competent verify it's authentic and not altered etc.

Fact of the matter is, you can't point to anywhere in the United States constitution that the long form birth certificate is the only evidentiary standard to satisfy the obligation of the eligibility clause. It's a good piece of evidence that proves it to be sure, but not the only one. The United States constitution does not list what specific forms are acceptable to prove ones status as a Natural Born Citizen.

Thank you for admitting the long form BC is good evidence, I agree with you, it is, and apparently the state of Hawaii said it was better than the type of document Obama provided (or at least they did before this problem happened). And you have stated well exactly what this debate, and the court case, is about, namely that authorities have accepted the lesser of the two documents as sufficient. Whether they should have done that is the question.

So you are assuming that the long form BC is the only form acceptable. If you were for instance a supreme court justice or a member of congress it might matter, but your not.

I think you meant "you're not", and you're right, I'm not either. But you didn't mention David O. Carter, U.S. District Judge? He's not a supreme court justice or a member of congress, but he currently has a case in progress on this topic, and it seems to have proceeded further than other cases of this nature so far, so he can order the release of the better document right?

CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, ET AL. V. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


But is a 4 year old article written in another country provide any evidence at all?

Is a 4 year old article written in another country, with no byline, and no other substantiation better evidence than the COLB, a document that Hawaii issued and verified?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by oneclickaway

 

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.

This is, IMO, the REAL conspiracy here.

She has got to be angling for a movie deal about herself. Nothing else matters, not her correspondence school law degree, nothing. She wants a movie. And she'll probably end up with a job licking stamps for Sarah Palin.

reply to post by whatukno
All the 4 year old article does for me is provide a reminder of how easily this whole debate and issue could be put to bed by releasing the long form birth certificate. The evidence that counts is the real long form birth certificate, not some newspaper article. And that's the case before Judge Carter. I don't think anything about that 4 year old article was even known when that case was filed.

Reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

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....

...yada, yada, yada

I see your defiance and call you beyond redemption.

The birth certificate, pictured here, shows exactly what you ask for. This has been available for months and you still continue to propagate this lie.

Exactly what don't you understand about the Birth Certificate, certified as accurate and official by the State of Hawaii, showing the "City, Town, or Location of Birth" being Honolulu.

Exactly what don't you understand about the Birth Certificate, certified as accurate and official by the State of Hawaii, showing the "Island of Birth" being Oahu?

Exactly what don't you understand about Honolulu being in the United States?

Exactly what don't you understand about the Island of Oahu being in the United States?

If, as you say, the "Long Form" is the only document that shows his place of birth, then he has shown the Long Form because this document clearly shows his birth place, both City and Island.

You have gotten what you want, now go away for crying out loud.





[edit on 19/10/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 19/10/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 19/10/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, ET AL. V. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL.

Big deal. So the dates are on the courts calendar.

The motion for Summary Judgment will be heard on 7 December and the whole thing will be thrown out just like in Texas and Georgia.

Taitz is crowing about the January trial date being listed in the calendar. The time has to be scheduled, it is standard operating procedure.

The date will not be needed though, unless it is to hear Taitz' inevitable appeal. And if she pushes Carter too far, she's going to get a lot more than $20,000 fine, I bet.



[edit on 19/10/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 19/10/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

All the 4 year old article does for me is provide a reminder of how easily this whole debate and issue could be put to bed by releasing the long form birth certificate.

No it wouldn't and you know it. Sure some of the less nutty ones that actually had real intentions of discovery would be satisfied, but the vast majority of birthers wouldn't be satisfied in the slightest. Because the truth does not matter to them, the only thing that drives them is a pathological hatred for Obama.

And yes the Taitz case will be thrown out like they all are. If she keeps pressing the issue, she is either going to end up disbarred or in jail. I pray they don't put her in jail cause that would just put more fuel on this conspiracy fire and we will never hear the end of this idiocy.

reply to post by rnaa


Too funny call me late for dinner, call me friend or foe it matters not one hair to me for the truth is the truth and the truth shall set thee free.

