AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

reply to post by oneclickaway


I am not bored with this subject, I am just the opposition. To tell me that if I don't like a subject, to go away and post somewhere else is quite fascist of you.

My stance is this, it's quite simple, no where in the US constitution does it specifically state what form of identification is Prima facie evidence to prove the Jus Soli of Obama.

So the Long Form BC is not needed because a perfectly adequate and verified COLB has been released to the public. Whether you believe that evidence is not my problem, it's not the court's problem, and it's not Nancy Pelosi's problem.

The only reason that people are insistent on the Long Form Birth Certificate is specifically to harass the doctor that helped birth Obama. They want the doctors name so they can endlessly annoy and harass that man into trying to "admit" he did not bring Obama into this world. If the man is dead, it would be further proof of a cover up.

Want to look at this progressively throughout the timeline and see that I am telling you the truth?

During the campaign, questions about both Obama and McCain's eligibility came up. McCain was born in Panama, and Obama was born to a Kenyan and an American in Hawaii.

So both McCain and Obama showed their representative RNC/DNC chairpersons a copy of their birth certificate. All is well and good. McCain, being born on a US military base to two Americans quelled anyone's questions whether or not he was eligible for the position. It would have been the same for Obama, except, well it wasn't.

So Obama releases a scanned copy of this birth certificate online. This only fuels the conspiracy because 1. it had no folds 2. it was not signed, and 3. it did not have the raised seal.

So FactCheck.org went and examined the BC itself. Took pictures of it, and made that public. Still not good enough.

Snoops.com investigated, and so did PolitiFact.com, all three came to the conclusion that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and is perfectly eligible for the office of the POTUS.

Furthermore, Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health verified that the state of Hawaii has Obama’s Original birth certificate on file. Even released a statement to that effect. hawaii.gov...

But despite all of that evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii. Still there are a select few individuals that persist on needing more proof. They will latch onto anything that supports their side of the argument, no matter how erroneous, no mater how fictitious, and no matter how asinine and we the people on the other side are supposed to believe you when you say that the release of the long form birth certificate will settle this matter?

Then to have the audacity to tell me to piss off and go find somewhere else to post because I don't agree with you?

Doesn't sound to me like your on the right side of the argument. How is it that the side that does not agree with you can bring much more certified evidence than supposition and deflection? How is it that we on the side that does not believe this horse manure can keep to a story all this time?

In an investigation, one that is guilty cannot keep to a story. The people that believe this nonsense can't keep their story. They can't bring forth evidence that proves their side of the argument. Each time they bring something it's brought down as erroneous and flawed. If the Birthers were truly correct, why isn't it that they can't bring forth any real evidence that can support their case? They want the side that believes that Obama is eligible for his job to provide you with evidence.

The side that believes this horse manure hasn't believed all the real evidence that has been presented thus far, why should this man provide you with further evidence that you will just ignore anyway?

Why should he put the doctor that birthed him in the middle of this molestation of Obama's character?

Frankly why should anyone believe your side?

When your side insists that it's wrong for a person to defend themselves against attacks on their eligibility to be where they are. How is it not an attack against the 6th Amendment to the Constitution? How is it that when your side feels that they have the right to this mans personal papers, it's not an attack against the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?

How can you say that you support the constitution when in fact your trying to destroy two of the most important bill of rights amendments to that constitution just to get at one man that will probably be out in another 3 years?

Especially when that same constitution your destroying in your vain attempt at upholding does not specify what paper a man must have or show to prove his eligibility for office?

If your willing to destroy the constitution just to go after someone you have political differences with, you do not support the constitution. In fact you are an enemy of that constitution and someone that should not be respected. People have died in order to protect and defend that constitution. It's the all important document of our free society. To throw some of it away in a vengeful effort to remove someone from an office is to advocate a police state where no one has rights and protections under the very document you wish to try and uphold.

reply to post by whatukno

I am not bored with this subject, I am just the opposition. To tell me that if I don't like a subject, to go away and post somewhere else is quite fascist of you.

