It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Here is another interesting conficting point regarding Obama's released certificate of live birth.

The link here pulls up a .pdf document of "Vital Statistics of the United States -- Volume I -- Nativity." In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published this document.

Page 231 contains the requirements for "Race and color."

"Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite."


I don't see a classification of "African" as presented on Obama's certification of live birth he released. Hmmm.....




It says "African" for his FATHER on the form you see, because the government is no longer allowed to state the term "Negro" as it most likely is on the long form certificate (original), plus his father was FROM Africa, not an "African-American". Even so, "Negro" would only be applied to African-Americans back in 1961. Any black from an African country, in 1961, wouldn't have been called "Negro", it would have been "African".




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by MysterE


Notice that the long form title is "Certificate of Live Birth", while the version on the web is titled "Certification of Live Birth". Does it mean anything? I don't know.



That's because those "Certificates of Live Birth" are from before 2001, when Hawaii went paperless.

Now the only document you can get in Hawaii is a "Certification of Live Birth". If that mother wanted to get her twins' certificates today, they would look like the one Obama released.



the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


Hawaii.gov

Typical WND, still reporting on this non-issue.


Well then, I guess for those of us who think enforcement of the Constitution actually is an issue, that it's a good thing Obama was born before 2001.

He's concealing the additional information found on the long form. Why, why on earth would he do this if the information will simply back up the short form?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
So again. Why would there be a paper announcing his birth that day in Hawaii?

Do you really think that if somebody was planning something out for him all the way back then to make sure it was printed in the paper they would have just made sure the baby was born there?


it could easily be for someone just wanting citizenship for their kid and sneaking them in that way. You know, for free health care, anchor babies and all that fun stuff, maybe including not irking rich mommy and daddy even more than having a black bastard baby would? Yep, getting married after being already being 3 months pregnant. shotgun wedding time.

what, did you think illegal immigration started last year?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
man, some people are stubborn as mules.

If Obama was ineligible as the right wing nut jobs want him to be. Then yes, it would have come out during the 2 YEAR LONG CAMPAIGN.

thick as cheddar some folks I guess.

lol



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus
man, some people are stubborn as mules.

If Obama was ineligible as the right wing nut jobs want him to be. Then yes, it would have come out during the 2 YEAR LONG CAMPAIGN.

thick as cheddar some folks I guess.

lol


I know! The nerve of some people to think that a politician might keep a secret. What an asinine concept. Pure ignorance. Wake up people, and remember, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you".



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichieScott1


Well, the certificate number is clearly blacked out. Therefore, in theory, that form is now invalid, right?


Wrong. The certificate number on the form itself has not been altered or blacked out. It is a picture on a computer that was digitally blacked out. The original has not been altered.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
5. This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] as been altered for the reason below.

In my professional opinion (6 years of advertising design with heavy photoshop) the above phrase for #5 is set in 'Arial' font. Arial was not created until the mid 80's when Microsoft came out with the first PC's. If this was the original document that had been scanned or a print out of the original the arial front would not have been used in the original making.

6. Certification of live birth also is in the arial font that was created in the mid 1980's.

The font 'arial' was neither used nor invented in 1961. period.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by epete22
 


That COLB was created, issued, and stamped in June of 2007. We know it's not original, which is why we'd like to see the original.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
It says "African" for his FATHER on the form you see, because the government is no longer allowed to state the term "Negro" as it most likely is on the long form certificate (original), plus his father was FROM Africa, not an "African-American". Even so, "Negro" would only be applied to African-Americans back in 1961. Any black from an African country, in 1961, wouldn't have been called "Negro", it would have been "African".

Wow, how convienent.

Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling.


Prove this is the case or is this your opinion? I proved in a previous post that it is supposed to be "Negro" by linking to the 1961 guidelines. Do you have the newer version to prove your point?

Here, I will make it easy for you:
1961 vital statistics




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


It don't matter what Mr & Mrs Cliton think It matters to the banster, they own them all.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Gates was right. Nothing will ever satisfy the birthers.

second line

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Frankidealist35]


How about releasing the long form?

second line




OMG please! my sides are going to split open in laughter!

While the long form will silence some, it will not silence the majority on this issue, they will just says "its clearly doctored" etc. etc.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
There's no point of trying to convince the Obama haters.

They are so stuck on disliking the guy as long as he's in office. It's what happens when someone they don't like are in power.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


Well, you're right. Because after I see a legit birth certificate, then I want to know why as a natural born citizen he went to school, on tax-payer money, as a foreign exchange student. Then, I want to know why he did it under another name. Then I want to know how, if he was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961, while his mother was in Seattle. Then, I'm still wondering why a village in Kenya is so convinced he was born right there, that they're erecting a monument at the site of (what they think is) his birth. I'd also like to know why he'd have to show his college transcripts to get a regular job, but he can seal them away from the public, who just hired him to the most critical position, arguably in the world. Did he get a C in political science or something? THEN, when he breaks his biggest campaign promise during the first 7 days in office, it makes a few people wonder if he's been entirely up front with anything else. Savvy? In my opinion, anyone who does not question this shady past, is a mindless drone.

