Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

page: 55
349
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Let me apologize for butting in. You guys have been going at it for 50+ pages and both sides seem to have valid points. And I will preface my posting with this: I do not like President Obama. I did not vote for him. I think he is a socialist with verifiable communist ties. I am not racist. If Collin Powell ever runs for President, I will vote for him. But the question of President Obama's qualifications to hold Presidential office spurred me to look into the definition of those qualifications and this is what I found:

Qualifications For President

And this: Definition of "Natural Born"

USConstitution.net has this to say: "Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21".

As bad as I hate to accept it, President Obama is - well - President. And accept it I do. There are a whole slew of other reasons why the man should not be president, but questioning his citizenship is, in my opinion, is the wrong approach.

Just my 2 pennies.




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


She can appeal and appeal and appeal all she want's. More power to her. The only branch of the government that can remove Obama at this point is the legislative branch.

If you care at all about the constitution you would know that. But you don't care about the constitution, you don't care about the bill of rights, you don't care about freedom in this country, you just want Obama out. You want to hang a black man because he had the audacity to become the president and you can't stand it.

This is why this has been such a big joke to me, and why I participated in these threads at all, it's because I know no matter what bull dunk you come up with, no matter what phony evidence Taitz comes up with. It's the Legislative branch of the government that has any jurisdiction over any of this.

Taitz is just that dumb.

This is high school civics here people. The judicial branch has no jurisdiction over the executive branch.

The legislative branch of the government holds all the power in removing a seated president.

It doesn't matter what nonsense Taitz brings forth in front of the court, they can't do anything about it.

Tatiz has a right to bring whatever bull dunk she wants to the court. Won't matter in the slightest. The court has no jurisdiction to hear it.

Look it up in the constitution if you don't believe me. It could have all the merit in the world, still doesn't matter one bit, because only the legislative branch can proceed with impeachment proceedings.

Doesn't matter what, hell Obama could kill someone on camera, nothing will be done unless the legislative branch decides to impeach him.

[edit on 10/30/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Ultimately to me what is failed and flawed in your argument and most of your arguments friend is the issue is not about Orly the issue is about many people do have valid questions in regards to Obama's actual place of birth and ultimately his citizenship and are not happy with what answers have been provided and how.

That has nothing to do with Orly that has everything to do with a Cheif Executive who as another poster pointed out is unwilling to relate the exact hospital or location of their birth even though every other U.S. President has happily done so.

It's nice to debate issues but in reality it is the judiciary that is responsible for upholding the constitution.

Lincoln did not threaten to and then issue a warrant for the arrest of the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court and dispatch a Union Army General to carry it out for nothing my friend.

The Court very much has the power to rule on all things related to the Constitution but as the Cheif Justice in Lincoln's day found out that is not always a healthy or wise thing to personally do.

Like it or not friend an 11 trillion dollar theft and swindle has been perpetrated upon the American people which is an incredible motive that would compel those criminals who are obviously extremely wealthy to move heaven and earth to get away with this crime.

So far all Obama has done is to aide and abet these criminal institutions.

Surely even you can see how blackmail over one's legitimacy would be a powerful persuader to effect him doing exactly that.

This is not about Orly or me, or even you it's about Obama and the questions he has failed to answer and deliberately so.

You have personal reasons for making your arguments, I have personal reasons for making my arguments. That much is given and that much is granted, but the argument is not about Orly or you or I.

It's about an elected officials secrecy, his determination to keep something that is usually made available readily as common public knowledge and a source of pride.

Many dwellings throughout the nations have plagues on them and are preserved by States and the National Park Service that proudly Proclaim "President so and so, the x number President of the United States of America was born here".

Either Obama is the humblest man to ever grace the White House or he doesn't want that plague on a Kenyan hut!

With his ego, the humblest man argument would be a hard one to put forth friend.

He is hiding something and he is hiding it for a reason and the reality is that all you or I or anyone else can do is speculate as to why that is, until such time as some legally empowered entitity forces it's disclosure through competent and thorough investigation or the President decides to keep one of his campaign promises which to date he has failed to keep any of them, and to restore transparency in Government by disclosing the actual information many people want to know.

It's all about Obama and no one else friend. People have a right to know and making it seem like there is something criminal or untoward in that regard is suspect to say the least.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Ultimately to me what is failed and flawed in your argument and most of your arguments friend is the issue is not about Orly the issue is about many people do have valid questions in regards to Obama's actual place of birth and ultimately his citizenship and are not happy with what answers have been provided and how.


