Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 

You read the transcripts and that is all you came away from it with? I don't really know or frankly care what other threads might have said. This is an issue serious enough to throw our nation into a DEEP constitutional crisis and why? Our President decided almost NOTHING about his background is anyone's business. Thats fine as Community Organizer Obama. I can even accept that from Senator Obama, but it's absolutely unacceptable from President Obama.

Now first..this is my last reply to you on this. You've indirectly and DIRECTLY called me and others who are also uncertain on this a fool just one time too many. I don't make it personal and I don't name call in a debate. Those that do, in my experience, general lack solid ground to stand on and know it. I'm not sure what motivates you to lower this to a personal level, but I choose not to partake in it. Things never go UPHILL on a thread once it's turned this direction.

As a final note though, I'll say this. I've taken time this morning to dig up the links..and post the facts as I know them to be and as I can find them with supporting factual basis. I AM NOT suggesting Obama isn't American and I'm NOT suggesting he isn't fit to serve as our President. I *AM* saying there are questions and entirely too many for a man in that Office. IF you get around to reading those transcripts, you'll find the issues raised in court and entered as evidence cover FAR MORE than just the sloppy photo shop work on the bunk birth cert or what piece of ground his mother popped him out on. Altho... Hey, we're all fools and I suppose that makes a sitting Judge the largest fool of them all. Whatever.... If you're suggesting I should take your arguments over those made under Oath and in open court, I hope you'll understand while I quietly chuckle and move on with my day.

Prior to this *FINALLY* having it's day in court to get a look at REAL EVIDENCE and not just blogger opinions, I'd noted I wasn't entirely sure about Obama...and I'm still not, EITHER WAY, as it happens. I just feel this is an absolute for what should be required and proven for *EVERY* Presidential Candidate in the future..right after we verify the one who did get there. Oh... Just don't use E-Verify. It was also established, in court and under oath that Obama fails that check and fails it from more than one direction on the number he presents himself as valid It isn't. He may not be, and THAT is the problem.

Take Care, and as always....remember that site motto! 'Deny Ignorance'. They're words to live by, indeed.




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 


All lies...prove everything you have written.

Lies and more lies...but as you will see..they are all debunked.

Fact Check: Does Barack Obama Have Over 80 Aliases?




Until someone provides this primary source document — that is, a list of 80 aliases of Barack Obama with proof that Barack Obama has used each of false names as an alias, the claim stands unsupported



Obama’s social-security number




Taitz later identified an individual named Jean Paul Ludwig who was born in 1890 and got his social-security number in Connecticut, but the Social Security Death Index shows that this person has a totally different SSN



Is Barack Obama using some dead guy’s social-security number?

See Above

eVerify response indicates Obama’s number is fraudulent




reported Social Security was never issued to Barack Obama; it says that it was never issued anyone. That seems highly unlikely, since Taitz’s intrepid investigators found that the number before and after Obama’s has been issued. That leaves two explanations: either the SSNVS report above is a fake, or that Barack Obama has been assigned a new social-security number, invalidating the old one, and for SSNVS purposes appearing as if it had never been issued. Given that Barack Obama’s SSN has been broadcast to the world, it certainly is plausible that he has applied for a new one, as he is perfectly entitled to do.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by brokedown
 


You may THINK you have the RIGHT to know everything about someone, but guess what you don't.

President's ALL OF THEM, have kept personal information private.

There's NO basis for assuming this belief of yours MEANS anything.

Believe what you want, but the history of Presidents will tell a MUCH different story to what you believe.


We, as Americans, ABSOLUTELY have the *RIGHT* to know these things about the President and we have the right to know them BEFORE he is elected.....we sure have the right to know afterward. Why? That document no one seems to give a damn about says so. The U.S. Constitution takes the time and trouble to specifically outline requirements to the Presidency.

Within those requirements, a President can either submit whatever is asked, when it is asked for...or they can go run for Congress, where no one cares about who is or isn't a fraud or scumbag. They all are...so who's surprised?? A Congressman cannot single handedly start a war, launch strategic nuclear weapons..or as this President has done, all but give them away in the name of "peace" at any cost.

