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.

 

Hawaii governor announces 'exact' place of Obama birth. No wonder there is confusion!

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Well there you go. You just admitted to the fact right there. First of all I don't think your being honest with yourself by claiming it will put to the rest the vast majority. If people refuse to believe state authorities over the matter and if they hold numerous other conspiracies about this president along with this one, the idea showing his long for will 'put the vast majority to rest' is false.

In anycase you just made my point right there. You yourself cannot sit here and say to us that the long form birthcertificate will end the conspiracy. Sure you make the claim it will be the 'vast' majority, but even you cannot help yourself to come to the claim that the conspiracy will end. You know just as well as I and some others here that the long form birth certificate will not end the conspiracy, and that is the point right there. Its a moot.

You cannot expect the president to stop everytime a segment of the population is unsatisfied. Im sorry but if it worked like that we would not have a presidet to fill the position.


You are right that I cannot speak for the majority of those that do have doubts about his past and other details. A common theme I see from those around me who also question his past is that they believe his COLB was gained under false pretences and therefore is not genuine. For example, that COLB is a document he could obtain without providing proof that he was born in Hawaii! His mother could have gained that document after showing her own Birth Certificate and claiming she had lost that of her son's.

This means the only way to prove that he was born in a Hawaii is to produce his long-form Birth Certificate. If he were to produce his actual Birth Certificate which contained the hospital name, doctor's name and signature then the doubts about him would be dealt a significant blow.

Again I understand your comments that what some people are asking for is unreasonable. For example, they want every academic and private document of his to be available in the public domain. For me personally, this would be an invasion of privacy which is why I do not support a move like that.

At the end of the day, the American people (and those around the world) deserve to know that the current POTUS is eligible to hold the position he has promised to uphold. If it is found he is not genuine - which is just a suspicion atm - this has massive repercussions for everybody in the West.




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Further evidence of the deiscreditation and untrustworthyness of Hawaii officials is held evident here.


Indeed, Miss Okubo recently went on record when she stated publicly to the readers of The Post & Email last week:

"The Department of Health is entrusted by the people of Hawai‘i to protect the vital records it maintains. The Department operates within the confines of the laws that govern state and federal agencies and will continue to do so. No amount of bullying or spreading rumors and false innuendos will persuade the department or its officials to break the trust of the people, operate outside of the law, or misuse the information it is entrusted to protect."

The confidence this statement generated has now been shattered, as The Post & Email has discovered that Janice Okubo provided a false response to a UIPA request I made to Okubo; a false response that is seemingly impossible for her to have made without someone in her department providing knowingly false information in its preparation.

www.thepostemail.com...

Remember in my previous post where I pointed out that Hawaii released only the name on the index?


I have been subsequently informed that the Dunham family, one not apparently related to Stanley Ann Dunham, numbers more than several dozen individuals in Hawaii, and that any search of the Hawaii Birth index should result in numerous individuals. Indeed, a WhitePages search shows 60 households with this surname, in the State, as of 2010. This seems to signify that Okubo or a staff member knowingly lied when they crafted a statement denying any such record of the birth of anyone with the Dunham name exists.



Dear Miss Okubo,

You recently intervened and gave me a response to my UIPA request of Jan 22, 2010, which sought all the index data for individuals listed as born, which appear in the Hawaiian Birth Index, who bore the surnames

Dunham
Obama
Soetero
Payne

And in your response to me you said no such individuals appear in that index.



Again, and again, the Hawaii officials demonstrate they are not honest, and continue to fabricate false information intended to distract from the facts.


I ask you therefore to respond to my UIPA request by double-checking if these individual appears in the Hawaiian Birth Index, because in that case, someone lied; either your research/staff person lied to you and you passed that lie on to me when you said there are no such individuals on that index, or you lied directly to me. I understand that you cannot disclose birth dates or confirm them, so simply look for the names. I have cited birth dates to demonstrate simply that these individuals should be in the Hawaii Birth Index.

For that reason I ask that you release for me photocopies of the Hawaii Birth Index, as microfilmed, for that section of the Index which do/would bear these names, and I will pay to have them found and mailed to my address below.


All this person is asking for is the list of names on the index, in alphabetical order, that according to their own website, is the only information they *can* release.


Before I go public with this, I want to give you and your department every opportunity to correct the error and explain how it happened, because in this circumstance your erroneous response to me has undone any credibility the public might put in you as giving truthful responses to any UIPA request.

