Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio prove Obama's birth certificate, social security number, and selective se

Originally posted by KingErik
Obama doesn't know where we was born.

He couldn't know. He was busy being born. And at that age, who is conscious of what is happening, or where they are?

First of all he had to do to kindergarten. Then he had to go to primary school. Then secondary school. At this point he's just becoming aware of geography, and the concepts of nations, and places, and things like place of birth.

Then he has to ask somebody, who was there at the time of his birth, where he was born. And if they lied to him, how would he know? His own mom, may have had him in Kenya, and when Barry asked, not wanting him to know, may have simply said "You were born in Hawaii, dear." The mom may have kept it secret from Barry, to ensure he had all rights of a U.S. born citizen. Who would be any wiser?

So, you can't blame Obama, for not knowing he was really born in Kenya.

He didn't fake his own birth certificate either. Someone had to do that for him. Barry probably doesn't even know how to create a PDF file. Much less, alter and edit one to produce a fake.

So, whatever you might think, Barry is innocent of all charges.

Now, if you want to go after the crooks that set all this in motion, that's another matter. But, what has it got to do with Obama himself?

At the time the crime was being committed, of faking his place of birth, Barry was too young to think of such crimes. He couldn't even speak yet, not even walk. He was just a crawling bawling baby.

I think those that hate Obama need to find another crime, one that Barry himself at least could possibly be accused of, but this is obviously a crime that other people must have engaged in, mostly without Obama's knowledge. So, they are barking up the wrong tree, if the goal is to "get Barry".

he was NOT born in kenya....according to the airline archives

Logistical Problems that Defy Explanation and Evidence

There are two key questions that require a logical explanation, for the birth of Barack Obama in Mombasa to be believable:

* What were Barack Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham doing in Mombasa in the first place?

* Once Barack Sr. & Ann Dunham allegedly landed at the Nairobi Embakasi Airport, why would the expectant couple proceed to travel east 300 miles to Mombasa, instead of traveling west 250 miles to Barack Obama Sr's' hometown of Nyang'oma in Nyanza Province?

If the couple were in Kenya at the time of Barack, II's birth, the most likely place for them to visit was Barack Sr's hometown — and not Mombasa. They could not have flown directly to Mombasa from Hawaii back in 1961, because an International Airport at Mombasa was not established until 1979. If Barack, Sr. and Stanley Ann actually did fly to Kenya for the birth of their child, they would have flown into the Nairobi Embakasi Airport — Nairobi being the city where Barack Sr had another wife (do you think Barack and Ann visited?). Here are photos of the Airport in Nairobi, Kenya in 1958 when it first began operation.

As the crow flies, the distance between Honolulu and Nairobi is 10,729 miles. In 1961, the most advanced Boeing 707s had a flying range of 3900 miles. This means that a direct flight from Honolulu to Nairobi was impossible, and that refueling stops would be necessary. Columnist Steve Sailor describes the multiple connecting flights required to fly from Honolulu to Nairobi in the early 60's:

"The idea that his heavily pregnant mother (flying is not at all fun for pregnant women) would get on an early 707 and fly at great expense to some foreign country is ridiculous . . . Do you know how many different flights she would have had to take to get to Kenya in 1961? Honolulu to California, California to the East Coast, the East Coast (refueling at Gander Bay, Canada) to London, London to maybe Cairo, Cairo to Nairobi. How much would that have cost? And then you would be stuck having your baby in Africa rather than in a modern American hospital in Honolulu. Or you could go the other way around the world — it’s about the same distance either way. Kenya and Hawaii are more or less on the opposite sides of the globe, almost as far apart as two places can be. This is a very silly idea."

BOAC had flights into Nairobi in 1954. This means a trip from Honolulu to Nairobi would involve coordinating flights from at least two separate airlines.


In 1965, a round-trip ticket to fly from Los Angeles to New York cost $290.00. Airline ticket prices were not tied to a supply-and-demand market; instead they we instead they were regulated and set by the government. So if prices were different in 1961, it was because the government had adjusted the price. The cost of gasoline was 25 cents per gallon in 1960 and 35 cents per gallon in 1969, which averages out to about 30 cents per gallon in 1965 — a price 20% higher compared to 1960. If we apply the same inflation factor to a $290.00 If we apply the same inflation factor to a $290.00 round-trip ticket in 1965, the price of a round-trip ticket from LA to NY airline in 1961 would be $242.00

On the 26th of October 1958, the first Pan American flight from New York to Paris cost $489.60 per ticket. In 1960, the cost of a round-trip ticket from New York to London was $450.00 and a round-trip flight from London to Nairobi in 1961 was £165 British Pounds, which is equivalent to $266.00

Assuming that Barack Sr and Anna got a free 2558 mile canoe ride from Honolulu to Los Angeles, this brings the total cost of our round-trip fares from Hawaii to Nairobi and back to an underestimated cost of $958.00 for one person and $1,916.00 for two tickets. Adjusting for inflation, $1,916.00 in 1961 would be equivalent to $13,000.00 in 2005.

