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.

 

Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

page: 114
182
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Your concern, and multiple complaints, over a member using "Ovomit" instead of "Obama" has certainly made it clear that your indignation is tempered by your political mindset.


Excuse me kind sir, my objection is based by T&C of this forum. Perhaps they should be revised. (A bit Off Topic I might add and one I considered "confidential.")

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on AboveTopSecret.com. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition.

For edification to others, I "ALERTED" of an infraction and posted to forum politely, without malice and my post was removed. As of this posting the offensive comments are left to stand.






[edit on 8-8-2009 by kinda kurious]




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


Why does it matter? Is Obama different than Biden, than Clinton, than Bush, than any number of politicos that could be president? If its proven he's not a US Citizen then what? All of American sighs in relief and puts in ... who? Biden? Palin? McCain? They won't put up a Kucinich or Paul. No, freakin' way.

All this birther movement is doing is making the 9-11 truth folks and the Ron Paul folks look like a bunch of loonies. It is a straw man, a ruse, a big huge joke on activists that have an opportunity to make real change by exposing something BIG. Here anti-liberal kids, please jump on the opportunity to look like a racist and nullify all of the arguments of the people around you. We can't have people exposing the Fed or the Bilderbergs. Here's a nice little fake birth certificate for you to play with...

Come on! Can we stop with the birth certificate thing? Even if it were true, which I doubt because he'd have to have known since grade school he was going to be president, so what? You won't ever be able to prove it, you're taking energy away from things you can, you're making the tea baggers look like racists, etc.

Can we stop with this? I realize that once people get their teeth in something they want to win, but don't you want to win BIG? Pick something that you can win at, look credible with, and doesn't hurt the larger cause of humanity.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
To Stormdancer: The president WAS a dual citizen at birth. That has been known and discussed here many times. He was a British (Kenyan) citizen by law and a natural born American citizen. When Kenya gained its independence, his citizenship was transferred FROM Britain to Kenya. It then expired when he turned 18 and didn't renew it. His British and Kenyan citizenship have no effect whatsoever on his American (natural born) citizenship.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
After 113 pages, could some people start to ascertain whether Australian and Kenyan birth certificates in the 1960s had a similar format?

I mean, those who concluded that the Kenyan certificate was hoaxed from the Australian one based merely upon their similar appearance have ignored the possibility that, being members of the Commonwealth, both countries used similar-looking templates for printing birth certificates.

Why would a forger omit a whole field when he manufactured the Kenyan one? He would want to make as few alterations as possible because each one would pose the risk of detection. The dissimilarities between the designs of the two documents don't make sense if one of them is a forgery.

Why couldn't someone (presumably, an Australian) who knew what Kenyan certificates looked like in the 1960s have simply searched amongst Australian certificates until he found one with the same page number? Then he made it public when the Kenyan one was leaked to Orly Taitz in order to discredit it.

Having read this thread, I see no conclusive evidence for the Obama certificate being a forgery. What I do see are people jumping to conclusions and making false arguments because they want to believe that Obama is a legitimate president of the USA.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To Stormdancer: The president WAS a dual citizen at birth. That has been known and discussed here many times. He was a British (Kenyan) citizen by law and a natural born American citizen. When Kenya gained its independence, his citizenship was transferred FROM Britain to Kenya. It then expired when he turned 18 and didn't renew it. His British and Kenyan citizenship has no effect whatsoever on his American (natural born) citizenship.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


I see.

[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



I mean, those who concluded that the Kenyan certificate was hoaxed from the Australian one based merely upon their similar appearance have ignored the possibility that, being members of the Commonwealth, both countries used similar-looking templates for printing birth certificates.


That point has been raised on other forums.



[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To Stormdancer: The president WAS a dual citizen at birth. That has been known and discussed here many times. He was a British (Kenyan) citizen by law and a natural born American citizen. When Kenya gained its independence, his citizenship was transferred FROM Britain to Kenya. It then expired when he turned 18 and didn't renew it. His British and Kenyan citizenship have no effect whatsoever on his American (natural born) citizenship.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


Let’s just get things right.

Obama was Not a British Citizen, people born in Kenya (or overseas to a Kenyan) while it was a colony of the United Kingdom were (Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies) “British Subjects” they are different from “British Citizens”

British Subjects are different from British Citizens.

After 1983 when the Act Changed his status would have changed to BOC (British Overseas Citizen) which is again, different from a British Citizen.

Also, no form of British nationality is lost automatically when you turn 18 and no other, and gaining another nationality does not cause you to lose it.

So he probably technically still is a British Subject (or now BOC), unless he actually renounced it himself.