Knowing the background and character of the single man entrusted to lead our nation isn't a luxury, it could be a literal matter of our national survival depending on the nature of crisis Obama either starts himself or finds dropped in his lap.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Arrgh..no more...I'm doing exactly as I said I wouldn't, If I know a person is an idiot, why do I still argue?.


I am done because of these quotes...





"If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots"


Robert Kiyosaki




“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”



Mark Twain



edit on 1-2-2012 by kerazeesicko because: CUZ I CAN



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


First off, you've presented no facts. You've repeatedly posted lies and YOU refuse to answer questions aimed directly at you. Pot meet kettle.

Second, if you DID actually bother to read what's been posted then you CAN'T be an honest skeptic. 80%+ of what she said was about the SSN and all of that is birther generated BS. The evidence is in front of you. It's not something you can have an opinion on. Either you're honest, or you're a liar trying to push a debunked ideology.

I have my opinion on that, but look, you tell me, where did the 1890 number come from? Can Obama's SSN only be for someone born in CT? Was the number recycled?

Answer those questions then look at the fact that 9 out of 11 of the pieces of evidence Orly presented related to those three things. Then remember that Orly is almost singlehandedly responsible for pushing those leis out there. (And wasting how much tax money in the courts...?)

I doubt you'll answer these questions though.


edit on 1-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
We, as Americans, ABSOLUTELY have the *RIGHT* to know these things about the President and we have the right to know them BEFORE he is elected.....


What things? The president is a US citizen and therefore has the same right to privacy as any other citizen. We have no right to violate his privacy...



That document no one seems to give a damn about says so. The U.S. Constitution takes the time and trouble to specifically outline requirements to the Presidency.


Yes, it outlines the requirements for presidency, but where does it outline OUR right to know everything about the president, as you stated?



Within those requirements, a President can either submit whatever is asked, when it is asked for...


He DID submit what was asked for.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You DO NOT.

You may WANT the right, but you do NOT have it.

You need to learn to separate fiction from reality.

Show me where, what legal document or precedent gives YOU the RIGHT to see everything about a President.

Show me or stop making silly claims.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Yeah, I can't figure out why I spent 4 years doing it, except that I got some enjoyment out of it. But there comes a time when presenting facts just pisses people off more.


Very informative and factual links you've presented here.
Thanks.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Anyone have any idea why Taitz, et al, are generating these lies? What their motive is? Political or what?

I mean, when you see things like that photoshopped Columbia ID, it means people are NOT loking for truth, but generating lies... why...?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by brokedown


Or is it White Americans hating Obama because he is half White ?


Playing the Race Card with Obama only works with the un-informed.

Americans who support FULL Discloser of the person who occupies the office of President are being Loyal, Lawful, Patriotic, Constitutional Citizens.

Which,

Those who do NOT support Full Discloser are treasonous, criminals, who are engaged in open rebellion of the United States Supreme Law.

Full Discloser is not about Obama, it is about America, get over it.

The United States has the RIGHT to know everything about who the President was / is no matter who the person is.

If Obama is so “thin Skinned” that he take offense that the People of this Nation are Requiring that he “comes clean” maybe he is not mature enough for the office in the first place.


I would argue that there are white people who hate Obama because he LOOKS black, and has a foreign sounding name. Whether it sounds Arab or African doesn't really matter - it doesn't sound "American".

Of course, full disclosure is not a bad thing. Obama's birth certificate has been fully disclosed - but the birthers refuse to accept it.

If I were Obama and people (hate-filled people) were constantly spreading lies about me, even though I tried to cooperate by providing them proof - I'd be just about angry by now. I think he has actually kept pretty calm about the whole thing, considering.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I don't know about the motivation of "birthers" because the very word means nothing. It is a derogatory term meant to disparage the motivations of anyone that raises questions. It makes it easier to label the whole group with adjectives meant to define a person not a group, like "racist" for example.
Further, when members play this game, it tells me a lot about them. It tells me they are not interested in truth, because one that is interested in truth does not play these sorts of games.
This thread is below the intellect of anyone that is interested in truth. Truth stands on its own, and like any idea that the masses cannot yet handle, exists only in the hearts and minds of people that respect it. On either side, if truth is not the objective, it becomes clear to an unbiased party.
OP is not interested in truth.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Anyone have any idea why Taitz, et al, are generating these lies? What their motive is? Political or what?


