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.

 

Obama Birth Certificate; 'Document allegedly obtained in Kenya sent to every member of Congress'

page: 20
104
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Caught in the middle, not in on it. The state officials don't have the authority to release the birth certificate without Obama's permission,


The mere fact state officials have confirmed that they hold and have reviewed Obama's long form birth certificate should be enough evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Unless you can twist logic around yet again and insist to the rest of us here that they can somehow hold a Kenyan one? Either way at the end of the day you are adding the hawaiian health department officials and the Federal government in its entirety in on the conspiracy, regardless of how you try to play it.

But then again it has pritty much been concluded here that Obama is a CIA mind controller, so folks will believe anything.



You are pretending to not know the difference between the certificate of birth and the certification of birth,


Quiet frankly in the years I have been using my certification of live birth I never at one time viewed it as a copy of my original. As far as I know, that has always been my birth certificate and I have had no issues using it. I only discovered about this 'long form' 'short form' business when the birthers decided to bring it up.

I think the funniest thing about the birther conspiracy is this lack of conspiracy in the governments ability. Apparently they can't fake their own long form birth certificate, they need to install somebody born in kenya for some odd reason, who is CIA, who can control minds, they have incompetent intelligence officials (all of them apparently) and quiet frankly lack the intelligence of the birthers. When you get down to the structure of the birther conspiracy, the entire idea of this holding any plausibility should be beyond any individual with a hit of rational thinking. But people want to believe or want to accuse, or add suspicion.

But please continue on. I love watching circles.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
McCain's "Long form" birth certificate:
www.scribd.com...

Wait a second!
That is not a birth certificate, it is a certificate of birth! Also it is barely readable, and does in no place say "long form"
The "long form" means it shows the place of birth and other details that aren't included on the "short form". I suspect the reason the terms "long form" and "short form" are used to differentiate the documents is that people seem to get confused between the words "certificate" and "certification", so you shouldn't expect the words "long form" to actually appear on the document.


This from McCain is acceptable, but from Obama it is not?
What from Obama is not? We haven't seen Obama's, only Fukino has, presumably, if the long form or "certificate of live birth" is what's meant by "vital records" in Fukino's statement quoted above. That's part of the mystery about this, is Fukino referring to the certificate of birth when referring to "the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health"? Does anybody know what those original vital records are? Only Fukino and some staffers there know for sure.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The mere fact state officials have confirmed that they hold and have reviewed Obama's long form birth certificate should be enough evidence that he was born in Hawaii.
Obama campaigned on transparency, so I don't see why he would be reluctant to share this document like McCain did, if he intended to be transparent.

I even remember people trying to spin the story that his original birth certificate was destroyed in a fire as the reason we can't see it, but that turned out to be only partially true. There was a fire, but they still have it in some form, maybe a scanned image in a computer file?

You have a right to say people don't have a right to ask to see it, but people have a right to ask to see it.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
So, how do we know its a long form, if it doesn't say so? Because it states the hospital?
But lets for a moment assume that it is indeed long form.
I'd also like to see his short form.
Maybe it says something on that one, that McCain wants to hide? I am not saying that i necessarily believe that McCain was born as a communist, but aren't you curious? And the fact that McCain could make this go away by simply posting his short form, why doesnt he do so? I mean, it supposedly says the same thing as the long form, right? So why is this such a problem for McCain?
McCain also has 6 social security numbers, spent 3 Million dollars sealing his records, and his Kindergarten Teacher is dead. What did she now, that McCain wanted to hide?

Got my point now?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
So, how do we know its a long form, if it doesn't say so? Because it states the hospital?
But lets for a moment assume that it is indeed long form.
I'd also like to see his short form.
Maybe it says something on that one, that McCain wants to hide?
In Hawaii, the short form says "certification" and the long form says "certificate", that's how you tell.

The long form has all the information on the short form, plus additional information including the place of birth. So if someone presents their long form you won't get any more information from seeing the short form. So I don't get your point.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Caught in the middle, not in on it. The state officials don't have the authority to release the birth certificate without Obama's permission, so they are just doing their job by not releasing it, not in on it. Only Obama can supply the permission to release it.


Yes, I already said they cannot release his birth records to the public.
Which is in part why some uninformed people have jumped to the conclusion that he "sealed" them via Executive Order.