The valid arguments have been laid out by many intelligent and rational people as for the need for full disclosure of the genuine Long Form Original Signed and Sealed Birth Certificate.

That you have lesser standards is neither here nor there to people who have higher standards.

The fact remains the same the President of the United States is AFRAID to REVEAL his true and original long form birth certificate which is the ONLY VALID LEGAL DOCUMENT that actually displays where, when and who he was born.

It also is the only thing that would have THUMB, FINGER PRINTS AND FOOT PRINTS to establish he is even Barack Hussein Obama the one that was allegedly born in Honolulu in 1961 though NO ONE HAS SEEN actual credible proof of that.

For all we know the real child was killed at birth and this is a total fictitious identity and the man masquerading as the President is actually somebody else later planted by a clandestine intelligence organization.

So far all his acts have been unconstitutional and it does appear as if he is trying to dismantle the United States, bankrupt it and to sign away it’s sovereignty in international treaties.

I would say there is excellent circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that he is part of a massive conspiracy to destroy the United States of America, and the American People have every right to demand to see the document that either establishes him as Lawful Natural Born Citizen and the person his Birth Certificate proclaims or does not establish him as a Natural Born Citizen and who he claims to be and renders him ineligible to occupy the office he therefore would have usurped through fraudulent means.

There is only one thing that would suggest that is not actually what is transpiring and that would be the ORIGINAL unaltered document signed by the ATTENDING PHYSICIAN at the TIME OF BIRTH with the child’s identifying marks (thumb, finger, and foot prints) and a RAISED SEAL, signed by the duly empowered authorized official for the State of Hawaii in 1961.

Anything less simply leaves to many unanswered questions and does not meet the evidentiary threshold to establish all the facts.

Intelligent and responsible citizens would want to verify and see this especially in light of the President hiring dozens of attorneys to suppress this evidence in dozens of lawsuits that have been filed demanding this information.

All things considered, the extraordinary times we live in and the radical socialist and bankrupting policies being carried out daily in Washington I would dare say every soul on the planet wants to see this information revealed and in deed people around the world have questions regarding this not just here.

It would seem friend your opinion is one held by the irresponsible members of society who get their facts from the media court of public opinion which is neither a factual source of credible information nor a Court of Law.

Critical minds need to see evidence, not social commentary.

Thanks for posting.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

For all we know the real child was killed at birth and this is a total fictitious identity and the man masquerading as the President is actually somebody else later planted by a clandestine intelligence organization.

Waiter! Check please!

reply to post by whatukno


The contest is only fairly won when someone can demonstrate they fairly entered into it and is eligible.

Once again by your own admission no credible evidentiary standard has been obtained.

The good of the many outweighs the need of the few or the one friend.

You are putting the one ahead of the many and that is circumspect.

If he was legitimately born in the United States and has nothing incriminating to hide on his actual original Birth Certificate he would display it. He would not hire scores of lawyers to hide it.

That is common sense.

Claiming injury when none has occured is rediculous.

Who is likely being injured here and is being injured here are the American People because the truth is being deliberately withheld from them, otherwise Obama would reveal the actual document.

For someone you proclaim to be innocent he certainly seems to be acting guilty.

The document would speak for itself. It's telling that he will do anything to not have to show it and that you yourelf are afraid to advocate for it's release.




[edit on 19/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

All the 4 year old article does for me is provide a reminder of how easily this whole debate and issue could be put to bed by releasing the long form birth certificate.

No it wouldn't and you know it. Sure some of the less nutty ones that actually had real intentions of discovery would be satisfied, but the vast majority of birthers wouldn't be satisfied in the slightest. Because the truth does not matter to them, the only thing that drives them is a pathological hatred for Obama.

I believe you are engaging in unfounded speculation with no evidence. On the other hand I have some evidence to show in this regard, the petition signed by 477,331 people:

www.wnd.com...

We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection.