There you go misrepresenting, let alone not comprehending the written word again. Read what you wrote and then what I replied….slowly. As I wrote in my post, I knew there would be one unable to comprehend, and that one was you, I must be psychic.

Well, in your own words….whatukno...

So I am telling you (not you personally Arbitrageur, but birthers in general) to bring actual proof or STFU and GTFO.

So who is the one being abusive huh? Try reading my post again, the meaning may sink in, one day, maybe.

So both McCain and Obama showed their representative RNC/DNC chairpersons a copy of their birth certificate. All is well and good. McCain, being born on a US military base to two Americans quelled anyone's questions whether or not he was eligible for the position. It would have been the same for Obama, except, well it wasn't.

I have no interest in McCain. Where is your evidence that Obama showed anyone a copy of his real birth certificate? Where is your evidence that he was ever vetted by anyone at all?

So FactCheck.org went and examined the BC itself. Took pictures of it, and made that public. Still not good enough.

Did they…where did they go to examine the real original birth certificate? Or are you still talking of a certification of live birth? Are you still talking of a certification which acknowledges that vital records are kept on file as per Hawaiian statute, but that is all? Are you saying that this certification, not certificate, is totally valid, and on what grounds? Are you saying that ‘Filed by Registrar’ is the same as ‘Accepted by State Registrar’?

Furthermore, Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health verified that the state of Hawaii has Obama’s Original birth certificate on file.

Indeed she did. She said Hawaii had the ‘Original birth certificate’ on file, and that is the only certificate, not certification, that anyone who desires the truth, is interested in.

Then to have the audacity to tell me to piss off and go find somewhere else to post because I don't agree with you?

Tsk, cursing again, against the T&C? Best to use people’s words and not just make them up. If you cannot understand and comprehend a post, then it is not without reason to assume that you cannot understand much that you read.
Your quote, your words;

So I am telling you (not you personally Arbitrageur, but birthers in general) to bring actual proof or STFU and GTFO.

Tsk, tsk, So who told who to do anything in juvenile fashion?

Frankly why should anyone believe your side?

I have no interest in what you believe. There are only ‘sides’ for someone who wishes to ‘win’ an argument. Everyone else just wishes for the truth.

Doesn't sound to me like your on the right side of the argument. How is it that the side that does not agree with you can bring much more certified evidence than supposition and deflection? How is it that we on the side that does not believe this horse manure can keep to a story all this time?

I have yet to see a single piece of so called evidence produced that has stood up to scrutiny at all. I should imagine that ‘stories’ are easy to keep to. It would now be nice to have facts and evidence.

Why should he put the doctor that birthed him in the middle of this molestation of Obama's character?

Interesting obsession you have with this supposed doctor. If he exists at all, then your fantasy of some form of harassment exists again, purely in your imagination.

If your willing to destroy the constitution just to go after someone you have political differences with, you do not support the constitution. In fact you are an enemy of that constitution and someone that should not be respected.

You see assumptions are silly, just as assumptions of evidence that has not been produced are silly. You have no idea of my political affiliations at all. This is only a political issue for you, and yet you seem only able to project your own issues onto others while abusing them in juvenile manner.
The bare fact is, if only you could take the blinkers off, that anyone arguing for evidence of eligibility is indeed upholding the constitution. Those that are not are the ones to be criticised. Those that seek to squash all argument about this issue by constantly parroting mistruths are those who do not respect the constitution.

Originally posted by whatukno
Furthermore, Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health verified that the state of Hawaii has Obama’s Original birth certificate on file. Even released a statement to that effect. hawaii.gov...

The thought of harassing the doctor never even crossed my mind, if he's even alive, so i think you're just making stuff up which doesn't help your credibility to make fictitious accusations suggesting I want to harass the doctor.

