Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2019, 10:19:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 78   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: All things "Birther" Thread  (Read 217570 times)
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #750 on: April 11, 2011, 06:53:27 AM »

Look on the right hand side from the middle on down - notice what is listed on that vs. what IS NOT listed on Bama's.   

also - look at the top - is there a difference between "CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH"   & "CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH"

Yes!   What obama presented is pure nonsense since a valid BC always has the inf on the place of birth of the parents.   The second mage I gave you was from a lady wh got one for her son in March 2011.         

I cannot read every bit of text on the bottom document.  I even downloaded it and zoomed in.

Also, you using the word "always" in you arguments is very suspect now.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #751 on: April 11, 2011, 06:56:08 AM »

I cannot read every bit of text on the bottom document.  I even downloaded it and zoomed in.

Also, you using the word "always" in you arguments is very suspect now.


Te real BC lists the place of birth of the parents, both on the short form and the long form, bama's does not.  why? 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #752 on: April 11, 2011, 07:08:31 AM »


Te real BC lists the place of birth of the parents, both on the short form and the long form, bama's does not.  why? 

I can't fully read the bottom one.  I must be able to read ALL the text printed on it to even comment on it.
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17549

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #753 on: April 11, 2011, 07:18:15 AM »

I can't fully read the bottom one.  I must be able to read ALL the text printed on it to even comment on it.

No you don't.  Just speculate.  It's the thing to do obviously.

LOL
Report to moderator   Logged
Grape Ape
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14293


Y Ninja


« Reply #754 on: April 11, 2011, 07:20:25 AM »

I cannot read every bit of text on the bottom document.  I even downloaded it and zoomed in.

It's because you've abandoned eyeball themed avatars.  Try switching back.
Report to moderator   Logged

Y
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #755 on: April 11, 2011, 07:23:35 AM »

It's because you've abandoned eyeball themed avatars.  Try switching back.

 Grin  ok
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #756 on: April 11, 2011, 07:25:35 AM »

Just so you know, 333333.

Debunking the SSN things was pretty dam easy.  I am willing to bet the COLB forgery debunking won't be too much harder.



Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #757 on: April 11, 2011, 07:31:42 AM »

Just so you know, 333333.

Debunking the SSN things was pretty dam easy.  I am willing to bet the COLB forgery debunking won't be too much harder.





How did you debunk anything?   Are you kidding?  Why was even even allegedly in CT in 1977 in the first place? 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #758 on: April 11, 2011, 07:35:25 AM »

How did you debunk anything?   Are you kidding?  Why was even even allegedly in CT in 1977 in the first place? 

Sigh...........

Are you just being "ignorant" because you are in "Forum battle mode"?

Has your hate consumed you so much you have lost your ability to read and comprehend?

What is it 333333?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #759 on: April 11, 2011, 07:41:49 AM »

Sigh...........

Are you just being "ignorant" because you are in "Forum battle mode"?

Has your hate consumed you so much you have lost your ability to read and comprehend?

What is it 333333?

Absolutely not.   Please do tell.   This is the most bizarre nonsense I have ever heard.   I'm not kidding, I have never heard of smeone born in the USA not get a SS at birth or near birth and then wait till they are 17 Y/O to get one in a state they have no locaton to in any form whatsoever.   
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #760 on: April 11, 2011, 07:48:29 AM »

Absolutely not.   Please do tell.   This is the most bizarre nonsense I have ever heard.   I'm not kidding, I have never heard of smeone born in the USA not get a SS at birth or near birth and then wait till they are 17 Y/O to get one in a state they have no locaton to in any form whatsoever.   

You obviously don't get out much.

You also, weren't aware of how things worked in 1977.  You were 2.

He also didn't wait until he was 17, he waited until he was almost 16, in 1977.  Another one of your many inaccuracies.  

You also, i guess, think the Social Security administration is now in on this as i showed you on the site that SS#'s are not issued at birth.  

You also assume that  everyone gets a SSN number for their children at birth even though the SSA talks about poeple that don't.

You also assumed VERY incorrectly that the area number on the SSN where determined by state.

I could go on...  but what's the point?


Basically, 33333, (no disrespect intended) you are making yourself into a fool over this.
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #761 on: April 11, 2011, 07:50:51 AM »

I could tell you to tell you to research it yourself   Cheesy

but if i wasn't willing to go back and read through 22 pages of this thread i can't expect you to either. 

here ya go:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

SSA logo: link to Social Security Online home
Social Security Numbers
The SSN Numbering Scheme
     

Number Has Three Parts

The nine-digit SSN is composed of three parts:

    * The first set of three digits is called the Area Number
    * The second set of two digits is called the Group Number
    * The final set of four digits is the Serial Number

Area Number

The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.
  Bump
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #762 on: April 11, 2011, 07:52:03 AM »


1.  SSN's, by the admission of the http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html does not issue numbers based on "area numbers" the first 3 digits of a SSN: 

2.  Obama did live in Hawaii and attended school there form 5th grade until graduating in 1979.  http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html

3.  He applied for an SSN in 1977 PRIOR to getting a job at baskins robbins.

4.  The zip form the address he applied form was:  96814

5.  People applied via hand written mail back then.

6.  The zip code for Danbury, CT. was 06814




Bump
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #763 on: April 11, 2011, 07:54:24 AM »

Bump - fine- so you say he wated until he was 16 toapply for his SS number - from CT no less.  By his own admission the first time hecame to the lower 48 was when he came to college at Occidental where he claims he spent two years (records not released). 

