AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Here is the interesting thing and frankly I do sincerely regret to say that there will be an opportunity for us all to find out.

When it is actually revealed that Obama was not born in the United States and the proof comes out that he was not born in the United States...

Will you be able to accept it?

Seriosuly...or will you start screaming conspiracy! It's a conspircay to remove him from office because he is black or a democrat, or tall, or smokes, or has a vegetable garden in the White House.

Will you be able to accept irrefutable proof when it comes out.

I don't think you will be able to my friend, because in reality you and many others have accepted the flimsiest of proof that he is a natural born U.S. citizens, and concocted some of the flimsiest excuses as to why the flimsiest of proof should be accepted when every intelligent person knows that nothing as definitive as the actual original source document that is being supressed by Obama.

It seems to me that all the people who advocate and make up excuses to try to explain away why millions of dollars are being spent by the President to keep from having to reveal the original source document are the unreasonable ones. There just happen to be enough of such people to convince one another that the unreasonable is reasonable.

It makes me truly wonder just how such people will react when the truth really does come out and the truth is that no one would spend millions of dollars supressing a document for the reasons you all like to imagine and accept. Only a guilty person who has something to hide would do that and frankly I doubt even once that guilt has been established in a court of law that you will be able to accept then what you can't accept now...

That Obama is spending millions of dollars, and hiring dozens of attorneys in scores of State and Federal Law Suits to make him divulge a document that could bring his presidency down and send him to jail for High Treason.

That is after all what he is really doing, and the truly desperate lenghts some people are going to pretend vague non-binding statements and invalid and altered non-source documents establish something that in reality those things themselves wouldn't even be admissible in a court of law.

So called Birthers aren't crazy, the people who will go to any length to condone and encourage an abusive and deceptive government official from having to meet evidentiary standards are the actual ones in denial and advocating for abandoning known standards and courts and fact for non-binding statements, and posts in non-binding forums.

Birthers aren't lying to themselves or anyone else they are demanding to see legal proof.

It's the people who don't want to see that legal proof who argue that no one legally has a right to know and make up all kinds of unconstitutional and foolish arguments as to why no one has a legal right to know to see legal proof that are lying to themselves.

I truly worry what lies they will tell to themselves when all this information does eventually come out through legal channels.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Sorry, you have put a lot of effort to produce a lot of hogwash.

I recommend you Google the term "Vital Records" to find out what a State Official means when they use the term. The term is used by EVERY Government Archive in the English speaking world to refer to a specific set of records that are kept by the State on behalf of its citizens. A set of records that includes Births, Deaths, Marriages, and the like.

As for challenging the Doctor's credentials, that is really grasping at straws. The statement was issued on official Hawai'ian Department of Health letterhead, and no one else has challenged her position, includeing the Republican State Attorney General.

All I can suggest to you my confused friend is Google does not have a Law Degree, nor is Google a Judge in a Constitutionally empowered court of law. Google is not even a Law Dictionary, and Google is certainly not a Law University. Google is a search engine used by people who want to search for what they want to hear and believe.

I know responsible people say what they mean and mean what they say.

In fact they precisely say what they mean and mean what they say.

What I did is what an Attorney would do, what any Judge would do in disecting a non-binding, non-official, statement by a public official released to the press orally in a non-binding fashion.

Google isn't going to ever show up in a court of law and explain that people said things that they didn't say.

Google isn't ever going to spend one minute in jail because it pretended something was said that wasn't said.

Once again these vague non-binding press statements offered in a non-official setting, where no questions are allowed to ask why they are being so deliberately and vaguely worded are not evidence of anything except non-binding, non-official oral statements to the press.

They do not substitute for actual original source documents, they are not given under oath with penalty of perjury attached and they are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Once again Barack Hussein Obama is though spending millions of dollars in dozens of lawsuits brought against him, and hiring scores of attorneys to supress the document that can bring down his Presidency and send him to Prison and possible execution for the High Crime of Treason.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
millions of dollars, and hiring dozens of attorneys in scores of State and Federal Law Suits

There it is again; "millions", "dozens", "scores"....with only a tiny variation this time.

What's the real reason you are so adamant about staying on message? I get suspicious when identical semantics and arguments are presented over and over again. Here it is, page 48, and you have dutifully managed to inject those words, variations of those words, or some or all of those words, into the last 10 pages. Feel free to scroll back through them and see for yourself.

Who, or what, is pressing your agenda?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
millions of dollars in dozens of lawsuits brought against him, and hiring scores of attorneys

This is starting to read like something the Borg might post......were there an Internet in the Collective.