But as you pointed out there is allegedly proof on file and what I think people seem to have a problem with is that Chiyome Fukino may be one of the only people in the world who gets to see the proof. Maybe you can understand why some people have a problem with that, and maybe you can't but you're right, that's the real issue. Part of the problem is that Fukino's statements have been so vague that I'm not even sure exactly what they have on file. Is it really the long form birth certificate, or something else? We aren't really sure what form this proof even takes but so many people are quite willing to accept this unknown, unseen "proof" as fact based on the word of an official. If you look at history, you would find that historically some officials have later been found to have made some statements that upon further examination turned out to not be true. So I don't buy the argument that taking an official's word for it is just as good as having factcheck.org go and look at the proof Fukino is talking about in the released statements.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


which all boils down to the 4th Amendment to the constitution, and Hawaiian law. You would rather throw out the 4th Amendment to the constitution in your quest to vilify Obama than rely on it to prove your point.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ILLEGALLY SEARCH AND SEIZE ANOTHER AMERICAN'S PERSONAL PAPERS!

You do not have that right. It is nowhere in the constitution that the people have the right to illegally search and seize Obama's personal papers because they feel without evidence or warrant to the contrary that he is not eligible for the office of the POTUS.

It's the 4th Amendment, and if you can't grasp that concept, I dare say you don't have an argument.

Obama has the rights under the constitution which include the bill of rights. If you don't like the bill of rights that is your problem. But I will not compromise our freedoms for an indictment of a person that you feel is ineligible for the office of the presidency.

I will not willingly give up rights people have fought and died for because you have a question. Either go by the constitution that does not state what form of paperwork a person must present to qualify. Or just vote against them in the next election.

But I will not stand by while my constitutional rights are eroded and trampled upon because of some insane quest to answer a question of eligibility. Please don't tell me my 4th Amendment right against illegal search and seizure is less important than your witch hunt. Because it is not.

reply to post by whatukno


The 4th amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So is it unreasonable for the American public to want to see proof of the president's eligibility to hold that office? You claim we already have proof but then you point out that Fukino is the only person to see the proof so you contradict yourself.

You may think it's unreasonable, but your interpretation of the word "unreasonable" isn't the only one that counts. In my interpretation of the word, it's not unreasonable. So no it's not a violation of the 4th amendment despite your assertion otherwise. And if we agree to disagree on this interpretation, then that's what courts are for, and there is a case before Judge Carter now regarding the issue of providing the long form.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So is it unreasonable for the American public to want to see proof of the president's eligibility to hold that office? You claim we already have proof but then you point out that Fukino is the only person to see the proof so you contradict yourself.

I did not contradict myself. You have seen a certified verified copy of Obama's COLB. A document that is perfectly legal to prove eligibility. What you want is the LFBC which Fukino has seen and publicly verified exists.

You may think it's unreasonable, but your interpretation of the word "unreasonable" isn't the only one that counts. In my interpretation of the word, it's not unreasonable. So no it's not a violation of the 4th amendment despite your assertion otherwise. And if we agree to disagree on this interpretation, then that's what courts are for, and there is a case before Judge Carter now regarding the issue of providing the long form.

Go get a warrant then. Try it. But at least follow the constitution. But don't trample on all of our rights to get what you want.

Originally posted by whatukno
You have seen a certified verified copy of Obama's COLB. A document that is perfectly legal to prove eligibility. What you want is the LFBC which Fukino has seen and publicly verified exists.

... at least follow the constitution. But don't trample on all of our rights to get what you want.

where does the constitution describe how to verify eligibility? it says the president has to be a natural born citizen but not the means necessary to determine that. what makes you think the COLB is "legal to prove eligibility"?

Originally posted by earlywatcher

where does the constitution describe how to verify eligibility? it says the president has to be a natural born citizen but not the means necessary to determine that. what makes you think the COLB is "legal to prove eligibility"?

Do you really not see the futility of this question?

But, in fact, the answer is The Constitution of the United States of America, Hawai'i State Law, Federal Law, and International Law

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by whatukno

 

So FactCheck.org went and examined the BC itself. Took pictures of it, and made that public. Still not good enough.

