A Few Questions for "birthers"

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

Already been debunked, show through from the short form birth certificate since they were stacked in the tray at time of scanning. Next.

So.......you have moved on to creating straw man arguments to obfuscate the issue now - you must be real proud of yourself!

Where is the straw man? Have a look here, it's just one of the many posts that has debunked this.

It is a straw man because I posted an A-Z of reasons why this document is a fraud - and your response is to post a debunking of something not mentioned!

reply to post by aptness

Your suspicions are immaterial. The President doesn’t have to convince every single whackjob that has ‘suspicions’ about him to their personal satisfaction.

You can dance around semantics and definitions all you want - fact is it is a condition to hold the job that he be a natural born citizen. - placed there to avoid people with divided loyalties from holding that office!

One that he has not demonstrated and refuses to demonstrate.

For everyday purposes a short form may be acceptable - but for POTUS!!??? - for the man who holds the nuclear codes?

If you provided a photocopy only, of a BC as part of documentation for say a security clearance job - do you suppose they would accept that?

No! - so why are you trying to pretend that it is acceptable for the POTUS!
You are suggesting that only a 'whackjob' would ask to see original documents.


You would suppose that someone with nothing to hide would provide this just out of sheer decency - it costs him absolutely nothing to do after all, and there is nothing embarrasing on 'that' document is there!

Fact is this man has hidden away every single document that exists that might show what nationality and name he was using at the time - plus of course he is using fraudulent social security no's and much more.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
A short form BC may be accepted for many common purposes of ID - but given the ease with which one can be obtained without actually having been born in Hawaii - it is not PROOF that he was.

Thanks to birther threads on ATS, I know this is false. Care to share your source since this entire post seems to hang on this? How would finding out you were wrong change things? Will it change things? I have been skimming Corsi's book and reading stuff like this and I have to say that birthers themselves are very convincing in that all I see them claiming are things that are later corrected with real sources. I would like to see that go down a different way for a change so can you please supply a valid source?

I will politely ask again. Can you provide a source for this? I see a lot of claims are made in these threads and when someone asks for proof, things get weird. I know this to be false so I would like to know why you believe it. Where did you get it from? Why would you continue to believe it? Doesn't it make a big difference since it is a big part of your argument? Honestly, if there was any truth to this birther stuff then posts like that only work to make the birthers either look crazy or look like liars. That is why I question these direct lies. They need to be weeded out. Are you going to help me find the truth?

reply to post by adeclerk


Have you read Corsi's new book? Have you read his first one called Obamanation? Do you know what it is that is supposedly being debunked? I just want to know, since it sounds like you haven't.

Also I would like to remind everyone that FactCheck is "a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center" as stated on their webpage, and that Bill Ayers was a "key founder" of Annenberg. FactCheck cannot be an unbiased source.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
You can dance around semantics and definitions all you want - fact is it is a condition to hold the job that he be a natural born citizen.

Good thing his birth certificate confirms he’s a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States then.

One that he has not demonstrated and refuses to demonstrate. Birthers refuse to accept he is a natural born citizen and has demonstrated it.

Fixed it for ya.

For everyday purposes a short form may be acceptable - but for POTUS!!??? - for the man who holds the nuclear codes?

This is one of the problems with your ‘argument.’ You are confusing proof of citizenship with background checks.

Barack Obama’s birth certificate is sufficient to determine his citizenship and natural born citizenship. Whether Barack Obama, the man, can be trusted with the nuclear codes and other sensitive information, that’s up to the intelligence agencies to determine by the usual methods and processes every President goes through.

I haven’t heard anything about Obama not passing his background checks. Have you?

If you provided a photocopy only, of a BC as part of documentation for say a security clearance job - do you suppose they would accept that?

I don’t have to suppose because his birth certificate is not a “photocopy only.” But, again, you are confusing proof of citizenship/natural born citizenship and background checks.

Even in your made up scenario, even if one presented a birth certificate that satisfies your birther standards, to get “a security clearance job” that person would still have to go through a background check.

No! - so why are you trying to pretend that it is acceptable for the POTUS!

The birth certificate the state of Hawaii issued Obama in 2007, that he presented in 2008, months before the election, is acceptable to determine his natural born citizenship status.

You are suggesting that only a 'whackjob' would ask to see original documents.

No, at this point, I’m suggesting only whackjobs, persons with certain ‘feelings’ about Obama, and people with agendas believe or want to believe Obama hasn’t presented the documentation to satisfy the constitutional requirements.

If that documentation doesn’t satisfy you, don’t vote for Obama.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Also I would like to remind everyone that FactCheck is "a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center" as stated on their webpage, and that Bill Ayers was a "key founder" of Annenberg. FactCheck cannot be an unbiased source.

And you want us to accept Corsi and WND as unbiased sources? Oh that laughable birther double standard.

OK, you don’t accept factcheck as “unbiased source.” What about every other major news organization in the United States that has confirmed Obama’s certificate authenticity and have accepted it? Including Fox News?

They must be in on the conspiracy...

A lot of talk of the photocopy being illegitimate in terms of "proof", do you birthers expect the POTUS to order a copy of his BC for every nutter who thinks it's a fraud?

