Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

page: 54
349
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Boy, lots of speculation there. Good job


Where's the proof it wasn't accepted? Or is that your opinion?




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by redhatty
 


Boy, lots of speculation there. Good job


Where's the proof it wasn't accepted? Or is that your opinion?


What am I speculating? That a BC that states ACCEPTED by REGISTRAR would be more acceptable?

As to proof that it wasn't accepted, all we have to go on is the one picture of one document that Obama has released. That one picture of that one document states FILED BY REGISTRAR, it does NOT state Accepted by registrar.

From the evidence provided, by Obama himself, we DO NOT KNOW if it was accepted or not, but that document does NOT reflect that it was accepted, it does clearly reflect that it was filed.

BTW, if it wasn't accepted, then it would be quite difficult to prove a negative, but if it was accepted, you would think, at least a rational person would, that between 1961 and 2007 (the year that is generally accepted as the date the one document in the one picture was acquired) that the official record in Hawaii would have reflected that, as would his birth certificate.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Sounds to me as if it's more speculating. If, Might, Could.


Don't speculate, educate.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Did you miss This Post??

info is all there for you to educate yourself



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by rnaa
 
Since you don't provide any sources, I have to assume that you're guessing about why those certificates have different wording on "accepted by" versus "filed by" Note that one of the accepted examples is way before and the other is way after Obama's birth date.

I don't know the significance of the wording difference either but I'm going to research it instead of making up an unsourced guess like you did.



I thought the wording of my answer made it clear that I was guessing, maybe not, sorry about that.

As a computer programmer and project manager I have sat in many meetings where people have discussed endlessly the trivial changes to documents and reports especially in times of changing from one computer system to another. I can imagine this discussion very easily, everything gets revisited and updated as necessary when systems change.

And I can just as easily imagine people in the meeting being so exasperated with whoever was pushing the barrow of the trivial word change that they engineered an escape too quickly to remember to change the revision number (which I'm surprised you haven't latched onto.). IMO, good office practice would have ensured this number changed. But again, it is irrelevant to the information on the document, and frankly, some office managers would disagree with me for so trivial a change.

The dates in question are the dates are not necessarily the dates that the certificates were printed. Obama's was printed just a couple of years ago; so it would be using the preprinted paper stock in use a couple of years ago, not the paper stock that was used in 1961.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by rnaa
 


And your source for that OPINION is?????

Here's some REAL Sources for you to investigate.....

Federal regulations in place in 1961 that provided the requirements to the states for birth certificates, including the acceptable values for "Race" -- enter "227" in the "Page" text box and hit "Enter" -- warning big .pdf file.



OK. So? I didn't at any time describe the layout or contents of the form the Hospital turns over to the State. The Feds made a perfectly reasonable agreement with the States to present statistics in a particular way, and negotiated with all 50 States to make that happen. I expect most States asked the Hospital to use the recommended (not legislated!) standard form so duplication of effort was not necessary. Notice that the text makes clear that the States may, and do, alter the recommended standard form.

The document is never-the-less, NOT a Birth Certificate unless it is sealed and signed by the authorized State officer. The Feds can require statistics in certain formats all they like, but it is the State that has the sole authority to issue a Birth Certificate. The possibility that the State of Hawaii certified photocopies of the Statistics sheet as Birth Certificates in the past doesn't make it more or less valid. It only makes it a different form.

And by the way, the process chart near the top of the report validates the process I described, but with a little more detail.




Hawaii statutes on the "FILED" and "ACCEPTED" on the COLB: -- see sections 11-1-4(d) and 11-1-28.

The statute specifically states that the date of filing is the date that a document is "RECEIVED" at the Department of Health office. Obama’s information was received or "FILED" on Aug. 8, 1961, according to his COLB. It was never "ACCEPTED" by the Registrar. Obama’s COLB is still being "MAINTAINED" -- awaiting acceptance by the Hawaii State Registrar.


Please read the read the Scope and Purpose section 11-1-1. This document, (which has no provenance by the way) is specifically to cover the administration of Federal programs that the are administered by the State of Hawaii.

Vital Statistics are NOT federal programs. They are State programs. Remember the part of the Constitution that says the States have authority over stuff not specifically reserved for the Feds?

Furthermore, section 11-1-1 says it only applies when the program does not have the authority or desire to formulate more specific rules.