Remember, this cost scenario is an underestimate — it completely discounts the cost to travel 2,558 miles from Honolulu to Los Angeles, and another 2558 miles back. This cost estimate assumes a FREE 5,000 miles round-trip canoe ride between Hawaii and L.A. Because I couldn't accurately document the cost of a flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles in 1961 — I estimated the cost at ZERO.

use your common sense and look at the logistics, he was not born there

Originally posted by CornShucker

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

The fact that the document has layers does not at all prove that the document is a fake. Anyone claiming this is simply ignorant of the facts of how the technology works. The OCR option being turned on, either via the PC or the MFP used to digitize the document, can cause every issue that you have mentioned above. The simple resizing of a document can also cause some of that. So where is the conclusive proof of the document being a fake? I'd love to see it.

if you had read what i posted, you'd see that all of the issues you listed are addressed, and by someone who owns two companies who specialize in such things.

yeahh...you didn't click the links, did you? no wonder you're unable to see the proof, you gotta click on the link!

As someone dating back to the days of the IBM Selectric buiness typewriters, I know a bit myself. Like you, my knowledge of the abnormalities with both the COLB & the LFBC come from someone who has been working in print since about the time I graduated high school.

Gotta go for tonight. But it's been an entertaining afternoon & I'll see everyone again tomorrow.

The information in the second link is extensive and some of the guy's knowledge is impressive, but the fact is that some of what he was saying dealing with OCR and the artifacts that it can and cannot produce is just flat out incorrect.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AussieDingus

 

The court also decided that OJ Simpson was innocent too

Actually, a jury did.
A court (a judge) would have nailed him.

edit on 6/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

A Jury in a courtroom. He was judged by a court. Whether its by Jury or by Judge, you are still judged in a court.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by flyswatter

 

If you really want to get into natural born citizens you need to look at a scotus case.

en.wikipedia.org...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

Yes, exactly, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which still leaves room for differentiation between natural born and native born, which the INS recognizes as different categories from naturalization.

The fact that he was even challenged at all as a US citizen, much less a natural born citizen, on the basis of his parents being alien, should be telling. Now people who are Obama supporters want to extend this to mean that nobody who was born here should be challenged for eligibility. And if that were so, why does the Constitution delineate a difference between eligibility for Congress and eligibility for POTUS if there were not a difference between native born and natural born.
Here is the qualification for Representative

Clause 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.

law.onecle.com...

Why doesn't it say 7 years a Natural born citizen? Did they just think it was too redundant, or is it different from eligibility as POTUS?

edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Gonna have to ask some different people about why the wording is that way, dont think anyone here is capable of giving an answer on that one

Without a clear definition of what legally constitutes "natural born citizen" for the country, the only thing that we have to go with is the interpretations in the courts at various levels of the system. The Supreme Court has not taken it up, and I am going to assume that this is because it has not been pushed at them in an appropriate and strong enough manner. While I do not feel there is any issue with Obama's eligibility, I fully agree that we need a clear legal definition of natural born citizen. It would go a long way in preventing crap like this from happening in the future.

Originally posted by doryinaz
On June 1st, Mike Zullo presented a 2 hour informational speech to a group of Sheriffs, and Constitutional Lawyers...and even one congressman. This can be found on PPSIMMONS.com. For those of you who thought the "cold case posse" was dead...they are fully up and running, and causing quite a stir. They have run their investigation as they would any other criminal investigation, and found the Obama is NOT who he claims to be! This is no joke, and it is not any kind of political baloney. They are doing an end-around the mainstream press (who have labeled them crazy birthers and other demeaning things), but this is NOT going away. Anybody hear anything else? The story can be found on "Before it's News", as well. I'd appreciate any information from ATS'rs!

Wow! Amazes me how many paid shills must be on this thread to attempt debunk this. It's all pretty damn logical if you listen to the evidence then you realize he's not a natural born citizen. I mean who the hell pays $4mil to hispde there past, no past POTUS has, no need to, what reasons would there be, Duh!

reply to post by AussieDingus

Oh geez.
You were comparing the OJ jury trial to birther pleadings before judges.
There is no comparison.

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
I mean who the hell pays $4mil to hispde there past, no past POTUS has, no need to, what reasons would there be, Duh!

