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.

 

The FACTS ----confirm Obama born in U.S.A-CASE CLOSED******

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conqueror of Seth
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No one born in Hawaii can produce said "long form birth certificate" it is a physical impossibility.



What?

So now no one in Hawaii can get a birth cert with the doctor's signature and hospital name?

You expect me to believe that utter nonsense?

I can go online right now and Google a few hundred thousand websites showing exactly what a normal birth certificate from HI looks like right now.

Here's what a real HI birth cert looks like from HI for the time period Obama was born.



Note the doctor's signature and hospital name.

In fact there are several signatures and names.

Why are there so many signatures and names?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NEUTRAL WITNESSES WHICH CAN BE LATER VERIFIED TO CONFIRM THE BIRTH RECORD.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt



Here is the Birth Certificate.

Here are the questions regarding this document:

1) the document does not have a raised, embossed seal


Yes it does.



2) it is not signed (take a look at your birth certificate and see if it has the signature of a physician or hospital officials)


Signed at the bottom. Same as mine. No doctor. No hospital.




3) there are no creases from folding in the scanned version above


Yes, there sure are!


4) the certificate number is redacted


No it isn't.


5) the document claims to be a “certification of birth,” not a “certificate of birth,”


That is because they can go by either.

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are less expensive and more readily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time.[citation needed] Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as "Certification of Birth", "Certification of Live Birth", or "Certificate of Birth Registration."
source


6) the date supposedly bleeding through the back of the document says 2007, not 2008, when it was allegedly released.


Supposedly?

Now, here is what happens next. No one challenges any of the things I said. No one comes back to tell me they learned something and are re-thinking it. What will happen is that Anon will start another thread about this soon and you will just go there and post these same stupid questions again. That is our search for the truth about Obama.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Conqueror of Seth
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No one born in Hawaii can produce said "long form birth certificate" it is a physical impossibility.



What?

So now no one in Hawaii can get a birth cert with the doctor's signature and hospital name?

You expect me to believe that utter nonsense?

I can go online right now and Google a few hundred thousand websites showing exactly what a normal birth certificate from HI looks like right now.

Here's what a real HI birth cert looks like from HI for the time period Obama was born.



Note the doctor's signature and hospital name.

In fact there are several signatures and names.

Why are there so many signatures and names?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NEUTRAL WITNESSES WHICH CAN BE LATER VERIFIED TO CONFIRM THE BIRTH RECORD.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]


I am left curious if any of you know the difference between then and now. You do know that was 1966, right? When I was born, they looked quite different than they do now in NY as well. So you must be saying that the only people that can be president are the ones who's mom did not lose their original? This is what they look like now.


Look familiar?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


KJ,

Don't just say "yes it does" like "yes we can". Back it up with a link to an external image that proves that there is a raised, embossed seal.

2) from the picture that you are providing of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" , I see no signature. NONE. You know why that is? Because there isn't one. Also, comparing your Live Birth record with Obama's seems strange to me unless you were born in Hawaii? Place of birth says "Monroe" on the scan that you provided. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that Hawaii doesn't have the same paperwork of the picture that you provided that is a certificate of birth from New York? Each state is a little bit different. I'm also perplexed as to why you would even attempt to diffuse the argument here with a document from New York. Last I checked, Hawaii could fit inside the state of New York, land mass wise but isn't actually in New York. We're talking about Hawaii here.

You do know that redacted doesn't just mean censored but can also mean edited right? There are those image experts who have looked at it and have commented that the numbers don't jive and it looks like it's been photo-shopped.

There is this which does have embossing and a signature on it.

Then there is the Executive Order that seals his records, including his birth records. Quite convenient for someone who is selling transparency, eh?

`Yes, We Can March off This Cliff.’”



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


KJ,

Don't just say "yes it does" like "yes we can". Back it up with a link to an external image that proves that there is a raised, embossed seal.


Can you not see pictures?


2) from the picture that you are providing of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" , I see no signature. NONE. You know why that is? Because there isn't one.


That is because my picture does not show the bottom. I do not have that picture and obviously you will not be looking for it as finding one with folds and an embossed seal seems pretty daunting.


Also, comparing your Live Birth record with Obama's seems strange to me unless you were born in Hawaii? Place of birth says "Monroe" on the scan that you provided. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that Hawaii doesn't have the same paperwork of the picture that you provided that is a certificate of birth from New York?