Section 11-1-4(d) does not say anything about 'ACCEPTED' or 'MAINTAINED'. It is not describing a work flow, it is just defining the threshold time of day for when some document is judged to be filed. This is especially relevant for an electronic lodgment. If it happens after office hours but before midnight, the filing day is the following day. And it doesn't seem to be talking about birth records anyway, there is no circumstance that would make it important that a birth certificate is filed on a Monday or a Tuesday. But if say, you a Doctor who has to, for example, file an insurance certificate by a certain date or lose your right to practice, then this cutoff is important.

In the pre-computer days, a courier from the hospital would physically hand over a bundle of documents to the State Registrar - and the Registrar is then taking responsibility for the documents - the Registrar has ACCEPTED the documents, but they could sit in someone's in tray for days before being FILED. The ACCEPTED date is important date in that scenario, the date the State took over responsibility for it, not the date it finally got around to putting it into some suspension file cabinet across town.

Now the data is probably transmitted electronically. It is ACCEPTED and FILED in the same instant. So now the FILED date more accurately describes what goes on.

If the form has been updated to reflect that change, then any Birth Certificates produced after that change will reflect that change. It doesn't make it any more or less valid. The difference in the wording on the preprinted label is trivial and has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the document.

Section 11-1-28 has nothing at all to do with Vital Records (births, deaths, marriages, etc). It has to do with "contested cases" not "event registrations". In what way do you find it relevant to the discussion?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
The key point you are missing is that it is 100% irrelevant.


How can asking where Obama was born be irrelevant to a discussion about where he was born? I think it's extremely relevant. I think I should turn that around and say you are missing the point that it IS relevant.

What makes it even more fascinating is that the hospital was "advertising" that Obama was born there in a fundraising campaign, then for some reason, when these questions started, they suddenly stopped doing so. The whole scenario seems very bizarre when a simple "yes that's where he was born" from the white house press secretary could have at least answered the question about what hospital he was born in.

Hospital once proudly celebrated president, now in active mode to hide 'proof'

The Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children is electronically cloaking what it had touted as a Jan. 24 letter from the president, in which the commander in chief, just four days after his inauguration, supposedly wrote, "As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters."


So if it turns out that Obama wasn't born at Kapi'olani Medical Center after all, then it's irrelevant to discuss that as his birthplace. If he WAS born there, why was the hospital advertising that fact and are now hiding it? Or was he born at another hospital so what they were doing amounted to fraud? Either way it's a compelling story of mystery and intrigue whether you happen to think it's relevant or not.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



So if it turns out that Obama wasn't born at Kapi'olani Medical Center after all, then it's irrelevant to discuss that as his birthplace. If he WAS born there, why was the hospital advertising that fact and are now hiding it? Or was he born at another hospital so what they were doing amounted to fraud? Either way it's a compelling story of mystery and intrigue whether you happen to think it's relevant or not.


Well let's see, doctor patient confidentiality for one? But I guess that's another right the President doesn't have?

So this hospital at first was bragging that Obama was born there, then the stop saying that. Could be cause they could be sued for divulging confidential information.

If you were in the hospital for any reason. They could not tell me that you were there. They could not tell me anything at all. Why? Cause I am not in any position to snoop around your personal business.

Think of your questions this way, if people that hated and despised you were poking around your background and trying to get your personal papers would you just bend over and let them? Or would you assert your constitutional rights?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 
The authenticity of the letter from Obama stating he was born there was never confirmed, but if it were genuine, that doesn't really violate confidentiality does it? It's a disclosure by the patient, Obama, not by the hospital.

But maybe that's not even the birthplace of Obama, as he told UPI he was born at Queen's Medical Center:


www.theobamafile.com...
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...


Here is the UPI screen capture that claims Obama was born at Queens -- but now the UPI claims Kapiolani. Remember, Obama, himself, told UPI that he was born at Queens.


So which one was it, Queens or Kapiolani? Or was it neither? The truth doesn't usually smack of contradictions like these. But fabrications often do.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I take it that you are still fairly new to the birther's controversy
People like myself, who have been following this since around October 2008 have seen many things, including but not limited to, Hawaii BC regulations (including the multitude of different ways a birth can be reported to the state and a BC issued) as well as many of the "long forms" from Hawaii, circa 1961, that are available to be viewed.

On the Long Form, there is a box, number 22 if memory serves me right, that specifically states "date accepted by registrar." From what many (admittedly amateur) researchers have been able to divulge, when the state of Hawaii had verification, either through a Doctor, Nurse or Midwife who certified being witness to the birth, OR homebirths that were reported by family and enough affidavit evidence was provided to the state for the state to "accept" the proof, a birth was recorded as "ACCEPTED."