This is what people are asking for, not some endless debate or expression of hatred. Sure there are a few nuts on both sides of this argument but I believe the vast majority of those 477,000 people will be satisfied by fulfillment of the request in the petition, as that's what they are asking for in writing.

reply to post by whatukno


Once again all you can do is deflect. That Obama's mysterious and poorly recorded past takes him through many black ops grave yards and ties him in with many fringe radicals and the huge gaps in time and lapse of records coupled with the early and untimely deaths of his equally mysterious parents suggests a vast clandestine intelligence operation at work.

The fact that he can't actually prove his identity to evidentiary standards and is afraid to speaks volumes of the sinister potential for what lurks behind the carefully guarded secret that even has people like yourself terrified of him revealing the actual doccument.

The only rational motive for advocating to not show the document is fear of what the document contains.

That's only common sense friend.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Hes not acting guilty, he is ignoring you. I believe he should ignore you, there are other things in this country way more important than your standards.

Aren't you putting the wants of a few ahead of the needs of the many? I mean less than .015% of the population is demanding more proof? And the country is supposed to bend to your will over and over and over again because that small fraction of the population isn't satisfied?

You say you hold to a higher standard. Good for you.

Feel free to vote your conscience in the next election.

[edit on 10/19/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


It does not matter what your opinion is friend. In a court of law your contentions would count as third party heresay and pure speculation.

That is all your suppostions are is pure speculation since you can not prove you are in contact with President Obama or President Obama actually personally communicated with you "I am ignorning Protoplasmic Traveler, I have other things to do like give away taxpayer money to the richest people in the world through bail outs I insist are so urgent that congress can't even have time to read them, and important international climate treaties that will actuall sign away the soveriegn rights of the United States to a lesser collective of nations".

Yes my friend, I am betting he told you all that WHILE HE IS HIDING behind MULTIPLE TEAMS OF LAWYERS to avoid having to disclose INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE in DOZENS OF LAWSUITS filed against him over HIS FAILURE and WILLFUL REFUSAL to establish his ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE.

You sure are scared of him having to release that Birth Certificate. I guess you too know there is something terribly incriminating on it?

[edit on 19/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

It does not matter what your opinion is friend. In a court of law your contentions would count as third party heresay and pure speculation.

Remember that part...

That is all your suppostions are is pure speculation since you can not prove you are in contact with President Obama or President Obama actually personally communicated with you "I am ignorning Protoplasmic Traveler, I have other things to do like give away taxpayer money to the richest people in the world through bail outs I insist are so urgent that congress can't even have time to read them, and important international climate treaties that will actuall sign away the soveriegn rights of the United States to a lesser collective of nations".

In a court of law your contentions would count as third party heresay [sic] and pure speculation.

Yes my friend, I am betting he told you all that WHILE HE IS HIDING behind MULTIPLE TEAMS OF LAWYERS to avoid having to disclose INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE in DOZENS OF LAWSUITS filed against him over HIS FAILURE and WILLFUL REFUSAL to establish his ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE.

In a court of law your contentions would count as third party heresay [sic] and pure speculation.

You sure are scared of him having to release that Birth Certificate. I guess you too know there is something terribly incriminating on it?

In a court of law your contentions would count as third party heresay [sic] and pure speculation.

reply to post by whatukno


Once again there are many valid reasons for the actual real original Birth Certificate to be displayed.

Once again it's a known fact that Obama is hiring teams of lawyers in multiple state and Federal Districts constantly and has been for over a year to supress anyone seeing the original document and he himself having to reveal it.

No one can deny he is hiding it and hiding behind lawyers to hide it.

There would be no legitimate reason to undergo that expense and cost if there was not something critically damaging to him on that document.

That though is up to a court to decide.

There is nothing involved regarding heresay as unlike you I am simply pointing out the fact that he is hiding it.

Obviously he is guilty of something or he would not be hiding it.

I would like to know what he is guilty of in his deliberate attempt to skirt election laws and fraudently occupy and usurp the highest office in the land.

All intelligent inquiring minds want to know this.