So it has gone up to $4 million now?

Of course you can actually show us where Obama has spent $4million hiding his past.....

reply to post by PMNOrlando


And no current POTUS has either. If I remember correctly Obama's attorneys are doing the birther cases pro bono.

Originally posted by PMNOrlando

Originally posted by doryinaz
On June 1st, Mike Zullo presented a 2 hour informational speech to a group of Sheriffs, and Constitutional Lawyers...and even one congressman. This can be found on PPSIMMONS.com. For those of you who thought the "cold case posse" was dead...they are fully up and running, and causing quite a stir. They have run their investigation as they would any other criminal investigation, and found the Obama is NOT who he claims to be! This is no joke, and it is not any kind of political baloney. They are doing an end-around the mainstream press (who have labeled them crazy birthers and other demeaning things), but this is NOT going away. Anybody hear anything else? The story can be found on "Before it's News", as well. I'd appreciate any information from ATS'rs!

Wow! Amazes me how many paid shills must be on this thread to attempt debunk this. It's all pretty damn logical if you listen to the evidence then you realize he's not a natural born citizen. I mean who the hell pays $4mil to hispde there past, no past POTUS has, no need to, what reasons would there be, Duh!

First of all, be careful slinging around the whole "paid shills" thing. People dont take too kindly to it around here.

Second, give me a legal definition of "natural born citizen" and THEN you can begin to tell us why he doesnt fit. You may be looking for a while though, because we have no legal definition of it in the US.

Third, if you want to open the can of worms that is the "paying money to hide his past" thing, you need to do a search of the various threads on ATS where that has been torn apart time and time again. On more than occasion I took the time to post a dollar by dollar breakdown of his campaign expenditures. If you can prove any different, by all means, do it. If you're not too busy pushing that number of $4 million up even further. Last I had seen, people had only made it up to $3.1 million.

reply to post by hellobruce


I am not going to discuss with you since you played the race card. It is useless. Your charge that people who oppose Obama can only do so because of his race is the bottom of the barrel for me and I will not capitulate. I'm guessing you did it because Wong Kim Ark does not prove Obama is eligible and Judge malihi likely fudged the case for a reason. It's much easier to blame race than to admit that for the first time we have an unabashedly Marxist President. Hillary is just as Marxist and she pushed for universal health care too, and I'm just as much against her. The Democrats knew that if they put Barack in that they could use the race card in case anyone decided to oppose their Marxist Utopian plans.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hellobruce

 

I am not going to discuss with you since you played the race card. It is useless. Your charge that people who oppose Obama can only do so because of his race is the bottom of the barrel for me and I will not capitulate.

No one here is saying people who oppose Obama are doing it because of his race, that's obviously the D in front of his name that is causing all the opposition.

BUT on this one particular issue, RACE has EVERYTHING to do with it.
How come no one had a problem with no BCs before the black man took office?
This one issue is completely and utterly race based.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hellobruce

 

I am not going to discuss with you since you played the race card. It is useless. Your charge that people who oppose Obama can only do so because of his race is the bottom of the barrel for me and I will not capitulate.

No one here is saying people who oppose Obama are doing it because of his race, that's obviously the D in front of his name that is causing all the opposition.

BUT on this one particular issue, RACE has EVERYTHING to do with it.
How come no one had a problem with no BCs before the black man took office?
This one issue is completely and utterly race based.

It has nothing to do with race, we know almost nothing about the man.

The media took his word for everything, no vetting was done at all.

The day after Palin was announced as the VP selection the media had her whole life, but about Obama we get crickets.

Then we get called racists for questioning his version of his past.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I'm guessing you did it because Wong Kim Ark does not prove Obama is eligible and Judge malihi likely fudged the case for a reason.

You really have no idea at all - just why do you say Wong Kim Ark does not prove Obama is eligible? Why do you claim Judge Malihi and every other Judge of the 200 court cases fudged their case?

Did you actually stop to think for a minute to realise how silly that sounds, every single Judge in over 200 court cases fudged their case.....

first time we have an unabashedly Marxist President.

And your proof of that is what exactly?
Anyway, where in the constitution or in US law does it state a President cannot be a Marxist?

The Democrats knew that if they put Barack in that they could use the race card in case anyone decided to oppose their Marxist Utopian plans.

So all Democrats are Marxists as well....

Surprise! The justice in Wong Kim Ark who wrote the majority opinion was a Chester Arthur appointee.

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...

freaky stuff

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Surprise! The justice in Wong Kim Ark who wrote the majority opinion was a Chester Arthur appointee.