I hope you understand the gravity of the situation.

If a staff person lied to you, I would respectfully request their resignation, as this lie has damaged the reputation of your own Department regarding its intention to observe UIPA, which is a HI law. And since in your recent statement to The Post & Email you publicly assured our readers that observance of HI Law is a top priority of your department and the very basis of your ethical standards, this erroneous response to me needs to be investigated and publicly explained.

If any disciplinary action is taken, I would also ask for a public confirmation or statement as what action has been taken to reassure the public that you take such malfeasance seriously.

If I do not hear from you by Wednesday, I will bring this matter to the attention of Gov. Lingle.

Sincerely,

Mr. John Charlton
Editor



And, the fact remains, the information provided was fabricated.


(Feb. 26, 2010) — In response to the public outcry over my last report regarding Okubo’s apparently false response to my request for index data from the Hawaii Birth Index, Miss Janice Okubo has directed staff at the Hawaii Department of Health to release a pdf file containing what appears to be scans of a computer printout containing redacted pages from the Hawaii Birth Index for those sections, which would contain the surnames Payne, Dunham, Soetoro and Obama.

www.thepostemail.com...


My initial UIPA request of January 22, 2010, sought the index data for all children on the Hawaii Birth Index whose parents’ surnames were either Obama, Payne, Soetoro or Dunham.



In response to the evasive denials of my original UIPA request and the outright claim I had written what I did not write, Miss Janice Okubo admitted to me last week that microfiches of the Hawaii Birth Index did exist and that they did not contain the said surnames. Following my disclosure of that to several friends, I was given a copy of a Treasury Department Document from 1949 showing that at least one individual with the surname Dunham was born in Hawaii during the period in which the Hawaii Birth Index was used.

As a consequence, I wrote Miss Okubo and asked for copies of the microfiche to prove the veracity of her claim and offered to pay for them.



Miss Okubo, we, the press or the public cannot know what that is unless you cooperate with the UIPA in a timely, courteous, exact, and coherent manner. When you fail to do this, you only undermine the reputation of your own department, even if on account of such failures, we might at times doubt or believe you when we ought to do the opposite.


Below are electronic images of the PDF file, in a format which makes their viewing accessible to the readers of this electronic paper. I have only reduced them and converted them to jpg.


See the images at the link:

www.thepostemail.com...

A Redacted Computer print-out, allegedly of the Hawaii Birth Index for surnames beginning with "Du"

A Redacted Computer print-out, allegedly of the Hawaii Birth Index for surnames beginning with "Ob"

A Redacted Computer print-out, allegedly of the Hawaii Birth Index for surnames beginning with "Pa"

A Redacted Computer print-out, allegedly of the Hawaii Birth Index for surnames beginning with "So"


Now, when you have someone asking for the birth index, with a complete list of names, the only response they have is to craft a law to prevent FIOA requests? after having provided false information?

The fact that people insist on using Hawaii officials "statements" as testaments of truth is questionable in and of itself, because the statements are obviously evasive, and sometimes even patenetly false. The testimony loses credibility on it face.

Aside from that, they are against Hawaii's own laws, as they did not have the right to release any information other than what is listed in the index, as I pointed out in my previous posts.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 



As I said, according to the constitution, there are only two ways to be a citizen, naturalization and birth. Congress can only make naturalization laws, which in the case of children born abroad to US citizen parents naturalizes them at the moment of birth by working of law. Another example. US citizens living in the US adopt a foreign orphan under both US and foreign law. The child is still a foreigner and must jump through all the hoops to get US residency. But as soon as that child is finally admitted to live permanently in the US, it ceases to be a foreigner automatically by working of law. There is no naturalization ceremony. There is no naturalization certificate. The child is simply american. But I don't think anyone here would claim that that child is a natural born citizen.

Please be so good as to show me the statute that says to be natural born both of your parents must be US citizens.


I really like Leo Donofrio. I am going to link to you an essay written by him. It was published on WND, so I don't want to hear how WND lacks credibility. The article was written by Leo, and simply published by them.

You can also view his writings at his website:
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...

Aside from his in depth analysis of the Natural Born Citizen dilemma, he was also responsible for uncovering the truth about Chester Arthur's questionable citizenship.


HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]


naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...


Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.



William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.



Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

And it’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio COPYRIGHT 2008


Now, the reason that I quoted this article before providing you with the WND link is because I want you to understand that Leo Donofrio has proven that history has already lied to us, on more than one occasion - about the whole NBC issue. The above article is quite fascinating, and I urge anyone with a genuine interest in the subject to visit the link.

I also welcome anyone to debunk it.


Continuing on.

www.wnd.com...


Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
Posted: April 01, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
© 2010

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.



At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.



While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president's citizenship be "natural born." A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen. "Natural born" simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.



There are multiple circumstances that create "citizens at birth." Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language. But they didn't.

In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be "natural born citizens," but the words "natural born" were repealed in 1795. Congress never again legislated the definition of "natural born citizen," and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.



An important historical definition of "natural born citizen" comes from a 1797 translation of the "Law of Nations," a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the "Law of Nations":

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.



Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel's text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ...
It's significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.




Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama's eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn't known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.


(continued)



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
(continued)

(Link provided for continuity)
www.wnd.com...


In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
It's ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn't be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

Chester Arthur's true eligibility defect doesn't appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog. Clearly, Chester Arthur's deception cannot serve to validate anyone's presidential eligibility. He got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.




In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that's not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was "natural born." In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. ... At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. ..."



A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

The term "native born citizen" has been erroneously substituted for "natural born citizen" by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur's dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn't mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born citizen" as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.



In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.

theobamafile.com...


Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:


" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."



The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"



It should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof".


Four Supreme Court Cases Define "Natural Born Citizen".
theobamafile.com...



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Libertygal
 


WOW, you nailed it-again. I se no one responded.

Good job. No, awesome job.

Have a great weekend.




Actually, I did. I asked for sources for her many many names of Barak Obama and never received any so if by "awesome job" you mean "Nice way to offer lots of speculation based on a few unverifiable theories!" then it makes more sense.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
This means the only way to prove that he was born in a Hawaii is to produce his long-form Birth Certificate. If he were to produce his actual Birth Certificate which contained the hospital name, doctor's name and signature then the doubts about him would be dealt a significant blow.


Perhaps not being from here is why you are making this mistake but what you just did was explain exactly why "birthers" are looked at as nuts. What you just said was that the only way to ever prove beyond a doubt is to get your hands on something that does not exist.

There is a reason that we do not need to hand out long forms left and right to people. There is a system in place to take care of the need for such a waste. What you are saying is that system is not worth a damn. Unfortunately, that system is the same system that would produce or verify the long form.

What you just did was sum up the whole "birther" movement by acknowledging that there are no long forms for him to show anyone and then concluding that seeing it would be the only real proof. Quite the perfect little paradox they have created for themselves.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

You are wrong, since the supreme court has never ruled on the matter, and they are the deciders about what is constitutional, and you are still quoting statute law and an 18th century swiss about US constitutional law.

Chester A Arthur is NOT the only presidential precedent. President Kennedy was still at the time he was sworn in, under Irish law, a citizen of Ireland, as were both of his parents and his grandparents all the way back to the old sod. Basically anybody who had left Ireland since the potato famine and all of their descendants and spouses. He wouldn't be now unless he had acted upon it then, since Ireland changed the law later restricting it to irish born grandparents and only effective upon application or to those who had already made use of it, but while he was alive the law of Ireland said that he had the absolute right to an irish passport and to live in Ireland with all of the rights of any other irish citizen.
So by your standards that would mean that every law passed during his thousand days in office was void, and that every law that modified the voided laws in any way was also void, since they were all of them based upon false premises. Think of the legal chaos.




[edit on 8/5/2010 by christianpatrick]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by christianpatrick
reply to post by Libertygal
 


You are wrong, since the supreme court has never ruled on the matter, and they are the deciders about what is constitutional, and you are still quoting statute law and an 18th century swiss about US constitutional law.


I am not wrong. I never stated the Supreme Court had ruled anything.

Here is what I stated:


It should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof".


Four Supreme Court Cases Define "Natural Born Citizen".

It has never been defined in *any* other way.



Chester A Arthur is NOT the only presidential precedent.


I never stated that, either.

I did state:

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama's eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn't known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.



