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.

 

Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

page: 16
137
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


They may not issue the long form automatically...and I think this is what they mean, as it is easier for them to just knock out the computer generated short form than to go search for the paper long form. But you can ask for, and pay the fee and get the long form. All the long forms exist in the records. Hawaii is on record as stating that all paper records still exist.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Looks like Hawaii stopped in 2001.
www.starbulletin.com...


Answer: No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it's only available in electronic form.

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.

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

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."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."

The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year's presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama's American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

Asked about that document, Okubo said, "This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Nichiren
 



The real underlying issue of this thread is Obama's birth certificate. I voted for the man, but it mystifies me why he hasn't ended this debate by releasing the long form of the document.


Because Hawaii does not issue long form birth certificates. What Obama showed the world online is the document you would get if you were born in Hawaii and asked for your birth certificate.

Besides the fact that it would be reckless to show all that personal information to the world. We have covered this many times in many threads.

This thread is about the forms submitted to the states by the DNC and not the birth certificate issue.


Obviously you haven't paid attention to those "many threads" otherwise you wouldn't spin facts


The state of Hawaii issued long form birth certificates until 2001. Obama was born in 1961.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
i have a theory of my own.... i think "the powers that be" were wanting ANY fall guy....... according to the logic in the last two pages or so since citizen at birth laws dont specificly mean natural citizen..... McCain is no more valid of a hoice anyways.

John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, according to his birth certificate, was born of two U.S. citizen parents at Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama.[38] The city of Colon was outside the US administered Canal Zone and remained Panamanian territory throughout the existence of the Panama Canal Zone.[39][40][41][42] A brief birth announcement in The Panama American stated that the birth had taken place at "the Submarine Base Hospital." [43][44] The former unincorporated territory Panama Canal Zone and its military facilities were not regarded as United States territory.[45] In March 2008 McCain was opined eligible for Presidency in an opinion paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe.[46] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen.[47] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen, although he acknowledged the possibility that the applicable laws had been enacted after the fact and applied only retroactively.[48] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[49] Although the US Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at one point only became U.S. nationals,[50] it also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen […]".[51] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural born status.[52][53]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
and as a side not ....... all the government needs to do is define the phrase that appears only in the eligibilty of presidential nominees portion of the constitution..... and then there will be no room for arguement??????



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
And Bu# went AWOL during his attempt at hiding from the Vietnam war and should not have been allowed to be President either!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 



The state of Hawaii issued long form birth certificates until 2001. Obama was born in 1961.


Ok right there, that is the key. Do you know how many times I have had to get my birth certificate? So if Obama had to get his birth certificate after 2001 he would have been issued a short form.

Five years latter, Obama starts running for the office of President, come mid July 2008 people start asking about Obama being qualified to be President. So Obama sends off to Hawaii for his birth certificate, receives the short form. Posts that short form on the web for everyone to see. The short form is perfectly legal, officials in the state of Hawaii confirm it is legitimate, and lo and behold the worst conspiracy ever contrived is born.

I kept an open mind about it at first, wondered if there might be some truth to it. I didn't rely on just WND for my information, I researched and guess what I discovered? That Obama was born in Hawaii and is well qualified to be the President of the United States.

There is no point in Obama forcing Hawaii to issue him a long form birth certificate just to quiet a small percentage of the population that wouldn't believe it anyway. Please don't give me the bull dunk that if you saw his long form birth certificate and it turned out that he has been telling the truth about his place of birth this entire time you would believe it. It just won't happen, people that believe in this theory aren't going to take anything other than the removal of Obama from office as good enough.

But that is besides the point and it is not the point of THIS THREAD, this thread is about the DNC's paperwork signed by Nancy Pelosi and issued to each and every state in the union to put the Obama/Biden ticket on the ballot. The issue here is whether or not the word "Duly" is good enough to state that Pelosi had vetted Obama and knows that he is eligible for the Office of POTUS. Not about Obama's birth certificate. There are plenty of threads on ATS about Obama's birth certificate. This thread is not about Obama's birth certificate. This thread has nothing to do with Obama's birth certificate this has everything to do with the DNC and what they did to show the states that Obama was a qualified candidate and should be put on the 2008 presidential ticket. Not about Obama's birth certificate. The birth certificate has no place in this thread because this thread is not about Obama's birth certificate.

I hope I made it clear that this thread is not about Obama's birth certificate and about the notice sent to all 50 states telling them to put Obama on the ballot and the wording used in each of those 50 statements.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
isnt forgery a crime?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yes, Forgery is a crime. What is forged?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Ok right there, that is the key. Do you know how many times I have had to get my birth certificate? So if Obama had to get his birth certificate after 2001 he would have been issued a short form.


That is incorrect. He could pay to have a copy of the existing paper long form which Hawaii is on record as stating exists safely locked away. That is obfuscation, sometimes known as lying, on the part of the Hawaiian officials, who were probably told to lie. Funnily enough he states in one of his books that he found some paper along with his birth certificate. Although he did not write those books of course; they are widely attributed to William Ayers, the terrorist.



Five years latter, Obama starts running for the office of President, come mid July 2008 people start asking about Obama being qualified to be President. So Obama sends off to Hawaii for his birth certificate, receives the short form. Posts that short form on the web for everyone to see. The short form is perfectly legal, officials in the state of Hawaii confirm it is legitimate, and lo and behold the worst conspiracy ever contrived is born.


Lovely little story. Obama/Soetoro did not send off to Hawaii. He did not receive a short form. He did not post on the web. There is a lot of evidence that various short forms were presented and that all are fake and forged. Hawaii did not confirm that certificate was legitimate, just that they have his vital records on file. And they erroneously may have claimed that he is a natural born citizen, but then the state distanced themselves from any such statement after that as they either know it is not true, or that they are infringing the privacy laws by stating any such thing.