He cannot.

Keep in mind, not being able to release your birth records is not the same thing as confirming your birth records are real when they are not.

If you are NOT a citizen of the United States of America, State officials aren't obligated to lie for you.

In order for them to do that they would have to be "in" on some grand cover up and that is exactly what many Birthers have claimed.


You are pretending to not know the difference between the certificate of birth and the certification of birth, but I think you are smart enough to know the difference.


Does the director of the Hawaiian State Department know the difference?
Is he in a better position to make that call than either of us?


Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

USA Today

Did you read this?

If you really are unbiased the facts, and the position of the State should be enough for you.

- Lee


edit on 9-9-2010 by lee anoma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The long form has all the information on the short form, plus additional information including the place of birth. So if someone presents their long form you won't get any more information from seeing the short form.


And since that is so it should be no problem to release it right?
So why doesnt he just do it?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[Obama campaigned on transparency, so I don't see why he would be reluctant to share this document like McCain did, if he intended to be transparent.


Has been so far.
He even unsealed Bushes order to permanently seal White House records.


Just because you don't view the acceptance from the State of Hawaii and the third party inspection of his birth certificate as valid doesn't mean it isn't.

The Hawaiian officials have the credentials to lend weight to their statements.

Some anonymous people online saying it doesn't count have zero weight in their argument by comparison.

Which is why they keep faking evidence to back up their loose claims.



You have a right to say people don't have a right to ask to see it, but people have a right to ask to see it.


People have a right to ask, they just don't have a right to get it.
People are asking to see long-forms, financial records, school transcripts, and a whole list of other things.


I can see him spending the rest of his term fulfilling the demands of those refusing to accept the facts from the officials of our own Country. Even when Hawaii confirmed his records as valid, there still is a number of issues Birthers continue to repeat and claims casts doubt as if they were factual.

1. Obama was born in Kenya and the hospital is lying.

2. Obama sealed his birth record and private documents.

3. Obama received financial aid in college designated for foreign students only.

4. Obama spent millions to cover up his records.

Can anyone who has repeated these statements provide ANY evidence confirming them that is related to a "guess", "chain-letter", or "rumor" or requires Obama to prove them wrong by "showing" something to the world?

If you make these sort of claims, it is your job to back them up.

Anything at all?

no.

This is why I don't buy into this conspiracy, because it amounts to simple accussations, and is disingenuous and has blatant political motivations. The conspiracy is manufactured and set to take advantage of the naive and uninformed.

- Lee



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The long form has all the information on the short form, plus additional information including the place of birth. So if someone presents their long form you won't get any more information from seeing the short form.


And since that is so it should be no problem to release it right?
So why doesnt he just do it?


Priceless.

Someone arguing that you don't need the short-form because it contains most of the information of the long form, yet demanding to see the long form because they don't trust the information on the short form.

You sir, have just flipped the script!!

Starred.


- Lee



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I trust the sworn statement from the Hawaiian official..........but............we all know how major players will use the minor players as patsies or to provide layers of protection. So, why isn't there some State Department official or Obama Administration official that has come out and made a similar proclamation? On one of my first posts on this thread I said that it would be satisfactory for me to hear from some official in the Human Resource department for the DOS that Obama's elibiliity had been researched and verified and that the standard documents required for all DOS employees were being maintained in his employment file. After a satisfactory period of time they will be de-classified and added to his Presidential Library per standard operating procedure.

Such a simple statement would satisfy us truthers in so many ways!
1. It reassures us that someone is on the job verifying these things.
2. It reassures us that there is indeed a standard operating procedure.
3. It reassures us that at some point the personal file with the official documents and research to back them up will be released.
4. It puts his DOS and Administration on the line as responsible for this should anything turn out to be fraudulent.

Right now we only have 3rd parties such as the Hawaiian official on the hook should any of this turn out fraudulent. I want to see a higher ranking Federal official on the hook with them.

Maybe he was born in Hawaii. He probably was. But, why not produce the long form certificate, or produce the research that verified the short form as accurate, or at least issue an official statement similar to the one that was issued supporting McCain's birth? Or, at the very, very least, why not promise us that they will provide these docs in x number of years?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Atomic Honey
reply to post by Eastwood
 


As I recall, the Dems did in fact harass McCain and demand he provide extra documents proving his presidential eligibility. I recall also that this all went away before the election because--guess what? Instead of hiding and calling people names that demanded the info, he simply gave it to them.
I don't know how harassed McCain was, but he did just simply provide his long form birth certificate, the type that some people claim people have no right to ask to see from Obama.