President Kennedy was still at the time he was sworn in, under Irish law, a citizen of Ireland, as were both of his parents and his grandparents all the way back to the old sod. Basically anybody who had left Ireland since the potato famine and all of their descendants and spouses. He wouldn't be now unless he had acted upon it then, since Ireland changed the law later restricting it to irish born grandparents and only effective upon application or to those who had already made use of it, but while he was alive the law of Ireland said that he had the absolute right to an irish passport and to live in Ireland with all of the rights of any other irish citizen.


He and his parents were born US Citizens. That makes him a Natural Born Citizen. Did he have dual Citizenship? You seem to say so according to Irash law, but according to the standards of our forefathers, he was eligible, because the rights are passed from the parents, not the grandparents. Certainly, Irsh law would not supersede US Laws.

But, I do not know an answer to your statements other than what I said.



So by your standards that would mean that every law passed during his thousand days in office was void, and that every law that modified the voided laws in any way was also void, since they were all of them based upon false premises. Think of the legal chaos.


Not by my standards. My standards have absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is why it is called a Constitutional Crisis.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
This means the only way to prove that he was born in a Hawaii is to produce his long-form Birth Certificate. If he were to produce his actual Birth Certificate which contained the hospital name, doctor's name and signature then the doubts about him would be dealt a significant blow.


Perhaps not being from here is why you are making this mistake but what you just did was explain exactly why "birthers" are looked at as nuts. What you just said was that the only way to ever prove beyond a doubt is to get your hands on something that does not exist.

There is a reason that we do not need to hand out long forms left and right to people. There is a system in place to take care of the need for such a waste. What you are saying is that system is not worth a damn. Unfortunately, that system is the same system that would produce or verify the long form.

What you just did was sum up the whole "birther" movement by acknowledging that there are no long forms for him to show anyone and then concluding that seeing it would be the only real proof. Quite the perfect little paradox they have created for themselves.


Very nice dissembling and obfuscating - you are quite the expert at creating circuitous arguments that end right where they began!


So, what EXACTLY is this "reason" for not handing out long forms? What "waste" is created in including ALL of the birth information contained on a long form? The "System" that you refer to has been found, REPEATEDLY, to be inviolation of it's OWN LAWS and guilty of providing false information.

You see, this is why you kool-aid guzzlers look crazy... because you simply refuse to critically analyse the facts and recognize that none of this adds up. Then you compound the matter by making fallacious arguments that don't even address the issues being presented.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

He and his parents were born US Citizens. That makes him a Natural Born Citizen. Did he have dual Citizenship? You seem to say so according to Irash law, but according to the standards of our forefathers, he was eligible, because [B]the rights are passed from the parents, not the grandparents.[B] Certainly, Irsh law would not supersede US Laws.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Libertygal]

As you said, their rights passed from the parents. Their rights passed from their parents, his grandparents. Their rights passed from their parents, his great grandparents. They were all of them dual nationals. By the laws of that time. They all of them inherited the original sin of owing allegiance to a foreign country.

And if he wasn't legally president, none of the laws he signed were valid. And if they weren't valid, none of the laws signed by later, legitimate presidents, that touched upon them were valid since they were based on false premises.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This has turned into an awesome thread of debate on this sensitive topic. Great work everyone. Please keep it civil and respectful. Be sure to flag and start too, to keep attenion and interest from other ATS members.

Have a great weekend everyone



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Very nice dissembling and obfuscating - you are quite the expert at creating circuitous arguments that end right where they began!


If you say so. What is it that you do?


So, what EXACTLY is this "reason" for not handing out long forms? What "waste" is created in including ALL of the birth information contained on a long form? The "System" that you refer to has been found, REPEATEDLY, to be inviolation of it's OWN LAWS and guilty of providing false information.


You are going to have to ask ALLLLLL of the states that no longer issue them.


You see, this is why you kool-aid guzzlers look crazy... because you simply refuse to critically analyse the facts and recognize that none of this adds up. Then you compound the matter by making fallacious arguments that don't even address the issues being presented.