Did they…where did they go to examine the real original birth certificate? Or are you still talking of a certification of live birth? Are you still talking of a certification which acknowledges that vital records are kept on file as per Hawaiian statute, but that is all? Are you saying that this certification, not certificate, is totally valid, and on what grounds? Are you saying that ‘Filed by Registrar’ is the same as ‘Accepted by State Registrar’?

Yes, you know they did. Go read the FactCheck.org article. It has been linked here many times.

The 'certification' you mention is printed on a 'certificate'. And in the image of it that has been published you can see that it clearly describes itself as a 'certificate'. There is no secret code going on here, no playing with words.

The 'original' of which they speak is the 'original document' which is the Birth Certificate that has been released to the public, as opposed to the scanned copy. This is trivially obvious and you are being disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Furthermore, Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health verified that the state of Hawaii has Obama’s Original birth certificate on file.

Indeed she did. She said Hawaii had the ‘Original birth certificate’ on file, and that is the only certificate, not certification, that anyone who desires the truth, is interested in.

And it is just as trivially obvious that here, Fukino is talking about the 'original piece of paper' that the Hospital submitted to the State for registration and which the State has stored in its vaults.

She is certifying that contents of the certificate are an accurate and true copy of the information on that vault document and under Hawai'i State Law (and therefor the Law of the United States of America, and International Law) is valid for all legal purposes where a Birth Certificate is required. There is no secret code going on here.






Edit: I cleaned up the wording of a sentence in my first response above to ensure that it couldn't be read as claiming that the 'image is the certificate'.

[edit on 28/10/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa


of course i see the futility of this question. it's too late. i know that. but it's still a worthwhile question, in the event we have another chance someday. the COLB is a document that will get you a drivers license or even a passport maybe, but there is no clear definition of how to determine if a person is a natural born citizen in terms of eligibility to be president. had the press, whose job it was to "vet" candidates, done their job, this would have been discussed, but for whatever reason they raised no question about it, nor did they reveal many other questionable things that citizens deserved to take into account when voting. but that's not how it went down. obama was elected and sworn in. there is no way to change that fact. our country is changing so rapidly most of us can't keep up. we're picking up speed down a very slippery slope. i hope your country can manage to stay off this track.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by rnaa

 

of course i see the futility of this question. it's too late. i know that. but it's still a worthwhile question, in the event we have another chance someday. the COLB is a document that will get you a drivers license or even a passport maybe, but there is no clear definition of how to determine if a person is a natural born citizen in terms of eligibility to be president. had the press, whose job it was to "vet" candidates, done their job, this would have been discussed, but for whatever reason they raised no question about it, nor did they reveal many other questionable things that citizens deserved to take into account when voting. but that's not how it went down. obama was elected and sworn in. there is no way to change that fact. our country is changing so rapidly most of us can't keep up. we're picking up speed down a very slippery slope. i hope your country can manage to stay off this track.

In the 1780's there was no such thing as a birth certificate. People used Church baptismal records, the family Bible, common knowledge, and like 'unofficial' documentation.

Birth Certificates were 'invented' to provide 'official' documentation.

The futility of your question is not that it is too late to do anything about it, even though it is. Nor even that the question was raised during the campaign, and answered to the satisfaction of every responsible authority, including the Electoral Commissions of all States and Territories and the DNC (and the RNC by the way). Nor even that in spite of those answers not satisfying a claimed 200,000 concerned citizens in a petition to Congress, not one Senator and not one Congressman challenged the eligibility.

The futility of your question is that if an Official Birth Certificate issued by the legally authorized State government, and recognized by all State, Federal and Foreign Governments, is not enough to prove the fact, then there is nothing in existence that can prove it. It then follows that no one can prove anything about anyone. G. W. Bush cannot prove he was eligible, nor Ronnie Reagan, nor Jack Kennedy, nor Woodrow Wilson, nor you, nor I.

reply to post by earlywatcher

where does the constitution describe how to verify eligibility? it says the president has to be a natural born citizen but not the means necessary to determine that. what makes you think the COLB is "legal to prove eligibility"?