McCain's "Long form" birth certificate:
www.scribd.com...


Hasn't it already been pointed out in this thread that McCain's "long form" actually either proved he was not eligible or it proved nothing so the senate decided he was eligible and that is actually when it all went away. The idea that McCain just whipped out his "papers" and everyone was happy is just not what happened at all.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
Someone arguing that you don't need the short-form because it contains most of the information of the long form, yet demanding to see the long form because they don't trust the information on the short form.

You sir, have just flipped the script!!

Starred.
I'm glad you get it now! The long form is the original record showing the place of birth, the computer generated version doesn't show the exact place of birth and it's not a source document. There is a difference, even Hawaii homelands still says they prefer the long form because it's more informative, who is going to argue with Hawaii about that? Some people understand that, and some people don't.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Arbitrageur because: corrected grammar



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Obama campaigned on transparency, so I don't see why he would be reluctant to share this document like McCain did, if he intended to be transparent.


But then where's the fun in that? Im guessing Obama has a twisted sense of humor much like myself, and he's setting back listening to all the idiot birthers out there foaming from the mouth with furious anger.

I find it hilarious to watch birthers argue, they always make total asses of themselves.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Huh? Keep your posters and their comments straight please.

You referenced that it was not known and/or not true that Obama went to college and received money to do so from a scholarship. I was merely pointing out the fact that, according to multiple credible sources, he did in fact receive a scholarship to attend college. A financial aid scholarship for foreign students? I have no idea. But he did receive a scholarship of some sort.

That's the problem with these threads -- people are so focused on trying to 'win' the debate, they forget that there are actual facts involved and that not everything is merely a theory or made up drivel.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by lee anoma
Someone arguing that you don't need the short-form because it contains most of the information of the long form, yet demanding to see the long form because they don't trust the information on the short form.

You sir, have just flipped the script!!

Starred.
I'm glad you get it now! The long form is the original record showing the place of birth, the computer generated version doesn't show the exact place of birth and it's not a source document. There is a difference, even Hawaii homelands still says they prefer the long form because it's more informative, who is going to argue with Hawaii about that? Some people understand that, and some people don't.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Arbitrageur because: corrected grammar



... so when the short form says "honolulu" as place of birth, Island of Birth Oahu and County Honolulu, that is according to you

a) Not precise enough to pinpoint the location to be within the US

or

b) False, because in the original there could be a line below with boxes marked "Really?" and "No, not really" and a cross in the "No, not really" box?

???



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
This article alleges...


Interesting article... Here's what I saw as I read it...

First we have all the language that covers their asses. Many people just ignore these words that express uncertainty when they read something like this article, because the words surrounding them have so much power - that these seemingly innocuous words slip into the background and the reader is left only with the impression of the more heavily weighted words (explored below). As shown in the member's quote above, the member is familiar with the use these words to prevent implicating one's self (allegedly)...

1. Look at the bolded words and ask yourself how much of this article we should believe is based on FACT.



application to Punahou School would likely contain - they may show he attended - it appears that his Harvard education - Obama’s Selective Service card may have been doctored - appears to be the first - we also know she may have - probably - assumed - It appears that Obama - appears to be


If only these words were bolded in the article, so they wouldn't slink into the background like they do.... I wonder why the author didn't bold those words...

2. Then we have the "mysterious" phrases that really set the hair on the back of our necks on edge. If only they could add eerie music to a written article! Oh, but the numerous YouTube videos do that so very well!

What is the real intent of these phrases?



no one has produced any evidence - unable to find- They cannot find birth certificates - there’s no record of that - no one can find his school records - there are questions - deception and unanswered questions - no one knows - all this mystery


So... what does this mean? If no one has found something, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or is the "finder" perhaps incompetent? Could it be that they have no right to the information they seek? Or just haven't looked in the right place? Example: I am unable to find my keys... Has there been some nefarious action somewhere? Has someone STOLEN my keys??? What is the mystery surrounding my keys and, more importantly, what about the children!!!