You see, it's not just the birth certificate. It's the fact that his entire past is holier than the pope. Add to the fact that his brother in law is a professor at the University of Hawaii's Acadamy of Creative Media.

It's funny, whenever any "birther" says "just show the long form, and it'll be over", the token response is "you'll just say it's doctored", but nobody ever gives a logical reason for not showing it. There's only two logical reasons I can think of for not showing the long form:

1. the information on the long form disputes the information on the short form.

or

2. it simply doesn't exist.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
Well then, I guess for those of us who think enforcement of the Constitution actually is an issue, that it's a good thing Obama was born before 2001.

He's concealing the additional information found on the long form. Why, why on earth would he do this if the information will simply back up the short form?


Please excuse me if this doesn't apply directly to you, because I am about to get a bit nasty towards the GOP in general.

Republicans haven't given a crap about the constitution for the past 8 years and before then. None at all. They are simply bringing up the constitution now as a means of support. If these same people who keep bring up the constitution actually gave a crap about it, they would have been mentioning the numerious other things which have been against the constitution.

Because they have ignored the constitution in the past, I do not for 1 second believe this is being done because they care about the constitution. It's a cop out and an excuse. You can't just ignore the constitution when it fits your purpose, and then claim to care about it later. When they do that, then I know they are full of crap.

I'm no where near an Obama supporter. But if these people really give a crap about the constitution, where are they on any number of the easily verifiable places where the constitution has been ignored? Where were they when Bush was wiping his butt with it?

And where all the democrats who have been screaming about the "constitution" for the past 8 years now?

They are all full of crap IMO. Partisan puppets. I only wish this was my own complaint in regards to the constitution.





[edit on 7/29/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


lolBirthers

bwah hah hah hah



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by RichieScott1


Well, the certificate number is clearly blacked out. Therefore, in theory, that form is now invalid, right?


Wrong. The certificate number on the form itself has not been altered or blacked out. It is a picture on a computer that was digitally blacked out. The original has not been altered.


Yes, I understand that. Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by eniac
lolBirthers

bwah hah hah hah

You must be a genius with a response as significant and thought provoking as that one.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
reply to post by Helmkat
 


Well, you're right. Because after I see a legit birth certificate, then I want to know why as a natural born citizen he went to school, on tax-payer money, as a foreign exchange student.


The BS never ends with birthers......

You are refering to the AP news release from APRIL 1ST!!

IT IS A PROVEN HOAX. THE AP NEVER RELEASED THIS. Some idiot blogger/birther mocked it up and sent it out via email....I know it's hard to believe given the strong credibility of the birther movement...but true.

APRIL FOOLS...get it?????? Research it for goodness sake.

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
reply to post by Helmkat
 


Well, you're right. Because after I see a legit birth certificate, then I want to know why as a natural born citizen he went to school, on tax-payer money, as a foreign exchange student. Then, I want to know why he did it under another name. Then I want to know how, if he was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961, while his mother was in Seattle. Then, I'm still wondering why a village in Kenya is so convinced he was born right there, that they're erecting a monument at the site of (what they think is) his birth.


Not be offensive...but rather shooting for accuracy...you entire post is a big lump of indisputably debunked BS.

His mother wasn't in Seattle...this is fringe right garbage and has no proof other than wackos simply saying it. In contrast there are witnesses to his birth...we even know the OB that deliverd him in Hawaii.

There is no village in Kenya erecting a monument....Barack Obama Senior was born there and Kenya is proud of that fact...but please direct me to a legitimate source saying that Kenya is erecting a monument where they think Barack Obama II was born?

again you have either been fed BS that you are unwilling to validate with research or you are willingly spreading BS becuase you don't like your president.

...which makes you either ignorant or dishonest but either way a pawn to fringe right propaganda

[edit on 29-7-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
It's funny, whenever any "birther" says "just show the long form, and it'll be over", the token response is "you'll just say it's doctored", but nobody ever gives a logical reason for not showing it. There's only two logical reasons I can think of for not showing the long form:

1. the information on the long form disputes the information on the short form.

or

2. it simply doesn't exist.


3. You don't play fetch with rabid dogs....wackos who have repeatedly and consistently proven they have no interest in the facts or the truth.

At least when you guys were claiming he was a terrorist for "fist bumping" it was easy to laugh....but lately you folks come across as glassy eyed scary crazy....

You don't entertain crazy people with facts or evidence when they have CLEARLY shown they have no interest in either.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by maybereal11]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join