A Homebirth could be reported to the state, and even without enough evidence to verify the birth, a record would be created. In that case, it would be "FILED" rather than "ACCEPTED" by registrar.

As all we have ever seen is a "CERTIFICATION of live birth" and not a "Certificate of live birth," this scenario makes complete sense.

A Filed but not accepted birth report would never be issued a Certificate, but a Certification would be issued.

Of course, this is complete speculation on my part, but there have been a multitude of requests place to DOH Hawaii for index data on Obama and the certificate presented with some strange results, for instance, there is NO RECORD IN THE INDEX DATA on Barack Hussein Obama II prior to August 10, 1961, even though his CoLB reflects an earlier date for the report being FILED by the registrar.

If you want to believe that Filed v Accepted is nothing more than a "form change" discrepancy, go ahead, it's still a free country & you can believe as you choose, as can I.

Leo Donofrio has done many of the information requests all documented in his blog you will have to go back quite a few entries to find the beginning of the investigation, which was actually begun by "TerriK" aka "MissTickly" and she has also documented quite a bit of her research into this on her blog Much more info is available in the comments on TerriK's blog.

I have found that "fighting" with the "Believers" is such a futile effort, since no matter what proof is presented to show that there are VALID questions and concerns, they are all dismissed, or sidetracked into nonsensical fallacious arguments.

If you consider yourself a "Believer" then you might want to review the information in the blogs I linked, you know that old wisdom, Know Thy Enemy
Then again, you may choose to ignore it all.

I do know that there are many people who will not let this controversy fade away, much work is still being done to find out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No that doesn't. But It's inappropriate for the hospital to divulge such information.

I can see where the birther theory has muddied the waters, screwed up the facts so badly it's easy to get confused.


On weekday mornings as a teenager, Barry Obama left his grandparents' apartment on the 10th floor of the 12-story high-rise at 1617 S. Beretania, a mile and a half above Waikiki Beach, and walked up Punahou Street in the shadows of capacious banyan trees and date palms. Before crossing the overpass above the H1 freeway, where traffic zoomed east to body-surfing beaches or west to the airport and Pearl Harbor, he passed Kapiolani Medical Center, walking below the hospital room where he was born on Aug. 4, 1961. Two blocks farther along, at the intersection with Wilder, he could look left toward the small apartment on Poki where he had spent a few years with his little sister, Maya, and his mother, Ann, back when she was getting her master's degree at the University of Hawaii before she left again for Indonesia. Soon enough he was at the lower edge of Punahou School, the gracefully sloping private campus where he studied some and played basketball more.


www.washingtonpost.com...

So the truth is, I don't know, but I am confident that Obama was born in Hawaii, the paperwork has been verified. What I haven't gotten from the other side is a verification of a foreign birth. Obviously by now something concrete should have come up. Instead, we have people nit picking the evidence that says he was born here, instead of offering up evidence he was not.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
OK. So? I didn't at any time describe the layout or contents of the form the Hospital turns over to the State. The Feds made a perfectly reasonable agreement with the States to present statistics in a particular way, and negotiated with all 50 States to make that happen. I expect most States asked the Hospital to use the recommended (not legislated!) standard form so duplication of effort was not necessary. Notice that the text makes clear that the States may, and do, alter the recommended standard form.

The document is never-the-less, NOT a Birth Certificate unless it is sealed and signed by the authorized State officer. The Feds can require statistics in certain formats all they like, but it is the State that has the sole authority to issue a Birth Certificate. The possibility that the State of Hawaii certified photocopies of the Statistics sheet as Birth Certificates in the past doesn't make it more or less valid. It only makes it a different form.

And by the way, the process chart near the top of the report validates the process I described, but with a little more detail.


My apologies, the proper entry to the adobe page box should have been 231


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."
The category "white" includes, in addition to persons
reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto
Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with
any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed
parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite
parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the
father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and
any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian.
In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and
"nonwhite" is used.


Obama, Sr. was recorded as "AFRICAN" where in the FEDERAL REGULATIONS was that an "approved" race descriptor? Do you see it up there anywhere? I don't.


Please read the read the Scope and Purpose section 11-1-1. This document, (which has no provenance by the way) is specifically to cover the administration of Federal programs that the are administered by the State of Hawaii.


No Provenance? Federal Programs??? Hello???