Orly Taitz is FAMOUS from this. Her motivation is obvious. Four years ago, it was "Orly what"? Now, she's the birther Queen. She's quite insane, in my opinion. But anyone with a birther case knows they can go to her for support.



I mean, when you see things like that photoshopped Columbia ID, it means people are NOT loking for truth, but generating lies... why...?


To shore up the case against Obama. If the truth mattered to these people, their movement would not exist. If truth mattered, they wouldn't be making up fake IDs to bolster their claims. The original suspicions were planted for political reasons, but the movement has grown from there to include many different motivations.

Birthers and the movement "Want to Believe" that he's a usurper. Whatever evidence they need to manufacture or believe to that end is fair game. If they can't win with the truth, they'll do it with lies (or so they think).

Proof of the inconsistency in the birther mindset:

Two birth certificates (long and short form) are released on the Internet and immediately claimed to be Fakes.
Yet ALL this other crap (false IDs, social security numbers, Kenyan birth certificate, school papers) are ALL taken at face value as PROOF - WITHOUT any investigation whatsoever!

They WANT to BELIEVE. Facts don't enter into it.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


Right, so you side with the people generating the lies then. That's down to your intellectual capacity I guess.

I think it's funny that birthers completely ignore all questions about the evidence they believe. I guess it's all just faith on their part.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


First off, you've presented no facts. You've repeatedly posted lies and YOU refuse to answer questions aimed directly at you. Pot meet kettle.

Second, if you DID actually bother to read what's been posted then you CAN'T be an honest skeptic. 80%+ of what she said was about the SSN and all of that is birther generated BS. The evidence is in front of you. It's not something you can have an opinion on. Either you're honest, or you're a liar trying to push a debunked ideology.

I have my opinion on that, but look, you tell me, where did the 1890 number come from? Can Obama's SSN only be for someone born in CT? Was the number recycled?

Answer those questions then look at the fact that 9 out of 11 of the pieces of evidence Orly presented related to those three things. Then remember that Orly is almost singlehandedly responsible for pushing those leis out there. (And wasting how much tax money in the courts...?)

I doubt you'll answer these questions though.


edit on 1-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

Okay, lets keep perspective here. I am stating what I believe makes for questions that justify further looking into this issue. I don't claim to know the answers, and for the 3rd time saying it, I'm not presenting anything here as facts. Others have presented them as facts in court, under oath and penalty of perjury.

Those defending Obama are presenting plenty as hard fact...without much more than the statement that it is so, and so we should accept that and shut up.

Err... Question Authority? That motto sits next to Deny Ignorance in my mind, and that is the rule of the day here.

The documents cited as evidence exist or they don't. They say what the witnesses in court claim, or they don't. More than one of these documents, such as the passport record of his mother with the different last name, are actually U.S. Government documents, so the ability to show this as true or false is a matter of running a copy (Not a multi-layered, modified Photoshop file) and present it. Scandal is over....everyone who tried to push it loses credibility forever, and everyone can feel the issue is settled.


Now.... This is where I'm having a huge problem. Now that this has been sworn to in a court, we have every single person who testified there staking their careers and credibility, not to mention their freedom if someone wanted to push hard enough, on the belief that what they are presenting is accurate. Has Obama or ANY of his people addressed a single issue here under Oath?

Well.. They've had countless opportunities, but it's apparently more important to make a horses ass out of the people suing, than simply put down the charges. The lack of this being settled in a court room is due to Obama having his lawyers stomp *EVERY* attempt before now to have this simply heard as a question for an answer in the right forum for truth.