Your correct, the constitution does not stipulate what is valid for proof of natural born citizenship. But the Constitution does stipulate something quite important. Seldom is it used here to prove the point but it's time it is.

10th Amendment

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Source: www.archives.gov...

So as we can see here, it's up to the states to determine what qualifies as proof of natural born status. The state that specifies this in this particular case is Hawaii. Hawaii has fully acknowledged that Obama was born in Hawaii and has issued a legal document showing to that effect.

The COLB does state in fact that it is a legal document to prove that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii and it in fact is prima facie evidence to fully qualify Obama for the office that he was elected to.

Now before you start whining about the last 4 words in the 10th Amendment, it specifies the states get those rights before the people do. The state of Hawaii in this case has jurisdiction above the people.

reply to post by whatukno


I just wanted to take a brief moment so my anti-Birther friends wouldn't think I am neglecting them. How fond I have become of you who believe that De Nile doesn't belong in Egypt but here in the United States.

Oh yeah and to remind you that your hodge podge desperate assortment of incomplete and suppositional arguments still can't over come the fact that...

Obama is none the less spending millions of dollars in a desperate bid to surpress this document you claim he has plastered all over the internet but refuses for some strange reason (like being hung for fraud and Hight Treason) to show it in dozens of lawsuits by hiring scores of attorneys to keep it from being actually seen by any one who is actually constitutionally empowered (not to be confused with internet or media empowered) to rule on it's authenticity and validity and by subsequent extenstion his eligibility to be President.

I know that glaring fact and reminder bothers you guys but hey we all love one another...

Who wants to sing the Barney Song?

You guys after all do love the Blarney Song!

I love Barrack, but Barrack doesn't love me
He's out spending my money and causing me
To have to defend him here on ATS
Next to him Protoplasmic Traveler is second best!

Great job guys, till tomorrow!

[edit on 29/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Obama is none the less spending millions of dollars in a desperate bid to surpress this document you claim he has plastered all over the internet but refuses for some strange reason (like being hung for fraud and Hight Treason) to show it in dozens of lawsuits by hiring scores of attorneys to keep it from being actually seen by any one who is actually constitutionally empowered (not to be confused with internet or media empowered) to rule on it's authenticity and validity and by subsequent extenstion his eligibility to be President.

It's funny how this nonsense keeps growing the more and more you tell it.

This is how you can tell it's a lie. First it started off with 1.4 million dollars and an attorney, then it's a few million dollars and a team of attorneys, now it's millions of dollars and scores of lawyers.

Next its going to be the only cause of the national debt and he will have the entire bar association behind him litigating for this issue.



People who tell the truth can keep to their story. People who lie can't.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Obama is none the less spending millions of dollars in a desperate bid to surpress this document you claim he has plastered all over the internet but refuses for some strange reason (like being hung for fraud and Hight Treason) to show it in dozens of lawsuits by hiring scores of attorneys to keep it from being actually seen by any one who is actually constitutionally empowered (not to be confused with internet or media empowered) to rule on it's authenticity and validity and by subsequent extenstion his eligibility to be President.

It's funny how this nonsense keeps growing the more and more you tell it.

This is how you can tell it's a lie. First it started off with 1.4 million dollars and an attorney, then it's a few million dollars and a team of attorneys, now it's millions of dollars and scores of lawyers.

Next its going to be the only cause of the national debt and he will have the entire bar association behind him litigating for this issue.

People who tell the truth can keep to their story. People who lie can't.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by whatukno]

Oh is that why you guys keep talking about three different birth certificates and 18 different websites they have been posted on and 29 press statements?

You know I kind of thought it had something to do with that. Glad to see you admit it.

The lawsuits are a fact friend. Don't you wish they weren't! You could be posting on other fun topics all the time like me, instead of here trying to defend a fraud and a forger!

Keep singing that Blarney Song!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Oh is that why you guys keep talking about three different birth certificates and 18 different websites they have been posted on and 29 press statements?

