Obama's hidden birth certificate now exposed

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I didn't state it was a law; I stated it was a fact.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, people that do have a legal right have been denied...

Embhasis mine. You said it was a law.
I'm not commenting on any other stuff that you posted that has been debunked a million times over. Just that one.

People that are electing a president DO have a legal right to know that person is eligible. Again, that is called the Constitution. Read it. The Constitution isn't just a historical document; it's the highest law of the land. Plus, other candidates have a right, undeniable, to know that their competition is eligible. Nothing else I have posted has been debunked, either. Stating a denial isn't debunking.

So by your refusal to quote that part I take it that you admid to making bs. up. Well it's not like I didn't know that.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


His grandmother (the Kenyan one) claims that she witnessed his birth in Africa.

By parroting that long debunked birther lie, you lose a lot of your credibility. It has been said time and time again, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. You're looking at a video that some birther edited to cut off the interview early and omit the part where his grandmother corrected the interviewer's mistake and told him no, he was born in hawaii. The interviewer spoke english, and the grandmother did not. When asked the question (i'm paraphrasing all that follows) the translator worded it more along the lines of "Were you in Kenya when Barrack was born?" To which the grandmother replies yes (and where the birthers video mysteriously stops) but then the interviewer clearly states along the lines of "so you're saying he was born in kenya?" to which she replies "no, Hawaii, Barrack was born in Hawaii"

There is more than one video on YouTube of his wife calling him Kenyan.

That's more of a cultural identity than a citizenship statement. It's like someone from Boston identifying as Irish. The could be a third generation american who's never been to Ireland but would still identify themselves as being Irish.

There was, at one point, a birth certificate from Kenya, though that one is highly disputed, and could easily be faked.

Well, there goes the rest of your credibility. It is not disputed at all, it's 100% fake and was actually intentionally created to be a terrible forgery by someone who wanted to show how gullible the birthers were. They intentionally included historically inaccurate information and anyone with 5 minutes on a search engine was able to prove it was fake, the original forger even released a "making of" of how they faked it.

How about those in Hawaii that stated there were no records for him there? Those that stated they knew the family, and didn't remember a baby being in that household at the time he would have been?

You're going to have to post some reference on that, I can't take your word for it since you've destroyed your credibility with the above points

The fact that he's fought so hard to NOT produce said documents in court says something, too. He said himself (and you can see that on video), "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." Those are Obama's own words. So, what is he hiding, since he won't show the documents?

He's provided an excessive amount of proof, moreso than any previous president and he's refusing to make a mockery of the legal system, that's all.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Sorry, but he has. Again and again. He was a US Senator and he's now President. Eligibility has been laid down long ago. Attempts at denying this have failed. And been made to look foolish. Oh and on the previous post you mentioned that his grandmother said he was born in Kenya. She did not say any such thing. Please do some basic research on this.

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
His grandmother (the Kenyan one) claims that she witnessed his birth in Africa.

By parroting that long debunked birther lie, you lose a lot of your credibility. It has been said time and time again, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. You're looking at a video that some birther edited to cut off the interview early and omit the part where his grandmother corrected the interviewer's mistake and told him no, he was born in hawaii. The interviewer spoke english, and the grandmother did not. When asked the question (i'm paraphrasing all that follows) the translator worded it more along the lines of "Were you in Kenya when Barrack was born?" To which the grandmother replies yes (and where the birthers video mysteriously stops) but then the interviewer clearly states along the lines of "so you're saying he was born in kenya?" to which she replies "no, Hawaii, Barrack was born in Hawaii"

Proof? Unless you offer proof, you are not credible.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
There is more than one video on YouTube of his wife calling him Kenyan.

Originally posted by captainpudding
That's more of a cultural identity than a citizenship statement. It's like someone from Boston identifying as Irish. The could be a third generation american who's never been to Ireland but would still identify themselves as being Irish.

In your opinion. When college records are produced, that some claim would prove he received aid for foreign students, then we can discuss that.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
There was, at one point, a birth certificate from Kenya, though that one is highly disputed, and could easily be faked.