You are right that I would not believe a government supplied long form posted on the net. However, I would accept a long form verified by a trustworthy judge and trustworthy independent forgery experts. And if he was found to be born in Hawaii I would accept that.

You can’t keep repeating that this thread is not about the birth certificate whilst talking about the birth certificate and then repeating over and over in a whole paragraph that it is not about the birth certificate. Give us the short form version next time…lol



The issue here is whether or not the word "Duly" is good enough to state that Pelosi had vetted Obama and knows that he is eligible for the Office of POTUS.


If Pelosi signed in her official capacity that he was eligible then she is responsible if he is not eligible. It is as simple as that. Even if she did not know…she is responsible.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I just wanted to give you accurate info about the long-form birth certificate. You act like you know it all, but don't even grasp the basics. Not cool IMHO.

Also, I didn't know you were a mind reader. Please let me decide what I believe when I see it. Your opinion means nothing to me.

You are also wrong about the underlying issue of this thread. The word "duly" would never be an issue if Obama had shown the long-form birth certificate to everybody. If Hawaii health officials can view the long-form why not the people that voted for him?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


You have made a lot of "statements of fact" here, such as "Hawaii has and does issue long form birth certificates" (proven false with the FACTS) and "He could pay to have a copy of the existing paper long form" without posting ANY verification, whatsoever of these statements. I know you think they are true, but do you have any sources to back them up? Or are we just supposed to take them on faith? Sorry, I work in facts, not faith.

And my opinion is that if the President of the US WANTED to get a long form, I have NO DOUBT that Hawaii, as a matter of courtesy, would be glad to issue a copy to him. However, he has no compelling reason to do so. To satisfy the cult of birthers is not a good enough reason, apparently.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

You know, after months of this I really cannot be bothered to go find it for you. However, you could always look up the Hawaiian government site which I believe states this.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
You know, after months of this I really cannot be bothered to go find it for you.


Then I cannot be bothered to believe you when I have seen contradictory statements from the Hawaii Dept of Health, already linked in this thread.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Are you talking about the electoral college? Cause that is who voted for Obama, you voted for electors, not for the president, if you cannot grasp that fundamental concept of our republic, please don't lecture me on the legality of whom the person running for the office of POTUS should show his credentials.

You are not duly appointed to vet anyone, You, are not qualified by state mandate or constitutional edict to vet a candidate, you, unless for some strange quirk of fate are a elector, a part of the electoral college of the state, you reside in, do not have the authority to question Obama's legitimacy, because you do not vote for the president, you do not confirm the president, and you do not swear in the president. Unless you can attest that you do any of those things you have no standing in the issue at hand.

This is why all those lawsuits are thrown out. Not because there is a grand conspiracy, it's because the people that are putting forth these frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits have no legal standing to do so.

[edit on 9/17/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Obama is President. Fact. This will not be undone until the next election. Also fact.

The "invalid birth certificate" is the new "election fraud". This is the 2009 version of the Supreme Court deciding our 2000 election for us. If you bellyache about what happened in the election you are a whiner or an agitator. It is yet another thing to discredit the people who point out the inconsistencies in government--throw them a bone they will latch onto and fight over rather than look back to see what the master is doing from the table.

After years of Dick Cheney running the show and all of the propaganda and anger directed at people who raised a hand and asked questions by the likes of Republican pundits I wouldn't have voted for McCain if he had run against the reincarnation of Josef Stalin.

With Stalin we at least know what we're getting.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

All those lawsuits? Did you know there are still a dozen? Maybe 13 now. And every bill he signs is being contested because the legitimate president did not sign it. And once the Sorcery Health Bill, (yes, I have legitimate reason, it is not just a slur) is passed, it will become moot, null, and void after the illegal alien is exposed. And it will be.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Sorry, but I'm not going to engage in your silly little semantics game about the electoral college.

You were plain wrong re your statement about Hawaii not issuing long-form birth certificates. I just wanted to point that out since you were talking about your "deep" knowledge of the matter
No amount of spinning can change that simple fact. You seem to be as set in your belief system as any "birther" ...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


Please point me to a verifiable document that states that the sitting POTUS is an alien resident of the US. A link would be appreciated. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by whatukno
 

All those lawsuits? Did you know there are still a dozen? Maybe 13 now. And every bill he signs is being contested because the legitimate president did not sign it. And once the Sorcery Health Bill, (yes, I have legitimate reason, it is not just a slur) is passed, it will become moot, null, and void after the illegal alien is exposed. And it will be.




you need to read again bro he is not an illegal alien. The only thing that can be contested is that he is a "natural born citizen" which is not defined anywhere. It is however a fact that he is a "citizen at birth" as regulations quoted on page 15 of this thread. Of which by the way McCain is as equally qualified as Obama. All this aside, no amount of rabble rousing will get them to repeal his actions on the grounds of "illegal alien" but the next president miight just do it because he feels like it and goes through the appropriate steps. Also side note, as soon as there is a legal definition for of the phrase that appears in the constitution "natural born", and i highlight this is actually very general, it isn't "born on US Soil", and like wise it isn't neccesarily saying "us citizen at birth either"... for that it is unclear. So all this argument can simply be handled and should be focused around the fact that there is no definition. also (look at the McCain post by joel.ohman) There was allready a legal descision (made in favor of McCain) that sets presidence for the fact that you do not need to be born on US "soil" (since McCain was born on panamanian soil) to be considered natural born.



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join