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

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution

 

Gosh, I really hope you do not hurt yourself. Stretching like that can be terror on certain unused muscles. The constitution does not say anywhere in it that a person can only be defined by having two such parents. Not only does it not say it but thank you for backing that up. You pointed out quite well that it does not say that in the constitution. In fact, if it did, we would were not eligable. I am having trouble remembering the one that was an actual native American born of two 'natural born American citizens' according to your attempt at a criteria.

e.g. if my parents were natural born citizens then according to you, their parents must have also had to be natural born citizens which could only apply if their parents were also natural born citizens, and so on. Nice try though.

...or how about in 2012 we meet to discuss this again. While Obama is still president of the United States, you can tell me how right you are/were. Maybe then you can tell me how you plan to never pay taxes again.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by evil incarnate]

I suggest you read it again but SLOWLY this time so you get it!

No where does it say anything that your PARENTS both have to be NATURAL born citizens. Your two parents merely have to be US Citizens!

Only the person running for POTUS must be a Natural born citizen, which means both his parents only need to be US Citizens!

Obama's momma was a US citizen, but his pappa was not! Had Obama's pappa become a naturalized citizen before Obama was born, THEN Obama would have been born from two US Citizens. His mamma being a natural born citizen (assuming both her parents were US citizens) and his pappa becoming a US citizen through immigration. But his pappa was not a US citizen.

And the constitution refers to the LAW OF NATIONS where if anyone broke those laws they could be prosecuted. The LAW OF NATIONS CLEARLY DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

READ IT!

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I know birthers are curious to see what's on the long form, but what I don't understand is why non-birthers aren't just as curious to see what Obama's hiding even if it's got nothing to do with his citizenship. Curious minds would like to know what the big mystery is all about.

Because it is not our right to demand that the president turn over every piece of personal information Glen Beck or Lou Dobbs or some Russian doctor/lawyer/taekwondo master decides they want to see. There are certain safeguards in place to keep our government from being siezed by foreign interests. Some of us do not understand why this is so important when it was not at all important to look into G.W.'s military records. What was he hiding? Oh right, coc aine use, dereliction of duty, etc. How about McCain? Several people lost lives due to his failure to obey SOP on more than one occasion but we did not demand to see any of those records. Somehow, seeing Obama's long form birth certificate will tell you something you need to know? His birth weight? The constellation crossing behind the moon at the time? tide levels? what?

How about just his birth place??? Since NO ONE has seen it then how does ANYONE know where he was really born? Since there are 4 ways to obtain an original birth certificate from HI for people that were born at that time, and only ONE of those four would be a birth certificate that has a doctor's signature who delivered the birth and naming the hospital where the birth took place.....HOW do YOU or anyone else for that matter, knows whether or not it is one of the other 3 ways he could have obtained a HI birth certificate???

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Suddenly people in the military get to be so choosey? If you do not want to be ordered off to war by the president, stay out of the military. If you do not like the person running for president, do not vote for them. If you cannot handle it when your guy loses, move to another country.

Anyone in the military that is using this as cover is a coward, liar or both. If they were so worried about the orders they follow being legit, they would have spent the last many years doing something to stop their brothers and sisters from dying in the now known illegal war in Iraq. Were we at war already when these people joined or not? Who was comander in chief then? This is all BS and you know it.

What you don't seem to understand is the orders from Bush to the military were legal lawful orders because Bush was in fact the President!

Obama is not! He is merely a usurper that never was vetted and never provided any proof that he is in fact, without a doubt, eligible to be POTUS!

If it turns out he is not eligible then all our military becomes guilty of being nothing but a bunch of terrorists because they were not following lawful orders! Lawful orders can only come from the President, period! This is why they are filing lawsuits. They need to be sure they are in fact following lawful orders!

All this other rehtoric you are spewing is nothing but garbage coming from the leftwing nuts trying to discredit anyone that dares to question Obama's legal citizenship! They even stoop as low to accuse our fine military officers of being cowards claiming this is just an attempt to get out of being deployed! These are decorated high ranking officers we are talking about here! Use a little common sense!