Originally posted by captainpudding
Well, there goes the rest of your credibility. It is not disputed at all, it's 100% fake and was actually intentionally created to be a terrible forgery by someone who wanted to show how gullible the birthers were. They intentionally included historically inaccurate information and anyone with 5 minutes on a search engine was able to prove it was fake, the original forger even released a "making of" of how they faked it.

So, when I say something isn't good evidence, I am "less credible" when you agree that it isn't good evidence? Do you even look at what you type? I presented that as bad evidence, not good. Reading comprehension 101 is down the hall, to your right.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
How about those in Hawaii that stated there were no records for him there? Those that stated they knew the family, and didn't remember a baby being in that household at the time he would have been?

Originally posted by captainpudding
You're going to have to post some reference on that, I can't take your word for it since you've destroyed your credibility with the above points

Why, so you can pretend that isn't credible evidence? Research it for yourself, or remain in the dark.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The fact that he's fought so hard to NOT produce said documents in court says something, too. He said himself (and you can see that on video), "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." Those are Obama's own words. So, what is he hiding, since he won't show the documents?

Originally posted by captainpudding
He's provided an excessive amount of proof, moreso than any previous president and he's refusing to make a mockery of the legal system, that's all.

He has provided NO proof in a court of law, as HIS campaign demanded of his 2008 opposition. Online documents are not proof. Unless we are all allowed to use an online document for all legal purposes, you cannot act as though his offering ONLY that is proof of anything. He is, in fact, making a mockery of the legal system. One judge even cited a MOVIE reference as reason to accept his claims. He's no more legit than Santa Clause.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Ok, here you go, the full, unedited interview.
www.youtube.com...

Also the fake kenyan bc isn't bad evidence for the birthers it's not evidence at all since it was never real. What it is, however is undeniable proof that Orly Taitz is a massive idiot and probably the most gullible person on the planet. Many birthers try to distance themselves from such stupidity so why did you even bring it up if everyone knows it's a fake? It hurts your credibility by even bringing it up.

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Ok, here you go, the full, unedited interview.
www.youtube.com...

Also the fake kenyan bc isn't bad evidence for the birthers it's not evidence at all since it was never real. What it is, however is undeniable proof that Orly Taitz is a massive idiot and probably the most gullible person on the planet. Many birthers try to distance themselves from such stupidity so why did you even bring it up if everyone knows it's a fake? It hurts your credibility by even bringing it up.

I brought it up to show that I look at ALL the data, and am able to reject what isn't valid. Sorry that logical thinking isn't something you understand.

As for your video link, that's far from clear. First, the translator stated that she claimed to have been present at the birth. Later, he states that she was not present, and the birth was elsewhere. Sounds like she was told to say that.

As for the rest, well, Michelle Obama called Kenya his "home country", and the ambassador from Kenya states that his birthplace there is already a known attraction. That birth certificate, btw, has a seal, and a FOOTPRINT. Did Obama ever present his foot for comparison, to prove it is a fake? We both know he didn't. All he has presented are online scans, with no one seeing the supposed real documents from which those scans were made. What is he hiding?

Better video:

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
What is he hiding?

Nothing at all. You seem to think obama has to show his birth certificate, no previous President had to show theirs, but as soon as Obama comes along some people demand to see his, and make up all sorts of silly stories as to where he was born, and the gullible fall for them. So what is so different about Obama compared to previous presidents? You just have a look at his picture to see!

Birther Queen orly just lost another court case, so far she has lost every single court case she has attempted. As a judge said about the "evidence" she produces in court,

Orange County Superior Court Judge Charles Margines rejected Taitz' argument, citing procedural errors and questioning the quality of her evidence.

“You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the Internet,” Margines told Taitz

You should take heed of that advice!

Where did he get the money for Law School ? More student loans? His family has no money that's for sure.

After Law school, he went back to Chicago . Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what I discovered? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm.

Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for this property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz , Iran ! Am I going nuts or is there a pattern here?
On May 10, 2008, The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things". What the heck does that mean?

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that were born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
What is he hiding?

Nothing at all. You seem to think obama has to show his birth certificate, no previous President had to show theirs, but as soon as Obama comes along some people demand to see his, and make up all sorts of silly stories as to where he was born, and the gullible fall for them. So what is so different about Obama compared to previous presidents? You just have a look at his picture to see!

BULL. The 2008 Obama campaign demanded that McCain show HIS birth certificate, and verify his eligibility, in court. Yet the hypocrite refuses to provide the same sort of proof himself. As Obama stated, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." So, since he won't disclose the requested documents, he must be hiding something. He says so himself. Again, I ask, WHAT is he hiding?? As for the race card, stick it back in your pocket. I don't care what color the anti-American socialist jerk is; I care about his policies. I would happily support Alan Keyes or Colonel West for the office of president. Ad hominem attacks do not further your position.

Originally posted by hellobruce
Birther Queen orly just lost another court case....*snip*/quote]

Again, ad hominem attacks don't really do anything for your case. Judges that toss out a case because they use "Miracle on 34'th Street" as procedure aren't exactly reliable, either. Anything valid to offer?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Yet the hypocrite refuses to provide the same sort of proof himself.

Obama HAS shown his birth certificate, both certified by the State of hawaii, so why ignore that fact?

Again, I ask, WHAT is he hiding??

Nothing at all, he has shown more birth certificates than all the previous presidents combined, yet you claim he is hiding something?

As for the race card, stick it back in your pocket.

Yes, we can see you want to avoid that topic!

Judges that toss out a case because they use "Miracle on 34'th Street" as procedure aren't exactly reliable, either.

It was tossed out as poor Orly had zero evidence, she was even unable to get subpoena's properly served.
You forget to mention that every single judge that Orly has been before has tossed her out, some even with sanctions against her for

"wasting the judicial resources" of the Middle District of Georgia with her "frivolous and sanctionable conduct."

Judge Clay Land wrote that Taitz's behavior in the case

"borders on delusional" and "demonstrates bad faith."

Just like some birthers here!

Anything valid to offer?

Lots, unlike you, who just nothing but hoaxes and silly made up stories.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Yet the hypocrite refuses to provide the same sort of proof himself.

Obama HAS shown his birth certificate, both certified by the State of hawaii, so why ignore that fact?

In what courtroom was it verified? All we have is online scans. That isn't the same as proving the documents are real. If you think it is, try getting hired by presenting them a laptop with scanned documents, instead of the actual documents.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Again, I ask, WHAT is he hiding??

Nothing at all, he has shown more birth certificates than all the previous presidents combined, yet you claim he is hiding something?

Again, not in court, as he demanded McCain do. If McCain could prove his eligibility in court, why can't Obama do the same? It was good enough for his competition.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
As for the race card, stick it back in your pocket.

Yes, we can see you want to avoid that topic!

No, all anyone sees is the same old nonsense, trying to act as though criticizing someone who happens to be black MUST be based only on their color. After all, any bad actions can be excused on that basis, right? People using that tactic are the real racists. Do NOT slander me again.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Judges that toss out a case because they use "Miracle on 34'th Street" as procedure aren't exactly reliable, either.

It was tossed out as poor Orly had zero evidence, she was even unable to get subpoena's properly served.

So, you are pretending this didn't happen? -

the Santa Clause defense

Unreal......

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
In what courtroom was it verified?

In what courtroom has every previous Presidents birth certificate been verified? So why do you expect Obama's to be verified in a court.... remember, you do not even have to have a birth certificate to qualify for president.

All we have is online scans.

Please show us the online scans for every previous president.... you somehow think they should be available...

Again, not in court, as he demanded McCain do

what are you babbling about now? Care to show the court case where McCain showed his BC? how about you show us McCain's BC?

