Huge News! Obama Must Prove Eligibility in Court Now as Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher Obama's Birth Certificate is as much "officially sealed" as yours and mine. BC's are not public record...you can't go and ask for a copy of mine, and I can't go ask for a copy of yours.

He could just fess up and spill the beans that the real BCs are being traded on the stock exchange.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, the racist card is already getting played! Haha. Yup, they're nervous!

Racist card? Why is it that calling a racist racist is somehow an act of "pulling a card". Are you "pulling a pulling the racist card card" then?

so you are calling every single person who wishes for verification on the issue a racist, really, really!, and you are not pulling the racist card?!?!

REALLY?!?!?

No but tell me why the initial interest sparked in the first place. It certainly wasn't because his mother was white. So yes, doubting a president's citizenship for the first time since President Arthur (another racist accusation against the Irish) based on ethnic background is, indeed, RACIST.

However, I personally do not think that every person who is curious is racist. But I do know it looks that way and it damages the entire image of the GOP. This, in effect, damages the image of Dr. Paul. So knock it off.

Originally posted by cuervo


No but tell me why the initial interest sparked in the first place. It certainly wasn't because his mother was white. So yes, doubting a president's citizenship for the first time since President Arthur (another racist accusation against the Irish) based on ethnic background is, indeed, RACIST.

However, I personally do not think that every person who is curious is racist. But I do know it looks that way and it damages the entire image of the GOP. This, in effect, damages the image of Dr. Paul. So knock it off.

No it ISN'T, unless a person specifically wants it checked because he is BLACK!


The fact that his origins are not exactly cast in stone a la Reagan or Clinton for example, REGARDLESS OF SKIN COLOUR, I AM NOT INTRODUCING SKIN COLOUR, makes this a reasonable request

For crying out loud if I, a mere peasant, apply for a job, I am expected to ensure everything can be verified.

I would apply that same rule to any President regardless of colour

Originally posted by blueorder

For crying out loud if I, a mere peasant, apply for a job, I am expected to ensure everything can be verified.

I would apply that same rule to any President regardless of colour

Then why hasn't it been?

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by blueorder

For crying out loud if I, a mere peasant, apply for a job, I am expected to ensure everything can be verified.

I would apply that same rule to any President regardless of colour

Then why hasn't it been?

Aside from stepping into a time machine and questioning every American alilve at the time, take the last 4 or 5 and look me in the internet eye and tell me their origin is not as questionable as Obama's come on just do it, and forget his colour, because I have, my views on it would apply to a white dude with similar origins

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by _R4t_
Now he's going to get all gangsta moody and pull his chromed 9mm's out... Watch him start war with Iran to stay in office and then martial law to arrest the pissed off folks...

Oh, I get it! It's because he's black. Oh good one! You must be a riot at parties.

No because he walks around the white house blasting Jay Z on his IPOD while he use your taxes to send his wife shopping and his kids on joyrides over New-York with the presidential boeing... Do you even know the maintenance cost and pressurisation plus the whole crew involved prior/after this baby takes off??? ALL of this with your money while he's stonewalling his identity...

But we're not talking about the same man that's on the internet with a gangster hat smoking a hell of a nice doobie..

Call blackberry and have it renamed colorlessberry while your at it...

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by blueorder

For crying out loud if I, a mere peasant, apply for a job, I am expected to ensure everything can be verified.

I would apply that same rule to any President regardless of colour

Then why hasn't it been?

Aside from stepping into a time machine and questioning every American alilve at the time, take the last 4 or 5 and look me in the internet eye and tell me their origin is not as questionable as Obama's come on just do it, and forget his colour, because I have, my views on it would apply to a white dude with similar origins

It never crossed my mind. Not once. Maybe it's because I don't live in a rural backwater with a homogeneous populace but I don't question a person's citizenship based on a name or ethnic background.

You tell me. What made him stand out compared to the last four or five you mentioned?