3. Now for the more heavily weighted (and most impactful) words that stick in a person's mind after reading the linked article, yet have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article:



a Muslim group - a terrorist - Muslim interests - promote their interests - fraud, deception, money laundering and other crimes - foreign birth - ultra liberal Ford Foundation - pornographic poses - made porn - Communist Party - a secretive pro-Soviet - assuming she was ever legally married - criminal activities such as Social Security fraud, tax fraud, real estate fraud, campaign contributions fraud, voter fraud - has multiple identities


:bnghd:

People of ATS! You put this trifecta of words and phrases together in an article about someone and you have a HUGE pile of excrement mixed the drama and intrigue of a bad B movie. It saddens me SO MUCH that ATS members, who are supposed to be critical thinkers, are slurping this crap into their brains like hungry dogs and believing every word as it slides down the gullet.

How gullible are you? What happened to your thinking ability??? Where is the brain filter that distinguishes fact from fantasy? What are you eating or drinking or doing that has completely wiped out your faculty to reason, to clearly judge what you're reading??

If you cannot see the fallacy in the myriad articles on the Internet like this, what is wrong with you?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I trust the sworn statement from the Hawaiian official..........but............we all know how major players will use the minor players as patsies or to provide layers of protection.


I understand what you are saying.
That said, if I follow that logic nothing presented is valid.

That includes McCains long-form.

So what do we do?

- Lee



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by lee anoma
Someone arguing that you don't need the short-form because it contains most of the information of the long form, yet demanding to see the long form because they don't trust the information on the short form.

You sir, have just flipped the script!!

Starred.
I'm glad you get it now!


I was talking to Debunky.
Did you get what he did with your argument?



The long form is the original record showing the place of birth, the computer generated version doesn't show the exact place of birth and it's not a source document.


I understand the difference between the long and short form.

Let me explain what happened with your back-and-forth with debunky where he demanded McCains short-form.

You were saying that once someone presented the long-form the short form was not necessary since it contains the information in the long-form minus a few details.

If it contains the information in the long-form the short-form is just as valid without the minor details.

Get it?

- Lee



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The long form has all the information on the short form, plus additional information including the place of birth. So if someone presents their long form you won't get any more information from seeing the short form.


And since that is so it should be no problem to release it right?
So why doesnt he just do it?


Because people will still say it's a forgery and a fake? I mean, they've had 2 years to make a really good one, right? They still claim that the certification that was released didn't have stamps or an embossed seal, even though that's been shown to be a lie. And you have the statements of the Governor of Hawaii on top of that - something no one else has ever needed.

He released legal proof of his birth in Hawaii, complete with seals and official statements that it is a legitimate copy. Yet people say that one is fake. Why in the hell would releasing the long form result in Orly Taitz et al saying "Okay, he's legitimate?"

And, for that matter, why should Obama be held to a different standard than any other American? If I want a passport - a document that shows I'm a citizen of the United States - I can just show a certified copy of my BC. Yet somehow that's not good enough. Nothing will be good enough. Which is adequate reason to let them wail and gnash their teeth as he remains president despite their best efforts to subvert the Constitution.

The funny thing is that people will say the obviously legitimate copy is fake, yet they'll jump on some photocopied form from a Third-World Country - one allegedly acquired via a nice fat bribe - and say it's the real thing. And that after two or three of them have already been exposed as outright forgeries.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I hope it's just fake outrage for political purposes, because the alternative is some kind of serious mental illness.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains
Hasn't it already been pointed out in this thread that McCain's "long form" actually either proved he was not eligible or it proved nothing so the senate decided he was eligible and that is actually when it all went away. The idea that McCain just whipped out his "papers" and everyone was happy is just not what happened at all.
McCain's eligibility was certainly questioned, there's no doubt about that. And I didn't hear anybody say that after McCain "whipped out his "papers" and everyone was happy", so you're right, that's not the way it went down. But we should note that's all the hundreds of thousands of people are asking to see, is Obama's birth certificate.

Since Obama campaigned on a promise of transparency, then he could show some transparency and just show the birth certificate. McCain showed his birth certificate in spite of the fact that his birth place was controversial.

Who knows, if McCain had been elected, this thread might be about McCain's eligibility instead of Obama's eligibility.




top topics



 
104
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join