Remember, birthers have lost a court case to a empty table due to their "evidence" being so poor.
You think it would be about time that they accepted that their claims are just made up and wrong, they have lost every single court case that they have attempted.

Originally posted by hellobruce
In what courtroom has every previous Presidents birth certificate been verified? So why do you expect Obama's to be verified in a court.... remember, you do not even have to have a birth certificate to qualify for president.

Can you read? I said, clearly, more than once, that Obama demanded McCain verify his eligibility, which is what Obama states that he himself should not have to do. When you figure that out, get back to me.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

here's a bone for everyone to chew on ... the Supreme Court has scheduled conference regarding the eligibility issue ... mid-February

no, it isn't a big deal, however, it is a huge step forward.
at least there is an opportunity for advancement to arguments of the existing or non-existing facts.

thank you, Judge Roberts
www.orlytaitzesq.com...

let's just hope the 2 recent appointees have enough class and respect to recuse themselves under conflict of interest.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

here's a bone for everyone to chew on ... the Supreme Court has scheduled conference regarding the eligibility issue ... mid-February

no, it isn't a big deal, however, it is a huge step forward.
at least there is an opportunity for advancement to arguments of the existing or non-existing facts.

thank you, Judge Roberts

www.orlytaitzesq.com...

let's just hope the 2 recent appointees have enough class and respect to recuse themselves under conflict of interest.

They should be doing so! Hadn't heard that news, and it's way overdue, but it is something. If the guy is eligible, let him show it. If any other president had such questions, I would expect the same from them. In most cases, we know all sorts of details about their pasts, and there are not all the questions we have with this one. I am not decided on what he's hiding, but I am sure that there is something being concealed. No one goes to that much trouble to hide their past, unless there is a good reason.

If there is nothing to hide, let the facts show that. When case after case after case is dismissed, on the flimsiest of reasons, you have to wonder what secrets are being protected.

I would hope those two would step aside on this one, but would almost be willing to bet they won't. Hope I am wrong!

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I said, clearly, more than once, that Obama demanded McCain verify his eligibility

You have said things in this thread that are just not true, so why should you be believed over that....

which is what Obama states that he himself should not have to do.

Except of course Obama has shown his BC's, but this is not about any bit of paper Obama shows, it is his colour. Birthers may deny that, but funny how the first black president somehow must show all these documents, when no previous president had to....

Originally posted by Honor93
the Supreme Court has scheduled conference regarding the eligibility issue ... mid-February

The reason that was done is "Roberts could have denied the stay on his own, but Orly could then have presented it to each of the other justices, one at a time. So the Court's routine practice is, when a stay or other motion is denied by one justice and then re-submitted to a second justice, the second one will submit it to the full Court (in order to kill it once and for all). That automatically involves having it "listed" for a conference. It is not actually discussed at the conference unless one justice puts it on the "discuss" list; otherwise, it is automatically denied.

however, it is a huge step forward.

Not really, "If you want proof the Birthers cannot learn anything here it is. They were just as excited four years ago when Phil Berg's, Cort Wrotnowski's, and Leo Donofrio's cases were "referred to conference". They all imagined that the justices were sitting around weighing the merits of their cases for an hour or two and would then vote to stay the Certification or the Inauguration. Every singe Birther flop that has landed at the SCOTUS door has gone through an identical process and this one is even more of a pile of crap."

The conference is on 15th February. President obama's 2nd inauguration is January 21.

reply to post by hellobruce

you guys are really showing your ignorance with this statement ...

when no previous president had to

not only is it false BUT there was no such thing as Birth Certificates until 1914.
in other words, they aren't even 100yrs old yet

considering that only 15 presidents have held the position since 1914 ... Obama gets more special by the day
of course, not so surprisingly, Obama is the first one who is refusing to comply

Originally posted by Honor93
Obama is the first one who is refusing to comply

So how about you showing us those 15 previous Presidents birth certificates.... you also ignore the fact Obama HAS shown his birth certificate.

Or is the claim Obama is the first one refusing to comply just not true....