Was it his accent? Nope... Bush was the one with an accent.

Was it his name? Nope... Bush and Clinton are from England and Reagan is Irish and they weren't questioned.

Was it his policies? Nope... Clinton's were pretty similar and he's not foreign.

Gee... what other characteristic of Obama's could people have been skeptical of?

Don't be suprised if this judge gets "disappeared and thrown in a black hole" as Alex Jones puts it, courtesy of the NDAA that he just signed

reply to post by Praetorius


The reason I say that he is the best anti-establishment candidate I know is not
very obvious but is becauseif Ron Paul is president,the mega-corporations
(establishment) are going to love that man.
No regulations to burden them in any form .
Only white people need apply? Check. Poison water air? With the EPA
gone,check. Child labor? Why not? Check. The list goes on and on,
The market won't correct Crap.

I don't know which hoax is worse. Anything birther, or anything Orly. They're always one and the same so I guess it's safe to say they're both awful.

This will reach 60 pages of nothingness like all the rest. In between will be misunderstandings of PDF, Obama being Hitler, and the ever present, all powerful "layers".

Great way to start the new year!

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Praetorius

 

The reason I say that he is the best anti-establishment candidate I know is not
very obvious but is becauseif Ron Paul is president,the mega-corporations
(establishment) are going to love that man.
No regulations to burden them in any form .
Only white people need apply? Check. Poison water air? With the EPA
gone,check. Child labor? Why not? Check. The list goes on and on,
The market won't correct Crap.

Valid concerns, but applied inappropriately from what I can see. The mega-corporations already LOVE Obama, and along with the mega-banks donate much more heavily to him than they do to Paul (I'd have to look, but I don't recall seeing the big banks on the list of Paul's donors at all, and no PAC money).

As far as regulations, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why there's a revolving door policy between big business and the regulatory agencies? Why they swap so many execs and employees? Why the regulations seem crafted more as insulation than anything else, to buffer big business by choking out small competition while either crafting the regulations to their liking, or setting the fines high enough that only they can afford to pay and ignore the regulations they violate? Why the regulatory agencies delete investigatory records on big business?

Wrong on the EPA - Paul's a very strong advocate of private property rights (and the president can't get rid of the EPA anyway, nor is such in Paul's proposed budget), meaning NO one is allowed to pollute anyone else's property even indirectly via water cycles. As well, I would assume most states already have Departments of Environmental Quality (like Oklahoma does), or the like. Non-issue.

Child labor? You're kidding me. Do you think people in the states are going to approve that? You've got a much sadder view of the american people than even I do, in that case, and I would assume there are likely already plenty of state and federal laws in place for such a thing. And again - what does that have to do with the office of the president? The president can VETO legislation - he can't undo it.

Come on, pay attention to your civics lessons. Looks like you've already been bamboozled into thinking they haven't set things up just the way they want them. What do their profits look like, again? Cleaning the stifling regulatory climate and UNprotecting these jerks from actual new competition is the only real way to start setting things right.

Your misunderstandings are understandable, though - this is the narrative they sell you to keep their schemes up. Follow the money...who gets it: Paul...or Obama?

Originally posted by cuervo
Maybe it's because I don't live in a rural backwater with a homogeneous populace...

Coming from someone throwing around the "racist" accusations, that comment is as blatantly bigoted as one can get. Kinda destroys any credibility you thought you had.

...but I don't question a person's citizenship based on a name or ethnic background.

Article II Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

www.law.cornell.edu...

What criteria would you use to ensure the sanctity of the Constitution? What would cause you to want a candidate to provide incontrovertible evidence he/she is a "natural born citizen"? How about having been a resident of the U.S. for fourteen years? And what about his/her meeting the age requirement?

Were the claims by Obama's Kenyan relatives not enough for you to believe questions were in order?

