It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 42
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by rnaa

First I want to thank you for proving my point that people from all over the world are interested in the Birth Certificate issue.

Here you are posting all the way from Australia the land down under weighing in on your take on the U.S. Constitution and Court System.

I am guessing you have learned about all these things discussing them with your Australian President Fosters Lager.

Because here in the United States of America the President must be a natural born citizen to be eligible for office.

Here in the United States the President is afraid to reveal his actual signed sealed original long form birth certificate that displays where he was born definitely and is the only definitive document that can display 100% where he was born. Here in the United States the President tries to avoid having to comply with the law and obstructs justice with teams and teams of lawyers.

Naturally that is very suspicious and well to be honest the fact that a foreign person such as yourself has such a keen and apparently vehement interest in the subject does suggest that in fact there is an international conspiracy afoot since you too are advocating that Constitutional Standards and Evidentiary Standards not be met.

The President has obviously failed to prove his natural born citizenship since he hides the one document that would be the only document that legally establishes him as a natural born citizen.

It’s pretty simple, kind of like the people who want to accept lesser evidentiary standards as absolute proof of something those lesser instruments don’t establish absolute proof of.

Thanks for posting and have an other Fosters on me mate!

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I see you looked long and hard for an obscure online News Source for your all important quote.

Nope. It was just the first one that came up. There are literally HUNDREDS if not thousands of sources for this quote originally reported by the Honolulu Advertiser (linked below), I believe. All you have to do is google it to see for yourself. But I know you're not much in the way of research, so...

Hawaii Free Press
USA Today
Honolulu Advertiser

Here is what’s not just a misprint, the blog you attribute this alleged statement to does not even have a time or place that this statement was supposedly made.

The afternoon of Monday, July 27, 2009 (It's in the original article).

Further the statement is not being made under oath with penalty of perjury attached.

Move the old goalposts!
May I remind you, you said:

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
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.

I have shown you the quote from various reliable and credible sources and now you want more. :shk: This is funny at this point!


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Once again the short form birth certificate does not state he was born in Hawaii or where he was born.

City, Town or Location OF BIRTH: Honolulu,
Island OF BIRTH: Oahu
County OF BIRTH: Honolulu

I feel for you buddy really I do...

You've been toasted... By a girl!
I just wonder if you're big enough to admit it... no I don't.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Which, a. another poster has already proven were retracted and b. still is not a sworn statement under oath with penalty of perjury attached in a court of law.

It's a well established fact that many of Obama's key government appointees have radical communist and socialist ties.

One can only speculate as to why an American would be advocating for the acceptance of unlawful standards to establish lawful fact, but no true American who values the constitution would accept lesser unlawful standards especially in light of the known fact that the President is afraid to reveal his actual true original signed and sealed long form Birth Certificate in a court of law and is paying dozens upon dozens of lawyers millions of dollars to not have to do so.

All you are advocating BH is people disregard the constitution and accepted legal principals and standards to ensure an obviously inelligble person with socialist and communist leanings who is rapidly bankrupting the nation, embroiling us deeper in foreign wars of agression and is rapidly nationalizing private business and industry like all socialists and communists do be able to stay in office above the law even though he is not even a natural born citizen of the United States and can not prove who he is or where he was born and is afraid too.

That is a very questionable position to take BH and I am sure real Americans see that position for what it is.

Good news you did get an Australian to kind of agree with you!

The truth is Obama is afraid to divulge his actual Birth Certificate and refuses to abide by the constitution while he hides behind hundreds of lawyers at taxpayer expense.

That's a fact Jack!

Bow wow!

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:45 AM
Personally, the fact that the secretary of health and the registrar of vitals the state of Hawaii and of course have seen this document is just NOT enough.
what is the big deal.
Show the birth certificate and put it to rest.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by justine093]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
Kenya, Illinois, Hawaii, Kenya, ah what's the difference? Obama is a citizen of the W-O-R-L-D. Why get bothered over the small stuff??

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
another poster has already proven were retracted

No. You totally misread the other poster's post. Read it Again He's talking about an entirely different statement. I have been researching this subject for over a year now. And I know of what I speak. You clearly do not.

oneclickaway posted linked to a discussion that says NOTHING about a retraction. There has been no retraction.

