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.

 

Obama's Birth certificate: Hawaii Governor Abercrombie's Birther mission

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


Ok genius... Please point out where I offered to show it to you?



The op asked if we wanted to see it...

Ask stupid question get a stupid answer...


Mean what you say and say what you mean.

edit on 12/28/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



It is unresolved? Oh, that's right... Unresolved by your definition? ..

Did I call everyone that disagrees with me ignorant? So cliche .. "calling everyone that disagrees with you ignorant"


Yes, it is cliche'. And yes you did. Let me quote you:


What is hard for you to understand? Ignorant as defined is exactly what they are.


Perhaps you misspoke?




Nope.. Just folks that are ignorant. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me... Hell, I am ignorant on some things. Likewise, I am sure you are also ignorant on some subjects.


I am ignorant on every subject.





I feel it is such a silly subject. You can bet your fat fury arse that people, much more wealthy and powerful than ourselves have spent millions digging into this. They provided a certificate of live birth, which is normally handed out when a birth certificate is not obtainable.


The people who are more wealthy than us see it either as a positive (they support his agenda), or realize that it is a moot point like I do. We are too far down river for it to really matter....other than for me to make my own personal determinations based on what I have observed.




I do not have a birth certificate. I have a COLB. I am able to get a passport and any other thing I want with this..

Seems the only thing I couldn't do, is prove to you where I was born, with it.


If you cannot prove your legality to run for president, then you should not be allowed to run for president.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I truly hope they release a real birth certificate. BUT, we all know this will not clear up anything. this has grown legs like the pentagon missile delusion.

edit on 12/28/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)


There again, I am not a truther. But the whole matter could have been put to rest had there been an open and honest investigation into 9/11.

I don't know what it was they tried to cover up, but they were covering up something. The lack of forthrightness is what feeds conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Ya know, I don't really know what the answer is but I do know:

Kenya claims to be his birthplace.

His grandmother claimed she was present at his birth in KENYA.


I think it's entirely possible his mother flew from Kenya to Canada and then Hawaii when he was just a few days old and then applied for a US birth certificate. In home births were not that rare in 1964 and if a mother with an obvious newborn applied for a birth certificate they would have given her with next to no questions asked.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2
Ya know, I don't really know what the answer is but I do know:

Kenya claims to be his birthplace.


The people of Kenya do, but the Govt. does not.



His grandmother claimed she was present at his birth in KENYA.


really? I have never heard that before. Can you provide a source for that... That would bring up some interesting questions for me.




I think it's entirely possible his mother flew from Kenya to Canada and then Hawaii when he was just a few days old and then applied for a US birth certificate. In home births were not that rare in 1964 and if a mother with an obvious newborn applied for a birth certificate they would have given her with next to no questions asked.


BUT.... What would be the hurried reason for doing this? What was the motivation? It is plausible... But I doubt that she had enough foresight to know his birth would some day come into question.....

Or is she part of the "power broker" group destined to rule the world?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Where did I state that ANYONE that disagrees with me are ignorant? Yes some people that disagree with me are ignorant... Likewise, some that agree are also ignorant..

Ignorant is NOT a prerequisite for disagreeing with me...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


You just edited it out!

You said *Would you like to see my COLB*!

That is a very shill thing to do..

Even more making your point mute.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
So in other words...thier fabricating evidence, altering some paperwork, and maybe even black-lining info out? as we usually see in CIA and governement documents, like the UFO and JFK stuff...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Where did I state that ANYONE that disagrees with me are ignorant? Yes some people that disagree with me are ignorant... Likewise, some that agree are also ignorant..

Ignorant is NOT a prerequisite for disagreeing with me...


Ok, so you misspoke when you stated,


What is hard for you to understand? Ignorant as defined is exactly what they are.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Article 2 section 1 clause 5 of the US Constitution states
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"
US supreme court cases have defined this statement as meaning
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book "Law of Nations."

That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."


Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, contends that in defining an Article II "natural born Citizen," it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen." Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)," a very important and influential essay on defining a "natural born Citizen."

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. "The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, "are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians."

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the "original citizens" were and then defined the "natural born citizens" as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, "[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens…." He added that "citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring…." He continued that citizenship "as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776…."


Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.



After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well.

Perkins v. Elg doesn't explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York. The Court's job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a "natural born citizen," you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg's birth. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a "natural born citizen" using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is corroborated.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


Sorry LIAR!! That post was never edited.. WOW.. now who is lying to push an agenda!