None of this adds up? What does not add up? You never even present any actual argument. Please explain what is not adding up for you.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

You say that in order to be a natural born citizen, the parents have to be natural born citizens.
According to the Kennedy library, argue with them if you will, all eight of President Kennedy's grandparents migrated from Ireland. That means that all four of his grandparents were born with british nationality, since at that time Ireland was part of the UK and persons born of a british born father were british at birth, as was, indeed, Chester A Arthur. By your standards they could not have been natural born citizens.
In 1922 Ireland became independent within the commonwealth and empire and they became what we would call Irish citizens, though in fact since Ireland was at that time still in the commonwealth they were technically still british subjects also. Ireland changed the law the first time in 1935 so there were then people who were Irish citizens who were not technically british subjects but in practice anyone with an irish passport elsewhere in the British Empire was treated like any other british subject, since who would know? Ireland left the commonwealth in 1949 but irish citizens continued to hold most of the rights of british subjects within the empire anyway, since the british loved them so much.

Anyway, if his grandparents were not natural born, as you define it, then his parents were not natural born either, not being the children of natural born parents. And if they were not natural born, as you define it, then neither was he. Logically, there can be no other conclusion.

Edit. In my original post I put "tongue in cheek" within after saying that the british loved them so much, but it didn't show up in the finished reply.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by christianpatrick]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


That's interesting... My state issues them or you are welcome to get the short form (AKA COLB). In fact, every state still has them on file and they CAN be received by request.

What doesn't add up are the dozens of pieces of evidence that support that Obama is likely INELIGIBLE, yet the koolaid guzzlers can't/won't do the math and continue to insist that those of us applying basic logic are the ones who are crazy. Go figure...



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


That's interesting... My state issues them or you are welcome to get the short form (AKA COLB). In fact, every state still has them on file and they CAN be received by request.


That is interesting because MY STATE DOES NOT. I did say that some states do not, not all states but why bother paying attention. Hawaii would be another state that does not but then again, that would mean relying on facts and obviously just knowing what your state does is all you need?



What doesn't add up are the dozens of pieces of evidence that support that Obama is likely INELIGIBLE, yet the koolaid guzzlers can't/won't do the math and continue to insist that those of us applying basic logic are the ones who are crazy. Go figure...


So...no list of the dozens of pieces? Not even a one? All you have is what your state does and we know that this is a state issue and states vary but hey, do not let facts and reality get in the way of your pretend list of nonexistent puzzle pieces.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 
Still?

Wake up there Gundie!
We're talkin' about 1961 here!



We are?

I thought it was 2010?
You have the cojones to call anyone stupid?

President Obama was not born in 2010? Was he?

Now, his COLB may have been generated after the year 2000, but his year of birth isn't being argued is it?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
You have the cojones to call anyone stupid?


I sure do but who did I call stupid here?


President Obama was not born in 2010? Was he?

Now, his COLB may have been generated after the year 2000, but his year of birth isn't being argued is it?


What? You are not making any sense. The year of birth is the same, the thing that has changed is what type of document is issued. Since it is no long 1961, we cannot get a 1961 era issued one, we can only get one that would be issued now. You cannot argue the validity of what is issued now against what it would have looked like in 1961. You got lost somewhere.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by butcherguy
You have the cojones to call anyone stupid?


I sure do but who did I call stupid here?


President Obama was not born in 2010? Was he?

Now, his COLB may have been generated after the year 2000, but his year of birth isn't being argued is it?


What? You are not making any sense. The year of birth is the same, the thing that has changed is what type of document is issued. Since it is no long 1961, we cannot get a 1961 era issued one, we can only get one that would be issued now. You cannot argue the validity of what is issued now against what it would have looked like in 1961. You got lost somewhere.
Okay, feller.
See if you can follow this.

Here is what you posted.....

reply to post by Sparky63


Do you know what a short form is? What it means? What the legality of it is?

I am just curious since so many people dismiss it without even knowing if a state still issues anything else.


Now what does it matter if a state 'still' issues a long form?

As I stated, we are talking about 1961, the year when the long form for Obama was issued, according to 'someone who saw it, and reported to the Governor of Hawaii.

The form they issue now is irrelevant.

You may have gotten lost between your mommies choco-chip cookies and the ice cream she scooped you for dessert.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Sorry but you just lost me.

I guess I just do not understand why what is issued today is not relevant but what was issued and can be easily lost is.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 
Not lost, as stated in this thread repeatedly. It has been viewed by a government employee to verify it's existence!

You just like to turn the story away from the fact that Obama has what it takes to produce the long form, which we are told exists.

But he won't.
He is a smart guy, no question about that in my mind. So I am left to wonder why he doesn't just produce it.

You are not lost, neither am I.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by butcherguy]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join