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: 24
104
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The fact you are unsure does not cut it.



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

What was the point of the video? It essentially repeated the same things you and others have been saying on this thread, so whats the point? 'Obamas turning the country into a socialist one' 'Wheres his birth certificate', why do you have to post us the video that essentially parrots the exact same things you and others have been saying?


Because, like with Tim Adams, when he gets called on it he can say "I never said I believed it, I was just unsure and put it up anyway".

Why post it at all if you are unsure of the source?

Seems pretty deceptive to use unreliable sources as examples of doubt to cast in your argument. Even if you preface them with "I don't know for sure, but he/she said..."

Should I take any further information posted up using this method as being unreliable and questionable since the poster doesn't even know if the source is accurate or not?

I know for sure the State of Hawaii has said Obama is a U.S. Citizen.
I know for sure his certificate has been deemed valid.
I know for sure he went through the governmental process to verify that before taking office.

How about those that have doubts about Obamas' place of birth also post up things they know for sure.
Not just rumors from dubious sources with blatant agendas.

- Lee




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
How about those that have doubts about Obamas' place of birth also post up things they know for sure.
Not just rumors from dubious sources with blatant agendas.
Thanks for making my point.

I'd love to do that, but the source document or vital records are not being shared with us (not in the case of Obama, though McCain shared his) so in the absence of the facts there are questions. And the questions could be answered if the vital records were shared, so the people that have the facts aren't sharing them, in the case of Hawaii because they aren't allowed to share the facts with anyone without Obama's permission and in the case of Obama because he doesn't want to.So you and I are after the same thing, the facts. You are just satisfied with shoddier factual evidence than I am, perhaps because I have personally examined original records and source documents and found that computer representations made later of those source documents are not always accurate.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
24 pages of debate and we still have these questions.
Why has President Obama prevented the release to the American public of his long-form original birth certificate listing the hospital of his birth, the attending physician and the identity of his parents, as recorded at the time of his birth?
What information is on the original, long-form birth certificate that President Obama does not want the American people to see?

We also have a strange timeline surrounding the alleged date of Obama's birth and his mothers move back to Washington to attend classes for the the Fall 1961 semester. Baby Obama would have been 1 1/2 months old at that time.

In Obama's book "Dreams..." He makes no mention of his mothers quick move to Washington after giving birth. (The University of Washington confirms her Fall 1961 Attendance). Instead, he states that Mama Obama and baby stayed behind in Hawaii while Papa Obama left for Harvard in 1962. Never mentioning that his mother ditched her "husband" to head back to Washington only weeks after giving birth to Junior. Did she travel with baby or did she leave junior with Grandma and Grandpa?

Simple inconsistencies such as these and others contained in Obama's official story/autobiography drive the suspicions and controversy. We know that a long form exists and contains something he does not want to share. This drives the issue even deeper. How can we accept the "facts" that are spoon fed to us when these very "facts" contradict hard evidence to the contrary.

All of these issues and many others simply lead to the strong possibility that Obama has misrepresented himself to the world. Eligible to serve as POTUS or not. If his story is just one big contrived fable than the man should simply man up and resign. He is simply a charlatan who lied his way into the White House.




edit on 10-9-2010 by jibeho because: grammar/clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



24 pages of debate and we still have these questions.


You mean engineered questions? Questions constructed with divisiveness in mind? You birthers have been given what you ask for once, then you changed the criteria and said "show me more"

Frankly i hope Obama NEVER releases it, and the entire birther movement continues to walk the streets of any-town-USA foaming at the mouth and speaking in tongues.

LOL I wish all the birthers could see themselves the way the rest of us look at them...birthers need a good laugh



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Why has President Obama prevented the release to the American public of his long-form original birth certificate listing the hospital of his birth, the attending physician and the identity of his parents, as recorded at the time of his birth?
What information is on the original, long-form birth certificate that President Obama does not want the American people to see?


Whatever his reasons, whatever it is that he wants to keep private (IF that is the case) it's NONE of your business. That information belongs to him, and to demand it is a violation of his privacy. NONE of the stuff you're asking about is ANY of your business.



We know that a long form exists and contains something he does not want to share.


And so therefore he's guilty of something? And you call yourself an American? Come on man, you're smarter than that! You people don't understand what privacy is!


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In the beginning of my relationship, I used to ask my husband, "What are you thinking"? I'm sure most women do this at one time or another because we're insecure, curious, manipulative or just so in love that we want to know everything about him... But my husband is a private person and he made it very clear that his thoughts are his own... And while I have EVERY right to ASK about them, it is his decision and his decision alone to share them with me or not. WHY he may choose not to share them is also his and not mine to know.