Originally posted by linux2216
Why does President Obama refuse to clear this whole issue up by producing his real birth certificate signed by his delivering physician on the day he was born in Hawaii marking the time of birth and identifying the hospital where he was born? Some chick in Hawaii said she saw it, and she would not lie. Show us the bona fide document Mr. President. This would be over in an instant and we could get on with important issues.

Some chick in HI said she saw it and would not lie??? LOL

What chick is that? How could she have possibly seen it? That document is so locked up that no one can see it! Unless you are referring to the governor chick that claimed she seen it and refuses to say what it says!

Remember, there are 4 different ways anyone could have obtained a real birth certificate from HI that was born at that time. Only one of those 4 would be from being born in a Hospital in HI which would be signed by a doctor that delivered the birth and naming the hospital that the birth took place in. All the other 3 ways would only raise more doubts and offer no solid proof where you were really born! So the million dollar question is, which of the 4 is the way Obama got his HI birth certificate????

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.
BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.

It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Daily Kos blog and the fightthesmears.com website by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. There have been a couple of attempts to refute his argument and Polarik has replied to the most extensive of them. I do not claim expertise in this area, but I think it would be best for journalists and politicians to familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides before they casually dismiss Polarik’s position without taking the trouble to understand it.

Link to the entire article:

www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
As of now, despite the implicit gains one may assume for whichever political party, there is only evidence that this was done to mess with the 'birthers'.

So, the woman on the TV, on the Youtube videos, in the press, on the net - the one being quoted by all the right-wing blogs and the one who filed the court motions - her intent was/is to mess with the "birthers"?

Really?

Damn. I could of sworn she was there to smear the President of the USA - and try and take down some journalists at the same time.

She certainly wasn't blowing Obama kisses, sending him chocolates and roses, was she?

Originally posted by neformore
How it got on ATS is irrelevant. Who presented it is irrelevant.

I'd be more inclined to believe that, if the fact that it was received and decimated by ATS was not hidden until the hoax was revealed.

If it didn't matter then why not just admit that in the first place and save Flysersfan the trouble of implying that her source may have actually been a legitimate insider?

It can't matter and not matter at the same time.

You are contradicting what SO has claimed.

It is relevant.

The authenticity of the document, and the motives of the people who developed it in the first place ARE relevant.

Well of course.

Whether that was from the left or the right, ATS played into those particular hands.

The fact that we were somewhat mislead in the opening post is what kept the confusion going.

If we had known that this was sent to the ATS administration anonymously from the start I doubt we'd even be having this particular line of discussion right now. If I send you pics of the Loch Ness monster anonymously can I trust that you will forward them to the Crypto wing to let the members decide whether they are real or not?

People are complaining that ATS let the members debate and decide the authenticity of the document themselves.

ATS withheld key facts, Mr. Neformore.

You can try and dismiss that with as many "roll eyes" emoticons as you you like, that doesn't justify this, and only confirms the smugness behind this deception.

I read from SO that the people complaining most are the ones that usually criticize ATS, well I've never sought to besmirch the reputation or decisions of ATS (I was behind just about every one thusfar) so please understand that I do so now because I believe this was a poor decision.

I don't want any of you to paint me as a historic ATS attacker for saying that the way this was handled STUNK.

It is an easy way to get off the hook.

- Lee

reply to post by neformore


Star from me on this one.

Attempting to close a loophole in this obvious hoax deserves a second line. Like the Canadian BC submitted in the Berg case this is yet another fraud perpetrated by unscrupulous hoaxers that want to win the quick mental battle of poisoning the mind of the gullible.

This thread is nothing more than chain mail.

- Lee

reply to post by neformore


Yes, but so far as we know, she's the one that gobbled it up, not the one that created it ...

The identity and the motives of that individual, so far as I am aware, are yet to be identified.

Thus, both are surely at this juncture speculative, and by logical consequence, and in reference to the provided definitions of hoax/fraud (political or otherwise), the document is simply a hoax.

Given the sequence of events that have led us to this point I understand the apprehension on the part of admin to label this thread a hoax ... but not doing so by no means makes it any less so. It is, as always, what it is.

Edit to add: Listen, it obviously isn't my place to decide what thread goes where, gets labeled what, and the reasons behind it ... I guess I just miss debating.

[edit on 9 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by lee anoma
If we had known that this was sent to the ATS administration anonymously from the start I doubt we'd even be having this particular line of discussion right now.