So again - explain please. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 55204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #764 on: April 11, 2011, 07:54:50 AM »

So Dr. Fukino is now in on the conspiracy?  This is gong to cause some major embarrassment for Trump.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #765 on: April 11, 2011, 08:03:42 AM »

Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789



In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay.

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents.

This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as:

1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); :
2) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); :
3) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” :
4) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); :
5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); :
6) Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); :
7) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); :
Cool Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: " find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.

Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. :
April 2, 2010:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett. (Mario Apuzzo used Leo Donofrio's research.)

”The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #766 on: April 11, 2011, 08:07:57 AM »

Bump - fine- so you say he wated until he was 16 toapply for his SS number - from CT no less.  By his own admission the first time hecame to the lower 48 was when he came to college at Occidental where he claims he spent two years (records not released). 

So again - explain please. 

No, NOT from conn.  for the umteeneth time!

Did you eat a bowl of dumb fucks this morning?

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #767 on: April 11, 2011, 08:14:58 AM »

No, NOT from conn.  for the umteeneth time!

Did you eat a bowl of dumb fucks this morning?




I was born in 1975 and my SS number is clear that I a from the Bronx NY, EVERYOE I KNOW HAS THE SAME FUCKING THING!

So while there might be an isolated incident of course - if he applied from Hawaii he would have a number for peopl born there 9/10 times. 

So again - the whole thing is beyond strange - and you offer nothing to support yur theory at all other than speculation as to what might have ocurred to explain these anolomies.   
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #768 on: April 11, 2011, 08:26:58 AM »


I was born in 1975 and my SS number is clear that I a from the Bronx NY, EVERYOE I KNOW HAS THE SAME FUCKING THING!

So while there might be an isolated incident of course - if he applied from Hawaii he would have a number for peopl born there 9/10 times. 

So again - the whole thing is beyond strange - and you offer nothing to support yur theory at all other than speculation as to what might have ocurred to explain these anolomies.   


Its not speculation at all.

What are the chances his zip code and a zip code in connected differ by 1 digit?  1 digit that when written can be mistaken for one another and 1 digit that sits rights next to each other on a typewriter?  All this done in an age where things were hand written and inputted by a person, not scanned.

You do need to get out more.  And i say that metaphorically meaning you need to research with a more objective mind.  You were exposed here not to do any real research.   All you do is cut and paste from you favorite "I hate Obama" sites.

I mean fuck man, you didn't even do basic research. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #769 on: April 11, 2011, 08:32:05 AM »

 Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes

The 042 # he is using in but one of 15 others traced to him.   
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #770 on: April 11, 2011, 08:38:07 AM »

Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes

The 042 # he is using in but one of 15 others traced to him.  

Again,  i am willing to bet you didn't do any real research on these other SSN's too.

After your 042 debacle can you blame me for believing that?


PS:  Classic CT debate mentality:  When confronted with facts that soundly debunk one point, quickly bring up other points.  You did the same when we had the original discussion and you are doing that now.  911 nut jobs always do that.    
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #771 on: April 11, 2011, 08:49:02 AM »

You didnt debunk anything.   You offered a possible explanation for what appears another black hole of mystery surrounding obama.   
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #772 on: April 11, 2011, 09:03:19 AM »

You didnt debunk anything.   You offered a possible explanation for what appears another black hole of mystery surrounding obama.   

That's a black hole mystery?  I think what's more of a mystery is exactly when you traded your objectivity for hate.

Look at your approach:

-  Based on hate
-  No real research
-  Cut and paste spamming

What I posted overwhelmingly supports his SSN legitimacy as well as lending strong support to him being born here.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20167


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #773 on: April 11, 2011, 09:11:42 AM »

That's a black hole mystery?  I think what's more of a mystery is exactly when you traded your objectivity for hate.

Look at your approach:

-  Based on hate
-  No real research
-  Cut and paste spamming

What I posted overwhelmingly supports his SSN legitimacy as well as lending strong support to him being born here.




Yes, you offer an alternative theory.  Great - that is why we debate these things.  However - without a doctor/hospital signed BC, something verifiable its all a mystery. 


and Ozmo - when bama applied forhis SS in 1977 - what did he present?       
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21957


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #774 on: April 11, 2011, 09:22:52 AM »


Yes, you offer an alternative theory.  Great - that is why we debate these things.  However - without a doctor/hospital signed BC, something verifiable its all a mystery. 


and Ozmo - when bama applied forhis SS in 1977 - what did he present?       


Exactly!  What ever he presented was good enough for the Social Security department at the time.  It was likely a copy of his original. 

Also, what i offered wasn't an "alternative theory", it was facts that led to very likely conclusion that his SSN is correct and valid.  It was slam dunk.  I don't know what was more entertaining....  The zip code thing or exposing you for not doing even the most basic research. 

His birth is not a mystery.  It is only a mystery to those who are easy prey to CT's for what ever reason, yours being because of hate.  Which is probably the same thing that prevents you from doing real research.  Are you afraid about what you might find? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 78   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!