It does not matter. The argument is that any birth certificate requires a doctor signature and hospital name to be valid. Mine proves that is not true. If it is not true then Hawaii falls under the condition of things that are true. Get it?


Each state is a little bit different. I'm also perplexed as to why you would even attempt to diffuse the argument here with a document from New York.


Really? You really do not understand how showing a birth certificate with no doctor signature proves they do not all have one? That really is beyond you? For real? Seriously?


Last I checked, Hawaii could fit inside the state of New York, land mass wise but isn't actually in New York. We're talking about Hawaii here.


I thought we were talking about what makes a birth certificate valid. That is what I am talking about.


You do know that redacted doesn't just mean censored but can also mean edited right? There are those image experts who have looked at it and have commented that the numbers don't jive and it looks like it's been photo-shopped.


Really? Who? When? Where is their proof? I actually did provide a link and picture for each of my points and here you are just saying things after telling me to do what I already did? Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm huh?



There is this which does have embossing and a signature on it.


Which has already been put to pasture quite some time ago. Just a quick search

It reached new heights this week when the website WorldNetDaily said it had obtained a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Mr Obama. The right-wing website carried images of the certificate - allegedly issued by the Republic of Kenya on February 27, 1964, that says a Barack Hussein Obama was born in a hospital in Mombassa, Kenya, on August 4, 1961.

The ''smoking gun'' document had been obtained by Orly Taitz, an lawyer from California who filed an unsuccessful lawsuit in the Supreme Court querying Obama's birth. She also attended a law conference at which the Chief Justice, John Roberts, was speaking to urge him to consider the issue. She was escorted out by security guards.

The document soon brought howls from the liberal blogosphere. The website Daily Kos said Kenya, while independent in December 1963, did not declare itself a republic until a year later.

The hospital named on the birth certificate has no record of the birth, according to research by Daily Kos. Now even WorldNetDaily acknowledges that the Taitz document ''is probably not authentic'', according to its ''investigative operatives in Africa''.
Source


Then there is the Executive Order that seals his records, including his birth records. Quite convenient for someone who is selling transparency, eh?


Makes no sense what you are trying to prove when we are looking at his birth certificate. Well I am, apparently you need links and pics where I included LINKS AND PICS.


`Yes, We Can March off This Cliff.’”


You march off it. I can already see that there is nothing but stupid at the bottom.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Conqueror of Seth
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No one born in Hawaii can produce said "long form birth certificate" it is a physical impossibility.



What?

So now no one in Hawaii can get a birth cert with the doctor's signature and hospital name?

You expect me to believe that utter nonsense?

I can go online right now and Google a few hundred thousand websites showing exactly what a normal birth certificate from HI looks like right now.

Here's what a real HI birth cert looks like from HI for the time period Obama was born.



Note the doctor's signature and hospital name.

In fact there are several signatures and names.

Why are there so many signatures and names?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NEUTRAL WITNESSES WHICH CAN BE LATER VERIFIED TO CONFIRM THE BIRTH RECORD.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]


I am left curious if any of you know the difference between then and now. You do know that was 1966, right? When I was born, they looked quite different than they do now in NY as well. So you must be saying that the only people that can be president are the ones who's mom did not lose their original? This is what they look like now.


Look familiar?


The problem with that image is that it doesn't look anything like


So.....yeah. Great. We see what it's like now. Notice that the official version has a seal and the image first provided does not have a seal. Also, from the second image that you posted, all of sudden it looks worn? Really? Come on. Also, whenever the LT Col sued Obama claiming he was not commander in chief due to issues with the President's Birth, exactly why did the judge seal all of the records pertaining to the issue after the case was thrown out? Wouldn't you want to print all of the documents in the paper across the world if there is no question and this really is bogus?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
The problem with that image is that it doesn't look anything like


Are you for real with any of this? It does not look anything like it? You mean besides the exact same format and information in the exact same places, font, and presentation? Do you need glasses or are you trying to make birthers seem even more crazy?


So.....yeah. Great. We see what it's like now. Notice that the official version has a seal and the image first provided does not have a seal.


Because you do not know the difference between a scan, a photograph, and two different pieces of paper apparently. I showed you the seal. It is raised just fine. The picture is right up there and instead of refute it, you asked me to provide on????