Which discussion Lee?

The one about the Birth Certificate, its validity and the motives behind its production, and the whole "citzen or not debate" (which is the real issue here) or the artificial drama you seemingly seek to perpetuate about how a document that was in the public domain and available to a whole load of sources on the web, came to be on ATS?

Can you not see that it made no difference whatsoever how it got here, because it existed outside of ATS before it came on to ATS?

It doesn't matter who was the first person to put it "out there". It was already there. Hell if I'd have seen it before anyone else did out there on the net I personally would have put it on here for debate, and I'd wager that countless other people that contribute to ATS on a daily basis would have done so also.

Its what happens on ATS. People present information, and it gets debated.

Heres another rolling smiley to add to your collection, because - frankly - I think you are trying to create an issue when there isn't one.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Its everything.

We could bang on about the sematics of it all till kingdom come I guess. The BC is a hoax. She has made a fraudulent claim to the court (it seems) and there is an apparent conspiracy to produce such a document and attempt to push it on the world in a viral manner.

Hmm. We could create a new genre here

Its a Hoax Fraud Conspiracy - bit of a mouthful that and probably typically British so in the spirit of all things American and your fondness for acronyms over there - lets call it a HFC

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Its a Hoax Fraud Conspiracy - bit of a mouthful that and probably typically British so in the spirit of all things American and your fondness for acronyms over there - lets call it a HFC

It's a deal!

Now that we got that sorted who's gonna pitch it to SO?

Oh man, thanks for that, this thread needed a sprinkle of humor.

reply to post by neformore


Nef Nef Nef Nef, Calm down

Your support is admirable, and ATS has my supprt also, well kinda (As much as I could be faffed to genuinley care).... speaking just for myself, I don't give a snitch about whether one thinks where the doc came from would have made a difference to the validity of the document. Knowing it was sent to a multitude of people may have shortened the mystery a little, knowing that Orly didnt clap eyes on a orignal afterall....
I just would like to note that:

A) It was asked more than several times where the doc came from and information was witheld, and this gag order is perplexing, This withholding of information is the subject of concern, not whether it would have made a difference. Why do that at all?

B) the OP is not impartial...sorry FF I think you rock, but its true on this matter. So why not release it by ATS admin as the Obama video was with a disclaimer to open up discussion. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but perhaps the recent fairly impartial News release summarising the Natural Birth issues could have been the forum for it. Again I am simply perplexed as to the non standardized information sharing practices.

C) The information was released as the thread started dying down, and now is ramped up back nicely...... Why leave it till then? Why not just answer member questions, the method of release of information I feel in a way has controlled the thread flow and contributions.....making it not a impartial way to just let members debate.
If one was to do that, Full disclosure wuld have supported that practice.

D) Im over it...Hows the weather in Engerlund? And how about Ashes cricket, far more interesting a topic for all.....

later
zazz



[edit on 9-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by lee anoma
If we had known that this was sent to the ATS administration anonymously from the start I doubt we'd even be having this particular line of discussion right now.

Which discussion Lee?

Mr. Neformore, I refer to the discussion we are currently having on how ATs handled this anonymously sent document.

Personally I value your insight and usual fairness in most situations and believe you are an excellent choice for a mod but on this one I have to respectfully disagree.

The one about the Birth Certificate, its validity and the motives behind its production, and the whole "citzen or not debate" (which is the real issue here) or the artificial drama you seemingly seek to perpetuate about how a document that was in the public domain and available to a whole load of sources on the web, came to be on ATS?

Are you assuming that we all knew this?

If you are then your assumption is false.

I personally did not know the origions of this particular document until I did my own independent research. By origins, I mean where this lawyer Orly Taitzs claims to have gotten it from or at least the documents history before it arrived into her hands.

You are a little late to the dance.

You can claim my upset is artificial and I can claim you justification is somewhat sycophantic but either way I personally don't like how ATS handled this situation.

Can you not see that it made no difference whatsoever how it got here, because it existed outside of ATS before it came on to ATS?

I can to an extent but this is after the fact.

Again...I had no idea that this document existed somewhere outside ATS until I did my personal research. If you believe we all did then you are kidding yourself. Read the thread again.