"Millions", "dozens", "scores".......

psssst....proto.....we must hammer the meme.......don't deviate.....stay on message

Originally posted by MrPenny
The last two posts are perfect examples of splitting hairs and deflection.

No level of logic, reasoning, or evidence, will be suitable for those who insist on clogging up their minds with this buffoonery.

Apparently you haven't read the petition that over 400,000 people signed. It only asks to see one piece of evidence, the long form birth certificate. The logic and reasoning aren't requested, just the evidence.

reply to post by MrPenny


My friend, I layed out my unchanged and unanswered argument pages and pages ago in this thread.

I cautioned people pages and pages ago in this thread that my position will not change no matter what until a legitimate constitutionally empowered court of law sees the original source document and rules on it.

A few select other members have tried to change the argument to deflect away from my points of contention in an attempt to lessen the importance of my points of contention since they are powerless to answer my points of contention to my satisfaction because they are not Judges in a Court of Law looking at and then ruling on the source document.

My argument stays the same because no one as I have clearly stated can answer my argument and as I clearly stated it's a futile waste of time unless you are a Judge in a Court of Law in possession of the original source document and are ruling on it.

What a few select members have done is to use my posts as a platform to try to deflect away from the points of contention I am making to advocate for lesser non-constitutional evidentiary standards, and third party hearsay and third party venues be an adequate susbstitute for a Court of Law ruling on the original source document in it's possession.

I imagine they do that to try to deflect from the importance of the points I have objections about and am contesting and I imagine they do that to infect and effect those with weaker minds and lower evidenciary standards to not take a contrary stance to their own.

Everytime some one tries to deflect away from my points of contention by insisting there is something wrong or untoward about me, or tries to deflect to lesser non legal binding standards be accepted I always repeat my main points of contention, lest they forget what I have kindly and respectfully explained to them dozens of times before...

Here it comes...

Ready for it...?

Barack Hussein Obama is spending millions of dollars in dozens of court cases and hiring scores of attorneys to supress the only valid original source document that would suffice as absolute irrefutable proof that he is either a citizen or isn't.

Now here is what you can't do. You can't prove that there are not dozens of court cases because there are...dozens of court cases.

You can't prove he isn't hiring scores of attorneys...because he is!

You can't prove that it isn't about the original source document because...that's what every litigant in every case is requesting be produced and the court to rule on it.

My points are all reasonable and all common sense and all about the issue, not you or me, or what anyone thinks.

Attempts to chastize me, intimidate me, belittle me, ridicule me, and question my charachter and motives are just attempts at deflection from people who can not overcome my points of contention because they know as well as I do that they don't have any real facts in order to overcome it.

So do dozens of litigants, in scores of lawsuits, that the President is spending millions of dollars and hiring dozens of attorneys to keep from having to show the only document that is absolute proof.

Some people are the kind that will accept a generic store brand soft drink but then there are some of us friend who don't say "Wow I could have had a V-8" we hold out and demand the V-8!

Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Apparently you haven't read the petition that over 400,000 people signed.

Big Whoopee......let's assume not a single one of those petitioners signed the thing for kicks and grins, to get their co-worker to shut up, thought it was a hoot.....whatever.

The NIMH estimates that 25% of the population over 18 yrs of age suffers from some mental disorder at any given time NIMH. We'll take that figure and discount 100,000 of those petitioners. Then, let's consider how "unweighted" a petition inherently is presented. Aw nevermind......you, nor any other mental dustbin would give a hoot anyway.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
attempts at deflection from people who can not overcome my points of contention because they know as well as I do that they don't have any real facts in order to overcome it.

Your "points of contention" cannot be refuted with facts because they do not reflect, or begin with, a point of fact. As long as your "points of contention" are shrouded in your bizarre interpretation of "legal", they will stay, "points of contention" because you have the built in advantage of working from a position of opinion and an interpretation that is only yours.

The idea that the same form of birth certificate I, and millions of others, have used to prove citizenship, renew driver's licenses, etc.....is somehow not good enough for the sitting president, is a malformed and odd cognitive process.

The idea that the president is somehow responsible for the lawyers that show up in court is ludicrous.....imagine this....if the stupid, pointless lawsuits end....so does the cost and court time. I don't know how it should reflect badly on a litigant to respond to a lawsuit. How exactly does it work that responding in court when another party files a lawsuit with you as defendant indicates some perfidy on the defendants part?

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Apparently you haven't read the petition that over 400,000 people signed.

Big Whoopee......let's assume not a single one of those petitioners signed the thing for kicks and grins, to get their co-worker to shut up, thought it was a hoot.....whatever.