Now, it took me some time to adjust to this privacy thing my husband had going on, but it taught me a great lesson. Each individual owns his thoughts and reasons. To demand that those be shared outside his head is a VIOLATION of that person. I learned to respect not only my husband, but it cemented in me what the right to privacy is all about.

And that is why I don't speculate as to why Barack Obama doesn't wish to move further in exposing the private facts of his life. They are PRIVATE. Any information about him that I have a right to, I already have. And much more. I know more about Barack Obama than I do about any other president.

So, people can speculate as to why Obama doesn't wish to share every detail of his past. But the fact is, it belongs to him and no one else! I will not speculate because anything I come up with has as much chance of being false as it does of being true. It's an exercise in futility.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


I'm not a birther. I'm sure he was born somewhere on US soil. I just want the truth. I've read his book and studied his history and his mothers history. The man has fabricated a life story that strays from the truth.

Ever wonder why we have never seen any pictures of newborn baby Obama? In the hospital? With Mom and Dad? With Grams and Gramps? No cute, cuddly baby pictures that would have been a perfect addition to his autobiography and campaign site.

This is still ATS last time I checked. Denying ignorance on all issues except those that pertain to Obama? I think not.


edit on 10-9-2010 by jibeho because: spelling



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


How about no ex-girlfriends coming forth either? I believe some ex-presidents girlfriends came out and talked about them after they got elected.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I understand your point. I really do. However, the very information that Obama wants to conceal may prove that he has lied in writing in his own books and verbally to the nation about his life story. I expect full transparency and full disclosure from a man who is charged with the safety and well being of this entire country. If he can so blatantly conceal and lie about simple facts what else has he lied about. Wait... don't answer that because we are already finding out...

If he is a bastard child than so be it. It just makes his story stronger. Why lie about it??

His parents were never married?? O. K. Why lie about it?

Why lie about his mother leaving Senior behind and maybe even baby to attend college in Washington less than two months after birth? Obama wrote that his parents were in love. Really? From his book about Senior returning to Africa..."he returned to Africa to fulfill his promise to the continent. The mother and child stayed behind, but the bond of love survived the distances" must be some bond of love to skip town to attend classes thousands of miles away from you beloved husband.

The truth will set you free!! One lie begets another.... blah blah blah... It is our business to know if the President has lied about his life.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


But you're just speculating ... "What if, what if, what if..." That's not a good enough reason to violate someone's personal private information. Period. Yeah, you may feel better if you knew all the sordid details of the man's past, but the truth is, NONE of it would change his eligibility.

So, he might have lied about something. Name a president that hasn't. Name anyone you know that hasn't lied about their past, even if only a lie of omission. I'm VERY against dishonesty, but this is a witch hunt, based on rumors, speculation, fear and hatred. Nothing more.

Obama promised transparency. But not about PERSONAL matters! He didn't promise that and you know it. You guys are just using that to dig into his supposed dirty laundry, which everyone, including you and me, has! It's none of our business!



edit on 9/10/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: typo




edit on 9/10/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well this was posted three days ago and we haven't heard one word from anyone in Congress!
Not Michell "Bat****" Bachman, not Joe Wilson, not even Ron Paul!
Wonder why? Hmmmmmmmmmm



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'd love to do that, but the source document or vital records are not being shared with us


It does not have to be shared with you. Whats relevant is Obama's eligibility and in so he went through proper processes by being verified by congress in 2008, by having his birth on Hawaiian soil personally verified by Director Fukino, by having his vital records reviewed by Fukino, by releasing his birth certificate. If you intend to continue to argue this president has not done enough, put the evidence where your mouth is. Its rather simple, really, because he has gone through this process more so than any other president I can personally recall.


(not in the case of Obama, though McCain shared his)


McCain shared his birth certificate, Obama shared his. Obama's was personally verified by Hawaiian officials. Whats the problem? Oh yes I know the problem, Obama and McCain are different.


so in the absence of the facts


The facts are there. The absence of facts lies with the birthers. You 'quetion' that he has not properly gone through the vetting process sufficiently, yet you have nothing to show for that. You argue his birth certificate is is 'questionable' and yet you have nothing show for it. I see a bunch of 'ifs' and 'questions' and I see nothing beyond that. Fact is Obama went sufficiently through the eligibility process and he done more so to prove his birth right than most other past presidents.

You don't like what he has presented thus far? It's nobody elses problem.


there are questions.