Mikey




[edit on 8/8/2009 by Mikey84]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Your concern, and multiple complaints, over a member using "Ovomit" instead of "Obama" has certainly made it clear that your indignation is tempered by your political mindset.


Excuse me kind sir, my objection is based by T&C of this forum. Perhaps they should be revised. (A bit Off Topic I might add and one I considered "confidential.")

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on AboveTopSecret.com. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition.

For edification to others, I "ALERTED" of an infraction and posted to forum politely, without malice and my post was removed.




[edit on 8-8-2009 by kinda kurious]


I'd actually like to see this resolved too.

While I do understand that there's no way that the mods can be aware of every little thing that gets posted, at times it comes across as arbitrary enforcement.

If this is part of the T&C, then it shouldn't be allowed. A decision was made that this sort of political baiting was counter productive. To point it out isn't partisian, but rather exemplifying the very reason that ATS asked for people to not do it - it distracts us from real discussion.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Wrong in law. A natural-born American needs to have TWO American parents. His mother was 18 when she gave birth. According to the statutes existing at the time (Nationality Act, 1940), a child whose father was not American and who was born outside America was an American only if the mother had lived in the USA for 10 years, at least five of which were after the age of 14. Stanley Ann Dunham missed qualification by one year. Therefore, Obama was British when he was born in Kenya, being subject to the laws of Great Britain. If he later became a naturalised American citizen, this means he could not become president of the USA because he was never a natural born citizen.

According to FactCheck.org|:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…"
www.factcheck.org...

Therefore admittedly, Barack Hussein Obama II (Soetoro) admits Great Britain governed his status.

A "NATURAL BORN" CITIZEN is one that CANNOT be "GOVERNED" by GREAT BRITAIN or any other country.
A "natural born citizen" is a person born on U.S. Soil of parents of which both must be U.S. Citizens and a "natural born citizen" can only be governed by the United States.

Therefore it is quite clear that Barack Hussein Obama II /Barry Soetoro cannot be a "natural born citizen" and has knowingly committed fraud against the people of the United States of America in his application for candidacy for Office of the President of the United States of America, and lied under Oath.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
A natural-born American needs to have TWO American parents.


Pffft! I'm not going through this again,


1. Not the subject of this thread.
2. Has no place in reality.

Mikey, you might be right. But it still has no effect on his natural-born American citizenship. I'd like to see the documents that are behind your claims, but it's really not for this thread.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
BH, quote



The president WAS a dual citizen at birth. That has been known and discussed here many times. He was a British (Kenyan) citizen by law and a natural born American citizen. When Kenya gained its independence, his citizenship was transferred FROM Britain to Kenya. It then expired when he turned 18 and didn't renew it. His British and Kenyan citizenship have no effect whatsoever on his American (natural born) citizenship.


Micky



Obama was Not a British Citizen, people born in Kenya (or overseas to a Kenyan) while it was a colony of the United Kingdom were (Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies) “British Subjects” they are different from “British Citizens”

British Subjects are different from British Citizens.

After 1983 when the Act Changed his status would have changed to BOC (British Overseas Citizen) which is again, different from a British Citizen.

Also, no form of British nationality is lost automatically when you turn 18 and no other, and gaining another nationality does not cause you to lose it.

So he probably technically still is a British Subject (or now BOC), unless he actually renounced it himself.

Therefore it is quite clear that Barack Hussein Obama II /Barry Soetoro cannot be a "natural born citizen" and has knowingly committed fraud against the people of the United States of America in his application for candidacy for Office of the President of the United States of America, and lied under Oath.


post by
micpsi




Wrong in law. A natural-born American needs to have TWO American parents. His mother was 18 when she gave birth. According to the statutes existing at the time (Nationality Act, 1940), a child whose father was not American and who was born outside America was an American only if the mother had lived in the USA for 10 years, at least five of which were after the age of 14. Stanley Ann Dunham missed qualification by one year. Therefore, Obama was British when he was born in Kenya, being subject to the laws of Great Britain. If he later became a naturalised American citizen, this means he could not become president of the USA because he was never a natural born citizen.

According to FactCheck.org|:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…"
www.factcheck.org...


Now, I am posting these quotes all in the same post to prove a point,
Which one is it?

What am I supposed to believe?

Can someone please start another topic on this issue, although I still think it does need to be posted here also.

Edited to add,




Also, no form of British nationality is lost automatically when you turn 18 and no other, and gaining another nationality does not cause you to lose it.


I would like the facts on this too.