Could someone explain why is it that BHO's father's race is listed as "African" when in those days people of African descent were listed as "Negro" on their BC?

There are three races on the planet (that I'm aware of) and "African" ain't one of them:

Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

Africans, if they are black, are negroid. Not all Africans are black/negroid. Some Africans are white/caucasoid. Negroid is a race, but African is not a race.


So.... "African" cannot be described as a race, because there are white and black people from Africa. If "African" was listed as a race on a birth certificate, there would be absolutely no way to tell if the person was Caucasian or Negroid.

reply to post by coastalite

Again with this BS? Hawaii accepted what the parents self-identified with.

You claim the valid possibilities were “Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.” Can you show me one birth certificate using those terms?

I’ll wait.

Originally posted by aptness
reply to post by coastalite

 

Again with this BS? Hawaii accepted what the parents self-identified with.

You claim the valid possibilities were “Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.” Can you show me one birth certificate using those terms?

I’ll wait.

Nice try. Show me other 1961 HI birth certificates that list "African" as race. I'll wait.

Nice spin btw. Did I say Hawaii only had 3 options? No, I did not. I don't claim to know what Hawaii accepts as options for race on their birth certificates, although evidently it's OK to list nationality as your race as long as you "self-identify" that your nationality is actually your race.

I merely stated that (as far as I know) there are 3 races and "African" is generally a term used to describe one's nationality, not race. That would be like someone listing "European" as their race on a Hawaiian birth certificate.

If you're talking to someone on the phone and they say they are "African", you would not know if that person is white or black. Same principle on the birth certificate. There's no way to verify a person's race if it is simply listed as "African". This is a fact.

reply to post by coastalite


Burden of proof is on the claimant. Your fantastical claims of xxx-oid races on Hawaiian birth certificates should have fantastic evidence. Got any?

As if the "forgers" would overlook that anyway. Get a grip.

ETA: The release of the BC sure shut Trump and his investigators up, eh.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by coastalite

 

Burden of proof is on the claimant. Your fantastical claims of xxx-oid races on Hawaiian birth certificates should have fantastic evidence. Got any?

As if the "forgers" would overlook that anyway. Get a grip.

ETA: The release of the BC sure shut Trump and his investigators up, eh.

edit on 5/24/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

Stating that there are 3 races on the planet is a fantastical claim? Nowhere in my original post is the word Hawaii.

Originally posted by coastalite
I don't claim to know what Hawaii accepts as options for race on their birth certificates, although evidently it's OK to list nationality as your race as long as you "self-identify" that your nationality is actually your race.

You claim you don’t know what Hawaii accepts as valid options, you admit they apparently accept what the parents self-identify with, and you seemingly expect us to accept it’s an unrelated question (“Did I say Hawaii only had 3 options?,” “Nowhere in my original post is the word Hawai”), so what’s the point of your post in a birther thread exactly?

The policy of the Department of Health, as stated by their officials, is that they accept what the parents self-identify with. You want to know the reason for that policy? Ask them.

Originally posted by coastalite
Nice spin btw. Did I say Hawaii only had 3 options? No, I did not.

Yes you did.

Originally posted by coastalite
There are three races on the planet (that I'm aware of) and "African" ain't one of them:

Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

Unless Hawaii is not on the planet. I just wanted to extend my sincerest thanks to you. Arguments like yours are why I see so little value in the birther movement anymore. What race is listed on your birth certificate? Is it one of those 3?

Originally posted by coastalite
Stating that there are 3 races on the planet is a fantastical claim? Nowhere in my original post is the word Hawaii.

When discussing labels used in the US to count people, yes it is.

Race Alone categories (6):
Includes the minimum 5 race categories required by OMB, plus the 'some other race alone' included by the Census Bureau for Census 2000, with the approval of OMB.
White alone
Black or African-American alone
American Indian or Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone

Race Alone or in combination categories (63):
There will be other tabulations where 'race alone or in combination' will be shown. These tabulations include not only persons who marked only one race (the 'race alone' category) but also those who marked that race and at least one other race. For example, a person who indicated that she was of Filipino and African-American background would be included in the African-American alone or in combination count, as well as in the Asian alone or in combination count. The alone or in combination totals are tallies of responses, rather than respondents. So the sum of the race alone or in combination will add to more than the total population.

factfinder.census.gov

reply to post by adeclerk


Why are you defending obama a globalist, obama wasn't even born in america

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by adeclerk

 

Why are you defending obama a globalist, obama wasn't even born in america

Might want to check your facts there, mate. Or maybe read the thread, the evidence is all there.

reply to post by adeclerk


Okay so your taking a break from trolling chem trail threads to troll birthers now ? You seriously make me sick. Sorry mods, I know I shouldn't have said that, but seriously why do you let known trolls on this site, they bring absolutely nothing to the table except bad spelling and grammar. Adeclerk just change your name to guardian of the official story and be done with it.

Originally posted by DrunkNinja

Okay so your taking a break from trolling chem trail threads to troll birthers now ?

So someone who points out the stupidity of birthers and those who believe ib chemtrails is a troll?

Actually the trolls aret hose who keep making rubbish up about 'chemtrails" and refuse to accept the facts about Obama, that he ws born in Hawaii and is the legal President.