The FACTS ----confirm Obama born in U.S.A-CASE CLOSED******

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Here You Go

Interesting questions raised from Canada Free Press

THANK YOU!!! i was looking for this 'cause factcheck.org is ran by a buddy of Obama's!!!!

which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a “truth”-detecting site that is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a research project in Chicago. In other words, the least credible source!

I couldn't remember why I couldn't trust that site any more after hearing that.

Star for you!

reply to post by evil incarnate


My apologies, friend, for the misleading nature of that first part. I meant it mostly as a joke in reference to sites that try to throw you off with their title. Sorry dude..my bad. Also, I just don't believe it very reasonable, especially for this site, to trust any site on such a topic.

Again, I offer my apologies. By "Live Birth Certificate" I meant a Certification of Live Birth (I'm sure you can understand my mistake), which is still a short version of the long page certificate.

Haha, sure. Like Hawaii. Or anywhere else in the world as far as we the people have knowledge of.

Precisely. We know when he was born and to whom, but I believe the debate is on where.

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

That's great for 2007. We're talking about 1961 and people who were actually there at Obama's birth.

So you want to see the signature of time travelers? What you are saying makes no sense at all. The birth certificate you are looking at is not the original birth registration. It is a BIRTH CERTIFICATE that was issued in 2007. If you can not accept that for what it is, then all birth certificates are invalid, thus all presidents past, present, and apparently future.

Also, that person resealed the files, resealed the vault and has refused to release the records.

So what? The images are still out there for all to see. Were you planning on a trip to go touch it and feel it for yourself? Let me know when that is so I can go play with your confidential, private, government records as well.

All they have done is put an official stamp on a piece of paper that has said "yes, I've seen. Just trust me. Now go back to sleep".

Wow. Just wow. I am amazed at the level of thinking that goes into the birther conspiracy. A birth certificate is - A CERTIFIED PIECE OF PAPER WITH A STAMP AND SIGNATURE THAT SIMPLY STATES "I (THE SIGNED) HAVE SEEN THE OFFICIAL BIRTH REGISTRATION, IT EXISTS, NO GO BACK TO SLEEP!!!!"

That is what a birth certificate is. You are not looking for any kind of truth, you are just looking to hate for no reason. How about in 2 years you come and tell me he should not be re-elected and this is all you got. See how that goes.

Um, no. Fail.

Ya shore did!

Originally posted by justinsweatt
I already did and you're trolling and I'm disengaging from this discussion with you.

No you did not and I have been responding to you. Apparently you do not know what trolling is either. Does anyone know you are getting access to a computer at the facility?

You know that I have because you have gone back and edited responses to those links after the fact.

Shoe me what I edited after the fact. I wrote two more lines in one post while you were responding to it. I cannot help it if you could not wait one minute but there was nothing deceptive there. All other edits were to fix a link or grammar. I changed no responses to any links. I am not even sure what that means since you never gave any links but hey, whatever.

And why would I lay claim to questions that were better asked by other people.

I do not know why you would come to a forum and ask stupid questions then?

People use other sources and other questions (like Jim Marrs used Jim Garrison's questions for his own book, Crossfire) to back up a certain side of the debate that they are on.

You used nothing. You demanded links from me all while supplying none of your own.

But you and I are done. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

Of course not. You were not interested in reality.

Good night and good luck.

Enemied and now on Ignore status.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by justinsweatt]

Enemied? I guess it really upsets birthers to be confronted by facts?

Originally posted by Elieser
Here is a link that debunks the Hawaii birth certificate and it goes in to great details on how it was done and by whom.
The hyperlinks is not working right, here is the url, it is worth reading.
israelinsider.com...

Many things wrong with that story.

-It came out before the photographs were made available and relies on speculation about the original SCAN that was released. The photographs to not display any of what he claims the evidence is of the scan.
-There is not one bit of evidence or proof of anything. The article is simple someone saying something and asking you to just believe it.
-If there is any truth to the story at all, why is Jay McKinnon not in prison or at least on trial for forging the presidents birth certificate?