Repeal of State of Hawaii Public Health Regulations
“Rules of Practice and Procedure” and Adoption of
Chapter 11-1, Hawaii Administrative Rules



§11-1-1 Statement of scope and purpose. (a)
This chapter governs the practice and procedure before
the department of health, State of Hawaii, provided
that an attached entity may adopt and shall be
governed by its own specific rules of practice and
procedure if it has rulemaking authority, and provided
that the director may adopt more specific rules of
practice and procedure for any specific program, and
those more specific rules shall govern the practice
and procedure in proceedings for that program. Where
such specific rules fail to cover particular practices
and procedures, then these rules shall apply.


This is the State of Hawaii's rules on how it's DOH will function. I'd seriously call that Provenance!


Vital Statistics are NOT federal programs. They are State programs.


And DOH administers and oversees Vital Statistics for the state, just because the rules are designed to ALSO

be interpreted to preserve the authority of the
department and State to administer programs under
federal law for which the department has primary
enforcement authority

does NOT mean that they are EXCLUSIVELY for such purpose


Section 11-1-4(d) does not say anything about 'ACCEPTED' or 'MAINTAINED'. It is not describing a work flow, it is just defining the threshold time of day for when some document is judged to be filed. This is especially relevant for an electronic lodgment. If it happens after office hours but before midnight, the filing day is the following day. And it doesn't seem to be talking about birth records anyway, there is no circumstance that would make it important that a birth certificate is filed on a Monday or a Tuesday. But if say, you a Doctor who has to, for example, file an insurance certificate by a certain date or lose your right to practice, then this cutoff is important.


There wasn't a lot of electronic filings being done in 1961, so we can consider that part of your response irrelevant.

I can think of a few instances where the recording/filing of birth information being done in a timely manner would be very important, for insurance reasons, in the event of a still birth or death soon after birth just to name a couple. But you can chose to believe that timely recording of vital statistics is not an important issue.....


Section 11-1-28 has nothing at all to do with Vital Records (births, deaths, marriages, etc). It has to do with "contested cases" not "event registrations". In what way do you find it relevant to the discussion?


You are correct, I was wrong to include that section, I did overlook that it was about contested cases. Ignore that.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



But wait! How could Obama get a social security card without a birth certificate? It's impossible!

Oh yes, Orly Tait's deranged pseudo list. The one from her "P.I." that listed a bunch of phony SS#s associated with addresses? Of course! But of course her "P.I." Had to be secret so Obama's death squads couldn't silence him.


Neither of the private investigators that have given information and signed affidavits to Orly are, or have ever been ‘private’ or ‘secret’. That information, just like everything else you constantly spout mistruths about is common knowledge and easily accessible to anyone who bothered to do the most cursory search. One is a 'her' not a 'him.'
They are only ‘secret’ to the delusional who make everything up.
Oh, and it would seem to be impossible to have the SS numbers of dead people, to have numerous SSN’s and to have one stating you are 119, but who said possibility and legality was ever in place in this whole charade?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Of course, because no one could possibly just make up 39 random numbers and assign them to Obama
No, with all the TRUTH Orly Taitz has spouted throughout this BS she must be completely credible.


So tell me, how did that DAMNING evidence do in court?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Make up the number AND have them show up on property related searches, that's a real neat trick, even the illegal aliens in this country haven't managed that one to this extent!!

Western Journalisms list of the properties and corresponding SSNs from both Obama & Dunham

Well written article that goes into the curiosity of all those SSNs



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Of course, because no one could possibly just make up 39 random numbers and assign them to Obama No, with all the TRUTH Orly Taitz has spouted throughout this BS she must be completely credible.

So tell me, how did that DAMNING evidence do in court?


If you read the judges ruling you would know. If I were you I would read Redhatty's very intelligent and informative posts carefully....and even suggest you actually click on the links and read them. Oh, and this is the court where just before the Oct 5th hearing, a lawyer from Perkins Coie, Obama's personal lawyer's firm, was instituted as a law clerk, just before Judge Carter's sudden change in demeanour? His personal lawyer, Robert Bauer being married to Mao loving communist, I mean communications director, Anita Dunne.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


But there is no proof that this actually occurred. Specifically Tax Returns.

The problem with the posted links is they aren't sourced. They aren't confirmed by the IRS and they for all practical purposes are speculation at best, total bull dunk at worst.

Then there is the obvious question. When have you EVER used your SS number at an address?