The NIMH estimates that 25% of the population over 18 yrs of age suffers from some mental disorder at any given time NIMH. We'll take that figure and discount 100,000 of those petitioners. Then, let's consider how "unweighted" a petition inherently is presented. Aw nevermind......you, nor any other mental dustbin would give a hoot anyway.

Your response totally avoids and deflects the factual evidence I provided to refute your assertion that no amount of evidence would satisfy certain people. I stated that there was one specific piece of evidence being requested and you avoided addressing that contradiction to your assertion. The petition was the evidence I offered. If 25% of the population has mental health issues, I fail to see how that supports any argument, you can apply that statistic to anything that involves the general population.

And then to further show a lack of focus on the subject matter at hand, you resort to an ad hominem attack in violation of the T&C of this site by calling me a mental dustbin. If your argument is so weak you can't focus on the facts and have to resort to ad hominem attacks maybe you should refrain from posting.

Just to make sure you know what the petition says:

www.wnd.com...

We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection.

That doesn't really say that no amount of evidence will be satisfactory, does it? It's pretty specific about what evidence is being requested.

reply to post by MrPenny


Once again my friend all people are entitled to an opinion and state it publicly and privately.

However no matter what adjectives you use to describe the opinions and beliefs of others, or what adjectives you use to describe your own opinions and belief about yourself, they remain simply opinion and are not legally binding or legally significant.

Despite the propensity of some to imagine that no one has a right as a citizen to demand legal standards be met and displayed by the government and it's officials the fact remains the same that I and millions of other people want to see the original source document which is the only document that legally would establish Obama's eligibility.

The fact remains the same that Obama is spending millions of dollars and hiring dozens of attorneys in scores of law suits brought against him from coast to coast in order to not have to show the only document that would establish his eligibility legally.

People keep asking for proof and the facts regarding this matter for a reason.

Could it be that is because some people think adjectives are subsitutes for the facts and the law?

Could be.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Apparently you haven't read the petition that over 400,000 people signed.

Big Whoopee......let's assume not a single one of those petitioners signed the thing for kicks and grins, to get their co-worker to shut up, thought it was a hoot.....whatever.

The NIMH estimates that 25% of the population over 18 yrs of age suffers from some mental disorder at any given time NIMH. We'll take that figure and discount 100,000 of those petitioners. Then, let's consider how "unweighted" a petition inherently is presented. Aw nevermind......you, nor any other mental dustbin would give a hoot anyway.

No Offense but that seems like a pretty low shot in what has been an otherwise civilised debate. Who are you to say that anyone who believes this is mentally challenged or mentally ill? Are you privvy to all of our thoughts and desires? I don't think so...

reply to post by vkey08


It's not a "low shot" at all when the intent is to point out that 25% of any group may not be in their right mind. Furthermore, I could gather a petition in support of some of the most disgusting acts you could imagine.....all I need to do is put the petition in front of the right people. In most cases, "petitions" are no better than targeted polling. The total number of people that signed that petition fails to illustrate the number of people who would simply walk away, muttering, "what a bunch of fruitcakes." And, I'll bet my last dollar I could circulate a petition to just drop the entire cartoon and easily double that amount.

And you haven't been around long enough to see my best "low shots."

Originally posted by MrPenny
The NIMH estimates that 25% of the population over 18 yrs of age suffers from some mental disorder at any given time NIMH. We'll take that figure and discount 100,000 of those petitioners. Then, let's consider how "unweighted" a petition inherently is presented. Aw nevermind......you, nor any other mental dustbin would give a hoot anyway.

I must say that I am truly impressed MrPenny. How is it the "you, nor any other mental dustbin" comment remains here? I will chalk it up to my lack of understanding the "Civility and Decorum are Required" thread. Cheers MrP!

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by rnaa

 

Seems pretty simple to me. Just who declared this person to be the end all to make such a statement?

The People of Hawai'i.

And the Attorney General of the State of Hawai'i (a Republican) endorsed it.

And the People of your fine State, what ever that is, has appointed a person to be the official State Archivist (under what ever title of office the State has chosen) to do exactly the same thing on your behalf.

Why is it we can't believe what politicians et al have to say, yet this persons' words are golden? Says who? Under what authority?

And why are so many just willing to sit back and take their word for it? Because it fits their agenda?

It's just all too convenient now, isn't it? He is nothing more than another shill, probably paid, at that.

At some point you just have to accept that professionals do their job in a professional manner. 300 million people just cannot personally inspect the document.

The funny thing the blind cannot see is that by declaring such a statement, when they prior had claimed they are not allowed to release said information, have completely negated their argument to privacy. Once some disclosure is made, real or alleged, they are required by default to disclose it all.