[edit on 103131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


The OP sounded like she could identify the source but couldn't tell more as if she was covering someone or something. Ulala already explained it well. This directed the discussion and maybe caused interferences but that's not the point.
Now, we know this source was you and that you have received the document by an anonymous e-mail. Of course, ATS is not directly responsible for the opening post and it did not prevent to discuss and reveal the fraud.

I understand you being sensitive on the subject. I, for me, am not questionning the website integrity not at all. But I feel the method was uncareful, information was lost in the process. The OP could have simply stated that 'someone' had received an anonymous e-mail but she didn't. It was not a good first post.
What I, and apparently, other members don't understand is how it happened. You would not have ruined your neutrality by simply explaining how the document surfaced. ATS is about collecting and exchanging information. It's uncomfortable to realise we were not given the full information and partly because of a staff decision even if it was not intentional.

I have disliked one mod posting (I know his opinion is not endorsed by ATS). There are pre-judgements on these topics whatever you do. We don't come blank as a clean sheet we have pre-judgements on everything and we try to put them aside by being rational. I don't recognize to anyone the right to spare me info because it could influence me as benevolent he may be. That's just unrespectful. Don't use this as an argument if you believe in the people.

Anyways, it's no big deal. Continue your good work



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

Regardless of what is happening since 2001 when they went paperless...in 1961 they were not paperless. They have stated that they did not throw away any of the original paper birth certificates. It would probably be illegal to do so. Why would senator Will Espero be planning to legislate to make all long forms available to the public (let alone to the person of birth) if long forms did not exist? If, of course that is true, as WND do such sloppy reporting.


www.wnd.com...



You must have forgotten to read the rest of the article...


Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."


Yes they went paperless meaning they GOT RID OF ALL THE PAPER! They are not maintaining pre 2001 papers either.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
How it got on ATS is irrelevant. Who presented it is irrelevant. The authenticity of the document,


Irrelevant how?

How it got to ATS was through a third party to SO. Considering that it could have been sent by the hoaxers makes it quite relevant (obviously the intent was to start debate, especially since it was sent to multiple sites).

Who presented it is, indeed relevant as well. Perhaps not in context to the hoax but I find that the reason anything and everything is done to be pertinent to the entire picture, of which the birth certificate farce is but a tiny ping of.

I would respectfully request that you not disregard potential points of contention because you are overly defensive for some unknown reason. ATS will survive despite suspicions, I assure you
.

Oh. And I am thinking this is really just a hoax, perpetrated by people for kicks and giggles. Political fraud, in my opinion, is a convenient label for a national controversy.

Back to lurking.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


So if they are not maintaining, how did they see and verify the original document, as was stated?

[edit on 8/8/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


So if they are not maintaining, how did they see and verify the original document, as was stated?

[edit on 8/8/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]


Because all originals are now in electronic record form. There isn't a "THING" you can make a copy of, there is simply a record which exists as a data structure.

Or at least that's how I understand it.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


There's a post around here somewhere in one of the threads that quotes an article I think where it was clarified that the original documents were not destroyed and are still kept in Hawaii. Not sure which thread that was though.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 





The OP sounded like she could identify the source but couldn't tell more as if she was covering someone or something. Ulala already explained it well. This directed the discussion and maybe caused interferences but that's not the point.
Now, we know this source was you and that you have received the document by an anonymous e-mail. Of course, ATS is not directly responsible for the opening post and it did not prevent to discuss and reveal the fraud.


What?

So SO had FF post this topic?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Its here because - while the BC is, I think we all agree, a hoax - the motives behind someone trying to continually push the issue, and resorting to stooping to such depths most certainly is a political conspiracy.


I had let this go yesterday and was ready to move on ... but since you brought it back up ...

I repeat:


Hoax:


A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive or trick an audience into believing, or accepting, that something is real, when the hoaxster knows it is not; or that something is true, when it is false..


Fraud:


In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds


In this case, as has been stated, the motives of the individual (personal gain) behind this document can only be assumed, and cannot or have not yet been be ascertained.

As such, and until such motives can be established, this falls under the clearest definition of hoax.


So, other than what you/we might "think/believe," where is the evidence of intent?

Without such conclusive evidence it is a hoax and not political fraud!

At this juncture, "political fraud" is nothing more than a convenient assumption.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
There's a post around here somewhere in one of the threads that quotes an article I think where it was clarified that the original documents were not destroyed and are still kept in Hawaii.




In an e-mail, the Times reported, Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama's 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health officials.

In 2001, Hawaii's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format, but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but said, "We have backups for all of our backups."


USA Today

Obama's original BC is probably in a safe somewhere away from the health department. They may have a back up on file, but they aren't taking any chances on anyone stealing the original.



new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in

join