C'mon. This SS number theory is complete and total crap. If the IRS doesn't confirm it, it didn't happen. Again, more lies from Orly Taitz to try and remove Obama from office.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
It's important to note that the Judge in this dismissed case yesterday felt he simply did not have Standing or Juridstiction that would ultimately lead to the removal of a sitting President based on a potential ruling on the matter.

He did not say the matter did not have merrit. He said he felt he lacked the Constitutional Authority and Power to provide a remedy if the matter did have merrit.

In other words he simply said...sorry wrong department.

He felt that only the Congress has the Constitutional Authority to look into and rule on this matter.

I read a lengthy piece in the Miami New Times yesterday entitled "Where is the Justice" it wasn't about the Birth Certificate Issue. Instead it was about the fact that during the Savings and Loan Crisis in the late 80's that most of the fraud that took place led to 100's of prosecutions and a good sum of the money being recovered. In fact one of Obama's most succesful adds against McCain were based on McCain's support for Charles Keating and the infamous Keating five. Keating ended up doing hard time for his involvement in the Savings and Loan frauds.

Amazingly though after a year of bailing out the fraudently run banks, brokerage houses and insurance companies, Freddie Mac and Fannae Mae, to the tune of trillions of dollars there has not been one criminal indictment or prosecution of anyone connected to the orginizations that committed wide spread fraud that led to the economic crisis and the biggest tax payer bailouts of the banking, insurance and brokerage businesses ever.

Congress and the Republicans and Democrats alike are up to their eye brows in campaign contributions from some of the worst offenders including Obama himself.

The Obama Justice department has sank no teeth into investigating what amounts to 11 trillion dollars in fraud and while it's highly speculative the reason he may not have delivered on his campaign promises to go after these criminals even more agressively than was done with the Savings and Loans owner and managers could very well be the Birth Certificate issue.

Congress won't press the Birth Certificate Issue or look into it, as long as Obama and Holder don't go after their biggest campaign contributors and PAC funders, the Bankers, Insurers and Brokers!

One thing is for sure the Congress does have the power to look into and rule on this matter and it's not wise to assume that they won't or that they will in the future.

Midterm elections are going to be hotly contested, more independents are going to be voted in as a result of people fed up with both dishonest and corrupt parties of government.

While no one has been able to legally prove the Birth Certificate issue either way the fact remains that there are still avenues to be pursued for those who do want to prove it either way.

I think the American people are owed the truth what ever it might be.

Hopefully Congress will look into this one day when it gets done protecting all the other criminals that they are beholden too.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




It's important to note that the Judge in this dismissed case yesterday felt he simply did not have Standing or Juridstiction that would ultimately lead to the removal of a sitting President based on a potential ruling on the matter.

He did not say the matter did not have merrit. He said he felt he lacked the Constitutional Authority and Power to provide a remedy if the matter did have merrit.


The only branch of the government that has jurisdiction at this point is the Legislative Branch.

But it won't matter to the likes of Orly Taitz.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It should matter as this ruling sets a judicial precedence in regards to procedure.

She can appeal the ruling to the district court of appeals which is not likely to overturn and then to the Supreme Court which is not likely to overturn either my friend.

The sad thing here is sad for both sides as a ruling in favor of Obama would have gone a long way to end the controversy.

The division is not good for the Administration or the nation friend. Conversely a ruling against Obama might have sent a strong signal to Washington that it's time to clean up the political and corporate mess that is leading the nation down the garden path to increasing ruin.

Regardless of your feelings about Obama or whether it is deliberate or he is unequal to the task, transperancy in Government has not been restored. The Fed and other Regulatory Agencies still operate in secrecy with no oversight from any true branch of government and play such a pivotal roll in our fortunes that we have become hostage to them and their secrecy. Legislation is still being rushed through without the people or even representatives having ample time to consider and vote on it. Hastily formed policies and decisions are costing far more than they were sold to as. 345,000 dollars to create or save a job through the bailout versus 85,000 as it was sold to us. 24,000 for the cost of each destroyed auto or truck in cash for clunkers instead of 4,500-5,000. Not one person charged or even under credible investigation at the banks or insurers and brokerages.

Washington has run away from us, and neither our congress nor the administration nor the courts are well considering the people and their needs simply corporate ones, and simply the largest corporate ones.

Too big to fail translates into we don't care if the little guy does.

That's not good news for the little guys who stand in the majority friend.

Neither is this latest ruling in regard to the Birth Certificate Debacle for either side.

Once again Justice has been denied and government is anything but transparent.





new topics

top topics



 
349
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join