There is no conflict at all. Dr. Fukino released no information that wasn't already public knowledge, she only confirmed, guaranteed, in fact, that the information already in the public domain was correct.

Especially since not even the Supreme Court can settle on a decision of "Natural Born". This official completely lost credibility with the utterance of that phrase. He has *zero* authority to even make it.

Actually, the Supreme Court has done exactly that on several occasions.

And we should just "trust" him. Shyeah, right, you go for it.

Her.

Just a shell game, friend.

And you are the shell, being pushed around and palmed and kept in the dark by the puppetmasters who are training you to distrust Government while they use it suck you and your fellow taxpayers dry.

[edit on 24/10/2009 by rnaa]

For those of you who swear by WND.com (Weapons of News Destruction)

BEHOLD!

However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

www.wnd.com...

reply to post by whatukno


I swear by courts of law where you have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You know those official constitutionaly empowered places that use real brick and mortar buildings usually attached to jail cells for the criminally minded that aren't virtual but real as the day is long when eating a baloney sandwich.

Speaking of baloney.

Barack Hussein Obama continues to spend millions of dollars and is hiring dozens of attorneys in scores of law suits to keep from having to show a constitutionally empowerd real judge this document that all these virtual url's all claim they have seen.

Wow either Obama really likes the Internet or really fears the Court System.

Since the Internet isn't a court of law though, I think it would be real wise of him TO STOP DIVIDING the nation, and stop spending so much of the tax payer's money to keep from having to show a judge the original source document that is the only one that will establish his eligibility for office that NO ONE IS CLAIMING TO HAVE SEEN.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Come back and use this argument once you understand the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Or the 4th Amendment for that matter. Birthers are quite happy to throw those two out just to get the "Evil Obama" out of office.

So please spare me the "Obama is defending himself he must be guilty!" line, it does not work. Besides the fact that Obama is not exactly a poor person. I am sure that he has enough money from his book sales alone to cover lawyer fees.

I think the real conspiracy is the fact that Birthers don't like the US Constitution. And in fact are trying hard to eliminate precisely the two amendments that keep the US from being a total police state.

Think about it, the two US Constitutional amendments #4, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and #6 right to an attorney. Something that a police state would love to take away from each citizen. And those are exactly the two things that birthers want destroyed so they can "get Obama" Hmm yes I think I understand the people behind this conspiracy better.

So the question to birthers is, why do you hate and want to destroy the bill of rights?

reply to post by whatukno


Once again (a.) Obama is a government official not a private citizen.

Once again (b.) millions of Americans have to show the same requested documents to qualify for employment every year and no employer allows you to submit a URL of a altered facimile of your Birth Certificate.

Once again (c.) your opinions are not fact (though you are entitled to them)

Once again (d.) facts are established in courts of law

Once again (e.) Obama is spending millions of dollars in dozens of law suits to avoid having to show the same document millions of Americans have to every year to be elligble for employment.

Once again (f.) ordinary Americans who can't show the document in it's original unaltered physical form can't be hired!

As far as Obama's money he has never held a real job, but simply has always either been the beneficiary of Government or private foundational grants, or government pay checks. Any money he has made on book deals is writing about how the government gives him grants and how he works as a politician.

His whole livelihood his entire life has been based off of the government dime or derived off of him talking about making dimes from the government.

Either millions of Americans are having their rights violated every year when being asked to establish their citizenship for employment, or Obama is violating millions of Americans rights to know if he is eligible for office and since he has never shown anyone the original source document who is an official and is paying millions of dollars in attorney fees to try to keep from having to shoe it to an official I am betting it's Obama who is trampling on everyone's constitutional rights to have a constitutionally elligible leader.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


So instead of answering why you hate the bill of rights, you instead decided to deflect and dodge the question entirely. Hmmm.

So the truth must then be, Birthers have absolutely no concern about finding the truth. It's more about destroying the bill of rights and thus turn the US into a Police state.

Glad you cleared that up for us.

reply to post by whatukno


Sounds like a lot of rediculous and desperate deflection to get away from the fact that someone is spending millions of dollars to try to skirt the eligibility requirements to hold a job.

Just so you know, you actually have to show the same document to get a job at a McDonalds mopping floors. Your argument that the President whose own Grandmother says he was born in Kenya shouldn't have to based on the bill of rights is about the most rediculous attempt at deflection from a criminal's treasonous and wanton selfish and dishonest behavior I have ever seen.

By the way convicted felons loose all their rights. Of course people found guilty of high treason loose a lot more.

No wonder you are trying to deflect.

Obama is clearly afraid of the consequences of showing his birth certificate. If he wasn't he wouldn't be spending millions of dollars to not too.