This is where you get me wrong. Yes people have valid questions. But it's not up to the courts to decide that. It's really not. It's up to Congress at this point to decide this.


That has nothing to do with Orly that has everything to do with a Cheif Executive who as another poster pointed out is unwilling to relate the exact hospital or location of their birth even though every other U.S. President has happily done so.


Really, US constitution, look it up. Orly may in fact be the most retarded person on Earth.


It's nice to debate issues but in reality it is the judiciary that is responsible for upholding the constitution.


Again, look up impeaching a president. PLEASE!


Lincoln did not threaten to and then issue a warrant for the arrest of the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court and dispatch a Union Army General to carry it out for nothing my friend.


OMG! Do you not know how the branches of government work? TAKE A CIVICS CLASS!


The Court very much has the power to rule on all things related to the Constitution but as the Cheif Justice in Lincoln's day found out that is not always a healthy or wise thing to personally do.


GOOD GOD TAKE A CIVICS CLASS! Really! FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND PROPER IN THE WORLD TAKE A CIVICS CLASS!


Like it or not friend an 11 trillion dollar theft and swindle has been perpetrated upon the American people which is an incredible motive that would compel those criminals who are obviously extremely wealthy to move heaven and earth to get away with this crime.


Who cares! That has absolutely nothing to do with this TAKE A CIVICS CLASS!


So far all Obama has done is to aide and abet these criminal institutions.


Nothing to do with this issue!


Surely even you can see how blackmail over one's legitimacy would be a powerful persuader to effect him doing exactly that.


TAKE A CIVICS CLASS!


This is not about Orly or me, or even you it's about Obama and the questions he has failed to answer and deliberately so.


Tell someone who cares, your representative!



[edit on 10/30/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Oh my poor highly conditioned and indoctrinated friend.

If only you were able to see the world for what it truly is.

Have you ever personally met and conversed in a leisurely fashion with a President of the United States and or the principals that aide and allow them to become one? I have.

Have you ever personally met and conversed with a Congressman or Senator in a leisurely fashion and or the principals that aide and allow them to become one? I have.

Have you ever personally met and conversed with an Agency Head of Government and or the principal backers that secure their political appointment? I have.

You will disagree as you live in a tightly controlled matrix designed to keep you from being able to see things pragmatically or rationally for what they are by offering you little bones to chew on, little carrots to leap for and a great big old stick in case you step out of line always hovering in the background.

Why so many people do this to themselves I haven't a clue, peer pressure, validation, comfort and conformity I suppose, I have never quite understood the compulsion because of it's falicies and underlying falsehoods and hypocracies.

That though is why I am able to converse and interact with all of the above. Like them I live in the real world.

Unlike you who keeps jumping and saying look boss the plane, the plane.

Only in your case its some book or web site or how you desperately need to interpet things to keep the illusion of your reality from crashing down upon you.

Whether Orly is a retard or not, has nothing to do with this issue.

It's about Obama. It's about that he is desperately hiding something that is usually put forth as common knowledge. It is about the underlying conspiracy that compells him to do that.

I can't help you out of the matrix and the box you are trapped in my friend.

Only you can do that.

You can opt to be enslaved to the lords of information and deception.

You can opt to always look for the underlying truth.

That's up to you friend. No one can choose your path but you. I chose mine long ago. Good luck with yours!

In time you will see and understand the true extent of this issue, some of us already do. Then you will know why some of us are concerned regarding this issue. Some people have to learn by hitting their head against the wall friend. The wall of the box that makes up the matrix that they are locked into and enslaved.

No need to discuss this issue further as far as I am concerned. It has been set as a trap to divert attention from other pressing things.

I wish you well in your quest friend.

[edit on 30/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Oh my poor highly conditioned and indoctrinated friend.

If only you were able to see the world for what it truly is.


Ah yes the old standby. The endless conspiracy. Yes it's all a conspiracy. Of course it's a conspiracy. The be all end all to any logical argument is it must be a conspiracy.

Not that the constitution doesn't point it out, it must be a conspiracy.

Do you know why I love this particular conspiracy theory? It's because I'm a moron. I am a complete idiot and know that this conspiracy will never go anywhere no matter what is presented. It's safe that I am on the right side of this.

