Huge News! Obama Must Prove Eligibility in Court Now as Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

reply to post by Annee


Hi Annee

How are things?

One of many sources for the DEM cert of nominee doc, from da Canadians

In fact just google the doc date and sigs and you will get all kinds of hits. So, the Republi-cons included the phrase "eligible for office" and the Demoncrats left it out. Just an oversight no doubt.

I actually served with Nancy Peloci's son, Tom, on board USS Dixon. But he never calls and never writes. He is a good guy, good ET, good Sailor.

Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these "certified" candidates on the ballot.

The "Official Certification of Nomination" that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.

But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

"- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

Originally posted by kawika
What is new is that they agree to hear the case. Previous dismissals were not because of facts but as quoted above "on procedural grounds".

They probably agreed to hear it to shut her up.

I imagine she wastes a lot of peoples work time with her continuous submissions.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

Hi Annee

How are things?

Just great. Not a birther.

But - do know McCain did have a real conflict - - which was handled correctly.

reply to post by Annee


But wait,

Did you watch the video, it is five guys, not her, him... ATS post with video of GUY bringing case

Are you paying attention to the thread or just trolling??

The good news is Ð the Hawaii Certification proves that BOTH documents are authentic and official, that all matching signatures on BOTH documents are authentic and that the DNC used BOTH when only the one with constitutional text was necessary. It adds complete credibility to the story as both documents appear to have been not only drafted, signed and notarized by the DNC, but filed differently in different locations. Why not just file one version including the constitutional text?

Last, this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity. Yet, some prefer to focus their attention upon John McCain, who was not only a well known war hero from a well known US Military family of distinction, but a Senate confirmed Natural Born Citizen who was NOT elected President. Others prefer to focus attention on a typo missed by spellchecker, and still others hope to derail the story by asserting that Hawaii's doc changes the only question raised by this report Ð Why TWO documents? Why eliminate constitutional text from any of them?

Source

reply to post by kawika


No - did not watch video.

I've read all the birther threads. I am satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Only reason I commented on Orly - - is because I heard her interviewed on the radio. She's nuts IMO.

reply to post by Annee


Have not heard her. But will take your word for it.

What radio stations or programs do you listen to? Where do you think you heard her?

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

Have not heard her. But will take your word for it.

What radio stations or programs do you listen to? Where do you think you heard her?

When I was younger I used to keep files of data and links to resource.

I don't do it any more. I have XM Satellite Radio - - I listen to several different talk radio stations.

When most people are so apathetic, it makes passionate people seem a little crazy.

It can be frustrating when people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. That might make one crazy.

I was just watching the A&E video at the WTC7 thread. ATS ATC7 Thread

People trained in engineering know there is a big problem with the official story, and yet, a layman will call them crazy for pointing out the obvious. I am a EE so count me as one of the crazy people. Great Post, clearly crazy person

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

 

Question - if you wanted to be President but didn't fit the citizenship criteria, would you really, I mean *really*, put out some crappy fake document that an eight grader could see through? Is that how you'd run your conspiracy?

Your point? You mean that because no one would put out an obvious fake, the doc must be real? Why put out an obvious fake? Because it is good enough for you and the others like you? I dunno.

Did you look at the video? Some of the doc is curved, that is ok. Some of the doc that should be curved is not curved. Because it is text that was added after it was scanned. That is what makes it look fake.

Have you done some reading or research?

Can you add something to the discussion? Do you have some facts that would explain the discrepancy? Can you look something up, and give a link or a quote, rather than just making something up? Is your Mom calling you for dinner?

edit on 15-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

I can tell your arguments are running out when you start making personal attacks instead of arguing the point. My point - which you failed to answer - was that if this really was a conspiracy to make President someone who didn't fulfil citizenship criteria, you'd expect them to do a better job with the evidence. I say again, if it were you, would you leave so much 'obvious' evidence of fraud? The birthers are simply cherry-picking perfectly insignificant visual details and claiming they prove something that they do not. It's the same cart-before-horse anti-logic that powers so many other conspiracy-fantasies.

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


Honestly, I don't expect you to change your mind. I am sure you have good reasons for your opinions.

But I would encourage you to think for yourself, and look for the truth, if you care about this. There are entire books that have been written about this. Find it at the library, read with a critical mind. Post about what you discover, not just reacting to someone else, without any facts of your own.

I wish everything was ok too. I wish I did not know about some of these things. But something once known, can not become unknown.

Thanks for the good response. Have a great week. See you around ATS.

K

If there is no crime here, then why is BO trying so hard to avoid proving to the court that his BC is legit?

Why not just let the court prove to the world that he is a legitimate President?

Why use legal tactics to avoid the issue over and over and over?

BO should be responsible for his actions and set an example and welcome the courts investigation.....if he is legit.

The only time a person would drag this out over and over, spending millions in the process, using sleazing court tactics, is when they are guilty of the crime.

The innocent do not behave this way.

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


I can tell your arguments are running out when you start making personal attacks instead of arguing the point. My point - which you failed to answer - was that if this really was a conspiracy to make President someone who didn't fulfil citizenship criteria, you'd expect them to do a better job with the evidence. I say again, if it were you, would you leave so much 'obvious' evidence of fraud? The birthers are simply cherry-picking perfectly insignificant visual details and claiming they prove something that they do not. It's the same cart-before-horse anti-logic that powers so many other conspiracy-fantasies.

Then there is nothing to fight about and the courts will prove BO is a legit President using the legal system that is set up to protect the innocent and we will all see how insignificant these details really are.