You have shown that you deny ALL proof that doesn't support your agenda and you require NO proof to supports yours. I'm sure that's clear to anyone who is reading this.

Bored now...

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

a sworn statement under oath with penalty of perjury attached in a court of law.

Give me 5 minutes with Orly Taitz with that in play and I will decimate this pathetic theory.

5 minutes.

This theory has ZERO credibility. It has ABSOLUTELY no facts. All it has is Bull # after bull # after bull #.

And do you know what?

It's piled high long enough.

In a conspiracy theory, usually the conspiracy theory advocates have a whole lot of documented information to unleash to prove their case. This theory? NOTHING!

You don't even have circumstantial evidence to be able to bring in front of a judge.

Remember a judge doesn't give two #s about what you believe. It's what you can prove. So far the Birthers can't prove Diddly squat.

Why is that? Because there is no real evidence to confirm that Obama was born anywhere else but Honolulu Hawaii. Nothing. Zip Zilch Nada. Nothing you have shown or even proposed to show has confirmed that Obama was born anywhere but on US Soil to an American Mother and a Kenyan Father.

But you Assume, you love to assume, because it bolsters your belief.

But the reality is that the OP is correct Obama is a KENYAN born American. That is that his father was indeed Kenyan, so therefore he is Kenyan born. But he was born to an AMERICAN mother on United States Soil in Hawaii.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by whatukno

i would like to take your post and make it mandatory reading for anyone who wants to post a thread about obamas birthplace.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Actually I read real well BH and also know deflection when I see it.

The reality is that the President is afraid to show the actual real certified, signed and sealed long form birth certificate in a court of law and is paying hundreds of attorneys in dozens of lawsuits filed against him to avoid having to uphold the constitution so that he can continue to illegally pursue is communist/socialist agenda and bankrupting and destruction of America.

You are defending his unconstitutional attempt to do that.

I am against his unconstitutional attempts to do that.

Any intelligent person with a shred of common sense knows the only reason people hide things and spend a lot of money hiding things is because they have damaging evidence that causes them to want to hide them.

Your arguments to abandon evidentiary standards and abandon the constitution and common sense are rather circumspect to say the least.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by whatukno

My friend you must be joking you have had five days here on ATS to bore people with your lax evidentiary standards and deflections and have failed to even convince yourself!

You have been back and forth all over the board desperately trying to present a valid case for why the President of the United States is terrified to have to display his original long form certified signed and sealed birth certificate in a constitutional court of law.

Frankly I have enjoyed watching you and BH argue as to why he is petrified to reveal his actual birth certificate in a constitutional forum as the more you argue for lax, unlawful, partial answers, and altered unvalid documents presented in the court of public oppinion instead of a court of law just makes people all the more suspicious and convinces them that there is a monumental conspiracy afoot that is aimed at the total destruction of the United States of America.

The fact remains the same though, the President is spending millions of dollars to not have to reveal the ONLY definitive document that would establish his elligibility for office.

Personally I don't know why anyone would want such a person bent on obstructing justice as their President but evidently some people have a reason for that.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Doc Tesla

Please do, In fact please SOMEONE set me up with an on camera interview with Orly Taitz. Ill put this Birther business to bed.

In a true conspiracy theory you have to have documented facts. That is what makes a good conspiracy theory.

This conspiracy doesn't have that.

Birthers don't show anything but theory, without facts theory is just plain bull #. I am sorry but that is the truth. The truth is about the Obama Kenyan conspiracy it's total and unserviceable bull #. That is all it is, all it will be. Until a real birth certificate arrives from the real government of Kenya backed up by Kenyan officials it will continue to be and remain to be total and complete bull #.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Put me on camera with Orly Taitz I guarantee that I will prove that Obama was born in Hawaii instead of Kenya.

[edit on 10/19/2009 by whatukno]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by whatukno

Once again your argument is disengenous as the facts are being supressed by the President who has hired scores of lawyers in a brazen and unconstitutional attempt to occupy the office of the White House with out being elligble.

The evidence has been requested in dozens of lawsuits in scores of states and from the Federal Government and the President is spending millions of dollars to avoid having to show the document in question.