Maybe you should hone your comprehension skills BEFORE attempting to comprehend major/serious issues.

Maybe you misread? I am positive you would not just lie about such an easily provable thing.
edit on 12/28/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


"they" = Birthers
NOT, Anyone that disagrees with me.

Sorry, maybe I should have clarified better.

Sorry, I have people lying and putting words in my mouth. I am doing damage control on things I never said. I thought you were twisting my words... But I see how you thought I meant "they" as anyone that disagrees with me.
edit on 12/28/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
The people of Kenya do, but the Govt. does not.


Maybe not officially but it's pretty clear it's an accepted fact even to Kenyan politicians:

www.thepostemail.com...





His grandmother claimed she was present at his birth in KENYA.


First link I found, yeah it's WND but read it anyway:

www.wnd.com...




BUT.... What would be the hurried reason for doing this? What was the motivation? It is plausible... But I doubt that she had enough foresight to know his birth would some day come into question.....



No, I think that even though she was anti-american she recognized the value in being able to claim US citizenship. Of course she couldn't know that one day he would run for president.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
once again the media and tptb have divided the people, AVERAGE americans, have been labeled truthers, in asking for the long form of obama's birth in which everyone in the states has to have just to get a drivers license. Yes the idea is getting old as the short form was rushed in at every approach, but the long form, has been and was immediately under obama shrouded away in secrecy within the first few weeks of Obamas potus. Like usual beleive blindly in the government that loves you and has it allll undercontrol, never mind if ideas, events, and evidence don't add up, Go back to sleep America, its all under control. Like everything else, an event will happen that shall side track the sheeple and this issue shall be brushed under the carpet within 3 weeks or so. I will not hold my breath on this issue as anything of significant importance is always and will be white washed, so much for obama's transparency's

Permit me to coin the next slanderous term for people objecting to xray booths at malls :" Freefers" to go along with "troofers / birfers"



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The op has ultimately made no regards to any sensible posts in this thread.

The dodging of bullets and disregard for common sense has made this an EPIC FAIL on their behalf.

Just have Obama show the original certificate then there is nothing to dispute,



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecinic
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The op asked if we wanted to see it...


No. He/she said they HAD one. They didn't offer to show it to you.

The post has not been edited.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
really? I have never heard that before. Can you provide a source for that... That would bring up some interesting questions for me.


There was a telephone conversation that was taped and edited to make it appear that she said that. She did not.

Read This Thread It's only a few posts, but worth it for the truth.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


LOL, LMFAO.. This is your response to LYING.. Then accusing me of editing a post that has NOT been edited?

Typical.. Keep misunderstanding the facts before you... Keep that comprehension skill low, it will make life more exciting!

If I were a "birther" even I would distance myself from such a person with such a low comprehension level.

Run along now Clinic... Your usefulness here has become non existent.
edit on 12/28/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This thread was pointing out that the Hawaiian Governor is making policy changes to appease the "birthers"

I would think you would welcome this information.

You have not provided one ounce of proof here. You speak of these facts (ones that have been debunked numerous times) and then attack me personally. Then you stoop to a new low... You start putting words in my mouth accusing me of editing a post (That has not been edited) ...

Come on.. I understand competitiveness, but this is ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rlrsar
 


I'm not going to get into all that stuff with you because it's been debated here a thousand times. But the Constitution does not define the term and the Law of Nations was written by a foreigner about Switzerland. Not the US.

Natural Born Citizen



This quote reflects the citizenship laws of Vattel's native Switzerland; two paragraphs later, he notes that "...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner."[7] This reading of "natural-born" is more applicable to US law, which is generally founded on English common law (see majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as cited below).


I don't know where people get the idea that some guy from Switzerland can define our terms for us...
It's nothing more than grasping at straws.

(See how I linked to my outside source? You should do that, too. It's against policy to copy from other websites and present it as your own material.)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


hehehehahahaha, love this quote from the examiner story - "Governor Abercrombie is initiating a process to make policy changes that would allow Hawaii to release additional evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961." ----> clearly, the newly elected Gov doesn't realize that releasing any vault info will only serve to solidify the birther claims rather quell them.

Interesting though that he freely admits there is 'more to the story' or we wouldn't need additional processes to release Additional information that they've already spent multi-millions and several years concealing ... nah, those birthers are just gonna go away ... yeah right. Folks, there isn't a long form available ... this is the only reason why it hasn't been released. Impeach the bum already!




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join