So why did you not inform us of this, since you seem to feel it was common knowledge?
Did you even know before this thread was created?

Did the OP?

It seemed from the beginning that she didn't know it was in the public domain, as well as most of the subsequent posters that were asking for details on this "anonymous" provider. Rightly so too.

Perhaps you and ATS already knew this though.

Talk about creating drama.

It doesn't matter who was the first person to put it "out there". It was already there. Hell if I'd have seen it before anyone else did out there on the net I personally would have put it on here for debate, and I'd wager that countless other people that contribute to ATS on a daily basis would have done so also.

Good. I hope you would include all relevant details, including the fact that you didn't know where the hell you got it from.

Its what happens on ATS. People present information, and it gets debated.

I've been here long enough to recognize that much.
The difference here is that this document was present by ATS from behind the scenes.

The document itself is pure junk.

- Lee

Originally posted by neformore
Heres another rolling smiley to add to your collection, because - frankly - I think you are trying to create an issue when there isn't one.

Right back at you big guy.

Glad to see dismissive attitudes and unjustifiable paranoia is at least alive in Mods as well as members.

Don't for a second consider anyones gripe on this issue is authentic.

- Lee

reply to post by zazzafrazz


I'm as chilled as a polar bear licking an ice lolly while taking a cold bath sitting in the freezer section of an artic frozen food store when the doors are wide open and its -30 degrees outside....

Weathers good, thanks, and - although cricket isn't my sport - I think we'll take the ashes back this time.

Now then...back to this birth certificate thingymabob... the important issues, as I see it (which is why I keep on about it) is the certificate, the person who created it, and those who seek to push it. Anything else is a side-show distraction.

Its all to do with focus.

The MTV generation likes to chop and change. Politicians and political hacks love that because someone can shout "Look, theres a puppy riding solo backwards on a motorbike!" and the politician who embezzled millions suddenly drops out of the limelight until such time as he/she can reframe themselves by donating $100 to charity.

Lets not distract. Lets get right to the bottom of the BC, Orly Taitz and the whole damned mess.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

A) It was asked more than several times where the doc came from and information was witheld, and this gag order is perplexing, This withholding of information is the subject of concern, not whether it would have made a difference. Why do that at all?

Aye, there's the rub.

B) the OP is not impartial...

Nope.

Yet she was privy to inside information that lead us all on.

Oh well.

- Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma
Don't for a second consider anyones gripe on this issue is authentic.

Lee

See above - you might see where I'm coming from. At least I hope so.

"Look - theres Madonna!!!".....

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by lee anoma
Don't for a second consider anyones gripe on this issue is authentic.

Lee

See above - you might see where I'm coming from. At least I hope so.

"Look - theres Madonna!!!".....

Okay Nef, I see.

Ill get back to work on my projects.
I guess I am done with this issue now and will be in the future.

Until I get a video of Obama coming right out of the womb on the Serengeti plains, his father racing him to a nearby cliff holding him up to the sunlight as he utters his full name much too soon for any newborn, while lions circling the the area carrying Kenyan flags in their mouths for the Hyena reciting the Kenyan constitution word for word above a freshly killed Wildebeest that just trampled Ann Dunham's secret plane ticket into the ground...I won't fall for debating this issue again.



I was for ATS before I was against it.

- Lee

reply to post by neformore

Lets not distract. Lets get right to the bottom of the BC, Orly Taitz and the whole damned mess.

Ahh but distract me you did with the mention of MTV, I am now interested, especially if michael Jacksons ghost is making a guest appearance...see how easy it is to disctract...
You didnt actually respond to my 3 points, other than point 4.....polar bears and the weather....fnar fnar fnar

Yes the birth cert is important and the reasons surrounding its manufacture and its embracing by the birthers, and this HAS been the focus of this thread, however information was withheld by ATS, and this is perplexing and those members who were denied information are entitled to perhaps an apology. Especially when the release of information surrounding the birth cert going to Bill HAS controlled the flow and popularity of the thread to an extent. Now I'm not saying it was deliberate to get site hits, I wouldnt care if it was, I'm all for making $, infact am very supporter of just that AM interested to see if some members wont trust much that comes out now..... Some may feel punked themselves.....










[edit on 9-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]