New Evidence Emerges On Obama's Background!!!

reply to post by On the Edge


unfortunately if you google it further it was already proven to be an Australian mans BC. when you find a source google that source in this case orly taitz and make sure it is credible. not picking a side just pointing it out.

Originally posted by joel.ohman
reply to post by On the Edge

 

unfortunately if you google it further it was already proven to be an Australian mans BC. when you find a source google that source in this case orly taitz and make sure it is credible. not picking a side just pointing it out.

Very good point. Let's all take a look at that original, shall we?

Australian Birth Certificate

Now why would that look more like a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by joel.ohman
reply to post by On the Edge

 

unfortunately if you google it further it was already proven to be an Australian mans BC. when you find a source google that source in this case orly taitz and make sure it is credible. not picking a side just pointing it out.

Very good point. Let's all take a look at that original, shall we?

Australian Birth Certificate

Now why would that look more like a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone?

Not quite sure where you're going there KJ, but if it proves anything, a birth certificate is just a bit of paper, just like history books, but nothing more.

Originally posted by smurfy
Not quite sure where you're going there KJ, but if it proves anything, a birth certificate is just a bit of paper, just like history books, but nothing more.

Not sure where I am going? What did you miss? That birth certificate that Orly presented as showing Obama being born in Mumbassa is obviously an exact copy of an Australian birth certificate. Do you believe that Mumbassa and Australia use the exact same form?

I have to admit I have no idea where you are going either. Yes it is just a piece of paper. A piece of paper that proves where you were born. Obama's proves he was born in Hawaii. Where are you going?

[edit on 10-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]

You misunderstand me, your post above my last post could be confusing to some in the way of comparisons in that the African document could only ever be compared to the Australian one in any case, and never to the Hawiian one. Because we both assume that the Hawiian document is the proper one, doesn't mean that others will take a different view for whatever reason.

and i think everyone missed my point, i was only pointing out that the news link that was posted that i replied to was outdated and already clearly been dis-proven even orly doesnt deny that orly only denies involvement in the creation of the fraudulent BC

and further clarification since i said i was not picking sides so let us not turn this into another citizen at birth/ natural born citizen debate i was just saying check sources to make sure that their isnt anything newer then what you are posting that might make yourself look foolish is al.

Originally posted by joel.ohman
and further clarification since i said i was not picking sides so let us not turn this into another citizen at birth/ natural born citizen debate i was just saying check sources to make sure that their isnt anything newer then what you are posting that might make yourself look foolish is al.

Hi Joel,
That is exactly the reason for my post to KJ,( whom I'm actually in agreement with in the main) it's not so much as getting the truth, but making your own mind up as to what the truth is. I know what my birth certificate says as to where I was born, but at the time, or even now I don't have a clue, except what I have been told. You have to presume that applies to everyone.

Originally posted by smurfy
You misunderstand me, your post above my last post could be confusing to some in the way of comparisons in that the African document could only ever be compared to the Australian one in any case, and never to the Hawiian one.

Then you are even more confused because that is actually the case. It CAN ONLY BE COMPARED to the Australian one. Hawaiian BCs do not look like that. Kenyan BCs do not look like that. Australian ones DO. What is the confusion you are suffering?

Because we both assume that the Hawiian document is the proper one, doesn't mean that others will take a different view for whatever reason.

Not sure how you come to that from that at all. I think the only one confused here is you. You can easily check these things out, you know.

Originally posted by smurfy
Hi Joel,
That is exactly the reason for my post to KJ,( whom I'm actually in agreement with in the main) it's not so much as getting the truth, but making your own mind up as to what the truth is. I know what my birth certificate says as to where I was born, but at the time, or even now I don't have a clue, except what I have been told. You have to presume that applies to everyone.

This is not some piece of modern art. This is something that can be empirically checked. What are you so confused about? Rather, what is it you are so worried someone else would be confused about that you are speaking up about?

oh and here is a lovely little tid bit

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." [60] The vote passed 378-0.


now are we still going to have people argue with the whole house of representatives......

reply to post by kozmo


Funny, I just looked up Obama's record and there are no pending hearings against him. Now of course you will say, "There was an pending hearing, but then he 'retired'"

iardc.org...