Originally posted by Elieser

Here is another link, I believe it is the same info from the previous link but from the Free Republic wesite.
Freerepublic.com

I don't know who to believe.

From the two articles

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist

He is a blogger that made a claim. Has he proven he has any training from DHS?

He also never directly admitted anything. He used a photoshop program to make a blank BC. I can do that now if you like. He then offered up the blank one and claimed he was a document expert.

Claims, just claims.

Why would you NOT believe the claims of state officials but you are open to the possibility some anonymous blogger is telling any truth?

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
www.factcheck.org...

Since the original has NEVER been released,

TO ANYONE,

I call FactCheck LIARS.

And, please, folks? FactCheck is FUNDED by the Annenberg Foundation, the same people who brought you ACORN, with all of it's lies and fraud.

More and more, I've noticed that finding any truth on the web is getting harder and harder. I type in valid search terms, but what is returned on the search is pure garbage ~ NO results from even semi-"reputable" sources, just from the two extremes, and then it's off into chaos.

Be careful what you believe, peeps. YOU're going to have to do some pretty intensive research, study and THINKING in order to be able to discern the truth. If it's EASY to find? Odds are, it's just more lies, slanted one way or the other.

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Here You Go

Interesting questions raised from Canada Free Press

THANK YOU!!! i was looking for this 'cause factcheck.org is ran by a buddy of Obama's!!!!

I guess I will just reply to that link to you since responding to people that have me on ignore is no fun.

which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a “truth”-detecting site

I couldn't remember why I couldn't trust that site any more after hearing that.

Star for you!

Right, because people who have loose connections out of thousands of other people with said connections, the facts must change right?

I gave her my mother’s first name and her father’s last name. Within four minutes, she said, “Here it is!” When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: “That’s nothing…we’re routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!” Total time it took me to find my mother’s 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!

So the article begins by asking you to just believe a couple of things.

1. That the author knows what a real birth certificate is. As this thread and many others on ATS have shown, many birthers do not. Many of them actually have stated that the one with footprints is the only valid type and I would really enjoy seeing them try to use one in Arizona since those are considered novelties and not legal proof of anything. There are more than enough people claiming they cannot believe it because it is just something saying I saw it. That is what a birth certificate is. There is a difference between a birth certificate and a birth registration that many do not seem to understand. Then there is that vast majority that do not even understand why a short form is a legal birth certificate and although some states only issue them, insist they are not legit. Hare do just take the author's word that we are talking about the same reality.

2. That the author actually got Ma's Birth Certificate. Where is it? None of you are willing to believe Obama's and you can see that one but this person can just say they got one in 4 minutes and you do not need any proof of that?

So it was quite curious that not one cyber-sleuth could find an authentic, verifiable copy of his original vault copy birth certificate.

How is that even remotely curious? Unless you have put your birth registration or certificate online, it is not. No matter how computer savvy you are, you cannot find things that are not stored online. That is just plain stupid. The next few lines just elaborate on how Factcheck.org is almost a terrorist organization. Really?

I’m not talking about the faux version Obama posted on his website, which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a “truth”-detecting site that is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a research project in Chicago. In other words, the least credible source!

Wow, what unbiased, fact supported truth. The article also asserts that it is fake with no evidence whatsoever. Why do you birthers need way more than too much evidence from Obama but NONE at all from these people that write these articles?

Even more significant is that no one in the media thought Obama’s missing birth certificate worth even casual mention. Their thinking seemed to be: If we’re not going to check on his eligibility to be president, then why question why the other crucial documents were—and continue to be—sealed? For instance: his baptism certificate; elementary, high school, college and graduate school transcripts; visa(s); selective service record; alleged multiple Social Security numbers; Illinois attorney’s license; Illinois State Senate records; law practice client list; Univ. of Chicago scholarly articles; financial records while a community organizer in Chicago; and medical records. I’m also curious about why Michelle Obama’s law license was suspended in 1993 by the Illinois Supreme Court, but then again she wasn’t running for president.