Also, from the second image that you posted, all of sudden it looks worn? Really? Come on.


Yes, because paper does not get worn out when everyone with access is handling it because it is so popular right? What kind of paper did they make yours out of? Is that really your argument? It looks worn? So you agree that everything else about it is authentic but it just looks to worn now?


Also, whenever the LT Col sued Obama claiming he was not commander in chief due to issues with the President's Birth, exactly why did the judge seal all of the records pertaining to the issue after the case was thrown out?


Where the hell are any of your links?


Wouldn't you want to print all of the documents in the paper across the world if there is no question and this really is bogus?


Each and everytime some nut says they are not good enough and wants to see them again? YOU PAY FOR THAT. I want my president to at least have a minute to attempt to do his job instead of spending four years printing things out for nutjobs with no sense of reality.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Can you not see pictures?

2) from the picture that you are providing of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" , I see no signature. NONE. You know why that is? Because there isn't one.


That is because my picture does not show the bottom. I do not have that picture and obviously you will not be looking for it as finding one with folds and an embossed seal seems pretty daunting.


I see the picture and that is not the same picture that was released to the media. At all. Your second remark is ridiculous because you are willfully ignoring the facts. Because there are folds and a seal it has to be the real deal? It's not like the government has faked items before? Remember the supposed autopsy photos of JFK that didn't show the back of his skull blown out like that on the Zapruder film? Yeah. Go back to sleep. Wow. Next you're going to tell me that the Vietnamese really did have something to do with the Gulf of Tonkin and that there really were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Sheesh.

It does not matter. The argument is that any birth certificate requires a doctor signature and hospital name to be valid. Mine proves that is not true. If it is not true then Hawaii falls under the condition of things that are true. Get it?

I get it and it does matter. The State laws, legislature and forms of Hawaii do not have uniformity with New York because it is vested by the state of Hawaii and NOT New York. You need to look at the laws in Hawaii regarding this and not New York since it is a Hawaiian issue. If Obama was born through a mid-wife that would be one thing but since the claim is that it was through a hospital this is the reason why I find all of this puzzling.

Really? You really do not understand how showing a birth certificate with no doctor signature proves they do not all have one? That really is beyond you? For real? Seriously?

Each state works differently, is that so hard for YOU to UNDERSTAND? REALLY? HMMM?

I thought we were talking about what makes a birth certificate valid. That is what I am talking about.

Yes and I'm talking about jurisdiction and uniformity. As per my example, last I checked Hawaii wasn't in the state of New York. Birth records between Texas and New Mexico are different as well with different requirements. Each state runs a little bit differently.

You march off it. I can already see that there is nothing but stupid at the bottom.

And I expect the argument to devolve into the above statement when faced with arguments that you cannot explain. Why would Obama sign that EO if it wasn't a big deal? Why has he spent over a million dollars sealing his records? Why was it sooooo important for Bush to reveal his records during the 2004 election, with Obama leading that charge, but not okay to back up that philosophical preaching once Obama reached office? If it's not a big deal WHY THE SECRECY.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Here You Go

Interesting questions raised from Canada Free Press



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Wouldn't you want to print all of the documents in the paper across the world if there is no question and this really is bogus?


I never said this and you had better go back and it would be nice if would do the following:

a) do not edit peoples responses to try to make your responses look better
b) do not go back and edit your posts to try to make you look better after the fact.

Only someone who is acting in desperation would engage in that sort of behavior and note it.

Flagged and reported.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


Wow, that was tough.




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


I see. So you can not or will not produce any links to go with any of your insane claims but you demand I do (after I did.) So in response you just link to someone Else's questions? If you cannot think for yourself here and support the claims you make, ramble on. It makes birthers look good.

See if you can ask a legit question, understand the answer, and provide a link to your claims.


Anyone thinking there is a rational discussion here to be had is sorely mistaken.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



That's great for 2007. We're talking about 1961 and people who were actually there at Obama's birth. Also, that person resealed the files, resealed the vault and has refused to release the records. All they have done is put an official stamp on a piece of paper that has said "yes, I've seen. Just trust me. Now go back to sleep".