Now, when did he "retire"? When he was elected to the legistlature? Why would he keep it, if he was an elected representative? I am sure he would have to pay fees to the bar, and probably malpractice insurance. So if he was not going to be practicing law, "retiring" was a smart move.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]

I just posted this on another similar thread and thought it would fit in here as well.

Since this thread is still limping along, allow me to introduce the notion once again that contradictions exist between Obama's personal accounts in his memoirs and the statements made by those close to him. Especially statements made by his beloved wife, partner and confidant.

These are the words spoken by Michelle Obama during a July 10 2008 round table discussion at the University Of Missouri.

So those are some of the struggles. These are the types of struggles that we hear all over the country. And the struggles aren't new to me, not new to anyone in this room, but I want people to understand these struggles certainly aren't new to my husband, Barack. He understands the struggles. He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother. [applause] Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.

blog.showmeprogress.com...

Did you catch that?? "Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him" /VERY YOUNG AND VERY SINGLE. No mention of Barack Sr. the alleged father!!

And you all wonder why people question his history!! His own wife doesn't even know his story. Or does she?? She just forgot to say what she was supposed to say according to Obama's potentially fabricated or factually stretched memoirs.

OK defenders of the Obamanation. I suppose you will just say that Michelle simply misspoke. All is well. Sleep tight.

blog.showmeprogress.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by dontbelievehype
I'm interested in seeing the way in which the pro Obama posters mostly assert back at posters they say are reproducing assertions and lies.

No - I'm not a Republican/Democrat. Yes - I'm a moderate libertarian as those of you who check out my replies to threads that say you can just walk into a court of law and be above its jurisdiction etc will see.

Do I like Obama? No because he's just another Tricky Dicky except in a different way but that's a fact of life for politicians in top positions. Lying is a way of life in the political sphere.

But some of you Obama defenders sound like pieces of work who believe that your political beliefs justify the weird concealment of our President's past.

All over this board some of you push and push like cheap crack the notion that anybody who wants to go digging into Obama's fairly murky past in some ways is a 'nut'. Yep that's what happens when ordinary citizens want to know more or know more than what the powers that be tolerate.

Those surrounding those in power will ruthlessly attempt to stifle and kill any facts that bring up realities that don't reflect well on or could unseat their boss.

So - I agree that some of the anti Obama material is lacking in substance. Some of it is half baked stuff like the whole Professor 'controversy'. But since you Obama supporters are parading around a "Certification of Birth' please answer these questions.

I am just another thinking person who is not convinced that a man like Obama with his aliases, Indonesian documents stating he is a Muslim, British subject father, adopted by mother's Indonesian husband etc etc makes a legitimate native born President or somebody who has integrity.

Certification of Birth: Go to the Obama Timeline by Don Fredrick on the net. He is a conservative anti socialist but not a 'nut' - his extensive piece (which is available in book form I think) rakes up some interesting information.

According to him, Obama's half Indonesian sister also has a Certification of Birth as do other people despite the fact she was nowhere near Hawaii when she was born. For whatever reason as he says (probably population boosting stats for taxation purpose) Hawaii issued such certificates, including to Chinese leader Sun Yat Sen.

BUT this is not the original birth certificate. It is a document that says the birth was registered in Hawaii.

There's too much interesting stuff in his article to comment on and reproduce here - I'll save that for later.

Yet the Obama camp and their friends in the media responded with righteous indignation pre election to suggestions that he knew this radical except that the ex prisoner sat at the same table at some function.

Clearly there is so much dilution of truth going on. Obama's trails haven't gone cold because some people like Fredrick have done their research. Obama has tried to cover up his Marxism, he has sealed his probably mediocre academic records but there's so many other question marks.

When he finishes office it will all be aired out. Too late.

As for Bush supposedly getting a pass - horsemanure. Remember Fortunate Son? Will anybody be able to get a similar expose of Obama published?

Democrats/the Left/other Liberals did nothing but villify him for his two terms and the media lent a lot of their support to it.

So to the Obamers - what can you counter with apart from smearing everybody else as 'nuts' and 'liars?

Great post. This raises an important issue, too. Why is it that we (the citizenry) have been reduced to being the armchair investigators of possible crimes within our executive branch of government? I would think that we should have an honest investigation unhampered by "national security" and carried out effectively, but instead we are left with a plethora of loose ends and contempt from those who sadly have succumbed to despotism and allowed propaganda to sway their opinion. The man (Barry) is a liar. It's simple.