Supposed multiple SSNs? LOL. Seeing as how all those things were available before the election, this is a really lame sticking point. Basically what they are saying is that they did not bother to look at what they wanted to before hand when they should have so now it is a good excuse to whine.

Please tell me what anyone hopes to prove from his elementary school records? Baptism certificate? Seriously, folks.

Instead, the media were frantically busy trying to divert public attention away from those pesky things known as credentials with gossip-driven tabloid reportage of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in order to avoid the bigger-than-Watergate potential scandal of whether or not Obama was eligible—according to the U.S. Constitution—to become President of the United States!

Oh yeah, poor Joe the plumber. Sorry if I have a hard time expecting any truth from an article praising Joe the Plumber who was neither named Joe, nor a plumber. LOL!

According to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated:

* A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job.
* FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine “look mild” in comparison to other consequences.
* In at least one corporate TV headquarters, memos were circulated to all on-air employees not to mention the birth certificate issue, as well as other specific subjects like Obama’s Illinois lawyer’s license, his college records, etc., under both implied and explicit threats.

What major talk show host? Again, no evidence is cool with you all?
Who got these FCC threats and where is the documentation?
Which corporate hq?

Still, no need for facts for any of you guys eh?

It does not really get any better from there. If anyone really thinks there is a good or valid question or point in that article, I would love to have it pointed out to me.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by fyrenza


Since the original has NEVER been released,

TO ANYONE,

I call FactCheck LIARS.

What do you mean by original and could you please provide information from the State of Hawaii about that?

And, please, folks? FactCheck is FUNDED by the Annenberg Foundation, the same people who brought you ACORN, with all of it's lies and fraud.

Then it should be really easy to prove, shouldn't it?

More and more, I've noticed that finding any truth on the web is getting harder and harder. I type in valid search terms, but what is returned on the search is pure garbage ~ NO results from even semi-"reputable" sources, just from the two extremes, and then it's off into chaos.

We all know that BP is actively buying up search terms so I am sure they are not the only ones. If you need google to research for you, then you have an issue. Finding out about Birth Certificates and the state of Hawaii are pretty easy things to do, even without the internet.

Be careful what you believe, peeps. YOU're going to have to do some pretty intensive research, study and THINKING in order to be able to discern the truth. If it's EASY to find? Odds are, it's just more lies, slanted one way or the other.

So you are not going to bother doing any research are you?

reply to post by evil incarnate


Are any of you guys going to answer the questions I've raised concerning these facts:

1. A Judge sealed the records
2. Obama has paid more than a million dollars having attorneys seal his student records.
3. An EO making sure that they remain sealed. Conflict of interest, anyone? And just because Bush did the same criminal activity does not give Obama a pass.

Secondly, there is A GINORMOUS amount of epic fail on the part of Obama that will keep me from voting for him. For example:

1) the escalation of two illegal wars
2) the complete erosion of our civil liberties
3) executive orders that violate due process
4) massive contributions from Wall Street/Goldman Sachs/BP
5) massive amounts of unemployment that government "stimulus" has failed to correct because those bills put the tax money back into Wall Street and not the hands of the people that actually need it.

While I find the birth certificate issue interesting, it's not the reason why I won't vote for him. I can come up with about 100 reasons not vote for him, just like I'll come up with about 100 reasons not to vote for his republican counterparts either.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


For the last time, yes I did provide you with links because the user Dragnet up there put it in quotations to let you know that links have been provided a plenty. Just trusting a government official's "word" is not enough, especially when everything surrounding the document has been "sealed". Remember the last time that happened? That thing called the Warren Commission? Another poster here rightly pointed out that the person who is doing the vetting is appointed by the very person in question. That's suspect to some of us whether you want to see it or not. I think you are blinded by your hatred for people who are interested in this matter so be aware that we all have things that we feel passionately about. You can also see my posts on other threads that are actually quite critical of the policies that Obama is implementing. I disagree with his war hawk nonsense, his state department/Brizienski mandates, his erosion of civil liberties, his willingness to sell out to nefarious corporate elements, etc, etc, etc.