Anybody can make up questions. In the same way you question Obama's eligibility, the same could be applied to the last 43 presidents, most of whom had not presented their birth certificates to the public in or before gaining office. I can question all sorts of things about the vetting process in congress, or about the intelligence our officials can attain. The fact is there will always be room for questions, that argument is moot. We will never know 100% about the goings on among our elected officials and that is just clear fact.


And the questions could be answered if the vital records were shared,


What questions do you wish to answer out of his long form again?

Whats the name of his doctor? How is this relevant? Do you wish people to harass the children of this doctor?
Whats his blood type? Do you wish to figure out whether his blood better matches those typically found among arabs and muslims?

What do you wish to answer in his long form exactly? Do you think his long form will end the birther conspiracy or the other conspiracies held about him by the same people? I am sure you know the answer.

You have 'ifs' and 'questions' and 'hypotheticals', we can do the same for almost anbody or anything out there, we can sit down and discuss 'ifs' and make 'questions' all day about all things.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I think this latest forgery has served it's purpose.
A fresh debate over the birth certificate non-issue.
With such a long history of fakes I'm surprised any rational mind would invest in each and every one of them.

Well, see you next fake Kenyan Birth Certificate!

- Lee



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains
Please, read it as many times as it takes to understand what it is saying. A short form, a long form, a certification, a certificate are all under the umbrella term "birth certificate." That is what they all are. They all certify that there is an original birth registration. The long form certifies this and the short form certifies this.
The short form certifies that another document exists that documents the birth, and the other document is the long form.

Congressman Bill Posey explains it in this interview with Lou Dobbs:

Lou Dobs interviews Roland Martin and Congressman Bill Posey regarding birth certificate debate:



Question #1: If either of the documents are just as good (short form versus long form), please tell me why he sponsored H.R. 1503 - Presidential Eligibility Act if one document is just as good as another?

www.opencongress.org...#


To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.


Notice the bill says "birth certificate" and if you think that means certification of live birth, then please watch the video, I think he makes it quite clear that he thinks the two documents are quite different, and he's a former judge so that should qualify him to make legal distinctions more capably than the average person.

Question #2: If H.R/ 1503 passes, will Obama be eligible for re-election since the eligibility requirement becomes effective for the 2012 election? Or will Obama be required to provide his birth certificate to prove his eligibility? Watch the video.

So not only does congressman Posey say the short form is a document saying that another document exists, but that's the same explanation given on eHow:

Long-Form Vs. Short-Form Birth Certificate


The short-form birth certificate is a notarized document stating that the long form certificate exists and is on file.
When verifying something as important as eligibility for the office of president, it doesn't make sense to be shown a document that says there's another document, just show the other document. The signature of the attending physician or a midwife witness to the birth is a key element to verifying the legitimacy of the vital record, and that's only present on the source document.

Question #3: If you really think the long form versus the short form are equally good at documenting birth details, then why are California residents required to submit the long form birth certificate to obtain a passport, since the passport office will not accept the short form?

www.visahq.com...


NOTE: Applicants born in California MUST submit a Long Form Birth Certificate. Short Form or abstract Birth Certificates are NOT ACCEPTBLE.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
then why are California residents required to submit the long form birth certificate to obtain a passport, since the passport office will not accept the short form?


They are not, try actually reading what it states!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 
Can you please be more clear? It looks to me like people with CA birth certificates MUST submit the long form birth certificate but if I'm misreading that somehow please elaborate.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
 
Can you please be more clear?


It clearly states "Applicants born in California" - you said "residents in California". There is a huge difference.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
 
Can you please be more clear?


It clearly states "Applicants born in California" - you said "residents in California". There is a huge difference.
Thanks, I stand corrected. But that doesn't answer my original question about why they are requiring the long form if the short form is supposed to be just as good as some people claim.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But that doesn't answer my original question about why they are requiring the long form if the short form is supposed to be just as good as some people claim.


What does a Californian short form look like? Perhaps there is not enough information on a Californian short form?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterall
 


I'm not a birther, as my first line said. I said before the candidates were even chosen that the Democrats were going to win due to the legacy that the Bush Administration had left. Personally I don't agree with 2 party system, we're free to vote on who the tell us to vote on. The democratic roots of the republic have been hijacked by "private interests" what ever that may be.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Ah it's nice to see that nothing has changed in a few days

Birther Evidence:
-Fake BC obtained by bribing Kenyan official
-I have a feeling he's hiding something so I have a right to rifle through all of his personal effects on a fishing mission
-Everyone including Republicans are in on the coverup
-Known mistruths are passed off as being fact



Have I left anything out?



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join