Originally posted by consciousgod

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


I can tell your arguments are running out when you start making personal attacks instead of arguing the point. My point - which you failed to answer - was that if this really was a conspiracy to make President someone who didn't fulfil citizenship criteria, you'd expect them to do a better job with the evidence. I say again, if it were you, would you leave so much 'obvious' evidence of fraud? The birthers are simply cherry-picking perfectly insignificant visual details and claiming they prove something that they do not. It's the same cart-before-horse anti-logic that powers so many other conspiracy-fantasies.

Then there is nothing to fight about and the courts will prove BO is a legit President using the legal system that is set up to protect the innocent and we will all see how insignificant these details really are.

Your argument is basically 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'. But that's a reversal of the presumption of innocence. It's for the birthers to prove a hypothesis, and they've got nothing. The President has done what was asked of him, only for the birthers to shift the goalposts when their earlier demands were unexpectedly met. The truth is that no evidence will satisfy them, because they only want to hear that they're right.

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
Your argument is basically 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'. But that's a reversal of the presumption of innocence. It's for the birthers to prove a hypothesis, and they've got nothing. The President has done what was asked of him, only for the birthers to shift the goalposts when their earlier demands were unexpectedly met. The truth is that no evidence will satisfy them, because they only want to hear that they're right.

Absolutely right - the birthers have nothing to offer apart from the constant groaning noise as they move the goalposts.

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


Your argument is basically 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'. But that's a reversal of the presumption of innocence. It's for the birthers to prove a hypothesis, and they've got nothing. The President has done what was asked of him, only for the birthers to shift the goalposts when their earlier demands were unexpectedly met. The truth is that no evidence will satisfy them, because they only want to hear that they're right.

Actually the birthers can prove their case. The evidence is overwhelming. From SSN that belong to a dead fellow to the identification of BO's father being born in Kenya when Kenya did not even exist in 1961 to the state officials stating that there is no long form in Hawaii records.

It's time to let the evidence prove the case one way or another. You deniers should want that also unless deep down you really know the truth and that being we have a natural born Kenyan President. But you all can keep shooting the messenger and see where that takes you. That's your standard MO.

Yet another Alabama challenge dismissed, with prejudice (meaning the challenge was without merit and it cannot be refiled) and costs awarded to the State (meaning that the challenge had no merit and the challengers have to pay for wasting the Courts time).

That's three this week. A hat-trick!

Originally posted by consciousgod
Actually the birthers can prove their case. The evidence is overwhelming. From SSN that belong to a dead fellow to the identification of BO's father being born in Kenya when Kenya did not even exist in 1961 to the state officials stating that there is no long form in Hawaii records.

It's time to let the evidence prove the case one way or another. You deniers should want that also unless deep down you really know the truth and that being we have a natural born Kenyan President. But you all can keep shooting the messenger and see where that takes you. That's your standard MO.

edit on 17-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

No, they can't prove their case. The evidence is overwhelming that... you have a US president. The standartd MO is on the part of the Birthers, who keep squeaking that they have a case. Kenya was a British colony in 1961, so it existed. Not that that actually matters, because Obama was born in Hawaii. The Birth certificate is quite plain - both long form and short form - the ads in the papers also make it plain. Case closed. Next!

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by consciousgod
Actually the birthers can prove their case. The evidence is overwhelming. From SSN that belong to a dead fellow to the identification of BO's father being born in Kenya when Kenya did not even exist in 1961 to the state officials stating that there is no long form in Hawaii records.

It's time to let the evidence prove the case one way or another. You deniers should want that also unless deep down you really know the truth and that being we have a natural born Kenyan President. But you all can keep shooting the messenger and see where that takes you. That's your standard MO.

edit on 17-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

No, they can't prove their case. The evidence is overwhelming that... you have a US president. The standartd MO is on the part of the Birthers, who keep squeaking that they have a case. Kenya was a British colony in 1961, so it existed. Not that that actually matters, because Obama was born in Hawaii. The Birth certificate is quite plain - both long form and short form - the ads in the papers also make it plain. Case closed. Next!

How can Obama's daddy's birth country on his cert be Kenya when Kenya did not exist as a county in 1961. If the cert was truly prepared in 1961, the cert should indicate his father's birth country as British East Africa Protectorate. The country was not called Kenya until 1963.

So go ahead and deny the facts.

Here is another fact. BO has a SSN from a state in which he never resided or worked. Why would he have this SSN unless he stole it. The SSN belonged to an old man who lived in Hawaii and died there who never collected social security. So how did BO end up with his SSN? I will tell you. His grandmother worked at the social security office. THAT'S A FACT.

HERE IS ONE MORE FACT. The name of the hospital of the birth certificate is listed as Kapiolani. But the name of the hospital in 1961 was Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital. The name did not change to Kapiolani until 1978.

Based on these alone, BO should be investigated for fraud and being a spy, tried, and if found guilty, punished accordingly.

Would you like more facts to deny so you can drown in your own ignorance?

Originally posted by consciousgod
How can Obama's daddy's birth country on his cert be Kenya when Kenya did not exist as a county in 1961. If the cert was truly prepared in 1961, the cert should indicate his father's birth country as British East Africa Protectorate. The country was not called Kenya until 1963.

Because they take the information they are given. Kenya was being formed - Obama's father considered himself Kenyan.

All this is already in previous birther threads.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by consciousgod
How can Obama's daddy's birth country on his cert be Kenya when Kenya did not exist as a county in 1961. If the cert was truly prepared in 1961, the cert should indicate his father's birth country as British East Africa Protectorate. The country was not called Kenya until 1963.

Because they take the information they are given. Kenya was being formed - Obama's father considered himself Kenyan.

All this is already in previous birther threads.

How do you know what Obama Senior considered himself in 1961? Were you there?

You don't, just like a judge won't either. You have no proof. There is enough evidence to warrant an investigation and a trial to determine the truth.

It doesn't matter what any of us think or hope or desire. The truth is the truth and let the truth prevail in a court of law.