We actually post links to those sites so that you can see for yourself. We don't just assume. Point of fact, I believe it's 3 websites, and 1 press statement. But keep up your outright lies.

The lawsuits are a fact friend. Don't you wish they weren't! You could be posting on other fun topics all the time like me, instead of here trying to defend a fraud and a forger!

Actually you are correct there are lawsuits, but it doesn't add up to millions of dollars with a slew of lawyers. You fail each time to source your references. Fact is you haven't as far as I can remember sourced anything as proof of your allegations. Don't get me wrong PT I like you, but I have to point out that your outright lying on this issue. Not just exaggerating the facts, plain outright lying.

Central District Court of California dismisses "birther" lawsuit challenging President Obama's citizenship.

6 minutes ago from BNO Headquarters

Looks like the final case is now over.... so this can be put to rest methinks. Noone is going to hear it, noone is going to challenge it and I think noone cares to at this point.. Sad but, this is how it looks.

reply to post by rnaa

Yes, you know they did. Go read the FactCheck.org article. It has been linked here many times.

Maybe you should go read Factcheck, as they originally stated the ‘fact’ that Obama, or whoever he is, was a British citizen at birth by dint of his father’s Kenyan citizenship.

The 'certification' you mention is printed on a 'certificate'. And in the image of it that has been published you can see that it clearly describes itself as a 'certificate'. There is no secret code going on here, no playing with words.

The certification of live birth is completely different from a certificate of live birth.

The 'original' of which they speak is the 'original document' which is the Birth Certificate that has been released to the public, as opposed to the scanned copy. This is trivially obvious and you are being disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Don’t be more ridiculous than is necessary. The ‘original’ is the original paper long form birth certificate….not a computer generated certification of live birth. If you do not have the mental capacity to even grasp that simple fact then it is no wonder that you are so very confused.

She is certifying that contents of the certificate are an accurate and true copy of the information on that vault document and under Hawai'i State Law (and therefor the Law of the United States of America, and International Law) is valid for all legal purposes where a Birth Certificate is required. There is no secret code going on here.

She is not speaking at all about the computer generated image that appeared on Factcheck, which you allude to. She is not certifying that the contents of the certification of live birth, computer generated image that appeared on Factcheck is accurate or a copy, whether true or not of the original certificate held on file. In fact I believe they said they could not verify what that image was at all. What she is saying is that they hold the original vital records. What that original says is anyone’s guess.

The futility of your question is not that it is too late to do anything about it, even though it is. Nor even that the question was raised during the campaign, and answered to the satisfaction of every responsible authority, including the Electoral Commissions of all States and Territories and the DNC (and the RNC by the way). Nor even that in spite of those answers not satisfying a claimed 200,000 concerned citizens in a petition to Congress, not one Senator and not one Congressman challenged the eligibility.

It is not too late to do anything about it, unless martial law is declared first. Where is any evidence at all that this was answered to the satisfaction of anyone? Where is your evidence that all states ever saw any evidence that he was eligible, or indeed that anyone saw evidence? The fact that not one senator or congressman challenged the eligibility is meaningless. If I stole your car and 300 witnesses chose not to incriminate me in that crime, that would not mean that I had not stolen the car. What it might mean is firstly that none of them do their jobs properly, which is highly likely looking at them all playing patience on their computers. And secondly that their continued success depends on their popularity. That popularity would have been severely harmed as all the idiots cried racist at them.

reply to post by vkey08

Looks like the final case is now over.... so this can be put to rest methinks. Noone is going to hear it, noone is going to challenge it and I think noone cares to at this point.. Sad but, this is how it looks.

Another cowardly judge then and sad indictment of the judicial system. This will never go away, it will never be put to rest.
When Americans are all wearing little chinese tunics and lining up in food queues, the naysayers cannot say they were not warned.

What does Opra say?
Send that link off to her in an email.
Media control for the Windy City.
How much does the truth cost because those with lies are in charge of America.