That my friend is not just a conspiracy but the mother of all conspiracies.

A foreign communist/socialist agent usurping the power and prestige of the United States of America and bankrupting and destroying it from within!

Can't get any bigger of a conspiracy than that and your strenuous arguments and contentions that there is no conspiracy and advocacy of not revealing the only definitive document is highly circumspect of your own views regarding the constitution and the nation.

There in fact has never been a bigger conspiracy, NEVER.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Ah hell, if there was facts in this conspiracy they would have been found out.

This is the 21st century were talking about, hard to hide # in the 21st century.

Obama's minions would have to shut so many people up it would be a conspiracy of it's own.

The lawsuits you question are so frivolous that they have become a joke.

Reality missed you my friend, But if you can find a way Ill debate your conspiracy god Orly Taitz on national TV about the issue. That is how confident I am in the fact that this is a non conspiracy. I will myself (an admitted moron) debate Orly Taitz on this very issue.

That is how confident I am in the fact that Obama is and always has been born in Hawaii and therefore is in fact completely eligible for the post he holds now as the POTUS.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Actually I read real well BH and also know deflection when I see it.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. You're a master at deflection. So instead of deflecting, why don't you address ANY of the issues I've brought up? Why do YOU keep deflecting?

Don't you realize that everything you say is at worst, outright lies and at best hyperbole?

"Obama is petrified" "hundreds of lawyers" "dozens of lawsuits" "millions of dollars"! "destruction of America"!!!
"scores of states" (Let's see, one score is 20, so two scores of states would be 40 states... Really? 40 states have lawsuits against him? Interesting... and FALSE)

You're completely making this stuff up! Have you thought of being a fiction writer? Your imagination is glorious!

You are defending his unconstitutional attempt to do that.

By asking you for proof of your statements? Twisted logic, that.

Your arguments to abandon evidentiary standards and abandon the constitution and common sense are rather circumspect to say the least.

I have made NO arguments to that effect. NOT ONE. Of course, I can't ask you to show me where I've supposedly made these arguments because you don't have to show proof of anything you say. In a fantasy world, that's just how it works.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
you do remember the push for state Sovereignty

states seeking constitutional protection from obama's control

Hey thanks, I appreciate it. Gave me something to do at lunch time. Let's take a close look at that source.

The page has links for ten states that are allegedly "seeking constitutional protection from obama's control"....

The first one is Arizona...This one looks pretty straight forward. It's dated with this year. Includes an interesting little bit;

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

It looks like Arizona is seeking protection from nearly any Federal government....not specifically President Obama's. Who's next? shucks, it's dated 1994. I don't think President Obama was their focus. Next please...

Georgia.....Huh, seems to be a habit, this one is dated from 95/96 session. Ditto on what I said above.

Hawaii is next.....It isn't really a resolution or's from a court's docket. The subject of which is;

In the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Congress acknowledged and apologized for the United States’ role in that overthrow. The question here is whether this symbolic resolution strips Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer 1.2 million acres of state land—29 percent of the total land area of the State and almost all the land owned by the State—unless and until it reaches a political settlement with native Hawaiians about the status of that land.

We can't really count that one, can we?

The next link is Michigan....404 File Or Directory Not Found. Shucks, I bet that one would have been really good too.

Missouri is up next....(yay Missouri!!).....This one specifically states;

Declares Missouri's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and urges the United States Congress to reject the passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act which prohibits regulations on abortion

The Freedom of Choice Act was presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate in January of 2004. That wasn't President Obama's watch.

Montana's link is kinda' interesting. It starts out with;


I guess President Obama has been personally riding around Montana confiscating guns....or something?

New Hampshire's is straightforward;

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

It actually reads straight up as a declaration of sovereignty. Too bad it was killed in sub-committee. I don't know why....maybe there's a conspiracy there.

On to Oklahoma....

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as
agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

Dadgum....2008. Still not President Obama's watch.

Finally, the last available link directly to a state action....the state of Washington. Again, a straightforward declaration of state's sovereignty. First read into the record Jan. 30, 2009. Holy smokes....10 days after the President's inauguration. Hey, them folks in Washington are on the ball....ain't they?