Constitutionally Obama was confirmed by the senate, then the supreme court swore him in. Which makes Obama a legal president.

Now according to the constitution, the judicial branch has no jurisdiction in trying or removing the president unless he is impeached by congress. Then and only then can the chief justice of the supreme court preside over a trial to remove him.

Which ultimately in the end means that unless you convince your representatives to bring forth articles of impeachment against Obama. It doesn't matter what you say, what you do, or what evidence you have. The Judaical system has absolutely no jurisdiction over the matter. Which means that every single lawsuit posed by Orly Taitz will be thrown out due to lack of standing.

whatukno.com...

Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Birthers have always been barking up the way wrong tree as far as branches of government go.

They think the court can do something about it. They can't. It's not going to happen. Congress, as I have always said, have the sole responsibility to remove a seated president.

Obama could actually kill someone with his bare hands in front of every judge in the country, he still couldn't even be arrested. It's up to the Congress to Impeach him on High Crimes and misdemeanors. Then he could be tried on those charges.

It's the way it is in this country. Sorry Birthers, you will never ever have a case. I will continuously laugh at you, safe in the knowledge that the constitution exists, even though you don't want it to.





[edit on 10/30/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler




((snip))

It's the way it is in this country. Sorry Birthers, you will never ever have a case. I will continuously laugh at you, safe in the knowledge that the constitution exists, even though you don't want it to.
[edit on 10/30/2009 by whatukno]


An 'official case', or whatever, wouldn't matter. The fallout would likely end obama. With his legitimacy in question, he'd pass lame and go straight to dead duck president.

Other nations could not insure any of obamas shady deals would be any more valid than toilet paper. People would protest both sides, fracturing the nation.

He'd get lampooned and clowned on a global epic level and become an international charlie sheen like clown. The discussion of the legalities, future ramifications, and all the drama cable news can muster would create a global historic media circus.

The noise-static would be deafening, debate, controversy and uncertainty would undermine his credibility. The oohrahh patriots would loudly question why is a frik'n muslim foreigner is leading America!, and how the dad-gum foreigner has authority send our kids to die fighting dirt urchins 1000s of miles from US soil.

In order to qualify for my job with a local city govt, I had to allow the city authority to obtain a copy of my long form birth certificate on my behalf.. they wouldn't accept the copy I offered them, or an obama like 'certification' that one existed.

So, hey.. obama lacks the qualifications to even apply for my (retired from) job.. lol.. (he'd fail the MMPI anyway) he would not be in control of what documents are real, and which are not.. handing in a certification for 'proof' is like a note that reads: "I promise my birth certificate exists".



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by whatukno
 


Did you miss This Post??

info is all there for you to educate yourself


Thanks for the link. As I said it looked like rnaa was just guessing, and he or she confirmed that it was just a guess, so I wanted to research it before commenting further. Your link was a great help to start my research.

Actually I find many of your posts very informative and have starred several of them, including this one with the link I needed.

It's much more helpful to read an informed post, with supporting links, than somebody's guess.

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
handing in a certification for 'proof' is like a note that reads: "I promise my birth certificate exists".


That's a good way of describing it. And to draw more attention to that fact, the department of Hawaii Homelands abandoned their policy for the last 100 years of requesting the real "long form" birth certificate, in an attempt to make the certification look more like proof when for the last 100 years, they've said it's NOT proof, and the timing of that change would suggest that they made it because of this controversy about the legitimacy of the certification.

That should send up some red flags to anyone paying attention.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




But you don't care about the constitution, you don't care about the bill of rights, you don't care about freedom in this country, you just want Obama out. You want to hang a black man because he had the audacity to become the president and you can't stand it.


That is a totally disgraceful statement for which one day you should be totally ashamed.
But still, I suppose you do qualify the reason for such hysterical lies later on;



It's because I'm a moron. I am a complete idiot


You said it….



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


I really wish people would keep up on these things. Ok great, you had to show whom your long form birth certificate? Your employer? Or every single person that works at your job? Is that what you had to do? Show every single person at your job your long form Birth Certificate? Everyone? Did you get it printed on a T shirt so you could walk around with it so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry could make sure your ok to work there?

Of course you didn't you showed it to someone that was legally authorized to view it.

reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Article 1 Section 3 United States Constitution. If an admitted moron can understand this. What does it say about your argument?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by rnaa
The key point you are missing is that it is 100% irrelevant.