To clear another thing up, I don't hate Obama. Why would I actually hate the guy? I dislike his politics, his stances on several issues that are important to me, and his almost complete similarity to Richard Nixon. I'm sure he's an alright guy, I just have intense philosophical difference of opinion with the guy and I'm not sure that he's legal in the eyes of the US Constitution to be President because there are so many questions as to where he was born. Again, to me. That's fine if it's no question to you but I don't think it's a clear cut and dried case here for a number of us.

Again, the government has hid things that were heinous from the public before that have come out years later on record, with two examples being Tuskeegee and MK Ultra. Those are fact.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by justinsweatt]

Please tell me what anyone hopes to prove from his elementary school records? Baptism certificate? Seriously, folks.

Not his Elementary school records, his collegiate school and entrance records. The main thing that people are concerned with here is that there has been rumor from people at Colombia that Obama put his status down as "foreign exchange student" in order to receive scholarships from the institution. Also, if he did indeed put down "foreign exchange student", then the argument that he was a natural born citizen would be null and void.

If he had dual citizenship, fine. 3 other presidents have had dual citizenship at the time of their birth, so that's not really a big deal. The big deal here is what exactly what Obama's status when he was accepted into Columbia and why seal them?

Oh yeah, poor Joe the plumber. Sorry if I have a hard time expecting any truth from an article praising Joe the Plumber who was neither named Joe, nor a plumber. LOL!

The author of the article was not praising Joe the Plumber (who we all know the real story of here and the guy is hardly poor...he makes 250,000 $ a year) or Sarah "Neo-Con Plant" Palin. What he was showing in his article is that the media was busy running what were basically ridiculous, non-issue interference pieces in order to divert the argument about Obama's status. This is an issue that the right and left press uses whenever anyone comes up with an issue that should probably be investigated but it's subject matter makes the masses a little uncomfortable. In my opinion, the media did not vet Obama very well, but then again, that's not their job. We have freedom of press in this country and if they don't want to vet the guy, they really don't have to, and frankly, that's not their job. That is the job of the Government. Bush and Rove used these tactics quite well during the 8 years we had to suffer through that guy and would divert questions about the war with other non-issue non-sense to get the people's mind away from the issue at hand.

What major talk show host? Again, no evidence is cool with you all?
Who got these FCC threats and where is the documentation?
Which corporate hq?

If a major talk show host, the FCC and the Corporate Media HQ in question were to admit to this, even off the record, don't you think the lawyers would be lining up to sue the holy smokes out of them and vice versa? You'd have first person testimonial evidence of hostile work force practices and aggressive blackmail and retribution charges here is well. I'm sure there are many people involved who have been intimidated to keep their mouth shut who have families depending on them so it's no stretch of the imagination that they would keep their big yappers shut in lieu of retaliation.

Look at what happened to the soldier who rightly leaked the video of soldiers opening fire on unarmed people to wikileaks. He has been arrested, BY THE OBAMA administration, because of his compromising of "national security". Since when is opening fire on unarmed civilians enforcing the national security of an invading country some thousands of miles away? Same thing. I'm sure since this administration loves to seal records, those people in media who wanted to question would have been forced to keep their mouth shut one way or another.

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

For the last time, yes I did provide you with links because the user Dragnet up there put it in quotations to let you know that links have been provided a plenty.

Sweety, that was the ONLY link you provided and I DID ADDRESS it. Then again, you said

originally posted by justinsweatt
Enemied and now on Ignore status.

So much for an honest conversation.

edit to add a blank space, nothing more, nothing less.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Are any of you guys going to answer the questions I've raised concerning these facts:

Are you going to ask legitimate questions or just throw things at a wall to see what might stick? How about we make it a fun little game everyone can play? One at a time, OK?