Well, I'm done with your "support".....and, referring to your helpful suggestion to "research before I post" that you so kindly provided in a U2U....thpthtpthtphthpthth.....

That's such typical crap.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by whatukno

Once again mere speculation from a person who advocates supressing the only definitive evidence.

The reality remains the same President Obama is terrified of having to reveal his long form, raised, sealed, and signed original Birth Certificate which is the ONLY definitive document that would prove his place of birth.

Obviously there is a reason why the President is desperately trying to obstruct justice and his loyal supporters are unquestioningly advocating for the obstruction of justice that is taking place in lawsuit after lawsuit in state after state and in multiple Federal Districts.

Common sense remains common sense and common sense says an innocent man with nothing to hide would not attempt to hide something at such great cost.

Common sense can not be overcome with deflection, misdirection, partial and incomplete answers and supressing the actual facts.

I can well imagine why Obama would be so terrified of having this document seen after all the penalty for treason in this kind of conspiracy would likely be death.

It's obvious by his desperate defense it is his very life that is on the line should he fail in obstructing justice.

[edit on 19/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The issues you keep raising BH have nothing to do with the issue I am raising and that is why does a President with a checkered past rife with associations with radical criminal and socialist/communist elements many of whom he has appointed to key government positions hire dozens upon dozens of attorneys to withhold and supress evidence in dozens upon dozens of Law Suits.

The answer is of course he has something to hide and until he reveals that documentation critical thinkers and people who think with common sense will suspect him of hiding something.

You might as well be trying to talk about fishing or the weather for all your attempts to change the conversation to other issues when they aren't the issue is nothing but an attempt to derail and deflect.

The question is why does a supposedly innocent man hide the facts and the truth.

Answer because he is a guilty man.

That's the issue and all your other talking points are simply designed to lead people away from the real issue and to confuse them and to defeat common sense and the constitution and evidentiary standards.

Once again I am sorry an inexperienced and unqualified leader you have pledged your blind and total allegience to has left you in such a bind.

I do hope for your sake that when the truth comes out as it always eventually does you will be able to forgive yourself for your position.

Treason is after all a pretty ugly thing.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I know, it's alright you and Gaddafi know the truth.

It's ok, let us know, we can help. Not everyone is out to get you.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I know, it's alright you and Gaddafi know the truth.

It's ok, let us know, we can help. Not everyone is out to get you.

Well my friend the reality is no one is out to get me. Haven't you seen my friends list? Everyone loves me!

I did very honestly explain to you and others that NOTHING short of full disclosure of the definitive and original source document would meet my evidentiary threshold.

I cautioned politely and respectfully you and others that I would not be changing my mind as nothing would change my mind other than seeing the actual definitive source document which is being suppressed.

I merely am responding to you out of politeness.

In case you haven't noticed few people want to engage in such banalities with closed minded people who advocatie suppressing evidence abandoning constitutional principals and making endless suppositional excuses to try to make it appear that the suppression of the most critical link in this controversy is some how a wise or just one.

In addition to having common sense, I have good manners, so I continue to respond to you and others who personally address me regarding this issue.

I have made my point long ago; it is a position millions of reasonable and fair minded people share.

You and others have failed to demonstrate a valid or factual reason to abandon common sense, the constitution and evidentiary standards.

I don’t know what to tell you other than what I have previously told you which it is a waste of time trying to personally change my mind as the only thing that will change my mind is the actual facts and not social commentary, peer pressure or speculative conjecture.

Thanks friend!

[edit on 19/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:28 PM

CHICAGO — Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race yesterday amid a furor over lurid sex-club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days.

"It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

The campaign began to come apart Monday after the release of embarrassing records from Ryan's divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, "Boston Public" actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched. Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one "avant-garde" club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable.

Ryan lashed out at the media yesterday and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune persuaded a judge to unseal the records.

Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will become an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama in the campaign for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama had a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

I post this article because it is almost word for word the same with paragraphs rearranged with the exception of Keyan Brn Obama. And the articles date is Saturday, June 26, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M one day befor eastandard article.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by JBA2848]

top topics

<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in