Why is it a surprise? Who else could have appointed him? Do you even know how Supreme Court Judges are appointed?

Originally posted by ElectricFeel
Im not from the states but I dont think they still care if obama is a "real" american...
And what if he isn't one? You expect a 'hey obama, you arent a american... sorry you are fired'-scenario?

If it was proven? Yes without a doubt. It is illegal for someone not born in the United States of America to be President here. He would have no choice and any and all actions he took while in office would be voided.

Originally posted by mythots

Originally posted by ElectricFeel
Im not from the states but I dont think they still care if obama is a "real" american...
And what if he isn't one? You expect a 'hey obama, you arent a american... sorry you are fired'-scenario?

If it was proven? Yes without a doubt. It is illegal for someone not born in the United States of America to be President here. He would have no choice and any and all actions he took while in office would be voided.

edit on 4-6-2013 by mythots because: pretty rainbows are really the vomit of giant aliens

The whole "actions would be voided" thing could be another thread in itself. There's no precedent for it so nobody can be positive about exactly what would happen, but I'm as sure as I can be that we wouldnt see a scenario of having everything he did being declared void. It would be interesting to see what legislative lawyers, constitutional scholars, and people of that sort would have to say about it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AussieDingus

 

Oh geez.
You were comparing the OJ jury trial to birther pleadings before judges.
There is no comparison.

It was actually an example to show that just because a decision is handed down in a court [either by Judge or Jury] doesn't mean it is the correct decision. Especially considering the widespread corruption in most legal systems. If a Judges, or Juries decision is so final, then tell me why do we have an appeal's system ?

Judges have been proven many times in the past to be wrong in their decisions, and some have even admitted through hindsight that earlier decisions were wrong but didn't seem wrong at the time. Juries have been proven to of been corrupted, approached, intimidated etc, and many Juror's have also later admitted through hindsight that a verdict they gave was later found to be incorrect or could of been approached differently. I know some might say that all humans make mistakes, but when other people lives are affected, then its a pretty weak excuse to say "oh well, got it wrong", while someone sits in a jail for an incorrect, or corrupted decision.

What I meant by the OJ comment was, just because a decision is made in a court, doesn't mean it is the correct decision, or that the decision hasn't been influenced or corrupted. Nor should it be accepted as final by anyone with a logical thinking brain !

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by mythots

Originally posted by ElectricFeel
Im not from the states but I dont think they still care if obama is a "real" american...
And what if he isn't one? You expect a 'hey obama, you arent a american... sorry you are fired'-scenario?

If it was proven? Yes without a doubt. It is illegal for someone not born in the United States of America to be President here. He would have no choice and any and all actions he took while in office would be voided.

edit on 4-6-2013 by mythots because: pretty rainbows are really the vomit of giant aliens

The whole "actions would be voided" thing could be another thread in itself. There's no precedent for it so nobody can be positive about exactly what would happen, but I'm as sure as I can be that we wouldnt see a scenario of having everything he did being declared void. It would be interesting to see what legislative lawyers, constitutional scholars, and people of that sort would have to say about it.

Well at minimum if they wanted to void his actions they would have to prove that he knew he wasn't US citizen and in purpose frauded the people. Considering that a newborn baby cannot commit the supposed crime.

I'll admit... I've always thought "what's the difference? The next guy/gal will be bought and paid for as well."

I have been kind of annoyed about the birther thing... by virtue of how much of a partisan distraction it is.

THAT SAID... I was completely blown away at the copy of the Birth Certificate that was posted on the Whitehouse website... I don't know about the whole "birther" thing, but I will say this about that document:

If you believe that WH posted document is a valid unfabricated document you are a f******* moron.

A flat scan for the sake of presenting a facimile of a hard copy document is ONLY 1 LAYER. Those of you who are familiar with the Adobe Suite of creative tools know what I am talking about. The so called "Birth Certificate" on the Whitehouse website is a fabrication. Period. Any Adobe hackers here... even if they think the birther issue is bogus will arrive at the same conclusion. You CAN NOT get a multi layer/multi element document out of a single layer document scan of an old document. You might be able to work with it, and layer out some elements, if you WANTED to make it look fake... but why do that?

Someone has to have lost their job over that document.

Anyway... don't flame me for this... but a phony birth certificate doesn't make a foreign birth a fact. It just means the document is bogus. It IS, however... a mighty strange thing to be putting out there if you are trying to prove POTUS is a constitutionally valid candidate. Mighty strange stuff.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

I'm not sure it matters. The majority American public is already completely captured by the U.S. media. Even if it turned out Obama is a phony... the majority of Americans won't care. Yeah... it's that far gone.