Um, no. Fail.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


I see. So you can not or will not produce any links to go with any of your insane claims but you demand I do (after I did.) So in response you just link to someone Else's questions? If you cannot think for yourself here and support the claims you make, ramble on. It makes birthers look good.

See if you can ask a legit question, understand the answer, and provide a link to your claims.


Anyone thinking there is a rational discussion here to be had is sorely mistaken.


I already did and you're trolling and I'm disengaging from this discussion with you. You know that I have because you have gone back and edited responses to those links after the fact. And why would I lay claim to questions that were better asked by other people. People use other sources and other questions (like Jim Marrs used Jim Garrison's questions for his own book, Crossfire) to back up a certain side of the debate that they are on.

But you and I are done. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

Good night and good luck.

Enemied and now on Ignore status.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by justinsweatt]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
Each state is a little bit different.


Way to go for excuses.


First you complain that you cannot see a doctors signature or any signature for that matter, then when an example of a members birth certificate proves you wrong, you shift to another argument. Have you absolutely no shame when you are caught out??



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy
I still call BS.. back in 05-06 I had a hour plus convo with a Harvard professor in regards to Obama holding a seat in the IL Jr senate... Our main topic was how he being Kenyan born would hinder his future political career. This convo was fueled by a CT article maybe. It was in some major metro paper.... Probably an AP story tho. I can not remember.


This apocryphal story is truly the smoking gun. Someone alert Orly Taitz!

Maybe we can all get a discount on our next dental cleanings.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


What?

So now no one in Hawaii can get a birth cert with the doctor's signature and hospital name?


Correct. If you go to the Dept of Health and Human Services tomorrow and demand a birth certificate, they will give you what President Obama was given a couple of years ago.



You expect me to believe that utter nonsense?


Believe what you like, I am just stating facts.



I can go online right now and Google a few hundred thousand websites showing exactly what a normal birth certificate from HI looks like right now.

Here's what a real HI birth cert looks like from HI for the time period Obama was born.





Uh huh...now show me one in the past few years.

President Obama did not have a copy of his original birth certificate, so he asked the Hawaii Department of Health to provide it and what he got is what anyone else would get and has gotten...a computer generated, legal, certified, valid Certification of Birth from Hawaii.

Going back in time and asking why Pres. Obama's COB doesn't look like one from 30 years ago is just dumb at best, dishonest at worst.

Here, let me ask you something simple...I am sure there are GOP in Hawaii right now. They did just have their convention there.

Are you telling me that not one of 1.2 Million people living in Hawaii is willing to go and ask for a certified copy of their birth certificate? Something they can hold up and say..I asked for one and it says "Birth Certificate", not COB, It has the doctors name and everything..and the Hawaii Dept of Health issued it to me!! Not even 1 person in a million?

AGAIN...what President Obama presented is what Hawaii issues folks when they ask for a copy of thier Birth Certificate. It is what every single person born there in recent years gets and it is what every person requesting one gets.

It is that simple.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
All they have done is put an official stamp on a piece of paper that has said "yes, I've seen. Just trust me. Now go back to sleep".

Um, no. Fail.


Considering the simple fact that that is actually all a birth certificate is is a piece of paper with a stamp that says "I've seen it, trust me" you are most likely never going to find what you are looking for. At least it should keep you busy long enough to have no real argument against Obama come election time.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Here is a link that debunks the Hawaii birth certificate and it goes in to great details on how it was done and by whom.
The hyperlinks is not working right, here is the url, it is worth reading.
israelinsider.com...

Here is another link, I believe it is the same info from the previous link but from the Free Republic wesite.
Freerepublic.com

I don't know who to believe.




[edit on 16-6-2010 by Elieser]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Elieser]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Alright here's an interesting argument that I will just throw around for the sake of hearing the responses to it:

The courts have all deemed that nobody questioning President Obama's citizenship have legal right to ask to see the birth certificate. According to current practices the Secretary Of State is responsible for checking that the candidates for president have met the constitutional requirements for the job.

Now, the Secretary Of State is an appointed official, and this is a function of their job. So by the definition of the birthers, the job of an appointed official has also become the job of every American citizen. By this logic, any citizen should be able to set the Fed Rate, command the military or dole out highway funding, as these are jobs of other appointed officials.

This is absolutely absurd, as such why on earth should the courts give any citizen that sues for it something that is the job of the Secretary Of State?




top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join