How can asking where Obama was born be irrelevant to a discussion about where he was born? I think it's extremely relevant. I think I should turn that around and say you are missing the point that it IS relevant.



The name of the doctor is 100% irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by whatukno


So which one was it, Queens or Kapiolani? Or was it neither? The truth doesn't usually smack of contradictions like these. But fabrications often do.


What does it matter? Both are in Hawai'i.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


The 'race' datum was copied from the Hospital record. Usually hospitals ask the individual how they self identify. The federal standards for statistics preparation are for reporting to the Feds. Those standards are not in anyway binding on the State's data gathering. To avoid duplicate processing, it would be reasonable for States to adopt the national standard at the point of data collection, but I can assure you, having worked for local governments as late as 1980, this was not always the case.

If the national standard is 'black', but the individual self-identifies as 'African', I guarantee you that the hospital will write down 'African'. And if that goes to the feds that way, they will figure it out.

As for electronic filing, there was not a lot of video-conferencing going on in 1961 either, yet this document makes direct reference to it in several places. So, but your argument, the document is irrelevant to the situation in 1961.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It's important to note that the Judge in this dismissed case yesterday felt he simply did not have Standing or Juridstiction that would ultimately lead to the removal of a sitting President based on a potential ruling on the matter.

He did not say the matter did not have merrit. He said he felt he lacked the Constitutional Authority and Power to provide a remedy if the matter did have merrit.

In other words he simply said...sorry wrong department.


Exactly. Thank you for playing.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
As for electronic filing, there was not a lot of video-conferencing going on in 1961 either, yet this document makes direct reference to it in several places. So, but your argument, the document is irrelevant to the situation in 1961.



VITAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961

theobamafile.com...

Irrelevant???

RIGHT!!!

Keep trying....



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by whatukno
 


Did you miss This Post??

info is all there for you to educate yourself


Thanks for the link. As I said it looked like rnaa was just guessing, and he or she confirmed that it was just a guess, so I wanted to research it before commenting further. Your link was a great help to start my research.

Actually I find many of your posts very informative and have starred several of them, including this one with the link I needed.

It's much more helpful to read an informed post, with supporting links, than somebody's guess.

Thanks!


You understand that the specific thing I am guessing about is the 'reasoning', if you want to call it that, about change of the label for that data item that the office asked their printing contractor to print on the blank preprinted forms, right? The data item doesn't change just because it is described slightly differently. It is still the date that the Department of Health took responsibility for the accuracy of the data.

And you also understand that the document that was linked to here is irrelevant to 1961 by RedHatty's own argumen, right?. RedHatty claims that the office hours cutoff doesn't apply in 1961 because there was no electronic data transfer, discounting the fact that they still had office hour cuttoffs in 1961. So RedHatty's argument is that that couldn't have been the reason for the 1961 document to specify a cutoff. But the document discusses videoconferencing too - that means that the document could not have been older than, say the middle 1990's maybe? The entire document is irrelevant to 1961, and irrelevant to your argument.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


rnaa, do a search of the entire document, NOWHERE does the word "video" appear in it, so whatever you *think* you have found referencing "video conferencing" is a figment of your imagination.

But again, nice effort at debunking, a failed effort, but nice all the same.

Betting on folks not ever looking at links is a good play, but I will be more than glad to keep you on your toes

As to Hawaii's rules link, those were updated in 2005, but of course, you knew that right? You read it.

That link was specific to filings, not race identifiers, the document from 1961 was specific to race identifiers used in 1961.

Twisting & turning to debunk, good aerobic exercise


[edit on 10/31/09 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


It's still irrelevant because the only people that can do anything about it is Congress. So it doesn't matter in the slightest what fantasy website your visiting and what erroneous data they present. The judiciary cannot and will not rule on this case.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I never once said the judiciary would. Nice try at putting words in my "mouth"

I clearly linked to Leo Donofrio's blog and the efforts he is making into Quo Warranto, and also his efforts at forcing the state of Hawaii's hand into showing what evidence was used to determine the "natural born status" of Pres Obama in the DOH statement.

But from your reply, it is so very clear that you do not follow the links or read what is recommended, so why waste my time educating you if you won't do the homework?





new topics

top topics



 
349
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join