Personally, I believe the Constitution mandates every state demand proof of natural citizenship, proof of age and proof of residency, prior to any candidate being placed on a ballot.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

There are four docket numbers for the decision:

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI

Here is the actual document.

A decision does not require a hearing.

Would you (or anyone else) care to provide me a link to this same decision, in which, this document is hosted by the official state agency? I don't trust Orly...and the link you provided is just as suspect.

Still waiting...

P.S.

ATS staff (those whom have not participated in this hoax thread)...so, tell me....when, or at what point, does a hoax get moved to the appropriate forum? I mean, I've provided evidence that this is a hoax (per the staff alert I submitted 2+ hours ago). Up to the time I drafted this response, The OP, believers of this hoax and the entire WWW have given zero proof that this is, in deed, a topic that is based in reality. So, again I must ask, when do you pull the "hoax" trigger?

reply to post by Aggie Man


Unfortunately, Some States dont post daily with their docket information,sometimes taking weeks,or if its a special case,wont post it at all.. I would give it a week or two,before you can "officially" call it a hoax.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Unfortunately, Some States dont post daily with their docket information,sometimes taking weeks,or if its a special case,wont post it at all.. I would give it a week or two,before you can "officially" call it a hoax.

Ummm, yeah, but...in the mean time...some random, unverified website already has obtained the official court document. FAIL...NEXT.

NOT ONLY THAT, but ATS is well versed in moving threads into HOAX when no immediate proof is available...sometimes "proof" is provided at a later date. What's the harm of doing the same here? Honestly, I would believe this story except the only sources on ATS and the www are ALL right-wing blogs/shills and the website of a known hoaxer (Orly).

Where's the beef?

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

There are four docket numbers for the decision:

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI

Here is the actual document.

A decision does not require a hearing.

Would you (or anyone else) care to provide me a link to this same decision, in which, this document is hosted by the official state agency? I don't trust Orly...and the link you provided is just as suspect.

Still waiting...

P.S.

ATS staff (those whom have not participated in this hoax thread)...so, tell me....when, or at what point, does a hoax get moved to the appropriate forum? I mean, I've provided evidence that this is a hoax (per the staff alert I submitted 2+ hours ago). Up to the time I drafted this response, The OP, believers of this hoax and the entire WWW have given zero proof that this is, in deed, a topic that is based in reality. So, again I must ask, when do you pull the "hoax" trigger?

I've asked this before. It fits "hoax" criteria yet...

Originally posted by Aggie Man
So, again I must ask, when do you pull the "hoax" trigger?

After the court responds to my email, which may be never? I did email the Judge's office asking for authentication. But you'll just have to wait til tomorrow. If it's a hoax, I'll be the first to alert the mods.

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by cuervo
Maybe it's because I don't live in a rural backwater with a homogeneous populace...

Coming from someone throwing around the "racist" accusations, that comment is as blatantly bigoted as one can get. Kinda destroys any credibility you thought you had.

There is nothing racist about what I said. What are you offended by? "Rural"? "Backwater"? "Homogeneous"?

I was simply suggesting that people living in such a single-culture area may not have the same perspective as the rest of America. You know, the part of America with minorities? I'd say the same thing of North Korea. How is that racist?

reply to post by Aggie Man


I beg to differ. You have no more proved the document a hoax, than anyone else has proved it valid, to you. The date of the issuance of the decision does not have to correspond to the date of the hearing.

There likely wasn't even a hearing, as the Motion to Dismiss was based on plaintiff standing, which the decision explains away.

It may or may not be a fraudulent document, but my friend, you have not proven it so and I hope ATS staff requires more than your claim to declare a thread a "hoax".

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Aggie Man
So, again I must ask, when do you pull the "hoax" trigger?

After the court responds to my email, which may be never? I did email the Judge's office asking for authentication. But you'll just have to wait til tomorrow. If it's a hoax, I'll be the first to alert the mods.

I think he meant the entire "birther" hoax, not just your thread.