1. A Judge sealed the records

What exactly is the question and what records does it refer to?

Originally posted by justinsweatt

Are any of you guys going to answer the questions I've raised concerning these facts:

2. Obama has paid more than a million dollars having attorneys seal his student records.

Still not a question but you are going to have to prove your claim in order for it to be addressed. Are you just making things up, repeating what you think you were told, or do you have proof he has done this?

Originally posted by justinsweatt

3. An EO making sure that they remain sealed. Conflict of interest, anyone? And just because Bush did the same criminal activity does not give Obama a pass.

Actually, every president has issued that EO. It is a pretty standard deal. How many would you like to claim have been ineligable due to it? Since you at least admit Bush did it and we are talking about proof of citizenship, do you mean Bush my also not be a citizen or does this have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT?

Originally posted by justinsweatt
Secondly, there is A GINORMOUS amount of epic fail on the part of Obama that will keep me from voting for him. For example:

Good. Do not vote for him. I am not sure why you would think I care who you vote for. I just know you will nto be convincing anyone else to not vote for him because of his birth certificate in 2 more years if that is still your big issue.

1) the escalation of two illegal wars
2) the complete erosion of our civil liberties
3) executive orders that violate due process
4) massive contributions from Wall Street/Goldman Sachs/BP
5) massive amounts of unemployment that government "stimulus" has failed to correct because those bills put the tax money back into Wall Street and not the hands of the people that actually need it.

You mean being president? Yeah, that does suck but it has nothing to do with your Kenyan fantasy.

While I find the birth certificate issue interesting, it's not the reason why I won't vote for him. I can come up with about 100 reasons not vote for him, just like I'll come up with about 100 reasons not to vote for his republican counterparts either.

I never said anything about you voting for him. I think if you slowed down and paid attention to a detail here and there, you might understand.

Originally posted by make the blind see
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

My apologies, friend, for the misleading nature of that first part. I meant it mostly as a joke in reference to sites that try to throw you off with their title. Sorry dude..my bad. Also, I just don't believe it very reasonable, especially for this site, to trust any site on such a topic.

I know, I got it. Sorry if you thought I was offened. I was simply saying that is fine, go find that info somewhere else. The facts are still the facts no matter where you get them from. I know even Prisonplanet reporst something true now and then but I do not trust the site. I was just saying that is fine, go get it elsewhere, somewhere you might trust. But get the FACTS, not blogs and anonymous articles and all these baseless claims that people have no problem believing even though evidence of his Hawaiian birth will never be enough.

Again, I offer my apologies. By "Live Birth Certificate" I meant a Certification of Live Birth (I'm sure you can understand my mistake), which is still a short version of the long page certificate.

Well therein lies the problem because the titles affixed to birth certificates are "certification of live birth" "Certification of birth" and one other one that I think I or someone posted here earlier. That is what is actually printed on a birth certificate.

Do you not believe that some states no longer issue a short form?

If you agree it is just a short version of the long form, then what is the debate?

Haha, sure. Like Hawaii. Or anywhere else in the world as far as we the people have knowledge of.

Well, you did say all it is is proof a person was born somewhere. Is that not what you are looking for? Proof he was born somewhere? It says Hawaii and since you even admit it is proof, then it must be proof he was born in Hawaii, as it states, no?

Precisely. We know when he was born and to whom, but I believe the debate is on where.

I truly hope you can appreciate how hard I am actually trying to have that debate in a real and honest manner here. I also hope you can see how that is going.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Are any of you guys going to answer the questions I've raised concerning these facts:

Are you going to ask legitimate questions or just throw things at a wall to see what might stick? How about we make it a fun little game everyone can play? One at a time, OK?

1. A Judge sealed the records

What exactly is the question and what records does it refer to?

Ok, let me frame it better for you. A judge has sealed the records regarding all of the issues brought up in court regarding Obama's certificate status. WHY.