Very simply put... I am going by the evidence as presented by people with everything to lose in being busted for fabricating. I'm debating, largely, opinion and second hand statements from so and so...or some talking head on a news channel. Before a Georgia Judge showed some hard courage, no one had more to go with on this topic. NOW, we do. Pretending that hearing never happened won't change the fact it did...and this wasn't a TV show. This was a *REAL* court room with *REAL* consequences for both sides and all witnesses taking the stand. When it comes down to it, that really is as simple as it gets. Now, as a nation, I suggest looking at that court case...and seeing just where this smoke is coming from. There just MIGHT be fire down there..or there may not be.


Not knowing is absurd. Refusing to even acknowledge a problem *MAY* exist strikes me as willfully ignoring reality now that this has entered formal legal proceedings. Time will tell......but assuming people who question this President are ignorant, malicious or just racist strikes me as against everything the quest for knowledge and enlightenment should stand for. To be blunt, it seems to pretty much fly in the face of what I understand this Web Site to exist for.

Call me wrong...fine fine...you're in a long line for that one.
A fool or ignorant...as has happened on this thread? Thats uncalled for and pretty far over the lines of decent discourse, even in politics, wouldn't you agree?



OH.. By the way.... by my notes on witness testimony, the Social Sec was issued in 1977-79 as a range. The numbers immediately before and after were issued in 1977, so it's a good bet HIS follows that. The numerical code which all SS numbers are comprised of show his to be issued to someone in Connecticut. Obama was a teenager living in Hawaii at the time.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It's funny though isn't it? I mean Taitz KNOWS where that 1890 number came from and she knows the whole lie about it being from CT. Yet she just went into court and inserted into an official record, with her name on it...

I guess crazy is really he only explanation for her...

If I was Obama I would seriously consider suing her, but then again, that's simply more attention... best to just pity her I guess.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
For anyone who may be curious....Here is the site explaining the number codes American Social Security numbers consist of. There really is meaning to all 3 number sets for someone who knows how to read it. I don't, off the top of my head..but I know where to find the charts that do show it.

www.ssa.gov...

As it notes, the first Geo code number set isn't absolute, and someone using that as the sole piece of data to call someone out as a liar may be in for the largest serving of humble pie in history. However, taken with other data, as this case sure supplies, it represents one more bugaboo that doesn't fit as it ought to. When I see enough little bugaboos, as I sure do here at this point, it's time someone track this stuff down and find out whats up...and hey, how about it NOT be Obama himself or someone working directly for him and sworn to be loyal to him. Just a thought there...but it might make the outcome credible if, as it may, it shows Obama is 100% legit..and maybe what he's hiding truly is a matter of personal privacy. Who knows..



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You're again acting like a nut.

Why should Obama go into court and state what the State of HI has already said? Why should HE of all people explain to the court that the SSN number isn't from CT? IT says it right on the SSA website after all...

Do you HONESTLY think the President should be in court explaining how he SSNing system works?? Really?


Really?


These people KNOW the truth and they're simply lying (and taking you along with them).

You keep saying silly things like, "you don't know". But listen, you DO know. The evidence is all here.

Do this, before writing another response, go investigate the 1890 thing and the CT thing. wo simple thing.

Here, I'll help you with one of them.

Taitz claims REPEATEDLY that O's SSN is connected to CT.

It's in the court transcripts.

Here's what the SSA says:

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

www.socialsecurity.gov...

Why would Taitz lie about that? In court.

Why?

Or is the SSA wrong? About their own numbering system...?

There's NO OPINION here. The people that give out the numbers say she's wrong. She KNOWS this... and yet.

Now go figure out the 1890 thing.

And DON'T say this is all opinion; it clearly is NOT.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It fits with nothing else. It's representative of ALL of the info.

Track the 1890 thing. Figure out where it came from.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


for the record, it's 2012 and you're still wondering the real reason behind the birhter movement? i don't mean to offend you, it's just kind of surprising to me
edit on 2/1/2012 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Here's an interview with Taitz (jump to 12 mins) wherein she states the ONLY evidence of the SSN being from CT is the number.



Should I copy and paste your words? Sure, why not...?



As it notes, the first Geo code number set isn't absolute, and someone using that as the sole piece of data to call someone out as a liar may be in for the largest serving of humble pie in history.


So, what say you now?





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join